59/2012

Mind the Insightful Quote: All Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Posted in absolute power corrupts absolutely, lord acton, power corrupts, talk radio, what's on our dime?, what's on your dime?

If only there were a * radio talk show (0pinion and discussion) program that asked questions and got answers and that gave a whole bunch of facts with opinions called “What’s on Your Dime” in both a question and an answer format.

Hour 1 of the new program could be devoted solely to questions pertaining to what all is done with the hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, trillions of taxpayers’ money spent at all levels of government; in some cases monies are diverted to others than direct government entities for all sorts of undertakings.

What’s on Your Dime?

What have the local council members done with $80 per month after voting to dedicate that amount from the city budget to a radio program the local Mayor would have to update the citizens on what the Council and Mayor are doing, outside of their regular meetings each month wherein actual minutes are recorded?

What have the members of the board of county commissioners done with a reserve of monies to be used for sending out letters to electors/voters who were due to receive notices of removals per a 5-Year Mailer process to cull bloated voter registration rolls?

What has PA State Senator Rich Kasunic done? Who? What has PA Representative Peter J. Daley done? Who? What has PA State Representative Deberah Kula done? Who? What has PA State Representative Timothy Mahoney done? When? What had convicted felon PA State Representative Bill DeWeese done before his resignation from his 50th District seat to deserve re-election – on your dime?

All questions all the time during the first hour of What’s on Your Dime? All dealing with public officials who are elected to be public servants of the people and even more careful with how your dime is spent than their own personal dime is spent because hey, after all, it is your dime, not their dime.

Nobody escapes the question about the public’s dime. What’s on Your Dime? Annual salaries for a Majority Party and a Minority Party Jury Commissioner for the county! What’s on Your Dime? Grant monies that go to fund a public service television program which often features replays of videotaped local events like pre-election town-hall meetings also funded in part with a $20,000 grant from the PA Department of Community and Economic Development department to publicize a Merger Study of Fayette County Public School Districts!!! What’s on Your Dime? Local County hotel-tax monies that end up being divided among local tourism specific groups which includes the non-profit arm of the Fayette Chamber of Commerce that provides public service television programming (FayetteTV) which often covers local events but may not release such coverage to the public!!!!

What do they do on your dime? What do they do on your dime and what don’t they want to show you that they do on your dime?

The second hour is called What’s on Your Dime! (repeat as many exclamations as you wish with your voice when you call in to voice the facts related to exactly what is done on your dime)

“Oh that!” You could exclaim to preface your factual opinion uh opinion that contains facts, however, it’s done, no matter the order, opinion and facts or facts and opinion – What’s on Your Dime! gives callers a chance to express the facts about What’s on Your Dime! and express an opinion.

You may be thinking, what about the host of What’s on Your Dime? and What’s on Your Dime! Just what does the host get to do?

Hello. What’s on Your Dime? Questions only.

Hello. What’s on Your Dime! Facts and opinions only.

If I, the host, wanted my own program, I would have called it:

What’s on My Dime? and What’s on My Dime! But the program is your program so it’s called What’s on Your Dime? and What’s on Your Dime!

Similarly, if I – the host – wanted to be included in raising a whole bunch of the questions when nobody is calling, and giving my facts and opinions, just like you all, the callers, to engage in a conversation with you all, the callers, I’d have called the program:

What’s on Our Dime? and What’s on Our Dime!!!!!!

Cause the rules that apply to callers apply to me, the host, that is, if I want to show fairness rules, not I.

If I don’t want to ask any questions so be it. It would be my perogative. But if you want to ask any questions, who am I to stop you, after all, it’s your program, too! It’s our program.

That’s the way things would go, if only there were a radio-talk program called:

What’s on Our Dime? What’s on Our Dime!

OK, all right, I got it. Early on. Part way through thinking about What’s on Your Dime? I realized you couldn’t be contained to only questions during the first hour of What’s on Your Dime? Seriously, who could wait for the second hour without knocking heads against the wall waiting for answers to all the questions. It would be like waiting two-weeks and longer for a promised answer to a question asked two-weeks or longer ago. You, and I will have to get answers, too, and give facts and opinions, during the first hour, and the second hour, or we would all be in the hospital with cracks in our heads and for the hard-headed, in our walls.

OK. What’s On Our Dime? What’s on Our Dime! One program of two-hours where questions are asked and answered and facts are given with opinions and opinions with facts. Questions and answers about our dimes asked and answered and a program that is our program not just my program because everybody has learned to do the following:

Mark the words of Lord Acton:

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lord_acton.html#jXb1oA7DPkKVB34G.99

* inspiration for this piece is from “you know who you are.”

54/2012

“What’s On Your Mind?” Provides Deep Cover for Promise-Breaker Mahoney

Posted in Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign expenditures, PA Election Code, Pennsylvania, talk radio

After telling listeners that second-hour guest Rep. Tim Mahoney would not be taking caller questions directly and that callers would be able to ask their questions indirectly through guest host Len Baron, regular caller Terry Ryan asked to know what the $5,000 expenditure for Grogan & Graffam found on Page 13 of the Friends of Tim Mahoney Cycle 2 2012 campaign finance report was for. However, instead of following the process that he outlined, Baron did not pose the Ryan question (or any others) to Mahoney on air.

Instead, the following exchange between Baron and Mahoney transpired.

AUDIO:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(Unofficial) Transcript excerpt of the Friday, April 20, 2012, edition of WMBS 590 Radio’s “What’s On Your Mind?” — a pre-election appearance by Rep. Tim Mahoney (TM) in studio with guest host, Len Baron (LB):

LB: As I mentioned, too, earlier, Uniontown’s Number 1, afternoon, AM, talk show. And, today, fantastic special guest in the studio, Representative Tim Mahoney. And, um, we’re going to be tackling, uh, some issues — figuring some stuff out — and um, you know we had questions from listeners. We’ll be addressing those (intentional pregnant pause) . . . on a later program. Ah, but right now, Representative Mahoney, welcome.

TM: Hi, Len. How are you today?

LB: Oh, fantastic. Beautiful day isn’t it?

TM: Oh, man couldn’t be a better day than this. Ah, the reason that I wanted to come on, um, I just wanted to talk about some current issues that are going on locally and statewide. And, um, the main reason is I think we need to get the public more involved with what local government and state government is doing. But, uh, let me, uh, answer, uhhh, I guess you had a few callers wanting to know some questions.

I’ll be happy to come back, Mark, in a two-hour program where I can, you know, answer all their questions.

