PJ Koury: No Costs May Be Assessed to the Innocent

On Friday, I told you about the poor experience that a Nazareth family had in front of Magisterial District  Judge Roy Manwaring II. They had gone to Bethlehem for a night of shopping and dinner, but made a return trip to their parking meter. Ryan Woodmansee used his credit card to add time, but was rewarded with a blank screen. he had no spare change and photographed the meter. Sure enough, when he and his wife returned from dinner that night, a parking ticket awaited them. Since this was a defective meter, they were sure they could appeal the citation and win. So when they went to their hearing on Wednesday, they brought their children. They wanted to teach them that, in America, the system works. What they got instead was a Magisterial District Judge Roy A Manwaring II. They feel that he treated them like garbage

PJ Michael Koury, Jr. 

During the hearing, the Bethlehem Parking Authority conceded there had been a glitch that night. Manwaring really had no choice but to dismiss the case. But he still ordered them to pay the court costs, and before they left his little star chamber.

Now I have already told you that Manwaring had no basis for imposing costs on an innocent Defendant. True, I've lost my license to practice law, but not for being a dumb ass. But still, why should anyone much care what some bottom-feeding blogger thinks?

While I understand that my own objections mean nothing, those of the President Judge of Northampton County mean a great deal. PJ Michael Koury, Jr. has instructed Manwaring to refund the money to the Woodmansees. A copy of his directive has been sent to the Woodmansees, but they feel uncomfortable releasing it.

They might get assessed costs again.

The statute establishing constable fees provides, in pertinent part, "In all criminal cases wherein the defendant is discharged or indigent or the case is otherwise dismissed, the court shall assess to the county the fee provided in this section ... ." Thus, a magisterial district judge has no discretion to assess costs against a Defendant who has been exonerated.

This determination is consistent with United States.Supreme Court rulings, including its recent decision in Nelson v Colorado. . In Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, the US Supreme Court ruled that a Pa. statute authorizing this sanction on innocent people is unconstitutional.

Even in Roy Manwaring's courtroom.

Third Circuit Agrees NorCo Violated Due Process Rights of Ex-Solicitor

Jill Mancini

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That's pretty basic stuff. It is enshrined in our federal and state Constitution. In a precedential opinion, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals has agreed. In a ruling handed down late today, the Court ruled that the due process rights of a Democratic full-time assistant Northampton County solicitor were violated when she was fired by a newly installed Republican administration. Jill Mancini, who is now in private practice, can look forward to a $94,232 payday. In addition, Allentown Attorney Pat Reilly, who represented her, will collect at least $186,018.60 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Mancini received word that she was being let go on December 23, 2013, just two days before Christmas. Rather than tell her in person, then Solicitor Vic Scomillio dropped this bomb on Mancini from his cell phone, while he was driving.

Mancini had contended all along that hers was a career service position, and that there would need to be "just cause" for her termination. The County countered that her position was never career service because the County failed to follow its own rules in creating this job. The County also argued that, even if she was career service, it could always fire her as a result of a reorganization of the department, even a sham reorganization designed to target her.

Speaking for the Court, Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo rejected these arguments.

"This case requires us to consider whether there is an exception to the ordinary requirements of procedural due process when a government employee with a protected property interest in her job is dismissed as part of a departmental reorganization that results in the elimination of her position. We have not previously considered this so called “reorganization exception.” We hold that a reorganization exception to constitutional procedural due process cannot apply as a matter of law where, as here, there is a genuine factual dispute about whether the reorganization was pretext for an unlawful termination."

Concluding that Mancini was a career service employee, the Court held that she was entitled to a meaningful pretermination hearing.

Judge Restrepo also was also concerned that the reorganization leading to Mancini's dismissal was just a pretext to get her out of the way.

"Evidence of pretext included the following. Scomillio and [Executive John] Brown decided to reorganize the Solicitor’s Office shortly after Brown was elected County Executive in November 2013, even before he took office. Brown testified that when he asked Scomillio to consider a reorganization, Brown did not know what the budget of the Solicitor’s Office was and he did not have any personal knowledge of whether the office was running efficiently. Without any investigation, without asking Human Resources to conduct a desk audit to determine the volume of work, and without looking at solicitors offices in comparable counties, Scomillio recommended, based on his knowledge of who was on the staff of the Solicitor’s Office, that they shift the work of the full-time solicitors to part-time solicitors. Scomillio had experience with the individuals he planned to hire as part-time solicitors and he believed they would work more efficiently than the existing staff."

