Luzerne County Republicans Annount "Youth In Politics" Event

 

 

LUZERNE COUNTY

YOUNG REPUBLICANS

 

 

PRESS RELEASE:

The Luzerne County Young Republicans will be holding its 2^nd Annual “Youth in Politics” event on Sunday, October 21, 2012 from 5pm – 8pm at the Appletree Terrace at Newberry Estates.

We are honored to have District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis as our Special Guest Speaker.  She will be presented with the award of “Young Republican of the Year”.  State Representative Tarah Toohil, last year’s winner of the award, will make the presentation.
 
Additionally, we will present our first annual P.J. Stebbins Award.  P.J. Stebbins was one of the founding members of the Luzerne County Young Republicans.  He passed away earlier this year and the Young Republicans plan to honor him, on a yearly basis, by presenting an award in his name to a young person who has shown dedication, not only in the political arena, but also in his or her community.  This year’s award will be presented to Aaron Kaufer, and will be presented by P.J.’s wife, Suzie Stebbins.  P.J. Stebbins was one of the founding members of Luzerne County Young Republicans. He passed away earlier this year and the YRs plan to honor him on a yearly basis by presenting an award in his name to a young person who has shown dedication not only in the political arena, but also in his or her community. This year's award will be given to fellow Young Republican, Aaron Kaufer.

Tickets are $50 per person and can be purchased at the door.  Delicious food will be provided as well as an open bar.

 

Casey-Smith Senatorial Race Pennsylvania

Following politics for a long time one never knows how a race will turn out until election day.  Polls give each side its best guess but the data is only as good as the pollster.  I truly believe the polls in Ohio don't reflect what is actually going to happen election day between Romney and Obama.   Using 2008 election data to create the sample of voters will be the factor in that race.

Likewise I believe the senatorial race between Bob Casey and Tom Smith is alot closer than most believe.  This report from GoErie.com exemplifies the tightening in that race.

The Washington Post has moved the race from "solid Democrat'' to "lean Democrat,'' an indication the race is in play. But the newspaper said Casey is still the clear front-runner.

Casey estimates that his campaign has spent $11 million, but he said he must raise most of his funds while Smith can afford to write checks.

Smith acknowledges that he and his wife have spent millions of their own money, but he said he's been busy with successful campaign fundraisers, too.

As for the polls, Smith, 64, a former coal company owner, said the Philadelphia Inquirer survey is just one. "When you add them all up and you do an average, this race is tightening,'' he said.

I had very prominent Democrat tell me he is leaning toward Smith in this race.  I know one person doesn't make an election but it was a telltale sign that all is not what is seems to be on the evening news.

Their upcoming debate may have an impact on election day.

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?

Sean Donahue and A Hazleton City Councilman

Photo Standard Speaker Jamie Pesotine

 

In today's Standard Speaker veteran writer Mia Light covers the arrest of a nemisis known to many public officials for his plethora of harassing emails written to them with escalating overtones.

A Hazleton man is facing charges after allegedly making terroristic threats against Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis.

Sean Donahue, 43, of 625 Cleveland St., was remanded by Magisterial District Judge Joseph Zola to Luzerne County Correctional Facility in lieu of $100,000 bail following preliminary arraignment Tuesday on charges of terroristic threats and harassment.

According to court documents, Donahue sent an email message to Salavantis on Aug. 17 stating that he would engage in a gun fight with city police if the district attorney did not comply with his demands.

Police said Donahue sent multiple email messages to Salavantis, threatening violence toward government employees and police. One email asked the district attorney to provide him with various assault weapons and bullet-proof clothing.

Going back to 2009 his rants are still on the internet placed by Mr. Donahue in response to articles appearing in the Standard Speaker.  Here is one example.

