I've read where serial-plaintiff Joe Pilchesky has most of his assets in his wife's name, due to (I believe) an outstanding judgement related to another matter. That probably means that it's not possible to get any money out of him, but damn, who needs money when he could be forced to under go an mental health evaluation????
Very sweet indeed.
Thanks for posting IHave...; I was just finished writing out bills and needed something to cheer me up.
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
It is my opinion only but this is probably the end of Joe Pilchesky as we have come to know him. Should he be evaluated ... you bet ya he should be.
And if I were Judy I would counter sue and I would sue not only Joe but his wife also because she clearly is someone with great influence at the DD site ... she has the power to edit he has not given anyone else that power ... so she is very influential ... this should prove very interesting!
__________________
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.
They are the only two to actually use their names. Too bad we can't pin Les, Janet, Jim and Fay too.
After all is said and done, wouldn't it be a hoot if Miss Clairol was found out and exposed. I have gone back and re-read many of her posts. It is amazing to me as I read these comments in the same way she would say them from her council seat. Some of the language and insinuation is quite contrary to the "I'm-all-sugar-and-spice" council persona.
Two-faced bitch. A four page suck-fest isn't quite enough.
Just watching how Joe and his crew get all bent out of shape over it makes it worth the buck and a half. For a publication that, in their eyes, isn't worth the paper it's printed on, they sure are torqued up over it. I was especially fond of the fact that Stacy Brown threw Joe the proverbial finger by getting a legal opinion from a judge outside of Lackawanna County, a law professor from a non Jesuit university, and a First Amendment lawyer from Philly.
Naturally, on DD, these three people are quacks because their extremely educated opinions differ from those of our local jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. Wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if it were any other way, though, would it.
None shall pass, eh, Joe? You're not invincible, you're just a looney.
We all have been saying since the day that we started PD that we felt he should be evaluated ... I know exactly what they will find him to be Narsassistic ... possibly bi-polar ...
You Paul are so right ... I also think the best thing Stacy did was to go outside of Scranton and Lackawanna County ... Stacy was smarter than Joe this time ... I do have to say this though ... I thought that they were taking this pretty well across the hall ... at least the last that I checked on it ... I had to go out last night so I couldn't be online ... so I don't know if things have changed but to me they seemed pretty calm.
I have to say to GirlThursday ... You can tell everyone how you feel Janet Sucks anywhere you want ... although the more you say it in Paul's thread the bigger it will grow ...
__________________
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.
Ok so I'm reading across the hall ... Joe Pilchesky ... the courtroom expert wants to know why Judge Harhut would have anything to say about his impending lawsuit against Judy Gatelli ... he's kidding right?
Joe Pilchesky writes:
1. Why is Harhut commenting on anything regarding this lawsuit? He's a family court judge and I've never had a lawsuit heard by him. Judge Mazzoni on the other hand would have been a great source for comment because he's heard several, and the Times knows it, so I'm assuming they couldn't get a comment out of him, or they didn't try. I wonder why not. Judge Minora has two of my lawsuits in his files right now. The Times knows that, too, but no comment from Judge Minora, and we all know he's not at all bashful. I wonder why not. They couldn't get anyone to make a comment on this lawsuit, except Judge Harhut. Is that it? What a coincidence it seems that it is ONLY Judge Harhut who is so offended by this lawsuit. Offended himself, or for somone else? Did he happen to offer these comments? C'mon Stacy, come clean. Who called whom? Why would Harhut even comment on a lawsuit he knows nothing about, and no answer has been filed to it? What if Gatelli admits to everything? I mean, we don't know until she answers, do we? So, Harhut doesn't know what is true and what is not. Does he? It wouldn't be because his little poopsie-whoopsie Mr. Mellow was referred to as gay in the lawsuit, would it? Why didn't Harhut come right out and say, "Leave my loverboy Bobby alone"? You know what makes me sick, people that hide. I'm a thief. I've been a thief all of my life. I will be until the day I die. But, if you're god damned gay, say so. It's not the end of the world for Christ's sake. So you like to polish the knob, so what. They make it a big deal by hiding it. It's not an insult to be called gay these days. You get credit for admitting it. You also get invited to neat things like Tupperware parties, fashion shows and Doherty rallies
Joe you do know ... (even I who have never filed a lawsuit ... or been the defendant (to date) in one) That Chester Harhut is the President Judge ... right ... I know you know this ... he's the guy that will assign your case to a judge ... after all of the lawsuits you have filed ...this is something you should know!
