PACleanSweep, a non-partisan organization aimed at reforming state government in Pennsylvania, today revived its online Hall of Shame feature to pressure lawmakers into signing a petition to call a special session of the General Assembly focusing on ethics and reform in Harrisburg.

The web page lists all incumbent legislators who have not signed the petition launched on July 21st by Senator Jeffrey Piccola. Also listed are the Harrisburg and district office phone numbers of the legislators to enable Pennsylvanians to easily contact them.

"We're stunned that more legislators have not yet signed the petition," said Russ Diamond, chairman of the group. "There are 55 freshman legislators in Harrisburg, most of whom were elected in 2006 based on their campaign promises of reform. We're especially disappointed with the individuals that PACleanSweep backed who have not signed on."

In the summer of 2005, Pennsylvania state government revealed its seedy underbelly when the General Assembly gave itself and others an unconstitutional middle-of-the-night pay raise.

In response, the people of the Commonwealth awoke from a long slumber and rose up in defiance of the Political Class. They made history - and the reverberations are still being felt. Things may never be the same again in the Keystone State.

Beneath the battles of right versus left, liberal versus conservative and Republican versus Democrat, the Establishment strained to maintain power and continuity. Traditional political ideologies took a back seat as the very fabric of the Political Class was torn apart.

In 2005-2006, Pennsylvanians got a taste of what happens when the ivory-towered crowd is running scared. But what we read in the papers and see on television is never the whole story. Follow the journey of one individual who just happened to get caught in the middle of it all and observed it from a unique perspective...

Read more...

From the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Article I, Section 2

"All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper." [Emphasis added.]

We are the sovereign People. As sovereigns, we are entitled to vote in any way we choose for any reason we see fit. We do not need the permission of judges. We do not need the approval of legislators. We do not need a note from the Governor.

We especially don't need to read some handbook on "How To Vote" produced by a bunch of lawyers at the Pennsylvania Bar Association who have a vested interest in maintaining business-as-usual. And we don't need them to infer that a retention vote is somehow too complicated for us to understand.

We do not live under Lords. We do not follow the mantra of some High Priest. Judges are not better than us. They are our servants, and we can choose to fire them at will. They are not automatically entitled to another term.

Year after year, the Republican Party infers that we'd be much better off if all elections were won by Republicans. The Democratic Party fights to elect all Democrats to office. Rational Pennsylvanians know that neither of these arguments hold water, yet we have an election system that provides a 'party lever' at the polling place to allow people to make such blanket votes.

This year, PACleanSweep is advocating a 'no' vote on most (not all) judges up for retention not to place power in the hands of some political party, but to return power to the People. All three branches of government have failed to defend the plain meaning of the Constitution. When they fail, the people must step up to the plate or risk losing all their rights.

We've heard a lot of reasons to vote a certain way in any given election: Because he's a Democrat. Because she's NOT a Democrat. Because he's rich and famous. Because she has the best hair. Because he's the best looking. Because she cheated on her husband. Because we need to send a message to Harrisburg.

The fact is, all these reasons - regardless of how silly some of them may sound - are perfectly viable reasons to vote for or against any candidate. There is no handbook on the proper way to vote. There is no right or wrong reason. It is up to each individual voter to make up their own mind in their own way. This is why We the People are sovereign - because ultimately, we can make any choice we like.

We don't need no stinking reasons. Really, we don't. Despite not needing any, PACleanSweep has provided a number of rational reasons in our Top Ten Reasons to Vote NO list. The most important of those reasons is to defend our most fundamental law, the Constitution. Government has utterly failed us in this area - despite every single elected official having sworn an oath to the document - so we must act on our own behalf.

It is not just our right; it is our duty and responsibility.

A 'yes' vote on retentions is a vote for continuing the culture of arrogance, greed and corruption in Pennsylvania. A 'no' vote applies the brakes and helps turn the Commonwealth in a new and better direction.

The choice is clear. And that choice is ours to make - in private, without anyone looking over our shoulders.

We don't need no stinking reasons.

