RE: Is it worth saving Scranton? NOTADOBEENEVERWILLBE wrote: Look at the smoking ban, Joe filed a lawsuit and not one other food/bar place came and joined in his lawsuit. After all was said and done, Joe, won out in the end by being right. Don't think I didn't try to get many of the businesses on board. Rinaldi of Whistles would not return a phone call. Went there, he wouldn't talk to me. I contacted over 30 bars, either by phone or personally, and not one would join the smoking ban lawsuit. I begged Piccolino of Buona Pizza for a month, finally he said he'd do it, so I changed all the paperwork. When it was time to sign, he back up because he had an issue with a DUI, so he said. Refused to sign. I ended up having to move it to Commonwealth Court where I thought I could fight it on the constitutional issue as a taxpayer, with two Plaintiff's from the service industry, a waitress from Chick's and Brett McCloe, a council speaker, but the court transferred it back here. While the paperwork was being tranferred back, Doherty dumped it. What's confusing to me is that it was clearly a quick kill, no problem, but I really needed a business on board to do it because Amil has screaming that I had no standing since I couldn't show damages, and he was right. Scranton, where only the calendar says it's 2007. In all other mental and social respects, 1940. The majority of the people simply will not fight, not even by voting.(including him by the news accounts)I'm not dead sure if the Lynetts are really the cancer here, or is it the people? The Lynetts can't control all that they do without the people allowing them to do so, that's my view at this point.
At some point in time, and soon, we're going to have to make a decision. We can fight fire with fire all day long, but until our flame is a hot as theirs, we're at a great disadvantage. It's going to take energy and money to fight this fight successfully in a much shorter period of time. They can be had. We can run them right over, but no vehicle can run any of them over without gas.
-- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 13:37, 2007-06-28
Oh my God IHave we are on the same page today as I had just copied this and was trying to figure out where it would fit best.
__________________
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.
What I was going to say was this ... Joe you know exactly why this smoking ban was dropped ... it was not that Mayor Doherty just gave up on it ... it was the fact that Chick's Diner was cited for violating Scranton's smoking ordinance ... they waited until they were cited and they fought it ... you know that you have a thread dedicated to it ... you act as though everyone thinks it was you ... it was not you and you know it ... Mayor Doherty dropped it because the State is about to pass a smoking ban and the fact that the magistrate waited to see what the outcome of a similar case was before making a ruling ... so Joe get over yourself.
__________________
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.
I actually listened to him on WILK today. Apparently, he's working on a personal damages lawsiut against Daron. Corbett asked him if his health was being affected by the dust and whatnot. I swear Pilchesky answered "No, I'm live too far away to have any of the health issues like they're having on Dickson Ave." or something to that end.
What were you saying about his being addicted to filing lawsuits?
So then what we would have to ask him would be what the f*ck are your personal damages from Daron Northeast?
I think this will be another that he will go into to court ... be told he has no standing ... and then whoever that judge has the misfortune to be ... we will be seeing a threat "Calling for any and all information on Judge (Fill in the name).
Yeah I want to be just like Joe ... I want to go around sniffing out possible lawsuits ... The Judicial system is overburdened as it is ... there really should be something that can be done to stop these frivilous lawsuits from being filed.
Now there is a woman who goes to Council meetings ... I think her name is Mrs. Fadati (sp?) ... she and her family are experiencing health problems due to Daron Northeast ... one would think that this woman would be the one to file the lawsuit ... Not Joe Pilchesky.
__________________
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.
Kind of funny...Joe doesn't realize that he described the vast majority of how the public perceives him in that post.
Couldn't get anyone to return calls or join the lawsuit. Wonder why? The answer is obvious; no one in a position to be relevant agrees with this man. Not even on a defining issue like the smoking ban. Businesses would rather gripe and do nothing while they allegedly lost money than align themselves with him publicly.
The Daron lawsuit is a concern. Let's say that fool does get the personal damages case to court and loses. By his own admission he has not been affected by Daron. The almost certain outcome of his case could actually affect cases brought forth by people with legitimate claims. Joe may be paving the way for future court losses by actual neighbors of the place.
Shame on this misguided and egotistical man. He's interfering in issue that shouldn't involve him. Everyone who owned a business ignored him and he went away, accomplishing nothing in court over the smoking ban. The people who live near Daron may find Pilchesky to be a bigger problem in the long run than dust and noise.
