► Ex-Judge Richard Cicchetti of Uniontown; potty mouth misogynist, crook Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 

Former Judge Richard Cicchetti of Uniontown, PA; potty mouth misogynist, crook

 
At one time Judge Richard Cicchetti was the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, 14 Judicial District in Fayette County.
 
During his insignificant tenure on the bench, Dick was charged wit h a variety of misconduct by the Court of Judicial Discipline. Those misconduct charges involved his conduct that was aimed at several women and are as follows:
 
Ms. Debra Hay
 
Ms. Hay was a party to a divorce action before Dick in 1975. Prior to the litigation she never had any contact with Dick. She appeared before Dick in one brief proceeding on Jan. 30, 1976. She testified that someone who identified himself as Judge Richard Cicchetti made sexually explicit remarks over the telephone to her on eight to ten occasions. 
 
Ms. Heather Brueggman
 
Ms. Brueggman was employed with the Fayette County Adult Probation Office. She was assigned to Dick’s courtroom and was required to be in his courtroom whenever he was hearing criminal cases.
Dick repeatedly called Heather into his robbing room and spoke to her about matters such as: (1) what kind of car she drove, (2) what she liked to do on weekends, (3) who she was dating, (4) how many boyfriends she had, (5) was it true blondes had more fun, and (6) whether they could get together.
 
Dick frequently telephoned Ms. Brueggman whereupon he:
 
Asked her to get together with him after giving her a weekend to think it over, and when she said “no,” asked her if she knew how powerful he was and that he could have anybody in the county do anything he wanted.
On another occasion Dick invited Heather into his chambers for lunch at which time he remarked about her build, asked if she wanted to go to law school or become a magistrate and told her he could help her in either case.
Dick also proposed that he and Heather visit the home of Harry Fike, Fayette County Controller, who had a hot tub.
 
Dick’s attempts at coercion
 
Dick’s persistent attempts to coerce Heather to engage in a sexual relationship with him and her persistent refusals, led to the following:
 
Dick’s made her job performance difficult and told her he could change things if she agreed to get together.
Dick told Heather he could have her father fired from his job with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and he would do so unless she agreed to get together.
 
Dick stealing campaign funds
 
Dick’s campaign issued three checks: one for $600 payable to Roberta Meese, one for $500 payable to Jamie Gammon, and one for $400 payable to Ann Raymond. Jamie is Roberta Meese’s daughter and Ann is Roberta Meese’s mother. Roberta cashed the checks and delivered the cash to Ol’ Dick.
 
Dick’s campaign expense report claimed that the $1500 paid to Meese, Gammon and Raymond was paid to reimburse them for purchases of “Party Supplies.”
 
That information proved to be false since Meese, Gammon and Raymond never purchased parties supplies and received no money from Dick’s campaign committee.
 
Thomas McDowell campaign rip-off
Dick’s committee issued a check for $600 to Thomas McDowell. In his campaign expense report, Dick stated that McDowell was paid $600 as reimbursement for the purchase of “Party Supplies.” That information was also proven to be false. 
 
Dick’s committee issued a check for $540 to Tom McDowell. On Jan. 13, Dick reported that McDowell was paid $540 to reimburse him for “Transportation.” This information was proven false.
 
Dick submitted all of the above referenced reports as being true and did so under oath even though he knew they were false (perjury). Of course Dick was never charged with perjury because Judicial Misfits in Pennsylvania are held to a lower standard of conduct then everyone else.
 
As a consequence of his egregious misconduct, the apologists for Judicial Misfits sitting on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court punished Dick by gifting him with a “severe reprimand.”
 
Is it any wonder that most folks have developed total contempt for the judiciary? Over and over again, they prove they deserve such contempt given their continued conduct in acting as apologists for judicial misfits.
 
 
 

Who's Online

We have 252 guests online

Donation Request

Your donations are needed to help defray the recurring costs for internet services, cable access, research via LexisNexis, media subscriptions, and the employment of a researcher and editor.

Donate Here

The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials, Powered by Joomla!; Joomla templates by SG web hosting

website counter