Solicitor Vic Scomillio would later go on to run for judge ... and lose Executive John Brown, who admitted he wanted to unload Mancini without even looking at the department budget, is currently running for state auditor general.

Do Panto Parking Police Play Favorites in Ticket Reviews?

Is Easton fixing tickets for those who might be connected to the Mayor or someone else inside City Hall?  It's a fair question. Easton decided to stop using the courts sometime in 2013 to enforce parking tickets. Mayor Sal Panto subsequently explained that he unilaterally decided to do his own collections because he got tired of sharing the revenue with the courts. But Easton never amended its parking ordinance to replace criminal sanctions with a civil process. Instead, the Panto Parking Police just go out and boot or tow a car after five tickets go unpaid. No due process. No finding of liability. As a result, every parking ticket Easton has issued since this switch has been illegal.

While the City scrambles to prepare a new ordinance to replace criminal sanctions with civil fines, Panto has assured everyone that there is a five-step appeals process for those who feel they've been ticketed unfairly. You can have the matter reviewed by the guy who gave you the ticket, his boss, or by high-ranking city officials. They hardly qualify as independent and neutral judges. Moreover, nobody seems to know that this appeals process exists This was only discovered recently, when DA John Morganelli received a ticket improperly that he deliberately ignored to see what would happen.

In order to assure everyone that they are being fair, Easton bragged that it conducted 3,534 parking hearings in 2014. But in response to a Right-to-Know, City officials were eventually forced to admit that these are only the appeals that were granted. It kept no records of any denied appeals. Were these tickets voided after an honest review, or because the person who got that ticket knew someone inside City Hall?  I filed a Right-to-Know asking for names. Strangely, the City has no records. This puzzled me because it begs the question how the city knows any appeals were successful at all, when they are unable to tell me who won.

Earlier this week, the City supplied me with an 89-page record of all tickets forgiven, indexed by license plate and make of car.  I shared that with you, and thanks to several readers, was able to convert the file provided and sort it to determine whether some people seem to be getting breaks,  I have finished my review, and I believe the answer is yes. To be very clear, the evidence shows that some people who received tickets received very favorable treatment  In one instance, it may have been a police officer.

When I see a license plate whose first three digits are EPD, I think it's very possible that the car in question is owned by an employee of the Easton Police Department (EPD). The information supplied reveals that someone with a Dodge bearing License Plate  EPD5263, managed to have five tickets voided that had been issued in April, May and September. They were all invalidated at once.

Without running the plate, something I have no legal authority to do, it is impossible for me to determine whether this is a coincidence or an Easton police officer. but it certainly looks suspicious.

This suspicion is intensified when the record reveals that a very large number of tickets were voided for a special few. Altogether, 1135 tickets were forgiven for just 395 people

One individual, driving a Ford with License Plate YMA7245, had 21 tickets invalidated. These were issued at numerous dates throughout the year and were invalidated at several of these "hearings". Who is this special person?

This person is by no means alone. Eleven people managed to get 144 violation notices forgiven.

YMA7245 - PA - 21 tickets - Ford TICKETS ISSUED AT NUMEROUS DATES THROUGHOUT YEAR AND EXCUSED ON OTHER DATES.
HWF2922 -PA - 15 tickets (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Dec)
GPG2779 - PA - 14 tickets (Feb, Mar, May, Jun, Aug, Nov.)
GSM9477 - PA - 14 tickets (Mar, May, Jun, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov)
KRATEST - MA - 13 tickets
JDT9558 - PA - 13 tickets NISSAN (tickets on different months)
JHY3815 - PA - 12 tiCkets (TICKETS IN DIFFERENT MONTHS)
JCS3073 - PA -12 tickets -  PONT (Jan, May, Aug, Nov, Dec) tickets forgiven at different times
X6113C -NJ - 11 tickets - CHEV
ZFV3935 - PA - 10 tickets -  FORD (MAY, JUN, JUL, SEPt)
VKC94B - NJ - 9 tickets  HYUN ( Mar, Apr, Jun, Oct) (all forgiven at same time)

Another two people managed to make 16 tickets go poof.

