Of the two Gracedale initiative challenges, my challenge is weaker. Although I am very concerned about pervasive election fraud, I am asking an appellate court to overturn a judge on findings of fact.
That's rare.
But the County's challenge, relating as it does to an interpretation of the Home Rule Charter, is a pure question of law. And it appears that the Commonwealth Court has noticed. In a per curiam order today, it has listed the case for "submission on briefs before the court sitting en banc on 4/6/2011, Pittsburgh, PA."
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Monday, March 28, 2011
28 comments:
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.
Bernie, I suppose these Judges like Judge Baratta don't know what they are doing ?
ReplyDeleteBill Hansell, one of the Home Rule Charter Framers says that the question should be on the ballot and does not understand what the fuss is all about.
ReplyDeleteRead full article:
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/easton/mc-northampton-county-gracedale-refer20110325,0,7729830.story
BERNIE
ReplyDeleteI HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS
YOUR PAL
LARRY
i wonde where the missing tapes got to....
ReplyDelete... the black ops helicopter took them away. Nixon lives!
ReplyDeletevery, very, strange
ReplyDeleteturns out ron angle took contributions from eckert seamans and we're to believe nothing shady went on here.
ReplyDeleteSomeone told me that Bill Hansell helped write the constitution. Is that true?
ReplyDeleteyes..
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:42,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I completely disagree with Judge Baratta's analysis and explain why in my appeal, I never for a moment claimed he does not know what he is doing. In fact, he impressed me. And I do believe my case is the weaker of the two cases for the reasons I stated.
Bucks Barrister,
ReplyDeleteBill Hansell is NOT one of the HRC framers. He was a paid consultant. He wrote NOTHING at the time to indicate that an issue like this should be decided by the voters. But the express words of the instrument he did not write makes very clear that "the power of initiative and referendum shall not extend to the budget."
1:29,
ReplyDeleteLet's see. The HRC was drafted in '76, and that's when all those meetings were conducted. After that time, they eventually ended up in archives. When archives was torn down, they were taken to some warehouse in Allentown. We're now talking 35 years. I imagine that more than some of the tapes are missing. But I realize you folks need to make yet another insinuation of criminal behavior. I notice you won't ID yourself.
so now hansell is a liar ? comon already !
ReplyDeleteyou complain about election fraud but everything else about this case between you ,angle and eckert seamans is fraudulent.
ReplyDeleteI have not called Bill Hansell a liar and would not do that. He is a very sincere person. But contrary to the headline, he was NOT an author of the HRC. He was, in fact, a paid consultant who presented drafters with different model versions.
ReplyDeleteHis opinion about the drafters' intent would mean more to me if there was anything in those five boxes that corroborates what he is saying now. In the limited time that I spent looking thru that material, I saw nothing that sheds any light on that provision at that time.
Instead of Hansell, I'd be more interested in what the actual authors thought. I think it is most likely that this topic was never discussed.
Hansell should keep his nose out of Northampton County`s business. He has enough to worry about with a 16 per cent increase in property taxes in Lehigh County.
ReplyDeletePeople of Northampton County hold on to your wallets taxes are going to increase if Gracedale is sold or not.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely love Truth Be Told! They are dead on with all comments. Keep them coming!
ReplyDeletedj
Unsubstantiated and anonymous accusations of criminal behavior will be deleted.
ReplyDeleteHey Bucks Barrister
ReplyDeleteCould you honor us with your opinion, as to, the Hansell position as it affects the case. Would it have been helpful to have him testify? Or comment on anything else you feel is prudent in his regard. I am tired of getting quasi, slanted legal views from out host, and wish so very much for honest commentary.
Thank you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't post a comment without resorting to anonymous name calling, you will be deleted at my discretion.
ReplyDeletewill there be oral arguments?
ReplyDelete"Submission on briefs" usualy means that the party appealing will lose. Not always. Usually.
ReplyDeleteI agree. That changes in an election case, where the Court lacks the time for all the niceties. Also, this case was going to go to a panel of three judges, but now it is going to the Court en banc. That's always an indication that a court considers the issues of paramount importance.
ReplyDelete1:32, Not to my knowledge, but the en banc court may want to entertain a brief oral argument.
ReplyDeleteGood then maybe Hansell could be called to testify that you are all out of order.
ReplyDeleteThe judge must recuse himself. Semans and Eckert has a brother who is the judge.
ReplyDeleteIt is necessary to get an impartial judge.