Showing posts with label The Friends of Tim Mahoney expenditures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Friends of Tim Mahoney expenditures. Show all posts

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?
   

Grogan Graffam Attorney Ronald J. Brown Donates to Friends of Tim Mahoney

Posted: Friday, April 15, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

Page 10 of The Friends of Tim Mahoney Cycle 2 2016 campaign finance report shows that Attorney Ronald J. Brown of Grogan Graffam, P.C. -- who represented Republican co-objectors Robin Lynn (Guerriere) Amend and Thomas R. Murray II in the nominating petition challenges of State Rep. Tim Mahoney's then-Republican challengers in the 2012 primary, Uniontown businessmen Gary Gearing and Michael Cavanagh -- donated $500.00 to The Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee on 04/01/2016.

 Readers will recall that the Friends of Tim Mahoney failed to submit multiple vouchers (i.e., receipted bills that detail the particulars of campaign expenditures).

 Grogan Graffam, P.C. received a $5,000.00 payment on 02/22/2012 from the Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee.  This was on the very same day that Brown finalized both nominating petition challenges against Cavanagh and Gearing.

 In multiple challenges, Brown represented the Friends of Tim Mahoney in its tooth-and-nail fight to keep the particulars of the vouchers secret.

 Readers will recall the 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.

There are seven instances of "shall" in the statute, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that "shall" has a mandatory, not discretionary meaning under the Election Code.


Yet, Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley -- who himself acknowledged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case precedent on the meaning of "shall" in one former ruling (2357 CD 2009), and the stringency by which the Election Code must be followed in another order -- ruled (contra the law) that the Legislature did not provide the Secretary of the Commonwealth with the power to make sufficiency determinations regarding voucher submissions under the statute.

See the Fayette Searchlight blog article with the link to Judge Oler's putrid affirmation of the errant opinions in 215 MD 2013 and in 359 MD 2014 reached by Judge Quigley here:


Read carefully this section of above statute:  "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."

Basic logic dictates that if the statute tasks the PA-DOS-BCEL with making failure determinations regarding committee voucher submissions, it first must make sufficiency determinations [i.e., one cannot make a failure determination without first making a sufficiency determination as to whether an actual voucher (i.e., a receipted bill for the expenditure showing the particulars of the expenditure)] has been submitted.

Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's (D-51) Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee fought tooth-and-nail not to release its vouchers.

By the willful disregard of the PA Election Code by The Friends of Tim Mahoney and by its nefarious maneuvering -- along with 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 -- the Voucher Request statute was utterly destroyed.  With that destruction came the obliteration of the right of requesters (which right the PA General Assembly intended to provide) to see the particulars of campaign finance expenditures that influence the outcome of elections in this commonwealth.

 Thus, State Rep. Tim Mahoney's signature accomplishment during his tenure in the PA House is the destruction of any person's right to see the particulars of campaign finance expenditures which influence the outcome of elections in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

 It's a truly disgusting legacy.

 Where are the state representatives and state senators working to rectify this injustice and this travesty?






Taxpayers Subsidized Mahoney Acquisition of Cavanagh/Gearing Nominating Petitions, Petitions' Conveyance Begs Investigation

Posted: Sunday, June 7, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0

Readers will recall the Right-To-Know law (RTKL) request NES principals made to the Pennsylvania Department of State (PADOS) which showed that State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) was the only person on the planet who obtained both the Gary Gearing and Michael J. Cavanagh nominating petitions that were challenged by Republican-registered co-objectors of record, Robin Lynn (Guerriere) Amend and Thomas R. Murray II.

 See:  RTKL Answer

The attorney of record for Amend and Murray was none other than Ronald J. Brown of Grogan Graffam, P.C.  Attorney Brown's firm, received a $5,000.00 payment from State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's 'Friends of Tim Mahoney' campaign committee on February 22, 2012, the very same day that Attorney Ronald J. Brown finalized and signed two petitions to set aside the nominating petitions of State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's Republican opposition in the 2012 primary, Gary Gearing and Michael J. Cavanagh.

Brown filed the petition to set aside against Gearing's nominating petitions on February 22, 2012, and he filed the petition to set aside against Cavanagh's nominating petitions on February 23, 2012.

As it happens, the dates of February 16, 2012, through February 23, 2012, have turned out to be very important dates, indeed.  On February 16, 2012, both Gearing and Cavanagh had their nominating petitions, including their Candidate's Affidavits, notarized in the office of then-Fayette County Prothonotary Lance Winterhalter.

