https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hb0vt2HLJT_Co9HK8G3dPOTOiGJy-Taq/view?usp=sharing
Or you can see it here also:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v JUSTIN CORLISS,
Appellant
No. 176 MAL 2018
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUSTICE DEBRA TODD
TO THE Honorable Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
Petitioner, Justin Corliss, respectfully prays that the Honorable Justice Debra Todd recuse herself from any review of Petitioner's pleadings on allowance of appeal due to the palpable appearance of bias and states in support thereof:
In reviewing case decisions, treaties and bench books in preparation for this petition for allowance of appeal it was discerned that of our many learned and professional judges a very small percentage of them endeavor to promote political positions above their presumed standard of impartiality. The Code of Judicial Conduct plainly sets forth standards of impartiality and fairness, which can easily be feigned, obfuscated or, hopefully, be genuine. The Code specifically prohibits bias and seeks to limit 'external influences on judicial conduct' such as 'social, political ... or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.' [R.Jud.Con., Canons 2.2 - 2.4]
The issue presented for recusal is premised on an inherent and ingrained bias that clouds the perception of impartiality due to a particular bent, or political philosophy that controls Justice Todd's ability to preside impartially in any matter involving allegations of sexual involvement with minors.
Petitioner just received a copy of the scholarly paper: "Sentencing of Adult Offenders in Cases Involving Sexual Abuse of Children: Too Little, Too Late? A View from the Pennsylvania Bench." 109 Penn State Law Review 487 (2004). (article) This paper was authored by Justice Debra Todd, and while dated, it is specifically cited on her biography as provided online by this Court and represents a clear set of political ideologies that have permeated her judicial positions since.
Observations that Raise the Specter of Bias
The article plainly is a partisan and pro prosecution screed that omits any countervailing position or perspective that would call into question the innumerable claims and positions Justice Todd promotes as being untenable after a thorough and open minded review. For example, her data on recidivism is particularly skewed and has been rejected by numerous scholarly reviews since. Statistically and analytically, real sex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism. Justice Todd's manifesto is a classic example of alarmist diatribes that lack impartial review or contemplation of countervailing thought.
The article posits, in no uncertain terms, that all sexual contact with children is "violent," subversive and untreatable. In fact, Justice Todd remarks not once, nor twice, but three times that, apparently, the only real solution is "castration." She conflates any form of alleged inappropriate contact as violent felony one crimes, that justify the punitive designation of "sexually violent predator" on any perceived offender.
Most egregiously, and specifically relevant to Petitioner's issues on allowance of appeal, there is a crime classification matrix Justice Todd appends to her article, and clearly endorses, as penned by the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office. This matrix, perhaps best examples, the political position being advanced by the district attorney's office and Justice Todd as it does not agree with statutory construction nor legislative intent.
While the distinguishing facets of sexual conduct and legislative intent are complex, this matrix encourages tunnel vision in such a way as to be capricious and arbitrary. For example:
- The crime of aggravated indecent assault (AIA) is logically distinguished from indecent assault as lacking the mens rea element of "indecent contact," which arouses or gratifies sexual desire in either person. [18§3101] Thus, the "aggravated" element relates to a design to harm, punish, humiliate or harass. Digital masturbation (a finger in an anus or vagina) is indecent contact; thereby, charging AIA is inapt, a fact recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Com. v. Kelley, 569 Pa. 179, 2002 which found, but failed to articulate specifically, that Kelley's digital penetration of the vagina was designed to arouse or gratify sexual desire and thus this conduct amounted to indecent assault. Justice Todd's bias omits this salient detail of stare decisis as it conflicts with her political position. The only published opinion that reflects the legislature's intent of AIA is Com. v. Adams, 39 A.3d 310, 2012, where a co-defendant inserted fingers into the vagina of a tied up, battered and threatened at gun point victim for the obvious purpose of humiliation, threat and cruelty. Justice Todd never makes the required distinction in blind recitation to obiter dictum that never considered statutory construction or legislative intent. Her article recounts seven "examples" of cases where AIA was charged, absent any evidence to support it, and cosigned by the Superior Court with nary a concern. This capricious disregard is rampant in current appellate opinions that perpetuate the fraud that a finger in an anus or vagina automatically amounts to a felony two crime, absent any consideration of mens rea.
- The district attorney's matrix limits "sexual intercourse" to "penis in a vagina" and forgets entirely that our legislature includes the anus in its definition. Instead, the design is to view any act as being "deviate" if not missionary style copulation.
