Archive

ShareThis Page
‘Kids for cash’ lawsuit moved out of federal court in Pittsburgh | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

‘Kids for cash’ lawsuit moved out of federal court in Pittsburgh

Tribune-Review
| Friday, November 14, 2014 11:39 a.m.

A Pittsburgh federal judge Thursday transferred a lawsuit related to the “kids for cash” scandal to the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Scranton.

Gregory Zappala, a Pittsburgh investment banker, claims in the lawsuit that Robert Powell, a Luzerne County lawyer, stole millions from him in their joint venture to build and operate two juvenile detention facilities.

Powell paid two Luzerne County judges bribes for sending juveniles to the facilities. He and the two judges were convicted of the kickback scheme.

Zappala, the brother of Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr., was not charged in the criminal case. He claims in the lawsuit that Powell and others stole money from him to pay the kickbacks.

Hundreds of juveniles and their parents are suing Powell and others in federal courts in the middle part of the state. U.S. District Judge Richard Caputo has scheduled a trial on their consolidated claims to start Jan. 12 in Scranton.

U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti said both sides in the Pittsburgh lawsuit are participants in the lawsuit before Caputo and the issues in both lawsuits cover much of the same ground so it makes sense for both cases to be handled in the same court.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.