EML5528 - PA - 8 tickets - saa (April, May, Jun, Oct, Nov, Dec - tickets forgiven at different times, indicating a pattern)
HTX2821 - PA - 8 tickets 

Four people who had collected 28 violations got them excused.

HWH8934 - PA - 7 tickets- MAZDA
HTX2821 -PA - 7 tickets - FORD (TICKETS issued different dates)
VKC94B - NJ - 7 tickets
HMX2586 - PA - 7 tickets- DODGE

Five people who collected six tickets apiece got them excused.

BHN5855 - TX - 6
6BC2455 - MD - 6
DBH8946 - PA and NJ - 6
EDY9994 - PA - 6 - CADILLAC (April, Aug, Sep. Oct Nov)
JMJ3507 -PA - 6 - NISSAN (JAN, FEB, MAR)

Another 11 people managed to have 55 tickets forgiven once they hit the magic 5 number, at which cars can be booted or towed.

EPD5263 - PA - 5 - DODGE (tickets rec'd in April, May and September. All forgiven at once)
FOH5039 - OH - 5
GDS5606 - PA - 5
HTX2443 - PA - 5 - ACURA (all tickets issued same day)
HZS2373 - PA - 5 - NISSAN
JCK9959 - PA - 5 - BMW (Feb, Mar, Nov)
GPH4439 - PA - 5 - LINCOLN -
LUTES - PA - 5 (5 DIFFERENT DATES, 5 DIFFERENT REVIEWS)
JKK8457 - PA - 5 - BUICK
JLS9698 - PA - 5 - HONDA (Jun, Sep, Oct, Nov)
L82CNP - NJ - 5 - MAZDA (Feb, Jul, Sep)

Thirty people managed to get four ticket apiece forgiven.

BHN5866 - TX - 4
DCB9692 - PA - 4
DCF7247 - NJ - 4
EHK8842 - PA - 4
EKA8529 - PA - 4
FCB5068 - PA - 4
GDA1539 - PA - 4
HLF9475 - PA - 4 - VW
HLK7581 - PA - 4- BMW (Jan, Feb, May)
HFG2382 - PA - 4 - KIA
HKH1335 - PA - 4 - MITS
HST7272 - PA - 4 - HONDA
HVP6851 - PA - 4 - HONDA
HYE1025 - PA - 4 - LANDROVER
HYL7417 - PA - 4 - MITSU (March, April, October) Forgiven different dates.
JBN7699 - PA - 4 - HONDA
JFL8357 - PA - 4 - MITSU
GCF8111 - PA - 4 - NISSAN
GGY5691 - PA - 4 - SUZI
GNC4838 - PA - 4 - LANDROVER & VW
GPG2233 - PA - 4- JEEP
JCK9959 - PA - 4 - BMW
JCN8997 - PA - 4 - CHEV
JDD7178 - PA - 4 - DODGE
JDM4772 - PA - 4 - TOYOTA
JGR6653 - PA - 4 - GMC
JJC0052 - PA - 4 - CHEV
JNK8465 - PA - 4 - SUBARU (Jun, Jul)
JNP4758 - PA - 4 - JEEP (Apr, May, Sep)
JPA8606 - PA - 4 - SCION (Jun)

Seventy-eight people who had collected three tickets apiece had them voided. Another 254 people had collected two tickets each.

Is this conclusive proof that tickets were forgiven based on connections? No, but it raises some serious suspicion of ticket fixing that should be addressed.

On a lighter note, I came across some interesting license plates while researching this matter.

AAA had two tickets forgiven. 2

ATDPREZ, driving a Lincoln, had a ticket voided. I'd give him another.

Some dude in a BMW, with a LAFAYETTE license plate, had two tickets written off.

His license might say DUMMY, but this Bentley driver had a ticket expunged.

If you drive a BMW, I don't think it's a good idea to have a license plate that reads, DRSUGAR. But a Mini-Cooper that says MYZIPPY is ok. So is NANNY3X .

RUBYSRU  - Probably not a good idea to drive this in the West Ward.

SHESBAK - Depending on who this is, this could be good or bad news.

VENUS27 - in a BMW. Damn! Where's my Viagra?

