She's also a rabid Trump supporter. On Election Eve, she plastered West Easton with Trump signs. She was even spotted using a ladder to make it difficult to remove these signs from telephone poles. In her enthusiasm for The Donald, she got carried away and began placing Trump over street signs about parking and snow emergency routes.
Since West Easton has no police force and she's the only constable in town, she no doubt thought she was home free.
Enter the Pennsylvania State Police. Though they ignore local ordinances, they do enforce the Vehicle Code, and cited her for littering on November 7.
It's no secret that I have little regard for Donald Trump. Even less for Tricia "Constable cRaZy" Mezzacappa. But this charge bothers me. She was engaged in pure political speech, on the eve of an election. So any accusation of criminal behavior, even as a summary offense, should be carefully reviewed.
Here's the statute that Mezzacappa is alleged to have violated.
"No person shall throw or deposit, upon any highway, or upon any other public or private property without the consent of the owner thereof or into or on the waters of this Commonwealth from a vehicle, any waste paper, sweepings, ashes, household waste, glass, metal, refuse or rubbish, or any dangerous or detrimental substance."If she was seen throwing tape or waste paper on the street or on someone else's property, that's littering. But it's a stretch to conclude that a Trump sign is "waste paper, sweepings, ashes, household waste, glass, metal, refuse or rubbish, or any dangerous or detrimental substance."
This is one of the charges that Cupcake Trachta brought against the execrable Sticker Gang, who decorated Nazareth with tiny "FT (Fire Trachta)" stickers two summers ago. Everyone thought it was funny but the Chief of Police. Attorneys Gary Asteak, Phil Lauer and Mark Minotti successfully argued those stickers were not waste paper or rubbish, but pure political speech. That same argument applies even more in the context of a Trump sign that was put in place the day before a presidential election.
I have not seen the citation so am unaware of the factual circumstances. But if it is purely over her ill-considered placement of Trump signs, that's free speech. I'd agree that she should not mar road signs, but the PSP charged her with littering.
Ironically, Mezzacappa was a vicious critic of the sticker gang and wanted them all beheaded. But their willingness to stand up for their rights might now benefit her because free speech is her right, too.
67 comments:
Got this anonymous comment on another thread and transported it here.
"Free speech only goes so far.
If you can't yell "Fire!" in a theatre, can you obscure traffic control signs, highway markers, and other types of signs with political posters? Trachta stickers in Nazareth were 2" round and didn't interfere with traffic.
One Constable's treasure is another man's garbage."
Agreed that she obscured some road signs and had she been charged with violating those ordinances, I think she'd be convicted. But she was charged with spreading rubbish. As much as I'd love to think so, a Trump sign is not rubbish.
Will you defend her in court if she asks you?
Maybe she will use the hot, young blonde defense and say she didn't know.
I am unable to practice law and that is just one of many reasons why I'd never represent her. But she should have learned by now that she should never represent herself. She should hire a good lawyer, and not someone who is just going to piss everyone off. This case will be heard by a magisterial district judge who will listen to a good defense argument. Of course, I don't know the facts. If there is something beyond the signs, all bets are off.
"Maybe she will use the hot, young blonde defense and say she didn't know."
She is neither young nor hot, nor is she even a blonde. But she has first amendment rights like everyone else. Had she been cited with obscuring a road sign in violation of a borough ordinance, she'd have a problem. But littering seems inappropriate.
Ironically, South Whitehall edged towrds Clinton, however, over zealous Trumpeters and Haters of the Library plasterd signs high on telephone poles too. Signs with no disclaimers no doubt. Intesting how Library Haters took issue with supporters signs that omitted disclaimers, however, the opposition signs had none either. Only in South Whitehall do they care about ambiance of a wall, but consider an edicational institution such as a public Library to be a burden.
I think the Pot just called the Kettle Copper! Yes, I know that's not how the saying goes, but we have sensitive people since Trump won so I can't use certain words anymore for fear someone will cry.
Driving through West Easton a shortcut from downtown Easton to Wilson borough, there were Trump signs all along the wire fence on the DUI centers property. Does anybody think that she had permission to post Trump signs on private property I don't think so, did she post Trump signs on other primary property, she better hope she didn't post signs on West Easton property they run a tight ship and no doubt of evidence to prove it.
The election is over Bernie. We now have a President-Elect Donald J. Trump. It's time to MoveOn.
It should also be remembered that in order to avoid a tragedy, the Clintons might want to increase their lifespan expectancy by returning the $20 million or so back to the Wahabis. Especially now that Hillary won't be able to do presidential favors for them.
Disorderly Conduct fills the legal void.
What a feel good story for a Friday morning! I almost feel like anything is possible today!
