Prediction Additions

Here are our predictions on the top three and bottom three on each side in the Luzerne County Judicial Race. The top threes are in order of finish. The bottom threes, you can mix and match.

Democratic Top Three

Musto
Amesbury
Sklarosky

Republican Top Three

Hughes
Amesbury
O'Connor

Democratic Bottom Three

Menn
Mirabito
Lumbis

Republican Bottom Three

Menn
Mirabito
Lumbis

Prediction time

Buzz has had the UNIVAC 3000 working overtime, so we're ready to make our predictions in selected races in Luzerne and Lackawanna County. The picks are not endorsements, but our belief on who will win. Our judicial picks for Luzerne County will be posted later this evening, because we are involved in a few judicial pick pools.

We'll start with a few picks in Lackawanna County.

Judge

Margie Bisignani Moyle (Dem)
John Pesota (Rep)

Scranton Mayor

Chris Dougherty (Dem)

Our selected Luzerne County picks are:

Prothonotary

Nancy McGinley Bellas (Dem)
Carolee Medico Olenginski (Rep)

Controller

Nanda Palissery (Rep)

Kingston Mayor

Stephen Radzinski (Dem)
Jim Haggerty (Rep)

Practicing What You Preach

Apparently Luzerne County judicial candidate Mike Blazick's anti lawyer contribution crusade never stopped him from taking a job with a law firm that gave $1500 to the Committee to Retain Judge Michael T. Conahan. Pennsylvania Department of State records show that the Perry Law Firm gave a $1500 contribution on October 28, 2003. Blazick joined the Perry Law firm in 2006.

In addition to his former law firm's contribution to Conahan, there's an interesting parallel between Blazick and Conahan. In 1993, Michael T. Conahan, a magistrate from Hazleton came up with a novel idea in his judicial campaign. He refused to take contributions from lawyers and law firms. In 2009, Blazick revisited that political ploy with a vengeance.

Blazick has made lawyer contributions the cornerstone of his campaign, and we believe it is all just a political ploy. The fact that he never personally gave money to a judicial campaign can be explained by a number of reasons, and none of them add up to a belief by Blazick that such contributions corrupt the system. We do not believe for a minute that Blazick had the foresight to not give campaign contributions to Conahan or Ciavarella because he knew they were corrupt.

It is our belief that Blazick just doesn't give campaign contributions to any candidates. In fact, the only state campaign contribution we could find was a $60.00 contribution to the Harleysville Insurance PAC in 2008. It is our conclusion that Blazick doesn't give money to judges because of some high moral principle. We believe he doesn't give money to judicial candidates because he's cheap.

We are also offended by Blazick's latest radio advertisement. In particular, Blazick plays a sound bite from former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor. O'Connor basically states that if there is one thing she can change in the legal system it is large contributions to judicial campaigns by "litigants." Mike, "litigants" are not "lawyers." Your ad is misleading at the very least.

First of all, the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges or candidates for judge "publicly endors(ing) a candidate for political office." The O'Connor quote may not be a direct endorsement of Blazick, but it sure sounds like she's endorsing his platform.

We looked up the word litigant in Webster's Dictionary. A litigant is "one engaged in a lawsuit." We also checked for synonyms. We found plaintiff, complainant, group, participant, party, competitor, opponent, accused, and defendant. WE DID NOT FIND LAWYER. A litigant is not a lawyer.

So is Blazick trying to mislead the people into thinking litigant and lawyer are synonymous or doesn't he know the difference himself. If he's trying to deceive the people into thinking that lawyer and litigant are synonyms, then he should not be judge. If he doesn't know the difference, then he should not be judge.

Pendolphi for Judge

Buzz and I attended the Mike Pendolphi for Judge rally tonight at the Chicken Coop. We originally stopped in for a couple of dozen of General Alarm Chicken Wings and a cold frosted brew when we ran into Pendolphi.

Pendolphi is one of only two Republicans who is running for judge in Luzerne County. In March, he received the endorsement of the Luzerne County Republican Party along with fellow Republican Richard Hughes.

The 43 year old Pendolphi was accompanied at his event by his wife Sharon and six year old daughter Madyson.

Pendolphi said, “In my career, I have tried civil jury trials, criminal jury trials, custody, divorce and support trials, equity trials, children and youth dependency and termination of parental rights trials and even juvenile criminal trials. There is no time for on-the-job training when people’s lives, liberty, family and property are at stake.”

We spoke with one long time Luzerne County attorney who said he strongly supports Pendolphi. He said, "Mike has fought in the trenches of the legal system for many years. He has handled almost every case imaginable in front of almost every judge and magistrate in this county. That is the type of experience lacking in the resume of many of the other judicial candidates. He knows what it's like to represent the little guy or gal against the powerful. That's the type of person we need to be judge."

Bone Marrow Drive

We primarily cover political topics, but every so often we do just a little bit more. On May 16th, there will be a bone marrow drive at the Quality Inn (formerly Victoria Inn) Rte. 315, Pittston Township from 10 am to 4 pm for Liam Schulze.

