Read The Emails Yourself

IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL DIVISION-LAW

IN RE: PETITION FOR INITIATIVE TO PREVENT              :

THE SALE AND/OR LEASE OF GRACEDALE                       : DOCKET NO:

FILED WITH NORTHAMPTON COUNTY ELECTIONS       : 48-C V-2011-755

COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2011                                              :

GRACEDALE INITIATIVE PETITION COMMITTEE’S SECOND AMENDED
MOTION FOR REHEARING ON COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES IN LIGHT OF
NEWLY FOUND EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH AND IMPROPER MOTIVE
THROUGH ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE O’HARE/ANGLE
PETITION AND FOR SURCHARGE OF COUNTY OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES

Respondent Defendant Gracedale Initiative Petition Committee, by and through its attorney, Lawrence M. Otter, Esquire respectfully requests a rehearing on its prior motion for costs and attorney fees and says:

1.      GIPC incorporates it prior motion for costs and attorney fees as if set forth herein at length. Additionally, GIPC moves under 25 P.S. § 2937, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §2503 and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524 (c) for an award of attorney fees and expenses for work performed by its attorney in this action prior to the verdict in its favor and for injunctive relief under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524 (c). O’Hare, Angle, Conklin and Stoffa acted in bad faith in bringing the O’Hare/Angle challenge through improper use of county tax money to aid in the prosecution of the challenge filed on January 25.

2.      On March 15, The Morning Call published an article which revealed for the first time the illicit use of tax money authorized by the County Executive John Stoffa and his minions to assist Objectors and “private citizens” O’Hare and Angle in

furtherance of the filing of their Petition to Set Aside the Initiative. See Exhibit A attached here to - Did taxpayers fund Gracedale petition fight?

3.      The article recounts various January 2011 billings by the law firm of Eckert Seamans specifically for the review of petition signatures submitted to the Board of Elections by GIPC. The labor intensive review of petition signatures for defects is fundamental for any petition challenge. The firm billed for 80 hours for signature reviews at a cost of $10,800.00.

4.      This bill was approved by John Stoffa and paid by the County of Northampton.

5.      Upon information and belief, at the March 4, 2011 hearing on the original motion Mr. O’Hare testified under oath that there was no involvement by Eckert Seamans in the preparation of the petition to set aside.

6.      In response to the Morning Call article and counsel for GIPC’s comments to WFMZ-TV, on March 17, Mr. O’Hare, published in his blog, Lehigh Valley Ramblings, the following:

Yesterday, the Otter engaged in a bit of litigation by news conference, telling Channel 69, that he's calling on the DA, Attorney General and even the frickin' Spanish Inquisition to break out the thumbscrews.

That's bad news for Stoffa, who already is missing a finger or two.

"This is the same case. People went to jail. I think the same thing might happen here."

There 'ya have it.

Reporter Bo Koldcrow dutifully laps it all up, too, claiming that Bonusgate "set a legal precedence [sic] that taxpayer dollars couldn't be spent on petition challenges." Of course, that's nonsense. The County most certainly has every right to spend taxpayer dollars to defend the Home Rule Charter, even from an initiative petition. It also has every right to spend its resources in a nonpartisan

matter like the Gracedale initiative that directly affects the County, especially when there's pervasive election fraud.

There's another little hole in Otter's theory. Not one cent of taxpayer money ever funded my petition challenge. That litigation actually saved taxpayers many thousands of dollars because it spared the County the need to file its own signature challenge. (Emphasis added.).

7.      It now appears that at least $10,800.00 of taxpayer money funded “Exhibit A” attached to the O’Hare/Angle Petition. Supra, Paragraph 3

8.      Upon information and belief, Mr. O’Hare is not licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

9.      Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Ron Angle, John Stoffa and John Conklin had full knowledge that Bernard O’Hare was not admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

10.              On April 20, 2011, the Morning Call published another story about the Gracedale matter but this time it was based upon email correspondence between O’Hare, Stoffa, Ron Angle, John Conklin and Mark Stewart Esquire. See Exhibit B - attached hereto.

11.  The article states, inter alia:

Executive John Stoffa's administration and his lawyers worked with blogger Bernie O'Hare on his and Councilman Ron Angle's failed attempt to keep Northampton County voters from having a say on the sale of Gracedale nursing home. An attorney from Eckert Seamans, the firm the county hired to help privatize Gracedale, charged the county about $15,000 to revise Angle and O'Hare's court challenge and to produce evidence submitted as Exhibit A in the challenge.

