Donovan Sign Thief Caught on Candid Camera!

Though Allentown King Edwin has nothing to fear from Independent Mayoral candidate Michael Donovan, Pawlowski Pursuivants must be nervous. On October 26, in the dead of night, Pawlowski Prius Pursuivants plucked a Donovan sign from Attorney Rick Orloski's Cedar Crest Avenue office. You can see a slender, dark-haired woman steal a Michael Donovan sign.

Anybody know who this person is?

At least they are environmentally friendly thieves.

How Would You Like $10,000?

That's how much Attorney Rick Orloski is offering for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person who twice attempted to firebomb his office on March 8 and 18. He's also taken out a full-page ad in The Express Times to publicize his reward offer.

Both The Express Times and Morning Call have stories about the attempted arsons and Orloski's offer. In the Morning Call account, Orloski states he and police have theories on who might be responsible.

So if you heard someone bragging about setting a fire to Orloski's office, please contact the South Whitehall Police at 610-398-0337.

I will not be accepting comments on this post. If you have something, call the police.

Attempted Arsons at Orloski Law Offices

Prominent civil rights attorney Rick Orloski has made the mistake of representing me. Now, there have been two recent arson attempts at his historic offices, located at 111 N Cedar Crest Boulevard.

The first incident occurred late Saturday night into early Sunday morning, March 9-10. After two failed attempts to set the building alight with what is commonly called a "booze bomb" or "Molotov cocktail", a rock was thrown through his window.

The second incident occurred late Sunday night into early Monday morning, March 16-17th. This attempt was more successful than the first, though fortunately, nobody was hurt.

Whoever did this left physical evidence behind, and the South Whitehall Township Police are building a solid circumstantial case, brick by brick.

If you have any information, however remote, about this incident, please contact Sgt. Sorrentino or Detective Creamer at the South Whitehall Police Department at 610 398-0337. The police have been intentionally sitting back on some crucial information, according to Orloski.

Here's what he has to say: "Arson is a felony, not only because of the potential for a major property loss, but it carries the risk of death to the occupants of the building as well as the first responders who arrive to fight a fire. Our fire fighters should not be risking their lives because of an arsonist. If someone has talked to you about this, or made an inappropriate joke, or even bragged to you about it, please call the South Whitehall Police Department and share that information with them. 610 398-0337. Sgt. Sorrentino or Detective Creamer. You never know how valuable such information might be in the hands of a knowledgeable police officer."

If you have something to say, don't post a comment here, but call the police. I am disabling comments on this post to prevent wild anonymous accusations.

Simmons & Orloski: Carpe Per Diems?

It's $163. It's called per diem, the amount of money a state legislator can get every day whenever the House or Senate is in session, even weekends. It's $1,100 per week on top of a $78,314.66 annual salary. In June, a statewide investigating Grand Jury recommended that the practice be eliminated, or at a minimum, reduced to actual expenses incurred.

Republican House candidate Justin Simmons and Democrat Senate candidate Rock Orloski are on the same page here. On his campaign web page, Simmons has vowed to refuse any per diem money. Orloski has made the same pledge. Here's how Orloski explains it.

"Senator Pat Browne has a secret piggy ban funded by the taxpayers: per diems. A per diem is nothing more than a back-door pay raise which State Senators can collect, upon request. A State Senator does not automatically get a per diem. The Senator must ask for it. State Senators are not a shy bunch. Between December 2007 and October 2009, State Senators made 5,560 requests for per diems, costing taxpayers $774,700.00. Senator Browne made 155 request for per diems in 2008-2009, putting $17,300.00 in his pocket on top of his salary.

"Senator Andy Dinniman (Demo - 19th district) and Senator Richard Alloway (Rep - 33rd district) have tried to end the practice. So far, their bipartisan effort has failed. Senator Browne will not support them.

"I have repeatedly asked Senator Browne to release his 2010 per diems. On February 1, 2010, the Senator's wife, Heather Browne, became a registered lobbyist with Pugliese Associates, a rich and powerful Harrisburg lobbying form with strong connections with Republican legislators, particularly former Speaker of the House John Perzel. It is no secret that registered lobbyist with Pugliese are provided expense accounts for wining and dining legislators. There are even unconfirmed reports that Pugliese provides apartments for their out-of-town lobbyists, for use while they are in Harrisburg.