2. Why bring in these out-of-town law professors? We have law professors here who can lie and spin with the same passion as the out-of-towners, or did they refuse to do so? Joe they didn't refuse ... Stacy went out of the area so you couldn't claim that the law professor was biased against you ... imagine if they used one from the University of Scranton ... You would be screaming from the rooftops that they hate you and what else would we expect them to say!
3. As Stacy quoted Judge Nealon,rules 1028 and 1029 allow for sancations. Get it right Stacy, Nealon is a good judge and he knows that 1028 relates to preliminary objections and 1029 relates to the effect of denials in pleadings. It's rule 1023 that you're looking for. Geeez. I will have to start looking these up ... because Joe could be right on this one ... but I seriously doubt that Stacy would quote a Judge and then get it all wrong ... Come on Joe ... are we to believe you ... what ... because you say! We will have to look this one up when there is some time ...
4. No judge has the authority to order a plaintiff to go for mental evaluation, not even a morally bankrupt crony judge who needs it himself, like Harhut. Here, I'll openly challenged Harhut to cite one reason why this complaint will be tossed and I'll put my money where my big mouth is. I'll put up $10,000.00 to Harhut's $500.00 that this suit will prevail. It goes without saying one of the locals will likely toss it, and maybe not, but if an appellate court doesn't reverse it, he can have the 10K. Name the bank and set up the escrow tomorrow and I'll make an electronic transfer as soon as I see Harhuts 5 beans in there. And keep in mind that a libel suit is one of the easier lawsuits to get into the system where there has been printed words and words spoken by the TV and Radio media. They're usually a slam dunk. I'm ready when he is Now maybe I have watched toooooo much Law and Order ... but I am pretty sure that a Judge can compell a plaintiff or defendant to be found competent or incompetent ... so unless that's something that can only happen on TV ... well you are wrong Joey ...
5. To reiterate, I will not seek a change of venue. I'd only miss the Lackawanna County Courthouse and its many ethical assets. Judge Harhut did make me realize I should be throwing judicial right crosses instead of jabs. I'll change that forthwith. This in my opinion is just a small bit of proof that you are crazy ... you want the judge to have you examined ... it is like you are taunting him ... you go for it ... I would love to see the results of that printed in the TT ... or as you all across the hall lovingly refer to it in the "fishwrap"
__________________
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.
::: We all have been saying since the day that we started PD that we felt he should be evaluated ... I know exactly what they will find him to be Narsassistic ... possibly bi-polar ... :::
They'll find a hamster running rampant on a plastic wheel
Can we all chip in for a piece of that wager action, or is that just for Harhut? Like Kevin from the office says, "When someone offers you 10,000-1 odds on ANYTHING, you take it! If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I'm going to be a very, very rich man."
Naturally, a judge cannot publicly wager on a case the way the old man wants him to, and Joe knows it. His offer is just another case of empty bravado and posturing. No substance to it at all. Beer muscles. I bet it got Janet a case of the vapors, though, didn't it, Joey-boy?
(Art assumes the role of dd.com conspiracy theorist)
I say Janet only began supporting the downtown med school BECAUSE of Pilchesky's Suicide by Harhut lawsuit. She needed to look good on one issue. (And of course - Joe is opposed to the med school)
Pilchesky fancies himself a 'Rough Hero' fighting the system, but instead, he's a bitter old man playing a game of legal Russian Roulette with the court system. Every time he makes one of his 'Outlandish by Design' statements, another bullet is added to the cylinder...at some point there will no longer be any odds against it all blowing up in his face, as he will have stacked the deck against himself. In some bizarre way, I think that's really what he wants...he wants to go down in a blaze of glory.