Angle and O'Hare have repeatedly said they did not collaborate with Eckert Seamans.

(See Exhibits C, D, E & F-various emails to and from Bernard O’Hare)

12.  The article also quotes John Stoffa directly as follows:

"There was a hand-off like in football," Stoffa said. "The case was handed off to Bernie. Bernie in my opinion saved the county taxpayers a lot of money by pursuing that lawsuit on his own. It would have cost the county a lot more with [Eckert Seamans'] time."

13.              To continue with the football metaphor, John Stoffa placed Bernard O’Hare on his legal “team” and thus aided and abetted the unauthorized practice of law by having Bernard O’Hare surreptitiously represent the interests of the County in the Gracedale Petition challenge. See: 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524 & 2525.

14.              On January 20, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Eckert Seamans provided Bernard O’Hare with a spread sheet that then became “EXHIBIT A” and was attached to his and Angle’s petition to set aside the Initiative. See Exhibit D-email from B O’Hare acknowledging receipt of spreadsheet.

15.              On January 24, 2011 at 6:54PM significant revisions of the O’Hare Angle Challenge petition were emailed from Mark Stewart to Bernie O’Hare. See Exhibit E-email from Stewart to O’Hare. On information and belief, those revisions and the “Exhibit A” spreadsheet were incorporated into the document filed with this Court on January 25, 2011. Regarding “Exhibit A”, John Stoffa had the audacity to suggest to the Morning Call that: "It was public information," Stoffa said. "We would have given it to anybody who asked for it." (Emphasis added).

16.              None of this information was known or available to respondents at the time of the March 4, 2011 hearing on the original motion.

17. Upon information and belief, John Stoffa, Ron Angle, Bernard O’Hare, John Conklin and others un named co conspirators agreed and conspired to use county tax money to assist in the “private” challenge to the GIPC Initiative filed in this Court on January 25, 2011 by O’Hare and Angle.

18.  Upon information and belief, John Stoffa, Ron Angle, Bernard O’Hare, John Conklin and others un named co conspirators knew or should have known that the use of county tax money to assist in the O’Hare Angle Petition Challenge was a misappropriation of tax money. See: Exhibit G- Bonusgate Indictment pp 54- 59.

19.  Upon information and belief, John Stoffa, Ron Angle and Bernard O’Hare were less than candid with this Court in all the proceedings involving respondent GIPC.

WHEREFORE, in the interests of Justice, Gracedale Initiative Petition Committee respectfully requests that this Honorable Court allow a rehearing on GIPC’s request for costs and attorney fees in light of the illegal use of tax money involved in this challenge that was hidden from both GIPC and the Court pursuant to 25 P.S. § 2937 and 42 PA.C.S.A. §2503.

Further Respondents seek an injunction to prevent Bernard O’Hare and Ron Angle from any further unauthorized practice of law and the costs of this action pursuant to 42 Pa. C. S. A. § 2524 (c).

Also, Respondents seek an injunction to prevent John Stoffa and any employee of the County of Northampton, Pennsylvania to further aid and abet O’Hare and Angle or any other non lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and the costs of this action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524 (c).

MOTION FOR SURCHARGE AGAINST NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES

Movants, 10 taxpayers of Northampton County including Sally Ferraro, Nazareth, Pa. 18064; Duane Ninno, Pen Argyl, Pa. 18072; Jack D'Alessandro & Margaret D'Alessandro, Bangor, Pa. 18013; Maryann Schmoyer, Bath, Pa. 18014; Mario Martinez & Kathy Martinez, Easton, Pa. 18040; Donald Flyte, Easton, Pa. 18045; Jacqueline Oehler, Easton, Pa. 18040 and Richard Hanna, Bangor, Pa. 18013, by and through their attorney Lawrence M. Otter, Esquire moves this Honorable Court to Surcharge County Executive John Stoffa, County Council member Ron Angle and County Director of Administration John Conklin and Bernie O’Hare as an agent of Northampton County pursuant to 16 P.S. § 1730 for the expenditure of county tax money to fund the petition challenge against the Gracedale Initiative and says:

20.  Schmoyer and the other 9 movants , 10 taxpayers, incorporate paragraphs 1-19 as if fully set forth herein.

21.              Respondents John Stoffa, Ron Angle and John Conklin, and other unknown county elected officials and or employees, are county officials who improperly utilized the legal services of Eckert Seamans to perform partisan political tasks, specifically to review signatures submitted by the Gracedale Initiative Petition Committee to aid in the challenge filed by Bernie O’Hare and Ron Angle.

