Another One In the 'L' Column for Joe Pilchesky - PilcheskyDeceit True Freedom of Speech

Members Login

Post Info

TOPIC: Another One In the 'L' Column for Joe Pilchesky

Agamemnon

DD: Where logic & proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Status: Offline

Posts: 3768

Date: Tue Mar 4 6:40 AM, 2008

Another One In the 'L' Column for Joe Pilchesky	Permalink

Joe Pilchesky Posts: 2233 Date: Mar 3 5:04 PM, 2008 Views: 209 Quote \| Reply RE: It's Murphy vs. Shimkus (IN COURT TODAY) Mr. Murphy has survived the first of two challenges to his nomination petitions. A second challenge relating to signatures happens tomorrow in Allentown. The first challenge related to his Statement of Financial Interests, which original filing was quite defective, but a recent court ruling dated December 28, 2007 has opened the door for candidates to amend their statements, regardless of how defective they are. Otherwise, Mr. Murphy would have been on the outside looking in today. Murphy survives round one Allow me to translate: Joe lost, again. Oh, and lest you think that his loss had anything to do with a poor argument or bad mock-lawyer execution, according to Joe it did not. No, it was "The Man"... Joe Pilchesky Posts: 2233 Date: Mar 4 4:21 AM, 2008 Views: 29 Quote \| Reply RE: It's Murphy vs. Shimkus (MURPHY SURVIVES - ORDER POSTED) The latest decision by the Supreme Court to allow amendments to fatally defective statements is the most destructive and insane decision that ever politically stumbled out of that court. Clearly, the politicos got to the justices demanding that the rigid compliance rules get overruled. Under this new decision, Bob Cordaro could have put nothing but his name and address on his statement and stayed on the ballot, being allowed to amend it well after the election, and onlyafter being directed to do so by the Ethics Commission. There are no rules that dictate when the Ethics Commission must act to direct a candidate to amend his statement, and since the acts of the commission are confidential, there is no way of knowing if they even took action. Furthermore, even if the commission does act, the consequences for a candidate refusing to amend his statement is a maximum of $250.00, which fine he can argue over in court because the commission has to take him to court to have it imposed. That argument alone could outlast the candidates term of office. TheSupreme Court showed it dirty political side in this recent decision, but how long that decision last is anyone's guess. It's an embarrassing one, for sure. I'm tempted to appeal Murphy's decision just to argue the destructive natureof the latest decision.From this day on, forget about disclosure. It's a thing of the past until someone makes the court change its mind. -- Edited by Agamemnon at 06:53, 2008-03-04 __________________ Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Page 1 of 1 sorted by

Tweet this page

Post to Digg

Post to Del.icio.us

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse