2025 Judicial Candidate Rick L. Huffsmith was the last to reply to our Independent Gazette Inquiry

Wyoming County native Richard “Rick” Huffsmith, a 1974 graduate of Lackawanna Trail High School and 1976 graduate of Keystone Junior College, earned his Juris Doctor in 1982 from Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia.

Over the past 42 years, Rick has represented a countless number of clients in a wide range of legal arenas. After graduating from Temple, he and his wife, Lisa, moved to Dallas, Texas. For the next twelve years, he worked for a number of law firms, including Bush Craddock Huffsmith & Gilhooly, P.C, in which he was a partner and founding member. His practice primarily consisted of handling litigation cases for Fortune 100 companies.
In the fall of 1994, Rick was asked to join Jewelcor Management & Consulting, Inc. in Wilkes-Barre as Vice President and General Counsel. Rick and Lisa wanted their children, Kathryn and Stephen, to grow up in the same wholesome environment of their native Wyoming County so they chose Tunkhannock as their home. Rick’s role at Jewelcor included such legal responsibilities as preparing Securities and Exchange Commission filings, conducting proxy contests and creating a host of commercial leases, securities agreements and investment and transactional documents. In addition, he represented Jewelcor in complex litigation and commercial matters while overseeing the company’s human resource department.

In 2013, Rick left Jewelcor and opened a law practice in downtown Tunkhannock, offering legal services to residents and businesses. He has provided legal counsel for civil and criminal matters, including but not limited to cases involving oil and gas leases, victims’ rights, DUIs, assault and terroristic threat charges and family law. Rick spent many hours helping local landowners negotiate oil and gas leases and agreements for pipelines, rights-of-way and pad sites/road access. He was a member of the Wyoming County Landowners’ Group. Over the past decade, Rick has assisted clients with landowner disputes, including providing representation in class-action lawsuits against gas and oil companies, as well as aiding residents in lending and real estate transactions.​

Since his return home in 1994, Rick served the community as a member of the Tunkhannock Area School District School Board and board member and advisor for the Wyoming County Chamber of Commerce. He has also returned as a board member of the Wyoming County United Way and is a member of the Wyoming County Rotary Club. In addition, Rick offers pro bono services to community members in need, including local veterans.

The letter from the Independent Gazette with Nina Sordoni's Responses:​

Dear Judicial Candidates,
Legislation is being introduced to allow the recording of civil and criminal court proceedings in Pennsylvania, beginning with a memorandum from State Representative Jamie L. Flick. Supporters argue that cameras in the courtroom would promote transparency, foster public understanding, and help deter unethical behavior. Importantly, this proposal envisions recordings functioning as a kind of “black box” system—archived securely and accessed only when questions, complaints, or incidents arise. The intent is not to sensationalize proceedings, but to create an objective, verifiable record that protects the integrity of the judicial process and builds trust among all who participate in or are affected by it. As this proposal moves forward, many voters would appreciate knowing your position and how you believe transparency and fairness can be responsibly balanced in our courts.

Question 1: Promoting Trust Through Transparency
Do you believe transparency plays a role in maintaining accountability and public trust in the courtroom?

Please explain your position. If you support transparency, what specific steps would you take to promote it? If you have reservations—such as concerns about cameras, recordings, or public access—how do you believe the integrity of the courtroom is best maintained while addressing those concerns?
​
Nina Sordoni:
I believe transparency plays a role in maintaining accountability and public trust in the courtroom and the legal system. Presently, Pennsylvania is 1 of only 5 states that prohibits cameras in courtrooms which shows there is away to permit cameras while maintaining the safety and privacy of all involved in court proceedings. The visual and audio capabilities provided from the use of cameras provides a level of review that a written transcript cannot, visual actions. I believe the use of a camera system promotes civility. I am aware that legislation is being introduced to allow the recording of civil and criminal court proceedings in Pennsylvania. The proposed legislation places limitations on the recording of child witnesses, witnesses alleged to have been the victim of sexual assaults and juveniles. Should such legislation pass, I would take steps to assure that the public is educated on the legislation. Additionally, to promote transparency, I believe it is important to inform litigants of their right to request a copy of the transcript and assure litigants understand the procedural process to obtain a transcript. Further, transcript requests should not be cost prohibitive. Lastly, I believe knowledge and accessibility aid in transparency. Hosting roundtables, providing court updates and publishing local court opinions aid in transparency and allow the public to be informed.