22.  The firm reviewed the petitions on Stoffa's behalf, he said, because he was considering filing a legal challenge to the petition over the names. See Exhibit A.

23.  Stoffa authorized the payment of the January Eckert Seamans legal bill which clearly showed time spent reviewing signatures on the Gracedale Petition in preparation to challenge the final petition submission of 23,000 signatures.

24.  The bill for these services amounted to at least $10,800.00.

25.  As reported in the Morning Call on March 15, 2011, Northampton County Controller Steve Barrens objected to the contacts between O’Hare and Angle and the law firm. Barrens stated "It's clear the [Stoffa] administration was working with the people who brought the private petition challenge...." See Exhibit A.

26.  Stoffa, Conklin and Angle knew that the payment of the January Eckert Seamans Bill including the work on the review of the petition signatures was a misappropriation of tax money for a partisan political purpose, specifically to oppose the Gracedale Initiative. See: Bonusgate Indictment

27.  Angle and O’Hare were acting as county agents when they filed their “private” petition with the aid of John Stoffa and Eckert Seamans. See Exhibit B and paragraphs 12 and 13 supra.

28. Northampton County sustained a financial loss of at least $11,800.00 by these acts, errors or omissions.

WHEREFORE, Pursuant to 16 P.S. § 1730 (b), the 10 taxpayers request that this Honorable Court surcharge John Stoffa, Ron Angle, John Conklin and Bernie O’Hare as a county agent in the minimum amount of $10,800.00 and award attorney fees and the costs for bringing this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ LAWRENCE M. OTTER

LAWRENCE M. OTTER

ATTORNEY FOR GIPC and 10 TAXPAYERS PO BOX 2131

Doylestown, PA 18901

267-261-2948

215-230-7197 (FAX)

Did taxpayers fund Gracedale petition fight?

Law firm working for Northampton County reviewed signatures later challenged privately by Ron Angle and Bernie O'Hare.

March 14, 2011|By Jenna Portnoy, OF THE MORNING CALL

A law firm Northampton County hired to help sell Gracedale nursing home spent 80 hours reviewing signatures filed by people hoping to block the sale. The names are on a petition seeking to put the question before voters.

The January bill for work Eckert Seamans performed on behalf of county Executive John Stoffa's administration describes time attorneys and others spent reviewing petitions for discrepancies and defects.

Hourly rates vary depending on who completed the work, but 80 billable hours works out to at least $10,800 in charges to taxpayers. The total bill is $71,826.

Most of the work in January had to do with the selection of a partnership of companies with which Stoffa's staff is negotiating the terms of a sale. The firm reviewed the petitions on Stoffa's behalf, he said, because he was considering filing a legal challenge to the petition over the names.

Instead he challenged the referendum on other grounds — that putting the question of selling Gracedale to voters would violate the county's home rule charter's ban on questions regarding the budget and the capital plan. A judge tossed that suit, and Stoffa is appealing to Commonwealth Court.

Ron Angle, as a citizen, not a county councilman, and blogger Bernie O'Hare challenged the petition over its names. And the Eckert Seamans bill shows contact between the firm's attorneys and both men.

County Controller Steve Barron objected to that contact. "It's clear the [Stoffa] administration was working with the people who brought the private petition challenge," said Barron, an outspoken advocate for keeping Gracedale under county control.

The bill lists a phone call with O'Hare and three instances of contact with Angle, who have said in public meetings they were not coached by Eckert Seamans attorneys.

"They call me and periodically give me updates on the sale of Gracedale," Angle said Monday.

In one case, a description on the bill mirrors an aspect of Angle and O'Hare's case, which was heard by county Judge Stephen Baratta.

Eckert Seamans completed "research [regarding] petition defects related to circulators' errors," the bill shows, and O'Hare presented evidence in court showing people who signed petitions as circulators delegated the responsibility to others.

"That was my lawsuit," O'Hare said, "and it was based on research that I did and that Ron Angle participated in. There's absolutely no substance to the allegation that we were spear carriers for Eckert Seamans."

Did taxpayers help fund a private Gracedale lawsuit?

