RE: Where's the Gatelli lawsuit story? May I ask a few questions? Does one have aright to address the issue of who is paying forJudy's lawsuit at a council meeting--meaning does that pertain to city business? Secondly--does she have a right to say she can't discuss it--if indeed we the taxpayers are to pay for this
Allow me to provide some opinions & answers:
1. Unfortunately Fay will ask questions whether we say no or not.
2. My guess is that since serial-plaintiff Joe Pilchesky is suing the city, Attorney Minora will most likely say that council can't address any issues related to the case.
3. Judy Gatelli will rightfully rely on the adice of council's solicitor.
4. Assuming that serial-plaintiff Pilchesky actually is suing Judy Gatelli, my hope is that the city IS PAYING for her legal bills. She is being sued, afterall, for actions carried out in her capacity as a member of council. In the absence of the city covering these kinds of expenses, any nut-bag (such as serial-plaintiff Pilchesky) could sue any elected official for any bull$hit reason. The end result of would be that only the those who have the financial means to be constantly defending themselves in court could hold elected office. Is that what we truly want?
Oh and just to be fair, if someone decides to sue Janet Evans (Why? Because she sucks....) for any one of her asinine actions as a council member, the city should cover her legal expenses as well.
-- Edited by Agamemnon at 21:32, 2007-04-10
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
I hope Gatelli gives Fay (as well as anyone else who poses the question) the silent treatment with regards to who is defending her and who is paying for it. The lawsuit does notinvolve Fay, so it is really none of her business. She is not a party in this action. It was filed by Joe Pilchesky, acting on his own behalf, not on the behalf of the taxpayers of Scranton. He is the only one listed as plantiff, and Gatelli is the only one listed as the defendant. As it involves her personally,the council presidentis under no obligation toaddress matters such as thisat a council meeting. As it involves her as a Councilwoman, since it is pending litigation,Gatelli will be advised not to comment on it publicly, andFranus isfully aware of that fact. If Fay wants answers, she cantry her luck witha RTK letter like everyone else, or she can ask Joe. Fay is simply S.O.L. if she thinks she'll get any response from Gatelli on Thursday regarding this.
Any bets on what time the attention whore will be planting herself in front of city hall this week?
Agamemnon wrote:...if someone decides to sue Janet Evans...for any one of her...actions as a council member...
Name one action she's taken as a council member. (You can't count her actions as either a potential mayoral candidate or a pimple on the ass of progress.)
You've got a point there Paul...although I suppose someone could try and sue her for not doing anything (I'm sure Pilchesky has tried that approach...).
As for Fay's campout, I say 4:00 (PM). I think it would be pretty cool if people just started randomly to throw coins at her feet as she sits there waiting.
-- Edited by Agamemnon at 06:49, 2007-04-11
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
Janet doesn't have the TIME to do anything on council - after making anonymous posts to a bull$hit message board (and disguising half of them), writing multiple speeches (her own and for others), practicing her gesticulations and voice inflections in front of the mirror for hours on end, and then ultimately postulating for the cameras each and every Thursday ... well, there just aren't enough hours in the day for her to actually DO anything ... except suck.
Dave - that Lucky Duck ... does she, you know, swallow? Would that be considered guzzling?
...and never guess who did in fact ask about paying Judy Gatelli's legal fees at the last council meeting? Why none other than Fay 'Foam@the Mouth' Franus. Almost complete proof that 'aquama' is in fact Fay.
Fay, I think you have been, as the youngsters say, "OWNED".
-- Edited by Agamemnon at 21:14, 2007-04-13
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
Your right how about the ensamble ... the whole outfit ... she probably was out there since noon sitting in the rain and cold so she could get a seat ... she's nuts ... that's the only explination I can come up with ..."Dogs Rule" -- How about that ... she sure does give a new meaning to the phrase Puppy Love ...
__________________
I want everyone to stop and think about one thing ... Joe Pilchesky is not a lawyer ... he's just a guy playing a lawyer on the internet. Please don't trust your legal needs to this man.