Tricia and Bernie, sitting in a tree...
K - I - S - S - I - N - G!!!!
I think you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for republishing a vile pornographic photo such as this one for about the ten millionth time. #notmyconstable
The Pro Se cougar or ridgeback road will make mince meat of these "Trumped" up charges, afterwards she will hold a press conference in the parking lot of Family Dollar from the loudspeaker newly mounted on her constabulary car. Thank you for the service Trish we all know you can make W.Easton safe again especially the threatened feral cat population.
"The election is over Bernie. We now have a President-Elect Donald J. Trump. It's time to MoveOn"
I agree completely. He is the president-elect, like him or not. This story is not about him. It's about the first amendment.
WOW.. in the Bloggosphere... must be really really quiet to even consider writing about this tramp and trump....
Bernard... pull up your sagging old man boxers and move on..... your better then this-
Bravo Bernie! You should be a judge.
Bernie,
How is it that we as the stalked and abused seem to be so kind as to stand up for the stalker or abuser? Than the broken system that have laws to pretext the stalked or abused that never seem to be implemented by local authorities?
Than the twists of there print make the matter out to be something it is not!
So holding that opinions will be a part of your blogg this weekend because the left and right still have me in pure discussed!
REpublican redd
patent pending no party affiliation of any kind
The absolute best post election analysis is Bill Burr's 11/14/16 pod cast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUrXi-WLMmc
I wish Bernie would put it on the front page. EVERYONE should listen! The best 40 minutes post election.
This woman sounds like a real wingnut.And by the way Trump signs are trash they advirtise someone who is a sexual preditor and and a big B S er who the people who voted for will find out hopefully sooner then later
Bernie, don't you think you have harassed this poor, young woman enough. Your relationship is over an it is time to move on. You have inspired some haters to follow her constantly and this is about charge., Half the politico's in the county could be cited for this kind of thing.
She has rights. It is time to put this entire rivalry to rest. Make love not war.
3:99, I don't think you read what I wrote. I am defending her free speech rights.
399, But defending never the less?
"nor is she even a blonde"
Yikes Bernie. TMI, TMI. No one wants to know how you know that.lol
I only know that bc I was told that.
Bernie
Two Saturdays now you have not allowed general comments. Is that option gone for good? Thank you.
Excuse me, but I am not running Opinions Online for one comment. That is a reader-generated feature. If I get no comments, no Opinions Online.
At the election poll she was wearing her dumb costume. She looked like Deputy Doofy.
Heard of County Sheriff was talking to her outside the building what's up with that?
I certainly don't know.
Bernie,
Just to let you know for about a week, the opinions online feature won't accept anything. Never tried calling it in, but the online version doesn't work.
I will check to see what is happening.
Yes Bernie,
I have personally tried with different gaget venues?
There is another comment while I am here, this picture being the first thing popping up when trying to see whether opinions has been published is repulsive and I am very sure turns many a stomach! Please please please shrink it or just deleteing it, would be better and opinions would be the best opption as I look forward to this as a entertainment venue for weekends.
anon 2:36, jealous while siting in your MOM'S basement?
As a constable in Northampton County, we as far as it's always been are not to be in uniform at the polls.
Fred Schoenenberger, Wilson 1
Hi Fred, I've seen them in and out of uniform, mostly out. There are two competing policies. One is the deterrence of voter intimidation. The presence off a uniformed constable might bother some, but a constable is statutorily required. So I could understand why you don't wear a uniform. The second policy is professionalizing what you do. The uniform gives that aura.
I do not believe anyone can instruct you on this matter, and it is pretty much your call.
Well the election did have consequences. So much for lets unite. Trumps first picks are all whit guys. A racist, a guy who calls Islam a cancer and not a religion and a climate denier. Of course then we have Banyan. Yeah, this is really going great. If you want to roll back the clock on science and culture.
Reminiscent of the world in the 1930's with the rise of right wing nationalism throughout the world. That ended up going real well.
On the subject of a County Sheriff visiting West Easton you might want to check with Ken Kraft.
"On the subject of a County Sheriff visiting West Easton you might want to check with Ken Kraft."
Hopefully a county council member did not interfere with a dully elected constable on election day.
If you wish to defame Ken Kraft, please identify yourself so he knows who to sue.
My bigger curiosity is, was she neutral on Election Day? Something tells me from her past actions, she was unlikely to have been un-biased that day.
As for the uniform talk on this thread. Monroe County has long encouraged us to wear uniforms. It gives as the image of authority, which you often need with difficult voters and poll watchers. Also, it allows the public to easily identify us for safety purposes. My township has the most registered voters in the county. One of those four precincts is also the single largest precinct in the county. Every four years I have insane lines, and cars parking along the street like, Woodstock '69.
