Home Blog

Dauphin County Tax-Sale Hearings Raise Questions about Surprise Evidence and Property Rights

Mike Miller
-
0
Dauphin County Tax-Sale Hearings Raise Questions about Surprise Evidence and Property Rights

I walked into a Dauphin County courtroom on April 23 for what Judge Jeffrey B. Engle’s orders called “oral argument.” That label mattered. Oral argument means legal argument based on the papers already filed. Oral argument does not mean witnesses. Oral argument does not mean surprise exhibits. Oral argument does not mean a trial-like hearing. I said exactly that at the outset, objecting that the April 7 orders set oral argument, not a hearing with witnesses and exhibits. Judge Engle initially agreed that the hearing would be confined to the filed matters.

Then the hearing changed. The Dauphin County Tax Claim Bureau’s solicitor, Ryan Gonder, announced that the Bureau had about 20 exhibits and intended to call Holly Martz, a Bureau official, to explain how the Bureau handled tax-sale notices. I had not received any order saying witnesses or exhibits would be used. I had no witness list, no advance copies of the documents the Bureau planned to use, and no notice that the Bureau would try to build a court record through testimony and exhibits. I objected to that lack of notice. Judge Engle gave me only a short recess to review the Bureau’s materials. Judge Engle then allowed the Bureau to proceed with testimony and exhibits. That is the heart of the problem.

A tax sale is one of the most serious powers local government can use. A tax sale can take real property without the owner’s consent. Pennsylvania’s Real Estate Tax Sale Law therefore requires the Bureau to follow every required step before the sale, before the court approves the sale, and before title changes hands. Those safeguards appear in 72 P.S. § 5860.601, “Date of sale”; 72 P.S. § 5860.602, “Notice of sale”; 72 P.S. § 5860.607a, “Additional notification efforts”; and 72 P.S. § 5860.607, “Bureau’s consolidated return to court.” Those rules are not technicalities. Those rules are the safeguard between lawful tax collection and confiscation.

I challenged the September 25, 2025 tax sale of my Harrisburg property, sale entry (-31), on Dauphin County upset-sale docket 2025-CV-06173. I argued that the Bureau sent notices to wrong or stale addresses, failed to send pre-sale notice to my known residence address, and later sent a post-sale notice that identified the wrong property address. The hearing testimony did not cure those defects. The testimony confirmed the defects. Bureau’s own evidence showed that the pre-sale notice of sale went to a discontinued P.O. Box, not my residence. The Bureau did not send pre-sale notice to my residence. The Bureau’s post-sale notice misidentified the property sold. The law was not uncertain. George v. Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau and Metropolitan Properties v. Dauphin County Tax Claim Bureau held that returned mail requires further efforts to locate and notify the owner, that newspaper notice does not replace those efforts, and that the Bureau must perform and prove the required search. I put both cases before the same court and Bureau counsel before the April 23 hearing.

Judge Engle nevertheless questioned me about tax bills, payment history, property postings, newspaper notice, tenant contact, and property-management practices. Bureau counsel then asked whether I would agree to pay taxes as a condition of getting my property back. Those questions shifted the hearing away from the Bureau’s legal burden and toward blame on the owner. Section 607(d) does not allow that shift. RETSL objections may question the regularity or legality of the Bureau’s proceedings in respect to the sale. RETSL objections may not become litigation over tax liability, the tax collector’s return, or the claim entered. The only lawful question was whether the Bureau complied with the mandatory sale procedures before the sale. Owner conduct could not cure Bureau noncompliance.

The April 27 order then made the surprise hearing record operative. After allowing the Bureau to build an evidentiary record at a proceeding noticed only as oral argument, the court ordered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the April 23 exhibits and testimony. The order treated the surprise record as the record used to decide the case. On May 20, Judge Engle issued an order declaring the September 25, 2025 sale invalid and set aside. The order also declared any tax-sale deed void ab initio and directed the Bureau to restore title to the pre-sale status. That result confirmed the core point: the sale could not stand. But even that order did not fully track Section 607(e). Section 607(e) says that if objections are sustained and the defect is not amendable, the court shall invalidate the sale and order another sale to be held in conformity with RETSL at the time and under the conditions fixed by the court. Judge Engle’s order invalidated the sale, but did not order another RETSL-compliant sale. That omission matters because the Bureau cannot treat an incomplete order as open-ended authority to restart sale machinery on its own.