"If there was ever a State Senator who did not need per diems for coming to work in Harrisburg, it is a State Senator who is married to a lobbyist with an expense account and a free apartment. Hence, it occurred to me that it was within the realm of possibility that Senator Browne ceased requesting per diems after his wife joined Pugliese Associates. I asked him anyway, half expecting the answer to be NONE. Senator Browne ignored the question. I went to the Clerk of the Senate. He gave me the answer.

"So far, in calendar year 2010, Senator Browne made 50 separate per diem requests for a total of $6,361.00 with the first "processed date" occurring eight days after Heather Browne became a registered lobbyist. January, 2010 processed requests are not included.

"Incomplete records for 2008 thru October, 2010 show that Senator Browne has received at least $23,661.00 in per diems during that period of time. (November and December 2009 and January 2010 per diems were not available).

"I am reminded by a famous observation by Gilbert Keith Chesterton about similar public officials: 'The horrible thing about all legal officials, even the best, about all judges, magistrates, barristers, detectives and policeman, is not that they are wicked (some of them are good), not that they are stupid (some of them are quite intelligent), it is simply that they have got used to it.'

"Pat Browne has been a State Legislator a long time ... really, too long. The salary. The per diems. The lobbyist salary for the wife. The business expense account for the wife. Pat Browne simply got used to it."

Senator Browne & The Lobbyist

Not long ago, I questioned whether it is appropriate for State Representative Jennifer Mann to be a "consultant" with an engineering and architectural outfit that does lots of state business. What compounds this problem is that Mann is a member of the "Stimulus Oversight Commission," and the firm for which she consults is involved in several stimulus projects. I was also concerned that a registered lobbyist, who may or may not be dating her, was seeing constituents in her Harrisburg office, a charge that Mann denies.

Isn't all this just asking for trouble?

What about an elected official who is actually married to registered lobbyist? Isn't that asking for trouble, too? Well, State Senator Pat Browne's wife, Heather, has been a registered lobbyist since February.

Ms. Browne lobbies for Alfred Benesch & Company (engineering), McKissack & McKissack (construction and design) and IIRP (rehabilitation for criminal offenders). They are all obviously interested in state business.

Isn't all this just asking for trouble?

Rick Orloski, who is running against Pat Browne, certainly thinks so. I almost wish he weren't, because his own political motivations can certainly be questioned. But he raises a very valid concern. Here's a portion of his own email to Senator Browne.

"Almost a year to the date, a major drama was playing out in the Florida Legislature. Senator Alex Diaz de la Portilla, R- Miami, was named to steer an energy and environmental committee that would address removing the ban on off shore drilling in Florida. His wife, Claudia, was hired as a paid lobbyist to get the State Legislature to remove the ban. The conflict-of-interest was obvious. The de la Portilla household was directly receiving funds from people who wanted the Legislature to vote their way on an important environmental issue. More significantly, there is the psychological solace that spouses give each other. Her success was his success, and if he could further her career by voting her way, it was a win-win for the spousal relationship. Of course, spouses are expected to be there for each other.

"On June 25, 2010, CBS News carried an expose about the family connections between members of Congress and paid lobbyists. See link below. CBS identified 19 federal lobbyist closely related to members of Congress. Considering the there are 100 Senators and 435 members of Congress, that is a surprisingly low number. It appears that most Congressional families chose to avoid this conflict-of-interest.

"As observed by watchdog Craig Holman, the reason why family members are hired as lobbyist is to give money to the Congressman or his family for influence on legislation: 'We're allowing family members of senators and congressmen to be employed at very lucrative salaries by the same corporations that have business pending before Congress,' said Holman. 'It's just an obvious conflict of interest that should not be allowed.'

"As more bluntly observed by Holman: 'They're finding ways to throw money at the feet of the members of Congress, and you do it through the family members,' Holman, the watchdog, said.

"On February 1, 2010, The Pat Browne family decided to jump feet first into this conflict-of-interest minefield.Without public acknowledgment by the Senator -- no press release, no press conference, no photo op -- Heather Browne registered as a lobbyist with the Pennsylvania Department of State. To date, Browne has not addressed how he intends to address this conflict. Silence appears to be his modus operandi.

"First and foremost, let me make this abundantly clear. Heather Browne has an absolute right under the First Amendment to work as a paid lobbyist. As a matter of constitutional law, a spouse cannot be prohibited from functioning as a paid lobbyist. She probably makes more money as a lobbyist than he does as a Senator.The same is not equally true for Senator Browne. He does not have a constitutional right to be State Senator. The first remedy is at the ballot box. The citizens of the 16th senatorial district are clearly at liberty to decide that his wife's chosen profession disqualifies him from being a State Senator.

