Category: Pa Courts

Candidates In Commonwealth Court Race Have Military On Resumes

Candidates In Commonwealth Court Race Have Military On Resumes — Republican-endorsed Megan Martin is facing Democrat-endorsed Matt Wolf to fill a vacancy Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

Commonwealth Court is where civil actions against the Commonwealth start and where appeals are made regarding decisions in county courts of common pleas, and state agencies.

Candidates In Commonwealth Court Race Have Military On Resumes

Megan Martin is a native Delaware Countian, the fifth of six children. She moved to Central Pennsylvania to attend Law School. She graduated Widener U Law School and now lives in Mechanicsburg with her husband, Scott, three children and a dog in Mechanicsburg, Pa.

She has served as an attorney for the United States Navy, and all three branches of the Pennsylvania Government.

“I checked my politics at the door of the capitol every day,”  she says.

Ahe states she broke the glass ceiling at the Senate “by becoming the first and only woman to serve as it’s secretary-parliamentarian since the position was created in statute more than 100 years ago.”

In November 2022, she received the Widener Law Commonwealth Excellence in Public Service Award.

Matthew Wolf is a second-generation lawyer who graduated from Rutgers University in Camden.

Candidates In Commonwealth Court Race Have Military On Resumes

He is supervising judge for the municipal division of The Philadelphia Municipal Court. 

He says he did a lot of work “for recovery homes under the Fair Housing Act fighting attempts to shut them down.”  He has been a Lawyer for a quarter of a century.  He also worked to reduce the impact arising from evictions filed during the pandemic by requiring pre-filing meditation

Wolf served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve from 2003 to 2020 and, after resigning his commission, serves as a drilling enlisted Cavalry scout soldier in Alpha Troop, 1st Squadron, 104th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 28th Infantry Division.

Candidates In Commonwealth Court Race Have Military On Resumes

4 Seek 2 Seats For Pennsylvania Superior Court

4 Seek 2 Seats For Pennsylvania Superior Court

By Bob Small

Two seats are up on Pennsylvania Superior Court  and those seeking them are Maria C. Battisa and Harry F. Smail Jr. on the Republican ticket; and Jill Beck and Timika Lane on the Democrat one.

The court was established in 1895 and is one of two statewide intermediate appellate courts. It hears appeals in criminal and most civil cases from county courts of common pleas; and matters involving children and families.

Terms are 10 years and the court is headquartered in Harrisburg.

Maria C. Battista

Maria C. Battista received her Juris Doctorate from Ohio Northern University. She has worked with the Pennsylvania Coalition of Nurse Practitioners and currently works for the Judge group in Wayne, Pa..

 She has been endorsed by the Pennsylvania FOP.

Jill Beck

Jill Beck is a graduate of Duquesne Law School. She has worked at Kids Voice a private nonprofit representing Allegheny County abused, at-risk, and neglected children.  At Blank Rome, she was co-chair of their working group aimed at protecting the right to protest. She worked for a decade as a clerk with Justice Christine Donahue.  She has also focused on representing “low-income criminal defendants.” Shlives in the Squirrel Hill section of Pittsburgh with “her husband, two children, and  their rescue dog”.

Timka Lane

Timika Lane has her law degree from the Rutgers University of Law-Camden. She was elected to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas  in 2013 and has also served as a chief legal counsel for the Pennsylvania Senate.  Her philosophy is that “litigants are not just names on a pleading”. 

She sees the greatest threat to the practice of law as  “ keeping up with the changes of technology and its effect on traditional methods of litigation.” 

She also worked for Habitat for Humanity during Hurricane Katrina,.

Judge Harry F. Smail Jr.

Harry F. Smail, Jr. has been a Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court judge since being appointed by Gov. Tom Corbett in 2014. He attained his Duquesne University of Law Degree while working as a full-time Probation/Parole Officer.  He has also worked for the Federal Public Defender’s Office of indigent defendants.

‘I do not legislate from the bench; rather, I apply and enforce the law as intended as the third branch of government providing the checks and balances that make our government functional,” he said.

He is a member of The Federalist Society 

He states his opinions “have a 97 percent affirmation rate.”

He said that his decisions about setting aside ballots without the required dates were affirmed by Commonwealth Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

He lives in Westmoreland County with his wife and  two daughters. 

Bro Of Porn-Sharing Justice Vs Pioneering Female Judge In Pennsy Supreme Court Race

Bro Of Porn-Sharing Justice Vs Pioneering Female Judge In Pennsy Supreme Court Race

By Bob Small

When Pa. Chief Justice Max Baer died on 9-30-22, it necessitated this year’s Pa. Supreme Court race.

