Well, just when we thought it was going to be a humdrum campaign with the usual sultry appeals from candidates offering up leagues of experience and a plethora of professionalism - we came upon today a mailing that apparently has been distributed far and wide around the candidate's home base and beyond.
The focal point?
Defense Attorney Brian Monahan,
Candidate for Magisterial District Judge
The subject?
Someone's peek into the professionalism of this candidate's past experience.
Clearly, someone did a little research and went to impressive lengths to share their information. A flyer with the letters:
"W A R N I N G: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT BRIAN MONAHAN"
"Brian Monahan prevented the prosecution of a heinous double murder..."
And then a quote from a Morning Call article dated December 10, 1995:
"Dorney, 18, said he met with Monahan in July to discuss what he knew about the June 29 shootings of his girlfriend, Mary Orlando, 15, and her best friend Jennifer Grider, 17. Dorney maintains Monahan believed he was a 'prime suspect' and told him to 'keep every thing to myself'."
"I don't have a problem with a lawyer explaining options, " said Edward Ohlbaum, a former Philadelphia Public Defender and a professor at Temple University School of Law. "I do have a (personal) problem with a lawyer advising a client not to come forward."
...it continues...
"Bethlehem police Commissioner John Yerk on Friday said that because of Dorney's delay in coming forward with the information, it took investigators more than five months to charge Christopher Bissey, 18, of Salisbury Township with shooting the girls at the Lookout on Bethlehem's South Side. Police charged Bissey with criminal homicide early Thursday, two days after he met with detectives."
All we can say is: Wow. Whatever this means, apparently this was already publised in the Morning Call during the event. And if the reporting was accurate, we're not talking misdemeanor here. Holding back information in a murder trial. Don't they disbar you for something like this? Not to mention, leaving the shooter out on the streets for an additional five months?
I'm no Barry Scheck, (you remember, OJ Simpson's Sidekick Defense Attorney?) but somehow this doesn't strike me as distinguished or honorable in the least. But, then again, we don't see a Barry Scheck running for Supreme Court Justice...
...or for that matter ....
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. Let's take a look.
------------
mag·is·te·ri·al / Pronunciation Key - [maj-uh-steer-ee-uhl]
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or befitting a master; authoritative; weighty; of importance or consequence: a magisterial pronouncement by the director of the board.
2. imperious; domineering: a magisterial tone of command.
3. of or befitting a magistrate or the office of a magistrate: The judge spoke with magisterial gravity.
4. of the rank of a magistrate: magisterial standing.
------------
Aren't these the qualities we're looking for in a Magisterial Judge? ...with maybe a little honesty and integrity thrown in for good measure?
BRIAN MONAHAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY.
....NOTHING MAGISTERIAL ABOUT IT.
2007-05-09
2007-05-03
Wms Township Solicitor Running for District Judge
Have we carefully looked into the candidates for District Judge?
There may be names you do not recognize, those you do. Let's be honest; do we vote based on what is familiar? Or do you feel you need to be more informed?
Running for District Judge means, not only are your credentials up for grabs, but your character as well in the public arena. A smiling, handshaking candidate's first line of attack is to bowl us over with the credentials: schooling, memberships, former posts, etc. That's nice. Bottom line is: how a candidate has held and behaved while holding those posts is of utmost important to us. Once you've chosen to run for a public position of District Justice, you have crossed over to the grand realm of public service [Not that local solicitor's positions are not; it's just that questionable behavior is ofted overlooked at the local level - much as the federal government assumed that each family 'takes care of it's own' before rampid abuse forced them to turn an eye to the problem.] Is the role for everyone?
In this day and age, voters are wise. We have learned the hard way and are all too aware: credentials alone, do not an honest person make. Does even the best attorney, for example, have what it takes to be an honest judge? It's worth noting that defense attorneys, for example, soon learn that 'winning' a case is not necessarily about getting to the truth, but about how a story is presented. It rather goes with the territory.
And so, as candidate, are you honest? Fair? Do you act objectively, and not in favor of those you 'know'? Is your pattern to 'reward' those who hold you in high esteem, or - for that matter - who plaster a bumper sticker on their car with your name on it?
Or, though you may appreciate the flattery, do you have the integrity to act honestly and fairly concerning legal and straightforward justice?
Character begins with honesty.
Let's take a look at just a few anecdotal situations.
Williams Township Solicitor Brian Monahan, who is running for the position of District Justice, recently attended a Meet the Candidates assembly in Easton Tuesday night (5/1/07). Before the meeting was over and everyone had a chance to speak, the Township Solicitor apologized profusely and begged out of the meeting, noting that he had to leave to "...pick up his daughter and head home to help her with her homework." What a warm thought.
That's why we were all the more surprised when, 15 minutes after leaving the Meet the Candidates rally, he was spotted at his local establishment tossing down a few drinks with friends. Now, don't get us wrong. It's not that we don't feel everyone has a need to throw a few back from time to time. It's just that - well, why tell an audience of folks who've taken time out of their evening to come and learn about who you are - that you are headed home to do homework with your daughter, when in fact - you need a couple of good stiff drinks and just want to get the heck out of there so as not to hang around a minute later than necessary?
Interestingly, throughout the evening, Mr. Monahan seemed to like referring to the position of District Judge as "DJ". An amusing colloquialism. Given his penchant for presenting the truth in - how shall we say - its 'most favorable' light, we can't help wondering whether perhaps Mr. Monahan is of the misconception that a respected position such as District Judgeship is less about honest public service ...than it is about 'spin'.