Note: I struggled about whether or not to make the Russian Roulette comment, given today's gun violence at Virginia Tech; so I apologize if anyone finds my comment inappropriate. As a metaphor, I think 'Russian Roulette' really does best fit the situation.
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
Ag I do not think that your comment will offend anyone here ... if it happens to offend any readers stopping by from across the hall ... well who cares ... they offend me on a daily basis so I cannot care if they are offended by one post!
You would never intentionally offend anyone! You have not offended me or Girl so ... carry on!
__________________
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.
RE: DOherty to Joe: Bring it on! Evie Fan wrote:I wish the best to Joe, but when's the last time one of Joe's suits won? I appreciate the effort, but let's not make this out to be Watergate. I thought Joe over extended himself on this one by assuming the wild west mentality of "Resign or else." I hope his case is as strong as he has all led us to believe.You have to relate to the word "won". It means something different for each and every litigant. Some litigants just want the war, the expense. Some want the money. Others want the testimony that comes out. Still, others want the justice of proving they were right all along. I can't elaborate as to my motivations under the circumstances, but keep that in mind. The cases I have against the city, the governor and other political agents or agencies, were actions in the nature of declaratory judgment. That means they don't seek money damages. They seek a change in policy or the reversal of a government decision. I make nothing on them. They are money funnels, pure and simple, as well as time consumers. They take time to fight, sometimes several years.
The mentality behind offering that if Gatelli resigned, I wouldn't sue her, was far from Wild West mentality. It was more out of concern for her health, physical and emotional. She's a tired warrior in my view. I'd have preferred that she retired from the pressure. What she's about to go through will be a very heavy burden and I still fear that she may not be able to handle it. However, I have no further control over it. It's not just the weight of her own liabilities involved, but this lawsuit will expose many other corrupt players in the area. As each one of them takes the hit, it'll be laid directly on Gatelli's shoulders because had she resigned, none of it would be happening. Watergate took a president down, but what was far more of a story was how he was taken down - by one man, knicknamed Deepthroat. Many in Nixon's staff went to jail, if you recall. There will some similarities with this matter. If Judy walked, she'd have walked alone, like a big girl. She elected to stand her ground, now she'll watch as all those around her suffer before they fall, particularly Christopher A. Doherty. I came for him, and I'm leaving with him now. He just assured that. Good field generals have the war won before the first shot is fired - no different here.
Chris Doherty is as sloppy and stupid as they come. He was a namebrand empty political mug looking to be filled with the best crony wine in Louie's rack. Giving him that authority was the equivalent to handing the keys to his political vehicle over to a person too mentally unfit to file a lawsuit. Don't think it's just the people that got educated here, they all did. There will be no more namebranders heading for the mayor's office of Chris Doherty's weak, spineless and reckless character credentials. He was an expensive experience to all.
Allow me the indulgence of translating 'Pilchesky-Speak' (PS) into English...
(PS) "You have to relate to the word won." (English) "Losing is really winning, as this is the only way I can rationalize continuing to file these stupid lawsuits."
(PS) "The cases I have against the city, the governor and other political agents or agencies, were actions in the nature of declaratory judgment." (English) "The term 'declaratory judgement' sounds so much better than LOST."
(PS) "I'd have preferred that she retired from the pressure." (English) "I'd have preferred that my victims did not fight back."
(PS) "Watergate took a president down, but what was far more of a story was how he was taken down - by one man, knicknamed Deepthroat." (English)"Rather than being seen as this wacko serial-plaintiff, I want people to think of me as actually being a crusader for truth, justice and the American way. Oh, and can someone think of a cool nickname for me, you known, like Deepthroat?" (PS) "Chris Doherty is as sloppy and stupid as they come." (English)"Screw Scranton Prep and Holy Cross, I'm smarter than Chris Doherty! I am! I am! I am! I am! Janet even says so!" (PS) "He was a namebrand empty political mug looking to be filled with the best crony wine in Louie's rack." (English) "NEPA Paranoia Rule of Thumb #1: When all else fails, blame Louis DeNaples. You know about dem EYEtalians!"
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
Your the best Ag ... I'm tellin ya ... I understand Joey so much better after reading your post! Thank you and keep up the good work!
__________________
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.