On the ballot are Democrat Daniel D. McCaffrey and Republican Carolyn Carluccio.

McCaffrey is a Temple School of Law Graduate. He was an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia (1991-97) and is a US Army veteran.

He seems to be the only Democrat endorsed by The Pennsylvania Federation of Police (PaFOP); The Pennsylvania State Troopers Association (PSTA) and The Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association (PSCOA)

He’s also endorsed by the usual suspects, such as Planned Parenthood Votes, and Reproductive Freedom for All.

McCaffrey has pointed out his liberal “bona fides”  in these:

U.S. Supreme Court’s recent conservative rulings a key issue in fall Pa. Supreme Court race 

PA Supreme Court Candidate Interview: Dan McCaffery 

McCaffery’s brother Seamus was a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice but was forced out in a porn email scandal, in 2014.

Bro Of Porn-Sharing Justice Vs Pioneering Female Judge In Pennsy Supreme Court Race
Daneil McCaffrey’s brother Seamus was once on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Judge Carolyn Carluccio is the first female president judge on the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. 

She is “highly recommended by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.”. She lives with her husband Tom, in Blue Bell and they have raised three children.   Mrs. Carluccio has also served as the “first-ever Chief Public Defender for Montgomery County”.

Mrs. Carluccio says she wants a justice system that is “Fair and impartial”

McCaffery, Carluccio vying for Pa. Supreme Court seat [Voters Guides … 

She is endorsed by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation and has also said she rejects “judicial activism” and remarks  that “women’s reproductive rights are protected by Pennsylvania Law”. 

Bro Of Porn-Sharing Justice Vs Pioneering Female Judge In Pennsy Supreme Court Race
Carolyn Carluccio, a mom of three and a pioneering female judge

“We will uphold that law and only the Governor and Legislature can change it,” she said.

Other groups supporting her include The Commonwealth Leaders Fund and the Pa Future Fund.

“The Legislature is elected to make law,” she says.

She notes, though, that the judiciary has the power to overturn law clearly erroneous.

Bro Of Porn-Sharing Justice Vs Pioneering Female Judge In Pennsy Supreme Court Race

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case –The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, heard this morning, Sept. 13, a plea to overturn numerous state laws that prohibit municipalities from enacting independent firearm ordinances.

The hearing was at Philadelphia City Hall, one of the three venues used by the court.

Stanley Crawford et al vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, alleges that the state laws hurt minorities by preventing big cities from keeping guns out of poor neighborhoods.

Lead plaintiff Crawford is Black. His son was killed in a shooting, Sept. 8, 2018, in Philadelphia’s Rawhnhurst section.

The plaintiffs also say the state laws violate Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which says that “(all) have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.”

Their reasoning is that one can’t enjoy life if one lives in fear. Bad people on the street with guns make people afraid, they say.

And if only people would do what they want, unicorns would bring us all lollipops.

The plaintiffs also claim that gun violence is a health crisis

The plaintiffs were represented by Lydia Furst of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department and Benjamin David Geffen of The Public Interest Law Center,.

The Democrat-leaning court was surprisingly unsympathetic to their arguments. Several justices wondered if they weren’t asking the court to set policy rather than address constitutional concerns.

Even more surprisingly — shockingly actually — was the shade thrown by the court at those Philly officials tasked with keeping the peace. Most of the shade came from Justice Kevin M. Dougherty and Chief Justice Debra Todd.

Dougherty and Ms. Todd wondered why the plaintiffs didn’t address their concerns about crime control with city officials.

District Attorney Larry Krasner was not cited by name.

But did he have to be?

Dougherty made it a point to say he was the only Philadelphia resident on the court.

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case
Attorney Josh Prince before the hearing

The defendants were well-represented by Democrats, also surprising. Matthews S. Salkowski represented the General Assembly and a person whose name we missed the Attorney General. They gave solid reasons for not letting Philadelphia and other places set independent firearm policy. Republican Senate Pro Tempore Kim Ward had her own representation, who also made strong arguments.

Attorney Josh Prince who filed amicus curiae on behalf of Allegheny County Sportsmen League and Firearms Owners Against Crime was an observer. He thinks the state laws are likely to stay in place.

The plaintiffs struck us as sincere. If they overcome this bizarre blind spot that has convinced them that their opponents are bad people indifferent to murder, much division would end.

Gun rights supporters are very much opposed to murder, let us note.

The 1994 law passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly compelled Philadelphia to grant concealed carry permits in the same unburdensome way the rest of the state did. Philadelphia homicides fell from 432 in 1995 to 292 by 1999, and stayed under 400 for 20 years.