I think he will cause them a great many problems ... why would anyone find this to be a nobel cause for Joe to fight ... he will most certainly make things more difficult for those who have legitimate health issues due to dust from Daron Northeast.
__________________
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.
His "personal damages" lawsuit is nothing more than an attempted cash grab. He's pretty much already come out and said that he was running out of money, didn't he? Something about not being able to run a car without gas. And when he and Gatelli get their suits tossed out, it's likely going to cost him a few bucks.
It wouldn't be suprising if his backers aren't as fast and loose with the checkbook anymore.
If you've got yourself an old, gas-guzzling, bald-ass DeSoto, you trade the beast in for a spiffy and more modern model - no? The "backers" will probably be sniffing around Hubbard or Piccolino, depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Hubbard is a Pilchesky with training wheels. Look for him to shave his head any day now. Internesting side note: Mr Hubbard worked for my employer a few years ago, for about three months. I think the job was a bit much for him.
Piccolino as a candidate for Scranton City Council reminds me of the time (the late) Hunter S. Thompson ran for Mayor of Aspen, CO.
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
This should prove fun!! My question isn't whether she has the gaul to do it ..my question is won't she have to admit to knowing Joey if she does?? LOL LOL hummmmmmmm
Hardcore Posts: 123 Date: Sat Jun 30 10:45 AM, 2007 Views: 69
RE: "This is your Life, Judy Gatelli", and it's open season on your character. I just had a brainstorm. Maybe it isn't practical but if it is, it could be the "coup de gras" of anything Joseph Pilchesky has ever done.
Joeneeds to convince Janet Evans to join in the defamation lawsuit with him. If I remember correctly, Gatelli mentioned that Joe was meeting secretly with Janet, and she actually conspired with him on some matters, and "put him up to" some of the actions he has taken.Since thisdid not happen, Janet was "defamed" as well asJoe.
If Janet Evans isjoins in the lawsuit, the city will have to pay the lawyers to defendEvans from Gatelli's countersuit, and therefore, have to also pay to defend Joe Pilchesky against Gatelli's lawsuit.
Can I be missing something or could this actually work?
LOL LOL But I still want to know if she has to keep pretending she doesn't know Joey. And........ if she does admit knowing him... does that mean having dinner at her house is out the window?As she currently only haspeople over she doesn't know. Man this could get so confusing!
RE: 100 or so at McGrath's O'Brien/Washo party O'Brien's invisibility over the past decade makes for an easy choice at the voing booth. Corey who? Cordaro's negative publicity was still publicity, nonetheless. For as much of it that was adverse, he walked right through it to the other side, as if he expected it all along. You cannot take that from him now. Washo certainly doesn't have either the character or baggage history to carry Schoolyard Corey to the commish majority seats. Being an ally of Doherty isn't a plus in this schoolyard. You won't see any open endorsements from Doherty because he's the kiss of death for any candidate. (See Popil and Garvey) All the adversity morphed Cordaro into being more of himself, more of who he really is. He's pissed off and loving this war all at the same time and it's noticeable, and publicly noticeable. O'Brien and Washo have to debate. There's no choice. Cordaro knows as much about Washo as we all now know about Cordaro, but the difference is that Cordaro is over the hump. The "I'm pregnant, Mom" trauma is over for Cordaro, in the rearview. Like it or not, he's going to pick up favorable review for surviving, that's just how it goes around here. People like wounded fighters. When one fighter takes a vicious beating and starts landing punches later in the fight, the crowd goes wild and starts chanting his name. Cordaro is experiencing that, and it's courtesy of ominous O'Brien/Washo silence. If they're planning on the next legal battle to be the big knockout punch late in the 10th, they better land it. If they do not, Cordaro will use the court order as their political death warrant. I know I would, and easily. Even the Russians rooted for Rocky, but not until after he became a bloody mess. Look for Cordaro to adopt the Rocky theme song if he wins the court battle, and every voter will want to be his Adrian. That's just how it goes.