Eckert Seamans charged the county $15,000 for petition

challenge work.

x       By Jenna Portnoy, OF THE MORNING CALL
10:50 p.m. EDT, April 19, 2011

mc-northampton-county-gracedale-coope20110419

Executive John Stoffa's administration and his lawyers worked with blogger Bernie O'Hare on his and Councilman Ron Angle's failed attempt to keep Northampton County voters from having a say on the sale of Gracedale nursing home.

An attorney from Eckert Seamans, the firm the county hired to help privatize Gracedale, charged the county about $15,000 to revise Angle and O'Hare's court challenge and to produce evidence submitted as Exhibit A in the challenge.

Angle and O'Hare have repeatedly said they did not collaborate with Eckert Seamans. "Collaborating is too strong a word," O'Hare said on his blog on March 15. "They were conducting their own investigation, and I spoke to them because we were both interested in the same thing. But my work is my work and their work is theirs."

» Whitehall area community updates delivered to your mobile phone. Text WHITEHALL to 52270! Message and data rates apply. Text STOP WHITEHALL to quit, text HELP for info

The Coalition of Alzheimer's Families, including relatives of Gracedale residents and unions representing Gracedale workers, collected more than 23,000 signatures on 507 petitions in hopes of putting a question on the spring ballot that, if successful, would block a sale for five years. The petition drive spurred legal action from sale proponents.

Councilman Lamont McClure and coalition attorney Larry Otter said contact between O'Hare and Eckert Seamans shows taxpayers helped pay for the petition challenge. The contact is confirmed in emails provided by McClure, who requested them from the county.

"Taxpayer money did go to support a private lawsuit and while every bad decision is not a crime," McClure said, "this tax money was misspent and should be reimbursed."

Stoffa said he sees nothing wrong with the contact, given the county's goal to sell the nursing home.

"There was a hand-off like in football," Stoffa said. "The case was handed off to Bernie. Bernie in my opinion saved the county taxpayers a lot of money by pursuing that lawsuit on his own. It would have cost the county a lot more with [Eckert Seamans'] time."

In an interview, Angle said he doesn't use email and knows nothing about the emails O'Hare exchanged with the county and its lawyers.

"If Bernie and Stoffa were on the same page with what they were doing, it would not be unusual for them to share information," Angle said. "It would be proper protocol for [O'Hare] to share with them and them to share with [O'Hare]."

O'Hare said he and Eckert Seamans attorney Mark Stewart were working toward a common goal. O'Hare compared the contact to elected Controller Steve Barron talking to the coalition during the court hearing.

"Taxpayer money did not fund this private litigation at all," O'Hare said. "An attorney who represented the county shared information with me and I made my own decisions about what

information I would use and what information I would not use."

The night before O'Hare and Angle submitted their challenge, Stewart sent O'Hare an email, copying Stoffa and Director of Administration John Conklin.

"Bernie/Again, great work," Stewart said in the Jan. 24 message, and promised he would send O'Hare an email from his personal account with a "revised petition." He listed 10 specific revisions to the document.

Stewart suggested adding a paragraph to strengthen O'Hare's argument that a petition circulator's behavior "constitutes a pattern and practice of abuse and fraud" that should invalidate all of the petitions she circulated. He also changed the title of the document, revised language in several instances, corrected a typo, promised to send a case citation and adjusted numbers.

In the same message, Stewart told O'Hare he would send him an updated version of Exhibit A, a spreadsheet the firm produced after a painstaking review of hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions. The firm's January bill shows staff spent 83 hours reviewing signatures and researching circulator errors for a cost of $14,786.

A few hours later O'Hare responded in part: "Mark, I really appreciate these suggestions, which will make this a superior pleading." The message follows a Jan. 20 email O'Hare sent thanking Stewart for the spreadsheet, which O'Hare called "some amazing research, more than I had hoped to see."

As soon as it became clear to the administration that ACS, the county's information technology contractor, could review petitions at no extra cost to taxpayers, Conklin said he told Eckert Seamans to abandon its review. The work the firm had completed up to that point was compiled in a spreadsheet that Stoffa said O'Hare was welcome to use.

"It was public information," Stoffa said. "We would have given it to anybody who asked for it." County Judge Stephen Baratta did not grant enough of Angle and O'Hare's objections — which focused mostly on circulator errors — to toss the referendum, and Commonwealth Court upheld the ruling. The spreadsheet of 1,238 seemingly defective signatures did not play a significant role in the case.