Question 2: Audio and Video Recording in the Courtroom
Do you believe allowing audio or video recording in the courtroom—prior to any formal legislation—can support transparency and judicial accountability?

Would you permit such recordings in your courtroom, and under what circumstances? Please explain your position, including any limitations or protections you feel are necessary to preserve courtroom integrity and the fair administration of justice.

Nina Sordoni: 
Prior to state legislation being passed, Rule 1910 of the PA Code generally prohibits the use of electronic devices to capture, record, transmit, or broadcast photographs, videos, or audio within a courtroom or adjacent areas. However, there are exceptions for nonjury civil proceedings. Thus, if a recording request was made, recording would be permitted if the following elements were met: (1) a recording system was established that monitors the chain of custody so no edits and or tampering can occur, (2) all parties consent, (3) witnesses consent and (3) no child witnesses or any witnesses alleged to have been the victim of sexual assault or abuse.


Question 3: Recording in Judicial Chambers
What is your stance on allowing audio or video recording in judicial chambers?

Supporters argue that limited recording—used as a safeguard—could help ensure integrity and deter inappropriate behavior behind closed doors. Do you believe this type of internal accountability has value? Please share your perspective, including any concerns you may have about privacy, confidentiality, or judicial independence.

Nina Sordoni:
I believe any settlement conference or status conference which occurs in chambers should be recorded and/or transcribed provided the discussions do not involve minors or victims of assault. Additionally, any recording of such events prior to state legislation would require the same elements as outlined above to be satisfied.


Thank you for your time and service to the people of Pennsylvania.
Respectfully, Lou Jasikoff and Mike Lacey

My name is Paul Litwin.  I am a candidate for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the 44th Judicial District (Wyoming and Sullivan County).

I was born and raised in Wyoming County and currently reside in Factoryville. I'm married to Paula Litwin, and we raised our two children in Wyoming County.  Our daughter Catherine is a senior at Temple, and our son Paul is a freshman at Penn State.

I have a deep understanding of the values and challenges facing our community. I am committed to improving the community and helping to make it a place where my children and yours would want to return.  As a graduate of Lackawanna Trail High School and a lifelong resident, I've been actively involved in our community, maintaining membership in civic, service, business and professional organizations, and supporting our schools.

I’ve maintained a legal practice in Tunkhannock since 1995.  My commitment to justice, fairness, and community well-being has guided my entire career. As Wyoming County Solicitor, I've provided legal counsel to the County Commissioners and represented the County in a wide range of complex legal matters. Prior to that, I served as an Assistant District Attorney for over 12 years, gaining valuable experience in criminal law and the juvenile justice system. I also dedicated years to representing the legal and best interests of children as a Guardian Ad Litem, instilling in me a deep compassion for the most vulnerable members of our community.

Additionally, I have maintained a private practice representing numerous townships, boroughs, municipal authorities and zoning hearing boards, local businesses, non-profit organizations, families and individuals. My professional relationship with my clients reflects my deep roots in the community and commitment to serving a diverse range of clients,

Objectivity has been my guiding principle. Through my 30 years of experience, I have developed strong listening skills, a level temperament, common sense and steady demeanor which are vital for the position of judge. I understand the needs and concerns of our community and believe in a fair and impartial judiciary that upholds the law while ensuring equal access to justice for all. I will bring my experience, integrity, and commitment to serving our community to the bench.​

I am candidate number one on both the republican and democratic primary ballot and respectfully ask for your vote in the May 20, 2025, primary election.

