Brian Monahan, Easton Mini-Judge Candidate, Victim of Slime Campaign

Easton's magisterial seat consists of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side. Brian Monahan, a Republican lawyer who has served on the state committee and as solicitor to a Republican county council, is in a three-way battle with designer Cindy Greene and former Easton councilman Dan Corpora.

Monahan represented me when I sued the county, so you might think we're pals. We're not. I don't like him. We had a falling out several years ago. Lawyers are usually lousy district judges. No common sense.

But something is going on in the dark corners of Williams Township, and it needs to stop. Monahan is being slimed. A vicious anonymous mailer is being sent to voters. Here's what Lehigh Valley Housewife tells me.

I received a mailer that said, "WARNING - Important information regarding: Brian Monahan Candidate for Magisterial District Judge" in large black and white letters on one side. On the other side the mailer said, "Brian Monahan prevented the prosecution of a heinous double murder - JUDGE FOR YOURSELF." Then it has an EXCERPT (although the reader won't know this since it's not labeled as such):

"The Morning Call - December 10, 1995 - 'Dorney, 18, said he met with Monahan in July to discuss what he knew about the June 29 shootings of his girlfriend, Mary Orlando, 15, and her best friend Jennifer Grider, 17. Dorney maintains Monahan believed he was a 'prime suspect' and told him to 'keep everything to myself.'''

"I don't have a problem with a lawyer explaining options," said Edward Ohlbaum, a former Philadelphia Public Defender and a professor at Temple University School of Law. "I do have a (personal) problem with a lawyer advising a client not to come forward."

"Bethlehem Police Commissioner John Yerk on Friday said that because of Dorney's delay in coming forward with the information, it took investigators more than five months to charge Christopher Bissey, 18, of Salisbury Township with the shooting the girls at the Lookout on Bethlehem's South Side. Police charged Bissey with criminal homicide early Thursday, two days after Dorney met with detectives."

Ironically, at the bottom of the mailer it says, "We deserve an ethical judge who will be tough on crime - NOT Brian Monahan!"

Yes, it's quite ethical to send out a mailer slamming your opponent without identifying WHO is sending the mailer. I am not necessarily a pro-Monahan person (I may vote for Corpora), but this really bothered me for obvious reasons: we have a person who wants to be a JUDGE who is employing an unethical campaign! The voters have the right to know who is putting out this garbage! I call it garbage because the article was taken out of context. Furthermore, the person has to know that Monahan can't defend himself against this because of attorney/client privilege.

Brian Monahan is a quiet guy, and sometimes may give the impression that he's not the sharpest tool in the shed (although he graduated cum laude from Villanova Law, so I'd say that looks can be deceiving). Sharp or not, Brian IS a person who conducts himself in an ethical manner and he does not deserve to have this mailing sent out slamming him.

As far as who did it . . . Well, Corpora has run for office before and didn't rely on negative campaigning. On the other hand, the other candidate, Cindy Greene, has been bad-mouthing Monahan and Corpora during her entire campaign (including these allegations about Monahan), so if I were a betting woman, my bet would be placed on her.

It's extremely disheartening to me to see such dirty tactics being used at a low-level campaign. It's even further troubling to know that it's being used for the position of district magistrate! How can we expect that person to be a good magistrate if she can't even follow the rules of disclosure?

I'm pointing no fingers, but this is about as low as someone can go.

Mudslinging at Monahan Engineered by Someone Who Knows Politics

They can't sentence you to the electric chair for twenty years or have you flogged. But it still must be a trip to be a mini-judge, or district judge. You get to wear cool black robes and everyone has to call you, "Your Honor." Mini-judges handle the small claims - minor criminal cases and civil actions under $8,000. But the annual salary is $74,566, not bad for a position most magistrates consider a part-time job.

Unfortunately, the race for Easton's magisterial district of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side, has turned ugly. Smear tactics, or guerrilla politics, have victimized Brian Monahan, a Republican lawyer in a three-way battle with designer Cindy Greene, another Republican, and Easton councilman Dan Corpora, a Democrat. Both Corpora and Greene convincingly deny being involved in dirty politics, but someone is trying hard to trash Monahan. And it's someone who knows how campaigns work.

It all started with campaign signs. Every candidate moans about campaign signs disappearing. Mother Nature and landscapers often have more to do with removing them than anyone else. But in Monahan's case, someone pulls them out hours after they are posted, rips them in half, and dumps them in Monahan's yard. The person who tells me this? Cindy Greene.

Then we have the anonymous mailers. Two have gone out, one for Dems and one for Rs. They are vicious distortions of Monahan's career as a defense attorney. It is impossible to defend against them without violating attorney-client privilege. Monahan is falsely accused of preventing "the prosecution of a heinous double murder." "We deserve an ethical judge who will be tough on crime - NOT Brian Monahan!"

Neither of these mailers is signed, and that violates The Elections Code. A person who pays for a direct mailing designed to influence an election must "clearly and conspicuously" identify himself. That's the rule, bippy. No anonymous comments. And any person who spends more than $100 to advocate the defeat of a clearly identified candidate, is subject to the same reporting requirements as any candidate or committee. Violating these laws is a misdemeanor that can get you two years in Northampton County's overcrowded slammer, and District Attorney John Morganelli has full authority to prosecute.

So who's behind this smear campaign? Corpora? Greene? Vulcano? Easton Dems acting without Corpora's knowledge? All but Greene have ready access to Vulcano's bulk mail Permit #172. Vulcano could find no record that Greene had ever used it. So Greene is in the clear.

I spoke with both Corpora and Vulcano at length, and these guys have never operated this way. They both have a history of clean campaigns. Why would they go dark now? I believe their denials.

That leaves Easton Dems. They're partisans so it must be them, right? Wrong. And let me explain why. It's all in the label. I might recognize someone from a distance because of the way she "wiggles when she walks." Labels are distinctive, too, and each outfit does it a little differently. One person I know has already identified the sender. This conclusion is based solely on the distinctive label.

Now I'm not about to identify anyone based solely on one piece of circumstantial evidence. I might lose my jeep in a libel suit. But here's a little more. This person, a political consultant, happens to hate Monahan. A few years ago, Monahan sued this suspect and had the temerity to win.

Getting warmer? Yep, but that's not enough, either. After all, who the hell likes Monahan? But here's a little more. This consultant is on friendly terms with Vulcano and has used his bulk mail permit for dems and items he doesn't want to come back to him.

So we've got motive, opportunity and means. Only a very small and elite group have the skill and dough to pull off a smear campaign. Book 'em, Danno!

I'm really suspicious, but can't be positive about this sender without more. There's no smoking gun. But I can get that by having the post office produce the check that paid for each mailer. Postal authorities might resist a Freedom of Information Act request from me, but I don't think they'll turn away the DA.

Today, I'll turn this flier over to the DA. After all, this really is a criminal matter. Unfortunately, it's unlikely we'll learn who's responsible until after the election. It's unfair to all three candidates. They're all tarnished when this happens.

The truth always has a way of coming out. Secrets are hard to hide in Northampton County.

This just in! I've just been told that this political consultant, who has never run for for office, did much the same thing in a local race not long ago, misappropriating a bulk mail permit to launch a smear campaign.

Tom Severson's Precision Marketing Behind Dirty Campaign Against Monahan

In the primary race for Easton's magisterial district of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side, things got ugly. Smear tactics, or guerrilla politics, victimized Brian Monahan, a Republican lawyer in a three-way battle with designer Cindy Greene, another Republican, and Easton councilman Dan Corpora, a Democrat. Both Corpora and Greene convincingly deny being involved in dirty politics, but someone was trying hard to trash Monahan. And it's someone who knows how campaigns work.

Anonymous mailers viciously distorted Monahan's career as a defense attorney. It is impossible to defend against them without violating attorney-client privilege. Monahan is falsely accused of preventing "the prosecution of a heinous double murder." "We deserve an ethical judge who will be tough on crime - NOT Brian Monahan!" Of course, the candidates suspected each other, but they were all innocent. Unfortunately, this anonymous smear also probably turned off a lot of voters. Why bother?

