Local Government TV

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

The Orie Story

Joan Orie Melvin, a Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge, would very much like to be one of the seven Supremes sitting on our state's highest court. So for the second time in six years, she's running for an open seat, billing herself as a "strict constructionist." Together with sister Jane, a powerful and partisan state senator, the Ories are creating a family dynasty that blurs the separation of power that should exist between the legislative and judicial branch.

Sister Jane just happens to be a member of the judiciary committee. When another powerful state senator, Joe "special election" Scarnetti guaranteed he would personally raise $1.7 million for Melvin, she became in instant hit with the millionaires' club sometimes called the Republican State Committee. As Northampton County Bulldog Ron Angle, himself a state committeeman, puts it, "If anything rings a bell with those Republicans, it's money." She was hand-picked to run by the blue bloods. They turned their noses up at the alternative, Superior Court Judge Cheryl Allen. Allen could give them a black candidate, but the state committee prefers green.

Now, sisters Joan and Jane are steamrolling their way to election this November, even getting The Teamsters to make people understand the Orie Story. Only one person stands in their way - the son of a carpet roller. He's the Lehigh Valley's very own Jack Panella, himself a Superior Court Judge. Now I could fill this blog with all kinds of nice stories about Panella, but that's not the reason for this post. I want to tell you the Orie Story. I've written about her before, when she had no opponent, recommending against her retention on the Superior Court. I don't believe she longs on the bench at all, to say nothing of the Supreme Court.

Politically Ambitious

A Pittsburgh native, Melvin first managed to get herself appointed as a judge in 1990, filling a vacancy. At that time, she had only been practicing law nine years. The following year, as an incumbent, she was elected to a full term as a common pleas judge. But she never served that term. A mere seven years later, she was on the campaign warpath again, this time winning her current seat on the superior court.

During the time she spent traipsing across the state, picking up votes, she pretty much ignored her responsibilities as a common pleas judge. An investigative report by a team of eleven reporters at the Post-Gazette, cast a very public spotlight on a very unresponsive Melvin, a person who obviously considers her personal ambition more important than her work as a judge.
Melvin thumbed her nose at a six-week trial term because a pesky little jury trial might interfere with her quest to become an appellate judge. Her courtroom was "virtually shut down . . . for several weeks" while she "spent numerous weekdays out of town campaigning."

After stewing for a few years on this intermediate court, she decided to take a stab for a seat with the supremes in 2003. She and Democrat Max Baer engaged in a money war, spending an obscene $3.34 million over one seat on the state high court. This exceeds the total amount spent in all judicial races during the previous two years. Forty-three per cent of this money came from lawyers, a drastic increase from the ten percent total in the 2001 race.

Although the Code of Judicial Conduct clearly permits judicial candidates to speak out on issues, Melvin still refused to do so. Max Baer, who eventually beat her, said this during a televised debate. "I think you have a right to know what I feel, what I believe in, who I am." And he chastised Melvin for hiding her personal views during a televised debate with him, but expressing her views on tort reform and abortion in comments to Melvin-friendly audiences.

As I've mentioned, Melvin and her state senate sister, Jane Orie, are trying to create some sort of family dynasty. According to The Insider, these two sisters have a "well-known long-standing political feud" with fellow Republican Melissa Hart. "If Hart came out for light, the Ories would back dark."

Judges like Melvin prove Norco DA John Morganelli's point - "judges are probably the most political animals in the political and legal jungle."

Thin-Skinned

In addition to being a political animal, Melvin is fairly thin-skinned. She proved that through five years of quixotic litigation in two separate states over anonymous comments posted on a Pittsburgh-based political gossip site. An anonymous Allegheny County employee called "Grant Street 99" had criticized her "misconduct" in asking Governor Ridge to appoint someone she knew to a judgeship. I'm not sure how that even constitutes defamation, but I guess it must be per se defamation to criticize a superior court judge.

First, she sued in Virginia, trying to learn the identity of the anonymous cretin who had sullied her sparkling reputation. She got nowhere.

She had a little more success on her home field when she filed a second lawsuit in Allegheny County. But America Online branded Melvin's attempt at intimidation "an illegitimate use of the courts to silence and retaliate against speakers." And Witold Walczak, Executive Director of the Pittsburgh ACLU, noted the important role of anonymous speech in a democracy. "Not only did The Federalist Papers and Thomas Paine's Common Sense, both printed pseudonymously, change the course of American history, but evidence today suggests that anonymous Internet speech played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union."

The state supreme court eventually agreed, and ruled Melvin had to prove financial loss before demanding the identity of her critic. "[G]enerally, the constitutional right to anonymous free speech is deeply rooted in public policy that goes beyond this particular litigation, and ... it falls within the class of rights that are too important to be denied review."

Thankfully, Melvin abandoned her legal bullying. Never admitting she had been wrong, her attorney claimed it would have taken too many years.

Incidentally, the anonymous critic lost his county job and an unlawful termination lawsuit.

Melvin Practices Government by Litigation

Now with her defamation suit out of the way, Melvin took politics by litigation to a new level by suing to demand that the state pay her less money. She lost that suit, too. Here's what one of those dastardly anonymous cyber-critics said. "[F]or a sitting judge to seek a court order barring the payment to her of a pay raise--a raise the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had already ruled could not constitutionally be repealed--is an abuse of the very judicial system she purportedly represents. I will certainly vote 'no' on her retention."

