Force the Vote

Here’s a bad idea whose time should never come.

State Sen. Anthony Williams (D-Delaware/Philadelphia) will introduce legislation that will make voting compulsory. Meaning if you don’t vote, you’ll be fined.

But some of his colleagues don’t agree.

“It’s a violation of our rights as citizens. The government shouldn’t force us to vote. That’s our choice and by not voting that’s also our choice,” said state Rep. Rick Saccone (R-Allegheny/Washington).

Don’t vote. It only encourages them.


[Senator Anthony] Williams, a former gubernatorial candidate who has talked of running for Philadelphia mayor, cannot say the same.

In 2011, he was on leave for 31 of 72 Senate session days. He said in an interview that an illness early that year accounted for most of his leaves. He declined to discuss details. In 2012, he was on legislative leave for just six of 53 session days.

This year, Williams took leave for 15 of the Senate’s 50 session days – including five of six in January.

He said much of his leave came after a 5-year-old girl was kidnapped from her West Philadelphia school and brutalized, and he was in his community, organizing marches and raising rewards to find the suspects.

“There are some people who say you should be in Harrisburg all the time. I understand that,” he said. “But I have to make a judgment call sometimes. And I take responsibility for it.”

Senator Williams wants to force you to vote for him (or against him) for a job where one of the job requirements is voting… and he can’t be bothered to do the same.

He should return part of his salary, pro-rated for those days.

Lead by example, Senator.

March 25, 2015 at 10:47 pm Comments (0)

No Secret Ballot For GOP Endorsement Is Same As Union Card Check

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), commonly known as “Card Check,” is the misnamed legislation promoted by Organized Labor to stop the hemorrhaging within union ranks.  (From a high near 40 percent after World War II, union representation in the private sector has plummeted to just 7 percent today). It would make organizing a union infinitely easier by eliminating the current secret ballot vote used to determine whether employees wish to unionize.

Common sense tells us that whenever a secret ballot is not employed, many people will not vote their conscience.  Instead, they fall victim to intimidation and arm-twisting, and end up casting a ballot in favor of the person whom they are strongly encouraged —AKA “told” — to support.  The result is a rigged, Banana Republic election, anything but “Free Choice.”

The Republican Party, on both the state and national level, has vigorously opposed Card Check, not only because it is grossly unfair to companies, but much more important, because it would cavalierly discard that most fundamental American bedrock value: free and fair elections.  It is a right that has been held sacred in this nation, and has allowed the people to chart their own course and make their own decisions, free of outside influence and intimidation.

Given this, it seems extremely hypocritical that the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania — while opposing Card Check — jettisons free and fair voting for its own members by refusing to allow secret ballot votes on important issues, such as Party endorsements.

And now, on the eve of the meeting in which the Committee will vote whether to endorse a candidate for the U.S. Senate (or not endorse at all), that issue has become a firestorm that is only growing in intensity.

The big question centers on whether the Party will endorse millionaire Steve Welch, a favorite among several GOP leaders, including Republican Governor Tom Corbett. The problem many have with Welch is that he voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and supported former Congressman Joe Sestak, a stalwart liberal consistently to the Left of Obama. Welch claims he left the GOP out of frustration that it wasn’t conservative enough, leaving more than a few Republicans perplexed.

(In an email to PoliticsPA this week, Sestak wrote of his meeting with Welch: “He expressed support of me and what I stood for. He seemed nice and, separately, supportive of the Democratic Party and its efforts.”)

So would the Party really risk massive damage to itself by endorsing an Obama-voter, and make the sin mortal by doing so without a secret ballot?

They can’t be that dumb.

But this being Pennsylvania’s Republican Party, all bets are off.

Should they endorse Welch, it will be a double whammy, throwing the entire Party into a quagmire from which it would be difficult to escape.

State Committee would cement the perception that its endorsements are behind-the-scenes deals by inside powerbrokers hell-bent on executing individual agendas — the rank-and-file Party faithful be damned.  More damaging, it would play out — in full public view — exactly how ruthlessly efficient Card Check tactics are, making unions blush with envy.