"On the opposite side of the equation, it is patently obvious that our system would not allow a judge to participate in a case where the judge's spouse has a financial interest either as counsel or party. No one would seriously argue that a judge can put aside the obvious emotional and financial considerations of helping a spouse in litigation and be fair to both sides. In the normal course of business, a judge would recuse himself/herself, or face the sanction of losing the judicial post because the judge participated in a proceeding involving a family member.

"The simple act of recusal is not so easily applied in the Legislative forum. Bills become laws because of relationships that legislators have with each other. Even if Senator Browne took the obvious step of recusing himself from votes that benefit his wife's corporate clients, there sill is the insidious opportunity of other legislators helping Heather Browne on her projects in exchange for Senator Browne helping them on their pet projects. Nota Bene: Senator Browne has not said he will recuse himself in such obvious conflicts.

"Pat and Heather Browne have injected something new into Lehigh Valley politics, namely, the husband and wife team working in the Capitol with Pat Browne receiving public monies and Heather Browne receiving private monies to advance private agendas. Senators are supposed to serve the public good, not private agendas. Maybe the ideal solution is for Pat Browne to relinquish his public position and join his wife's lobbyist firm. That is an option that the voters will have on November 2nd to compel. For too long, Harrisburg has been an insider's game. Employing a spouse to be a lobbyist is 'throwing money at the feet' of a State Senator. Pat Browne ought to join his wife in private practice , not continue functioning as a State Senator."

Ms. Browne is associated with Pugliese Associates. In their bio, they mention many of Heather's achievements, but fail to mention that she just happens to be the wife of a state senator.

Orloski & Connolly: Two Underdogs Who Deserve a Second Look

Somebody call the exterminators!

You ever notice that when it starts raining hard, beetles and all kinds of other creepy crawlers start coming out of the pipes? Well during yesterday's downpour, Northampton Community College was infested by a plague much more serious than bedbugs.

Politicians were all over the place, and refused to leave until everyone listened to them for an hour. Bottom-feeding blogger that I am, I dropped in on them as they pontificated before a large crowd of mostly college students, with a few plants here and there.

Even Ron Shegda, aka "Jesus in Disguise," was there. When it was all over at lunchtime, I told him people were hungry and I had five loaves of bread and two fish in my car. He just scowled and walked across 3' deep puddles to his car, which ascended into the heavens.

I'm going to give you highlights from this well-run forum over the next few days. For now, I want to introduce you to two underdogs who deserve a second look. Democrat Rick Orloski is waging an uphill battle against Republican State Senator Pat Browne, while Republican Matt Connolly is hoping to upset Democrat State Senator Lisa Boscola. It's highly unlikely that either of them has a chance. But both of them gave terrific presentations, which I want to share with you.


Rick Orloski: How many of you here know people who smoke cigars? [Hands go up]. How many of you know people who chew tobacco? [Hey, that's me!]

Pennsylvania is the only state in he entire nation that doesn't tax chewing tobacco. In other words, we're subsidizing a health problem by not taxing it.

Only two states don't tax cigars, Pennsylvania and Florida. Again, we're subsidizing a health problem.

There was an opportunity to create a $100 million revenue stream by taxing chewing tobacco and cigars. Guess who led the fight in the State Senate against that? My opponent, Pat Browne. In other words, he's helping young folks smoke cigars and chew tobacco.

At a time when $100 million could have been used to create jobs by giving grants to small businesses, he decided to support a health problem, or to foster a health problem.

That's not the kind of Senator I'm gonna' be, and that's why I'm asking for your support.


Matt Connolly: I'm running for a very simle reason. I'm simply tired of complaining about things as they are; I'm tired of hearing about budgets that are late; hearing about a Governor who wants to fill a budget gap by a sales tax of "just one per cent for three years, and then we'll repeal it." We're still paying a [inaudible] Tax that was started in the Korean War, that has never been repealed.

Government has a real simple problem. They spend too much. If you look at the budget of Pennsylvania in 1980, it was $4 billion. Adjusted to today's money, that's a little more than $10 billion. The last budget passed was $28 billion. In fact, since 2002 when Ed Rendell took over, our budget has increased by forty per cent.

The problem with our $28 billion budget is that our revenues are only $25 billion.

So we should have an adjusted budget of about $10 billion when instead we have one of 28, yet our revenues are 25; it really proves we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem. And they're spending your money.

Government is not an industry. Government does not produce anything. Government simply moves things around.