- As is addressed, facially, in Petitioner's allowance of appeal document, there is great conflict in the expanded use of the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) statute's proper construction; however, the matrix complained of provides for a slew of conduct being classified as IDSI, such as cunnilingus, fellatio and sodomy. The legislature's definitions are not so vague as to be inclusive of acts that amount to indecent contact, such as cunnilingus and fellatio. To ignore that these acts are intrinsically designed to arouse sexual desire in either person, is to legislate by fiat. IDSI lacks an element of indecent contact and is distinguished by its use of force and inclusion of bestiality and use of foreign objects, any stretching of its purpose is without legislative design.
While the examples above are in summary the depth of bias was exampled in Justice Todd's support, as an Advisory member, of the "Pennsylvania Crimes of Sexual Violence Bench Book" of 2015, demonstrating that any authorities that countered the pro prosecution bias of the text were simply omitted with blind reliance on select dicta which promotes inconsistent and contradictory interpretations of legislation intent on promoting a political agenda through judicial fiat.
Starkly missing from Justice Todd's dissertation or appellate decisions is that children can easily be manipulated to say anything, claim false memories or advance one parent's designs to the demise of the other through false allegations of sexual contact. As with Petitioner, DNA evidence exists to prove false the bogus allegations made years ago. Justice Todd's bias would act to entirely negate the plausibility that incontrovertible physical facts impugn a prior conviction.
Moreover, nary an iota of credence has been acknowledged by Justice Todd's article or appellate work that prosecutors could be wrong or driven by motivations inconsistent with the pursuit of justice. It would appear that Justice Todd would be shocked, shocked to find that the prosecutor here, Michael Rakaczewski, has gotten it wrong so often that it is astounding he is still allowed to prosecute people. FN1
Petitioner is not coldly naive to Justice Todd's positions; however, these are preconceived misconceptions that permeate her holdings that are reflected as bias in all matters of review of sex cases that conflicts with the impartiality that is demanded and expected of our elected judiciary.
WHEREFORE, for the forgoing, it is respectfully requested that The Honorable Justice Debra Todd recuse herself from these proceedings as the appearance of bias is just too great.
FN1. Petitioner is aware that William Spiess, Kasheen Thomas, Gene Thomas II, Jaleel Holden, Jose Lacen were each charged with egregious sexual assault charges by Rakaczewski that were belatedly nolle prossed when Rakaczewski finally admitted to a severe lack of reliability in the two complainants. Rakaczewski and detective Tom Lynott charged Jerimyah Rabinowitz, Gabryal Rabinowitz and a third person with serious sex crimes only to be acquitted after the complainants' severe lack of reliability was exposed at trial. Rakaczewski prosecuted Merle deGroat under similar circumstances as the Petitioner, in that the complainant's mother exhibited a retaliatory animus toward deGroat and used her daughter as a proxy to exact revenge; however, DeGroat was acquitted, exposing the lack of reliability in the complainant's story. Additionally Rakaczewski pursued rape charges against Isidros Garces who was acquitted due to a lack of reliability in the uncorroborated statements of a child. Garces was similarly involved in a custody dispute. Rakaczewski has never prosecuted these complainants for making false complaints. The only two women prosecuted were Brandy Phy and Laura Gruver who, in 2009, were identified by competent detectives that recognized their claims as false before more citizens could be victimized by Rakaczewski. (twelve citizens erroneously charged with rape) Recently both Allen Neal and Antoine Mabel were acquitted of rape in trials that exemplify Rakaczewski's uncontrolled and excessive charging of serious felony conduct that juries are rejecting; yet, the bench and bar have failed to reel in his exploitive conduct. In another case Rakaczewski tried to coerce a plea out of Tyreis Ford, to rape, while knowing the complainant refused to cooperate further with any proposed prosecution. In addition to Petitioner Rakaczewski has brought fatally invalid Informations against Edward Terantino, Richard Ferrari, Bernard Schade, Christopher Carter and too many others, that failed to address the element of limitations because the charges had expired.
Respectfully submitted,
Justin Corliss, MU6240
SCI Coal Township
1 Kelley Drive
Coal Township, PA 17866
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 2, 2018 I served a copy of Petitioner's "Motion for Recusal of Justice Debra Todd" via first class mail on the persons below, which satisfies the service requirements of Pa.R.A.P 121:
Honorable Judge D. Williamson Michael Rakaczewski, ADA
Monroe County Courthouse Monroe County Courthouse
Stroudsburg, PA 18360 Stroudsburg, PA 18360
In Pennsylvania, our judge's have a self regulating authority which allows them to personally weigh the political considerations and impact of recusal. Justice Todd refused to recuse herself while not contesting any fact asserted in this Motion. To recuse presents the implicit admission of bias, a political conundrum Justice Todd chose not to tread, for doing so exposes for review all the suspect opinions she authored that were based on the biases exposed in this motion. By not recusing Justice Todd will either conform to the biases outlined against her, and thereby prove that recusal was warranted, or, abandon her political designs and render a ruling that conflicts with her political positions.