How could Party leaders possibly explain with a straight face that the process was fair, and that no political pressure and intimidation took place — when Governor Corbett and certain State Committee leaders were openly pushing Welch?  Would it really be plausible to believe that the message “do it for the Party, and do it for your Governor — or else your political career stops here” wouldn’t be made loud and clear?

Even more telling, how could the Party explain Committee members’ change of heart in endorsing Welch after only one of five State Committee regional caucus straw polls voted for Welch as their candidate of choice? In other words, of the five regional “pre-election” votes that took place — voted on by the very same people who are now being asked to change their vote and endorse Welch — only one made Welch a winner. Significantly, Welch’s own Southeast Caucus refused to hold a straw poll, and Corbett was not even able to deliver his hometown Southwest Caucus for Welch.


This is by no means an indictment of Steve Welch. It has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the Republican Party. Clearly, in this particular situation, the wisest course of action would be to ignore the Governor’s misguided endorsement and refuse to endorse any candidate.


In allowing grassroots Republicans across Pennsylvania to make their choice, free of Party endorsements, a civil war inside the GOP would be averted, and the best candidate — the people’s choice — would emerge to take on incumbent Bob Casey.  And if Welch wins a non-endorsement primary, his victory would not be tainted with the perception that he “bought” his way to the nomination.  Regardless of the outcome, no one can argue with the results if rank-and-file Republican voters make that decision.

Besides gaining immense credibility with many Republicans should it not endorse a candidate, State Committee could score a huge coup by then amending its bylaws to allow for that which is uniquely American: secret ballot elections.

Otherwise, it will become known as Republican State Committee, Local 666.


An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau,  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at

, , , , , , , , , , ,
January 27, 2012 at 8:26 am Comments (0)

The Feds Are Having A Cow Over Raw Milk

 Do we ban sushi and steak tartare, too? What’s the difference?

 Sorry to disappoint, but the 2012 presidential election may prove to be anti-climatic, since it appears the federal government has solved all its problems, from illegal aliens to drug smuggling, from energy independence to protecting the environment.  They must have even found a way to eliminate the $14 trillion debt.

Why? Well, based on all the resources the feds are putting into the eradication of a mammoth problem, one that strikes fear in the heart of all citizens, it would seem that all its other troubles have been solved.   It’s an issue of such importance that pollsters surely find it at the top of every survey:

The production, sale and voluntary consumption of raw milk.

The threat is so great that armed federal officials find it necessary to routinely raid farms which produce that product. And rightly so, since the incidence of bovine malfeasance has obviously surpassed that of drug dealers, rapists, child predators, and murderers. 


The latest saga involved armed federal who, after months of “investigation,” raided an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, whose owner was allegedly selling raw milk across state lines.  After assessing civil penalties, the government is now trying to shut down the farmer’s operation in federal court.

It’s another example of a government out of control, with gun-toting storm troopers swooping down on a farmer’s property.  And there’s little doubt it came about because the extremely powerful dairy lobby once again flexed its political muscle, demanding that this increasingly popular practice be squashed.  Given that there are over ten million raw milk drinkers in the U.S., why else would so much attention be given to such an innocuous business?

At issue is whether raw milk is dangerous for human consumption because of the potential presence of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria, as opposed to the pasteurized milk that kills such germs and is common on store shelves.  Raw milk advocates, both producers and consumers, claim that milk in its raw, natural form, free of chemical treatment, helps the human body maintain an overall level of healthiness.  They state that during the pasteurization process, key proteins are destroyed that help promote digestion and improve the immune system.

Even though federal officials counter that the bacteria in raw milk can be deadly, people across the country go out of their way to obtain such milk, sometimes paying in excess of three times the price of regular milk. Not only have they lived to tell their story, but most claim they and their children are significantly healthier. In the past decade, only two deaths have been officially linked to raw milk, and even they were suspect, as the contaminated substance in question was Mexican cheese.

Given that raw milk is legal to sell in 29 states, and in the other 21, there are many legal loopholes to do so, such as labeling the milk for animal consumption, and selling “cow-shares” so that owners are entitled to a percentage of the cow’s yield as opposed to buying milk outright, such heavy handed conduct on the part of federal officials is troublesome.