I'm running because if you don't [at this point, my cell phone goes off. Sorry.] get in the process and say - wait a minute, we need to stop this, we need to end some of these programs that are so unsustainable and serve nothing. We're going to be going down that road. You look at the riots in Greece.

We have a pension problem in Pennsylvania. It was a well-intentioned pension deal. The only problem is with a fixed benefit program. In other words, they're going to get a certain amount no matter if the market says they should get it or not. In 2012, we're going to be facing a $4 billion budget hole caused by a balloon payment for that pension program.

We're already $3 billion behind now, another $4 billion, and no one wants to address that.

If you're in business like I've been - I've been in business all my life, I've been in business in the LV for over 20 years - if you don't address things that you know are coming down the road in years like the pension payment like that, you can't kick them down the road, you can't ask taxpayers to just come up with it somehow.

We need to be fiscally responsible. That's why I'm running. I hope you can support me.

Orloski Brings in the Otter

Although Bethlehem has made clear it has no intention of enforcing its zoning ordinance against a huge "Charlie Dent for Congress" sign right across the street from City Hall, South Whitehall Township has already notified state senate candidate Rick Orloski that he needs a permit ... or else.

Now the permit only costs $5, but the ordinance also bans any signs that are out there more than 30 days before the election. Orloski claims he's already received a threatening letter from a zoning officer, who doesn't seem to have noticed the Republican signs in South Whitehall.

Enter Larry Otter, who's already sued all 2500 Pennsylvania municipalities at one time or another over the First Amendment or elections law violations or sometimes, just for the hell of it. He once tried to stick the County with a $2,470.78 bill to represent then Voting Registrar Debbie DePaul, who is now a drama queen somewhere. He even included $36.83 for dinner at Uncle Wesley's.

Larry's already drafted and filed a complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, brief and I'm sure he already has a big bill for South Whitehall. That township has fancier restaurants than Easton. Larry, who really is an otter, likes fish.

Orloski & Browne: A Civil Debate About Marcellus Shale

State Senator Pat Browne and his Democratic opponent, Allentown attorney Rick Orloski, are once again waging an issues-oriented campaign, devoid of the personal insults so common everywhere else. Earlier this year, Brown actually withdrew a challenge to Orloski's nomination petition after an impassioned personal appeal from his opponent. Now these opponents are engaged in a refreshing civil discussion of Marcellus Shale, which could lead to economic prosperity or environmental disaster. I wish they could both serve.

Orloski to Browne:

Republican Senate leaders have previously committed to Governor Rendell to enact a severance tax on Marcellus Shale drillers/producers by October 1st. The deadline is fast approaching, and Republicans appear to be welshing on that commitment.

I understand that your gubernatorial candidate, Tom Corbett, has publicly committed to no tax on Marcellus Shale drillers and producers. In simple terms, he is cprepared to allow out-of-state and foreign companies to come into our state and pipe away our natural resources without any direct financial benefit to the common weal. The taxpayers of the 16th senatorial district ought to know where you stand.

There are only two real options:

1. The taxpayers ought to receive a direct financial benefit from the drilling operations in the form of a substantial "severance tax"; OR

2. The Pennsylvania Legislature will be giving big oil and natural gas industry a gift of our natural resources and allow them to extract the natural gas without any benefit to the citizens of Pennsylvania.

As you should know, no state with substantial natural gas resources just gives it away. Every major gas producing state imposes a severance tax. Governor Rendell has proposed that Pennsylvania follow the West Virginia model, namely, a 5% levy on the value of the natural gas that is sold + a surcharge of 4.7 cents for each 1000 cubic feet of gas produced. Are you prepared to support the West Virginia model for a severance tax?

Needless to say, a severance tax is only the first part of the equation. Pennsylvania needs a new regulatory structure to make sure that the gas is extracted without causing environmental damage. The first part of the equation, however, is a severance tax. I am calling upon you to join with Governor Rendell to support a substantial severance tax so that our taxpayers get tax relief from the depletion of this natural resource.

Senator Browne, where do you stand on this vital financial and environmental issue?

There is a large contingent of Republican ideologues in the State Senate who want to delay the vote with the hope that a newly elected Governor Corbett will veto the severance tax. That is contrary to the earlier commitment and is not in the best interests of the Pennsylvania taxpayers. I call upon you to stand with Governor Rendell and oppose the ideologues in the State Senate who want to give our natural resources away to the oil and natural gas industry with either no tax or a minimalist tax.