UPDATE: Easton Proposes New Ticket Ordinance That Still Violates Due Process

One of the problems I had at the Panto Presser earlier this month, when Hizzoner stated that City officials have decided to go the civil route for parking violations, is his basis. I asked Bill Murphy several times to explain his authority for imposing civil liability, and Bill never answered me. It now appears that no such authority ever existed.

According to The Express Times, City Officials are proposing a new parking ordinance. Mayor Panto has minimized four pages of amendments as "minor tweaks," but they appear to be very substantive, They reveal that, under Easton's current parking ordinance, the only remedy authorized is criminal. Panto is only now converting the ordinance to a civil creature, meaning that every fine imposed and collected in 2014 was done illegally.

At the Panto presser, officials indicated they were more than willing to set up payment plans for offenders who have no means to pay outstanding "fees."

These minor tweaks make absolutely no provision under which a citizen can dispute a parking ticket.

So the ordinance, as proposed, still violates due process.

Updated 4:00 pm: Easton Unable to Say Who Won Ticket Appeals Last Year.

Last year, Easton claims to have forgiven 3,534 parking tickets. But in response to a Right-to-Know, City officials are unable to identify any of them.  Were tickets voided after an honest review, or because the person who got that ticket was connected to someone inside City Hall?  Amazingly, there are no records. This process smells very much like corruption to me.

Panto's Parking Police "Appeals" Process Raises Concerns

Easton's response to a Right-to-Know request filed with Easton officials on February 10 has presented some concerns about the possibility of favoritism in the way it handles so-called appeals of parking tickets. Easton's appeal records are virtually nonexistent. Moreover, the City  has no idea how much revenue it generated from its switch to a so-called civil process in 2014.

The revelation that the City still is unsure of its parking ticket revenue last year is contrary to what was said a news conference called earlier this month by Mayor Sal Panto, At that time, Director of Administration Glenn Steckman stated that Easton had raised about $650,000 in 2014 from its kinder, gentler switch to a civil enforcement in which people's cars are being booted and towed without due process. The City also lacks any record that can tell anyone how much revenue was raised from the practice of booting cars.

One of my numerous concerns with the City's civil appeals process for parking tickets, in which cops get to wear black robes and play judge, is the very real danger that who you know will turn out to be much more important than the facts.

Panto himself opened that door.

At his news conference, he stated he is approached frequently about tickets and went into detail about one woman going through a divorce who had her car booted in an effort to show how compassionate city officials are with people who have financial hardships. He sent her to Lt. Lohenitz, but then quickly added he has no idea what happened in her case.

Of course, that's bullshit. He would not mention her at all as an example of a kinder and gentler system without knowing what ultimately happened. And as it turns out, that woman was shown leniency after being sent over by Hizzoner.

Am I suggesting that City officials are fixing tickets? I think it's unlikely on the part of the Mayyor and high-ranking police officers, but the potential for chicanery among some existspotential for it exists.

In the City's response to my Right-to-Know, it points out that there were 3,534 hearings last year. But it provides no breakdown on how many appeals were granted and how many failed. In a clarification, the City has told me it only has a record of the appeals granted. It kept no records of any appeals that were denied.

Doesn't that strike you as odd? The whole reason I asked for a breakdown was to determine whether the process is fair. I would expect that, in most instances, the appeal would be denied. But the City has no record

I have filed a new Right-to-Know with Easton, seeking the identity of the persons who won appeals with the City in 2014. I am willing to give City officials any reasonable extension of time needed to respond. Will a large number of the exonerated tickets turn out to be connected to Panto, police, Council members and City workers?

We'll see.

Morganelli Goes Under Cover to Expose Panto Parking Police Abuse.

In an attempt to bring in every nickel he can, Easton's Sal Panto does more than impose a commuter tax. He also has parking enforcement officers scouring the streets day and night, checking those damn meters. You can shoot up the West Ward with impunity, but God help you if you park without paying for the privilege.

You'll get the boot.

Panto's Parking Police also check inspection stickers and registrations. They even enforce on Sunday. And get this. Panto has set up his own judicial system that completely removes judges and due process from the equation.

Judges? He don't need no steenkin' judges.

Instead of contesting your ticket before a District Judge, you can argue with a tow truck, a boot or some cop on the Panto payroll.