These unsigned mailers violate The Elections Code. A person who pays for a direct mailing designed to influence an election must "clearly and conspicuously" identify himself. That's the rule, bippy. The author can be anonymous but the person who pays for it must identify himself. And any person who spends more than $100 to advocate the defeat of a clearly identified candidate, is subject to the same reporting requirements as any candidate or committee. Violating these laws is a misdemeanor that can get you two years in Northampton County's overcrowded slammer.

Yesterday, a "John Doe" report was filed in the elections office, revealing that $861.91 was paid to Tom Severson's Precision Marketing on May 21 to oppose Monahan's election. So, as some of your probably guessed long ago, we now know that Tom Severson is the bastard behind the smear campaign against Monahan.

The expenditures occurred before, and not after, the primary. This bogus report was prepared and filed only because Severson knows I'm on to him. It's not going to help. Because more than $500 was spent to influence an election after the final preelection reports were due, Severson was obligated to disclose the expenditure within 24 hours of his visit to the post office. He didn't.

Oopsie!

Severson is laughing at us all, and has made a mockery of our election finance laws. He thinks he can ignore election finance laws because of his friendship with District Attorney John Morganelli. He had better think again.

I'll have more on this next week.

Tom Severson, King of Sleazeball Politics, Behind Monahan Smear

On Friday, I told you about the primary race for Easton's magisterial district of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side. Brian Monahan, a Republican lawyer, was in a three-way battle with designer Cindy Greene, another Republican, and Easton councilman Dan Corpora, a Democrat.

About a week before the election, the bombs started dropping, not from the sky, but from mailboxes. In three massive mailings, Monahan was unfairly and maliciously tarnished as an unethical lawyer who obstructed justice. He was accused of preventing "the prosecution of a heinous double murder," a blatant lie! The author of these defamatory attacks? He refused to identify himself.

Naturally, Monahan initially assumed he was being attacked by one of his opponents. But as bad as he felt, his opponents were even more depressed. You see, they were blameless. I spoke to both of them at the time. You could hear it in their voices. Disgust.

Corpora learned this mailing came from the same bulk mail permit he used for his own campaign literature. And Cindy Greene was immediately accused of trying to knock Monahan off so she could get the republican nod.

I spoke to Corpora and Greene yesterday. Dan tells me, "I have a lot of respect for Brian and what he's accomplished," and was very proud of the positive campaign. He's still quite upset over what has happened. Cindy is even more specific. "I am just so aggravated. I see a lot of people are turned off by politics." Greene tells me that on election day, a few voters marched up to her and said, "I'm not voting for a mudslinger. I'll vote for Monahan."

Severson's Bogus "John Doe" Report

Last Thursday, the anonymous culprit who attempted unsuccessfully to sleaze Monahan crawled out from under his rock to file a 30 day post primary report as an "independent expenditure." Identifying himself as John Doe, he claimed one payment of $861.91 to Precision Marketing for mail on May 21, nearly a week after the primary, long after the three mailings had gone out.

Although still claiming to be "John Doe," this anonymous filer is known to me. He's Tom Severson, owner of Precision Marketing and King of Sleazeball politics.

How do I know this? Not long after the mailings went out, I talked to District Attorney John Morganelli. I told him he could send a detective with Pat Vulcano, the bulk mail permit holder, and get all the records for the bulk mail permit. That way we'd know how much was paid for these three mailings and who sent them.

"I'm not going to do that."

"Why not?"

"I already know who sent those mailers. It's Severson."

Morganelli assures me anonymous mailers are legal, and handed me a pile of memos to that effect, but they involve inadvertent violations of elections laws. This is something different. I told John the law may permit anonymous mailings, but the person who pays for them must be identified. Finally, I told John these mailings violate other sections of the elections code, relating to reports.

"We'll have to wait and see," John smiled. John and Tom are pals, and it's time he refers this to the AG without running interference for Severson.

What election laws are we talking about?

According to our Elections Code,

* A person who pays for a direct mailing designed to influence an election must "clearly and conspicuously" identify himself. The author can be anonymous, but the person who pays must disclose.

* Any person who spends more than $100 to advocate the defeat of a clearly identified candidate, is subject to the same reporting requirements as any candidate or committee.

* Any person making an independent expenditure of $500 or more after the final pre-election report, must report that expenditure within 24 hours.

* Violating these laws is a misdemeanor that can get you two years in Northampton County's overcrowded slammer, and District Attorney John Morganelli or Attorney General Tom Corbett has full authority to prosecute.

Severson, who paid money to defeat Monahan, failed to identify himself. He clearly paid more than $500 to send these mailers about a week before the election, but did not report this expenditure within 24 hours. His "John Doe" report, in which he refuses to identify himself, is a mockery because it's clear that three mass mailings cost much more than $861, and those payments were made before the primary.

Cindy Greene has yet to file her post-election report. She was at the beach last week.

Here's what she tells me, "Why file anything? A lot of people don't even want to vote anymore. I can guarantee you I don't get any special privileges. I am going to pay a late fee, but some people are above the law."

She also raises a pretty good question. How the hell does an anonymous John Doe get his signature notarized? "What does he do, whip out a license showing his name is John Doe?"

Severson's "John Doe" report is notarized by Priscilla M Jroski, a notary presumably following the directions of Severson's lawyers, the Leeson law offices. As much as I respect the lawyers in that firm, this is bullshit. A notary exists to identify the person appearing before her, not obscure that person. She must have personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence in the form of a driver's license or other form of identification.

The report is a sham. Norco elections solicitor Chris Spadoni told the Express Times he's never seen anything like it. That's because it totally defeats the purpose of our campaign finance laws, which are intended to encourage disclosure, not hide expenditures in a shroud of secrecy.

Who is Tom Severson, and why is he after Monahan? I'll answer those questions later this week.

Severson's Mudslinging & Deception Outlined

Dauphin County Prison was the setting for today's preliminary hearing on the Attorney General's deceptive campaign practices prosecution against political consultant Tom "Scissorhands" Severson. As I've already told you, ALL charges were bound over for trial by District Judge Steven M. Semic. That includes 55 counts of what The Express Times calls "fraud and deception."

It was a strange place for a hearing. Peering through a doorway, I could easily see the bars of a county jail. Unlike any local magistrate, this judge had a guard and two clerks sit with him throughout the five-hour hearing. Eleven witnesses were examined by Senior Deputy AG Mark Constanzo, accompanied by six agents and boxes full of files. Prominent Defense Attorney George Heitczman represented Severson, who sat quietly, even though Ron Angle was right behind him.

(1) Agent Kevin Carney, who has worked in law enforcement for about a gazillion years, laid out the background concerning Severson's anonymous smear campaign against Brian Monahan. In 2007, when Monahan ran for magistrate, Severson sent out three mailers slamming him. None of them identified Severson as the person who paid for these ads. Carney also testified to a "John Doe" independent expenditure report, which was filed after the election.

(2) Priscilla Jroski, a notary for thirty-five years and legal secretary with Bethlehem law firm Leeson & Leeson, described seeing Severson sign a document she was asked to notarize. Instead of seeing Severson''s signature, the name "John Doe" was scrawled on an independent expenditure report. She notarized the document after being assured "It's OK" by Attorney Joe Leeson. But in her notary journal, she noted that Severson had signed the document as John Doe.

(3) Cheryl Dorschutz is a gum-chewing graphic designer employed at Severson's Precision marketing. She prepared the anonymous mailers slamming Monahan, using copy supplied by Severson. Severson told her he had talked to a lawyer and was allowed to send anonymous mailers. He also told her he had permission from Pat Vulcano to use his bulk mailing permit.

(4) Mary Lou Yarnell prepares the bills at Severson's Precision Marketing. He paid her cash for the anti-Monahan mailers and she put the money in petty cash. There is no record that the invoice was paid.

Yarnell also describes Severson's practice of using other companies to bill clients for his work. He supplied her with stationary from an outfit called Political Strategies, a California corporation, and had invoices for Severson's services sent to Democrats under that letterhead. When she receives checks made out to Political Strategies, she stamps them for deposit in Precision Marketing's account.

At Severson's direction, she instructed then state rep. candidate Tony Rybak to pay what he owed Severson to Printex, a company owed money by Severson for work involving other candidates.