Granted things have changed but, well, Larry Krasner.

Note at this link that there were but 150 homicides in Philly in 1960 and the city had about a half-million more people, and there were far fewer gun restrictions.

And nobody wants mass shooting. Japan has few mass shooting but the reason isn’t a gun ban. What Japan does is lock up the crazies.

Which is what we used to do. In 1960, there were more than three times as many in the United States who were incarcerated in mental institutions than in prisons.

Today?

It’s over six-to-one in prisons.

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case

Pennsylvania Supreme Court To Hear Gun Rights Case

Pennsylvania Supreme Court To Hear Gun Rights Issue — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hold a hearing, Sept. 13 in Courtroom 456 at Philadelphia City Hall concerning Stanley Crawford et al vs the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al.

The session starts at 9 a.m. and Crawford is the first case scheduled.

Crawford seeks to overturn decades-old state law and precedent prohibiting municipalities from passing gun laws stricter than the state.

Commonwealth Court rejected the case in 2021 it should have no chance on Wednesday s Supreme Court is baldly partisan and out-and-out fascist in its lack of respect for the law and Constitution.

We’d like to note that when Pennsylvania forced Philadelphia to make it easy for citizens to acquire concealed carry permits in 1995, murders dropped dramatically.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court To Hear Gun Rights Case

Pennsylvania Supreme Court To Hear Gun Rights Issue

Pennsylvania Ballots In Undated Envelopes To Be Uncounted Says Supreme Court

Pennsylvania Ballots In Undated Envelopes To Be Uncounted Says Supreme Court –The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just (Nov. 1) ordered all county boards of elections to refrain from counting any absentee and mail-in ballots received for the November 8, 2022 general election that are contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes.

The court was split 3-3 with Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy and Kevin Brobson saying not counting the ballots did not violate federal law and Chief Justice Debra Todd, Christine Donohue and David Wecht saying it did.

There is a vacancy due to the Sept. 30 death of Chief Justice Max Baer.

Brobson and Ms. Mundy are the only justices elected as Republicans.

Ballots contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes were ordered to be segregated and preserved.

The suit was filed by the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania along with citizens David Ball, James D. Bee, Jesse D. Daniel, Gwendolyn Mae Deluca, Ross M. Farber, Lynn Marie Kalcevic, Vallerie Siciliano-Biancaniello, and S. Michael Streib.

The court dismissed the citizens for lack of standing.

The decision can be read here:

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-85-2022pco%20-%20105327594202667240.pdf?cb=1

Pennsylvania Ballots In Undated Envelopes To Be Uncounted
Pennsylvania Ballots In Undated Envelopes To Be Uncounted Says Supreme Court

Supreme Spending In Pa For Court’s 300th Birthday Bash

Supreme Spending In Pa For Court’s 300th Birthday Bash — Pennsylvania’s not so supreme court celebrated its 300th birthday in May in Philadelphia with a party that cost the state’s hard-pressed taxpayers $147,000.

Democrats gonna Democrat.

Yes, Pennsylvania’s never-trustworthy highest court is a partisan institution.

It always was a partisan institution, actually, it just that now it’s a Democrat one.

 The multi-day bash included catered luncheons and dinners as per Brad Bumsted of LancasterOnline.

Justices stayed at a swank hotel the name of which was redacted from the records provided LancasterOnline, albeit it showed cost of a night at $400.

There was also a $48,387 banquet

The unredacted parts of the documents released by the court show that the cost of a room, plus parking and taxes, ran as high as $400 per night for Chief Justice Max Baer. Baer could not be reached for comment.

Taxpayers paid $48,387 for a banquet at the Logan Hotel which featured a $1,500 Logan Supreme Court cake”.

Supreme Spending In Pa For Court's 300th Birthday Bash
Supreme Spending In Pa For Court’s 300th Birthday Bash

Pennsylvania Supremes Laugh At Constitution With Mail-In Decision

Pennsylvania Supremes Laugh At Constitution With Mail-In Decision — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, yesterday (Aug. 2), declared that mail-in voting as per Act 77 is allowed under the state Constitution.

The vote was 5-2 with all Democrats voting yes and the Republicans dissenting.

Here’s the wording regarding absentee voting in the State Constitution:

§ 14.  Absentee voting.
        (a)  The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner
     in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors
     who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the
     municipality of their residence, because their duties,
     occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
     the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their
     proper polling places because of illness or physical disability
     or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance
     of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election
     day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for
     the return and canvass of their votes in the election district
     in which they respectively reside.

Either our Supreme Democrats are illiterate or they just don’t care about the rule of law.