Other cases from the same 2025 Dauphin County tax-sale docket raise the stakes because they show more than one pressure point. The Williams/Brown case shows the same procedural pathway appearing again. Another set of owners challenged the sale of 855 Sand Hill Road in Hershey, sale entry (-4) on the same September 25, 2025 docket. The court ordered the Bureau to respond. The Bureau filed a short denial-based answer verified by Holly Martz. Judge Engle then scheduled the matter for “oral argument,” not a hearing with witnesses and exhibits. The Williams/Brown docket shows the same Bureau, same solicitor, same Martz verification, same judge, same sale docket, same court-response process, and another oral-argument order. In plain terms, the concern is not just that one hearing went wrong. The concern is that the same procedural setup may be appearing when other owners challenge sales from the same docket.

A second pattern appears in cases that ended through payment-conditioned stipulations. In Martin/Grid, sale entry (-8), and Griffin/Britton/Grid, sale entry (-30), owners challenged tax sales from the same docket. The parties used stipulations to set aside the sales, but the stipulations made invalidation conditional. The owners had to pay money to the Bureau and Grid Investments. If the owners failed to pay, the Bureau or Grid could seek confirmation of the same sales, the owners would waive objections, and the owners could face attorney fees and costs. That matters because Section 607 draws a hard statutory line. Objections may test the regularity or legality of the Bureau’s sale proceedings; objections may not become litigation over tax liability. If objections are sustained and the defect is not amendable, Section 607(e) requires invalidation and any next sale must proceed in conformity with RETSL. That is the remedy the General Assembly wrote. A court or stipulation may not replace that remedy with payment conditions, purchaser reimbursement, objection waivers, or confirmation of the same defective sale. If the sale is invalid, the statutory remedy is RETSL invalidation—not a forced buyback.

The scale matters. The September 25, 2025 Dauphin County upset sale listed 32 sale entries across Dauphin County and may involve at least 33 parcels. The point is that multiple challenges from the same sale cycle now reveal one systemic danger: a strict statutory safeguard is being converted into a pressure system. Instead of deciding whether the Bureau proved lawful sale compliance, the process drifts toward surprise evidence, owner-fault questioning, incomplete Section 607(e) remedies, and payment-conditioned settlements. That drift matters because tax-sale cases are not ordinary collection disputes. The Bureau is asking the court to approve the permanent loss of real property. RETSL exists to restrain that power. If the court process helps the Bureau build after-the-fact records, pressure owners into payment, or bypass the statute’s remedy, the safeguard has failed.

The serious question is whether these events are isolated mistakes, or whether the court process is being used in a repeatable way that helps the Bureau preserve defective sales, pressure owners into payment-conditioned settlements, or build after-the-fact records under the cover of “oral argument” orders. The constitutional danger is plain. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights protects property and guarantees open courts and fair legal process. Those guarantees are threatened when an owner prepares for legal argument on filed papers, the Bureau arrives ready to build a factual record, and the court permits surprise exhibits, live testimony, owner-fault questioning, payment leverage, and trial-style written submissions without advance notice. That is trial by ambush. In a tax-sale case, the result can be permanent loss of real property.

The fix is not complicated. Courts must keep RETSL inside RETSL. Oral argument must remain oral argument. If the Bureau wants witnesses or exhibits, the court must say so in advance. The order must define the issues, identify witnesses, require exhibit exchange, and give owners meaningful time to prepare. The Bureau must prove compliance from its required sale records. RETSL does not permit courts to save defective tax sales through after-the-fact testimony, owner-fault questioning, payment conditions, or informal settlement machinery. If the Bureau cannot prove that required notice steps occurred when the law required those steps to occur, the sale must be invalidated. The full September 25, 2025 sale docket should be reviewed. That review should include returned mail, defective notice records, challenged sales, payment-conditioned stipulations, incomplete statutory remedies, and proceedings scheduled as “oral argument.” The Williams/Brown hearing should be monitored and transcribed because the same procedural pathway appears to be recurring.

The deeper fix belongs with the General Assembly. Pennsylvania should create a legitimate and transparent funding mechanism for municipalities. Local services need funding, but public finance should not depend on fear, leverage, surprise procedure, and forced loss of homes. A free Commonwealth should fund government without turning homeowners into revenue targets. No property owner should lose title through a proceeding labeled “oral argument” but conducted like trial. No property owner should have to buy back the right to undo an unlawful sale. The rule should be simple: strict compliance or no sale. No surprise hearing. No owner-blame substitute. No forced buyback. No resale machinery without a lawful order. No property loss outside the statute.