LB: More than willing to.

TM: I mean, I think you know me as well as anybody. I don’t hide from anybody. I’m easy to find. My office is open. Everyone knows where I live. There’s no problem. So. But I’ll come back maybe next Friday or the Friday after, and I’ll buy two hours and I’ll answer whatever they want to talk about.

LB: Sounds great!

Firstly, to lay down a procedure to listeners, and then to violate that procedure is a disservice to the callers and listenership of WMBS Radio. Although a guest host, it was certainly not Baron’s first time in that role. If Baron was unsure that questions would be answered by the guest in the second hour, he had no business to mislead callers that their questions would be answered. For Baron to say that questions from listeners would be addressed on a later program, he had to have asked Rep. Mahoney off air and, during the break, been given Mahoney’s refusal to answer questions. For Baron not to follow the procedure he laid out and for him not to have asked his “fantastic special guest” on air if he’d answer questions from listeners is a disservice to the callers and listenership of WMBS Radio.

Secondly, Rep. Mahoney addressed the caller inquiries with the following responses:

I’ll be happy to come back, Mark, in a two-hour program where I can, you know, answer all their questions.

But I’ll come back maybe next Friday (April 27, 2012) or the Friday after (May 4, 2012), and I’ll buy two hours and I’ll answer whatever they want to talk about. [Emphasis added.]

Mahoney Promises:

“I’ll come back maybe next Friday (April 27, 2012) or the Friday after (May 4, 2012)”
“I’ll buy two hours”
“I’ll answer all their questions”
“I’ll answer whatever they want to talk about”

Baron’s Promise:

“And, um, we’re going to be tackling, uh, some issues — figuring some stuff out — and um, you know we had questions from listeners. We’ll be addressing those (intentional pregnant pause) . . . on a later program.” [Emphasis added.]

Lastly, today just so happens to be the last day of Rep. Tim Mahoney’s self-imposed deadline to “come back” and “answer all their (WMBS callers’) questions,” specifically Ryan’s question about the $5,000 expenditure found on Page 13 of the Friends of Tim Mahoney Cycle 2 2012 campaign finance report.

It is now just after 3 p.m. Rep. Tim Mahoney has failed to meet his self-imposed deadline and has failed keep any of the above promises that he made to WMBS listeners two weeks ago. Obviously, to put it as charitably as it can be put, Rep. Tim Mahoney’s word is not his bond. His credibility is shot.

Looking forward, callers and citizens must continue to press Rep. Mahoney and WMBS for answers to their questions and for answers to why promises were broken.

As for the regular host, Mark Rafail, while he was not present on April 20, let us no more hear his specious arguments and protestations about callers to his program not knowing what the $5,000 Friends of Tim Mahoney expenditure to Grogan & Graffam P.C. on Feb. 22 was for. His understudy promised that the questions from listeners on April 20 would be addressed on a later program. Rep. Mahoney set today — May 4, 2012 — as his self-imposed deadline to answer all their questions. However, Rep. Mahoney broke his deadline and his promises. Therefore, it is now incumbent upon Mark Rafail to get the answers to his callers’ questions.

Let us not hear Mark Rafail make any more arguments or pronouncements on the subject of the $5,000 Friends of Tim Mahoney Feb. 22 expenditure without honoring Baron’s on-air promise to address callers’ questions to Rep. Mahoney, including the one about the $5,000 expenditure.

Mr. Rafail and Mr. Baron have no standing to make any arguments or pronouncements on the $5,000 expenditure until at least one of them honors the on-air promise made to the callers and the listenership of WMBS.

It’s time for those two to stop giving Rep. Mahoney a pass.

(May 11, 2012 Editor’s Update)

As the WMBS 590 radio talk program What’s on Your Mind began Friday afternoon, host Mark Rafail indicated the talk program would proceed as usual per the first hour while the second hour would have Mr. Brian Oros in the station to talk about what was on his mind. Oros, known as Iceman, was said to have paid for his own time on the air.

Mark Rafail proceeded to make a special announcement as the Friday afternoon program got underway. Rafail said state Representative Tim Mahoney would be on the following Friday afternoon and callers would be able to ask a single question each.

Mr. Rafail did not indicate that Rep. Tim Mahoney was buying the full nearly two-hour time, (personally or as an incumbent legislator/candidate via his Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign-org), or whether Mr. Rafail had invited Rep. Mahoney on as a guest, or any other factualities about the logistics of the appearance. The question of who was paying for Friday, May 18th’s appearance of Rep. Tim Mahoney/Democrat Primary Nominee/candidate did not arise.

Mr. Rafail only indicated there were scheduling conflicts the past few Fridays, also implying there was such a conflict for this Friday, May 11, 2012 as he announced the first hour would proceed per usual and Oros had paid for time for the second hour.

It remains to be confirmed whether Rep. Mahoney has bought and paid for the time for what is considered a political spot and in fact, Rep. Mahoney stated to Len Baron during the program Friday before the Election (April 20, 2012) that he was not taking any calls the next hour to answer questions Baron had fielded during the first hour, but he would buy time if he had to so he could answer any questions callers had. Rep. Mahoney’s exact wording was “maybe next Friday, or the Friday after that.”

Those Fridays came and went without any notification from either host or substitute host (Len Baron) that Rep. Mahoney was intending to buy the time, but had scheduling conflicts for Friday, April 28, and for Friday, May 4.

Additionally, this Friday, today, May 11, Mr. Rafail did not indicate whether Rep. Mahoney had paid for the April 20, 2012 program though radio spots wherein candidates are on the ballot for an upcoming election are considered “political spots” and such an arrangement is usually announced before the program begins and when the program ends. A caller had asked that of Len Baron when he filled in for Mr. Rafail earlier in the week but Mr. Baron said he did not know, the management should know.

It was odd that Mr. Rafail did not indicate that Rep. Tim Mahoney would be paying the next time he made an appearance on What’s on Your Mind?, nor did he address the question the caller had put to Mr. Baron to clarify Rep. Mahoney had paid, or not paid, for the April 20th spot.

Next Friday, May 18, the caller to Len (or other) may find it worth asking whether Rep. Mahoney (or his campaign) paid for both the Friday April 20 and the Friday, May 18 programs; or whether he was a guest for April 20, and paying May 18; or whether he paid for April 20, but was not paying for May 18; or whether he did not pay for April 20, and is not paying for May 18.