Dear All,
(1). I am not opposed to an organized Halloween event, similar to what the Freeland Mayor promoted this year. The events should occur on different days in both towns.(2). I agree with using a church picnic environment.(3). I stand adamantly opposed to desensitizing children to the dangers of going near car trunks, especially to get free candy. Please have the FBI tell me that I am wrong in voicing this concern and I will back off of it (but not until after I complain to every FBI office in the country). (4). Finally, all of you seem to be claiming that if you collocate 40 to 100 children in one place with sugar filled candy, the threat of chaos ensuing is minimal. Do you really believe that? To "tire of sean donahue" My job in the Army was to be a threat analyst. It was a natural it. It was a place where pessimism prospered. There are bad people in society. Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

What becomes puzzling and disturbing is the recent contact by one Hazleton City Council member who copied by means of a "cc" to Sean Donahue over  a city matter. 

From: "Jack Mundie" <  email redacted for privacy reasons>
Date: July 30, 2012 2:35:47 PM EDT
To: < editorial@standardspeaker.com >, "richard ammon" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Peter O'Donnell" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Kent Jackson" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Kent Jackson" < email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Elaine M. Curry" <email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Scott   McCarthy" <  email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Sean Donahue" < smd5389@verizon.net >, Steve Hahn < email redacted for privacy reasons >, <  email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Thomas A. Makowski" <email redacted for privacy reasons  >, Sam Galski<  email redacted for privacy reasons>
Subject: FW: billable hour mistakes



From:   Jack Mundie [email redacted for privacy reasons ]
Sent:   Monday, July 30, 2012 2:20 PM
To:   'Jack Mundie'; 'Keith Bast'; 'Karin Cabell'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jean Mope'; Chris Slusser, Esquire; Jack Mundie; MaryEllen
Subject:   billable hour mistakes
Chris,  I know you donated $500.00 to the city because you made a mistake by having us pass  a resolution instead of a required  ordinance for eminent domain on the Greco property.  Now, I know everyone makes mistakes and I make one every day, but, mistakes are not billable hours.  Your invoices show eminent domain research of $1200.00  and I estimate another $800.00 billed expenses for  the eminent domain of the Greco property.  Hazleton taxpayers should not pay for
anyone’s mistakes.   The total comes to $2000.00. If you want to take credit for the $500.00  that you donated  the total that you should refund to the Hazleton taxpayers is $1,500.00.  Please drop a check off at City Hall at your earliest convenience. Cheers, Jack

From:   Jack Mundie [ email redacted for privacy reasons ]
Sent:   Friday, July 27, 2012 3:14 PM
To:   'Keith Bast'; 'Karin Cabell'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jean Mope'
Cc:   'Lisa Barkus'; 'Chris Slusser, Esquire'
Subject:   TRANSFERS
MaryEllen, According to  our monthly report that we received recently, under the special litigation line item we have paid out $16,154.00. We have budgeted $5000.00. So you paid them without coming to council to request a transfer. You said you would be requesting transfers this year. If there is a reason why you are not doing transfers and not following the third class city code please let me known. Chris if you have any thoughts on this I would appreciate a reply.
Cheers, Jack
.
Sean Donahue replied with this email exchange.  He copied the former police chief, the present police chief, a failed candidate who ran for Mayor of the City of Hazleton as well as Wilkes Barre radio hosts.

From: "Sean Donahue" <smd5389@verizon.net>
To: "Steve Corbett" <email redacted for privacy reasons>
Cc: "Robert Ferdinand" <email redacted for privacy reasons>, "DeAndrea Jr." <email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Grace Cuozzo" <email redacted for privacy reasons>, Webster< email redacted for privacy reasons>, Nancy K <email redacted for privacy reasons>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:06:31 PM
Subject: Fwd: billable hour mistakes
Dear Steve Corbett,

Now their doing it to me (sending the "I'm pissed off e-mails").  I got something going here.  Its the stuff of democracy.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Among public officials there exists an undeniable belief that Sean Donahue possesses a threat to them because his out of control behaviors were escalating.  Almost every Hazleton Area government entity was a target of his menacing emails where the brashness climbed to new heights with each click of the mouse.

