AG Kathleen Kane gets money for Mobile Street Crime Strike Force means help for Hazleton



Recent news reports tell the tale of the escalating violent crimes occurring in Hazleton, PA. due to increased gang activity.  Shootings and stabbings gripped Hazleton as it tries to navigate the new population make-up.  Legal immigrants that moved to Hazleton to escape the New York style life full of gangs found the criminals followed them here. 

A defunct agency of the Department of Justice prepared the Eastern Pennsylvania Drug and Gang Threat Assessment in 2011. 

Dominican criminal groups in Hazleton have established new wholesale sources for cocaine that deliver multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine directly to Hazleton each month.  These new drug sources of supply enable Dominican traffickers in Hazleton to operate independently of New York City associates and sources and to maintain a consistent level of drug availability for greater expansion to new midlevel and retail customers.

 

During Pennsylvania budget negotiations Attorney General Kathleen Kane's requested $3 million dollars be included to fund a mobile street crime unit.  State Sen. John Yudichak, D-14, and state Rep. Tarah Toohil, R-116 announced yesterday that the  $2.5 million dollars in funding was secured.

For Hazleton residents and surrounding communities this news couldn't come at a more appropriate time.

The news was featured in this Standard Speaker.

The funding will allow the Attorney General's Office to implement a mobile street crime unit with the aim of disrupting and dismantling criminal gangs in Pennsylvania.

Kane has said she wants to deploy the unit first in Hazleton.

"This mobile street crime unit is important to send a message to gangs, criminals, and drug dealers - not here, not on our watch and not in Pennsylvania," Yudichak said. "This specialized unit will give the tools to law enforcement and to the Attorney General's Office to work with local police departments to effectively drive gangs out of our schools and out of our neighborhoods."

The AG Mobile Street Crime Strike Force - which was a top priority for Kane - will be an elite unit of highly trained, highly skilled law enforcement agents that will team up with the FBI, the state police and local police departments to end criminal gang operations across Pennsylvania.

"The gangs have been such a big issue in Northeastern Pennsylvania and in the city of Hazleton, this mobile street crime unit will allow the attorney general to come in and augment our police protection," Toohil said. "We really need the boots on the ground, and we really need them in Hazleton."

Hazleton police Chief Frank DeAndrea said he is thrilled that legislators were able to fund the mobile street crime unit.

AG. Kane is quickly establishing her priorities for Pennsylvania.  Chief DeAndrea called her move a "phenomenal out-of-the-box idea."

In an article written by Richard Stine, a 2007 student at Kutztown University, he wrote about the ordinances passed in Hazleton to address illegal immigration.  He made this observation in his senior projects paper. 

Barletta claimed that the influx of illegal immigrants has brought crime, drug trade and gangs to Hazleton which have overwhelmed police budgets. Police Chief Robert Ferdinand also makes the same claim. “What I've seen goes far beyond police reports. The crime that I've seen in Hazleton over the past year is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm very fearful of the trends.

Stine asked this question. 

Did Barletta propose these ordinances only to gain name recognition for a possible run for some higher office, or did he do it to honestly protect the citizens of Hazleton, as he boldly proclaimed he had the right to do?

Well, I believe Attorney General Kathleen Kane just answered Mr. Stine's question 6 years later.

Councilman Jack Mundie Wants To Raise Hazleton's Tax Millage

In his ongoing effort to convince Luzerne County officials to conduct a reassessment of properties Councilman Jack Mundie would cause Hazleton's tax millage to increase to make up for lost revenue according to Director of Assessment Anthony Alu. 

In this Standard Speaker article written by Michael Buffer he reports that Alu stated  "A reassessment this year or next year would likely reduce assessment totals, and that could result in increases in property tax rates "to compensate for" losses in tax revenue for the county, municipalities and school districts".

Another reassessment would cost more than $2 million and take two years to complete, Alu said. A reassessment would require additional staff in the assessor's office, Alu said.

It also would to force the county to spend about $300,000 to pay a company to review three years of sales data and devise a mathematical formula to compute new assessed values, Alu explained.

Mr. Mundie's proposal would do nothing to lower property taxes for Hazleton residents.  In addition Mr. Mundie cites research of selling home prices in his presentation that are questionable.  The housing market has been quiet in Hazleton.  To make a broad comparison on the effect to Hazleton's market a sizeable representative sample of sold homes for such a study would be needed to draw an accurate conclusion.  More than likely the homes he is citing include "distressed sales" resulting from tax sales or foreclosures.  Those figures aren't accurate for comparison.

His position is pure theatrics for the upcoming City Council election.  In the end his proposal would cause the millage in Hazleton to increase.  Hazleton is Third Class City.  As such, by current law, it can only tax properties up to 25 mills without going to court. 

Hazleton reached 25 mills in 1972.  In 1977 it was forced to apply for an extra 5 mills to the Luzerne County Court.  That rate was in effect until 2008 which caused all kinds of financial problems for Hazleton, as well as many other third class cities.

His attack on reassessment can have a negative effect on persons interested in purchasing homes in Hazleton.  If they feel the value is going to be depressed, while an attractive buy, it can also deter sales because they may feel other markets have a much better chance for appreciation.

Frank Sorik has it correct.  Quote- "Frank Sorick, president of the Wilkes-Barre City Taxpayers Association, told council to hold off on another reassessment because he expects the state Legislature to outlaw property taxes."

Mr. Mundie's approach is designed to help himself, not the taxpayers.

Hazleton's Landlord Inspection Ordinance

Councilman Jack Mundie has voted more than once against an ordinance requiring inspection of rental properties.  His latest "NO" vote came on February 6, 2013.

In today's Standard Speaker article written by Sam Galski he questions the mangerial ability of Chief Frank DeAndrea to oversee the work of the Code Department of the City of Hazleton.  Someone should be questioning Mr. Mundie's "NO" vote in light of the following serious matters involving the health and saftety of the citizens of Hazleton.

In 2011 a sleeping toddler was injured when a plaster ceiling fell on him in an apartment building that was evenutally condemned.   The details contained in this article written by Standard Speaker reporter Kent Jackson.

A plaster ceiling collapsed on a 2-year-old Hazleton boy while he slept Friday morning in an apartment building that authorities later condemned.

Medics placed Zaire Johnson in a neck collar before taking him to Hazleton General Hospital, the boy's father said.

Daniel Johnson, his father, said he came home from cashing a paycheck before 10 a.m. and saw part of the ceiling on Zaire, who slept in a small bed in their first-floor apartment at 417 W. Broad St.
"I started freaking," he said.

The boy's mother woke and telephoned for help.

Hazleton Deputy Fire Chief Brian Mandak said the boy appeared to be bruised, but more startled than hurt.

A plaster ceiling, a drop ceiling and its grid fell in most of the boy's bedroom, and some of the pieces fell on him.