(end Editor’s Update)

52/2012

The Pledge Nazis

Posted in Pennsylvania, Pledge of Allegiance, public schools, talk radio

With the story about a 13-year-old girl from the Brownsville Area School District who refused to stand or to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the Pledge Nazis have come out in full force. From the unconstitutional, un-American actions of the teacher, the principal, and the superintendent to compel subservience to their authoritarian diktats, to WMBS talk show host, Mark Rafail, and callers to his program — ignorant of the history behind the Pledge of Allegiance, and characterizing the girl’s refusal to stand as willful disobedience to school rules or disrespect for veterans — the Pledge Nazis are on the march.

While the student quietly sat to exercise her free speech rights and her conscientious objection to the Pledge of Allegiance, the Pledge Nazis were busy using force and threatening, in high dudgeon, the use of more, if necessary, to compel and to coerce the student’s submission. A 13-year-old girl chose to exercise her first amendment right not to participate in an act of political speech by not standing and not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and she, in turn, according to the HeraldStandard.com story, met with the following onslaught from VanMeter (the teacher), Nesser (the principal), and Savini (the superintendent):

VanMeter “admonished N.B. in front of the entire class, with references to her disrespect for all the soldiers dying for her overseas,” according to the suit.

The teacher allegedly told N.B. she must stand or will be written up.

On April 18, the girl’s mother, Carolyn Raja, called principal Vincent Nesser to discuss her belief that students should not have to stand during the pledge.

Nesser told Raja that there was not a written rule about standing during the pledge, but he expected that students would stand, the suit claimed.

That same day, N.B. again refused to stand, and VanMeter gave her a lunch detention, the filing alleged. Raja called Superintendent Phillip Savini Jr. that day, and he “not only embraced and affirmed Nesser’s policy, but told Ms. Raja that if necessary he would issue a written rule making clear that it was mandatory for students to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.”

It seems these authoritarian commissars would have been completely at home in the U.S.S.R. Did it ever occur to these well-compensated zealots that they do not possess the authority to willfully violate someone’s constitutional rights and that an allegiance oath issued under coercion and compulsion is rather meaningless?

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by utopian socialist Baptist minister Francis Julius Bellamy in 1892 and officially adopted by Congress in 1942. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance)

The primary purpose of the Pledge was to instill nationalism in school-age children and to inculcate in the masses unquestioning obedience to an over-arching, socialist, utopian State. If the ramblings from today’s “What’s on Your Mind?” talk show are any indication, on the score of Bellamy’s intent, the Pledge has been a resounding success.

In its current iteration, the Pledge reads as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

From the libertarian point of view, there are many problems with the Pledge. The central axiom in libertarian thought is that initiation of the use of force against another is wrong. This is especially true when that force is used, under the threat of violence or penalty, to make an individual do something against his or her will or beliefs. In the Brownsville case, it was the apparatus of the State and its functionaries (teacher, principal, superintendent) that initiated the use of force.

Another problem with the Pledge is wording. The use of the article “the” and the capitalization of the letter “U” in the phrase “the United States of America” is highly objectionable. While upon first blush these objections seem trivial, they go to the very heart of the meaning of the Pledge. In the Jeffersonian model, the constitution was basically a compact between the Free and Independent States that decided to delegate certain enumerated powers to the federal government. Any powers not specifically enumerated were retained by the Free and Independent States and the people. In other words, the ratification of the constitution did not create “one nation” — “the United States of America” — but a compact of Free and Independent States [the united States of America (small "u")] assenting to delegate certain specific powers to the federal government. While the form of government was one of a constitutional republic, creating one nation wherein the Free and Independent States would be completely subsumed by “one nation” was anathema to Jefferson.

The “under God” section of the Pledge has been debated and thus will not be covered here at length. Suffice to say that many believe in God and many do not. In Christian theology and doctrine, individuals may accept Christ, or not. People are left to make that decision on an individual basis. Forced belief is meaningless belief, however, just as forced coercion to recite the Pledge is meaningless allegiance.

Additionally, the word “indivisible” is completely antithetical to the ideals and tenets enshrined in one of the most important of the founding documents. The Declaration of Independence not only spells out certain ideals: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” among them, but also it contains a bill of particulars that spells out the usurpations of a tyrant which will no longer be tolerated. The Revolutionary War was fought to gain liberty and freedom from that tyranny and to separate from the British Crown. Applied to the Revolutionary era, the tenet of indivisibility found in the Pledge would have rendered the Declaration null and void. It would have disallowed the separation, as the colonies would have been indivisible from the British Crown. Applied to today, the tenet of indivisibility in the Pledge dictates that no matter how tyrannous a central government may become or how utterly oppressed a people may be, they have no right to alter, abolish, or institute new government.

Thus, the indivisibility tenet found in the Pledge of Allegiance is antithetical to the document which itself is the very bedrock of our founding — the Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. . . .

As for liberty and justice, they are under daily assault in these united States. People tend to get all lathered up about a 13-year-old girl refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but the passage of freedom-killing, unconstitutional “acts” such as the USA PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, CISPA, etc. garners very little resistance from the Pledge Nazis.

And that’s a shame.

For the actual history behind the Pledge of Allegiance, including its origin, see the following outstanding articles:

Pledging Allegiance to the Omnipotent Lincolnian State

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo54.html

The Pledge of Allegiance – A Short History

http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

Francis Bellamy and the United States Pledge of Allegiance

http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/05/francis-bellamy-and-the-united-states-pledge-of-allegiance-2/

Here We Go Again

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory92.html

What I Expect My Child To Learn From Not Saying the Pledge of Allegiance http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/perry1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

51/2012

Marcellus Shale Info and Impact via Website of Westmoreland County Planning Department

Posted in gas drilling, Pennsylvania

A county department will provide information concerning drilling on a webpage for that purpose. Hopefully, as much information as possible will be imparted, including a section for industry accolades and any potential complaints. (NES)

Website to provide upclose look at Marcellus operation By Paul Peirce Tribune-Review Published: Friday, April 27, 2012, 6:04 p.m. Updated: Saturday, April 28, 2012

A website on Marcellus shale natural gas wells aimed at giving residents information about drilling with the touch of a mouse and computer keyboard has been introduced by the Westmoreland County Planning Department.

Users can learn basic terminology associated with the industry, see locations where wells have been drilled through 2011, and learn how much money specific municipalities in the county will earn from the new, Unconventional Gas Well Impact Fee.

