Justice For Sale in West Easton

On Thursday night, when Northampton County Council takes up a possible work release and treatment center for 100 inmates, we already know there will be questions about the length of the lease, as well as a controversial $150 fee to be paid to West Easton to every inmate housed there. That fee is part of an Ordinance, and Mayor Gerald Gross has told the Express Times it's the Borough's price for something that is unpopular.

But is it legal? How can West Easton charge these tenants a fee when no similar charge is imposed on others?

On top of that, is West Easton's own financial house in order? In response to a Right-to-Know-Law request filed by a local resident, the 2010 independent audit reveals that "the financial statements above do not present fairly, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the financial position of the Borough as of December 31, 2010, or changes in financial position for the year then ended."

This negative audit, prepared by CPA David Kunsman, basically takes the Borough to task for using the wrong accounting method, as opposed to more serious flaws like a deficit. In fact, the Borough could probably impose a tax moratorium for three years and not miss a beat, thanks to a very healthy sewer fund.

But why, then, does it need to impose a $150 per person fee? Is this fair to people who simply are unable to afford it? This really needs more consideration.

One Thing Worse Than Throwing Out All Pa. Appellate Judges: Retaining Them

Why the hell am I paying so much attention to judicial races, including the retention races? Two reasons. I'm trying my best to fill an information gap. Second, most judges view their retention as some form of divine right, and that has resulted in an isolated and arrogant judiciary.

PaCleanSweep has taken the easy road. At first, it recommended that voters reject every judge up for retention. It has recently given the Superior Court's Orie Melvin a reprieve from an automatic NO vote because she "has done everything in her power to personally reject the judicial swindle."

Over at Keystone Politics, my friend Blackrobe is going nuts at the prospect of a thinning of the judicial ranks. He directs our attention to an interesting column by Hank Grezlak at The Legal Intelligencer, billed as the oldest law journal in the United States. "I have only one question for the folks at PACleanSweep, who have advocated throwing out all the judges up for retention: Are you guys nuts, or just plain stupid?"

Blackrobe and Grezlak are right. As Grezlak pithily observes, "Movements that embrace absolutism are just forces of tyranny waiting to happen."

Speaking of absolutism, I've been poring over the pages of a magazine you won't find at the local newsstand. It's called The Pennsylvania Lawyer, and has a feature story entitled, "Judicial Election Preview." Don't bother looking for it because it's a total waste of time. This puff piece from the Pa Bar loves everybody. Everyone who seeks retention is entitled. All candidates are recommended.

The Supreme Court's Justice Saylor, in his judicial questionnaire, tries to explain away his $750 fine for attempting to sneak a pocket knife onto a plane after being specifically told this was impermissible. "I paid the civil penalty of $750 to conclude the matter," he huffs. He attempts to minimize conduct that probably would have resulted in more serious charges if you or I were involved.

The Superior Court's Orie Melvin attempts to minimize her five year slapsuits, carried on in two states, against some of her critics, with a mere five words. And she humbly describes herself like this. "I have served as a judge for over 20 years with distinction. . . . I have a strong record of professional excellence. My opinions reveal extensive legal knowledge in various areas of the law and I have excellent writing and decision making capabilities." Legal knowledge in various areas of the law? That's excellent writing?

Despite the judicial arrogance demonstrated in both questionnaires, syncophants at the Pa. Bar recommend their retention, and have even set up a propaganda site. But I agree with Grezlak. "Movements that embrace absolutism are just forces of tyranny waiting to happen."

Why Justice Saylor Should Not be Retained on Pa.'s Supreme Court

PACleanSweep, a reform movement that rose from the ashes of a midnight legislative and judicial payraise, is already urging "every Pennsylvanian to go to the polls on November 6 and cast a resounding NO vote in every one of these retention races." Although this is a knee jerk reaction, a judgeship has all too often been regarded as some form of divine right. Our judges are akin to the priesthood of the middle ages, a class apart, isolated and arrogant.

Don't take my word for it. Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli says much the same thing. "If anyone tries to tell you that judges are apolitical, tell them to call me. In my 26 years as a practicing lawyer, I have learned that judges are probably the most political animals in the political and legal jungle. Not all of them, of course. But many come to their positions with the same prejudices and bias that we all have from our life experience. The donning of the black robe allows them to hide behind the law while forming their own ideas of how things should be."