(5) Pat Vulcano is the owner of the bulk mailing permit used to slime Monahan. He told a grand jury that Severson had denied using his permit, but now he's singing a different tune. He now claims that Severson admitted to him that he used his bulk mailing permit. He explained he suffers from a sleep disorder and that's why he gave the grand jury a different story. Vulcano's wife, Sandy, must have the same disorder. She had to change her story, too, and did so in a letter to the AG. I believe this disorder is called fibberitis.

Vulcano now claims Severson had "carte blanche" to use his permit and "didn't have a problem" with the sleaze mailers directed at Monahan. When he spoke, he denied knowing who had used the permit and condemned the sleaze campaign. He must have been suffering from fibberitis when he spoke to me, too.

(6) Bethlehem City Council Prez Bob Donchez has been using Severson since 1995, and acknowledged paying Severson bills on MJR and Political Strategies letterheads. He assumed these were other Severson companies. He emphatically denied ever asking Severson to bill him in any special way that would make it difficult for the public to know that Severson was running his campaigns.

(7) Steve Goodsoozian, Judge Jack Panella's campaign treasurer, acknowledges paying Severson invoices from companies like MJR and Political Strategies, thinking they were Severson companies. Like Donchez, he denies that he or anyone in Judge Panella's committee ever asked Severson to bill him in any way that disguised Severson's involvement.

(8) Beverly Rossetti happens to own a small mail house known as MJR Services. She actually leases space from Severson and runs his mailroom, but when he asked her to use her company as a front for some of his billing, she told him she'd have to get back to him. Then she got a few checks made out to MJR, which were delivered to her home in Phillipsburg. She gave them to Severson and asked him to stop billing in her company's name. But those checks kept coming. She eventually stopped handing them over. "I was upset. I just felt a little used. The whole thing was distasteful to me."

Call me cRaZy, but I have a feeling that Rossetti's lease with Severson has the shelf life of a loaf of bread at the beach.

(9) Northampton County Controller Steve Barron really lawyered up for his appearance. He was flanked by two attorneys as he walked into the courtroom. He was asked about his pre-Controller activities, when he was Treasurer for the local Dems. He took in the bills and donations, made deposits, paid the bills and filed campaign finance reports.

At one point in '07, Lamont McClure gave him a $12,000 bill from Political Strategies. McClure told him to pay what he could and record the rest as debt. So Barron, who had no idea that Political Strategies was connected to Severson, sent two checks to California. When he later looked at the bank statements, he noticed those checks were endorsed and deposited by Severson's Precision Marketing. He called party bossman Joe Long, but got no explanation.

(Blogger's Note: McClure's connection to Severson's work resulted in a subpoeana being sent to McClure late last week. Because McClure had a scheduling conflict, he was released from the subpoena. But knowledge of his deep involvement has only recently come to light.)

10) Anthony Rybak did himself no favors in his testimony. He acknowledged paying Severson's bills directly to Printex, assuming that was one of Severson's spinoffs. But he had no explanation for his failure to itemize phone calls and campaign signs. He never reported those expenditures. His mommy financed his unsuccessful campaign for the state house in 2006.

11) Precision Marketing's Tim Butler is Severson's right hand man. As he delicately put it, "I am number two." He proceeded to prove that point by being unable to recall any knowledge of any specifics about anything.

George Heitzman gave a detailed closing argument involving criminal intent and the Constitution. AG Mark Constanzo's basic reply? "Hey, we're the Commonwealth." Severson will face a jury.

NorCo Coughs Up $200,000 in Prison Assault

Atty Colin Monahan

As reported in The Express Times, Northampton County has just coughed up $200,000 as a result of a vicious jailhouse assault on a former DUI inmate. John Mucha, who was awarded the settlement, claims he stumbled upon a smuggling ring in which tobacco and even cellphones found their way inside the jail. Mucha's lawyers - Nicholas Sabatine, Brian Monahan, Colin Monahan and Joe Welsh - have released this statement.

A former inmate at Northampton County Prison has settled a year and a half long federal civil rights lawsuit for injuries he suffered after a brutal assault on January 31, 2009 by inmates who were part of a prison smuggling ring. John J. Mucha (“MOO-ka”) was serving a brief sentence for a DUI offense when he was assaulted in his cell by members of a contraband smuggling ring which included at least one prison guard and several inmates.

The suit, which settled for $200,000.00, alleged that Northampton County officials knew of serious problems at the prison relating to groups of inmates smuggling contraband items such as tobacco, cell phones, drugs and even homemade weapons into the prison.

Mr. Mucha was represented by Nicholas R. Sabatine, III, Esquire, of Wind Gap, Pennsylvania and Brian Monahan, Esquire, Colin Monahan, Esquire, and Joseph E. Welsh, Esquire, of Easton, Pennsylvania. Mr. Mucha’s counsel issued the following statement regarding the settlement: “We hope this settlement will focus the attention of all county officials and employees on what has been a long-standing stigma on the county and its penal system. The institutional culture of the prison has all too often rewarded those who abuse their positions, and punishes those who try to do the right thing. Justice requires that those who violate our laws are appropriately punished. Justice also requires that those who serve time in our prisons do so without having their civil rights violated.”

During the case, Mr. Mucha’s attorneys uncovered evidence of a widespread web of corruption involving numerous inmates, and even several guards, known as corrections officers. The evidence underscored the magnitude of the profit to be made in contraband. Pouches of tobacco which sell at convenience stores for several dollars were being sold inside for $50 each. Payments were usually arranged though a guard in conjunction with inmates’ relatives or friends.

Mr. Mucha’s Complaint averred that he suffered debilitating back injuries as a result of an assault in his cell when a guard electronically opened the cell door to allow inmates involved in tobacco trafficking to enter it. Mr. Mucha’s injuries required surgery and left him permanently disabled.

While entering into the settlement, Northampton County did not admit any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the settlement should send a message to all Northampton County elected officials that it is in everyone’s interest to eradicate corruption within the prison and install effective procedures to prevent this type of incident from reoccurring.

It's a good thing that West Easton's DUI Center is in business.

In Easton, it's Monahan for District Judge

Easton's magisterial seat consists of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side. Attorney Brian Monahan is in a three-way battle with designer Cindy Greene and Easton councilman Dan Corpora.

As a Democrat, I lean towards Corpora, an affable and soft-spoken Easton leader. But there's no doubt in my mind that Monahan is by far the most qualified of the three. He's the only one who can hit the ground running. The other two have not been certified.

And I deeply resent an anonymous outsider's last-minute sleaze attack at Monahan. Looks like Monahan offended some pretty powerful people, probably by doing the right thing. We need people with that kind of integrity on the bench.

Severson Loses Bid For $1.2 Million From Senate GOP

Spring 2007. Easton Attorney Brian Monahan, running for District Judge, is unfairly and maliciously tarnished as an unethical lawyer who obstructed justice. In anonymous mailers, he's falsely accused of preventing "the prosecution of a heinous double murder." But it was not his opposing candidates who attacked him. It was political consultant Tom Severson, whose real problem with Monahan was that he was too good a lawyer, and one who dared beat him in a disturbing unemployment compensation case that exposed Severson's bizarre knife fetish. It made no difference to Severson that Monahan was, like him a Republican. It made no difference to Severson that Monahan, unlike him, did most of his political lawyering pro bono. Yesterday, thanks to a decision by a seven-judge Commonwealth Court panel, Severson lost his bid for $1.2 million in political consulting work from the State Senate GOP, after they stopped using him. The Court cites sovereign immunity. But Severson did it to himself.

Not too long after the Monahan smear, in December of that year, Severson disrupted a funeral mass at which the Council member Ron Angle was one of the congregants. Spying Angle, Severson stood up and went to work. "Fuck you!," he shouted in the middle of a Catholic church, "I'm going to kick your ass in the parking lot." He gave Angle the second finger salute and threatened an eighty year-old gentleman who asked him to knock it off.

After the funeral mass, Scissorhands Severson did tear off after Angle, but Ron was in his big-ass truck, waving good-bye as Severson chased after him like a barking dog.

That's when the state Attorney General started paying attention to Severson. Not only was the consultant prosecuted and convicted over the funeral fracas, but his dirty campaign tactics came under scrutiny. The King of Sleazeball Politics was charged and copped a plea to deceptive campaign finance reports.