The letter from the Independent Gazette with Paul Litwin's Responses:
​
Dear Judicial Candidates,
Legislation is being introduced to allow the recording of civil and criminal court proceedings in Pennsylvania, beginning with a memorandum from State Representative Jamie L. Flick. Supporters argue that cameras in the courtroom would promote transparency, foster public understanding, and help deter unethical behavior. Importantly, this proposal envisions recordings functioning as a kind of “black box” system—archived securely and accessed only when questions, complaints, or incidents arise. The intent is not to sensationalize proceedings, but to create an objective, verifiable record that protects the integrity of the judicial process and builds trust among all who participate in or are affected by it. As this proposal moves forward, many voters would appreciate knowing your position and how you believe transparency and fairness can be responsibly balanced in our courts.

Question 1: Promoting Trust Through Transparency
Do you believe transparency plays a role in maintaining accountability and public trust in the courtroom?

Please explain your position. If you support transparency, what specific steps would you take to promote it? If you have reservations—such as concerns about cameras, recordings, or public access—how do you believe the integrity of the courtroom is best maintained while addressing those concerns?
​
Paul Litwin:
The Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees public trials, a cornerstone of fairness and transparency that discourages misconduct and ensures equal treatment. While this right isn't absolute, and limitations may be necessary for public good, order, or morals.  Juvenile proceedings are a common exception to public proceedings and are generally closed to protect vulnerable individuals. The failures in Luzerne County highlighted the need for safeguards, though greater public access isn't the primary reform. Mindful of historical concerns regarding unjust secret proceedings, I would carefully consider the facts of the case and the applicable law before closing proceedings to the public.

Question 2: Audio and Video Recording in the Courtroom
Do you believe allowing audio or video recording in the courtroom—prior to any formal legislation—can support transparency and judicial accountability?

Would you permit such recordings in your courtroom, and under what circumstances? Please explain your position, including any limitations or protections you feel are necessary to preserve courtroom integrity and the fair administration of justice.

Paul Litwin: 
While audio and video recordings could enhance transparency, significant concerns exist. Witnesses, especially victims and children, might be less willing to testify if recorded. Jurors could be exposed to outside influences, compromising impartiality. Recordings risk being edited, misrepresenting proceedings. Individuals may have legitimate privacy concerns. While the "black box" concept with restricted access addresses some issues, it doesn't promote public openness. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court currently governs courtroom recordings, with limited discretion for trial judges and legislative criminalization of violations. Generally, only nonjury civil proceedings can be recorded with the consent of all parties and witnesses. As a candidate for judge, I am hesitant to comment on potential legislation in this area, except to mention that the Supreme Court has constitutional authority over court procedure rules.

.
Question 3: Recording in Judicial Chambers
What is your stance on allowing audio or video recording in judicial chambers?

Supporters argue that limited recording—used as a safeguard—could help ensure integrity and deter inappropriate behavior behind closed doors. Do you believe this type of internal accountability has value? Please share your perspective, including any concerns you may have about privacy, confidentiality, or judicial independence.

Paul Litwin:
Recording in judicial chambers could create a clear record, potentially enhancing accountability and resolving misunderstandings. However, it could stifle candor and open communication, particularly in settlement conferences intended to be less formal. A major practical drawback is that those intending inappropriate behavior would likely avoid recorded settings. The cost of storing, indexing, and securing these recordings would be substantial. Furthermore, the premise of deterring misconduct through open surveillance seems flawed. The potential negative impact on open discussion and the practical challenges of implementation appear to outweigh the benefits.


Thank you for your time and service to the people of Pennsylvania.
Respectfully, Lou Jasikoff and Mike Lacey

Spotlight on Rep. Jamie Flick’s Legislative Push for Courtroom Cameras in Pennsylvania
by Gazette Staff

In an effort to enhance transparency and rebuild public trust in Pennsylvania's judicial system, Representative Jamie Flick is spearheading a legislative initiative to introduce cameras into state courtrooms. This bill, if passed, aims to address long-standing concerns about the openness of court proceedings and ensure a higher standard of judicial accountability.