The site can be accessed through the county’s homepage at www.co.westmoreland.pa.us or directly at www.co.westmoreland.pa.us/drilling.

http://triblive.com/state/1220016-74/county-website-wells-westmoreland-drilling-local-marcellus-drilled-impact-million

426/2012

A Response to Julie Toye

Posted in Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign expenditures, PA Election Code, Pennsylvania, talk radio, voting election issues

Note: A timeline of events pertinent to this article has been appended to the end of the piece so that the reader may easily reference it without having to click through from article to article.

The local blogger, Julie Toye, is a welcome presence on the news/political/opinion scene in Fayette County. Her coverage of local issues has made an impact in the area and she gets a huge RAVE for that. Most welcome is her follow-up request to Rep. Tim Mahoney for comment about a $5,000 expenditure for Grogan & Graffam found on Page 13 of his Friends of Tim Mahoney Cycle 2 2012 campaign finance report. (Editorial revision 4/30/2012)

(NES/vide-post scooped documentation of the payment 3 days before Rep. Mahoney’s April 20th appearance on WMBS 590 Radio Talk Program, What’s on Your Mind. Learning during the first hour Rep. Mahoney would be on the following hour but would not be taking any calls, some listeners had called and asked the host, Len, to ask several questions of Rep. Mahoney on their behalf. Three questions were from Terry Ryan, who unabashedly asked Rep. Mahoney if he was trying to get the Republican challengers off the ballot as he had seen documentation that Rep. Mahoney got the nominating petitions of both candidates and Terry asked if the $5,000 payment to the law firm was for the attorney for the two co-challengers who filed Set Aside petitions to the nominating petitions of Gary Gearing and Mike Cavanagh. When he was seated in the session with Len handling the live interview, Rep. Mahoney declined to consider the questions anyone had for him. Rep. Mahoney said he would return “to answer any questions that anybody had… maybe next week” after the Election). (Editorial revision and addition 30 Ap 12)

AUDIO UPDATE (4/30/2012):

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

In a recent pre-election blog post (20 Ap 2012), in reference to Rep. Tim Mahoney’s pre-election refusal to answer questions (Editor added link) about the $5,000 expenditure (Editor added link), Julie Toye wrote the following:

Mahoney certainly was within his rights not to take calls on the radio talk show today. Truth be told, not many campaigning given a free hour of radio air time so close to an election probably would have taken any or many calls, either, if given a choice.

But you’d think that Mahoney would have wanted to clear the air about the $5,000 expense question, if he gave a truthful statement to the local paper last month denying any involvement in trying to toss his Republican opponents from Tuesday’s primary ballot.

Not Enough Said could be wrong to have fingered Mahoney for lying to the local paper, without having a statement from the lawyers that they, indeed, were paid $5,000 by Mahoney’s campaign committee to try to toss the Republicans from his primary ballot.

Mahoney didn’t have to dwell on the subject today any longer than a few seconds on air, and then he could have simply moved on to other conversation.

Democrats who do or do not listen to local talk radio deserve to hear him clear the air before Tuesday’s primary. At least that’s how this Democrat and two of my four new fast pals from the next table at dinner feel.

We disagree with part of the Toye post. Our main quibble with the Julie Toye piece centers on these statements:

But you’d think that Mahoney would have wanted to clear the air about the $5,000 expense question, if he gave a truthful statement to the local paper last month denying any involvement in trying to toss his Republican opponents from Tuesday’s primary ballot.

Not Enough Said could be wrong to have fingered Mahoney for lying to the local paper, without having a statement from the lawyers that they, indeed, were paid $5,000 by Mahoney’s campaign committee to try to toss the Republicans from his primary ballot.

The first statement above is a valid statement, but the part in bold about “truthful statement” has already been answered. The second statement above is an invalid statement. The section in bold that NES “could be wrong to have fingered Mahoney for lying to the local paper. . .” is wrong.

Here’s why:

State Rep. Tim Mahoney was the only person on the planet to acquire (take possession of) both the Gearing and the Cavanagh petitions. (See RTKL-Answer and Timeline entry for Feb.21 at end of this story.) Michael Cavanagh did obtain the Gearing petitions, too; however, it is not believable (it is ridiculous to assert actually) that Cavanagh would forward the Gearing petitions to the very attorney who was challenging his own candidacy. Moreover, NES interviewed Cavanagh, and he told NES that he did not share the Gearing petitions with anyone or forward them to Brown. Furthermore, his contemporaneous statements on WMBS radio make clear that he believes voters should have ballot choices and that he philosophically opposes the removal of candidates from the ballot for almost any reason.

(Cavanagh Audio — Excerpt from WMBS 20120308)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Witness also that there can be no questions about Cavanagh using straw petitioners or being behind the scenes of a petition to strike the Gearing nominating petitions, because there was no challenge to the Gearing nominating petitions other than the Murray/Amend challenge.

Conclusion: Cavanagh did not supply the Murray/Amend attorney – Ronald J. Brown of Grogan & Graffam, P.C. – with the Gearing nominating petitions.

Again, the only other person on the planet to obtain the Gearing nominating petitions was Rep. Tim Mahoney. Actually, as aforementioned, he was the only person on the planet to acquire copies of both the Gearing and the Cavanagh petitions. (See: RTKL-Answer) Therefore, because Cavanagh did not supply Brown with the Gearing nominating petitions, and because the only other person to acquire the Gearing nominating petitions was Mahoney himself, Rep. Tim Mahoney had to be the conduit through which the Murray/Amend attorney — Ronald J. Brown of Grogan & Graffam, P.C. — received the Gearing and Cavanagh petitions. This fact irrefutably and inescapably establishes Mahoney’s behind-the-scenes involvement in the petition to strike the nominating petitions of his Republican opponents. In fact, Mahoney’s documented involvement had been established in NES’ Friday, March 9, 2012, article (see The Rest of the Story, Part II) by the RTKL-Answer combined with the knowledge that the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions were subsequently conveyed to Brown (i.e., Brown incorporated information from the Cavanagh and Gearing petitions into the Murray/Amend petitions to set aside).

(See: 128MD2012 and 135 MD 2012 Petition to Set Aside Nomination CavanaghPetitionMurrayAmend)

The fact that Rep. Mahoney’s involvement in the petitions to strike (i.e., obtaining both the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions, and being the conduit through which they had to have flowed to Brown) had been made known by NES on March 9 was obviously unbeknownst to Mahoney who, two days later, in an article written by Amy Revak for the HeraldStandard.com, “denied being behind the petition seeking to strike the name of Gary Gearing.”