That ended his career, although his name popped up recently in the Bob Donchez Mayoral race.

Severson's sleazy tactics ended up costing him his job with the state GOP caucus.

Sovereign immunity has a nice ring, but Severson lost out on that dough because he is an asshole.

Easton NAACP Prez Acquitted on Theft Charges

Easton Barristers Josh Fulmer, Colin Monahan & Phil Lauer

John Moses Robinson, President of the Easton NAACP and Prison Advisory Board member, has been acquitted of criminal charges that he stole $55,000 from his mother-in-law. A jury of 9 women and 3 men reached a "not guilty" verdict last night, after a four-day trial. They deliberated for little more than an hour.

Robinson's estranged wife thought she'd be getting that money, even though her mother actually lived with Robinson and his three children.

"I have been told we have a verdict, although I don't know what it is," Judge Michael Koury announced as he came into the courtroom.

While everyone waited for the jury, an apprehensive Robinson sat next to lawyers Phil Lauer and Colin Monahan. Robinson's children sat in the row behind their Dad. Five deputy sheriffs were strategically located throughout the courtroom.

While waiting, onlookers whispered to each other about just when the jury left to deliberate, 6:15 PM or 6:25 PM. "The jury went out to deliberate at 6:11 PM," answered Judge Koury. "The acoustics in this room are excellent!"

Either that, or he has superpowers.

Veteran prosecutor Mike Filingo arrived a few minutes before the jury, with a disgusted look on his face. He seemed to sense he had a loser.

There were three charges, so the jury's foreman had to answer "Not Guilty" three times. But as soon as he announced the first "Not guilty" verdict, there was a visible sign of relief from the largely pro-Robinson crowd.

After announcing their verdicts, Judge Koury thanked the jury. "Thank you for staying here late tonight. You have arrived early and stayed late. You have served the County of Northampton very well and you are free to go." He then turned to Robinson. "Mr. Robinson, you have been found Not Guilty by a jury of your peers. You are free to go."

It was only then that Robinson, dressed in his finest, began to really cry. Turning around, he reached out for his children and they all hugged each other. His nightmare is finally over.

Normally very talkative, a very relieved Robinson had few words after the verdict. Joined by his children, he quickly left the courthouse.

All the might and power of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had been brought to bear against him. That even included Northampton County Controller Steve Barron. I knew he already considers himself a County Executive, asbestos investigator and union organizer. Apparently, he's a criminal investigator, too. Although absent for the verdict, rendered at dinner time, the $65,000 per year Controller spent the entire week sitting in on this trial.

How can Barron audit the DA's office when he works for them? Isn't that a built-in conflict? And while he's running around playing detective, who's minding the finances of Northampton County?

At the magistrate's level, Barron essentially usurped the fact finding role reserved to juries. In addition to detailing Robinson's bank transactions, Barron would add they were "interesting," raised red flags and even revealed a "veil of deceit."

Thanks to a good defense team and a fair prosecutor, this nonsense stopped once a jury got involved. Lead defense attorney Phil Lauer, objecting to Barron's qualifications as some kind of fraud expert, filed a motion in limine to preclude the County's supposed fiscal watchdog from essentially telling the jury that Robinson is guilty.

After some initial opposition, prosecutor Filingo agreed, especially since it appeared likely that Judge Koury would rule in Lauer's favor anyway. To his credit, Filingo kept Barron on a tight leash during the trial, shutting the Controller down when he still tried to stray into matters that are beyond his competence.

As a result, Barron had little to say.

You might say justice was done because Robinson was innocent anyway ... or because he had good character witnesses ... or because a jury saw through Robinson's estranged wife, who wanted that money for herself. You might even be right.

I say justice has nothing to do with it. Robinson won because he had a good legal team.

Easton lawyers Phil Lauer, Josh Fulmer and Colin Monahan did a great job in jury selection, making sure that the jury of Robinson's peers actually included three African Americans. And 9 women? That's obviously because Lauer was going to argue that this was a "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" case, as opposed to a criminal matter. Although it's hard to generalize, you do that in jury selection, and women do tend to be tougher on each other than they are on men.

In addition to picking a sympathetic jury, Lauer effectively clipped the Controller's wings.

If the Commonwealth ever decides all its resources down on you, it helps to be innocent. But you better have a good lawyer, too. Fortunately, Robinson had one of the best.

Colin Monahan, incidentally, is the son of another good criminal defense lawyer, Brian Monahan. This was Colin's first criminal trial. I told him to quit now and he can claim he is undefeated.

It's Monahan v. Corpora for Easton Mini-judge

A mysterious last-minute smear campaign against Attorney Brian Monahan appears to have back-fired. With 338 votes, he easily captured the Republican nomination in Easton's magisterial district of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side. But Easton councilman Dan Corpora just as easily got the Democratic nod, garnering 546 votes.

Monahan and Corpora will face off in November. Combining both parties, we have the following vote totals: Corpora - 737; Monahan - 659; and Greene - 202.

Norco's Three Mini-Judge Races: Follow the Money

After spending most of the last two days discussing the mudslinging in Easton's mini-judge contest, you might think that's the only race. Actually, Northampton County will be electing three new mini-judges this Fall in Nazareth, Bethlehem and Easton. In this post, I'll lay out the finances for each candidate so you can follow the money.

What is a mini-judge? I've talked about this before, but it's worth repeating. "District Justices have jurisdiction over minor criminal offenses, traffic offenses, landlord/tenant matters and other civil actions where the amount claimed does not exceed $8000.00. In misdemeanor and felony cases, District Justices have jurisdiction to issue arrest and search warrants, hold preliminary arraignments and preliminary hearings and set bail. They also have authority to perform marriages, handle protection from abuse matters and issue subpoenas. They also may impose summary punishments for criminal contempt." I have the record for most overtime parking tickets in Nazareth, so I know the office very well. Although the annual salary for this position is $74,566, most magistrates consider themselves part-time workers.

Easton. This seat consists of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side. Brian Monahan, a lawyer; Cindy Greene, a designer; and Dan Corpora, Easton councilman, are the contestants.

Monahan. - Between March 1 and April 30, Brian raised $14,500 and spent about $5,700. There are no small under $50 contributions, and his list of contributors is a who's who of local lawyers. I counted twenty-seven, from all over the area. These lawyers could be trying to buy influence. I believe it's a mistake for judicial candidates to accept money from attorneys who may appear before them. Others will argue this just indicates Monahan has the respect of his fellow attorneys. I report. You decide.

Corpora. - Between January 1 and April 30, Corpora raised only $550. With what he already had in his treasury, his warchest was barely $1,600. Most of his money comes from small contributions of $50 0r less. Corpora has not been certified for the position of district judge.

Greene. - On Monday, when I checked finance reports, Greens's reports had not yet been filed. She told me yesterday that has since filed her report late and that she had raised about $1,900, most of which is self-funded. Like Corpora, she is uncertified. Of the three candidates, she is the only one unable to follow finance campaign laws, but she is also a relative newcomer.

Bethlehem. Like Easton, this race over the Marvine-Pembroke area of Bethlehem is a three-way dogfight. Patricia Romig-Passaro, daughter of retired District Judge Liz Romig, faces social services worker Juan Cruz and Attorney Gil Negrete.

Romig-Passaro. - Between January 29 and April 27, Romig-Passaro raised $8,055, and spent $7,482. Nearly $5,500 of her money comes from small contributions of $50 or less. Three Bethlehem lawyers have contributed to her campaign. Romig is certified for the district judge position.

Juan "Johnny" Cruz. - Between January 28 and April 30, Cruz raised $3,030 and spent $2,503.72. Over one-third of his money comes from small contributions of $50 or less. He did inadvertently accept a corporate contribution, a violation of campaign finance laws. This money has been returned. I'm unaware whether Cruz is certified, and will update this post if anyone can tell me.

Gil Negrete. - Gil raised $3,500 and kicked in another $7,500 out of his own pocket. Like Monahan, he relies heavily on contributions from lawyers who are likely to appear before him. You can decide for yourself whether these attorneys are trying to buy influence or are trying to improve the judicial system.