Of critical importance, the very next event on the timeline of events (See: http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2012/03/17/the-rest-of-the-story-part-iii-timeline-of-events/)
was the swearing out of Sworn Verifications on February 20, 2012.  These were sworn out by Amend and Murray to verify the statements made on foregoing Petitions To Set Aside the Nominating Petitions, which were not even finalized by Attorney Brown until February 22, 2012 -- two days later!!  Why did Amend and Murray swear out Sworn Verifications (legally binding documents) verifying the foregoing on Petitions to Set Aside the Nominating Petitions of Cavanagh and Gearing (legal documents) that were not finalized until two days later??  How could statements in Petitions to Set Aside the Nomination Petitions of Cavanagh and Gearing be verified in Sworn Verifications as foregoing statements when at the time Amend and Murray executed the Sworn Verifications (February 20, 2012) the Petitions To Set Aside the Nomination Petitions were yet to be finalized (February 22, 2012), and State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) was yet to acquire the Cavanagh and Gearing petitions (February 21, 2012)?

Moreover, how did the co-objectors of record come to object to the nominating petitions there is no record the co-objectors ever obtained?  The RTKL Answer shows that neither Amend nor Murray were listed as having filled out their own 2012 Nomination Petition Review/Copy Request Form at the Pa. Dept. of State Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation (BCEL).  When the fact that Rep. Mahoney obtained the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions surfaced, local blogger Julie Toye undertook to find whether there was a way around the requirement to fill out the request form.  She contacted Ethan Smith at the House Democratic Campaign Committee (HDCC) to find documentation that attorneys could acquire petitions without going through the requirement to sign the 2012 Nomination Petition Review/Copy Request Form requesting to view the petitions.  However, Ethan Smith broke his promise to get back to Toye, and Smith failed to produce any documentation.  Thus, Toye never turned up any evidence to suggest this was a possibility.  

 See:  http://www.julietoye.com/mahoney4.html. 

 Additionally and crucially, it would not have been the attorney to have first acquired the petitions and then to have sought out as clients co-objectors registered as Republicans to object to and challenge petition signatures and candidate eligibility.  Non-straw co-objectors would be the initial actors; they would have acquired the petitions and, after review, would have raised their concerns to an attorney.  Toye's attempt to verify whether the attorney could have acquired the petitions, while laudable, was backwards, for the RTKL answer from the PADOS which shows only Rep. Mahoney acquired both the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions is evidence that the two co-objectors never themselves -- independent of Mahoney or an attorney -- acquired the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions.  If one is not a straw co-objector put up by another actor to make petition challenges, how can one object -- especially in the case of the Gearing nominating petitions upon which signatures were challenged on a line-by-line basis  -- to what one has not seen?  The Sworn Verifications were signed by Amend and Murray on February 20 2012, -- one day before even Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney acquired both the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions on February 21, 2012 (i.e., the day after Amend and Murray had already sworn out their Sworn Verifications verifying the foregoing on Petitions to Set Aside Nomination Petitions which were not complete, and regarding nominating petitions they had not obtained!).

On February 21, 2012, as the RTKL answer from the PA-DOS demonstrates, Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney obtained the nominating petitions of Gearing and Cavanagh.  As aforementioned, Attorney Brown finalized and signed both set aside petitions on the following day, February 22, 2012.  As Rep. Mahoney was the only person on the planet documented to have acquired both the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions, he had to be the conduit through which Attorney Brown received the petitions.

How were the petitions conveyed?  Rep. Mahoney picked up the petitions (in Harrisburg) on February 21 and Attorney Brown (whose office is in Pittsburgh) finalized and signed both petitions to set aside (and filed one of the two) on February 22 -- the next day!  So Brown had to have received those petitions very quickly. 

What is the fastest way to send documents?  USPS, UPS, and Fed-Ex all have overnight delivery, but what is even faster than overnight delivery?  E-mail or FAX.

In the Information Age, electronic mail, or e-mail, is the fastest way to send information.  Documents must first be scanned into PDF files; however, then, they can be sent at the press of the SEND button faster than any overnight delivery service can deliver documents.  As well, one can FAX documents over telephone lines within minutes.

Here is where our story must momentarily digress.  This writer has established through a RTKL request that State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on February 21, February 22, and February 23 of 2012.  As the following answer to the RTKL shows, Rep. Mahoney received a $163.00 per diem for each of the three days and mileage reimbursements for $108.23 on February 21, 2012, and for $108.22 on February 23, 2012.

See: Three Per Diems Mileage

Although there were no House Session Days on Feb. 21-23, 2012, Rep. Mahoney (who then sat on the PA House Appropriations Committee -- he has since lost that assignment) attended three days of non-sessionary House Appropriations Committee hearings.  Reviewing the transcripts of the 11 hearings held over those three days, one learns that Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney made substantive comments/asked substantive questions in only two of the eleven hearings, with neither of those two hearings taking place on February 21, 2012.

See:  Feb 21 to 23 Committee Transcripts

Specifically, on February 21, 2012, the day he obtained the Cavanagh and Gearing petitions from the PA Dept. of State and was paid mileage, salary and claimed a $163.00 per diem, in the three hearings held that day by the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Mahoney made only one statement -- noting that he was present. 