Mandak said the building had other problems: there were no smoke detectors or heat. Tenants used an oven to keep warm, Mandak said.

In January, 2012 Amanda Christman wrote this article about an apartment building that was condemned by City Health Inspector Mark Thompson for numerous violations.

Hazleton officials condemned an apartment building this afternoon after finding health and code violations inside.

A man and a woman occupied the building at 528-530 W. Seventh St., and were told they could no longer live there.

City Health Inspector Mark Thompson said the building has no electricity or heat. Because there was no heat, water pipes inside burst. The occupants ran extension cords through the walls to a neighboring dwelling to run two space heaters, Thompson said.

The owner of this building located on East Broad Street in Hazleton ran out of time to make repairs on his condemned, burned out building according to this article written by Amanda Christman.

 

A Hazleton bar with apartments was condemened on Sunday March 24, 2013 by City Code Enforcement Officer Rich Wech along with Deputy Fire Chief Brian Mandak.  Amanda Christman of the Standard Speaker covered this story which further illustrates the need for inspections.

The problems inside the building at Third and Alter streets were discovered after Hazleton firefighters received a call from one of the tenants Saturday night asking what the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning are.

Based on that call, Deputy Fire Chief Brian Mandak said firefighters went to the home around 9:55 p.m. for the possibility of a carbon monoxide problem and found a malfunctioning coal furnace and an odor of sulfur at the front door. Mandak said with the front door wide open, ventilating some of the CO outside, firefighters found 26 parts per million of CO.

They also found 48 ppm at the top of the basement steps and over 110 ppm in the basement, where 25 ppm is what OSHA states is the "time weighed average" for an eight hour day, Mandak said.

In addition to the malfunctioning boiler, he said, the basement was cluttered with ashes and combustible items posing a fire and health hazard.

Back in 2009 Mundie tried to stake the claim that he is a "watchdog" on Hazleton City Council claiming he's always voted what is best for the residents of the city. 

 "I've always been a watch dog," Mundie said. "I have agreed with the mayor on issues and I have disagreed with the mayor on issues. But I've always voted the way I thought was best for Hazleton."

The voters should question whether Jack Mundie lives up to that claim.  Who is watching Jack Mundie?  After all he is the government he claims to be watching.   It like the fox watching the hen house.



Jack Mundie Ignores The Public During Council Meetings

This picture was taken at the last Hazleton City Council meeting.  Hazleton City Council meetings are the opportunity for council to conduct its business and listen to complaints from the public.  Evidently Jack Mundie doesn't feel either is important enough nor part of his duty as a councilman.

This incident isn't the first time that Mr. Mundie ignored matters at hand during a City Council meeting.  Reporter Sam Galski filed this report February 25, 2012. 

More recently, Ammon sat in the audience at a city council meeting and was observed by some exchanging text messages with Mundie as the councilman, from council's table at the front of the room, inquired about Shoepe's standing on the authority board.

Take a look at this slide. 

 

From 2004-2008 expenses exceeded revenue by almost $1 million dollars.  Mr. Mundie is the only current council member who held office during that period.  If he paid attention he could have prevented this problem, or at least corrected it. Instead he sat idly by until while the debt mushroomed to the point it was necessary for the City to borrow $5.6 million dollars to correct the deficit spending as reported May 25, 2011 in the Hazleton Standard Speaker. 

Some have to wonder did Mr. Mundie bury his head in the sand while taxpayers suffered from the additonal financial burden.  Obviously Mr. Mundie has no solutions.



As a result of Mayor Yannuzzi's $5.6 million dollard borrowing plan it was unnecessary for the City to take out a tax anticipation note in 2013 saving the City about $30,000 in interest and borrowing costs as outlined by Acting City Administrator Steve Hahn in this Standard Speaker article.  It should be noted that Councilman Jack Mundie voted "NO" on the financing deal. 

Some taxpayers are left asking this question of Mr. Mundie-

 









Jack Mundie's Attempt To Financially Cripple Hazleton



As last night's Hazleton City Council meeting Sam Galski reports that Councilman Jack Mundie proposed extending the rebate period for Hazleton property owners to pay their tax bill to the City. Despite his twelve year tenure as a councilman Mr. Mundie tried to replace the taxing ordinance with a resolution, something not allowed under the law.  His obvious pandering to the property owners of Hazleton met with credible resistance.  His fellow council members exposed his "playing up to the public" for political gain.

Most property owners have their tax money placed in escrow waiting to be dispersed to the proper taxing bodies. His suggestion would only injure the City of Hazleton who saved taxpayers by not seeking a tax anticipation note for 2012 or 2013.  The City also saved taxpayers money on mailing costs by incorporating the city tax bill with Luzerne County.  Mr. Mundie's proposal would negate those savings thereby necessitating another tax increase on the people.

Mr. Mundie's political vendetta against Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi and other City Council members is reaching new lows. Mr. Mundie voted "NO" on paying Hazleton's debt at the beginning of the year. He voted "NO" on the property tax increase necessary to replace lost revenue from the mine reclammation project. He voted "NO" on collecting the correct earned income taxes from out of town employees working in the City that would fund the City's pension obligations. He told residents to fight parking tickets at the Magistrate level to deprive Hazleton of its income.

Mr. Mundie opined that Hazleton should hire someone to negotiate union contracts for the City.

"I just want to know, shouldn't we have somebody with experience negotiate with the unions," Mundie asked. "If they thought they did a good job negotiating, health insurance (contributions are) $20 per month and we're getting a 24-percent (overall cost) increase."

From the Minutes of 1-25-2012

Resolution 2012-19 Authorizing the City of Hazleton to Utilize the Services of Special Legal Labor Counsel on an As-Needed Basis Presented by Perry. Seconded by Cabell.

On the Question:

Mundie asked Lieb if she knows what the hourly rate is for this service. Lieb said all the rates are listed in the letter from Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn, which was given to Council. Lieb said a partner of the firm charges $250.00 per hour, with a 10% courtesy discount, and half of the travel time involved. Lieb commented that this firm is located in Kingston. Mayor Yannuzzi said we are able to go to Attorney Goldberg with questions, personnel issues, to negotiate contracts, etc., because this is his specialty. Lieb said he is a labor attorney.

Roll Call: Bast-yes; Cabell-yes; Mope-no; Mundie-no; Perry-yes

His policitally motivated attacks and votes are part of Mr. Mundie's orchestrated campaign to financially cripple the City of Hazleton just as he did to the Hazleton City Authority in the 90's.

Despite proclammations that he would put together a budget for the City he contributed nothing in the process.  He told City Council to pass the budget so he could make amendments.  That never happened.

During the budget debate of 2009 then Mayor Barletta had this to say about Mr. Mundie's "NO" votes. 

Speaking in the general direction of council, Barletta said, "Anybody can vote 'no.' That's easy. Why vote 'no' if you have no better ideas. Everyone who voted 'no' is being very irresponsible. I hope you're satisfied. Good job."