Nazareth. Five mini-judge wannabes are eyeing Nazareth's magisterial district, which includes Nazareth, Bath and Stockertown boroughs, as well as Upper Nazareth and East Allen Townships. The contestants? Bangor lawyer Yvonne Falcone, Colonial Region police detective Gary Hammer, Norco prison boss Todd Buskirk, Upper Nazareth top cop Alan Siegfried and deputy sheriff John Capobianco.

Falcone. - Between January 1 and April 30, Falcone raised just $1,200 but spent $8,665.39. She's in the hole. Surprisingly, there were only a few contributions from attorneys. Falcone had previously told me she did not want to accept money from attorneys who appear before her regularly, and she appears to have kept her word. She did purchase an address list of the local bar, but appears to be content without accepting lawyers' money.

Hammer. - In a simple and honest report, Gary tells us he raised no money and spent $1,085 out of his own pocket for signs and handouts. Unfortunately, Hammer is the only candidate uncertified for the position of district judge in the Nazareth race.

Buskirk. - Between February 13 and April 30, Todd raised $6,690 and spent $4,568. Nazareth landlord Ray Orwig and his family have kicked in $480, but Buskirk previously told me Orwig's landlord cases won't be heard in his court. Twelve local attorneys contributed to his campaign, but they appear to be mostly attorneys who worked with Buskirk at the county.

Capobianco. - Between January 24 and April 30, Cap raised $10,631.05, and spent $9,484. Half of this money comes from his own pocket. His sister also gave him $1,000. He also raised $1,125 in small contributions of $50 or less.

Siegfried. - Chief Siegfried told me his integrity is very important to him. I now believe him. The $5,472 reported in his campaign treasury came right out of his own pocket.

Update:Juan "Johnny" Cruz, a Bethlehem magisterial candidate, has been certified once. He needs to be recertified.

Severson's Strange Switchblades & Stabs

Last week, I told you all about Tom Severson, the King of Sleazeball Politics. He's currently under investigation by Attorney General Tom Corbett for possible election law violations. One item being considered is Severson's "anonymous" smear campaign against district judge candidate Brian Monahan.

Severson's sleaze campaign was a solo affair - he represented no candidate. Ever wonder why Severson had such a hot nut for Monahan? Today, I got my answer. You see, Monahan had the temerity to represent one of Severson's former employees in an unemployment case. Thanks to our Right to Know laws, I finally got my dirty little hands on the file. Severson likes to talk about stabbing and killing his enemies, pulls knives on office workers and scared an employee away by threatening to stab him, too. Incidentally, his connection to MJR Services, Inc. is established, which he used to hide his work for Democrats.

Below you will see a portion of the transcript. The referee is R. The claimant is C. His attorney is CL. And Severson's attorney is EL. Incidentally, Severson's attorney just happens to be Jay Leeson, whose office notarized the independent "John Doe" financial report of the subsequent campaign against Monahan.

A Little Background

CL You filed the Petition for unemployment compensation and ultimately an appeal. What company were you employed with regarding this appeal?

C Precision Marketing in Easton, Pennsylvania.

CL And according to your -- the president was Mr. Severson?

C That's correct.

CL What was your role at the company?

C I did a variety of jobs. I was — on my business card I'm the director of operations but I've done quite a few different jobs there.

CL When did you begin your employment with Precision Marketing?

C Back in 1998.

CL In August of 1998?

C I believe it was in August.

CL And what was your last date of employment at Precision Marketing?

C It was October 18, 2005.

CL And how were you paid?

C I was on salary.

CL What was your salary at the time of your leaving, your separation?

C $875.

Severson Brags About Stabbing His Enemies and Killing Them

CL Okay. Now, concerning your separation, could you explain to Referee Geld what circumstances lead to your leaving the company, leaving your employment?

C Well, the circumstances, the initial circumstance was we were sitting down eating lunch one day and Mr. Severson was discussing, talking about his enemies and how eventually he would destroy them. And he pointed to another employee and he asked him, do you believe that I would do this and this employee said...

EL Objection, as to what the employee said. That's hearsay testimony.

R Response?

CL I think it's — what did Mr. Severson say? What did Mr. Severson do and say?

C All right. Mr. Severson said that he would one day stab these people and kill them. And I said to Mr. Severson, I said to him, you better be careful because maybe one day you'll pull a knife on somebody and they might turn it against you. And I said this for two reasons. The first reason, by his own admittance, he did actually pull a knife on a campaign...

EL Objection. This is not germane to what happened on the day of the lunch meeting, Mr. Potts.

R Which the which date has not yet been established.

CL Correct. I believe the testimony...

R I think it might need to be established. I'm going to sustain the objection but give you the opportunity to lay a foundation.

CL Sure. On what date was your final date of employment?

C Was October 18.

CL And that was the same date as the lunch you're talking about?

C Yes.

CL Okay. Now, the incident which you're referring to where you indicated Mr. Severson admitted pulling a knife. Do you know when that occurred?

C That occurred on a campaign about four years ago.

CL Now, let me — you said the reason you responded as you did...

C Because I think he's capable of pulling a knife on people, yes.

EL Objection. That's a statement of opinion. It's not a statement of fact.

C The reason...

EL [inaudible], Your Honor, [inaudible] be stricken from the record.

R And response?

CL My response is that I believe it's admissible. One because the admission, I believe is germane because it goes to the state of mind on why [claimant] would believe this is an actual threat as opposed to someone just talking.

R Are you going to link that up to the reason that he left the company?

CL Exactly, that's what I'm...

R All right. Over-ruled with that promise of link up.

CL Let me ask you/ when you heard this talk of the knife...

C Right.

CL ...did you take this seriously?

EL I'm going to object, Your Honor, to this talk about a knife. This is hearsay testimony.

CL It's an admission ...

EL This individual was not a witness to any type of incident of the nature described. Now they're trying to take hearsay and build a case based on hearsay.

CL I believe that the testimony was that Mr. Severson made this statement which makes it an admission. It's not hearsay.

R I understand that.

CL It's certainly not hearsay at this point. It's a...

R Then your last question asked him about his feelings?

CL His feeling, why he...

R Over-ruled.

CL ...believed it was a threat.

R Over-ruled.

CL And I'll re-state the question. You believed this threat to be a real threat?

C I believe he is capable of pulling a knife on somebody, yes.

CL And why?

C Well, another incident occurred...

EL Objection, Your Honor. Unless this individual was an eyewitness and that has not been in relation to...

C 1 am an eyewitness to this other...

R Well, I'm not sure the question was completed but you can start the question again.

Severson Threatens to Stab Employee

CL You indicated Mr. Severson at some point told you something about another, what did he tell you?

C Let me get my thoughts back in order please.

CL Sure.

C Mr. Severson asked me then that if I were to — that if he were to pull a knife on me, would I turn it back against him and I said yes, I would. The reasons being because I know he might put me into that situation one day. He then said, well, then one day I'm going to sneak up behind you and stab you and I became very upset and angry. I left the lunch table, went back to my office, I took a deep breath. Something inside said, it's time to get out. It's time to leave here. So I got up. I walked out, I threw him his keys, I told him I don't work for assholes. I turned around and left and he yelled, "fuck you" as I walked out the door.

CL Now, I'm going to ask you again. You indicated that you perceived this to be an actual threat?

C Yes.

CL And you perceived it because of past incidents?

Severson Pulls Knife on Another Employee

C Yes. About a month before that, Mr. Severson had a little tiff with another employee.

CL Were you present for this incident?

C Yes, I was. I was not present for what he was mad at the other employee for. But it was at the lunch table.

CL Then only tell the...

C I'll only tell him what I saw, what I observed.

EL I'm going to object as to something with another employee because unless we get into the circumstances about whether this other incident was, in fact, an employee, whether there was kidding, whether there was jesting, has taken it terribly out of context. There's no foundation for this type of testimony.

R Well, at this time I think it's premature to make that objection. If that is a valid objection, then you can renew it afterwards then the testimony will be stricken at that point. So I'll allow you to renew but I think the objection is premature at this point. Proceed.

C All right. So we were eating lunch and the employee was eating a sandwich and Mr. Severson walked up, flipped open the knife, lunged the knife toward the back of the employee's neck, it was maybe about an inch away from the back of his neck, starting giggling and went into the men's room. And while that employee was eating lunch, if he would have leaned back at that moment, I believe he would have definitely got hurt.