Your constituents want to know.

Richard J. Orloski

Browne to Orloski:

Rick:

Thanks for your letter. I along with the rest of the Republican leadership team in the Senate plan to keep our commitments made as part of the 2010-2011 budget negotiations. I am surprised, however, that the only direct benefit you see from the largest energy development opportunity in Pennsylvania in the last one hundred years is revenue from an excise tax. I would argue that the projected 200 thousand jobs to be created by the proper development of the Marcellus play to be a much more significant direct financial benefit to Pennsylvania than the revenue from an excise tax will ever be. Taking such a position is to argue that the only direct financial benefit received from Pennsylvania's powerful legacy of "natural resource" based industry was the checks attached to the steel and coal corporate tax returns.

While we are on commitments, both chambers had also agreed as part of the 2010-2011 budget negotiations to establish an independent fiscal office by the end of the year. Since this office will lead to a better accounting and utilization of the severance tax revenue the commonwealth will generate, I am sure you will bring your advocacy to bear for this initiative as well. All the best,

Pat

Rick Orloski & Jobs

Orloski: Marcellus Shale Could Be Boon Or Disaster

Allentown Attorney Rick Orloski is running for the state senate seat currently held by Pat Browne. He has submitted this informative primer on Marcellus Shale.

Marcellus Shale is potentially a $2 trillion (not billion, but trillion) economic boon to West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York. It has the potential to make the Mid-Atlantic region second only to Texas in supplying customers with natural gas, a clean burning fossil fuel.

It is the most under-covered political story in the Lehigh Valley both regards to its economic impact, environmental consequences and its ability to fuel the engines of state government.

What is Marcellus Shale?

The Marcellus Shale is a formation of black shale. It is located in Ohio, West Virginia, western, central and northeastern Pennsylvania. It is located underground at various depths and at different thicknesses with a 790 feet dense area located in central Pennsylvania. Non-tradition drilling cannot economically access the natural gas. The existence of natural gas has been known for years. Changes in technology has made drilling for natural gas in Marcellus Shale viable.

New Technology: Horizontal Drilling & Fracturing

A "horizontal well" starts as a traditional vertical well. After reaching the desired depth, new tools are used to curve the well so that the well goes horizontally. The horizontal drilling can proceed thousands of feet. The purpose of horizontal drilling is to create maximum contact with the gas bearing rock formations to release the maximum amount of gas. Horizontal drilling is only part of the equation. It is accompanied by "hydraulic fracturing," meaning pumping water and other chemicals into the well under high pressure to break the gas bearing formations.

Problem With Fracturing

Fracturing requires tremendous volumes of water. Current estimates are that each well may require more than one million gallons of water. Environmentalists worry that "fracturing" exhausts clean water supplies and returns polluted water at the well site. Why pollution? According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the fracturing process uses up to 80 different chemicals, including Acetic Acid, Boric Acid, Hydrochloric Acid, Titanium Oxide and Xylene to name just a few. The chemicals are added as a friction reducer and a bacteria inhibitor. The problem is that the chemicals have the potential for poisoning our underground water. The subsequent mechanism for disposing the retrieved fluids inserted into the wells creates additional environmental problems.

Severance Tax

Every state that permits natural gas extraction imposes a "severance tax' on the drillers. So far, the Pennsylvania Legislature has let the issue of an appropriate severance tax slide.

"Forced pooling"

The industry has been lobbying for a minimal severance tax. As a condition of paying a severance tax, the gas industry wants a mandate that adjacent owners who refuse to lease their land to drilling be forced to give up their gas to the drillers. "Forced pooling" creates a substantial interference in traditional notions of private property rights.

Utility Status

The drillers/producers are also lobbying to be declared utilities so they can have the right to eminent domain both for drilling purposes and for locating their pipe lines to transport the gas. Again, this concept of private companies clothed with the right of eminent domain clashes with tradition notions of private property rights.

The Jobs Benefits

The Christian Science Monitor reported that Marcellus Shale has the potential for creating 282,000 jobs between 2011 and 2020 in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York.. Potential tax fall for Mid-Atlantic area can reach $6 billion in local, state and federal taxes. The economic benefits are real. So are the prospect of an environmental catastrophe reminiscent of the Robber Barons of prior centuries. The next State Senator from the Lehigh Valley will be required to address these significant issues balancing economic benefits against environmental protection. As a State Senator, I will support extending the regulatory power of the Department of Environmental Protection to insure that our environment is not ravaged, that a "fair" severance tax be impose, that "forced pooling" be verboten and that the industry will not be clothed with the right of eminent domain.

