Local Government TV

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Sharpe Not Too Sharp

I know, I know. He looks like he's ready to strangle that poor woman, but don't worry. He's a Doctor. A Doctor of Law. And that's his wife, who's still alive. ... I hope.

That's Robert L. Sharpe, Jr., Esq., a Juris Doctor who supposedly graduated from Temple Law School. He drives a black Mercedes and likes to point out that I don't have much money. He's right. too. Bottom feeding is much more lucrative if you practice law.

But if he really did graduate from Temple Law, he should ask for his money back. He's just filed a ridiculous ballot challenge against Lehigh County DA Jim Martin that will certainly be bounced on Friday. Let me give you the details.

In a challenge filed Tuesday, Not-so-Sharpe is trying to knock Martin off the ballot because the Big DA asked his secretary to notarize nomination papers. Never mind that she's really a County employee and does not work for Martin. It's back to Martin Guitars for Jimbo, says Sharpe.

But this Mercedes-driving legal beagle should stick to chasing ambulances. Members of one party have no standing to challenge the nomination petitions of another party. Sharpe,who is actually a Democratic Committeeman, is challenging a Republican's nomination petition, and that's a no-no, according to our Commonwealth Court.

Judge Madeline Palladino, who hails from Lehigh County, provides this reasoning. "Pennsylvania maintains a system of strictly partisan primary elections. Our anti-party raiding legislation provides that only registered electors of a particular party may participate in that party’s candidate selection process. No cross-over voting is permitted. Only registered and enrolled members of a party may sign the nominating petitions of party candidates, and even the right to circulate a petition is strictly limited to members of that political party. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that while voting members of a particular political party do have a substantial interest in assuring Election Code compliance of the candidates in that party’s primary election, non-members, who are not eligible to participate in any manner, do not have such a substantial interest."

Game over.

What Not-so-Sharpe should be very worried about is that DA Jim Martin actually knows the law, is not pushed around too easily and has been known to bite back. Sharpe has just exposed himself to a Judicial Code sanction for vexatious conduct because his action was not brought in good faith, but to harass, the DA.

Don't get me wrong. There's probably a good hundred thousand people who hate Martin's guts.

They're behind bars.

16 comments:

  1. they are not all behind bars and they vote

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Sharpe has just exposed himself to a Judicial Code sanction for vexatious conduct because his action was not brought in good faith, but to harass, the DA."

    For real? You come to the determination that a dumb lawyer, who is filing an objection cross party, is harassing the DA?

    Dumb as he is, I don't like the idea of county employees notarizing election petitions. State senate employees are told not to do it. Why should county employees be doing it?

    Dumb lawyer or not, the use of a county employee for notary services for petitions doesn't pass the smell test.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes. I believe that Sharpe's challenge is a malicious and mean-spirited jab, not brought bc it will succeed, but bc Sharpe has much baser motives. It should be very easy to prove, too.

    Even on the merits, there is nothing illegal or even improper about a County employees signing notaries for her state employee DA on her own time. If she did so on the public dime, then yes, it would be a problem. Should the practice be stopped to prevent that possibility? Probably.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Percey made the same mistake against Marc Basist in 2009. One would think someone in the part might remember a ballot challenge from 2 years ago lodged against one of their own candidates that was disqualified before review because the opposing candidate of a different political party filed it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Harassing? One would think Martin would consider this a gift. It isn't often when your opponent who is running to be the top criminal prosecution lawyer in a county and officer of the court gives you a gift by filing something that is not in good order with the court.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If this is a reflection of the legal intelligence of Martin's opposition, it is little wonder he has been DA for 12 years and will remain in that position another 4.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see Bernie is writing to himself, again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know the guy. But he's all over second base in the photo. Either that, or it was taken at a fundraiser for La Leche. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, but at least he's still wearing a suit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Are you certain of his law credentials? He looks to be performing a breast examination.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've seen him in a courtroom and, now that you mention it, I'm not certain of his credentials at all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That dude has a death grip on his wife's left tit.

    Good for him

    ReplyDelete
  13. Better that than a death grip on Angle and Stoffa's man parts, right Bernie!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maybe not-so-Sharpe should spend a little more time gripping law books.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robert Sharp's first wife and mother of his child died of cancer. I don't think you knew that because I can't imagine trying to take the moral high ground on any issue after making a 'joke' like that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am sorry for his loss. This story posted in 2011. I do not know when the death occurred. But I would never knowingly take a swipe at someone who went through that.

    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.