Source note: This article is based on public docket materials from Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas case No. 2025-CV-06173, including court orders, hearing transcript excerpts, Tax Claim Bureau filings, stipulations, and Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decisions discussed above.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

One Nation not Under God

John DeSantis
-
0
One Nation not Under God

When I was a teenager, I was quite devout. For a good while I thought I wanted to become a priest, but then happily decided that I liked girls too much for such an endeavor. My Aunt Blanche, knowing my religious inclinations, gave me a copy of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and as she did so, she cautioned me to read it carefully, lest I begin to flirt with atheism. It did not dampen my enthusiasm for my Roman Catholic faith or for God in the least. Throughout most of my early and middle adult life, I remained a believer, though for a long while I was apostate from my Church, probably more so because I was apostate from God. Thankfully, He found me, and I continued to pray and practice my religion for many years after that.

Then, when I was around fifty, I read a book the title an author of which shall remain unnamed. I have no desire to scandalize her in any way. Though I had read numerous books and articles testifying to the authenticity of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, even by so august a scholar as Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina, who himself attests to the overwhelming probability that Jesus the Christ was an actual historical personage, despite the fact that Ehrman himself is not a believer, for some reason this anonymous book intrigued me. The author contended that Jesus did not exist at all, that the mythology surrounding him, his virgin birth, his divine nature, his miracles, and even his ascension into the heavenly realms were merely another expression of heroes and mythical figures in traditions as diverse as Greek mythology and Mithridatic traditions. She presented many earlier examples of virgin birth and contended that Jesus was merely the last in a series of similar expressions.

As I read the book, despite the feeling that the author was not necessarily an atheist, her arguments intrigued me. But after a few weeks, something most unsettling came over me. It was so overpowering, that, to this day, I can still remember precisely where I was when this occurred. I was standing against the railing of the bannister, at the top of the stairs in my house. It was a feeling that was really quite ineffable, yet I shall attempt to describe it to you.

I was convinced, you see, that she was right. But not only that the historical Jesus did not exist, but that there was no God. In wasn’t that I had embraced the “God is dead” movement of the sixties; it was as if I had never known God or even about God. I had come apart from my moorings and didn’t even know it. I was adrift at and in a dark, deep foreboding sea without so much as a lifejacket, with no land in sight. I felt utterly alone. Though my second wife was still alive, and my children were still young enough to be living with me, I was alone. I have never in my entire life felt so alone. So bereft of myself. I found I could not, nor would not speculate on whether God had ever, did ever exist, for me, for anyone, for everyone. I was more alone than I had ever been, more than after my parents’ sudden demise in a horrific car accident, more alone than after my first wife, Lorraine,  had died.

As I previously said, this feeling was ineffable. Words cannot adequately describe or denote it. I think that it must have been worse than for one who has never believed in God, for that person, I think, would not have a sense of what is lacking in his life. I had a sense of loss, acute loss, eternal loss, but a sense, as I’ve said, more akin to someone who has been shaken loose from his moorings and pulled out far to sea in a vast void of ocean.

I had a sense of misery, not unlike that of the ancient mariner in Shelley’s great poem. I felt doomed, as if I had never known God, knew that I had known him, and now knew that I did not know him or that he even existed. If I thought that I had been in Hell after my parents and sister had died, this was a hell beyond all hells. Though I am trying vainly to describe it, it was, and remains beyond any real and adequate description.

But then, one day, something truly wonderful happened. These events happened about twenty-five years ago, so I cannot be certain of the exactness of the time spans. Somewhen about four or five months later, I think in the same location as the first experience occurred, my faith returned to me. The return, the feeling, the knowledge, the apprehension was instantaneous and complete. It was as if a sudden flash of brilliant light had manifested in my soul.Of course, for days, maybe even weeks later, I mused that maybe the return of my beliefs was psychologically induced, that somewhere in my psyche I realized that I couldn’t live without God and so I rationalized Him back into existence. I realize now, as I finally realized then, that ratiocination about God can only go so far; God cannot really be reasoned about. Rene Dubos, in his excellent book, So Human an Animal, declares that when the last scientists, climbing the highest peaks of knowledge, in an attempt to transcend their own logic about God, have reached the summit of their knowledge, they will be greeted by a band of theologians who will declare, “what took you so long?”

So, I knew then, as I knew now, that God did not leave me at that time. In all probability, I left Him. And for whatever reason, He permitted it. How or why He returned is a mystery. I suspect He was never really gone, but that somehow, I had put blinders on myself for reasons I don’t fully understand.

