Showing posts with label Restore the Voucher Request Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Restore the Voucher Request Law. Show all posts

Mahoney Expenditures Incurred Master File

Posted: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

The link below is to a master file of expenses incurred by State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) between January 01, 2007 (the month he first took office) and February 12, 2013.

The file was obtained from the House of Representatives, Office of the Comptroller via a Right-To-Know law request made years ago.

That is the reason why the numbers only reach to February 2013.


Expenditures of particular note:

Pages 26 – 27:  An expenditure (in addition to the 02/26/2008 claims for $394.18 for Gas & Oil) of $63.30 for Gas & Oil (bottom of Page 26) on 02/28/2008 and another expenditure for $78.25 for Parking & Tolls on 02/28/2008 (second expenditure from the top of Page 27) that call into question whether state taxpayers funded Rep. Mahoney’s trip to Pittsburgh on 02/28/2008 to testify for the release of a twice-convicted, violent, drug felon on illegal possession of firearm charges.  See: here and Mahoney Witness at Detention Hearing.

Page 101:  Voucher Number 111380118, Printing-Other, 04/29/2011, $51.73.  Charge to taxpayers for printing of Rep. Mahoney's fatally flawed referendum petitions.  For confirmation the expenditure was for the referendum petitions, please see the expenditure of $51.73 near the bottom of Page 5 here.


Pages 103 – 107:  Eighteen Session Per Diems/Non Session Per Diems, of $160.00 during the purported circulation period of Mahoney's Referendum Petitions.  These 18 per diem claims place Rep. Tim Mahoney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, during his purported circulation period of June 1 – August 8, 2011, making it impossible that he was present before the circulating petitions, as required by PA Supreme Court case precedent for an affiant to sign petition Affidavits of Circulator lawfully.  These 18 per diem claims stand as testament that, on August 9, 2011, State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) knowingly and willfully executed altered and falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator before notaries public, which is punishable in Pennsylvania under perjury statutes, and which was covered extensively in this post from October 8.   

Page 120:  Three Committee Per Diem charges for 02/21/2012, 02/22/2012, and 02/23/2012, for $163.00, which place Rep. Mahoney in Harrisburg on the day (02/21/2012) records show him as the only person on the planet to retrieve both the Gary Gearing and Michael Cavanagh nominating petitions from the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation.

A $5,000 expenditure made by the Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee on 02/22/2012 -- the very day Attorney Ronald J. Brown of Grogan Graffam, P.C. finalized the petition challenges against Gearing and Cavanagh (Mahoney’s opponents in the 2012 Primary Election) -- precipitated multiple voucher requests and court actions.  The Friends of Tim Mahoney never produced the voucher for the $5,000 expenditure (see: FrofTMahoney Cycle2 2012, bottom of Page 13) to Grogan Graffam, P.C.  Instead, the Friends of Tim Mahoney and the PA Dept. of State fought tooth-and-nail in court against the release of the details of the expenditure.

Rep. Mahoney’s campaign committee’s actions/inaction led to the obliteration of the Voucher Request statute (i.e., the ability of persons to see the particulars of campaign committee expenditures in Pennsylvania), which FS covered extensively here and here.

Thus, the seminal “accomplishment” of State Rep. Tim Mahoney’s tenure in office is the destruction of campaign expenditure transparency for all persons who desire to make a request to see the particulars of campaign expenditures in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania!

Gentle readers, feel free to search through the expenditures for yourselves.

Who knows what else one might turn up? 











Grogan Graffam, P.C. Closes Its Doors

Posted: Monday, April 18, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

Grogan Graffam, P.C. , the firm which represented the scofflaw Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee in the Voucher Request cases closed its doors on April 15, 2016.

 The GG homepage gives its thanks and says goodbye.

 To which this space can only say: Good riddance!!



PA Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Quigley's Pernicious Election Case Rulings

Posted: Sunday, April 17, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

The previous post in this space, in part, dealt with the errant opinions in 215 MD 2013 and in 359 MD 2014 reached by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley and how those opinions destroyed the Voucher Request statute and obliterated the right of persons, upon request, to see vouchers (i.e., receipted bills detailing the particulars of expenditures made by campaign committees to influence the outcome of elections).

 The post pointed out the "pernicious decision of a judge who contradicted PA Supreme Court case precedent (In re: Canvass of Absentee Ballots of 2003) and his own former ruling (2357 CD 2009) that cited it. . . ."

 We turn now to the scintillating election case that resulted in Judge Quigley's ruling in 2357 CD 2009.

 The race in the 2009 Municipal Election for Bellevue Council (a suburb of Pittsburgh) Ward 1 pitted Democrat Jane Braunlich against Republican David Piet.

 Initially, Braunlich eked out a 210-209 victory in the election -- a razor-thin margin of just one vote. 

 Days after the election, a lost, sealed, absentee ballot was discovered in the trunk of a vehicle of a judge of elections.