Will Grace Cuozzo Finally Answer Sean Donahue's Questions?

Kelly Monitz of the Standard Speaker wrote this article today describing Sean Donahue's prolific career writing what was on his mind penning hundreds of emails and letters to the editor, writing on an Internet blog and newspaper forums, and calling into radio talk shows.

An interesting email exchange is found on the internet where Mr. Donahue chose to store his writings "in the cloud" after shutting down his blog, Blogginghazletoncity.blogspot.com.

In the Standard Speaker article Grace Cuozzo, disastrous candidate for Mayor of the City of Hazleton, makes the following representation of her interactions with Mr. Donahue.

Grace Cuozzo, a long-time government watchdog, communicated with Donahue while on the campaign trail in Hazleton last year, and still received his emails until his arrest Tuesday.
"I don't know why he sends them to me," she said.

She wonders why none of the recipients, including law enforcement, didn't reach out to help.

"He should have been put in a hospital for an exam," Cuozzo said. "There's no question there was a problem. I'm not a doctor, but it doesn't take a mind-trust to see there was a problem. I'm floored they didn't put him in the hospital.
"
I think he needs help, not jail," she said.

The real question is why did Cuozzo, who by her own words, converse with Mr. Donahue if she believed him to have psychological problems?  Why did she enlist him as a soldier in her fruitless campaign for Mayor?  Read the following exchange obtained by SOP.

From: Sean Donahue

To: Grace Cuozzo; loubarletta [rest of barletta address redacted]

Cc: MarkKatchur ; Carl Christopher ; Chiefof Police Robert Ferdinand ; Sr. CEO Sam Lesante ; Kristen Buczynski; Lisa; Jim Reinmiller ; AndyMehalshick ; NancyDoyle ; Drew Speier ; NancyStasko ; [Seven email addresses redacted for privacy reasons] Kevin ODonnell ; SteveCorbett ;[ 4 emails redacted for privacy concerns;] MaryellenLeib ; Bernadette DeBias ; [5 emails redacted for privacy reasons]

Sent: Monday, September12, 2011 8:50 AM

Subject: Questions For Cuozzo Campaign Headquaretes

Dear Ms. Cuozzo,

Please answer the questions listed below;
Why didn't you send your below e-mail to others so that they know it was you who contacted me to find out what Lieb had sent me regarding her salary, made wild claims and then backed off them?
Why did you tell me that the executive order Lieb sent mew as a xerox of a document that Barletta only recently signed and that Deakos could verify the date of the original document having been signed?

Why then when I requested documents that would confirm plans to allow Deakos to examine the document, as you claimed needed to be done, did you back off of your claim?

Why didn't you share acknowledgment of your error with others? You are running for Mayer here. You can't be calling constituents hoping to rally support with outlandish claims and then back off those claims when someone pursues your claims in order to prove them right or wrong. You are in a political race her for a position that would allow you to make decisions that would affect my life. Your claims must now be proven to be either true or false. That must be done prior to election day and voters must know whether or not you were correct.

You called me several times, intentionally seeing me out hoping to conjure up the political spirits. Do you feel that you mistook my criticisms of government agencies as a constituency farm for yourself?

Sincerely,


Sean M. Donahue


Hazleton, PA
It appears her contact was more than just communicating; it seems incendiary.

As Mr. Donahue's computer, hard drives, and portable drives are examined by law enforcement much more information may arise outlining how many politicians were trying to exploit Mr. Donahue's instability for their personal agenda.  Was there a premeditated effort to politically charge Mr. Donahue into explosive anger?

Gangs and Graffiti- A Wakeup Call For Hazleton City Council

On July 11,2012 Hazleton Police Chief Frank DeAndrea introduced Ordinance 2012-19 defining and prohibiting graffiti and providing for removal and penalties for violations in the City of Hazleton. The top crime fighter in the City asked the legislative body for a tool to deal with graffiti which signals gang territory and was put on HOLD.

In this Standard Speaker article written by Sam Galski Councilwoman Jean Mope questioned the chief on provisions in the ordinance.  She wanted to know by penalizing the property owner for non-removal of graffiti would he be "fining the victim." 

"I don't think it's right to victimize the victim over and over again," Mope said, adding that the written proposal would create an additional expense for owners of multiple properties.

What Ms. Mope is missing is who is the real victim here.  Is it the property owner who fails to remove the graffiti or the children who are enticed by the gangs for recruitment day after day?  This law will preven the victim from becoming the victim again by forcing removal of the graffiti according to experts.

Do a Goggle search for "graffiti removal 72 hours"?

The town of Burlington, Vermont has a paper titled "Graffiti Coordination/Community Outreach Worker Mission".  One of its statistics states "Research shows that graffiti removed within 72 hours has a 90% chance of not returning."  That fact is all the more reason to insist on graffiti removal in our community.

Robert Walker's internet site "Gangs Or Us" talks about gang graffiti and graffiti taggers. 
Gang graffito, the singular of graffiti, is often the first indication that street gangs are active in your community. Graffiti is the newspaper, the billboard, the Internet of the world of street gangs and serves to mark the gang's power and status. Graffiti marks territorial boundaries and serves, as a warning to other gangs that the area marked with unique signs and symbols is the territory or "turf" of a particular gang. Graffiti warns intruders or trespassers from rival gangs and even policemen, that they are not welcome. It may also be an advertisement for the sale of drugs or a memorial to a fallen fellow gang member.




Graffiti should not be tolerated in ANY community. It frequently, if left in tact, leads to the degradation of a neighborhood and the devaluation of property. Studies have shown in many cases that if graffiti is left unchecked and not removed, more and more graffiti will appear. The removal of graffiti is extremely costly and some cities, that have developed graffiti removal programs, have spent huge sums of money to reclaim and beautify the neighborhood or community.

Most municipalities have codes or laws that deal with the defacing of property. Many have seen the need to pass laws that deal directly with graffiti perpetrators and many of these laws have severe penalties to deal with violators who are convicted. You can learn about some of these laws and ordinances by clicking here.

In this New York Time article Kathleen Gunn of the White Plains Business Improvement District discusses graffiti removal.

''Graffiti is a quality-of-life issue that needs to be addressed immediately,'' said Kathleen Gunn, the organization's executive director. ''Fortunately, we don't have that big a problem, partly because we have a lot of police presence here, but it's like the broken-window theory: when it does appear, it needs to be controlled.''


Gang graffiti is a weapon to put our community and police officers in harms way, no question about it.  Now is not the time to be playing politics with our children.  When the top crime fighter asks for help the community and council people should be supporting him, not placing their "political agenda" first.

Multiple property owners are usually in the business of renting.  Ms. Mope voted against a landlord/rental registration law in January, even after amendments were made to it.  It appears she supports landlords instead of the City she represents.  There are unanticipated costs in any business. 