I think that what has been occurring in the world today, and most clearly in the United States is a similar phenomenon. Our world, our country has left God. We have declared that with all our scientific knowledge and our technological advances, we don’t need Him. We believe that we can do all, know all, and protract and better our lives infinitely without assistance from anyone such as a Creator God. This nation from the beginning has been guided and nurtured by Judeo-Christian principles overlaid by a system of common law deriving from English law itself engendered from the traditions of Greco-Roman legal systems. Though our system of governance has been far from perfect, as our history has progressed, we have been moving toward a fuller expression pf the principles of freedom developed in our founding documents. Our ethical principles have been fortified by a system of laws which have sought to undergird the republic.

As we have moved further and further away from these principles, as situational ethics have replaced absolute notions of right and wrong, we find ourselves foundering without any rudder with which to steer ourselves. We no longer look for moral direction from anything or anyone outside ourselves. And without clear direction, without the stability of a national moral and ethical compass, anything goes. In the name of political correctness and not wanting to offend anyone, we have offended all. Worst of all, we have offended ourselves. As we continue to flirt with disaster, as we continue to push the limits of artificial intelligence, as we continue to clone sentient beings and obvert the natural law to our own designs, as we push the limits of moral boundaries, as we countenance disorder and destruction in the name of change, as we feebly attempt to force changes in the human heart by man-made legislation, without the commensurate spiritual sensibilities that have and are continuing to occur over time, we will push ourselves toward disaster.

We have split the atom, with potentially disastrous results; we are in grave danger of splitting our collective national psyche, and I fear the results will be far more dangerous.

The founding fathers gave us the Bill of Rights. The first amendment guarantees the free expression of religion apart from any established religion. The other rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are also contained therein.

I believe that in order to survive and prosper, so that we can continue to be the beacon and example to the nations of the world, we need to return to our roots.

We cannot discard our traditions, cancel, that is, wipe out our cultural identity, in favor of a way that is only grounded in violence and anarchy. That is what will become of a nation that tries to take its directives from a force outside of spiritual Good.

Above all, we need to pray to the Almighty, Who has endowed us with unalienable rights, that we make the choices that will be in the best interests of our nation, choices that reflect a knowing dependence upon that same Creator for our very being, and for our continued freedom and general welfare. And then, we must act wisely, based upon the best information and intelligence, and trusting to God that we have made the right choice. If we return to Him, and His trust, He will bless and protect us ever.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

Secrecy Versus Transparency over Public Records (UPDATE)

Diane Houser
-
0
Secrecy Versus Transparency over Public Records (UPDATE)

UPDATE. February 13, 2026: 

Chester County appealed once again to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. On February 9, 2026, according to the Memorandum Opinion by Judge Dumas, “Appellant County of Chester (County) appeals from the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (Common Pleas) on March 6, 2025. Through that order, Common Pleas denied the County’s appeal regarding the Office of Open Records’ (OOR) disposition of Appellee Diane Houser’s (Houser) Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 request for digital images of absentee and mail-in ballots that had been cast in several recent General Elections. Upon review, we affirm Common Pleas’ order.”

For the past 18 months, Chester County has continued to waste taxpayer money to bypass the legal requirements for transparency in our elections. Why doesn’t Chester County want to follow the PA Election Code?  If there is nothing to hide, then why hide it?

On August 5, 2024, I filed four Right to Know Requests:

  1. Please provide an electronic copy of the images of all mail-in ballots (including absentee ballots) from the November 2023 Election between the dates of August 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023.
  2. Please provide an electronic copy of the images of all mail-in ballots (including absentee ballots) from the November 2022 Election between the dates of August 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
  3. Please provide an electronic copy of the images of all mail-in ballots (including absentee ballots) from the November 2021 Election between the dates of August 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021.
  4. Please provide an electronic copy of the images of all mail-in ballots (including absentee ballots) from the November 2020 Election between the dates of August 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020.

On September 11, 2024, these Public Records Requests, Reference # R000338-080324, # R000339-080324, # R000340-080324, # R000341-080324, were denied “pursuant to Section 308 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2648 which exempts “the contents of ballot boxes and voting machines” from public inspection.” They did not call for the contents of ballot boxes and voting machines. I requested the electronic copy of the images of all mail-in ballots (including absentee ballots) for the 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 November Elections. As a result, Section 308 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2648 did not apply.

However, 25 P.S. § 2648, Section 1307-D(a), states “All official mail-in ballots, files, applications for ballots and envelopes on which the executed declarations appear and all information and lists are designated and declared to be public records and shall be safely kept for a period of two years, except that no proof of identification shall be made public, nor shall information concerning a military elector be made public which is expressly forbidden by the Department of Defense because of military security.” Therefore, the images of all mail-in ballots are public records.