See the March 9 and March 11 Timeline entries from The-Rest-of-the-Story, Part III — Timeline of Events:

March 9, 2012

NES publishes the answer to its Right-To-Know law request showing state Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) as the only person to retrieve copies of both the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions.

http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/03/09/the-rest-of-the-story-part-ii/ and RTKL-Answer

Michael J. Cavanagh files an appeal to the state Supreme Court of the Commonwealth Court’s February 29 decision — a King’s Bench Petition for Extraordinary Relief and an Emergency Election Appeal for Relief.

http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/03/10/republican-tossed-from-seeking-primary-ballot-nomination-for-51st-district-seat-michael-j-cavanagh-to-proceed-with-kings-bench-emergency-relief-appeal-petition/

March 11, 2012

Herald Standard.com publishes a story — “GOP candidate for state House to remain on ballot” (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/gop-candidate-for-state-house-to-remain-on-ballot/article_583b2edd-fc90-587f-a2da-84e3c4ed80da.html) — with the Mahoney admission that he knows the Murray/Amend attorney (Ronald J. Brown) and that Brown called Mahoney. Mahoney (~~avers)~~ (editorial changes) states that he ~~(aided)~~ assisted Brown in getting the papers served and (~~finding)~~ getting a constable to serve papers. Editor: the papers are Set Aside Petitions filed with Attorney Brown’s signature and those of Amend and Murray.

Excerpts from “GOP candidate for state House to remain on ballot”:

Mahoney said he was aware of the filings and did get a call from Ronald Brown, the Pittsburgh attorney representing Murray and Amend. Mahoney said he knows Brown.

“Ron Brown called and asked if I could get the papers served and get a constable to serve them, and if I cared that the papers were for one of my opponents,” Mahoney said.

Mahoney said Brown is unfamiliar with constables from Uniontown and he assisted him in that way.

Excerpt from “GOP candidate for state House to remain on ballot” (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/gop-candidate-for-state-house-to-remain-on-ballot/article_583b2edd-fc90-587f-a2da-84e3c4ed80da.html:

Mahoney, D-South Union Township, the only Democrat seeking his party’s nomination, denied being behind the petition seeking to strike the name of Gary Gearing, a Uniontown councilman, from the ballot. [Emphasis added.]

The Mahoney denial had been “caught out” as false by NES on March 9, two days before the denial was published in the HeraldStandard.com.

Of course, there was the mantra, proffered by “What’s on Your Mind?” talk show host, Mark Rafail, that Mahoney’s acquisition of both the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions alone did not establish Mahoney as being behind the petitions to strike the nominating petitions of Gearing and Cavanagh. This mantra was true up to the point where Rafail chose to end the story. However, Rafail, intentionally or not, did not provide his listeners with the rest of the story (i.e., the full story). As we’ve already covered, the full story didn’t end with Rep. Mahoney merely obtaining the petitions; it is the subsequent conveyance of the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions to Ronald J. Brown that establishes Mahoney’s involvement.

As neither Brown nor the Murray/Amend co-petitioners requested the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions, Brown had to get them from someone. Again, Brown had to take possession of the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions because they were used in the construction of the challenges (i.e., the Murray/Amend Petitions To Set Aside the Nomination Petitions) — especially in the case of the Gearing challenge where Attorney Ronald J. Brown made a line-by-line challenge of the Gearing nominating petitions. The only conduit through which Brown could have obtained the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions was Rep. Tim Mahoney.

Thus, while the citizens of the 51^st Legislative District and the citizens of Fayette County definitely deserve an answer about the $5,000/“Friends of Tim Mahoney” expenditure to Grogan & Graffam, P.C. on February 22, 2012, the established fact of Rep. Mahoney’s behind-the-scenes involvement in the petition to strike his opposition obviates any need to receive an answer to that question before (to paraphrase the words of Julie Toye) fingering Mahoney for lying to the local paper.

Again, here is the denial as reported by Amy Revak on March 11:

Mahoney, D-South Union Township, the only Democrat seeking his party’s nomination, denied being behind the petition seeking to strike the name of Gary Gearing, a Uniontown councilman, from the ballot. [Emphasis added.]

Rep. Mahoney’s behind-the-scenes involvement already having been established by his acquisition of both the Gearing and Cavanagh petitions and their subsequent conveyance to Murray/Amend attorney, Ronald J. Brown, exposes his March 11, 2012, denial to the HeraldStandard.com’s Amy Revak for what it was and for what it remains — an utter falsehood.

Contrary to Julie Toye’s comment (“Not Enough Said could be wrong to have fingered Mahoney for lying to the local paper. . .”), NES is not wrong.

Moreover, the only person to have fingered Rep. Mahoney is Mahoney himself. His former actions (his acquisition of both the Gearing and Cavanagh petitions) and prior events (the conveyance of the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions to Murray/Amend attorney, Ronald J. Brown of Grogan & Graffam, P.C.) directly refute his March 11 denial.

Given this fact, if Rep. Tim Mahoney ever deigns to respond to the question about the $5,000/”Friends of Tim Mahoney”/Grogan Graffam expenditure of February 22, 2012, persons receiving a reply from him (including Julie Toye, Terry Ryan, Michael Cavanagh, NES co-writers, or whomever) would have to treat his answer with the utmost skepticism absent fully verifiable documentation.

While Julie Toye’s request for comment from Rep. Mahoney about the $5,000 expenditure is commendable, we hope that she also requests documentation.

Another verbal denial on Rep. Mahoney’s part simply cannot be trusted.

Editor’s addition:

Rep. Mahoney’s comments to HS.com reporter Amy Revak as well indicate the involvement Rep. Mahoney fingered himself for having had with regard to the Amend/Murray Set Aside petition to the nominating petition of Gary Gearing. (Mr. Cavanagh cannot report how and who served papers on him as he says he was not served by anyone on behalf of either Attorney Brown, or Attorney Lawrence Otter)

“GOP candidate for state House to remain on ballot,” (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/gop-candidate-for-state-house-to-remain-on-ballot/article_583b2edd-fc90-587f-a2da-84e3c4ed80da.html):

Mahoney said he was aware of the filings and did get a call from Ronald Brown, the Pittsburgh attorney representing Murray and Amend. Mahoney said he knows Brown.

“Ron Brown called and asked if I could get the papers served and get a constable to serve them, and if I cared that the papers were for one of my opponents,” Mahoney said.

Mahoney said Brown is unfamiliar with constables from Uniontown and he assisted him in that way.