Top Ten Reasons to Vote 'NO'

The Flying Pink Pig takes to the air for real on Tuesday, October 30 as PACleanSweep, Taxpayers & Ratepayers United and the Pennsylvania Accountability Project team up to launch the PINK PIG BALLOON to help remind voters of the need to VOTE NO on November 6!

After the balloon launch, the Flying Pink Pig Bus will head to Mellon Square in Pittsburgh to meet and greet Allegheny County voters.

Read more...

During this Halloween season, the legal Establishment and other defenders of the judicial swindle will attempt to frighten Pennsylvanians by claiming a calamity will be visited on the justice system if a mere 67 judges lose their jobs. Although we've already debunked that myth, there are some truly chilling repercussions if Pennsylvanians don't send these judges packing.

Read on...

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor and the Republican Establishment are trying to perpetrate a few more shams on the people of Pennsylvania. Read on to see how Saylor did an about face on the Constitution & the people of Philadelphia and is now trying to politicize his own retention race.

Read Reason #3...

Click here for tour schedule and more details...

WHEN: Tuesday October 23; 11:00 A.M.

WHERE: Commonwealth Avenue near the Capitol's East Wing Fountain; Harrisburg PA

WHAT: Giant mobile flying pink pig made from converted full size school bus

Signs on giant Flying Pink Pig Bus :

START WITH SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TOM SAYLOR
AND VOTE "NO" ON ALL THE JUDGES

THEY TOOK THE ILLEGAL PAY RAISE*
*except Judge Orie Melvin

Much of the criticism being flung at PACleanSweep's anti-retention campaign has come in the form of the argument that local and/or lower court judges had nothing to do with the pay raise. Some judicial defenders paint these judges as innocent bystanders. They had no role in making the decision, they claim. Therefore, the argument goes, PACleanSweep's campaign against them is unfair.

But are they really innocent bystanders?

Chief Justice Ralph Cappy did not act in rogue fashion. He is the top administrator and spokesman for the entire judicial branch. His job is to make sure the judicial branch's needs and wants are met. He wouldn't have approached the legislature for a pay raise if a majority of lower court judges hadn't somehow pressured him to do so.

For whatever reasons, the mandatory retirement age for judges in Pennsylvania is 70 years. When a judge turns 70, he or she must step down. No ifs, ands or buts. This is what the Constitution mandates.

Of the 67 judges up for retention on November 6, 25 will be forced to retire and cannot serve the entire term they seek. Of the seven statewide judges up for retention, five will not be able to serve the entire term they seek.

In Philadelphia Municipal Court, Judge Ronald B. Merriweather must retire in 2008. In Common Pleas Court, Westmoreland County's Jay Ober and Montgomery County's Calvin S. Drayer, Jr. must retire in 2009. Several judges must retire in 2012 and are only able to serve half the term they seek.

Read on...

Tom Ridge's robocalls for Sandra Schultz Newman in 2005 helped her squeak through the retention by a slim margin. Now he's been brought out of cold storage again to shill for Republican judicial candidates. This time, they've called on him much earlier than they did in 2005...

Read the AP story...

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This quote has been attributed to many historical figures, including Mark Twain and Prime Minister of England Benjamin Disraeli. Regardless of who first uttered the line, it rings true time and time again in Pennsylvania's electoral battles.

The latest example may have been provided by Pennsylvania Bar Association president Andrew Susko on September 26th during an appearance on a PCN call-in show with RockTheCapital's Eric Epstein and PACleanSweep's Russ Diamond.

In defending the judicial swindle, Mr. Susko continuously cited Article V Section 16(a) of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial salaries from being reduced unless the pay of all salaried officers of the Commonwealth are also reduced. However, this provision can only kick in after a judicial pay raise has been approved in a constitutional manner. A statute such as the pay raise bill (HB1521) that is repugnant to the Constitution is void ab initio; not merely voidable after the fact, but void from inception.

In defending the "gut-and-run" legislative process that created the judicial pay raise, Mr. Susko claimed the midnight amendments to HB1521 were germane to the bill's original language. To back up his claim, he stated the following: "From day one this was a bill about executive and judicial and legislative compensation."