See:  Mahoney Notes Presence 20120221

The hearings' transcripts record no other utterance from Rep. Mahoney for the rest of the entire day!  Perhaps Rep. Mahoney had other, far more important things on his mind on February 21, 2012, (far more important things like acquiring the nominating petitions of his Republican opposition and being the conduit to Attorney Brown in Pittsburgh).

Turning now to the question of the conveyance of the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions, if Rep. Mahoney was in Harrisburg for three days of House Appropriations Committee hearings, he certainly did not hand-deliver the petitions to Attorney Brown in Pittsburgh.

The deadline for filing the petitions to set aside with the Commonwealth Court was February 23, 2012.  Overnight delivery was too slow.  Rep. Mahoney was in Harrisburg for hearings (three of which took place on February 21).  The PA-DOS-BCEL offices are in very close proximity to the State Capitol (just off the back steps).  Did Rep. Mahoney acquire and then e-mail or FAX (or have a staffer e-mail or FAX) the petitions to Attorney Brown from his legislative office (or a staffer's office) in the State Capitol?

This writer made a Right-To-Know law (RTKL) request for such records, but the records request was denied.  While e-mail , FAX, and other written communications are open records under the RTKL as it pertains to Commonwealth and Local agencies, because the Legislature specifically carved itself out of the RTKL, such communications are not considered open records as the RTKL pertains to the Legislature.

In other words, the "Open Records" law over which Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney never ceases to take victory laps, does not apply to the Legislature to the same extent it applies to Commonwealth and Local agencies. 

There are only 19 records classified as legislative records under the RTKL. 

See: RTKL 19 Legislative Records 

The Office of Open Records does not handle appeals and disputes, as it does for Commonwealth and Local agencies.  Both RTKL requests for legislative records and RTKL appeals regarding legislative records are handled internally in the House and Senate, respectively. 

Talk about the foxes guarding the legislative henhouse!

Also, a determination is first made by the House open records officer as to whether the requested record is a legislative record.  Only then is the requested record accorded the presumption of openness.  Thus, the presumption of openness for legislative records is contingent upon the determination of the internal House open records officer (i.e., the House Chief Clerk).  Absent the House Chief Clerk agreeing that a requested record is a legislative record, the request is denied.  One may appeal; however, the appeals process is also handled internally, with the open records appeals officer being yet another fox guarding the legislative henhouse.

Denied on appeal, one may appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, part of the same Judiciary also carved out of the RTKL by the Legislature, with financial records being the only type of record pertaining to the Judiciary that is open under the RTKL.

The bottom line:  On February 21, 2012, state taxpayers subsidized State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's acquisition of the nominating petitions of his Republican opposition in the 2012 primary -- Gary Gearing and Michael J. Cavanagh -- by paying his daily salary (2012 = $315.48/daily), his mileage ($108.23), and a per diem ($163.00) on a day he attended three House Appropriations Committee non-sessionary hearings in which he asked no substantive questions, in which he made no substantive statements, and in which his sole utterance noted his presence at the outset of the first hearing. 

Taxpayers also may have subsidized the conveyance of those petitions to the attorney who represented the co-objectors of record, Amend and Murray.  Because e-mails and faxes are not defined as legislative records, the weak RTKL precludes viewing the e-mails and faxes, if any, from Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's Harrisburg legislative office (or a staffer's office) for February 21-23, 2012.  In the interest of openness and transparency, there is nothing in the RTKL which prevents Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney from releasing the e-mails and faxes for himself and all his staffers for those days; however, one would be very naive to expect the voucher-hiding Mahoney to do that, especially if incriminating e-mails or faxes exist.

As the Bonusgate investigation made clear, e-mails and faxes can be subpoenaed in the case of probable cause.  This writer, because of the time constraints on the attorney to file the petitions to set aside with the Commonwealth Court by February 23, 2012, thinks probable cause exists and thinks the Dauphin County Office of the District Attorney should open an investigation.

In that vein, this writer made contact with the Dauphin County Office of the District Attorney.  This writer also found out that Dauphin County has a county investigating grand jury impaneled. 

This is where you come in, gentle readers. 

If you are offended by the fact you subsidized Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's acquisition of the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions, if you think there is enough probable cause that Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney may have used state resources (i.e., e-mail or FAX) to convey the Cavanagh and Gearing nominating petitions to the attorney in Pittsburgh due to constraints of time, and if you think this probable cause should be investigated, you can let your position be known by e-mailing First District Attorney Fran Chardo fchardo@dauphinc.org, the attorney in charge of the Dauphin County Investigating Grand Jury (see:  http://www.dauphinc.org/grandjury/) and by asking him, respectfully, as this writer did, to open an investigation.

The conveyance of the Gearing and Cavanagh nominating petitions begs investigation by the Office of the Dauphin County District Attorney and by the Dauphin County Investigating Grand Jury.

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.