It strains credulity that an attorney with a well-known legal practice/partnership in a well-established PA firm would enlist the assistance of Rep. Tim Mahoney with regard to sensitive material that is “papers” aka the state-filed Set Aside Petitition to the nominating petition of Gary Gearing and to have any other than the individuals he is legally representing that is Ms. Amend and Mr. Murray (with whom he has attorney/client privilege) get the papers served and get a constable to serve them if the other individual is NOT WITHIN the circle of knowledge if not direct knowledge of everything to do with the papers.

Timeline entries:

February 21, 2012

State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) acquires copies of both the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions.

http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/03/11/who-is-tim-mahoney-requestor-for-2012-candidate-nomination-petition-line-1-michael-cavanagh-line-2-gary-gearing/

RTKL-Answer

February 22, 2012

Ronald J. Brown, attorney for Murray/Amend, signs and dates the Petitions to Set Aside the Nominating Petitions of Michael J. Cavanagh and Gary Gearing.

Ronald J. Brown, attorney for Murray/Amend, files the Gearing petition challenge at the Commonwealth Court at 2:55 P.M.

128MD2012CoverPageAttySigPage (excerpted from 128 M.D. 2012, Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petition)

135MD2012CoverPageAttySigPage (excerpted from 135 M.D. 2012, Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petition)

February 23, 2012

Ronald J. Brown, attorney for Murray/Amend, files the Cavanagh petition challenge at the Commonwealth Court at 11:42 A.M.

135MD2012CoverPageAttySigPage (excerpted from 135 M.D. 2012, Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petition)

March 9, 2012

NES publishes the answer to its Right-To-Know law request showing state Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) as the only person to retrieve copies of both the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions.

http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/03/09/the-rest-of-the-story-part-ii/ and RTKL-Answer

March 11, 2012

Excerpts from “GOP candidate for state House to remain on ballot”:

Mahoney said he was aware of the filings and did get a call from Ronald Brown, the Pittsburgh attorney representing Murray and Amend. Mahoney said he knows Brown.

“Ron Brown called and asked if I could get the papers served and get a constable to serve them, and if I cared that the papers were for one of my opponents,” Mahoney said.

Mahoney said Brown is unfamiliar with constables from Uniontown and he assisted him in that way.

Critically, state Rep. Tim Mahoney denies being behind the Murray/Amend challenge to his Republican opposition, Gary Gearing.

Excerpt from “GOP candidate for state House to remain on ballot”:

Mahoney, D-South Union Township, the only Democrat seeking his party’s nomination, denied being behind the petition seeking to strike the name of Gary Gearing, a Uniontown councilman, from the ballot.

424/2012

Sentenced

Posted in corruption trial Rep. Bill DeWeese

DeWeese sentenced after resignation from Pa. House

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

By Laura Olson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Longtime Pa. Democratic leader Bill DeWeese sentenced to up to 5 years in prison

Published: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 3:27 PM Updated: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 3:55 PM

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/04/longtime_pa_democratic_leader.html

424/2012

Election Results for Our Neck of the Woods

Posted in Fayette County time and place, voting election issues

PA FAYETTE COUNTY ELECTION RESULTS

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/election/Pages/Election.aspx

420/2012

Election Bureau Made Complete List of Absentee Ballot Requestors Received and Stamped by 5 PM Friday Available and Accessible

Posted in Fayette County Election Board, Pennsylvania, voting election issues

Director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, Larry Blosser, had the completed list of the Absentee Ballot Requestors per each of Fayette County’s 98 Precincts available for access viewing, and copying of any and all Precinct lists upon arrival of NES at 5:15 PM Friday, April 20th.

Director Blosser indicated a page for the members of the Election Board to sign was available, but the Board had not yet signed it. (Including that page, the complete packet consisted of 100 pages)

NES reported the members of the Election Board, comprised of Chairman Al Ambrosini, Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky, and Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink, had indicated during the April 3rd meeting the office would remain open to the public until 6 PM the Friday before the Election, in this case, the Primary Election, beyond the normal close of business (4:30 PM) for any persons who sought to access or acquire the listing that Friday.

The lists are inserted in the packet of Judge’s materials prior to Election Day, along with other materials, and Judges have the option of picking up their bags on Saturday between certain hours of the morning when the office is closed to the public. The office opens per usual business hours on Monday, and Judges can pick up their bags at that time as well.

Director Blosser stamped each of the pages with the date and time stamp machine for all the originals so the lists should appear that way when posted in the Precincts by Election Judges and Poll Workers on Tuesday, Election Day, April 24.

The official also had the information concerning how many Absentee Ballots were issued – including militaryAbsentee Ballots – and how many had been returned by the 5 PM Friday before the Election deadline.

537 Absentee Ballots were issued.

405 Absentee Ballots were returned.

Breaking down the report further, the official and staff indicated the following for Military Ballots.

13 Regular Military Ballots were issued and 5 were returned. (8 Outstanding)

6 Civilian Overseas Ballots were issued and 2 were returned. (4 Outstanding)

4 Remote Military Isolated were issued and 1 was returned. (3)

Such Absentees are enabled a Postmark Date of the Election and a 7 day period after the Election for the Ballot’s return.

According to Director Blosser, the 15 Outstanding Regular Military/Civilian Overseas/Remote Military Isolated Absentees would be stamped as they came in and would be counted if all is in order per the postmark and the outer envelope requirements. A list of those would be available to the public (presumably subject for challenge as well).

The (domestic) civilian Absentee Ballots that are Outstanding as of Friday, April 20th would be date-and-time stamped should they arrive at the Election Bureau offices in the days following the Friday before the Election, but would not be qualified for counting having no privilege for lateness beyond the date of the Friday before the election (5 PM). Director Blosser indicated a listing of those names would not be made.

420/2012

WMBS 590 Radio Program Appearance by Rep. Tim Mahoney No Questions Taken from Listeners or via Len

Posted in conspiracy, Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign expenditures, Pennsylvania, state grant money used for Mahoney Ad, talk radio, voting election issues

Update Thursday, April 26, 2012

Awaiting announcement on WMBS 590 What’s on Your Mind radio talk program with Mark Rafail at the 2:15 pm hour that incumbent Democrat Rep. Tim Mahoney () will be a guest for two-hours this Friday as he asserted he would be when he declined to take question on air or questions via temp. host, Len, last Friday (April 20). Rep. Mahoney indicated he’d be available for two hours the following week to “answer any questions the people had.” (See unofficial transcript below. Audio available)

Update Friday, April 20, 2012 at 2:17 PM

The questions were not asked with an excuse Rep. Mahoney would be back to answer questions… haha next Friday… right just after the Tuesday, April 24, Primary Election…

AUDIO UPDATE (4/30/2012):

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Previously approx. 2 PM

The questioner wasn’t NES co-writers, and the voice was male so it was not Julie Toye dot com who gave Not Enough Said a RAVES in general to NES and in particular to vide_post’s April 17th post: The Rest of the Story – Part IV – the Payment.