EL Now, Your Honor I'm going to move to strike because by the witness' own testimony, Mr. Severson, assuming this is true, which we're not conceding that point, but assuming it is, Mr. Severson's giggling is as if this is some type of a joke by the witness' own testimony, the reference to giggling.

R I think that goes to credibility rather than admissibility.

C I'm just...

R And you'll certainly be given full opportunity for a cross. Over-ruled.

CL And you indicated previously Mr. Severson had told you something about an incident involving a knife.

C Yes, that was during a campaign.

R I think at this point I'm going to interject with a question or two.

C Sure.

R You say a campaign. What type of campaign?

C It was a political campaign for somebody running for an office.

R And how is the company involved?

C The company was running the campaign for the client.

CL I guess, just for the Referee's — what did the company do? I think that would be...

C Yes, the company is a political consulting firm.

R I see. Can you share the name of the candidate or is that confidential?

C The candidates always treated me very well and I prefer not to but if I have to...

R Well, was this for a municipal office, a state office, a federal office?

C This is for a state office.

R A state office. All right. Good enough. And the employee or co-worker who was in the lunchroom on the incident that you testified to, will that person remain anonymous?

C I prefer not to get the other employees involved, Your Honor. I've done that — I was very reluctant to even have to tell the unemployment office this.

CL Honestly, I would ask at this point that you provide the name because I think it's...

R Well, I think it goes to whether or not the employer will have a fair turn of rebuttal.

CL I do too so I would advise you to provide the name.

R And we do have — if you want to, we can exclude the young lady in the back and I'm not sure that she's necessary now if we want any further degree of in camera privacy so to speak. And certainly the immunity in these type of hearings but if you want to exclude her, by all means.

EL Would you prefer we have the — just yourself...

R I'll just leave counsel and the two primary principals.

CL The Referee, actually he can have — get a witness excluded when you describe who the other employee is or are you just going to tell him?

C No, at this point, I'll go ahead and tell you. Okay? Marylou was there.

R All right.

C Okay. Also Sheryl Dorcius [ph], I believe her last name is. She was there. She's a graphic designer. And it's a very small company. And myself was there and a new gentleman that just started by the name of Dan was there. I can't remember his last name.

CL Now, who was the employee who the knife was waived near?

C You're talking — I'm sorry.

CL Yeah..

C I was referring to the incident when I left. All right.

CL You referred to the incident once, who was present for that?

C Yeah, just who I told him. The incident at the luncheon, when I left are those people who were there.

CL The incident with the knife when you observed...

C Right, when I observed that knife. The only other person there was Marylou.

CL Okay.

C She was sitting to the left of me.

CL And who did he put the knife towards?

C It was Tim Butler.

CL Okay.

R His position?

C Pardon?

R His position with the company?

C I believe he's the vice-president of the company.

R Go on.

Severson Brags About Pulling Knife on Campaign Worker

CL Now, I was asking you, there were statements made by Mr. Severson regarding pulling a knife on somebody, did you want to testify to that?

C Yes, that's -- during this campaign, there was a campaign worker who evidently shredded and destroyed registrations from the opposing, party...

EL I'm going to object to this kind of testimony. You know, about a campaign worker for some candidate doing something that has nothing to do with this case.

R All right. It's a relevancy objection.

CL If you could just get to the point of...

C All right.

CL I think I asked [inaudible] Mr. Severson advised you regarding...

C Mr. Severson often relayed the story about him chasing this campaign worker out of the office with a knife.

CL. And based upon these episodes you just described, that's what lead you to believe this was a real threat to you?

C Yes, I believe — the threat, is I believe he's capable of putting me in a position by pulling a knife on me.

R The campaign worker, was the campaign worker an employee or a volunteer?

C He was a volunteer for the campaign.

R Okay. And he was suspected of some type of misconduct on the campaign?

C That is correct. And he came in to confront Mr. Severson about it and that's when that incident occurred.

CL Now, regarding your separation, this is a voluntary termination because you concede that this wasn't a firing?

C Yes. Yeah, I lost my temper, I became very angry and I left, yes.

CL Now, were there any other factors that led to your leaving the company beside those you've already related to the Referee?

Severson Demanded Employee to Forge Signature to Hide Connection to MJR

C There were a few other factors. There was another incident — you know, I have to explain the whole situation in order to get to the point I'm trying to make. Sometimes the company does work for the opposing party and...

R In the same campaign?

C No, on different campaigns but... I

R Are you saying the company is exclusive or not exclusive or primarily [inaudible] from one party?

C The company sometimes hides the fact that it deals with the Democratic Party.

R Is that a significant thing in this trade or business? In other words, do clients expect a marketing firm to only work for candidates of one party?

EL Well, Your Honor, can I just object because this individual is not in a position to deal with the clients of the firm. And may I also object to...

CL All right.

EL Well, not that this is really germane to the lunch incident where he stormed out and lost his temper.

R Wall, I think my questions are relevant to the point that's being brought up.

C [inaudible]

R And it's starting a second ground.

CL Correct. Where I'm going is, essentially, that certainly the one incident was the tip of the iceberg.

R And, obviously, there's been no foundation yet laid. Perhaps as I had noted before we began the testimony sometimes I do ask questions that maybe you would have explained a little later but, you know, this is something that I don't think I can take judicial notice of, the workings of this industry or trade. And that may be relevant to the testimony, so again, I'm going to over-rule the objection to my question. How is that significant, Mr. [claimant]?

C Okay. It's significant because I was asked to forge a client's name on a mailing statement. The situation is there is a company that sub-leases space with Precision Marketing and they are also a mailer in their own right. During this campaign, the other company was using their...

R What do you mean by other company?

C Yeah, the company that leases from Precision Marketing.

CL Who are they just so...

C It's MJR Services.

R Do they have anything to do with the trade of politics and campaigns?

C No, I believe they were doing it as a favor until the client started writing out checks to this other company and there was a little...

R The client is the candidate?

C The candidates, right. And the only...

R To a tenant of Precision Marketing?

C I'm sorry?

R Someone who leased space? MJR is a tenant?

C Yes.

R ...of Precision Marketing?

C Yes. Okay. And what happened was, the people who would take' care of her financial business said she shouldn't be taking these checks. So she refused to take the checks and then she refused to sign the mailing permit. I couldn't sign the mailing permit because I was an employee of Precision Marketing and people know that and so I was in a — I didn't know what to do for this mailing. I went up to see Mr. Severson and I asked him, I said, would you mind having the client sign this mailing perm.it. And he said, you just forge his name on it. And I told him, I'm not comfortable doing that. I said, he's your friend, why don't you forge his name on it?

R Maybe I'll need a little more foundation to understand what's going on because I don't know what a mailing permit is.

C A mailing permit is what you have to give to the post office, which tells the post office the price of the mail and how many pieces are in the mail.

R Is that used in bulk mail?

C Yes, it's used in bulk mail.

R Okay. Now, how does — what was the relationship here between your tenant, MJR Services, and the client?

C What do you mean by that?

CL What was MJR's role? I mean, why is...

R This bulk mailing permit.

C Yes. MJR was using their permit because he did not want people to know that he was doing Democratic campaigns.

CL Now, when you say he, Mr. Severson?

C Mr. Severson, yes.

R I see.

CL And so he asked you to sign your name?

C He asked me to sign the client's name on the postal permit.

EL Your Honor, I'm going to object again. The last time I checked, you know, even business has available [inaudible] the United States and this MJR company, to the extent of choosing to work for Democrats, what's the relevance of this entire line of questioning?

CL The relevance is that he was asked to forge a document in which...

R Well, in terms of the objection to relevance, there's been no been timeline established and I think. I'd like to consider that on the objection...

CL And when did...

R ...so take that under advisement.

CL When did this incident occur?

C I believe it was two years ago.

R Would counsel like to — do you still have the objection?

EL I still object.

R Counsel like to argue that objection in terms of the potential remoteness of the incident?