Be Consistent

Here’s the rub.  If government is going to interfere in people’s lives and threaten their livelihoods, then they should be consistent.  It certainly wouldn’t make their decision right, but at least they would avoid the appearance of favoritism.  If the major issue in the consumption of raw food is the possibility of it containing “harmful” bacteria, then many more businesses should be concerned about being shut down by government agents.

Fair is fair.

So why aren’t the feds not closing all restaurants that serve sushi, or at least banning it from the menu?  Sushi, a delicacy loved by millions, is simply raw fish.  And the best sushi is categorized as being from the “highest grade” fish.

Sounds like class warfare in the pelagic community. 

The reality is that the “highest grade” fish is still served raw, and can contain both bacteria and parasites.  As an added bonus, the concentration of mercury in many of these fish is quite high because of their status as apex predators, meaning that, since they are at the top of the food chain, they often have the highest concentration of mercury.

Isn’t mercury bad for us, too? 

And what about the significant risk of contracting hepatitis from eating raw seafood?  It is a very real possibility, even when eating in a five-star restaurant.

While we’re at it, let’s ban steak tartare (made with raw beef) from all restaurants, as well as Caesar dressing concocted with raw eggs.

Come to think of it, the citrus and vegetable industries have problems too, given the occasional presence of E. coli on those products, due in part to manure laden irrigation water and fertilizer.

So let’s ban tomatoes, too. Oh wait, the FDA did exactly that several years ago after announcing a salmonella outbreak, throwing countless Americans out of work.  Only one problem.  There was absolutely no evidence that tomatoes were the offending food, and, after completely decimating an entire industry, the FDA (Federal Destruction Administration) cavalierly announced that it didn’t actually know what caused the outbreak.

If only the FDA was red-faced and apologetic after its misstep, willing to make amends, some of the animosity towards government would have been mitigated.  But it was as arrogant as ever.

The specter of bureaucrats who are 52 cards short of a deck yet hold the power to destroy Americans’ lives — with no repercussion when they are wrong — is simply un-American. And the fact that Congress and presidential administrations allow such intrusion to go unchecked simply makes the sin mortal. 


Government clearly has more important priorities than trying to put raw milk producers out of business, especially when it operates in such a frightening manner.  If people want to drink raw milk for its perceived health benefits, they should be able to do so without fear, and without being forced to act like rumrunners during Prohibition.  And if government is so concerned about the safety of these individuals, it could make them sign a waiver of liability.

Of course, then we would be sifting through pages of litigious material every time we entered a restaurant, which would just thrill the bureaucrats.

Or maybe our taxpayer-funded government could actually try to hold up its part of the bargain by enforcing the laws that are designed to keep us safe and secure, but are routinely ignored. Spending no more than it takes in and sealing the border are just two that come to mind.

A wise man once wrote that Government should be “…of the people, by the people, for the people”. 

Well-funded lobbies controlling an ever-intrusive government is not what Mr. Lincoln had in mind.


 Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau,

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at

, , , , , , , , , ,
June 1, 2011 at 2:02 pm Comments (0)

What they don’t want you to know about drilling in the Marcellus…

…it creates jobs.

Nearly 48,000 people have been hired in the last year by industries related to drilling in the Marcellus Shale, and 71 percent of those people were Pennsylvania residents. Nine thousand of them were hired in the first three months of 2011.

The average salary was higher than the statewide average.

And the rate of hiring is accelerating.

While there has been much talk of the economic impact of the Marcellus, most of it has been anecdotal, until the Department of Labor and Industry quietly published its most up-to-date hard numbers about two weeks ago.

Just for fun, before you click on the link, imagine what all the anti-Marcellus zealots are saying to refute this. Here’s what I came up with:

–All those jobs are just low-paying support jobs
–The money doesn’t make up for the environmental damage
–The numbers in the report were made up by the Corbett administration
All those jobs are going to out-of-staters Oops. Sorry. That one’s no good anymore.