 The sealed absentee ballot was taken to the Allegheny County Division of Elections, opened there, and tallied.
The absentee ballot was cast by Walter Daughenbaugh, a National Guardsman serving his country on active duty military service.

 What had been a razon-thin margin of victory for Braunlich had now metamorphosed into a 210-210 tie.

 To break the tie, Braunlich and Piet drew lots (pellets); Piet won and was declared the victor.

 Braunlich appealed the decision by the Allegheny County Division of Elections to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.  In the court's decision (link pgs. 141-142), it cited numerous sections of case law that pointed toward the paramount importance of enfranchisement of electors, not their disenfranchisement.  Moreover, as the absentee ballot remained sealed, there was no possibility of fraud.  Thus, the court affirmed the counting of Walter Daughenbaugh's absentee ballot and the tie-break election victory of David Piet.

 Braunlich, however, was not through.  She appealed the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas decision to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

 Here is where things really get interesting.  The Commonwealth Court judge who decided the case was none other than Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley.

 In his decision (2357 CD 2009), Judge Quigley cited In re: Canvass of Absentee Ballots of 2003 and ruled accordingly:



"In In re of Absentee Ballots of November 4, 2003 General Election, 577 Pa. 231, 843 A.2d 1223 (2004), our supreme court held that in the context of the Election Code, the word “shall” carries a mandatory, not a discretionary meaning.  Under Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act, “[w]hen the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”  1 Pa. C.S. §1921(a).  Therefore a court is forbidden from ignoring the clear mandates of the Election Code in pursuit of other considerations.  See In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of November 4, 2003 General Election."  [Emphasis added.]

 Thus, Judge Quigley's strict interpretation of the mandatory nature of "shall" in the context of the Pennsylvania Election Code overturned an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas decision which recognized the paramount importance of the franchise under Pennsylvania law, overturned the tie-break election of David Piet, and disenfranchised Walter Daughenbaugh by negating the vote he cast on an absentee ballot while in active duty military service to his country all because the opening of the sealed absentee ballot did not meet the mandatory "shall" requirement of being opened at the precinct.  Never mind that the ballot was found six days after the election was over and the precinct closed and Braunlich had decided not to challenge the ballot itself in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, as she was given opportunity to do so by the court! 

 Although the arguments in the briefs in 215 MD 2013 and in 359 MD 2014 directly confronted Judge Quigley with his ruling in 2357 CD 2009 that "shall" is mandatory in the context of the Pennsylvania Election Code to the Draconian extent that even (in Quigley's view) the enfranchisement and intent of an elector must take a back seat, a review of the rulings in 215 MD 2013 and 359 MD 2014 demonstrates that Judge Quigley failed to address and completely ignored in his consideration of the cases the argument that "shall" is mandatory under the Pennsylvania Election Code as it pertains to the Voucher Request statute, which contains seven instances of "shall," including the provisions in law that vouchers "shall be retained" and "shall be available."

 Voucher Request statute from the PA Election Code:

25 P.S. § 3246 (c):  Vouchers or copies of vouchers for all sums expended amounting to more than twenty-five dollars ($25) shall be retained by the candidate or the committee treasurer and shall be available for public inspection and copying as herein provided. Any person may inspect or copy such vouchers or copies thereof by filing a written request with the appropriate supervisory office which shall notify the candidate or political committee of such request. The candidate or political committee shall have the option of either forwarding such vouchers or copy of the same to the supervisor for such purpose or making the vouchers or copy of the same available to the requesting person. If a candidate or a treasurer of a political committee shall fail to make said vouchers or copies thereof available for inspection and copying when requested by the appropriate supervisory officer, such officer shall direct the candidate or political committee to promptly deliver the vouchers or copies thereof to the supervisory office for purposes of inspection and copying. Costs of copying and costs of delivery by the candidate or treasurer of the requested vouchers or copies thereof shall be borne by the person requesting same.

 An aside: David Piet appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but in 5 WAL 2010, the PA Supreme Court denied Piet's Petition for Allowance of Appeal and Daughenbaugh's Petition to Intervene.  Judge Quigley's ruling stood.

 In 2009, Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley so stringently interpreted the mandatory nature of "shall" in the context of the Pennsylvania Election Code that he overturned a lower court ruling, overturned an election, and disenfranchised an elector on active military duty service to his country.  

 A mere 4 and 5 years later, respectively, Judge Quigley ignored his ruling in 2357 CD 2009 on the mandatory nature of "shall" in the context of the Pennsylvania Election Code, allowed State Rep. Tim Mahoney's (D-51) Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee to keep secret the particulars of its expenditures (violating the mandatory requirement that the expense vouchers be made available for inspection and/or copying), and destroyed utterly the Voucher Request statute (i.e., an entire statute of Pennsylvania election law) thereby nullifying the intent of the Pennsylvania General Assembly that voucher requesters have the right to inspect and/or copy vouchers (i.e., receipted bills detailing the particulars of expenditures made by campaign committees to influence the outcome of elections in this commonwealth).  