On November 6, we will decide whether to retain Republican Tom Saylor on Pennsylvania's Supreme Court for another ten years. He's already in trouble. According to a Daily News poll, only 18% of the voters have decided to support him. Many voters, disenchanted by our state officials, remain undecided. The purpose of this post is to provide you with facts upon which you can decide whether Saylor deserves your vote. I can't give him mine.

What is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court?

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is our state court of "last resort," consisting of seven justices who are initially elected to ten-year terms. Their annual salary is $175,236. The justice with the most seniority is chief justice, who's paid $180,336. Justices also have an unlimited expense account for judicial bottles of beaujolais. After their initial ten year term expires, judges are retained by a simple "yes" or "no" statewide vote. And so it goes until mandatory retirement at age 70. So far, only one justice has ever lost a retention election.

Voters historically pay little attention to appellate court judges, but the supreme court ultimately decides the most important questions, from how we're taxed to school funding to who dies in the death chamber. Death penalty appeals are mandatory. In most other cases, the state's high court can simply refuse to consider a case. And most appeals are rejected.

In 2006, the state's high court handed down only 258 opinions, or 43 per justice. That's under one opinion every week! And these guys have law clerks who do most of the writing.

Administratively, the supreme court is responsible for maintaining a single, integrated judicial system. It has supervisory authority over all other state courts. It currently is computerizing court records throughout the state.

Who is Tom Saylor?

Saylor, born in 1946, is a native of Somerset County. That's the rural western Pennsylvania county where hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 crashed on 9/11. No aristocrat, the young Saylor bagged groceries at the local A&P. His dad was a bookkeeper and his mom a school board secretary. After graduating from law school, Saylor worked in the DA's office and private practice until 1982.

Since 1982, Saylor has been entrenched in Harrisburg, the land of midnight payraises. He worked for the state attorney general, and then left for private practice at a capitol law firm. In 1993, he was elected to the state superior court. Just four years later, he became a supreme. At the time of his initial election, he was "not recommended" by the Pennsylvania Bar Association evaluation committee. This time around, the high priests at the PBA give him their blessing, for whatever it's worth.

Saylor has been married to the same woman for 36 years. He has two adult children, a Baltimore school teacher and an air force pilot. His financial disclosure reports reveal his only sources of income are his salary as a supreme court justice and his Fidelity investment. Like most of us, he has a mortgage.

Saylor's Mini-Scandals

Although Saylor's roots are rural, he has been a resident and "worker" bee in the land of midnight payraises since 1982. His years in Harrisburg appear to have infected him. Some of his extrajudicial antics might make you think he's actually a state rep.

Evidence of this first surfaced back in 2005, when it was revealed that Saylor was one of six justices who spent $164,000 in taxpayer money for expenses that extended from $1,766 to frame a picture to $85 for a bottle of wine. Over a six month period, Saylor billed taxpayers for 34 carwashes for his publicly supplied car. Legal Intelligencer columnist Howard Bashman never bought Cappy's feeble "high society" justification. He felt this propensity to run up the public tab, by itself, was a good reason to vote NO.

Saylor let voters down a second time in 2005, during a bizarre incident at Harrisburg International Airport. When initially searched, he was told he couldn't carry a small, Swiss-army style, knife onto the plane, but could store it with checked luggage. So what did he do? He hid the knife inside a shoe. For that little trick, he was ultimately fined $750 and named by TalkLeft as "Stupid Criminal of the Week."

Saylor's Payraise Dissent

Saylor's supporters are quick to note he is the sole justice who dissented from the judicial and legislative payraise that the boys in Harrisburg awarded to themselves. But he is the only justice facing retention this year. His vote is no surprise. During oral arguments on the case, he kept his mouth shut. His dissent is political expedience.

In five short pages, Saylor pretty much agrees completely with the 100-page Castille majority. He only dissents because, in his view, judges' pay hikes could not legally be severed from the raises lawmakers awarded to themselves.

Dave Ralis, at the time, made this comment: "[F]or that false show of dissent, Saylor's head deserves to be the first to fall from the chopping block. He was simply trying to make himself look a little better than the rest. But when you read what Saylor actually said, he managed to make himself look worse."