I have yet to hear a single complaint (either directly to myself or the county election office) anyone was intimidated by my embroidered PSC polo shirt, ball cap, and badge on a chain (which is exactly the same uniform I wear in the field whilst serving the Judaical branch's needs).
But what do I know? I'm just a state constable who has yet to make the news for bad reasons due to my behavior. I'm a constable who treats people how he wants to be treated, if it was a reversed situation. I have an Associate in Applied Science in Criminal Justice and a Bachelor of Science (Cum Laude) in Criminal Justice Administration. And now I am going insane studying and prepping for the LSAT. So I might not know what I'm talking about--according to the cowboy types.
But I seriously digressed in self-promotion there.
The fact remains, you do have limited free speech when it relates to public safety and national security. Case law of the SCOTUS shows us this time and again. Now if on a non-Election day this constable in question wanted to burn a flag--well the late Justice Scalia would support her in that case of free speech (ie; Texas v. Johnson 1989). Yet, for nearly a century we have continued to use stare decisis from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in regard to "Yelling fire in a crowded theater". Coincidentally, that was basically a national security case as it related to opposition to the WWI draft. It would be over six decades before the draft would end. And in Schenck v. United States (1919) the Espionage Act of 1917 was up for debate.
I don't know that I would say what this misguided constable did was yelling fire in a crowded structure. Although, I would say that last I checked you can't legally post things on telephone polls. As they are not to be used for advertising as per their neutral status in our infrastructure. Technically your local grandmother posting yard sale sings on them is also a violation. Now, I don't know that these offenses are much of a criminal violation. As they are more a civil matter between the offender and the poles' owner(s). And last I checked police in PA don't get involved in civil matters.
If this constable of question ends up with Gary Asteak or Mark Minotti--those are some damn good councilors who will do amazing research for their client.
I have to chuckle when they reference covering the snow emergency route. Clearly that was not in the cards for Election Day 2016's weather. Although, as we saw this weekend in Monroe County--you can go from 62 degrees in the afternoon to a few inches of snow in just hours. And this constable in question's actions could have obstructed the snow emergency signage in the future. So I also see why a trooper would issue such a citation to document who was caught doing it and help keep someone responsible for removing them. As it is no hidden secret--electioneering folks tend to forget their signs in the days, weeks, and sometimes, years after an election. (How many years was there a single Rendell sign on route 22 in Bethlehem Township?)
So my ruling? I have none. But I do fancy seeing this case progress and what will ultimately be the ruling on the matter.
Spike, I do not believe she was neutral at the polling place. In fact, comments she placed on F/B suggests she was not. She was also armed, despite having received several warnings from the county bc she is not firearms certified. Cathy Allen apparently permitted this behavior.
You have a constable on here regularly that is always ranting about his love of Trump and conservatives and his hate of democrats and liberals. Do you want to apply the same standard to him?
If he does it at the polling place, yes. but Peter has more integrity than that, and knows better.
She has a second amendment right that you and your government insiders cannot touch. She can open carry and you can not stop her. Any American can open carry. People spoke and President elect Trump will stop butinsky like you and your insider government pals from denying people their God given rights protected and set forth in the Constitution.
She does not have a second amendment right to intimidate voters. She also has no right to wear the uniform of a constable and open carry when she is not firearms certified.
I personally asked the question was she sent a letter by the county solicitor office and the reply was yes, it states in the letter citizens in Pennsylvania enjoy the right to process and openly carry but not in a polling place on election day. See 25 P.S. 3047 it's the same ruling for police officers.
You misinterpret the law. Try reading it. Try reading one of the several stories I have written about the polling place. People do have the right to carry at the polling place, unless they are at a school or some other gun-free zone. Police officers must stay 100' away, but can be called in by elections officials if deemed necessary. Constables MUST be at the polls.they are required by law to be there. I would expect them to be in uniform and armed. Mezzacappa has two problems. First, she is not firearms certified and may not carry if she is wearing her constable costume. Second, there's a justifiable concern that she would intimidate voters, and one of her comments on Facebook indicates she was engaged in political activity.
You continue to allow your personal biases to influence your continued attacks on this woman. Everyone knows that you hate her but that doesn't change her second amendment rights. Other constables have not gone to the polls and let others go in there place as opposed to what you said. Also other constables have claimed to be armed at the polls. Frankly I don't think these pretend police should be allowed to have any weapons at a polling place.
You ignore her fundamental rights in your quest to continually harass her. It is obvious you want to see her thrown out of a duly elected position. You have some major emotional issues with this woman that are just bizarre.