Gangs put drugs in the hands of our youth.  She should be more concerned with the needle in a chid's arm or the baby born to a heroin using mother than a $50.00 fine.

.

Of course obstructionism has no bounds.  There was no need to table an ordinance when it needs two more readings before passing.  It seems that tabling ordinances is the new game at further delaying the needed laws to protect Hazleton citizens.

Supreme Court Not Impressed With Obama Team On Immigration

Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim

Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.

The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.

But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

Click the title to read more......

But the 53 Democratic Senators want to overrule the Supreme Court with new legislation stripping the states of their apparent rights.  Can you imagine that 53 residents of the United States have the audacity to tell over 308 million what to accept?

Cuozzo And Deakos Cost Taxpayers Thousands And Were Dead Wrong

Hazleton's constant complainants, Dee Deakos and Grace Cuozzo teamed up against their own City of Hazleton to make incredulous allegations regarding a lease arrangement including debt passed by Hazleton City Council to the Department of Community and Economic Development filed June 27, 2011. Their initial complaint was faulty and they resubmitted an amended complaint on June 30, 2011.

SOP has obtained a copy of the decision by C. Alan Walker, Secretary of Community and Economic Development in favor of the City of Hazleton in their latest unfounded attack. Categorically, the Secretary catapults their claims as inaccurate through failing to provide any concrete evidence to their assertions with phrases like - in this regard the Complainants have not provided any concrete evidence, the Complainants challenge that the nature of the project is inconsistent with the provisions of the URA law is also without merit, and the Complainants do not cite any specific provisions of the URA law.

The best one that sums up the inability of these two vexatious complainants is this description found on page 6. Finally, the Complainants allege that the borrowing should have been approved by ordinance, not by resolution, in accordance with the Third Class City Code. This allegation is without merit factually. The city did pass an ordinance for the Project, No. 2011-10 on June 7, 2011, not a resolution.

In part II of his answer titled "Challenges to the Regularity of the City's Debt Proceedings" the Secretary reminds them that his department does not deal with allegations of violations of the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law or the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.

The pair also alleged that the borrowing was an open ended agreement with no limitations on maximum interest payments and was summarily dismissed as misplaced. In part III they had to be reminded that Tax Anticipation Notes are not "debt".

None of this information made Kent Jackson's article in the Standard Speaker regarding this matter. He reported that their complaint was dismissed because it wasn't timely filed.

Hazleton mayoral candidate Grace Cuozzo challenged the city's plan to borrow $5.6 million too late, a state lawyer said when explaining why her complaint was dismissed.

Scott Longwell, assistant counsel for the state Department of Community and Economic Development, said Cuozzo needed to challenge the tax and revenue anticipation note when the city borrowed it in January. Instead, she and Hazleton resident Dee Deakos filed the challenge this summer after the city sought to extend the repayment and long after the 15-day deadline ran out.

Cuozzo said dismissing the challenge on a technicality leaves unanswered two concerns that led her to file the challenge.

It seems odd to SOP that a letter signed by the Secretary is quoted in a newspaper article as information from the assistant counsel.  It seems even odder that given the detail with which the Secretary dismissed their complaints only timeliness made it to the people of Hazleton via publication. It is also evident that Cuozzo appears to mislead the public about the entire content of the Secretary's letter.

Kent Jackson wrote about the cost of their futile challenge to the taxpayers of the City of Hazleton.

Hazleton's acting Director of Administration Mary Ellen Lieb said the complaint delayed the borrowing and cost the city $20,000 to $25,000 in legal fees. Also, additional interest paid while extending the original loan, which expired June 30, exceeds $10,000 so far and will accrue at $270 a day until the new loan is finalized, which Lieb said might take a few more weeks.
The accrual could amount to thousands more if it will take a weeks to resolve. 

Third Circuit Court Of Appeals Vacates Own Order Against City of Hazleton

On September 10, 2010 it was reported that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the City of Hazleton concerning its local ordinances dealing with the effects of illegal aliens within its borders. This year the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Third Circuit in June and remanded the case back to them for further review.

Today sources tell SOP that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its own decision from last September meaning the City of Hazleton no longer has a decision against it from that court.

This development is significant for the City of Hazleton, Congressman Lou Barletta, Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi, and Councilwoman Evelyn Graham who spearheaded the ordinances in 2006.

Grace Cuozzo's Rants, Half-Truths, and Distortions

When Grace Cuzzo announced she was seeking the office of Mayor of Hazleton she cited her tenure on the Hazleton Housing Authority as proof of some government experience. SOP has secured many documents saved from her term as a board commissioner. The information provides a very disturbing pattern of lack of cooperation, but more importantly, points to a failure of the duty of loyalty in the performance of her duties. This series will explore her term to educate the public on her behavior.

Cuozzo wrote to many state and federal authorities and agnecies claiming to have uncovered improper actions by the board. She questioned experienced and certified professionals without matching their qualifications with legitmate ones of her own. At one point she proclaimed "No I am not in construction but I am not stupid". Her actions were cited in the resignation of the recording secretary for the board in September, 2001. Those observations are just the tip of the iceberg.

Ms. Cuozzo started her tenure on the Hazleton Housing Authority in 1999. According to her Statements of Financial Interests she had no income nor worked during her entire term on the board(we will explore those documents at a later date). She either was a "homemaker" or "none" for occupation.

One of her rants occurred in September, 2001 when she questioned the recommendation of Larry Meiers, A.I.A. for a bid award in Phase III of work performed for the authority. Her statement "Both you and I know a good bid would assume nothing, therefore the bid would include the correct amount needed to reach that R-value, period." Mr. Meier responded that Ms. Cuozzo failed in her analysis to account for the R-value(insulation) existing in the building. "Apparently, you did not understand my statement since we did add the correct amount, unit by unit, to reach the required thickness and R-vlue."

Meiser's response in this episode was two pages long. Item by item he discredited Cuozzo. His frustration spilled over onto the end of his letter.

"Every single day I ask myself how our frim can be the most professional, qualified, technologically advanced and yet competitive firm it can be. This process never stops. Our records shows that we are a highly qualified, professional firm and can compete with any firm in this area and beyond. I resent your implication that we are not.

If you are searching for the perfect firm with perfect human beings, you will not find one.

Any and all correspondence should be directed to the A/E through the Housing Authority. We will reply only to correspondence through the Housing Authority, if so directed.

Imagine the time and energy expended because Ms. Cuozzo distorted facts and felt her "questions" were factual. She called her questions "legitimate concerns". That assessment depends on which side of the court you look from.

It should be noted that Cuozzo received just 512 votes in the Democratic Primary of 2012 for the office of Mayor. Her opponent, Joseph Corradini(there is a strange twist to their relationship) received 365. Write-In for Mayor received 465 votes meaning Cuozzo didn't even capture 39% of the total vote. Her opponent, now Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi received over 54% of the Republican vote at 765.

Next issue will deal with a censure by the Board of Commissioners against Grace Cuozzo signed in October, 2001.