OK. Now go to the comments section, which is apparently for Bolsheviks only, and see how many you got right. I was four for five the last time I checked. What you’ll see here is cognitive dissonance in action. The Marcellus-haters want the gas industry to fail. They want to see poor rural Pennsylvanians stay poor and rural. They want double-digit unemployment provided they’re not among the unemployed. The problem is that it isn’t happening. In response, the haters have begun moving the goalposts. The jobs may be here, but they’re not good enough. The gas companies may be paying taxes, but they’re not paying enough. We may not see environmental damage now, but trust me it’s there. Repeat ad nauseam.

Usually this is the part where I’d conclude by shaking my head and saying that they “just don’t understand”, but I think they do understand. I’ve been working in the environmental field for almost 15 years, and I’ve seen these groups in action over and over. There is a significant contingent of people who are anti-industry and anti-development. All their talk about taxes, jobs, and the environment is just a cover. The fact of the matter is that they don’t want to see productive enterprises thrive because it empowers the individual and disempowers them. If you have a good job and bright future, you don’t need a grievance group to do anything for you. The professionally aggrieved become irrelevant, and it drives them insane.

If you don’t believe me, ask yourself what exact conditions would have to exist before these groups would be satisfied. What would it take to shut them up? You could levy all the taxes and write all the regulations you want, but they’d still call for more. No amount of evidence will make them change their minds (see above). The only thing they’ll accept is an outright ban. They got a temporary one in New York State, and I predict that when that ban expires they’ll call for an extension saying that there hasn’t been “enough” study of the consequences of drilling. They want it shut down permanently, and nothing else will suffice.

At one time in history, Pennsylvania was the most productive place on earth. At that same time in history, Pennsylvania was great, and when I say great, I mean great-among-the-nations great. That is not a coincidence. We have the chance to be great again, and we owe it to ourselves to make sure that a bunch of power-hungry junior autocrats don’t stand in the way.

May 30, 2011 at 6:21 pm Comments (0)

Court Was Right To Allow Westboro Funeral Protests

Frivolous lawsuits, such as those that make healthcare costs skyrocket, put manufacturers out of business, and dissolve personal responsibility, not only threaten our liberty, but often erode America’s unique foundation — freedom of speech.

A case still garnering headlines is that of Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine killed in Iraq. Snyder brought suit against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church in 2006 after some church members staged a demonstration at the funeral of his son, Matthew.

He sued because the demonstrators inflicted emotional distress on the family, invaded their privacy, attacked Matthew’s memory, and stripped him of his dignity. It was also claimed the protesters prevented family members from reaching closure.

The suit proceeded even though the protesters had followed the appropriate laws, checked in with police, and were 1,000 feet from the church.  And Mr. Snyder admitted he couldn’t see the signs, only learning of the protesters’ message upon watching the news.

Yet in 2007, a federal jury awarded Snyder $11 million in damages. A Court of Appeals later overturned that decision, ordering Snyder to pay $16,510 in legal fees to the Church’s leader, Fred Phelps.

That caused an outpouring of support for Snyder, including FOX commentator Bill O’Reilly, who last year offered to pay the legal fees. (The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court).

While a nice gesture, O’Reilly missed the point.

By supporting Snyder’s lawsuit, he and many conservatives who often talk about “freedom” and “liberty” are, ironically, contributing to the loss of both.

Should attacking someone’s memory really be a crime?

Make no mistake. Phelps’ preaching during these protests is twisted and vulgar.  Church members carry signs reading “Thank God for dead soldiers” and somehow think soldiers’ deaths are the result of God’s punishment for “America’s sins.”

But no matter how revolting these people are, and no matter how much salt is added to families’ wounds by hitting them at their lowest point — since parents should never have to bury a child — no court should entertain a lawsuit for hurt feelings.

Doing so is another step toward politically-correct “thought police.”

It also opens the door to free speech erosion, which, once ajar, never closes.

Obviously, there are exceptions.  You can’t falsely yell “fire” or impersonate a police officer. But those are common-sense restrictions based on public safety.

Insulting someone doesn’t come close to meeting that threshold.

Repugnant beliefs, whether exhibited by the Westboro protesters or the KKK, isn’t, and shouldn’t, be a crime.

O’Reilly was way off on that point, too, saying that the protesters committed a crime by disturbing the peace.