The caller is a known Republican voter registrant whose first name is Terry who often calls in to WMBS 590 radio talk program What’s on Your Mind, hosted regularly by Mark Rafail and irregularly by Len…

Len hosted for Mark this past Wednesday and indicated Democrat incumbent PA State Representative Tim Mahoney (D-51st-Fayette ) would be on the second hour for Friday, April 20 around 2:15 PM for a political spot.

Today, Terry called in to talk about the Tax Group meeting held Wed. evening. (NES did not attend) Terry organized the meeting which he relayed was well attended and informative and included Republican County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink with the Democrat Chairman of the Commission, Al Ambrosini, and Democrat Commissioner, Vincent Zapotosky, absent from the meeting.

The topic then turned to Rep. Tim Mahoney and his appearance on the program scheduled for the next hour.

Len relayed that Rep. Mahoney would not be taking calls, but he, Len, would field questions now before the session.

Terry asked Len to ask Rep. Mahoney whether he was eliminating the political competition of two Republican opponents. Rep. Mahoney is a Democrat.

Gary Gearing remained on the ballot despite a Set-Aside Petition from one set of Objectors, while the other, Michael Cavanagh was removed from the ballot facing two sets of Objectors to his nominating petitions.

Terry then relayed a circular being sent to Republicans by the Mahoney campaign which asks registered Republicans to vote for Mahoney for state representative should also be asked about. Does he expect Republicans to vote for him, presumably, over the choice they have in the sole remaining candidate on that side of the ballot.

PA has a closed Primary.

Terry then posed the following: Ask Rep. Mahoney about his campaign’s $5,000 payment to the firm that handled the challenges for co-petitioners (Amend/Murray) and what it was for?

Break in What’s on Your Mind radio talk program

Unofficial transcript of What’s on Your Mind program with Len interview of PA State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51st-Fayette County)

2:17 PM Len introduces his fantastic guest and says he will be here to talk they have the questions from people but those will be addressed at another time…

Rep. Mahoney speaks and says he would be glad to come back for a two-hour program and he’ll answer whatever they want to talk about.

Rep. Mahoney begins to talk about the new PA Voter Identification Law… and the Governor’s Budget is next on his list of things to talk about…

Ah, he has a lot of detractors who call this program… but he is the only person who gets along with 90 percent of the people… and he works with the board of county commissioners and the Mayor well, Mayor Fike… we have a relationship like no other… people want change, but they get afraid of change… he wanted it on the ballot to let people have a choice on the school consolidation of our local school districts… let people vote on something that is that important… just give them a choice on the school consolidation issue… he applauds Ed Zadjak… for speaking about the Study on School Consolidation… he was on the school board and he understands the Study… and he applauds the school district superintendents for some measures they are taking to cut costs… getting to his school consolidation study… people need to embrace change… he tried to let the people decide but that didn’t happen…

Now he supports the House Bill 1776, the measure would eliminate all school property taxes… he wants to get this out of the House to see what Governor Corbett will sign on to as well, what is he for… 7 percent increase in the sales tax in exchange for eliminating the school property tax… the county and municipality property taxes would remain…this is the start of trying to change everything we fund in PA.. we need to revamp our taxation… support on this bill is growing, it is bi-partisan… it’s a Republican bill, more juice to push it… get it on the floor and get a vote on it…

Len what ideas regarding current economic development…

Mahoney and Shuster and county commissioners trying in springhill county… need to start working together and we are working together in the county… work with Shuster, Critz, commissioners, Fay Penn… industrial park up here… just got to change our attitude… everything is a conspiracy everything is a game… he’d never have gotten involved in politics… it was a lot easier in business… he likes helping… the biggest part of his job is helping everybody… our office is one of the busiest in the state… we have a lot of constituents… trying to help people get through these hard times…

Len nice to see something visible… neighborhoods coming back…

Mahoney neighborhoods coming back… working together… new building going on… taxable property… putting a water line along route 40… the mountains need water… mountain water authority moving with help from different offices… will have water…

Len great to see… wheels turn slowly…

Mahoney … the casino is coming… private investor helped facilitate up there get set up there… private money going back in to help create jobs…

Len… that’s private money… no state money… their money…

Mahoney (isn’t asked how he just helped facilitate private investor up there) we need to look forward… can’t look to the past… who’s getting what that doesn’t happen any more (OK)

Len… get people out of the mind set we had coal and coke we can’t get back to that…

Mahoney… he thinks every part of this county is going to have major announcements with different businesses opening up… we have good schools… we need better management…

Len… roads opening up…

Mahoney Springhill Township important to open up

Len… property values in Morgantown rising…

Mahoney… where can you go to a more beautiful place people don’t understand what we really have here…

Len… the history we have here… Uniontown since 1776…

Mahoney… the things we have here…

Len… brief break

Mahoney the tourism money we have here and what the county commissioners did here… foresight of commissioners to implement the Hotel Tax… things like Lick Hollow can be upgraded…

Len… very cool

Mahoney… 5th annual coloring contest for students… every year have it at our place… nobody can say it’s on the state nickel… worked out well… underage drinking initiative… Hardy, Ziegler, and himself… what can happen one mistake program worthwhile project… eye opening… four high-schools participating… Assembly for students… keep pushing… trying to change things… get away from the negative in Fayette County…

417/2012

The Rest of the Story, Part IV — The Payment

Posted in voting election issues

This story is the fourth installment in a continuing series of stories. The others are The Rest of the Story, The Rest of the Story, Part II, and The-Rest-of-the-Story, Part III — Timeline of Events.

Time has a way of providing new and important revelations.

When last we left “The Rest of the Story” series of articles, a timeline chronologically laid out the series of events surrounding the petition challenges to the nominating petitions of two Republican candidates for state representative in the 51^st Legislative District, Gary Gearing and Michael J. Cavanagh.

For the purposes of this article, the timeline entries for February 21 through February 24 are the pertinent entries.