When further pressed on the bill's apparent violations of the Constitution's original purpose rule (Article III Section 1) and three-day rule (Article III Section 4), he stated: "It was aired out for three days, sir, over two months. For two months it was aired out."

Neither claim could be further from the truth...

Read on...

Phila. bar: 2 judges shouldn't return (From the Inky)

The Philadelphia Bar Association yesterday released its ratings for judicial candidates facing voters in the November general election, and recommended that two Municipal Court judges not be returned to the bench.

The bar's Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention also did not recommend Jacquelyn Frazier-Lyde, one of two candidates seeking open seats on the Municipal Court.

The commission asks judicial candidates to fill out an application that requests references and other information, such as significant cases they have handled.

Frazier-Lyde and Municipal Court Judges Georganne V. Daher and Deborah S. Griffin did not respond to the bar's application and were not recommended as a result, said Shelley Smith, the commission's chair.

Read the article...

Lawyer groups across PA, including the Philly Bar, have hammered PACleanSweep for 'not looking at their records on the bench' (despite our examination of their fidelity to the oath of office), yet the Philly Bar rejects judges simply for refusing to give them the time of day. That seems a bit hypocritical.

Visit PACleanSweep.com

Pennsylvania's governors have been limited to serving two four-year terms since the 1960s. Prior to that, governors were limited to serving one four-year term. When a new governor takes office, he brings along a whole host of department secretaries and staff to help him establish his administration.

As a result, the entire brain trust of the Executive branch of state government changes hands quite often without Pennsylvania falling to pieces. Term limits for the governor are written into the Constitution.

Since the infamous pay raise of July 2005, many Pennsylvanians have enthusiastically discussed the possibility of enacting similar term limits for the Legislative branch of government. Most discussions hover around an 8-12 year term limit for members of the General Assembly.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on May 30, 2007 posed the question: "Do you support or oppose a constitutional amendment limiting state senators to 2 four-year terms, and state House members to 4 two-year terms meaning state senators and house members would serve no more than 8 years in office?"

A whopping 75 percent of 1318 respondents to the poll favored such an amendment, while only 19 percent were opposed and six percent weren't sure. In Pennsylvania's most populous areas, legislative term limits were even more popular. 78 percent of Philadelphians and 81 percent of Allegheny Countians responded favorably to the question.

Do Pennsylvanians feel any differently about those who interpret the law than they do about those charged with creating or executing the law?

Read on...

9/25/2007, 6:05 p.m. EDT
By PETER JACKSON
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — At least two state appellate court judges are giving back the pay raises that the Legislature approved in 2005, and Debra Todd wants voters to know that she's one of them.

Todd, a Superior Court judge and Democratic candidate for the Supreme Court, has made payments to the state treasury totaling $17,640, the Treasury Department confirmed Tuesday — representing the after-tax value of her raise from July 1, 2005, through June 30 of this year.

The payments, which exclude the annual cost-of-living adjustments that judges receive, will continue in the future, said campaign spokesman Alison Rudolph Hall, who was spreading the word Tuesday in response to a newspaper editorial that characterized fellow Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin as the only judge in the state who had given back income from the politically charged pay raises.

Read on...

When voters go to the polls on November 6 to vote on the retention of 67 judges across Pennsylvania, they will not just be voting on whether to keep those particular judges or not. They will also be making substantial financial decisions that will affect the Commonwealth for years to come.

Tom Saylor, the Supreme Court justice up for retention, is asking Pennsylvanians to commit at least $1,752,360.00 in salary over a ten-year term. Six Superior Court and Commonwealth Court judges are each asking Pennsylvanians to invest at least $1,653,420.00 in salary over a ten-year term.

Each Common Pleas Court judge up for retention is asking voters to commit at least $1,521,150.00 to paying their salary over a ten-year term. There are 53 judges asking voters to make such an investment across Pennsylvania.

In Philadelphia, the six Municipal Court judges are asking voters to set aside at least $891,576.00 for their salaries over a six-year term. The Traffic Court judge up for retention is asking voters to invest at least $470,604.00 in salary over the next six years.

These are substantial investments in the future of justice in Pennsylvania. All told, these figures add up to just over 98 MILLION DOLLARS. What do you really know about these judges?

Read on...