A question for Jack Mundie is why did he think Sean Donahue needed to be copied on a city matter?   Sean Donahue's minacious demeanor towards public officials was common knowledge. Being a Hazleton City Councilman did he have knowledge of the F.B.I. visit to Hazleton City Hall? What was the motive behind that action to copy Donahue?  If Mr. Donahue's computer was seized how many more public officials and those seeking a public life will have communications found on his computer? Only time will tell.

Hazleton City Councilwoman Fighting For Political Life

In a letter to the editor today appearing in the Standard Speaker Hazleton City Councilwoman, Jean Mope, appears to be struggling in her attempt to explain her way out of a mess she solely created.

When Civil Service Rules were presented to Hazleton City Council for adoption Ms. Mope had some questions. According to sources Ms. Mope first approached the City Solicitor, Chris Slusser, with a set of questions. Taking his answers with an incredulous stance she unilaterally proceeded to contact the labor attorney designated during the Barletta administration to handle Civil Service Commission matters concerning the police.

Ms. Mope failed to have the knowledge that the Civil Service Rules were not a Hazleton City Council matter. Due to her lack of knowledge, not only in this matter but most city matters, she proceeded to demand answers from the labor attorney relative to Civil Service procedures and rules.

Here is the list of questions she posed to the labor attorney.

From: Jean Mope (redacted email address for privacy reasons)
Sent: June 08, 2012 4:10 PM
To: David E.
Mitchell
Subject: Hazleton City Civil Service
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
Let me introduce myself, I am Jean Mope, Hazleton City
Council Woman.
I have just received your rewritten Hazleton City Police
Civil Service Regulations. I have a few questions and they are as
follows.
Page 2- Definitions, (g), Hazleton is Optional Plan B, not
Home Rule Charter. I was under the impression when Optional Plan B fails to
address a situation we then follow Third Class City Code. Please explain your
definition as to why you state "conflict with Home Rule Charter that the Charter
shall control."
Page 3- (n), your contention is the mayor appoints to the
CSC, what are you basing this determination on?
Page 4-(t) it appears your rules may conflict
here.
Page 5-(y) based on this definition Hazleton City Council
Does hire new employees. Am I correct?
It goes on to say specific comments concerning Veterans, does
this apply only to (New) Veteran Hires?
Page 6-Article 2-201- Since this Board's power is vested by
Third Class City Code, and we are under Home Rule Optional Plan B, the Mayor
merely makes a recommendation to council, not an appointment, for this board.
Please see P.S. law. Or provide me with the documentation showing
otherwise.
Page 7-208- Does not Council have to approve any changes? I
cite the fact we have just gotten your rewritten regulations, as a Resolution to
be placed on our upcoming agendas? Doesn't make any sense to me, either the
board approves their own rules with the solicitor reviewing them or council
does, which one?
Page8-302- Cost incorrect
Council should also be given a copy of applicants immediately
following testing.
Page8- I would like to see these notices also posted in City
Hall per Hazleton City Code.
Section 505- Written Examination- I would like it noted here
that a CSC board member not act as proctor.
Page8- Article 3- 301- The cost for processing (testing) is
incorrect, please see Resolution 2010-63
Section 507- Why place a limit on candidates, as long the
have passed to this point.
Section 511- Legality of toss of a coin?
Section 603- In violation of state law I believe. Third Class
City Code 4406?
Section 606- Again I question using the Police Chief to make
, in essence the final decision. (Considering the chief of police is to come
from within the ranks and we fail to do this.)
Article VII- Does this not violate Section 2001 of the Third
Class City Code?
Section 701- Why are certain positions taken out of Civil
Service procedures? See Section 2002 of Third Class City
Code.
Section 702 should include all positions within the police
force, what laws are you using to take out specific
positions?
Section 708- You are reviewing scores here yet in new hires
you are tossing a coin? I have problems with something like this, from a legal
stand point.
Section 710- What section of state law grants the police
chief the right to select an employee rather than the CSC board?
Section 713- Council should be included in receiving lists
promotional eligibility.
Section805- The city solicitor acts as legal representative
for the CSC, which would place him in a conflict. The problem here is our CSC is
budgeted no funds. The fees for testing covers that and the board is not paid. I
am sure the city solicitor bills under the city as a whole for any action he
does for the CSC. So who represents the board and where do funds for the legal
representation come from? Are these board members covered by E&O insurance?
Who pays for this and where is it budgeted?
Section 810- This should be more definitive of who hears
grievances? The CSC has done its job, the city council is the ones who should
have hear these complaints, not CSC.
Section 10.4- Is the press allowed to record, both visual and
audio?
Article XI-For the record Hazleton is governed under THIRD
CLASS CITY CODE/OPTIONAL PLAN B.
One last question, last year Mayor Yannuzzi made some
promotions, but the problem is some of these positions do not exist. So maybe
you can tell me the status of these promotions?
Sincerely,
Jean Mope