The entries are as follows:

February 21, 2012

State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) acquires copies of both the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions.

http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/03/11/who-is-tim-mahoney-requestor-for-2012-candidate-nomination-petition-line-1-michael-cavanagh-line-2-gary-gearing/

RTKL-Answer

February 22, 2012

Ronald J. Brown, attorney for Murray/Amend, signs and dates the Petitions to Set Aside the Nominating Petitions of Michael J. Cavanagh and Gary Gearing.

Ronald J. Brown, attorney for Murray/Amend, files the Gearing petition challenge at the Commonwealth Court at 2:55 P.M.

128MD2012CoverPageAttySigPage (excerpted from 128 M.D. 2012, Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petition)

135MD2012CoverPageAttySigPage (excerpted from 135 M.D. 2012, Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petition)

February 23, 2012

Ronald J. Brown, attorney for Murray/Amend, files the Cavanagh petition challenge at the Commonwealth Court at 11:42 A.M.

135MD2012CoverPageAttySigPage (excerpted from 135 M.D. 2012, Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petition)

February 24, 2012

According to Gary Gearing, at approximately 3:50 p.m., he is served “a packet” by Mark Pasquale, constable. According to Gearing: When asked by Gearing where the packet is from, Pasquale responds, “From the representative’s office.” When asked what’s inside, Pasquale answers that he didn’t read it. When asked who gave it to him, Pasquale replies, “Tim.”

According to Gary Gearing, at 4:25 p.m., he received a call from Ronald J. Brown, the Murray/Amend attorney.

With the blinding intensity of a laser beam, the latest revelation sheds light on the subject of the Gearing and Cavanagh challenges, and it also serves as the right bookend to the left bookend of state Rep. Tim Mahoney’s documented involvement in the move to extinguish his opposition from the ballot.

As is evident in the above entry for February 21, Rep. Mahoney was the only person to acquire both the Gearing and the Cavanagh nominating petitions. He did so on February 21, 2012. (See RTKL-Answer) What is stark about this fact is that neither the co-petitioners nor the attorneys representing them retrieved the Gearing and Cavanagh nomination petitions. As Rep. Mahoney is the only person on the planet to do so, he is the only conduit through which the Amend/Murray attorney – Ronald J. Brown of Grogan & Graffam, P.C. – could have received copies of the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions.

How Rep. Mahoney conveyed the petitions to Ronald J. Brown is a question that remains to be answered; however, there is no doubt that Ronald J. Brown received the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions. (See the entry above for February 22.)

In fact, Ronald J. Brown could not have prepared a line-by-line challenge of the Gearing nominating petitions without possessing those petitions.

What is the latest revelation? The Friends of Tim Mahoney Cycle 2 2012 campaign finance report contains a very telling expenditure. At the bottom of Page 13, there is a line that shows a $5,000 expenditure for “professional fees.” The recipient is none other than Grogan & Graffam, P.C.– the law firm that represented the Amend/Murray co-petitioners in the Gearing and Cavanagh petition challenges. Moreover, the Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign finance report lists February 22, 2012, as the date of the expenditure. This is critical in importance, for it is the very day that Ronald J. Brown of Grogan & Graffam completed the Amend/Murray petitions to set aside the nomination petitions of Gearing and Cavanagh by signing and dating them. Attorney Ronald J. Brown signed and dated the Amend/Murray petitions challenging both Gearing and Cavanagh on the same day (Feb. 22 – see above entry) and filed the challenge against Gearing on the same day (Feb. 22 – see above entry), and the challenge against Cavanagh on the next day (Feb.23 – see above entry).

Additionally, a search of PA Department of State campaign finance records from January 1, 2000, to the present (for the parameters of Filer: Mahoney/Recipient: Grogan Graffam, or Grogan, or Graffam) yields only one return – the “Friends of Tim Mahoney” payment of $5,000 to Grogan Graffam on February 22, 2012. Never before or since that date has Grogan & Graffam received a payment for “professional fees” or for any other services rendered from the campaign committees controlled by Rep. Tim Mahoney.

In our view, the payment was for the legal work performed in the Amend/Murray challenge to the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions, the bulk of which work was performed on February 22, 2012. In short, in our view, the Friends of Tim Mahoney, a campaign committee controlled by state Rep. Tim Mahoney, paid the legal fees for the Amend /Murray challenge of the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions.

Previously, Rep. Mahoney denied being behind the petition to set aside the Gearing nominating petitions.

(See excerpt from “GOP candidate for state House to remain on ballot,” (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/gop-candidate-for-state-house-to-remain-on-ballot/article_583b2edd-fc90-587f-a2da-84e3c4ed80da.html):

Mahoney, D-South Union Township, the only Democrat seeking his party’s nomination, denied being behind the petition seeking to strike the name of Gary Gearing, a Uniontown councilman, from the ballot.

Contrary to Rep. Tim Mahoney’s denial about being behind the petition to strike the Gearing petition, he alone obtained both the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions from the PA Dept. of State. He was the conduit through which those petitions were conveyed to Ronald J. Brown, and, in our view, he had the audacity to have the “Friends of Tim Mahoney” campaign committee pay the legal fees for the “Amend/Murray” challenge to the Gearing and Cavanagh petitions.

Time has a way of providing new and important revelations.

(Editor’s Note)

The petition to set aside the Gearing nominating petitions filed by attorney Ronald Brown of Grogan & Graffam, P.C. on behalf of co-petitioners Thomas R. Murray II and Robin Lynn Amend on February 22, 2012, can be viewed in the following pdf:

128MD2012

The hearing took place on March 1, 2012, with the Hon. Judge Patricia A. McCullough rendering her unreported opinion on March 8, 2012

http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/03/12/petition-to-set-aside-gearing-nominating-petitions-and-judicial-decision/

The petition to set aside the Cavanagh nominating petitions filed by attorney Ronald Brown of Grogan & Graffam, P.C. on behalf of co-petitioners Thomas R. Murray II and Robin Lynn Amend can be viewed here as can the Docket info.

135 MD 2012 Petition to Set Aside Nomination CavanaghPetitionMurrayAmend

Docket-135-MD-2012-Murray-Amend-Cavanagh-ChallengeAttBrown

Particulars can be found here.

http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/02/29/pa-challenges-to-nomination-petitions-of-hopeful-republican-contender-for-51st-district-rep-seat-decided/

Also revisit

Who is Tim Mahoney Requestor for 2012 Candidate Nomination Petition Line 1 Michael Cavanagh Line 2 Gary Gearing?

http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/03/11/who-is-tim-mahoney-requestor-for-2012-candidate-nomination-petition-line-1-michael-cavanagh-line-2-gary-gearing/