RE: 100 or so at McGrath's O'Brien/Washo party Joe, I havent posted in while, but I have kept up with reading this sight, and to me it seems as clear as day that your support is now with Cordaro and Munchak, which surprises me to say the least. Bob Cordaro just might be the biggest crook this county has seen in the last decade, and you know it, yet you still seem to support him...interesting...To the point where you are comparing Rocky to Cordaro. Slow down...The reason we all loved Rocky is because he was hard nosed, never quit,honest everyday guy that wecould all relate to, and root for.Playboy Bob Cordaro is no everyday guy, he certainly isn't honest, andhas come across to the public throughout his legal battles as a Liar, not a fighter. There is a big difference. The arguement that these battles will somehow make him more likable to the public sounds like a spinright from Cordaro's Headquaters...Please. He has never been more disliked by Lackawanna County....The numbers dont lie.
Also, this isn't Hollywood, bad publicity in politics is not better than no publicity, especially when we are dealing with an incumbent who everyone already knows. Just ask Bob Casey. Hedidnt say Boo during his campaignbecause he didnt have to. He let Santorium hang himself, whichBob has already done and will continue to do during this campaign. Everyone knows who Bob is and they either like him or hate him. If you think that somehow this publicity has helped Bobby maybe you should tell him that. He has been calling Times and begging for them to let up on him, and in the short term it seems as though they now have taken a couple of shots at the other side.
RE: 100 or so at McGrath's O'Brien/Washo party Joe's transformation into a Cordaro supporter seems to fly in the face of the idea that he is somehow the spokesman for Political Justice....This one stinks...Add in the rumors about a payoff from Cordaro and well....
Wow ... I bet he wasn't expecting that reaction from the sheep!
__________________
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.
100 or so at McGrath's O'Brien/Washo party I think Joe is just giving some political reality to all of us. He sees and hears much more than all of us. Again - if Bob survives this court stuff and doesn't get caught doing anything stupid in the next 60 days, he and A.J. can keep their seats. Washo and O'B just aren't strong candidates - they're not - that's reality. They need a TKO on Bob or some real big scandal to win. Could happen, but if it doesn't ....we'll see. It's a very interesting race. And, W&O'B, by being invisible, are not helping themselves to victory. Spend some money, let's see some action here!!!! Debate - I want a debate!
__________________
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.
::: ... Debate - I want a debate! ::: That's it buddy. You keep hanging around over there and all you're going to get is a one-sided debate about how Joe can and will bring ANY city/county/trailerpark to it's knees. He can do it, you know. After all, Joe invented of internet -- Dan Quayle was lying.
And what's with all the boxing analogies? One of them must have gotten his ass whipped in the ring over the weekend while he was working off alla dem porketta sangwiches.
Bo is right Thursday...Al Gore invented the internet. On the other hand, Joe Pilchesky did invent the frivolous lawsuit. [inset Ed McMahon "Hey Yoooo" sound here]
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
I stand corrected - I got my politicos in a tangle. Thanks sheri for the heads-up. Next time I make a potato reference, I'll think of you. By the way, how's your buddy Milo?
It maybe all well and good to jump all over public officials due to their "public" status, however I believe that to actually accuse someone of a crime you had best have proof or else you can be held responsible for your comments. I think the below post falls into the "you better have proof" catogory. <sidenote> Not sure yet but this has a milo/shed feel to it. Is that you dear.. back again in yet another form?
HELLOOOOOO JUDY.... Thought I would stop by the podium this week to discuss the old Moosic Street Stop and Go. Back in the day how much you thinkyou um"borrowed" from the Register? Oh not much I forgot your teary eyed "you never took a thing that did'nt belong to you".
Since no one at DD asked for any proof (what a shock!) I have to assume this response was directed at me, so let me say this in response.You had better hope the sworn affidavit holds up, as anyone can swear to anything.It doesn't necessarily make it true. I am sure I could find any number of people, who follow the Art Bell radio show, who would sign a stack of affidavits swearing they had all been abducted by aliens. You willing to bet your next weeks salary on whether they would be judged as credible? hummmmmmm?? Oh and how about answering the Milo/Shed question?? Got the stomach for that one?
I saw those posts and the very first thought I had was Milo/Shed!
__________________
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.
This is one of the most sad, pathetic posts I've ever seen at DD. Really, going back 30 years to allegations that a teenager shorted a cash-register???? I can see it now: "Judy once took a dollar from the register when no one was looking!" What's next, "Judy once looked at the October 1976 edition of Playgirl magazine!"?
Even better is the fact that it comes from a group of folks that probably have more skeletons in their collective closets than The Acadamy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.