Stoffa said O'Hare's pursuit of the petition challenge allowed him to direct Eckert Seamans to concentrate on researching whether the ballot referendum violated the home rule charter's ban on budget matters.

"I thought the home rule charter question was much more important because it doesn't affect just Northampton County," Stoffa said, "it affects every charter and every county in the country." Baratta denied the charter challenge in mid-February, and Commonwealth Court upheld his ruling. Stoffa said he will not pursue further appeals. The referendum will appear on the May 17 ballot.

Coalition attorney Otter said he believes Stoffa should not have used Eckert Seamans' labor to review petitions, let alone support the private challenge. "He had no right to spend taxpayer money for a purely partisan purpose," Otter said. "When you file a petition challenge, that's a partisan purpose."

Stoffa said the payments were justified by a broadly worded council resolution authorizing him to hire the firm "to facilitate and expedite all issues that will result in the alternate ownership of Gracedale."

The contract is capped at $300,000 and so far the firm has billed the county about $164,000. Council President John Cusick acknowledged council may bear some responsibility, but said he did not envision the legal issues when he voted to hire the firm in October.

"The way that the administration went about this whole petition issue was confused, bungled, and they didn't have a strategy to deal with it," he said. "We ought to just let the voters have a say and move on."

jenna.portnoy@mcall.com

610-820-6586

'ill Mancini From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
	bohare5948@aol corn Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:51 PM FarrnerAngle@hotrnail.corn: John R. Conklin; John Stoffa; jstoffa©verizon.net; mstewart©eckertsearnans.com Gracedale Petition Review. Signatures of Ellen Weiss Questionable ELLEN_WEISS.jpg

Hi, Everyone. I've finished looking at the 507 petitions on file. I know the registrar is looking at the validity of signatures and that IT will be looking for duplicates, so I have not concerned myself with those issues, although I'll be raising them if we must sue on Tuesday. What stuck me is that some individuals have collected an unusually large number of petitions. I believe that volunteers are going out and getting them, or they languish in a bar or club for weeks, and then they are signed by a circulator who never circulated them.

I realize this is difficlt to establish, but I think we might be able to do it with some people. I have looked closely at Ellen Weiss, one of the circulators, and believe we can show it is physically impossible for her to have done what she claimed on election day.

Petitions circulated by Ellen S Weiss, 241 N Main St, Nazareth, Pa, should be invalidated.

By way of background, she is a VP at the LV Labor Council and is wife to Recording Sec'y John Weiss of the LV Labor Council. She is an AFSCME union member and LPN at Gracedale. She is the sworn circulator to 37 of the 507 petitions submitted (7.3%). She is the sworn circulator to 2,269 of the 23,391 raw signatures obtained (9.7%). If it is necessary to sue on Tuesday, I will seek to have every signature she obtained invalidated on the basis that I can establish she could not physically have circulated all those petitions on election day, and is misleading the Court.

On election day, Ellen Weiss claims to have been the circulator of the following Petitions:

#33 (sig 29 to 51 in Moore Tp), 22

#34 (26 in Nazareth) 26

#35 (107 in Bushkill) 107

#36 (20 in Upper Naz)      20

#37 (sig. 68-107 in Lo Naz) 39

#38 (45 in Moore) 45

#39 (107 in Naz) 107

#40 (sig, 44 to 107 in U Naz) 63

#41 (65 in Moore) 65

#42 (56 in Moore) 56 #56 (107 in Moore) 107

#60 ( sig. 9 to 107 in Moore) 98

#61 (107 in L. Naz)           107

#106 (sig 26 to 107 in Bath or Moore) 81

#206 (2 sig. in ?)                                                               2

#221 (sig. 1 to 73 in ?) - 73

#299 (107 in Pen Argyl) 107

#302 (107 in Hellertown) 107

This is a total of 1,229 signatures between 7 AM and 8 PM in at least ten different municipalities, and in places as far apart as Hellertown and Pen Argyl, which is a 42 minute

drive according to Google maps. Assuming that she only spent 1 hour driving between 7 AM and P1^.1          translates to one signature every 35 seconds.

This is simply unbelievable and physically impossible.

What more likely happened os that volunteers obtained signatures and Weiss later signed as the circulator. Because this is fraudulent, I believe that all signatures she obtained should be invalidated.

What do you think?

