The Otter Strikes Again

In his never-ending search for money and fame, Larry the Otter has filed his third claim for attorney fees in the Gracedale saga. You can read about it here and here. So far, he has not done so well. I suspect his batting average on fees is going to remain .000. But that's OK with him, because his frivolous motion has been filed to distract attention away from the real issues surrounding Gracedale.

I've never really gone into detail on this subject. Now is the time.

Otter is seizing on information Lamont McClure obtained from the County, consisting of email exchanges between me and the law firm representing the County. If the County were crooked, they certainly could make those emails disappear. But they were produced.

I. The Emails

Examination of these emails reveals that County attorneys and I discussed and exchanged cases about nonresidents who circulate initiative petitions. On the basis of a Judge VanAntwerpen ruling, I was leery about challenging circulators simply because they are nonresidents because the act of circulating a petition is "core political speech." I eventually did decide to challenge nonresidents, but only those who were being paid by the union and had a financial interest in the matter.

After weeks of research, those emails reveal that I spent the better part of a weekend writing and re-writing the complaint. As I finished a draft, I'd forward it for comment. Basically, the emails corroborate what I've been saying all along. I did the work.

If County attorneys were doing the work and I was just a spear carrier, why was I sending all those drafts?

Most of my drafts went unnoticed until Monday evening, the day before I filed.

II. The "smoking gun"

That Monday night, I received an email from County attorneys that basically edited a 12-count, 16-page complaint. In it, they provide me with about ten edits, a minor edit to a massive complaint. They also supplied me with a spreadsheet containing a partial, line-by-line, signature review. County attorneys were doing that until the County found another way to check for duplicates.

This email is the supposed "smoking gun," at least according to Larry the Otter.

I made most of the edit changes. I also included the spreadsheet in my Complaint although, to be honest, I never really pursued that Count. My focus was on the circulators. I spent two weeks in the elections office pouring over the petitions. I'd review my findings daily with Angle, and he had suggestions as a co-Objector. We found some alarming patterns that did result in getting 2,700 signatures knocked out.

III. The litigation was my own work product.

I had no idea whether the County would really challenge the signatures, and decided to do so on my own. The Complaint that was ultimately filed was my own work product. Angle and I paid the filing fee out of our own pockets. Angle drove me in an ice storm to make sure that subpoenas were properly served as far in advance of the hearing as possible.

I prepared a pre-hearing memorandum. Following the testimony, I also prepared a letter brief for Judge Baratta. Those were both my own work.

Angle and I examined the witnesses. Eckert Seamans, the law firm representing the County, was present for only the first few witnesses.

All of the work on appeal was also my own work. I continued sending copies to County attorneys so they would know what was going on. They sent me copies of their filings in their companion case, so I would know what was going on.

We were all acting towards a common end. We shared information. We kept each other posted. But their case was theirs and mine was mine.

IV. Otter Falsely Claims I Perjured Myself.

In his motion, the Otter claims that I testified under oath that Eckert Seamans had no involvement in my case. I was never even asked about them. I have never varied in my explanation. I have consistently maintained that, while I had contacts with County attorneys and shared information, I was acting independently.

V. Northampton County Spent No Money For My Litigation

Otter contends that the County spent about $10,800 for the labor involved in the spreadsheet, and therefore financed my litigation. This is inaccurate. The County was undertaking its own independent review of signatures for the Registrar until its IT department cobbled together a program that would enable her to check for duplicates. Once that was set in motion, it suspended work on the spreadsheet. So that money was not spent for my litigation, but to enable the Registrar to review the petition until a better way was found.

This partially completed spreadsheet was made available to me when the County decided to devote its legal manpower to the Home Rule Charter question. Ironically, in my own litigation, it played virtually no role at all. My case focused on the circulators.

VI. Was I Surreptitiously Representing the County?

That's what Otter claims. In his motion, he notes that even though I'm a suspended lawyer, I was placed on Stoffa's legal team, under cover, and was just pretending to represent myself.

Well, it's certainly true I am a suspended attorney. But I engaged in no unauthorized practice of law. The person I represented was me. That was made clear to Judge Baratta at the beginning of our case.

VII. Nothing in Otter's Motion Entitles Him to Attorney Fees.

Otter is entitled to attorney fees if I bring a vexatious action, i.e., one brought just to annoy him. He's entitled to attorney fees if I'm dilatory, i.e. slow to act. He's even entitled to attorney fees if I'm obdurate, i.e. stubbornly doing something after being told I can't. But nothing in the Judicial Code entitles him to attorney fees if the County improperly paid for my litigation. Nothing in the Judicial Code entitles him to attorney fees if I've engaged in the illegal practice of law.

So basically, Otter's motion is legally insufficient, on its face.

If I was secretly representing the County, or was being illegally subsidized by the County, Otter would be the least of my worries. Northampton County's DA, John Morganelli, would prosecute me. Otter has already compared this matter to Bonusgate. He demanded a criminal investigation over a month ago.

Although he wants money, is demanding injunctions out the wazoo, I find it interesting that he never presented his motion to a judge and asked for a hearing. Why not? Could it be that Otter just wants to create a cloud of suspicion until May 17, when voters decide whether the County must continue to keep paying for Gracedale? His last motion for attorney fees was rejected without a hearing. I suspect Otter's sole desire is to attack the credibility of those who think Gracedale should be sold.

Although he never presented his latest filing to a judge, he made sure it was in the hands of reporters long before I saw it. I had to read a copy that The Morning Call reporter was provided.

Incidentally, he has NEVER served Angle with a damn thing. He sends copies of a pleading to an email account that Angle has never used. Ron could not turn on a computer to save his life. Otter has been told this repeatedly.

Under Pa. law, "A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree if he vexes others with unjust and vexatious suits." It's called barratry. This is Otter's third frivolous claim for attorney fees, and it is being done solely to yank my chain.

He's not the only person who can file complaints with the DA.