SUPREME COURT VACATES 3RD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION AGAINST HAZLETON

Court Orders New Look At Pa. City Immigration Regs

Hazleton Merchants Look For Help

Standard Speaker writer Jim Dino covered a meeting of the Greater Hazleton Chamber of Commerce's Downtown Committee on Tuesday. MinSec quickly became a topic of those gathered to discuss the spat of crime including a recent double-murder in Hazleton.
You can read the article by clicking here.

What I found amazing was the listing by "homegal" in the comments section of all the inmates at MinSec who were involved in incidents during their stay there.

The following incidents, culled from Times Leader archives and media reports, have occurred since then:
Nov. 8, 2008: Convicted burglar James Reynaldo Mercado, 21, escapes from MinSec.

July 30, 2009: Allen Fernandez is released from MinSec, picked up in Hazleton by members of a gang who drove him to Ransom Township, Lackawanna County, and shot him 12 times.

April 2, 2009: Jamie “Cuba” Torres-Dominguez absconds from MinSec.

April 12, 2009: Julio Cesar Gonzales absconds from MinSec and is shot by an alleged drug dealer outside Station 33 on Diamond Avenue, Hazleton.

June 6, 2009: Nelson Roberto Rodriguez walks away from MinSec.

Sept. 13, 2009: MinSec resident Richard Torres is arrested on charges of indecent exposure and disorderly conduct.

Sept. 23, 2009: Convicted robber Nicholas A. Cusatis absconds from MinSec.

Sept. 29, 2009: MinSec resident William Tierno is charged with robbery.

Oct. 28, 2009: Tierno is charged with additional robberies.

Oct. 29, 2009: Media report that Tierno stated he was introduced to crack cocaine and was able to break curfew while a resident of MinSec.

Nov. 11, 2009: Cusatis is apprehended by the state Board of Probation and Parole.

Nov. 29, 2009: Russell Ryder walks away from MinSec.

Jan. 1, 2010: Ryder allegedly steals cigarettes from CeeBee’s, West Broad Street, Hazleton.

Jan. 9, 2010: Ryder allegedly smashes a window and steals cigarettes from Pantry Quik, Diamond Avenue, Hazleton.

Jan. 14, 2010: Former MinSec resident Norman Kane is charged with theft from Blockbuster Video, Hazleton.

March 12, 2010: MinSec resident Joseph Stephens, of Chambersburg, allegedly tries to steal an iPod speaker system from Boscov’s in Hazle Township.

March 16, 2010: Former MinSec resident Derrick Davidson, of Hazleton, allegedly throws a bag of urine at Hazleton police while in a holding cell after being arrested.

March 21, 2010: Marvin Brown escapes from MinSec through a back door after an argument with security about a cell phone.

March 23, 2010: MinSec walk-away Nelson Roberto Rodriguez allegedly stabs a man on Carleton Avenue, Hazleton.

April 2, 2010: Edward Eugene Hardy, previously convicted of aggravated assault, fails to return to MinSec.

April 3, 2010: Hardy is captured by police on Public Square in Wilkes-Barre.

April 4, 2010: Torres-Dominguez, who absconded from MinSec a year ago, allegedly robs Craig’s Food Mart, Hazleton.

April 5, 2010: MinSec resident Jeffrey Wright allegedly robs M&T Bank, Hazleton.

April 6, 2010: Torres-Dominguez allegedly robs Dollar General, Hazleton.

April 6, 2010: Wright absconds from MinSec.

April 8, 2010: Torres-Dominguez allegedly robs Turkey Hill, Sugarloaf Township.

April 11, 2010: Torres-Dominguez allegedly robs Craig’s Food Mart, Hazleton, again.

April 14, 2010: Wright allegedly robs M&T Bank in Hazleton again.

April 2010: MinSec resident on work release at City Hall uses computer to download pornography.

May 2010: MinSec resident Luis Lozada-Colon is charged with stealing a CD player.

May 2010: Remus Marks, who failed to return to MinSec, is charged with causing a disturbance on North Bennett Court, Hazleton.

June 30, 2010: Convicted thief Sean M. Vought escapes from MinSec.

July 12, 2010: Sean M. Vought is captured by Lehighton police. State police said he fled there with his girlfriend, whom he met while at MinSec.

July 13, 2010 – Torres-Dominguez is captured.

Jan. 16, 2011: MinSec resident Rubin Correa is caught on videotape at First Presbyterian Church, right across the street, allegedly stealing a leather coat and rummaging through other clothing articles and drawers in the church during services.

Jan. 27, 2011: MinSec resident James Edward Heller allegedly robs bank in Pike County, leads police on high-speed chase back to Hazleton area.

Jan. 31, 2011: MinSec resident Charles Humphrey is charged with retail theft at Boscov’s, Hazle Township
This was posted today in the Times Leader. Thought it was worth a read to Hazleton people.

MinSec's Approval Process In Hazleton Part 2

MinSec's location, Altamont Building, Downtown Hazleton

The last post on MinSec dealt with its application before the Zoning Hearing Board at its meeting of October 18,2007.

Continuing with the testimony offered at the hearing Attorney Giuliani, representing MinSec, called Edward Pane, President and Chief Executive Officer of Serento Gardens, to testify. During his testimony found on page 20 of the transcript Mr. Pane opined about MinSec's operation.

Basically, this is an extension of what we have benn doing. It is a highly complemetary relationship. We're really kind of in business (that) vertically integrates building into a place where there's an outpatient center, an inpatient center.

Mr. Jonathan Wasp, facility director of MinSec's Scranton operation , was called back to testify. He stated found on page 25:

You know, the licensure we have through the Department of Health in our Scranton location, which will also be the same license that we'll be pursuing here, makes us a non-hospital inpatient drug treatment program.

However, on page 23, Mr. Wasp offered this testimony on the percentage of serious incidents that could be expected as a result of the approval and establishing a resident population in the Altamont.

So yeah,, I would say the incidents are relatively low. And it really depends on the structure of the program. I would encourage you, I would encourage the community to become familiar with our handbook. It's public information. It's available through the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections website. See how our program runs...

Back to Attorney Giuliani's questioning found on page 29 to Mr. Pane.

Mr. Giuliani: I just want to ask Mr. Pane something because this is what he told me. The basic difference, Mr. Pane, between what MinSec wants to do and what you're doing is that they're inpatient and you're outpatient?


Mr. Pane: That's correct.

Mr. Giuliano: There's no other difference, right?

Mr. Pane: That's correct.

On page 31 of the testimony Attorney Giuliani makes this statement.

What I'm saying is if there's a question as to whether you have the authority to do-- I mean, it's already been given to add for a whole floor and the only--- that's my point, the only difference between what they're suggesting and what Ed is doing is that one is residential and the other is not.

Onto page 32.