 Of his own volition, Judge Quigley also granted the Application of the PA-DOS-BCEL to turn the unreported Memorandum Opinion into a reported Opinion that will be referred to as "case precedent" in Voucher Request cases. In other words, the BCEL will never make a failure determination as it pertains to campaign committee voucher submissions.  Campaign committees can submit whatever they want to submit or submit nothing at all, and voucher requesters, if they raise objection, will be pointed to the Quigley decision and its asinine, illogical ruling that the BCEL cannot make sufficiency determinations on campaign committee voucher submissions.

 Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley's election case rulings -- resulting in elector disenfranchisement, destruction of election law rights, and destruction of election law -- are models of inconsistency and perniciousness.

 Again, where are the state senators and state representatives working to rectify these egregious wrongs?
   

In 70 MD 2015, PA Commonwealth Court Dismisses Petition, Obliterates Voucher Request Law

Posted: Friday, June 5, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

In a May 18, 2015, decision by a single, senior judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Senior Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr. (not the original judge — Senior Judge James Gardner Colins!!!!), dismissed the Petition requesting the Commonwealth Court (upon failure of The Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee to submit three vouchers) to mandate the PA Dept. of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation (BCEL), to issue the mandatory directive under PA Election Code law to direct The Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee to deliver its vouchers to the supervisory office.  The Petition also sought to name The Friends of Tim Mahoney as a party to the matter.
What began as a quest to see the Friends of Tim Mahoney vouchers, turned into a quest to save the law in order to vindicate the right of requesters (persons) to see the particulars of campaign expenditures (i.e. vouchers, i.e., receipted bills) as provided for in law.  The three-year quest metamorphosed because the courts in their errant decisions deracinated, eviscerated, and (ultimately) obliterated the law.
Now thanks to the courts (which refused to follow their very own case precedents and the plain meaning of the law) and thanks to the voucher-hiding, enemy of transparency State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51), his arrogance, and his recalcitrance, the law has been vanquished and is now a dead letter.
Today would be the last day to undertake an appeal in 70 MD 2015; however, an appeal will not be undertaken.  The reason an appeal will not be undertaken is not because this Petitioner is not right on the merits of the case; the reason an appeal will not be undertaken is because the courts refuse to address the merits of the case and the arguments.  Instead, the courts simply uphold the errant decisions in 215 MD 2013 and in 359 MD of 2014 (i.e., the absurd and asinine “opinion” of Senior “Judge” Keith B. Quigley that, under the Election Code, the BCEL is bereft of the power to make sufficiency determinations regarding voucher submissions made by campaign committees).
Gentle readers, a fifth-grader could reason that in order to make a failure determination for which the law provides, one would logically first have to make an insufficiency determination.  Regarding committee submissions to voucher requests, it’s a very simple proposition that sufficiency equates to non-failure and insufficiency equates to failure.  Either a committee submits its vouchers as defined by law, or it does not.  It’s a pity that Commonwealth Court judges and PA Supreme Court justices refuse to grasp that easily understood precept.  Judge Quigley, solely and on his own volition granted the PA-DOS-BCEL application to make his unreported opinion in 359 MD 2014 a reported opinion.  As such, it is the case precedent to which the PA-DOS-BCEL will refer any future voucher requesters.  In other words, committees may submit anything at all (or nothing at all) and requesters must accept whatever a committee decides to submit (or nothing at all, if the committee deigns to make no submission).
To restore the law that Mahoney (through his actions and inaction) and the courts have destroyed would take a monumental effort by the PA General Assembly.
Prospects are not bright for the restoration of the law.
The next time someone tells you that State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-Voucher-Hiding) represents openness and transparency tell them to read the NES articles on the three-year voucher saga and to give a listen to Mahoney’s true position on flouting the law.
Listen here as Mahoney, accompanied by one of his sycophants, lies about the original, 2012 voucher request made by the principals of this blog (saying that the request was made under the Right-To-Know law, while knowing all along that the request was made under the PA Election Code):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHvSuPjews
See also:
http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/11/02/state-rep-tim-mahoney-theyll-never-see-that-voucher/
Update:  Today, State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) was a guest in the second hour of WMBS 590 AM Radio's "What's On Your Mind? with Mark Rafail."  When the topic of election reform arose, Mark Rafail, the same talk show host heard misleading his audience in the YouTube link above, again, failed his radio listeners by failing to bring up Mahoney's refusal to provide his vouchers to requesters.  How can a politician who, by his actions and inaction, is responsible for the destruction of the right of persons to see the particulars of campaign expenditures then pontificate on election reform as it pertains to campaign finances?  The hypocrisy was so thick one could have cut it with a knife.