When a well-respected media member makes that kind of irresponsible statement, it has negative consequences.  Millions echoed O’Reilly’s belief, unaware that they too were incorrect.

First, if they had disturbed the peace, they should have been arrested. But they weren’t.

Second —and here’s where Bill should have known better — even if they had, that would have been a criminal case, not a civil one. 

Minister Phelps’ speech was clearly political.  Suing him is akin to suing a pro-lifer for showing a picture of a fetus to someone entering an abortion clinic. That person won’t be pleased, but suing the protester should never be an option.

The real issue is how such a frivolous case ever saw the light of day.  And the jury award? Eleven million dollars because a few ignorant people made you feel bad? Even for frivolous lawsuits, that takes the cake. Jackpot juries must be reined in, or the lunacy will only increase.

What’s next?

That guy who calls you an unprintable name?  Sue him!  Your boss who belittles you?  Hire an attorney! And if you’re an elected official or celebrity on the receiving end of a not-too-flattering commentary? File suit to shut down the critics!

Ironically, the freedoms that Matthew Snyder died protecting are the very ones we are nonchalantly giving away.

It’s time to wake up, America.

Europe has become a dying, cowardly continent, appeasing the very enemies that seek to destroy it by bowing to radical Muslims who want to shut down any viewpoints they deem offensive.

Is that where we are headed?  Ban this, censor that, and eliminate more freedoms?

Thankfully, the Supreme Court just ruled, 8-1, that the military protesters’ speech is not unlawful.

But many in the country still vehemently disagree, advocating more bans and increased restrictions.

Fine.  That’s their right. But they should at least be honest and stop pretending they care about “liberty.”

Censor everything, and replace the Stars and Stripes with the white flag of surrender.  Ironically, we’ll have become what these people claim to abhor: the United States of France.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau,

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

 Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at

, , , , , , , , , ,
March 4, 2011 at 7:15 pm Comments (0)

O’Reilly, Conservatives Wrong in Supporting Lawsuit Against Military Funeral Protestors

O’Reilly, Conservatives Wrong in Supporting Lawsuit Against Military Funeral Protestors

A frequent target of “Freindly Fire’s” wrath is frivolous lawsuits — the kinds that make healthcare costs skyrocket, put manufacturers out of business, dissolve personal responsibility, and yes, those that eat away at our most basic freedoms.

Worst of all, many of these lawsuits erode the very foundation that makes America unique — freedom of speech.

A case that has garnered national headlines recently is that of Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, the father of a Marine killed in Iraq. Snyder brought suit against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church in 2006 after some church members staged a demonstration at the funeral of his son, Matthew.

The reason for suing? The demonstrators inflicted emotional distress on the family and invaded their privacy. Additionally, the plaintiffs stated that the church members sought to attack the memory of their departed hero, to strip their loved one of dignity, and to use abuse and intimidation as a tool for preventing surviving family members from reaching closure over their loss.

In 2007, in an act of pure insanity, a federal jury awarded Snyder $11 million in damages.

(That award was overturned on appeal last year, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.)
Recently, a Court of Appeals ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 in legal fees to the Church’s leader, Fred Phelps.

That caused an outpouring of national support for Snyder, including FOX commentator Bill O’Reilly, who offered to pay the legal fees owed to the Church.

While a nice gesture by Bill, he has, unfortunately, completely missed the point.

By supporting Snyder’s lawsuit, he and many conservatives who love to bandy around words like “freedom” and “liberty” are, ironically, contributing to the loss of both.

Are we in third grade? Should attacking someone’s memory be a crime?

What am I missing?

READ THE REST AT PHILLY POST— Philadelphia Magazine’s new online endeavour:

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau,
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at

, , , , , , , ,
April 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm Comments (5)

Election Day!

