In his propaganda piece today, O'Hare writes;One of the points I wanted to make clear is that, although both Ron and I were suing together, I was not representing him. We each represented ourselves. Angle got some chuckles when he told Judge Baratta, "Nobody can represent me." Typical Bernie, a small distracting attempt at humor. But why does Bernie want to make it clear that he was not representing Angle? It would be illegal for Bernie to represent anybody other than himself. That is a niche that licensed attorneys have reserved for themselves.
I believe sometime in the recent past Angle referred to O'Hare as his lawyer. Bernie did the research preparing the case. The remainder of Bernie's post, or should I call it a legal brief, contains his usual smears against the Gracedale Group; Mob, liars, fraudulent, .......
Ironic that O'Hare is targeting citizens for allegedly "lying" on sworn affidavits. Pathetic that O'Hare revives decades-old tales of his courtroom antics back in the day he had a license to practice law. Righteous Karma that fools bring "personal attacks" upon themselves by their own self-indulgent behavior. A relief I don't pay taxes in Northampton County.
ReplyDeleterules for this posting. i have stated on several blogs that any former or current legal problems concerning angle or o'hare are irrelevant to the gracedale petition initiative. i will leave comment #1 (7:41AM) stand, but will delete any further comments relating to o'hare's past problem.
ReplyDeleteI have a way to settle this matter once and for all :
ReplyDeleteMOLOVINSKY's "MOB"
vs
O'HARE's cough-cough "HEROES"
A charity softball game to be held at Coca-Cola Park on the East Side of Allentown.
I contend that it should be easy to fill the Park as it would be lots of fun to watch The King, Ty Stofflet, throw at the Fuzzy Bunny and have him eat some dirt.
(There is no question Stofflet would be pitching for the local champion of culture, history and tradition's team...)
All proceeds would be donated to the worthy chartiy of the winning team's choice.
The loser surrenders control of their blog to the winner for a month...
bernie has "answered" this post on his blog. first let me point out that i'm prohibited from commenting there; if i wasn't, i would have made my point there. that point is simply that bernie was covering his base legally, which he doesn't clarify, actually he confuses the issue, alluding to his often mentioned disbarment. secondly, he as usual dismisses my POV because I didn't attend the hearing. nothing i wrote was dependent upon attending the hearing. he omits the fact that he was calling the gracedale people names long before he ever saw the actual petitions.
ReplyDeletePS --- Christine Aguilera will not be allowed to sing the National Anthem at the charity softball game between Molovinsky's Mob and O'Hare's cough-cough Heroes.
ReplyDeleteWhat a freakin' disgrace to a great country --- Christine Aguilera.
bernie comments at his blog
ReplyDelete"First, I am unable to practice law. That point is made here on a near daily basis."
so bernie, why did you want to "make it clear" that you were not representing angle in your blog post?
If BO had any guts, he would explain exactly WHY, in great detail, he is prohibited by law from representing anyone other than himself.
ReplyDeleteIf BO thought he could outclass MM intellectually, he would not ban MM from his blog.
In fact, BO would invite over MM every day for target practice.
So, the ban speaks quite loudly and in volumes, too.
Even six-year-old kids can see right through BO.
bernie has been candid enough about his legal past. my questions to bernie was to whom did he want to make that clarification on his post today, and why he felt it was necessary at this point? it's apparent that he chosen not to answer those questions, which of course is his right. the judge rules wednesday morning. hopefully the many of thousands of people who signed that petition will not be disenfranchised from their right of referendum.
ReplyDeleteRon clearly referred to Bernie as his attorney at last week's council meeting.
ReplyDeleteMM, at the risk of getting in the middle of this, I have to agree that the rule of law is crucial here. The petitioners had a responsibility to gather legitimate signatures. If they did, then I agree they should be heard. If they didn't, then not.
ReplyDeleteI for one am glad it's being decided in court - the process in Northampton County,including the review board, is too politicized for this to be resolved fairly outside of the legal process.
I agree that the petitioners have a legal responsibility to honestly collect signatures. I do think that Bernie proved that they may have not been completely honest in this effort. This is another example of do-gooders not being respondible. Courts should recognize this.
ReplyDeleteBob Romancheck
One last comment. Whereas in past years government owned old age homes may have been necessary (due to the lack of privately owned facilities and Medicare), today there is no need for locals fto accept this social responsibility.
ReplyDeleteSorry, makes no sense.
Bob Romancheck