It is unbelievable, no make that preposterous, that Ms. Mope makes the assertion in her editorial that "Most of my questions could have been answered by one or two words, but it appears someone wanted the cost for the answers to be expensive." Ms. Mope challenges the attorney to prove what he is saying is correct with questions like "what are you basing this determination on?,   "it appears your rules may conflict here.", "I have problems with something like this, from a legal stand point." "Or provide me with the documentation showing otherwise."  She goes in Section 805 and asks for a detailed explanation.  The person who wanted the cost to be expensive was Ms. Mope herself.   Instead of asking the City Solicitor her questions who told her he would answer her question for free she went outside to seek her answers.  She didn't like the answers to the questions she originally asked the City Solicitor so she created a whole new set of questions for the labor attorney. 

According to the City Government in Pennsylvania Handbook it is clear that under Third Class City government majority rules.  Earlier this year Ms. Mope had a problem with the majority of Hazleton City Council adopting new rules. 

The Third Class City Code, Optional Third Class City Charter Law and the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law do not set forth rules of conduct or procedure for municipal meetings. Each city is free to establish its own order of business and rules for conduct and procedures.

Most cities have procedures for their meetings set by ordinance, resolution or perhaps tradition. Rules of procedure are always within the control of the majority and may be changed at any time by majority vote.

In her editorial Ms. Mope states "I did the only smart thing I could do. I wrote the law firm that composed the policy and asked my questions."  She forgot one thing.  She needed the approval of the majority of Hazleton City Council in order to unilaterally create a bill for which no line item was approved in the budget.  Without it her move wasn't smart at all. 

Ms. Mope goes on to state " per Third Class City Code."  If she knows the code so well she should know that the majority must approve first.  But Ms. Mope appears to be a renegade who only wants the majority to abide by the rules.

Ms. Mope should have owned up to her mistake instead of trying to blame everyone else but herself.  She wants to blame the City Administrator and the City Solicitor but they didn't decide to write the labor attorney. The bill attributed to her was around $1800.00.  Yet the title says $11,000.  Evidently math isn't her strong point either.

Lou Barletta Comment's On Paul Ryan's Selection As VP

Press Release From The Lou Barletta For Congress Campaign Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                                  Contact: Lance Stange, Jr.

August 11, 2012                                                                                                                                   lance@loubarletta.com

or 570-501-8683

Lou Barletta’s statement on the selection of

Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate

Hazleton, PA – Today, Lou Barletta issued the following statement regarding the selection of Paul Ryan to complete the Republican presidential ticket:

“Jobs and the economy are the number one concern of voters across America.  Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney understand the need for pro-growth strategies that will get our economy back on the right track.

“A Romney-Ryan ticket offers a clear contrast to the failed policies of President Obama that have only made our economy worse.  The team of Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan has the expertise to offer idea after idea on how to fix our economy, cut Washington’s red tape, right-size federal spending to deal with our deficit, and save important federal programs that so many rely on.

“Having worked with Paul Ryan, I can say no one in the House of Representatives knows the federal budget better than he does.  He will be an invaluable resource to the ticket and the American people as their next Vice-President. At a time when our country is heading for a fiscal cliff, there could not be a better team for the future of America than Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan.”