I felt that today was a good day to start writing again. This is because today is the day I say I’m done helping the Republican Party. This isn’t because I’m not a Republican, but because more to the point that I have No Idea what the Republican Party stands for anymore. I’m a conservative on a ship of moderates, which if you translate that to English means that they don’t stand really for anything except the next sound bite that will move that “Party” forward toward power again. The new song today is the same song from yesterday. This is truly one of the clearest moments in all of American History to clearly delineate the differences between Socialist principles and the Conservative values the Republican Party once stood for, what Ronald Reagan once spoke about and lived and breathed everyday proving to the world, Freedom of the Individual versus the Social Justice of the Collective. The chance to succeed or fail based on our own merits and hard work Vs. being just “too big” to fail and it’s our duty to “spread the wealth around”.

Never has there been a time to make such a clear distinction between two differing mindsets….and they fail to do so. And now I know why they have failed to do so: because the “Party mentality” of the Republicans OR the Democrats is not different at all. All they care about is power, and collecting more of it in their hands and not in ours…where it belongs.

Therefore, I now believe that I have no choice but to come to the conclusion of this: There really is no difference between the “Party” mentalities any longer. The Leadership of the Republican Party is not here to espouse my principles, which they “SAY” they believe. They don’t, and now I know it, and now I’m done helping the Party. The party is dead in my heart now.

I now have decided that I will only help individuals in the future. As soon as a Leader steps up to the plate and says “Here I am, with the bumps and hard edges and flaws and foibles of a real human being, and I believe in the Conservative principles of our Founding Fathers” I will be in there corner. This is why I believe that it was a stroke of Pure Genius that Sarah Palin left the Governor’s position in Alaska and tout the Conservative values to everyone that will listen to her. This allows her to get away from what is toxic in the Republican Party, which is the Republican Party, and maybe come back as a leader to show the way back to the principles and values that this great nation, the greatest nation ever, was founded on.

I didn’t join the military, serve my country and potentially risk my life if asked, to serve a “party” or an individual…but the Constitution of the United States of America. That is the oath all service members make. We made an oath to the Constitution. And it’s about time that I uphold that oath once again.

So, I hereby resign my position as a member of the Republican Committee here in Cumberland County, PA, effective immediately. I also re-pledge my oath to the US Constitution, like I did as a member of the US military. The next real candidate that upholds and believes those conservative values and principles espoused in the Constitution steps forward, I will be standing right behind them and helping them move our country back to sanity again, but the moment they forget the principles and values is the moment I leave them in the dust. You are either for our Constitution as the Founders created and intended it, or you’re not and that will determine whether my allegiance is with you OR I’m done with you. You choose.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
November 3, 2009 at 12:50 pm Comment (1)

Pa-Sen 29: Argall Wins

March 3, 2009 at 11:09 pm Comments (0)

Child Support Injustice

Good Lord.

A Philadelphia man was forced to pay more than $12,000 in child support for another man’s daughter and spent two years in jail for falling behind on payments.

Dauphin County prosecutor Edward M. Marsico Jr. told The Patriot-News of Harrisburg that he is examining the case of Walter Andre Sharpe Jr., who has been unable to recover the money even after establishing that he isn’t the girl’s father.

The investigation has no specific targets, Marsico said.

Sharpe’s troubles began in 2001, when he signed for a certified letter addressed to Andre Sharpe, the girl’s father. The letter ordered Andre Sharpe to attend a child support conference in Dauphin County, where the girl’s mother lived at the time.

Walter Sharpe, who was already supporting four children from a previous marriage, ignored the letter, and a judge ruled he was the father after neither man showed up. The county family welfare agency then began garnishing Walter Sharpe’s wages from his job at a trash-hauling company.

What kind of a lawyer did he have? What was the evidence the judge used to determine paternity? A certified letter?

This guy has been massively wronged.

He better get a better lawyer.

December 6, 2008 at 12:47 pm Comments (0)

Cat Attack in Lanco


State officials are investigating the attack of an Amish man in southern Lancaster County by what’s being described as a big cat.

Samuel Fisher was attacked near his home shortly before nightfall Thursday. He had seen the cat in a farm field and fired at it, then was attacked by an animal while pursuing the cat.

Fisher apparently wounded the cat, and the Game Commission is hoping to find evidence that will help them determine what kind of animal it was.

Mountain Lions haven’t been in Pa since the 19th century, so it’s not clear what the thing was.

October 10, 2008 at 12:32 pm Comments (0)

« Older Posts