First, I don't hate anyone. Second, this post defended her first amendment rights. Third, I specifically stated that, though there is no rule, I would hope that constables at polling places are uniformed and are armed. Fourth, a constable without firearms certification is not permitted to wear the uniform if he wants to open carry. You can open carry. You can wear the uniform. You can't do both. Fifth, according to Mezzacappa's own words, she engaged in political activities at the polls. That is against the law.
Constables can not take part in partisan activities while working for the courts (on duty), primary election day, and general election day. So basically 363 days a year an off duty constable can say what ever they wish.
Also, I think Pistol Pete is no longer a constable. I did not see his name on the PCCD database a few months back.
Bernie, have you brought the issue of this constable of question being armed in uniform up to Morganelli?
Just curious.
Bernie - Unfortunately the law regarding constables and being firearms certified only applies when they are doing "judicial duties" for the courts. Working the polls is not working for the courts or in any judicial capacity, also unless the constable wishes to work for the courts they do not need to be certified and can wear a gun or constable uniform...the second they have a court paper in their hand, that is a judicial duty and they need to be certified and insured by the PCCD. They (uncertified constables) can do other statutory duties without being certified, preserving the peace, working the polls and even enforcing the laws within boroughs...all without being certified one bit. I know it is confusing and needs to be fixed but that is what the law is right now.
Fred Schoenenberger
Constable, Wilson 1
Spike, No I have not. I would need much more before I complained to anyone. Fred, the question of judicial duties and wearing a uniform are different. The PCCD doesnot want you to wear a uniform and pack if you are not certified. Take that up with them.
Section 25 PS 3047 was in the letter sent by the county solicitors office, this is their statement not anybody's interpretation.
The PCCD only certifies constables to work for the courts...they do not do anything other then provide our certification..they have no say in discipline nor do they educate us in anything other then working for the courts. Therefore if a constable doesn't want to work for the courts they don't need to be involved with the PCCD and can just be an uncertified constable. They can wear a uniform and carry a firearm (exempt from all licensing under Title 18 6106), again the only requirement that certification does is allow a constable to work for the courts.
I know what 25 PS 3047 says,and it does not say what you claim. Below is a link. Read it. It applies to police officers, not constables.
Constables are statutorily required to be at the polls. That is one of their duties. Whether they should be armed or in uniform is not governed by state law.
http://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-25-ps-elections-electoral-districts/pa-st-sect-25-3047.html
Fred, We disagree.
Bernie - As a reference have you had a chance to read Act 49 of 2009?
http://www.pccd.pa.gov/training/Documents/Constable%20Education%20and%20Training/Act%2049%20of%202009,%20Title%2044%20-%20Law%20and%20Justice.pdf
Also:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.006.000..HTM
Thanks
Fred
It is obvious everyone is out to get this woman, even to the point of trying to impair her rights and elected position. She may want to consult an attorney. Bernie, your obsession with this woman is really getting creepy. Don't you think it is time to move on with your life.
Fred, yes. I have.
6:57, The whole point of this post, as I've mentioned several times, is to speak in defense of her first amendment rights. It's an important issue and really has nothing to do with her.
Agreed!
"Blogger Bernie O'Hare said...
6:57, The whole point of this post, as I've mentioned several times, is to speak in defense of her first amendment rights. It's an important issue and really has nothing to do with her.
November 20, 2016 at 8:02 PM"
The Constitution applies all of it's rights to everyone--even the most reprehensible. I don't object to her right to free speech. I just question the legality of using telephone poles and street signs.
Plus allowing the use of utility poles would open up many other cans of worms. From the fact it creates an implied endorsement from the utility pole owner(s). To becoming a greater safety issue. Let's say people move from yard signs with nails to, metal or plywood signs and bolts. How long until a pole is compromised? Or worst yet, what if the ladder should fall while posting into traffic or hit a live power line?
And what laws exist to protect the lines from using ladders around poles? Isn't power theft and those sorts of acts generated from unauthorized access to the utility poles?
So it does bring us back to public safety and privacy issues in many ways.
I see the back-and-forth about 25 PS 3047 The disagreement is not between the comments it's what the county solicitors office sent to West Easton just write a right to know and get a copy of the letter is it possible the solicitors office don't know what you're talking about.
I have no intention if interjecting myself in that matter, especially at the request of someone who does not ID himself or herself. I have not seen the letter, nor do I want to see it. Thios post is about what happened the day before. Free speech. It is not about open carry, the second Amendment or some disagreement over the authority of a constable.
The charges were withdrawn today by State Police.
Fred, That is true, and was done at the request of our DA. I will have the story on Friday.
Post a Comment