The process for amending the Pennsylvania Constitution requires approval in consecutive legislative sessions followed by a referendum. A law like Act 77 doesn’t suffice.

When judges say round is square and black is white and can’t tell the difference between men and women, whitecaps are on the water.

The case decided was Doug McLinko vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State et al. No. J-18A-2022, J-18B-2022, J-18C-2022, J-18D-2022, and J-18E-2022

Hat tip Breitbart.com.

Pennsylvania Supremes Laugh At Constitution With Mail-In Decision
Pennsylvania Supremes Laugh At Constitution With Mail-In Decision

Pennsylvania Constitution Must Reading For Pennsylvania Patriots

Pennsylvania Constitution Must Reading For Pennsylvania Patriots — Delaware County’s Bill Denison has been holding on-line classes regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution and generally promoting the reading of it.

To our embarrassment, reading it was not something we’ve ever done and so a few weeks ago we did.

You’d be surprised at what you find.

Consider Article II concerning the legislature which includes reapportionment:

d)  Any aggrieved person may file an appeal from the final plan directly to the Supreme Court within 30 days after the filing thereof. If the appellant establishes that the final plan is contrary to law, the Supreme Court shall issue an order remanding the plan to the commission and directing the commission to reapportion the Commonwealth in a manner not inconsistent with such order.

(e)  When the Supreme Court has finally decided an appeal or when the last day for filing an appeal has passed with no appeal taken, the reapportionment plan shall have the force of law and the districts therein provided shall be used thereafter in elections to the General Assembly until the next reapportionment as required under this section 17.

When the state Supreme Court ordered that Pennsylvania’s congressional districts be withdrawn in 2018, was that more or less than 30 days after they were approved on Dec. 22, 2011?

Based on the Pennsylvania Constitution, the state legislature should have immediately begun impeachment proceedings for every judge who vote aye for the new districts.

If the citizenry was aware of the what the law was they would have supported the action.

Did you know that there is a specific section regarding absentee voting? 

§ 14.  Absentee voting.
        (a)  The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner
     in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors
     who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the
     municipality of their residence, because their duties,
     occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
     the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their
     proper polling places because of illness or physical disability
     or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance
     of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election
     day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for
     the return and canvass of their votes in the election district
     in which they respectively reside.
        (b)  For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a
     city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar
     general purpose unit of government which may be created by the
     General Assembly.
     (Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
     Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)

        1967 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
     section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
     former section 19 to present section 14.
        1957 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
     14 (formerly section 19).

One with knowledge of the words in Constitution would have demanded that the addition of the category of “mail -in elector” would have required amending the Constitution rather than merely changing the Election Code as per Act 77 of 2019.

Where you aware that witnesses in contested elections may not withhold testimony upon the ground that it may criminate himself or subject him to public infamy.

The Constitution is not fun reading but even skimming it and being aware of the table of contents is a significant upgrade in understanding.

You can read it here.

The citizenry of this state better start learning how to be citizens.

Thanks Bill Denison for the inspiration.

Pennsylvania Constitution Must Reading For Pennsylvania Patriots Power And Nuclear Plants

Dem Supremes Back Dominion In Pa

Dem Supremes Back Dominion In Pa — The partisan Democrat Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled four days ago (March 21) in favor of Dominion Voting Systems that neither Fulton County nor the Pennsylvania Senate can audit their machines as they saw fit.

This overturned a Commonwealth Court ruling.

The Supremes said the audit must be done in a specified lab.

This ruling at first glance seems reasonable until it dawns on one that the restrictions will likely lead to a predetermined outcome and they really aren’t necessary to safeguard a false positive.

And that there really isn’t a lab available with the accreditation insisted upon by the court.

What would be a legitimate concern would be if the audit was not transparent and recorded, and unobservable by Dominion and other opponents.

That was obviously not the case.

That Dominion was allowed to be a party is especially troubling. Why would there even be a question that election transparency takes precedence over the intellectual property, or any concerns, of a private corporation.

Those machines should be considered public property. Anybody, much less a government, should be allowed to look at every bell and whistle on the machine, and every percent sign and parenthesis on the software.

When a media consortium investigated the Y2K Florida election, there was no fuss.

That an investigation into Dominion is being inhibited is almost proof positive something is hidden.

So where are the screams of outrage coming from Republican leaders? Why hasn’t Silent Joe Gale said something? Tom McGarrigle? Anybody? Maybe they did. If so they just whispered. That is not good enough.

Dem Supremes Back Dominion In Pa
Dem Supremes Back Dominion In Pa -- The partisan Democrat Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled four days ago (March 21) in favor of Dominion Voting