A conspiracy of none: the imagination of Stacy Parks Miller
An Opinion Piece about elected officials
By Justin J. McShane
According to the fantastic narrative crafted by Stacy Parks Miller and her seemingly complicit boy puppet Bruce Castor, a twelve person conspiracy is at the root of all of her woes, but not her own personal or professional life choices.
But the conspiracy doesn’t end within the confines of Centre County, according to Miller-Castor duo, it extends to the Office of Open Records too.
Much like the Mad-Hatter who asked, “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” Stacy Parks Miller asks, “Why is everyone against me?” The answer to both is clearly, “I haven’t the slightest idea!”
This plea of blamelessness and blame-shifting is nothing new in politics. It is a concept so old as to pre-date our American Civil War and is so frequent in Washington DC politics as to earn a name: the Potomac 2-step.
According to her modern version of the Potomac 2-step, this conspiracy includes lawyers, law firms, all of the elected county commissioners, and a sitting Court of Common Pleas judge.
You can read the complaint in its unedited glory here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/276737524/Stacy-Parks-Miller-Aug-28-civil-complaint
When one reads the complaint signed by Castor and verified as true and correct by Stacy Parks Miller, it spins a yarn that perhaps rivals the imagination of Lewis Carroll in his Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
When the Office of Attorney General declined to prosecute her, she took to the podium and delivered a speech with the characteristic flamboyance similar to Benito Mussolini in demanding a sort of swift and brutal purge of “wrongdoers.”
She cites the report of the Grand Jury as some sort of grand exoneration where no such blessing can even be imagined from those documents.
If the findings of the Grand Jury are to be taken as true, then an alarming narrative develops. According to the report, Stacy Parks Miller concocted a scheme enlisting a sitting judge of the Court of Common Pleas (Pamela A. Ruest) to sign an order of court to aid in advancing the investigation of a murder-for-hire plot, and knowingly creating a “fake order.” In the very best light for SPM, if true, it is an impermissible corruption of the judiciary by the executive branch. Such an act invades and actually supplants the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Far from an exoneration, this type of action should be referred to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
There are two immutable facts that shed light that her actions are nothing more than the Potomac 2-step:
- As a consequence of her actions and her actions alone, now 2 out of the 4 judges of the Court of Common Pleas have been reassigned out of criminal court, and if equity were the rule of the day in Centre County a third judge should also likewise be administratively reassigned for the same or similar actions.
- It is text messages sent from and received by her and members of her office to Judge Bradley Lunsford that caused President Judge Kistler to reassign him from criminal court. None of her “wrongdoers” typed out those texts, hit send, or engaged in those communications. It is she and her office alone who did these things together with that judge.
- Again, with Judge Ruest, it was she and she alone who decided to sue the judge causing that judge to be reassigned. None of her “wrongdoers” typed out the civil complaint, proofread it, signed it, paid the filing fee, and filed it. Just her.
- And further, if equity were to rule in Centre County, when it has been established that there were an alarming level of cell phone and text message communications between Judge Johnathon D. Grine and SPM and members of her office, and if the same type of activity resulted in the re-assignment of Judge Bradford, then equity demands the re-assignment of Judge Grine likewise. Again, none of her “wrongdoers” composed, sent and received these text messages. It was Stacy Parks Miller and her office alone with that judge who did these things. Further, in our case (Grine, et al. v Centre County, et. al), Grine testified that SPM was his divorce attorney during his first divorce, and that all of their recent communications were about his yet to be public divorce. Some conversations lasted over an hour and were will into the night. Having gone through a divorce myself, I can say with confidence that there are many non-public and sometimes personally embarrassing conversations or confidences that I told my lawyer that I would not like to come to light. In my case, I did not consider my lawyer to be my friend and given that Grine said he was calling because of that current friendship and past professional service by SPM, it stands to reason that my experience is not unique. It also stands to reason that my experience was not likely foreign to Grine. Is it appropriate for a judge to hear cases involving someone who has achieved that level of intimacy with you as a party opponent in contested matters that you will have to decide? I suggest not.
- The simple fact that she has chosen not to sue me or The McShane Firm or TC Tanski provides gravity to the thought that no such conspiracy exists. In her press conference, she claims that McGraw and Cantorna received special privilege as to the Right to Know requests that other firms did not. See her press conference embedded above at 05:13 where she says, “Guess who the commissioners gave my records to? Sean McGraw and Bernie Cantorna. Ignoring requests from other defense attorneys, but favoring them [McGraw and Cantorna].” The facts are that we at The McShane Firm made two requests and two answers with records were issued.
In the real world of multiple variables and confounding variables and in the “fog of now,” it is often difficult to get all stakeholders and decision-makers to agree as to a single root cause or even to assign relative levels of blame. I fully concede that Centre County falls squarely into this precise pigeonhole.
However, in systems analysis and logistics work such as six sigma, when one is in such a situation, one does not simply shrug his or her shoulders, and declares the matter unsolvable.
We move on to lowest common denominator analysis.
When all of the vitriol and fantasy is peeled back, there remains one lowest common denominator: Stacy Parks Miller.
How am I wrong?
One response to “A conspiracy of none: the imagination of Stacy Parks Miller”
Peter J Shull, Ph.D says:
Justin, thank you for stepping up and addressing this important issue. Also thanks for putting it in such a professional objective manner. What baffles me is where is the Ethics Board and why are they not acting on this.
I also appreciate your addressing the original issue of ex parte communications between parks Miller and various judges. What you have not stated is Parks Miller’s refusal to recuse yourself in cases where she is suing the defendant attorney. She claims that despite her suit against the defendant attorney she can be impartial and thus there is no conflict of interest. Despite the ethical obligation of not the appearance of conflict of interest.