Under an Easton ordinance, Panto's Parking Police can boot or tow any car that is late in paying off a ticket. If some unlucky bastard accumulates five tickets, the zombies must immobilize his car.

After hearing horror stories from several people victimized by Panto's Parking Police, District Attorney John Morganelli decided to test what is going on himself.

On December 11, Morganelli was in downtown Easton. He tried putting change in the meter to no effect. When he returned to his car, he had a ticket. It specifically warned him that failure to pay the penalty by a date certain "will result in a citation being issued against you in accordance with the Pa. Rules of Criminal Procedure."

So far, so good.

That's due process.

"I thought they were leaves, Your Honor!"

But that's not what happened. Fast forward a few weeks later. Morganelli receives a notice telling him that, unless he pays the $30 ticket, his car could be booted or towed. He is also told it will cost $150 to remove the boot and a minimum $50 to pay the towing bill. This notice contains absolutely no information telling him how to contest a ticket that was improperly issued.

That's not due process.

It gets worse. A few weeks later, Morganelli received a FINAL NOTICE, increasing the fine to $45, and warning him again that his car could be booted or towed. Once again, he was provided with no information telling him how to contest the ticket.

Morganelli called Magisterial District Judge Daniel Corpora and learned that Easton no longer bothers to issue parking citations. Instead, the Panto Parking Police are judge, jury and executioner. Pay Panto or they boot or tow the car. This violates the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require that a citation must be issued to a person who ignores a ticket. It is mandatory, and for good reason. It gives the person who is accused an opportunity to plead Not Guilty.

It's called due process of law.

In a letter to Easton officials, Morganelli lays out his concern:

"The City of Easton's present procedure is woefully inadequate and violative of due process rights. The notice sent to citizens essentially warns them that their car will be towed or immobilized unless they pay the fine. There is absolutely no opportunity to be heard nor is any notice given to the violator that he has a right to be heard. If a car is towed or immobilized, that is a violation of due process in that it is taking of private property by the government without due process of law."

Morganelli asked Easton to tell him what steps they are taking to start following the Constitution and Rules of Criminal Procedure.  Mayor Sal Panto, who apparently thinks Easton is part of the Kingdom of Ga, smugly tells The Express Times that he unilaterally decided to stop sending cases through the court system because the City is being shortchanged.

This is absolutely outrageous. A City government does not exist to engage in shakedowns, especially against its poorest citizens. The whole point of due process is to ensure that every person, black or white, man or woman, Easton resident and commuter, has both notice and an opportunity to be heard before an independent judicial officer, not some Panto flunkie, before his property is taken away. The citizen must be informed of this right for it to mean anything. Using cops to act as hearing officers is total nonsense.

That's just nutz.

Under Panto's reasoning, he might as well start hearing murder cases, wearing the robes of the Kingdom of Ga.

You can read Morganelli's letter and supporting documents here. They demonstrate that the City misrepresents to drivers that it will issue a citation. Then Panto's Parking Police, instead of following the citation route provided for in the Rules, threatens to boot or tow cars without informing drivers they have a right to contest the matter.

This booting practice has led to civil rights lawsuits in other cities. Then the city gets the boot. In this case, due process and the rules of criminal procedure were ignored because, as Panto made clear, he got tired of sharing revenue with the courts.

"Temporary seizure or immobilization of one's vehicle for violation of parking ordinances interferes with a property interest, thus entitling one to the protections of due process," says one federal court. There must also be a fair and impartial process before depriving someone of important property rights.

For Panto, it's all about the money. While giving sweetheart deals to developer Mark Mulligan and permitting a Redevelopment employee to go into business with him, Panto sticks it to people who could easily lose their car because of the financial hardship involved

But in this country, we have a Constitution.

Updated 9:40 am: I have filed a Right-to-Know request with Easton, seeking the following records:

1. Record of all income received in 2014 from the practice of immobilizing cars for parking violations.
2. Record of all income received in 2014 from the practice of towing cars for parking violations.
3. Record of all income received in 2014 from the sale of immobilized or towed cars.
4. Record of the number of hearings conducted in 2014 for parking violations.
5. Identify all hearing officers who hear parking violation complaints and their title in the City.
6. Identify the number of successful appeals and the number of unsuccessful appeals.
7. How many vehicles were immobilized in 2014?
8. How many cars were towed in 2014?