Bernie

From:                bohare5948@aol.com

Sent:                Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:26 PM

To:                  John R. Conklin, MStewart@eckertseamans.com

Subject:              Re: Cases

Thanks, Mark. "Attorney" Angle and I will begin drafting a complaint tomorrow and            shoot
a copy to you sometime this weekend. We will file Tuesday, irrespective of what is going on

at the Elections Comm'n.   I really appreciated that spreadsheet. That's some amazing research,
more than I had hoped to see. Have a nice evening. - Bernie

----- Original Message-----

From: MStewart <MStewart@eckertseamans.com> To: bohare5948 <bohare5948Paol.com>

Sent: Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:06 pm

Subject: Fw: Cases

Bernie

In case its helpful,     attached are cases we referenced in our email.

Let me know if we can be helpful.

Mark Stewart

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101

717.237.7191 (direct)

717.237.6019 (fax)

mstewartPeckertseamans.com

This communication may contain federal tax advice. Recent IRS regulations require us to advise you that any discussion of federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used and cannot be used to avoid any penalty under federal tax law or to promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter addressed herein. Only formal, written tax opinions meeting these IRS requirements may be relied upon for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties. Please contact one of the Firm's Tax partners if you have any questions regarding federal tax advice.

------  Forwarded by Mark S Stewart/E5CM on 01/20/2011 05:05 PM ------

PIT

SmartScan/ESCM

To

01/20/2011 04:43          Mark S Stewart

PM                                                      cc

Subject

Cases

(See attached file: HBG-ECOPY4_LNOTESMAIL_01202011-164239.PDF)

Scanned by Symantec Anti-Virus and Content Filtering before delivery.

This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are subject to attorney-client privilege and contain confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.

Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

bohare5948@aol.00rn Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:02 PM MStewart@eckertsearnans.com John R. Conklin Re: Must a Circulator Be a County Resident?

Mrf.  Stewart, As I indicated in an emial last night, I think]. we should raise this issue
notwithstanding federal law be iy helps demonstrate a disdain for the elections laws. I will include it in the litigation, if it is necessary to file. - Bernie

---- Original Message------

From: MStewart <MStewart@eckertseamans.com>

To:  bohare5948 <bohare5948@aol.com>

Cc:  John Conklin <jconkiin@northamptoncounty.org>
Sent: Thu, Dan 20, 2011 7:48 am

Subject: Fw: Must a Circulator Be a County Resident?

Bernie

The second email I promised. Please see below. I will send you copies of the cases if you would like to see them.

Mark Stewart

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101

717.237.7191 (direct)

717.237.6019 (fax)

mstewart@eckertseamans.com

This communication may contain federal tax advice. Recent IRS regulations require us to advise you that any discussion of federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used and cannot be used to avoid any penalty under federal tax law or to promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter addressed herein. Only formal, written tax opinions meeting these IRS requirements may be relied upon for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties. Please contact one of the Firm's Tax partners if you have any questions regarding federal tax advice.

-----  Forwarded by Mark S Stewart/ESCM on 01/20/2011 03:45 PM -------

Elizabeth Kreder McCoy/ESCM

To

01/20/2011 03:40            Mark 5 Stewart/ESCM@ESCM

PM                                                             CC

Subject Re: Fw: Must a Circulator Be a

County Resident?(Document link:

Mark S Stewart)

Mark, under present Pa. law, a circulator must still be a county resident as required under Section 2869 of the election code.

In In re Nomination Petition of Wesley, 650 A.2d 1247, ( Pa. 1994), our Supreme Court held that "A circulator of a nomination petition must be a duly registered member of the relevant political district." Id. at 1250.

The Court held further that the failure of a circulator to be a qualified elector is a fatal defect to those petitions filed by that circulator." Id.

This case has not been overturned.

However, it has been called into question by the federal courts in our district. Morrill v. Weaver, 224 F. Supp.2d 882 (E.D. Pa. 2002) invalidated Section 2911(d) of the election code as unconstitutional to the extent it requires affiants to be residents of particular electoral districts in which the candidates are running. Id. at 905. In addition, Morrill found that affiants do not have to be registered voters. Id.

On the advice of the Attorney General, the Commonwealth made a decision not to appeal the federal court's decree and determined to comply with the decision. See In re Carl Stevenson, 2010 WL 3835747 (Pa. 2010) at n. 2.

In Stevenson, our Supreme Court acknowledged the conflict between Wesley and Morrill, but chose not to address the constitutional issues raised in a challenge to a Nominating Paper because the circulator of those pages was not a resident of the legislative district, and instead remanded the case to the court below to make a determination regarding individual signature challenges asserted in the Petition to Set Aside. Stevenson. at 6.