Tony Phyrillas On Paul Ryan

Paid for by Lou Barletta for Congress

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.

The IRS Is Coming After....You!

The Supreme Court's decision yesterday rewriting the reason why Obamacare should remain a law is right on a constitutional basis but wrong on so many other levels.

From the Supreme Court Opinion:

The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government arguesthat Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress mayorder individuals to buy health insurance because thefailure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.

Chief Justice Roberts writing the opinion for the majority opined that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, therefore it is "may be reasonably characterized as a tax".

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power tocompel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product.

At the very least, we should "pause to consider the implications of the Government’s arguments" when confronted with such new conceptions of federal power.


The individual mandate, however, does not regulateexisting commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Congress addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance. Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.

The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now.

Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individualfrom cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power toregulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.

The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to "regulate Commerce." Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms.

That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’senumerated power to "lay and collect Taxes."

Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that itonly imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.

And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a "penalty," not a "tax."

The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.

The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold §5000A as a tax because Congress did not "frame" it as such.

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

The Obama team is too busy from the White House putting a spin on it that it is a penalty and not a tax. WOW!

"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney said.

What a moron. Do people CHOOSE not to pay their taxes??? I guess that is why Obama mandated 16,000 more IRS agents in the bill.  He too thought it wasn't a tax!

Hazleton City Council Meeting 6-20-2012

At the last Hazleton City Council meeting on 6-20-2012 there was an exchange between Hazleton Council persons over the duties of the Hazleton City Clerk.  In this video you can hear Councilwoman Karin Cabell trying to desparately explain the difference between requests of Hazleton City information and requests of non-city information to Councilwoman Jean Mope and Councilman Jack Mundie.  Mope and Mundie are of the belief that the City Clerk is a council employee.  In fact that is not the case.  Mistakenly the position is called the Council Clerk. 



Nowhere in the Third Class City Code of Pennsylvania or the Home Rule and Optional Plan Government Law will one find the position of Council Clerk.  The position is named the "City Clerk."

Home Rule Optional Plan A language(Hazleton chose Option Plan B but the language found in A applies to B except that the Department of Administration is optional under A but mandatory under B).
§ 3009. Appointment and duties of municipal clerk or secretary.A municipal clerk or secretary shall be appointed in the manner set forth in the administrative ordinance as provided pursuant to section 3146 (relating to passage of administrative ordinance). The municipal clerk or secretary shall serve as clerk of the council, keep its minutes and records of its proceedings, maintain and compile its ordinances and resolutions as this subpart requires and perform such functions as may be required by law or by local ordinance. The municipal clerk shall, prior to the appointment, have been qualified by training or experience to perform the duties of the office.

Third Class City Code

ARTICLE XIII
CITY CLERK
Section 1301. Appointment; Compensation; Removal.--The council of each city shall appoint a city clerk on the first Monday of May, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, and on the first Monday of May every fourth year thereafter, and fix his compensation by ordinance. He shall serve for a term of four years and until his successor is duly appointed and qualified.

Section 1302. Power to Administer Oaths; Duties.--The city clerk shall have the power of a notary public to administer oaths in any matter pertaining to the business of said city, or in any legal proceeding in which it is interested. He shall also perform such other duties as shall be prescribed for his office by law, ordinance or resolution of council.

Section 1303. Records Open to Inspection.--The records and
documents of city council of every city shall be kept in the
office of the city clerk and shall be open to the inspection of
any taxpayer thereof, his, her, or its agent, upon demand
therefor during office hours.

It appears Councilwoman Mope forgets that Hazleton operates under Option Plan B as she constantly refers to the Third Class City Code which only applies if there is no direction under Option Plan B law.


The City Clerk is the clerk of council but not the Council Clerk.  How can a part time council have daily control over a full time employee?  Further Mope and Mundie believe they can unilaterally direct the City Clerk to perform research for their personal use not directly related to Hazleton City records.  With the convictions in Bonusgate, Computergate, and former Senator Jane Orie one would think both Mr. Mundie and Ms. Mope would be more careful about instructing city employees to perform personal work on city time.