Mr. Giuliani: I just want to repeat something. The people who are buying it are also the peoplw who are making-- who are talking to MinSec, which is important. Mr. Amiano is goint to sell it to him, and then I would imagine that if you're going to do anything else differently than what they're asking for the second, third -- or fourth and fifth floor, they'd have to come here to do that as a use.

Mr. Paletski, Vice Chairman of the Zoning Hearing Board of Hazleton City asks a question found on page 39 and 40. Jonathan Wasp answers the question.

Mr. PALESTSKI: One question. I'm looking at the article from the Times Tribune here and it says, Man was part of minimal security prisoner form the MinSec housing center. Are these residents minimum security prisoners or have they released?

Mr. WASP: In the same way that you were misquoted in today's paper, so was he, apparently. I think people make the logical extension that MinSec is -- the first three letters are MIN, the first three letters of security, and they say must be a minimum security prison.


As I said, we take parole cases. We take self-paid patients. We take individuals who were referred to us by single county authorities in other locations, federal cases. So, no. I wouldn't say it's limited to prisoners, but we're taking somebody who simply can't afford it....

Let's take a look at a Standard Speaker article from February 12, 2010.

Questions persist about Hazleton halfway house
By Kelly Monitz (Staff Writer)

Members of the chamber's Downtown Committee recently met with MinSec's Jonathon Wasp, vice president of treatment services, and Doug Albertson, facility director, to learn more about the facility in the former Altamont Hotel, chamber President Donna Palermo said.

However, they were left with more questions than answers, she said.

"We thought it was a halfway house," she said. "Jonathon Wasp from MinSec stated that it was a minimum security prison. ...That is how they came by their name, MinSec.

"I think everyone is confused on what it really is," Palermo said.

The facility, which is contracted by the state Department of Corrections to provide community corrections services, has operated for about two years, expanding from two floors in the historic structure to five floors in the past year.

Back to the testimony.

Mr. PALETSKI: So some may be work release prisoners, some may be--

Mr. WASP: Well, we have some that are probation and parole--

and page 41

Mr. GIULIANI: And I suggest that this is a use that has already been used in that building.

Finally, the board convenes an executive session with is reconvened at 8:48 P.M. found on page 45.

Mr. SCHADDER: Next application is that of MinSec Companies, LLC, requesting a use variance for an operation of a residential skilled development transitional living treatment program to be located at 145 West Broad Street, a CZ Zone.

I'd like to make this contingent upon fire, health and safety codes as well as local, state, and federal licensing requirements. I'd like to make a motion to approve.

MinSec's handbook referred to in testimony is found here. From its Welcome:

Welcome to MinSec Hazelton Treatment Center

This facility, in many ways, will represent the hardest part of the correctional process for you.

One lingering question hangs like a blanket of clouds building before a thunderstorm casting gray and black shadows. Since the Department of Corrections labels MinSec as a Community Corrections Center is that the same thing as a "residential skilled development transitional living treatment program"? Does a CZ zone allow the placement of a community corrections center in it? Does Hazleton code have a licensing mechanism for a community corrections center or facility?

MinSec- A Tale Of Misdirection For Approval?

Application ZA-116-07- MinSec Companies, LLC requesting a use variance for the operation of a residential skilled development transitional living treatment program located at 145 West Broad Street, the Altamont Building, a CZ Zone

That statement comes from the transcript of the proceedings before the Zoning Hearing Board of Hazleton City on October 18, 2007. Hold onto that thought as you read this post. There are many who blamed former Mayor Lou Barletta for the placement of MinSec in downtown Hazleton. Let's see what the record states. Let's see what the press left out in its coverage of the approval process because of the obvious bias present at the Standard Speaker against Lou Barletta and now Mayor Joe Yannuzzi.

Attorney Henry Giuliani represented MinSec before the Zoning Hearing Board at these proceedings. He called several witnesses including Ed Pane, President and Chief Executive Officer of Serento Gardens, Jonathan Wasp, Vice President of Treatment Services MinSec, and Anthony Amiano, owner of The Altamont who was leasing the building to Visionary Companies, LLC on behalf of MinSec, LLC.

Mr. Wasp was called to testify and his testimony starts on page 6 of the transcript. He states he is "a facility director of a treatment program in Scranton, MinSec Scranton." "I currently serve as the facility director, so I do the administrative oversight and problematic considerations for our Scranton location. He states he will be the facility director, at least temporarily in Hazleton.

Q. Would you describe the mission of MinSec?

A. We provide transition living programs for adult males. Each of our programs are a little bit different. The programs we operate in Philadelphia, some of them operate with federal contracts, some with state contracts, some with county contracts. Our Scranton program operates entirely on state contracts. And at this point our consideration for Hazleton would be state contracts here as well.

Q. And what kind of referrals do you get?

A. We take adult males. The residents who are referred to our program have a number of issues that we do assessments on. The consideration we're giving at this time is for an inpatient drug and alcohol treatment program.

Q. How many beds would there be in the Hazleton project?

A. At this point in time we're looking at two floors, floors 4 and 5. So we currently at this point we've considered 50, 25 per floor.

Q. How many employees would there be?

A. Because we're regulated by the Department of Health which as an entity that's solely responsible for this type of program, drug and alcohol programs...and he goes on to explain staffing..

MinSec's main purpose is not a "drug and alcohol treatment program" according to its own website.

MinSec is a leading provider of private community correctional centers.

MinSec's primary correctinal focus and expertise: Developing and operating community correctional facilities.

Jack Sommers is the Director of the Bureaus of Community Corrections within the Department of Corrections.

This bureau is responsible for residential facilities located in various Pennsylvania communities. These facilities, also known as half-way houses, provide a transitional process by allowing residents monitored contact with jobs and educational opportunities. The facilities house inmates in prerelease status and inmates granted parole by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. The department also contracts with private vendors to provide specialized treatment and supervision service, many in the area of substance abuse programming.

This document from the Department of Corrections was issued September 17, 2008. Policy Subject: Community Corrections Centers

It states "II. APPLICABILITY
This policy is applicable to all facilities operated under the jurisdiction of, or conducting business with the Department of Corrections.

III. POLICY

It is the policy of the Department to provide housing and transitional services to residents of Community Corrections Centers and Community Contract Facilities until such time that a resident is released."

Section 21 – Specialized Community Corrections Centers

A. Location

The Specialized Community Corrections Centers (CCCs) are as follows:

1. Region 1 – Kintock-Erie;

2. Region 2 – Harrisburg CCC and Minsec of Hazelton; and

3. Region 3 – Renewal Inc. and Erie CCC.

B. Inmate Accountability and Daily Operations

An inmate paroled to a designated Specialized CCC will be subject to a morestructured/controlled daily routine.

I ask you to draw your own conclusions from the testimony and the information provided whether the testimony offered before the Zoning Hearing Board of Hazleton City was accurate and precise or general and misdirection. Is MinSec under the auspices of the Department of Corrections or the Department of Health? Are the services they provide part of a community correctional facility or a health services facility?