It's a question of credibility.
There may be names you do not recognize, those you do. Let's be honest; do we vote based on what is familiar? Or do you feel you need to be more informed?
Running for District Judge means, not only are your credentials up for grabs, but your character as well in the public arena. A smiling, handshaking candidate's first line of attack is to bowl us over with the credentials: schooling, memberships, former posts, etc. That's nice. Bottom line is: how a candidate has held and behaved while holding those posts is of utmost important to us. Once you've chosen to run for a public position of District Justice, you have crossed over to the grand realm of public service [Not that local solicitor's positions are not; it's just that questionable behavior is ofted overlooked at the local level - much as the federal government assumed that each family 'takes care of it's own' before rampid abuse forced them to turn an eye to the problem.] Is the role for everyone?
In this day and age, voters are wise. We have learned the hard way and are all too aware: credentials alone, do not an honest person make. Does even the best attorney, for example, have what it takes to be an honest judge? It's worth noting that defense attorneys, for example, soon learn that 'winning' a case is not necessarily about getting to the truth, but about how a story is presented. It rather goes with the territory.
And so, as candidate, are you honest? Fair? Do you act objectively, and not in favor of those you 'know'? Is your pattern to 'reward' those who hold you in high esteem, or - for that matter - who plaster a bumper sticker on their car with your name on it?
Or, though you may appreciate the flattery, do you have the integrity to act honestly and fairly concerning legal and straightforward justice?
Character begins with honesty.
Let's take a look at just a few anecdotal situations.
Williams Township Solicitor Brian Monahan, who is running for the position of District Justice, recently attended a Meet the Candidates assembly in Easton Tuesday night (5/1/07). Before the meeting was over and everyone had a chance to speak, the Township Solicitor apologized profusely and begged out of the meeting, noting that he had to leave to "...pick up his daughter and head home to help her with her homework." What a warm thought.
That's why we were all the more surprised when, 15 minutes after leaving the Meet the Candidates rally, he was spotted at his local establishment tossing down a few drinks with friends. Now, don't get us wrong. It's not that we don't feel everyone has a need to throw a few back from time to time. It's just that - well, why tell an audience of folks who've taken time out of their evening to come and learn about who you are - that you are headed home to do homework with your daughter, when in fact - you need a couple of good stiff drinks and just want to get the heck out of there so as not to hang around a minute later than necessary?
Interestingly, throughout the evening, Mr. Monahan seemed to like referring to the position of District Judge as "DJ". An amusing colloquialism. Given his penchant for presenting the truth in - how shall we say - its 'most favorable' light, we can't help wondering whether perhaps Mr. Monahan is of the misconception that a respected position such as District Judgeship is less about honest public service ...than it is about 'spin'.
It's a question of credibility.
You want more money for ...What??
Speaking of credibility...
A history of consistent behavior is beginning to emerge.
We have recently discovered in Williams Township that, after an agonizingly long period where Township officials seemed to revel in delaying and persistently halt a Williams landowner's need to work on their property ...stretching into some 18 months, that Township Solicitor Brian Monahan, together with the Township Engineer presented to current District Judge Zemgulis at the time, and demanded they be reimbursed for the "added hours" they had 'devoted' to this landowner's project.
Oddly, these Township consultants, led by Mr. Monahan, seemed to see - what amounted to - continued harassment, as a viable means for ratcheting up billable hours.
What a concept.
In, what was clearly a conscientious and fair response, District Zemgulis noted that the salaries these officials received, were already being paid out of taxpayers'(Williams Township residents) pockets. And now, they were presenting to her to request they be reimbursed for the extra hours they spent ...virtually 'harassing' this landowner?
District Zemgulis wisely declined the request, with a comment to the effect, "This is what gives District Justices gray hair."
Gray hair indeed.
What gives us gray hair is the thought that Williams Township Solicitor Brian Monahan is running for this very position ---> District Judge - election May 15, 2007.
I wonder, if Township Solicitor Brian Monahan were to find himself behind the bench, and have the very same question posed to him by Williams Township Officials, what would his decision be?
Get informed.
Vote responsibly.
A history of consistent behavior is beginning to emerge.
We have recently discovered in Williams Township that, after an agonizingly long period where Township officials seemed to revel in delaying and persistently halt a Williams landowner's need to work on their property ...stretching into some 18 months, that Township Solicitor Brian Monahan, together with the Township Engineer presented to current District Judge Zemgulis at the time, and demanded they be reimbursed for the "added hours" they had 'devoted' to this landowner's project.
Oddly, these Township consultants, led by Mr. Monahan, seemed to see - what amounted to - continued harassment, as a viable means for ratcheting up billable hours.
What a concept.
In, what was clearly a conscientious and fair response, District Zemgulis noted that the salaries these officials received, were already being paid out of taxpayers'(Williams Township residents) pockets. And now, they were presenting to her to request they be reimbursed for the extra hours they spent ...virtually 'harassing' this landowner?
District Zemgulis wisely declined the request, with a comment to the effect, "This is what gives District Justices gray hair."
Gray hair indeed.
What gives us gray hair is the thought that Williams Township Solicitor Brian Monahan is running for this very position ---> District Judge - election May 15, 2007.
I wonder, if Township Solicitor Brian Monahan were to find himself behind the bench, and have the very same question posed to him by Williams Township Officials, what would his decision be?
Get informed.
Vote responsibly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)