CL Sure! I think that's certainly a consideration, however, I think in this circumstance it's certainly relevant. I don't know that things have to -- we're basically deciding the sole issue, whether there's a necessitous and compelling reason for the voluntary termination of Mr. [claimant's] employment. I think a pattern of conduct, as well as perhaps an isolated incident.,,

R Well, is there going to be any evidence of more recent incidents that offended his ethical — which I understand that's what this would go to, his ethical sense?

EL Right.

CL I don't believe that there's any more recent than this.

C No, this was the most recent one when I was asked to actually forge somebody's name on the mailing permit.

R Did you do it?

C No, I did not. What he said to me, he got angry, he said, just go sign his fucking name and get the fuck back to work. But I didn't because of the incident with the other campaign, how he left this other campaign worker on the limb
and when he confronted him...

R Well, [inaudible] but I'm not going to rule it inadmissible because of the remoteness, however, I certainly will allow only cross but opportunity to argue in closing argument as to the relevance of a two-year old incident.

CL Let me ask you, Mr. [claimant] at that point, you indicated you were somewhat offended by the request, why didn't you leave or separate your employment at that time?

C Because I needed my job and, for the most part, I enjoyed my job at that point.

Later today, I'll publish the Findings of Fact from the state's Unemployment Compesnsation Board of Review.

Northampton County's Mini-Judge Races

After spending most of the last two weeks discussing the mudslinging in the Northampton County Council races, you might think that's the only show in town. But we will decide many other races on Tuesday, including new mini-judges in Nazareth and Easton. In this post, I'll describe both races.

What is a mini-judge? I've talked about this before, but it's worth repeating. "District Justices have jurisdiction over minor criminal offenses, traffic offenses, landlord/tenant matters and other civil actions where the amount claimed does not exceed $8000.00. In misdemeanor and felony cases, District Justices have jurisdiction to issue arrest and search warrants, hold preliminary arraignments and preliminary hearings and set bail. They also have authority to perform marriages, handle protection from abuse matters and issue subpoenas. They also may impose summary punishments for criminal contempt." I have the record for most overtime parking tickets in Nazareth, so I know the office very well. Although the annual salary for this position is $74,566, most magistrates consider themselves part-time workers.

Nazareth Magisterial race: John Capobianco is a vote for common sense

Back in the primary. Falcone made the mistake of posting a comment on my blog that, among other things, attacks me. Can't fault her for that. If anything, that's probably in her favor. I am a miserable bastard. But she also said this about herself. "I graduated from Moravian College ranked 10/365 with a 3.88 GPA. ... I cannot denounce a good scholastic record. I was also ranked 5/118 at Pen Argyl High School. Academically and in legal qualifications/experience, I far surpass my opponents." Seriously, who the hell remembers how they were ranked in high school? That should set off a few bells and sirens.

Now she's telling folks she's a "current arbitration panelist issuing actual judgments in civil cases." In other words, she's already basically a judge.

In truth, every lawyer sits on three-lawyer arbitration panels from time to time. I did it, too. And contrary to what Falcone claims, they have no power to issue judgments. Their awards are meaningless in the event of an appeal. You can execute on a judgment, but can't do diddly with an arbitrators' award. After getting those high grades and twelve years of "practical legal experience," you'd think Falcone would know that little tidbit.

In sharp contrast to Falcone, John Capobianco is a graduate of the School of Common Sense. Most lawyers seem to lack that trait, but it's essential to keep the peace in a smaller court. That's why Elmo Frey was such a good magistrate. That's also true of nonlawyer John Gombosi, who kept the south side of Bethlehem from exploding for many years.

John would like to relocate the magisterial office to Nazareth's new municipal center. That will result in a public, instead of private, landlord. Concerned about the proliferation of drugs and gangs, he'd visit classrooms on a regular basis to explain the problems caused by both. He'd be a visible presence in the community. Cap tells me he will seek no other job if elected as magistrate. He won't try to supplement his income.

Easton Magisterial Race: Flip a Coin

Easton's magisterial seat consists of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side. Residents there are very lucky to have two class acts running for mini-judge - Easton council member Dan Corpora and Attorney Brian Monahan. But they're unlucky because they can only elect one.

Corpora, an affable and soft-spoken Easton leader, detested the mudslinging directed by Tom Severson at Monahan during the primary and publicly condemned it. "That type of politics is what turns voters off from the whole process." When approached by Severson, Corpora refused to hire him.

Before the primary, Corpora lacked a certification, but earned that last month. Corpora promises to bring a "common-sense" approach to the job, and that is the layman's perspective. But Monahan, instead of hauling out diplomas and class standings, quietly speaks of protecting the legal rights of everyone in the community. As a matter of full disclosure, Monahan represented me when I sued the county over its megabond. He never charged me a nickel.

I don't feel I have a right to make an endorsement in this race, except to say that I'd be happy with either candidate.

NorCo GOP Fires Monahan as Solicitor

Over the years, I've lambasted Dem party bosses in Northampton County, where some little clique always seems to be setting the rules for everyone else, and then changing them. Now it seems that the Northampton County GOP is following suit. This has been building up for some time, but let me fill you in on what I've learned in recent days.

Easton Attorney Brian Monahan has served as Solicitor to the Northampton County Republican Committee since 1988. He's worked with Chairpersons Jim Oaks, Mike Haas, Mark Hoffman, Charlie Roberts, Peg Ferraro, and Roy Shuman. He never charged for his services. He made state law in several ballot challenges. He has also been an elected Republican State Committee Member from Northampton County from 2004-2006 and 2010-present. On Friday, in a curt letter from party boss Bob Kerr, he was told his services are no longer required.

This is the latest gambit in what certainly appear to be some sort of personal quest to recreate the party in his own image.

Since taking over, he started off by alienating a core group of party workers who could also be counted on to help drive up GOP turnout. The worker bees. People like Dottie Niklos and Mary Baurket.

Then he began removing people from the Executive Committee unilaterally, in apparent violation of Committee by-laws.

He failed to disclose that he is a political consultant, which creates an inherent conflict of interest in many cases.

He invited County Council candidate Tricia Mezzacappa, who threatened to kill an elected official and has been identified in an Easton police report as a racist, to lead them all in prayer.

Now he dumps Monahan, who happens to practice law in the same building as judicial candidate Jennifer Sletvold and obviously supports her. That must bother Kerr, who is backing Tom Carroll for judge. It certainly bothers party treasurer Tony Simao, who apparently is Carroll's significant other.

Things have become so bad that monthly meetings have deteriorated into shouting matches and invitations to fist fights.

Under these circumstances, Northampton County Republicans are poised for total annihilation at the polls this November, at least in the County races.

I discovered what happened to Monahan from one of his clients. He declined comment.

Judge Franciosa Concedes "Serious Ambiguity" In Dual Office Law

According to some of you, the law is very clear. Northampton County Council Prez Ron Angle's decision to serve on Bangor's School Board violates the Home Rule Charter. The nerve of that guy, thinking he can represent the people who elect him. Never mind that Leonard Zito, before he morphed into a judge with magical powers and a black robe, concluded there is no conflict when a municipal official serves on County Council. He was only an insignificant lawyer back in those dark days, notes DA John Morganelli, himself an insignificant lawyer with his eyes on Zito's judgeship.

Ironically, there's one person who does not think the law is very clear at all. During a hearing yesterday afternoon, he complained of a "serious ambiguity" in the HRC provision that may (or may not) prohibit Council members from holding other elected offices. That person is Senior Judge Michael Franciosa, whose confusing, 21-page, opinion was the reason why everybody was in Court yesterday.

Judge Franciosa actually sided with Morganelli last Friday, and gave Angle just ten days to "cure" his violation, i.e. resign from the school board, or lose his seat on County Council. That was "very generous" of him, claimed DA Morganelli. But Brian Monahan, representing Angle, is demanding a stay, arguing that the Order is crafted in a way that renders Angle's appeal rights meaningless. He's right, too. There is simply no way that you could coax a Supreme Court Justice to hear this matter before Monday, when Franciosa's ticking time bomb explodes. They're too damn busy appearing at high school commencements this time of year, putting their robes to good use.

In fact, it is something of a miracle that Angle was able to get a hearing before Senior Judge Fanciosa as soon as yesterday. Originally, his hearing had been scheduled for Friday, just one day before he'd automatically lose his County Council seat. Angle was being boxed in.