Orloski Challenges Browne to Abolish Per Diems

Allentown attorney Rick Orloski, who has his eyes on the seat currently held by State Senator Pat Browne, has challenged the incumbent to join him in seeking to abolish per diem payments made to state legislators. Here's a copy of Orloski's open letter to Browne:

Dear Senator Browne:

On June 16, 2010, Senator Andy Dinniman (D, 19th) and Sen Richard Alloway (R, 33) have introduced legislation to eliminate per diems for State Senators. Per diems have been used as a mechanism for State Senators to increase their annual salary by asking for an unaccounted daily increase currently up to $169.00 for showing up to work.

Between December, 2007 and October, 2009, State Senators paid themselves $774,700.00 in per diems. Later figures are not currently available.. That amount involves 5,560 separate transactions.During that same time, you charged the taxpayers for 155 separate per diem transactions totaling $17,300.00. That is money you charged the Commonwealth on top of your legislator's salary.

The abolition of the per diem system is something that you and I should be able to agree upon so that it will not be an issue in the November election. I hereby request that you disclose to the taxpayers the total amount of per diems that you have received first as a member of the House of Representatives and thereafter as a State Senator. That information ought to be in the public domain. Please facilitate the disclosure.

In addition, I ask on behalf of the taxpayers of the 16th senatorial district that you join with Dinniman & Alloway in mandating the end of the per diem system in the State Senate. I have read reports that there is a handful of State Senators joining with them, but I could not find anything suggesting that you are one of them.

Finally, as a demonstration of your real commitment to saving taxpayers money, I request that you should refuse to participate in the per diem system and not take any further per diems.

If I missed your press release announcing your support for Dinniman-Alloway, my congratulations. As Senator Dinniman said: "I refused to take per diems because I thought they were wrong. I believe one way you can create change is by refusing to participate in what you feel is wrong." Stop the illegal de facto pay raises using per diems. You should not be paid extra for showing up to work.

Fighting for the taxpayers,
Richard J. Orloski
Democratic nominee, 16th senatorial district
Allentown, PA 18104

Orloski To Remain on Ballot For State Senate

Four years ago, Allentown lawyer Rick Orloski and State Senator Pat Browne squared off in the state senate race. Pat come out on top, but I was very impressed by the good will that both of them had for each other, along with their humility. They are both class acts who seemed to have a genuine regard for each other.

This year, Rick is challenging Pat again, and I was really looking forward to their dialogues. Ideologically, they are much different, but it's so refreshing to see candidates who can actually be nice to each other.

Unfortunately, a Pat Browne proxy challenged Rick's nomination petition. Had that succeeded, there would be no race at all. There would be no dialogue. Voters would be denied a choice.

On Monday, I told you about an email that Orloski had sent to Browne over the weekend, asking him to reconsider his challenge. Rick's best argument? "Elections are for voters, not judges." It was a powerful message.

I doubt I'll ever know whether Orloski's email had the same impact on Browne that it had on me. I can't really call him at his Senate office to discuss politics or the Attorney General will arrest both of us and throw away the key. But I'd like to think that Pat was moved by Rick's email. What I do know is that, late yesterday afternoon, Browne's proxies withdrew their challenge to Rick's nomination petition.

They did the right thing.

I spoke with Rick late this afternoon, and he told me it's really unfortunate to see so many nomination challenges this year. "Politicians are taking elections out of the hands of the people and putting them in the hands of judges." Judges don't like it, either. One Commonwealth Court judge, who shall remain nameless, complained "We're overwhelmed. We need to work on other cases."

Rick credited his legal team, the Allentown law firm of Crosslis & Brennan, for their work on his behalf. That firm also represented Mike Horton, the state rep candidate who was tailed by a Karen Beyer PI. Tim Brennan, one of these legal eagles, was reluctant to discuss details of either case, and instead told me he's doing a lot of Equine law these days.

Equine law? Well, his experience in these nomination challenges definitely exposed him to few horses' asses, including me.

Rick Orloski: Elections Are For Voters, Not Judges

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

Allentown lawyer Rick Orloski has waged campaigns for Congress, state Attorney General, state treasurer and state senate. Having heard him debate State Senator Pat Browne four years ago, I really have to wonder why he's never won. He is personable, downright funny and really cares about his community.

Dragged into a challenge against Pat Browne late this year, he is willing to give voters a choice, something we should have in a democracy.