It should be noted that In re Vidvarka, 994 A.2d 25 (Cmwlth. Ct. 2010), the court reiterated our Supreme Court's ruling in In Re Nomination of Flaherty , 770 A.2d 327 (Pa. 2001) and held that "a signature from an elector whose declared residence on the nomination petition differs from that on the voter registration records must be stricken, unless the elector has completed a removal notice." Id. at 28. In reaching this holding, the Commonwealth Court specifically disagreed with the statutory construction applied by the federal court in Welker v. Clarke, 239 F.3d 596 (3d Cir.

2001) which held that an elector may continue to vote at his former polling place unless and until he is removed from the voter registration rolls in accordance with Section 1901(d).

Elizabeth K. McCoy, Esq.

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Direct: 717-237-6026

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

This communication may contain federal tax advice. Recent IRS regulations require us to advise you that any discussion of federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used and cannot be used to avoid any penalty under federal tax law or to

promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter addressed herein. Only formal, written tax opinions meeting these IRS requirements may be relied upon for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties. Please contact one of the Firm's Tax partners if you have any questions regarding federal tax advice.

Fax: 717-237-6019

emccoy@eckertseamans.com

Mark S Stewart/ESCM 01/20/2011 11:49 AM

To Elizabeth Kreder McCoy/ESCM@ESCM cc

Subject

Fw: Must a Ciruclator Be a County Resident?

Mark Stewart

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101

717.237.7191 (direct)

717.237.6019 (fax)

mstewart@eckertseamans.com

This communication may contain federal tax advice. Recent IRS regulations require us to advise you that any discussion of federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used and cannot be used to avoid any penalty under federal tax law or to promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter addressed herein. Only formal, written tax opinions meeting these IRS requirements may be relied upon for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties. Please contact one of the Firm's Tax partners if you have any questions regarding federal tax advice.

------  Forwarded by Mark S Stewart/ESCM on 01/20/2011 11:49 AM ------

bohare5948@aol.co

m

To

01/19/2011 06:29            Mark S Stewart/ESCM@ESCM,

PM                          JConklin@northamptoncounty.org

cc

Subject Must a Ciruclator Be a County

Resident?

Hi Mark,

Judge VanAntwerpen, a former Northampton County judge, answered No in 2002, in a case involving the Green Party. He felt the statute requiring a circulator to be a resident unduly infringed on First Amendment political activity. He actually enjoined the state Bureau of Elections from enforcing that provision. Although the law is on the books and has not been repealed, the Bureau does not enforce that section. Here's a link to VanAntwerpen. http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0315P.pdf

How the hell do I know this?

Last election cycle, the issue arose again in a State Rep race. Judge Kelly in the Comonwealth Court had ruled against a candidate for using a nonresident circulator, and there followed an appeal to the state supremes.

As you can see in the link that follows, the High Court vacated the opinion and remanded for an immediate hearing. While they did not technically reverse Judge Kelly, they slapped him around a bit and sent the case back.

Here;s the link. http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/54map2010pco.pdf

I'm sorry I do not have West Law, but those cites are from the Courts themselves.

Having pointed all this out, it might still be a good idea to raise this.

If there are a number of unregisterd corculators or circulators registered in another County, we could offer this to show how sloppy they were in following the law. So this argument might lose by itself, but might add some weight to others.

Thanks.

Bernie O'Hare

Scanned by Symantec Anti-Virus and Content Filtering before delivery.

This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are subject to attorney-client privilege and contain confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.

Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.

Jill Mancini From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
	bohare5948@aol.corn Tuesday. January 25, 2011 12:02 AM MStewart@eckertseamans.com John R. Conklin; John Stoffa Re:

Mark, I really appreciate these suggestions, which will make this a superior pleading. These are much better than the recommendations from Attorney Angle. We will file at 3 PM tomorrow. I want to hold off be 15 minutes after it is filed, it will end up in the enemy's hands. I'd much rather surprise them. - Bernie

----- Original Message-----

From: MStewart <MStewartPeckertseamans.com>

To:    bohare5948 <bohare5948Paol.com>

Cc: jstoffa OstoffaPnorthaMPTONCOUNTY.ORG>; ]Conklin <3ConklinPnorthaMPTONCOUNTY.ORG> Sent: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 6:54 pm

Subject: Re:

Bernie

Again, great work. In a separate email from my personal email address (sueandmark3Pcomcast.net), I will send a revised Petition. Paragraph references below are to your email version. The revisions included (and a couple suggestions not yet made) are:

Pg. 1 -- Adjusted the title of the document and the intro to refer to this as a Petition to Set Aside in addition to your language.