During yesterday's hearing, Brian Monahan was allowed to introduce testimony from Council Clerk Frank Flisser and the Bulldog himself. Morganelli, who previously claimed to be interested in nothing more than upholding the law, fought vigorously against allowing Council's Clerk to make very clear that our DA has been a tad selective in his enforcement of this dual office prohibition. Flisser testified to two recent instances in which a borough Councilman and borough Mayor were allowed to serve on Council. They, like Morganelli, are Democrats. Flisser also testified that their positions on other bodies presented no conflicts.

Flissser also mentioned then Council Solicitor Leonard Zito's written opinion, determining that the dual office prohibition had no application to officials who accepted no salary. "I'd be surprised if they [the Supreme Court] considered that document as having any precedential value," huffed Franciosa to cheers from DA Morganelli. And he's right, too. That opinion has no precedential value. But then again, neither does Franciosa's. Outside of Northampton County, it's meaningless until the state Supremes sing about it themselves.

Monahan also called the Bulldog to establish that ousting Angle from Council would cause "irreparable injury." According to Angle, "The citizens of Region 4 would lose the strongest voice they ever had." Of course, Angle is boasting. But does anyone, even Angle's enemies, deny that he has been the Slate Belt's strongest voice in County government?

Angle also testified that no conflict has risen as a result of his holding a seat on Bangor's School Board, but he would recuse himself if anything like that ever cropped up. "If it happened, I would step down, even from the deliberations," he said.

Morganelli wisely declined an opportunity to cross-examine Angle. He instead argued that the citizens of Northampton County who voted for the HRC are being overlooked, but that assumes they interpret the dual office prohibiton exactly like him.

Morganelli then made an incredibly foolish and very undemocratic argument. He actually suggested that the Court direct Council that Angle's seat remain vacant until the Supreme Court rules on Angle's appeal. Yes, the same man trying to strip Angle of his office is all for denying due process to the remaining members of Council, stripping them of the right to have nine members and, best of all, disenfranchising Slate Belt voters.

Whoopee!

Without commenting on Morganelli's strained argument, Franciosa gave Angle a gift on appeal. In the judge's own words, the dual office prohibition has a "serious ambiguity," and "there's an argument that can be made the other way." Franciosa went on to state that he used canons of statutory interpretation, instead of traditional grammar, to resolve this uncertainty. Well, if that's so, he has a problem on appeal. According to those canons, ambiguities are resolved in favor of the party against whom they are being enforced. It's kinda' like baseball. The tie always goes to the runner.

Add to that canon the quaint little idea that voters, not judges or DAs, should decide elections.

My guess is that Angle gets some form of stay and that, on appeal, he wins.

Monahan did a nifty little job of making a record, drawing out Morganelli's true colors, and getting Judge Franciosa to make a statement that virtually guarantees at least one winning argument.

Update 5:15 PM: When I left the Courthouse to attend a meeting in Bethlehem at 3:20 PM, the last thing I did was check to see if Judge Franciosa had entered a ruling on Angle's stay request. Nothing had come in.

The Morning Call is now reporting that Franciosa has denied the stay and barred him from participating on Council while simultaneously claiming that the official forfeiture is stayed.

Huh? Talk about ambiguous.

Franciosa also orders County Council, which never was a part of this action, to keep the seat open, effectively abrogating the very Home Rule Charter he was asked to interpret.

Amazing.

AG Corbett Prosecutes Sleaze Consultant Severson

Earlier this week, I told you that Tom "Scissorhands" Severson, political consultant to the Joe Long Dems, would be indicted today. Scissorhands loved sending mailers that falsely depict various candidates behind bars. Now I get to do it to him! AG Tom Corbett has a detailed news release, reproduced below.

"HARRISBURG - A Northampton County political consultant has been charged today by agents of the Attorney General's Office for filing fraudulent campaign expense reports and submitting deceptive invoices to his clients.

"Attorney General Tom Corbett identified the defendant as Thomas E. Severson, 63, 901 East Walnut Ave., Pen Argyl, Northampton County. Severson is the owner of Precision Marketing Inc., 2906 William Penn Highway, Easton, Northampton County.

"Corbett said his office initiated the investigation based on a conflict of interest referral from Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli who had hired Severson as his political consultant.

John Doe Campaign Finance Report

"The Attorney General's investigation began with a probe into anonymous negative campaign mailings that were directed against Brian Monahan, a candidate for Northampton County Magisterial District Judge in the 2007 Primary Election.

"An independent expenditure report was filed in June of 2007 in Northampton County by a "John Doe." The expenditure report specified that John Doe paid $861 on May 2, 2007, to Severson's political consulting company, Precision Marketing Inc. for campaign mailings.

"Attorney General agents reviewed Severson's business and financial records and found that between May 4 and May 10, 2007, Severson paid for postage and mailed negative campaign advertisements against Monahan.

"The Monahan mailings did not contain an attribution clause, which is required by law and indicates who, or what entity, paid for the advertisement.

"The charges state that the notary public who notarized the John Doe campaign expense report told agents that Severson signed the document in her presence as John Doe.

Deceptive Campaign Companies

"The investigation also found that Severson sent deceptive invoices to some of his Democratic clients. Severson allegedly employed this tactic because he claimed that these clients did not want the name of his company Precision Marketing Inc. to appear on their campaign expense reports.

"The charges state that Severson used three different business names in the deceptive invoices: Political Strategies Inc., Santa Monica, Calif.; Printex, a Lehigh Valley printing company and MJR Services Inc., with an address in Phillipsburg, NJ.

"The investigation found that Political Strategies Inc. is essentially a front company for Precision Marketing Inc. Political Strategies Inc. has no employees, no actual building and no business is conducted in California. Checks mailed to Political Strategies Inc. in California were picked up by a Severson relative living there and mailed to Severson.

"The charges state that MJR Services Inc. is a small mail house company that rents space from Severson's company.

Deceptive Campaign Invoices

"The charges state that the campaign of Anthony Rybak, who ran for state representative for the 133rd district in 2006, hired Severson as a political consultant. Rybak's campaign allegedly was directed by Severson to make all checks out to Printex.

"Rybak's campaign filed two campaign expense reports in 2006 indicating that the campaign work, which included mailings, printed materials and phone calls for the campaign was done by Printex, when in fact it was done by Severson.

"The Northampton County Democratic Committee received invoices from Political Strategies Inc. in 2007 for phones, printing and campaign services and sent two separate payments. The Democratic Committee later filed a 2007 campaign expense report that listed Political Strategies Inc.

"The charges state that in 2003 Severson sent invoices to the campaign of Robert Donchez, who was a candidate for city council in the city of Bethlehem, from MJR Services Inc.

"The Donchez campaign received four invoices from MJR Services Inc. and one invoice from Political Strategies Inc. In 2003, Donchez' campaign filed three separate campaign expense reports listing services from Severson as either from MJR Services Inc. or Political Strategies Inc.

"The charges also state that in 2003 the Committee to Elect Judge Panella to Superior Court, received invoices from Severson for MJR Services Inc. and Political Strategies Inc. Judge Panella's campaign filed five campaign expense reports that listed the deceptive invoices from Severson.

"There is no information from the campaigns or candidates to indicate that they specifically directed Severson to send them deceptive addresses.

"Corbett explained that the underlying principle of campaign expense reports is openness and transparency and by sending his clients deceptive invoices, Severson's actions caused his involvement with their campaigns to be hidden from the public.

"Severson surrendered before Harrisburg Magisterial District Judge Marsha C. Stewart and was preliminarily arraigned and released on $100,000 recognizance bail. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Monday, May 25.

"Severson will be prosecuted in Dauphin County by Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Costanzo of the Attorney General's Public Corruption Unit.

"Severson is charged with 12 third-degree felony counts of tampering with public records or information; 12 second-degree misdemeanor counts of false swearing, 12 third-degree misdemeanor counts of false swearing, 12 second-degree misdemeanor counts of unsworn falsification to authorities and five third-degree felony counts of criminal conspiracy. He is also charged with one misdemeanor count of violation of the Election Code related to the Monahan negative campaign mailings and one misdemeanor count of violation of the Election Code related to reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons for the John Doe report.

"(A person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.)"