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Hazleton

The Times Leader is reporting the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the City of Hazleton in a case with its insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, over the payment of legal bills involving its Illegal Immigration Relief Act lawsuit.

In this very inaccurate statement Terri Morgan-Besecker writes:

A federal appellate court on Friday ruled an insurance company does not have to pay attorneys’ fees associated with Hazleton City’s battle over its illegal immigration ordinance, leaving the city on the hook for at least $2.4 million, and likely much more.

What is true is that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals relieved Scottsdale Insurance Company from any financial obligation in this court issue. What is totally untrue is that the city is "on the hook for at least $2.4 million, and likely much more."

No court has awarded any attorney fees in this case. Judge Munley ruled against the City of Hazleton with regards to the Illegal Immigration Relief Act which can be found a this link.

The Plaintiffs filed a separate action to recover attorney fees and cost titled Plaintiffs Petition for Fees and Costs . Since the appelate process has not concluded the actual award has not been established.

Let's look at one of the firms involved in the litigation and mentioned in the Plaintiffs Petition for Fees and Costs, Cozen O'Connor. The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel interviewed the Douglas B. Fox, Member of Cozen O'Connor and Chair of the firm's Pro Bono Committee on August 08. 2008 about its role in the case.

Fox: We are currently handling a high-profile case, Lozano v. Hazleton , involving a challenge to the Hazleton, PA., illegal immigration ordinances. Our team of six attorneys has dedicated thousands of hours to this case - our single largest pro bono matter to date. Lost in the rancorous debate over immigration policy is the fact that the Hazleton case does not seek to vindicate illegal immigration. Our clients simply sought to restore immigration enforcement to the federal government - where it belongs. We were successful after a two-week trial in striking down key elements of the ordinances, and currently, the case is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling is probably several months away.


The case has made national headlines and was highlighted by the National Law Journal as one of the most significant pro bono matters of 2007, with the tagline for their article being "What Lawyering is All About." And, that really says it all. Firm management deserves a great deal of credit for having the courage to take on an unpopular cause, one that many law firms would have shied away from. We have received many honors for our pro bono work, including in the Hazleton case. This kind of recognition for the quality of our pro bono lawyering is what makes me the most proud.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association gave Cozen O"Connor one such award in 2007.

Cozen O’Connor: Philadelphia, Philadelphia County (Nominated by H. Robert Fiebach, Esquire) Cozen O’Connor law firm is recognized as a “go to” firm in handling complex pro bono matters, particularly in the field’s Immigration/ Asylum Law and post conviction remedies. Pro bono service is an integral part of the firm’s culture. Cozen encourages all of its attorneys to devote at least 60-hours annually, allowing 50 of those hours to be treated as full production credits. In 2006, Cozen O’Connor’s Pennsylvania attorneys and paralegals devoted over 9,900 hours to pro bono matters. Firm attorneys also take leadership roles in public service and charitable organizations and sit on the Boards of Directors of pro bono services organizations. Additionally, the firm has developed its own charitable programs that serve the greater Philadelphia region.

If their work was pro bono why would they be entitled to a court award of their fees?

Look at the Plaintiffs Petition for Fees and Costs. There are five firms applying for attorneys fees. Cozen O'Connor has twenty one attorneys billing for fees.

Witold Walczak, attorney for the ACLU, filed for $324,400 worth of fees at a rate of $400.00 per hour. Lest we not forget that the ACLU has also represented the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. According to their website this is how they fund themselves. Member dues and contributions and grants from private foundations and individuals pay for the work we do. If that is the case why is their attorney billing Hazleton at a rate of $400.00 per hour?

Fifteen attorneys besides the 21 from Cozen O'Connor have filed for fees. The total listed on the Petition is $2,333,551.50 in attorneys’ fees and $45,492.70 in costs.

Clearly the size of the bill is intended to send a message to any government entity that wants to take action against the cost of illegal immigration to its community. It is funny that the American Civil Liberties Union will protect your right to free speech but punish the citizens of Hazleton for protecting its community. The elected officials will not be stuck with their bill. It is the taxpayers that will fund their burden should an award be given to the Plaintiffs. But, as stated, until that happens the news media should not be as reckless with its articles to the public.

Misleading Unemployment Statistics

In today's Standard Speaker Borys Krawczeniuk writes a column about unemployment in Hazleton. Ed Mitchell has been touting a misleading figure out there in an attempt to fool the public about the real issue. Why do I say misleading?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States government maintains this website that clearly shows Pennsylvania unemployment unabated rise since the beginning of the year. At this link on their site county unemployment data is listed for Pennsylvania. There is a very important footnote on that page.

NOTE: Rates shown are a percentage of the labor force. Data refer to place of residence. The City of Hazleton does not have any industrial parks. You will find them surrounding the city- Hazle Township, West Hazleton, Sugarloaf, Butler Township, and McAdoo. Firms such as Archer Daniels Midland, Hershey, Office Max, Autozone, etc are located in those parks. If they lay off any workers who live in the City of Hazleton the statistic gets charged to Hazleton even though the workers lived outside the city. How Mitchell can blame the Mayor for loss of jobs that weren't within the city limits in the first place and get away with it is beyond me?

Here is a link to the Center For Workforce Information and Analysis website that shows the Metropolitan Statistical Areas and the Micropolitan Statistical Areas. The City of Hazleton is not listed. The residence issue is the reason the data can be skewed when drilling down too deep. Why don't they list the unemployment figures for Nanticoke, Lattimer, Pardeesville, Hollywood, Ashley, Dunmore,etc. It's simple. To do so would create a statistical anomaly.

Its a Democratic state with a Democratic Representative who worked for a Democratic Congressman. It is not hard to figure out why there is a statistic for Hazleton and not one for Nanticoke.

If Borys wants to be responsible to the people who read his articles he needs not to stretch the facts to create a story. He needs to report them for what they are.

The chart at the top of the article explains what is happening all over Northeastern Pennsylvania. Paul Kanjorski, instead of telling us what's wrong tell us what you did about it. Evidently NOTHING.

Inconsistencies Between Munley And Arizona Ruling

Today, an federal judge in Arizona granted a temporary injunction to the most controversial portions of the state of Arizona's new law aimed at illegal aliens.

In reading her decision a glaring inconsistency stood out when one compares it to Judge Munley's ruling in the Hazleton case.

a. Mandatory Immigration Status Determination Upon Arrest

The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 10.)5 Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country.” (Id.)

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 § 2(B) with H.B. 2162 § 3(B).) The second sentence was identical in the original version and as modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as dependent on one another. As initially written, the first sentence of Section 2(B) did not
contain the word “arrest,” such that the second sentence could be read as modifying or explicating the first sentence. In S.B. 1070 as originally enacted, the first two sentences of Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly.