9 13 -- Struck the reference to the petitions being presumed valid unless a challenge is filed; I know its correct but did not want to phrase that way in off chance it gives fuel to those questioning Election Comm's need to independently verify count (which is a Charter obligation).

9 24 -- I added a new paragraph asserting that Weiss' complete disregard of safeguards in Election Code tainted all of her activities; felt we needed to connect one more dot to get to her additional, non-election day petitions.

Objection 2 -- fixed typo reference to Weiss instead of Paisley (assume you are right that Dana is a man).

1 26 -- QUESTION: did you factor in travel, meals, using "facilities" like you did for Weiss? If not, you should & adjust signature/hour number accordingly.

9 32 -- slightly edited language on Jack DAlessandro's physical inability.

Objection 5 -- Creamer did 2 petitions; edited to reflect different numbers & added case reference for circulator issue.

Objections 7 & 10 -- I adjusted these to assert that address error made affidavit defective in addition to calling into question identity; adjusted Wherefore clause to suggest throw all out b/c of circulator issue and/or unless proves identity. There is an argument to be made

locer on in the case that signature requirements extend to circulator's affidavit. I will try and get you a case cite for the circulator issue to go with the Ford case you've cited, but its not necessary to cite it in the petition and it can be identified at the hearing.

Objection 12 -- I adjusted the numbers here. We found 1,238 defects on 257 petitions. We actually reviewed 267 petitions, but for 10 we did not see the types of defects we were checking for and the petitions we reviewed got out of order, so it's not just 1-267. I think the language works the way I've revised. Also, keep in mind that we did not check every line of the petitions we reviewed, so the Elections staff may find more defects than we found on these petitions. I WILL SEND YOU A NEW VERSION OF EXHIBIT A TOMORROW that deletes referemces to the 10 petitions we did not find defects on (right now citation to them as OK and may not be)

Finally, I added a case reference in this Objection as parts of the Cooper case have been overruled (in ways that benefit us).

Thanks, Bernie.

Mark

bohare59480aol.com wrote:

To: istoffaPnorthaMPTONCOUNTY.ORG, Mark S Stewart/ESCM@ESCM,

JConklinPnorthaMPTONCOUNTY.ORG  From: bohare5948(aol.com Date: 01/24/2011 11:44AM Subject:

This is my final draft. Will continue to tinker. Last count includes the spreadsheet. Included Coalition as respondent. if you have concerns, comments or suggestions, make them now

[attachment "Gracedale_Complaint.doc" removed by Mark S Stewart/ESCM]

IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL DIVISION-LAW

IN RE: PETITION FOR INITIATIVE TO PREVENT              :

THE SALE AND/OR LEASE OF GRACEDALE                       : DOCKET NO:

FILED WITH NORTHAMPTON COUNTY ELECTIONS       : 48-CV-2011-755

COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2011                                              :

VERIFICATION

I hereby depose and say that the statements in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Sec 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

/s/ Mary Ann Schmoyer

MARY ANN SCHMOYER

IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL DIVISION-LAW

IN RE: PETITION FOR INITIATIVE TO PREVENT          :

THE SALE AND/OR LEASE OF GRACEDALE                  : DOCKET NO:
FILED WITH NORTHAMPTON COUNTY ELECTIONS : 48-C V-2011-755

COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2011                                         :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the attached Second Amended Motion with Exhibits has been served on the persons listed below by electronic mail and USPS first class mail as indicated on June 8, 2011

By email and USPS

George A. Heitzman, Esquire 18 Market St

Bethlehem, PA 18016-1446

By email only: klongenbach@northamptoncounty.org Karl F. Longenbach, Esquire

Northampton County Solicitor

Northampton County Courthouse

Easton, PA

By email only: spandoniesq@myway.com Christopher Spadoni, Esquire

Election Commission Solicitor

Northampton County Courthouse

Easton, PA

By USPS

Bernie O’Hare

68 South Main St Nazareth, PA 18064

By email and by USPS: farmerangle@hotmail.com Ron Angle

Northampton County Courthouse

Easton, PA

/s/ Lawrence M. Otter, Esquire