Here's Liam's story.

Our little Liam was born on January 2, 2008...the happiest day of our lives. When he was 4 months old, Liam started getting cyclical fevers, usually lasting a week, but occurring at the same time each month. For about the next 10 months, Liam had been to pediatricians, oncologists, infectious disease specialists, hematologists, and rheumatologists, but none were able to figure out what caused his fevers.

On March 26, 2009, Liam was diagnosed with a rare blood disorder, Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis, or HLH. HLH is a fatal disease if not treated in time and even then there is no guarantee. Our son now faces chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant if he is to have any chance at beating this disease. It is not cancer but is treated like it. Words cannot describe the fear and sorrow that enter a parent's heart when given such news. On one hand, we were relieved that we finally arrived at a diagnosis, on the other we were so scared.

We have decided the best place for him is at Cincinnati Children's Hospital under the care of Dr. Lisa Filipovich, expert in the field of HLH, and her staff for treatment including a bone marrow transplant. Our trip began on April 15, 2009.

Now the only thing we can do is stick together with our family and friends to beat this. Out little Liam is a fighter (Liam means "Powerful Warrior") and we welcome you to browse "Liam's Lighthouse", because there is always a light shining in our son's heart.

It will only take about 15 minutes to do the test, it's just a swab of your inner cheek. You have to be between the ages of 18 to 55 to donate. Further information is available by calling Holly at 570.313.9940.

Controller Question Number 4

Our fourth question to the Luzerne County Controller candidate was a follow up to question Number 3.

Question Number 4: If you favor home rule, do you believe the position of controller should be an elected one, or should he or she be chosen by another method? Explain your reasoning.

Bob Morgan

As indicated in the previous answer I would not support a Home Rule charter that changed the role of Controller from an elected position to a position of selection because I believe it could impact the independence of the office. I believe abandoning the direct election of the Controller could make him or her worry more about job security and pleasing the County Council or County Executive to ensure job security and would lessen the impact and independence of the Controller's office.
.
Alice Coffman

DID NOT RESPOND


Nanda Palissery

The controller position should be an elected one. Appointments naturally lead to possible corruption. The controller is the watchdog of the people's money, therefore the people should elect the controller to maintain his or her independence. If the controller is appointed, he or she would have to answer to those who made the appointment. An elected controller would have to answer to the electorate.

Bob Sypniewski

DID NOT RESPOND

Edd Brominski

Under home rule it would probably best in the best interests of the public to have the position filled by the elected body.

Walter Griffith

I feel the Controller should always be an elected position and I also feel the position should have term limits on it as well. I feel a term of two terms is plenty for any elected official and there should be no Retirement of pension allowed to any elected official. I would work with the Home Rule Study Commission to be sure that this is inserted in the Charter as well. The reason for this is because the Controller should not be allowed to be in control of the financial "Bible" for longer than 2 terms because it is a very powerful position. I also feel that new people would be beneficial to the taxpayers to formulate new ideas and procedures that would make the Office more productive.

Controller Question 3

Our third question to the Luzerne County Controller candidates was a simple one.

Question 3: What is your position on home rule in Luzerne County?

Alice Coffman

DID NOT RESPOND

Bob Morgan

I support the ballot question for the Government Study Commission because I believe it is a healthy exercise in democracy and will allow citizens to determine whether our current form of government meets the needs of the citizens of Luzerne County in the current times. I believe the study commission process allows participation by voters and current officeholders to make the case to retain the current Commissioner form of government, to modify it, or to introduce a new form of government. I believe the 18 to 24 month timeframe provides a safeguard against making rash and possibly ill considered changes in reaction to a particular set of headlines or circumstances. In addition the results of the study and the recommendations of the committee require significant communication and voter approval prior to enactment. I believe this entire process is healty for government and ultimately may lead to a better, although different, form of government in the next several years.

I would oppose any change to the direct election of the office of Controller because I believe the current format provides for a level of independence. I believe the position of Controller, by its very nature, should be one that reports directly to the voters to ensure that the officeholder is always aware that he or she always reports to the voters. The appointment of a Controller, whether by a County Council or by a County Executive could interfere with the independence of the office and could lead to a softening of the oversight role of the office. I could not support a Home Rule charter that contained provisions for an appointed Controller, I believe the best way for the office to retain independence would be to allow the Controller to remain an office directly elected by the voters.

Bob Sypniewski

DID NOT RESPOND

Walter Griffith

I feel Home Rule or any other type of government is only as good as the Citizens that are involved in its operation. I also feel a study is a good place to start to see if the Home Rule would work for our County. I will support the final decision of the taxpayers of Luzerne County.

Edd Brominski

I am in favor of Home rule .
Nanda Palissery

Home rule is a complicated question. The form has not yet been determined, and so it is difficult to answer. It is like asking about the new 2012 Cadillac and whether I would buy one? I couldn't possibly tell you yet, until I have driven it and seen it.