Gee, I hope she doesn't sue me.

Her Mean-Spirited Record From the Bench

Two years ago, Melvin had 139 written opinions online, 31 of which are concurring or dissenting opinions. These opinions, quite frankly, reveal a mean-spirited person who should not be sitting in judgment of anyone. In her little world, even juvenile adjudications would count as criminal convictions under the "three strikes" act. The fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure would be meaningless. An insurance company contractually required to pay for a building in disrepair would not be required to do so unless that building collapsed. A father who disciplines his daughter would be subjected to a PFA order. On appeal, she would make her own credibility determinations on witnesses she never saw or heard, forbidden territory for an appellate judge.

Conclusion

Melvin might be a gifted politician, but she's not a gifted judge. Her attempt at legal intimidation could be expected from a major corporation, but a slapsuit from a sitting judge is bizarre. And her second suit over the payraise is pure grandstanding. Her contrarian opinions reveal an utter lack of compassion. I'll have more about her campaign, hopefully later this week, assuming she does not have me arrested.

20 comments:

  1. Thank you for telling us the whole truth! Power misused is tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, when a GOP judicial candidate goes after whoever posted gossipy blog comments she didn't like, then she is thin-skinned. Hmmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You dis-serve Gentleman Jack Panella by going negative. Jack's always been better than this. I hope he's not encouraging of, or involved in, any of this. I'm an R who's always liked and voted for Jack. Mud slinging always brings both sides down. Leave it to Bernie to cast any negativity on Jack. Again, you dis-serve Jack Panella. He can get elected without you or this crap.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "when a GOP judicial candidate goes after whoever posted gossipy blog comments she didn't like, then she is thin-skinned"

    Absolutely. Now if she had been called "crooked and incompetent" or if someone had accused her of fixing cases, she could do something.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 7:11, Joan Orie Melvin does not belong on the bench at all. I've felt that way for the past two years, long before she was running against Jack Panella. When she had no opponent at all and was just seeking retention, I advocated against it for many of the reasons expressed here.

    This has nothing to do w/ panella.

    There is nothing wriong with being negative so long as the attack is not personal. There is nothing personal. I have linked to my assertions, especially since this involves an appellate judge who likes to go after bloggers.

    She is a bad judge. Your party could have done much better. Bet you just love that Teamsters endorsement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Again, negativity bolstered by negativity is very un-Panella. I don't like the Teamsters endorsement, but I'm unfazed by your shot as I've already made clear my open mind and willingness to vote for a D who's never stooped to this level.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When someone is running for the state's highest court, and has the record that Melvin has, I will make it very clear. I came up with most of this two years ago, when Panellla was not even in the picture. This is my own take on her. It is negative, and it is the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BOOO JOAN YEY JACK! I am voting for our own Jack Panella with or without Bernie's post here. Just gives me more fodder when talking to friends.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anybody who knows the Ories knows they are a vicious bunch whose primary goal is to further themselves, no matter what the consequences. This is a well-researched essay that confirms that point.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for the info. It is always nice to see investigative journalism done. I was always for Jack and heard word of how Joan is and like to see that somebody puts the truth down. After reading everyone should, Vote Panella.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's not negative if it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Actually, it is still negative. But it is impossible to point out what is wrong wwith a candidate w/o being negative. I will get negative about bad candidates, but avoid the personal attacks. I have attacked Melvin for what appears on the record. In my opinion, she should not even be a judge, let alone someone making life and death decision on the state's highest court.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is exactly why judges should not be elected officials but appointed officials instead. She is certainly not the only judge who has used the system for her benefit nor is she the only political judge either. This happens at all levels, including here in Northampton County.

    We need a system where those who judge are appointed at least partially based on objective criteria. If it means having to amend the State Constitution let's do it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon 127, I'd think appointing judges would be even worse than what we have now.

    I can't think of any political appointment process that is not rife with abuse, politics, "litmus tests," etc. Appointments would also remove the voting public from the process of selecting judges - something I am really loathe to do. Yeah I know we'd be electing the appointers, and we could vot them out, yada yada. It's still removed.

    Regarding judicial conduct (both on and off the bench), enforce the existing laws regarding abuse of office. Strengthen them if necessary. But keep the people in charge of who serves.

    The Banker

    ReplyDelete
  15. Meet the lady, like her and intend to vote for her. As to Jack, well my expeirence with him is not good. When the guy is more concerned with the paint of his courtroom then with the trial, let's just say that Jack is pretty much a jerk

    ReplyDelete
  16. You may like her philosophy, but befiore I can gret into that, I have to decide whether someone has the requisite judicial temperament. She does not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shame on you Ohare for infering her family is immoral or unethical. You of all people should be sensitive to this type of snarky smear.

    You are the greatest hypocrite, next to Angle, in the Lehigh Valley.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Didn't infer a thing. I flatly declared that the two sisters are hell bent on creating a family dynasty.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am voting for Panella. He is the best man for the job!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I will vote for Joan. If an alcoholic, disbarred attorney hates her she must be good for the Judicial system.

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.