Ms. Mope erroneously states "It's her job" referring to the clerk. As the law states, and it is quite clear, it would take an ordinance to mandate such a practice.  Even then the state Ethics Act would come into play.  Using one's position for private pecuniary gain, in this case using taxpayer resources to pay for private work to avoid paying another, could come under ethics review.

§ 1103. Restricted activities

(a) Conflict of interest.--No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.

"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.

The job description of the City Clerk, obtained by SOP dated 06/89, states that the person's "Work is generally supervised by administrative superiors."  Therefore it appears their assumption that the City Clerk works at the beckon call of council is preposterous.  Nowhere in the job description does it mandate that the clerk is under the direct control of any Hazleton City Council member.  It appears the clerk position falls under the daily control of the administration, not City Council.

Council members should read the job description before stating "It's her job..What part don't you understand?"  It is clearly Mope who doesn't understand the law and appears to be learning on the job.  In previous meetings Ms. Mope said that council must follow the law but it appears that is only a one-way street.

Mope makes the assertion that directing the clerk to make personal Right To Know requests doesn't cost council money.  Evidently Ms. Mope never was an employer otherwise she would know that the salary, benefits, heat, light, electricity, telephone line charges, etc. all cost the Hazleton taxpayer money.

Mundie also makes the claim it is her job "to get information to help us do our job."  That would be correct if it was Hazleton City information but not NON-CITY information that must be researched then printed out using city equipment.  It should be noted that the request Mr. Mundie made required 1,000 pages of printing. He supplied the paper but forgot the cost of the printer, the electricity to run it, and the ink cartridge costs as well as wear and tear.

Neither understands the need to take employment matters into executive session.  The Sunshine Act specifically makes provisions for executive sessions to discuss personnel matters.  Discussing personnel matters in public can, in many instances, violate the privacy of the employee. 

Both feign that the majority on Hazleton City Council are trying to restrict the public and their access to information.  Pennsylvania law prevents that from being even a remote possibility.  They are using the council chambers as their stage for theatrics designed to inflame the publc because they have no real agenda but obstruction. Their indecorous display rings loudly through the obstreperousness of their comments. Hopefully with time the taxpayers will get what they paid for, not a theatre production.

Out In November- Nobama

Love this editorial' OBAMA IS RUNNING OUT OF EXCUSES

It is time to “out” President Obama.

Mr. President, it is you—not Mitt Romney—who is out of touch with the American people and with what our country needs.

You are outraged at the charge that your White House leaks national security secrets while you stake out a claim of executive privilege, to keep White House communications secret on “Fast and Furious”—the American people smell a cop out or two somewhere in that mix.

You are never out of excuses—blaming others for our anemic recovery—while we are out of patience, frustrated with your mishandling of the economy.

You are out partying at Hollywood fundraisers while millions of people are out of work.

Your spending is out of control while taxpayers are out ever more money to fund your bailouts and handouts for special interests that are special to you.

You have an out of whack belief that “the private sector is doing fine” while we recoil at your
outlandish idea to throw more money at the public sector—big government.

You are out in the open—dividing people by race, income, and deeply held religious and moral beliefs—while most Americans strive to bring out the best in themselves and their neighbors.

Your ObamaCare outsources our health care to government bureaucrats while it leaves us out of pocket, out of choices for our treatments and doctors, and out of incentives to develop new drugs and other medical innovations.

You’ve gone out of your way to antagonize allies like Israel and to appease adversaries like Russia, while most of us see this as out and out betrayals.

You keep going further out on a limb with your extremism on the environment and limiting the uses of energy like oil and coal while ignoring our concerns about being out of power and out in the cold.

You are out campaigning about how in touch you are with us while we see you as out of your depth in leadership, out in left field in your policies and, hopefully, out of your office in November.

CREDIT GOES TO Communications consultant Jon Kraushar is at www.jonkraushar.net