This case has been mishandled, manipulated and mastrubated from day one through a string of lawyers either unable to drop an iron fist on the defendant's table or complicit with the "other side".  It's too compromising for a local lawyer to do that and it's frustrating to see it happen. 

Nonetheless, there has been forward movement, but small steps and too far apart. Consider that at the end of the day, the judge is the one wearing the black robe.  99% of the time he/she has their mind made up due to what facts are already on the record or one side or the other has more political influence than the other.

Alex Tarapchak is a man on a mission to do all he can to disable a relationship between his children and their mother.  Just in the last week, he refused to provide the children to two scheduled visitations. And what will Judge Corbett do about that?  Absolutely nothing.

Danielle Ross is still the guardian in this matter, notwithstanding the fact that she has conducted herself recklessly, irresponsibly and with the incompetence expected of a paid-off crony whore. That's what she is and nothing more.  Her presence in this case has been toxic to the best interests of the children for more than our years, yet Judge Corbett does nothing to eliminate her from the dynamic of efficient closure to the issues.  Ross refuses to recuse herself, even though she's named in a lawsuit. 

It's Lackawanna County, where right doesn't matter, just who can afford the price of wrong.  It all heads toward that waterfalls that none of them can predict.  But, they never could, could they? 

Joanne Pilchesky wrote:

---

Dr Stephanie Tarapchak wrote:

---

Also Joanne, have you tried to access the online LC public records? I got as far as being able to access all the cases listed but not the actual documents involving them. Perhaps you will have better luck than I if you try due to your advanced IT training and knowledge.

---

And Joe can't post the order? Why should I have to do the provenance of claims that you've made?

---

 You asked me to post it, I said I couldn't.  I simply gave you a suggestion on how you could obtain the Order.  Joe cannot talk publically about my case either, THAT is why Joe cannot post the Order.

Please then explain to us why Joe continues to discuss the case. An example of Joe's recent discussion of your case:

Alex Tarapchak is a man on a mission to do all he can to disable a relationship between his children and their mother. Just in the last week, he refused to provide the children to two scheduled visitations. And what will Judge Corbett do about that? Absolutely nothing.

---------------------------------------------------------------

An example of your discussion of your case:

This is due to the fact that a few weeks ago, at the "reconsideration conference" that I did not attend because my attorney told me it was unnecessary, she agreed that I would not share my case with the public any longer and an Order was issued for the same.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Please be advised that I have worked long and hard on making this site a credible source of truthful information. I have put my life at risk in many ways for it, my future has suffered because of that effort, and I face jail time because of it. If I am incarcerated, my son, a minor, will have lost for about 18 months, his only living parent.

I will not allow all the other parents interested in this discussion (both male and female) to be disrespected by a game of 'now you see it, now you don't.' You can't have it both ways here. If you are going to criticize the court publicly relating to the managment or mismanagement of your custody issues, you can't then hide behind an excuse of a court order when asked to prove what you are stating. It seems like you are playing cat and mouse with the court.

In addition, you should be aware that any public discussion about specific representation provided to you by an attorney is considered a release of attorney/client privilege.

It's interesting that you initiated discussion about your reconsideration conference and then when questioned about it, you waived the white flag of the court order as an excuse to not continue to discuss it.

I assure you that your personal issues and custody case are not of particular concern to me because you are not the only one suffering. Joe can tell you about my custody litigation, if you want to hear horror stories. I am more interested in the integrity of this forum, and the truthfulness, accuracy and validity of the information posted.

When someone makes an ambiguous statement about the court, or their ex-spouses, without names, that's one thing. But when someone makes specific claims about specific individuals, i.e., ex-spouses, attorney's, or even what transpired in a courtroom, that person has embarked upon a journey that is regulated by entirely different rules and expectations.

Most likely this will be my last post as I'm sure Joe will ban my participation now.

By the way, after reviewing several prior pages of this thread, it is my view that Joe has not removed certain posts, which posts in my view, do not serve the best interests of the children. But, hey, they're your kids, and it's not for me to decide what you want them to read or know.

Dr Stephanie Tarapchak wrote:

---

The case is NOT sealed. I am not allowed to share it with "the public," i.e., on this site. Joe decided that in the best interest of the children, he would not post anything disparaging about their father. The kids did NOT want him to remove any of the posts.

Those are the facts.

---

According to the information I was privileged to, it WAS sealed. I know Atty.Campolieto asked for it to be sealed. I believed it was GRANTED. If that changed I offer my apology. I posted in error.

I did appear in front of Judge Corbett personally in court at theh last custody conference, and on the record, to state that I would not further make disparaging comments about Mr. Tarapchak as an offering of good faith. Judge Corbett just wants very badly for everyone to get along. I also again agreed to remove the content that was already posted here that was disparaging to Mr. Tarapchak, also in good faith. I was half way through removing that content when Mr. Tarapchak refused to surrender the kids to a planned visitation, an act of bad faith. Then, he did it two more times, so all bets are off courtesy of how Mr. Tarapchak elected to proceed in bad faith.

There is nothing anyone can do, besides the good judge, to force Mr. Tarapchak to act in the best interests of his own kids. It's his business how happy he wants them to be. After all, they are his kids, not mine. If I wore the black robe, he's be screwed, that I can assure you. But, I do not, so I must at this time take myself out of the equation as having exhausted my input and let the parties appeal to the wisdom of the Honorable Judge Corbett for relief. I'll make no further comments about Mr. Tarapchak one way or the other, but the posts already up stay up. I wish the Tarapchak family well in its endeavor for peace.