Pat Browne is challenging Orloski's signatures, hoping to avoid the cost of an election this Fall. But is it really fair to leave voters with no choice at all?

Orloski copied me on an email he sent to Senator Browne this weekend, and I am sharing it with the rest of you.

Dear Pat--

Elections are for voters, not judges

As you are aware, I am the only Democrat currently on the ballot for the State Senate from the 16 district. Democracy is messy. You do not own the State Senate seat. The electorate gave it to you for four years. The four year term is almost up. Elections make you accountable to the people. The people should determine the State Senator from the 16th district by their ballot for the 2011-2014 term. It's antithetical to democracy for judges to be issuing Orders prohibiting voters from having their say. I am calling upon you to direct Donald Hunsicker [2409 S 19th St, Allentown]and Mr and Mrs. Joseph D'Annibale [202 S Jane St, Allentown] to withdraw their ballot challenges to my Nominating Petitions.

It's a matter of ethics

As I am sure you also know, it is illegal for you as a Republican to file a Nomination Challenge to a Democrat. Given that reality, the ethical question is whether or not you can do indirectly what you cannot do directly. My investigation reveals that the three Objectors are not the real party in interest in the Nomination Challenges. They simply do not have the resources to finance the exhaustive legal challenge being waged. If you cannot file a nomination challenge directly, can you do it indirectly and arrange for straw parties to do it for you? The answer seems obvious. Again, I call upon you to do the ethical thing and direct the straw parties to withdraw the Nomination challenge.

Fatal defect in your challenge

By now, I am sure you heard about the conference call with the Commonwealth Court Judge, where Attorney Tim Brennan of Croslis and Brennan was representing me. There is a major defect in the challenge. Your Objectors never served the Secretary of the Commonwealth with the challenge, creating a jurisdictional defect mandating the dismissal of the challenge. Given this jurisdictional defect, I am again asking you to do the ethical thing and direct your Objectors to withdraw the challenge.

The Merits of the Challenge

The Petition filed by your Objectors concedes that I have 829 signatures. Your Objectors attached eight exhibits as follows:

Exhibit B 30 signatures;
Exhibit C 107 signatures;
Exhibit D 66 signatures;
Exhibit F 16 signatures;
Exhibit G 30 signatures;
Exhibit H 4 signatures; and
Exhibit I 42 signatures.

TOTAL: 295.

Even assuming arguendo, that you won all of the challenges in your exhibits, I would still have 534 registered Democratic voters asking the Secretary of the Commonwealth to put me on the ballot. Is it ethical for you to ask the Court to give you a free ride in an election when you know that, under your Objector's Petition, 534 registered Democrats want me on the ballot? Again, I ask you to do the ethical thing and direct your Objectors to withdraw the challenge.

Your Exhibits B thru I are wrong... at best, only 159 bad signatures

Counsel for the Objectors and I spent six hours in the Lehigh County Election Bureau going over the Objector's Exhibits. Kindly check with him. He conceded numerous errors in the Exhibits. By my count, you have not found 295 bad signatures. At best, you have 155 and some of those are arguable. 165 MINUS 829 = 665. Is it ethical for you to ask the Court of give you a free ride in an election where 665 registered Democrats want me on the ballot?

Read Buckley vs, Valeo, 424 U.S. 1

In order to get out of the box that the Objector's Exhibits put you in, the Objectors allege certain facts to try to strike valid signatures. Fortunately for democratic theory, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Buckley that such objections are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteen Amendments.

In this country, voters, not judges, decide elections.

Time to do the right thing ... and let the voters decide

As Winston Churchill observed, democracy is messy. It's time for you to accept the fact that State Senators are elected by voters, not anointed by judges. Do the right thing. Tell your Objectors to withdraw their challenges. The lawyer failed to serve the Secretary of the Commonwealth on time. The challenge is dead. Your Petition agrees that I have 500+ signatures. The challenge is dead. The First and Fourteenth Amendments support the inclusion of candidates on the ballot. Do you really want me filing a Complaint in Federal Court to enjoin this unconstitutional challenge. Do the right thing.

Democratically yours,

Richard J. Orloski

Orloski v. Browne Redux?

Allentown attorney Rick Orloski, known for his eight unsuccessful attempts at elected office, is circulating a petition to run against State Senator Pat Browne.

Dent Demolishes Dertinger in Slatebelt Slaughter

I may be a Dem but I've got to be honest. It wasn't pretty. And it wasn't close. On Wednesday night, Congressman Charlie Dent totally destroyed challenger Charles Dertinger during a debate sponsored by the Pen Argyl Area Concerned Citizens at the Lookout Fire Hall.