The Essence of the Bill

Rep. Flick’s proposal is designed to permit and regulate the use of recording and broadcasting equipment in courtrooms across Pennsylvania. The bill outlines specific guidelines and conditions under which cameras can be used, aiming to balance transparency with the need to protect the privacy and rights of all parties involved in legal proceedings.

Motivation Behind the Legislation

The push for this bill is largely inspired by his own personal experiences, and the past judicial scandals in Pennsylvania, such as the infamous Kids for Cash scandal, which highlighted severe abuses within the state's judiciary. By allowing cameras in courtrooms, Rep. Flick believes that the state can deter potential misconduct and provide the public with direct insights into the judicial process.

Challenges and Support

The bill faces several hurdles, including opposition from those who argue that cameras could disrupt court proceedings or infringe on the privacy of defendants, victims, and witnesses. However, Rep. Flick and his supporters argue that with carefully crafted regulations, these concerns can be adequately addressed without undermining the goal of transparency.

Key Provisions of the Bill

Rep. Flick's bill includes provisions such as:

• Clear criteria for when cameras can be turned off to protect sensitive information or the identities of protected witnesses.
• Rules governing the distribution and use of courtroom footage to prevent sensationalism and respect all parties' dignity.
• Measures to ensure that the presence of cameras does not interfere with the legal process or the rights to a fair trial.

Public and Political Response

The bill has garnered support from various advocacy groups and citizens who see it as a vital step towards reforming Pennsylvania’s judiciary by making it more open and accountable. Additionally, there is a growing consensus among the public that increased transparency is essential for restoring confidence in the judicial system.

Conclusion: A Call for Action

As the bill progresses, Rep. Flick continues to advocate for its adoption, emphasizing that the introduction of cameras in courtrooms is a critical reform for Pennsylvania. The bill not only promises to safeguard the judicial system from corruption but also enhances public engagement and understanding of legal processes.

Rep. Flick and his team are actively engaging with their colleagues and the public to rally support for the bill, hopeful that it will pass and mark a significant advance in judicial transparency in Pennsylvania. The campaign to see this bill become law is ongoing, and updates on its progress will be provided, keeping all interested parties informed about this crucial legislative effort.

Cameras in Pennsylvania Courtrooms: A Call for Transparency and Accountability
by Gazette Staff

In the wake of notorious scandals such as Kids for Cash and the alleged Custody for Cash schemes, the push for installing cameras in Pennsylvania courtrooms has gained substantial momentum. These controversies, which shockingly manipulated the futures of numerous children for financial gain, underscore a pressing need for greater transparency within the judicial system.

The Case for Cameras

The inclusion of cameras in courtrooms is no longer just a matter of public interest; it's a critical step towards ensuring justice is both done and seen to be done. For decades, the judicial system has operated behind a veil of privacy that, in some cases, has shielded unethical behavior and decisions that profoundly affect people’s lives, especially the most vulnerable—our children.

Lessons from Past Scandals

The Kids for Cash scandal, which unfolded in Luzerne County, PA, involved judges who were found guilty of accepting kickbacks for sentencing children to private juvenile detention centers. This blatant abuse of power not only devastated families but also eroded public trust in the legal system. Similarly, the ongoing allegations of Custody for Cash, where decisions in custody cases are suspected to be influenced by financial considerations rather than the best interests of the child, further highlight the potential for misconduct.

Transparency as a Deterrent to Corruption

The presence of cameras acts as a powerful deterrent to such abuses. When court proceedings are recorded and made accessible, it encourages all involved to adhere strictly to the rules and ethical guidelines, knowing the public eye is upon them. Transparency doesn't just help catch misconduct; it helps prevent it.

The Broader Benefits of Courtroom Cameras

Beyond deterring corruption, cameras in courtrooms can have numerous other benefits. They can:

• Provide crucial educational insights into the judicial process, demystifying legal procedures for the public.
• Ensure accurate records of proceedings, which can be invaluable for appeals or reviews.
• Facilitate remote viewing by interested parties who cannot attend in person, thus broadening access to justice.