Here is what Judge Munley wrote in his Opinion concerning the first version of the Hazleton Ordinance.

C. Amendments to the Ordinance

On March 15, 2007, during this court’s trial of this matter, defendant
introduced Ordinance 2007-6, which has since become law in the city.
See Ordinance 2007-6 (Defense Ex. 251). This Ordinance Amended
Sections 4B(2) and 5(B)(2) of IIRA. Id. As originally written, “a complaint which alleges a violation solely or primarily on the basis of national origin, ethnicity or race” would not be enforced. Ordinance 2006-18 at § 4B(2).

The 2007 amendment removed the words “solely or primarily” from these provisions, meaning that “a complaint which alleges a violation on the basis of national origin, ethnicity or race shall be deemed invalid and shall not be enforced.” Ordinance 2007-6. The amendment also altered Section 4.A of the Ordinance by adding the word “knowingly” to a provision prohibiting the recruitment and hiring of illegal aliens. Id.; see Ordinance 2006-18 at § 4.A (establishing that: “It is unlawful for any business entity to knowingly recruit, hire for employment, or continue to employ, or to permit, dispatch, or instruct any person who is an unlawful worker to perform work in whole or part within the City.”). At the end of the hearing on the plaintiffs’ complaint, we asked the parties for briefs on the effect of this amendment on the instant litigation.

The parties agree that the court has jurisdiction to issue a decision
on the current version of the ordinance. Plaintiffs argue, however, that we should also rule on the version of the ordinance that existed until the March amendment. Defendant amended the ordinance, plaintiffs argue, to avoid having this court rule on the constitutionality of the ordinance as it then existed. That amendment did not come, plaintiffs insist, because
Defendant recognized that the previous version of the ordinance violated
the constitution, but simply to improve defendant’s litigation position.
Accordingly, the court could reasonably conclude that defendant will not
cease the illegal practice embodied in the earlier version of the ordinance.

The dispute between the parties here is over whether we should also
consider the version of the ordinance that was in effect through most of the litigation in this matter. We find that we do not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of a version of an ordinance that no longer exists, particularly when we have–as both sides admit–jurisdiction to examine the current version of that ordinance.

In one case Judge Susan R. Bolton considers information in a prior version to rule on the present version and in Munley's case he refuses to rule on an earlier version thereby basing his decision on the latest version. Go figure.

What amazes me in both rulings is that each judge surmised legislative intent without any testimony from either legislature representatives. I guess Johnny Carson's Amazing Kreskin still lives on.

In the Arizona case Bolton wrote this statement in her Opinion. "The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests." Your honor, no disrespect but the State is telling you what its intent was and you chose to disagree. Is that within your judicial powers?

In Hazleton's case Judge Munley takes until page 90 of his 206 page decision to finally get to the "Federal Constitutional Issues".  He writes from page 13 until 90 on preliminary issues like the rights of John and Jane Doe. 

Didn't Jill Moran take a hit back in 2009 for putting the "John Doe" name to Robert Powell's IRS lien filing? Here's what Jennifer Learn-Andes wrote in her article on January 20, 2009.

Experts said her action was illegal. Federal officials were looking into the matter, but it's unclear if any official action was taken against Moran. Moran later put the lien under Powell's name in the office database.

Heck you can't even hunt a John Doe during buck season.

And those who oppose Lou Barletta feel he is trampling on the rights of illegal aliens? Go figure.

Ed Mitchell is lying to you. Again- From The Barletta Campaign

I received the following release from the Lou Barletta For Congress Communications Coordinator Shawn Kelly.

Once again, the Kanjorski campaign is stretching the facts in a desperate bid to stay in power.

Kanjorski spokesman Ed Mitchell lied to you about the City of Hazleton’s pension fund. Mitchell said Tuesday: "Other cities have pension problems, but like the jobless rate, Hazleton's is the worst.”

Completely false.

Here’s what the Scranton Times published today:
“Scranton, compared to cities of similar size, has one of the most poorly funded pension plans in the state, the report states, while 55 percent of pension systems in the region are in some form of distressed status. … Scranton has $64.3 million in its pension fund, but obligations of twice that, $138 million, for a funding ratio of 47 percent. Any funding ratio under 50 percent is deemed severely distressed by the Public Employee Retirement Commission.” (“State: 55 percent of NEPA municipal pensions distressed,” Scranton Times, July 28, 2010)

Hazleton’s funding ratio, for comparison, is 52 percent, and the city is considered “moderately distressed” by the state. (“Pa.: 28 pension plans distressed,” Times Leader, July 27, 2010)

And once again, Mitchell lied about Hazleton’s unemployment rate.

According to the Citizens’ Voice, William Sholly, industry and business analyst for the Pa. Center for Workforce Information & Analysis (the center that published the unemployment rate Kanjorski and his spokesman tout), Hazleton’s high unemployment rate is misleading: “There were fewer employed people in the city of Hazleton since last year, but more people are in the labor force and so the rate can increase quite a bit, based on the numbers." (“Hazleton’s unemployment highest in Pa.,” Citizens’ Voice, July 7, 2010)

Mitchell continues to lie on behalf of his desperate boss, and reporters continue to report their bogus claims as fact.

I know it’s easy to get drawn in by the lies of Kanjorski and his spokesman. Kanjorski and his Mitchell-led spin machine are getting incredibly desperate.

Look at the facts:
• Kanjorski has represented this region for 26 years.
• Kanjorski took more than $4.2 million in campaign contributions from the financial services industry – the very industry he is supposed to oversee (Source: Center for Responsive Politics).
• Kanjorski’s failure to exert proper oversight led to the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
• That collapse knocked billions of dollars out of pension funds, 401(k)s, and other retirement portfolios.
• More than half – 55 percent – of pension systems in Northeastern Pennsylvania are in some form of distressed status.

And Kanjorski blames Lou Barletta for Hazleton’s pension fund? How does he explain the pension fund situation in Scranton? Or Roaring Brook Township? Or Dunmore? Or Hanover Township? Or the dozen other municipalities with
similar or worse pension fund issues?

Kanjorski and Mitchell are trying to shift the blame away from Kanjorski’s failed policies and failed leadership – and they’re doing it by lying and stretching the facts about Lou Barletta’s record. They’re blaming Lou Barletta for problems that exist on a national and statewide level.
This isn’t the first time Mitchell lied to you, either. He lied about Hazleton being unique in balancing its budget and claimed that no other municipalities had to raise taxes or cut services. Think of your own coverage area – possibly even your own neighborhood – and you know that’s not true. More than that, it’s demonstrably not true.

We fully expect Kanjorski and Mitchell to continue their desperate attacks. I strongly encourage you to factcheck every single claim Mitchell makes, as he clearly cannot distinguish fact from fantasy. This is a very important race, and the entire Kanjorski/Mitchell strategy is to lie, to mislead, and to get media outlets to publish blurbs that can be used in television ads.

If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks.


Shawn