Before a group of about forty slate belt residents, Dent moved smoothly from issue to issue, displaying a disarming casual manner combined with an impressing command of facts. Although Dertinger himself is no slouch, he simply was no match for Dent. Fortunately for Dertinger, this debate was not televised. I don't think a reporter was in sight. For that, Dertinger can thank his lucky stars. He should not complain too loudly about Dent skipping out on the LVLWV debate. Dertinger is AAA with potential, but Dent is definitely in the show.

It was a terrific evening for the spectators. Each candidate was permitted to make a brief opening statement. After that, a three member panel posed challenging questions, followed by inquiries from the public. After we all had our say, candidates were allowed to cross-examine each other.

There were actually three debates last night. Let me briefly describe them.

1) 15th Congressional District candidates: Charles M. Dertinger (D), Charles W. Dent (R) and Greta Browne (Green):- Dent Wins!

Although I've told you that Dent convincingly won this debate, it's not because I agree with his slightly conservative positions. He explained his negative campaign tactics by saying Dertinger had attempted to link him to convicted lobbyist Abramoff, a person Dent has never met. "One who throws stones should not live in a glass house." He also stressed that, like it or not, corruption has become an issue nationwide.

When questioned about Iraq, Dent responded there's a "right way and wrong way to leave." He opposes immediate withdrawal because that would make the world a far less secure place. Dertinger also opposes immediate withdrawal. "We can't just walk away." But Dertinger would also push hard for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Neither candidate was thrilled about impeaching Bush. Dertinger thought it was mean-spirited and Dent noted that impeaching a president in wartime would send the wrong message to our enemies. (I've got the best reason - if we impeach Bush, we get Darth Vader.)

The biggest surprise to me was Dent's enthusiasm about solving our energy crisis. He's all for using every available source of energy we've got, from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. He is a staunch advocate of hydrogen as an alternative (and cleaner burning) fuel source, and actually wants to convert I-78 into a "hydrogen highway." Is this hot air?

While Dent remained calm, Dertinger was unhinged a few times tonight. When questioned by Ron Angle about a county council vote, he lost his cool. "It's always great to have Ron ponificate on the issue of responsibility." From there, he started deteriorating further until the moderator stopped and reminded him we had all agreed to ask tough questions but remain polite. Dertinger also made the mistake of stating he had been "dragged into this race," and Dent wanted to know who "dragged you in. Sounds like you didn't want to do it. I'm here because I want to be here." At the end of the debate, Dertinger accused Dent of reading prepared answers from a script even though it was plain to all that the responses were extemporaneous. Dent just happens to know a lot, and Dertinger was grasping for straws.

2) 16th State Senatorial District candidates: Richard Orloski (D) and Pat Browne (R): - Orloski Wins!

Although they are both very cordial and unassuming, Rick Orloski was a pleasant surprise. He believes a LV medical school will bring us 450 quality jobs and improve our health care. He also proposes lobby reform, cutting the size of our legislature, and passionately defended unions when a right to work advocate, i.e. union buster, began complaining. He's an old pro at running for office. Will somebody please elect him? He laughed at himself throughout the night and was quite charming. I really regret that until last night, I never heard Orloski. He has terrific ideas and really cares about the community. Rick gets the edge on this one.

3) 18th State Senatorial District candidates: Lisa Boscola (D) and Bonnie Dodge (R): - Dodge Wins! (by default)

On Labor Day, Lisa Boscola personally committed to appear at last night's debate. But late yesterday, her office called the organizers and explained she had a scheduling conflict and would be unable to appear. This is the second debate she canceled this week. As an incumbent with tremendous name recognition and money, she apparently does not want to give her opponent, Bonnie Dodge, any visibility.

As much as I understand the political tactics, I believe Boscola's absence was insulting to the Pen Argyl Area Concerned Citizens and those of us who came to listen. She apparently will do her talking through scripted campaign ads funded by her $200 thousand warchest. This enabled Dodge to tell us, "I want to earn the seat. I don't want to buy it."

Although Bonnie Dodge is a right wing conservative, I don't doubt her sincerity and think her campaign is a breath of fresh air. Lisa is still the better candidate for someone with my views, but she disappointed tonight.

The biggest winners tonight? Us. It was a marvelous display of democracy in action, and I left the place feeling good about this country. That lasted until I got home and checked the bills.