Concerns and Considerations

Despite these benefits, concerns about privacy and the potential for sensationalism exist. These can be mitigated by clear guidelines regarding what can be filmed and how footage is used. For instance, sensitive cases, such as those involving minors or victims of sexual crimes, can be exempt from public broadcast, or identities can be protected.

Conclusion: A Step Towards Restoring Faith
​
Implementing cameras in Pennsylvania courtrooms isn't just about preventing another scandal; it's about restoring faith in a system meant to serve justice impartially and transparently. As such, this move is not merely beneficial but necessary for ensuring the integrity of our legal processes and the protection of our citizens' rights. It is time for Pennsylvania to step forward and embrace this crucial reform for the sake of its children and the fundamental principles of justice.

Community oversight refers to the involvement of local residents and stakeholders in monitoring and influencing the activities and decisions of public bodies, such as school boards, local councils, or other government agencies. It entails the public keeping an eye on the actions of these organizations to ensure they are acting transparently, responsibly, and in the best interests of the community they serve.
​
In the context of school boards, community oversight can involve several activities, including:
​

1. Attending Meetings: Regularly attending school board meetings to stay informed about the decisions and discussions that affect local schools.
2. Voicing Concerns and Suggestions: Actively participating in meetings by asking questions, offering suggestions, or expressing concerns about school policies, budget allocations, and other significant issues.
3. Reviewing Public Documents: Looking at budgets, meeting minutes, and other public documents that school boards are required to make available, to understand how decisions are being made and how funds are being spent.
4. Election Participation: Voting in school board elections and possibly even campaigning for candidates who represent the community’s values and interests.
5. Forming or Joining Advocacy Groups: Becoming part of groups that work to influence school policy on various issues like curriculum changes, funding priorities, and administrative actions.

This kind of oversight is crucial because it ensures that school boards remain accountable to the people they represent, leading to more informed and community-centered decision-making.

The Essential Role of Community Involvement in School Board Decisions
by The Independent Gazette Member on behalf of Mike Lacey

​School boards wield significant influence over educational policy and the allocation of resources within school districts. Their decisions affect everything from the quality of education to the management of substantial public funds. It is crucial, therefore, that community members engage with their local school boards, even when faced with challenges in doing so.

Navigating Barriers to Participation

Despite the importance of community oversight, some school boards may not seem welcoming to public attendance or input, particularly when controversial or significant financial decisions are on the table. This can create a perception that the board operates without sufficient transparency or accountability. However, it is precisely in these situations that community involvement becomes even more vital. Ensuring open and transparent governance in educational institutions is critical, as these bodies decide how taxpayer money is spent and prioritize educational and infrastructural developments.

Fostering Transparency and Accountability

Active participation by community members can drive school boards to operate more transparently. Attending meetings, requesting information, and expressing opinions on school board activities can compel board members to consider broader viewpoints and make decisions that align more closely with the community's needs and values. This involvement is essential in advocating for fair and judicious use of public funds and ensuring that educational priorities reflect the aspirations of the community.

Impact on Educational Outcomes

The decisions made by school boards directly impact the educational environment and the resources available to students. Without oversight from the community, there is a risk that these decisions may not fully support the best interests of all students. Community engagement ensures that school boards remain focused on improving educational quality and student outcomes.

Ways to Enhance Involvement

Encouraging more community members to participate can sometimes require persistent effort, especially when facing a board that discourages public involvement. Techniques to enhance participation include forming parent and community groups to share information, using social media platforms to raise awareness, and collaborating with local media to cover school board activities and decisions comprehensively.

Conclusion
​
Community oversight is not just beneficial; it is necessary for the health of our educational institutions. Engaging with school board activities ensures that these bodies make decisions transparently and accountably, reflecting the community’s educational standards and values. Even when participation is challenging, it remains a critical component of democratic engagement and a fundamental aspect of ensuring that our schools serve every student equitably and excellently.