Saylor's Opinions Limit Privacy and Expression Rights, and Expand State Police Power

In a review of 174 opinions published online, I see no Great Dissenter, standing up against a reckless state legislature. What I see instead is a judge who has shown a tendency to limit individual rights, while expanding the state's police power. Duquesne Law Review, referred to in Saylor's own campaign site, shares this view.

Saylor penned the majority opinion that gives a constitutional kiss to the Big Brother practice of stopping motorists at highway checkpoints. In doing so, he ignored the "cold hard facts" showing these roadblocks are a colossal waste of time. In his dissent, then Justice Nigro noted "the substantial intrusion that those checkpoints impose on the lives of law-abiding motorists, who must often wait in the backlog of traffic caused by the checkpoints even before enduring the actual stop by police once they reach the checkpoint."

Saylor has accelerated Pennsylvania's slow slide into a police state, with a concurring opinion in another case involving the warrantless recording of telephone conversations. A druggie had allowed police to tape his conversations with his supplier, and the court ruled this supplier had no reasonable expectation of privacy. To three members of the court, this was a bad call. "Today the majority holds that the Pennsylvania Constitution affords no protection against the government listening to, recording and reporting the details of our private telephone conversations. By holding that we have no expectation of privacy in the confidential messages and conversations transmitted from our telephones, it has placed the freedom of every citizen into the hands of the law enforcement authorities. . . . Following the majority's analysis to its logical conclusion, there is no constitutional precept preventing the government from tapping any individuals phone line for any reason."

A final illustration of Saylor's "Big Brother Knows Best" attitude, is demonstrated by his restrictive attitude towards our most fundamental right - free speech. In Pennsylvania, more than other states, free speech has long had a special meaning. Founder William Penn had been prosecuted in England for the "crime" of preaching to an unlawful assembly. Pennsylvania courts have broadly interpreted free expression, even when it involves nude dancing. Saylor, standing alone, would give legislative bodies more latitude in regulating speech.

Saylor Has a Mixed Record on Pennsylvanians' Right to Know

On his campaign site, Saylor claims that, time and again, he has favored the right of the public and the free press to access government documents and records. In truth, he has a mixed record. He proudly points to a decision in which he ordered the public disclosure of an audiotape made played at a preliminary hearing. But he fails to tell you he refused to sanction disclosure of a telephone call made to a 911 center, reporting a local shooting. He also denied a request from two state legislators to examine an accounting report that formed the basis of a $145 million settlement in litigation against the state.

Saylor and Citizen Access

I am astonished that Saylor actually takes credit for his logically tortured dissents in Nader and Romanelli, Green party candidates who were removed from the ballot in 2006. Nader was so clear that the majority found no need for an opinion. The Commonwealth Court had already ruled that "the signature gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this Court."

Saylor's dissent was clearly a jab at the Commonwealth Court. Was Saylor really motivated by an altruistic desire to enhance third party ballot access? Or was he trying to help fellow Republican Rick Santorum, who was twenty points behind Bob Casey in the polls?

On other matters, Saylor has been downright draconian about citizen access to the courts. When a group of citizens took Delaware County to court, forcing it to adopt is first ever storm water management plan, he penned the opinion reversing a court order authorizing attorney fees. In an eminent domain case, he argued unsuccessfully against paying off a landowner's mortgage interest in condemned property.

Saylor and Medical Malpractice

Saylor proudly announces the endorsement of the Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society, who loves his stance on medical liability "reform," i. e., making it more difficult for someone to recover damages against a negligent physician. I thought it was up to the legislature to make decisions like that. Silly me.

Following the Money

As of mid June, Saylor's warchest was standing tall at $65,099.83. It will get a lot bigger as the election approaches. Most of his money comes from lawyers who practice before the court, doctors who want to put a stop to medical malpractice and the pro-growth Pa Future Fund. It's a cornucopia of special interests.

Conclusion

Although Saylor strikes me as a decent man, I believe we can do better on the state's highest court. From his disingenuous dissent in the judicial payraise to his Big Brother view of government, we will suffer the loss of more individual liberties if he remains on the bench. His long residence in Harrisburg, coupled with his willing participation in judicial excesses, reveal him as an insider. Final confirmation of his allegiance to special interests comes from his campaign treasury. I'm voting NO.