Furthermore, 25 P.S. § 3150.17(a), Section 1309(a), states “All official absentee ballots, files, applications for such ballots and envelopes on which the executed declarations appear, and all information and lists are hereby designated and declared to be public records and shall be safely kept for a period of two years, except that no proof of identification shall be made public, nor shall information concerning a military elector be made public which is expressly forbidden by the Department of Defense because of military security.” Hence, the images of all absentee ballots are also public records. Therefore, I appealed to the Office of Open Records on September 23, 2024.

On October 2, 2024, Chester County submitted a position statement, arguing that because the records requested are not accessible under the RTKL, the OOR does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. In addition, Chester County maintained that public access to the records is barred by Section 2648 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2648. Chester County further argued that providing access to the responsive records would “violate secrecy in voting as protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Lastly, the County noted that responding to the Requests would be “overly burdensome.”

On November 19, 2024, the Office of Open Records responded to Chester County’s position statement with four points in their Legal Analysis. See Final Determination for an in-depth explanation.

  1. The OOR has jurisdiction over this appeal.
  2. The requested mail-in and absentee ballots are not exempt from public access under the Election Code.
  3. Disclosure of the requested records would not violate secrecy in voting.
  4. The County may provide the responsive records on a rolling production schedule.

On December 16, 2024, Chester County filed a Petition for Review appealing the Office of Open Records Final Determination. The case was assigned to Judge Anthony T. Verwey. Both parties submitted briefs. I was represented by Thomas E. Breth of Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, LLP and Special Counsel to the Thomas More Society.

On March 6, 2025, Judge Anthony T. Verwey “ordered that the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records at Docket No. AP 2024-2456 is affirmed, and the County is required to provide access to any responsive mail-in and absentee ballots in a manner consistent with the disclosure conditions set forth in the Election Code on a weekly basis continuing over a total period of ninety days.”

In simple terms, my argument with Chester County appears to boil down to ballot secrecy versus transparency in our elections. The reason for the secret ballot was to protect the voter against coercion, blackmail, or the ability to sell one’s vote. However, once a ballot is cast, the connection to the voter no longer exists. There is no personally identifiable information on the ballot. There is no name, address, or voter ID. The only way that someone else finds out how one voted would be if the voter voluntarily divulged that information.

Transparency helps to assure citizens that elections are free, fair, and honest. Transparency in our elections instills confidence in the electorate that the results are accurate. Transparency means more government accountability. When our legislature passes election laws, it is with the understanding that a county will abide by those laws. Counties as well as individuals do not get to pick and choose which laws they will follow and which laws they will not follow. Adhering to the rule of law helps to preserve and ensure the rights of all citizens.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

Book on Kirk Shooting Published Prior to the Event

Executive Editor
-
0
Book on Kirk Shooting Published Prior to the Event
Book - Shooting of Charlie Kirk
Figure 1: Initial search result.

As people were coming to terms with the senseless violence that led to the tragic loss of American icon, Charlie Kirk, of course it would be natural to expect theories begin to emerge. In time, myriads of books would be written about it. But how does a book on the shooting get listed on Amazon the day before the shooting? The book is called, The Shooting of Charlie Kirk, by Anastasia J. Casey. As you can see here in Figure 1, the listing date is September 9 – one day prior to Charlie Kirk’s tragic assassination.

I heard about it on social media so, naturally, with all of the conspiracy theories, this needed some investigation and verification. Sure enough. There it was, with a listing date of September 9. Initially, when the search result was selected, as expected, it directed to the listing. Soon after, however, the listing was removed, but the search results remained. Numerous times, as this article was being written, the search results were refreshed and the listing was among the results. Eventually, prior to publishing this, the search results were also cleared of any indication of the book. At the time of the publishing of this article, the search results appear as shown in Figure 2. There are other titles by the name, but no longer any by an author, Anastasia J. Casey.

So what could explain this? And wouldn’t you think there might be a few people interested in talking to the author? Who is Anastasia J Casey? We turned to sometimes-reliable, Grok, to see what might be known about her, and found the following:

Updated results - Title missing“Anastasia J. Casey is the author of The Shooting of Charlie Kirk: A Comprehensive Account of the Utah Valley University Attack, the Aftermath, and America’s Response*, published on September 11, 2025, in hardcover and September 9, 2025, as a Kindle edition. The book details a violent incident involving conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, exploring the event, its aftermath, and broader societal implications like political polarization and campus safety. Beyond this, there is limited publicly available information about Casey’s background, such as her biography, profession, or other works, based on the provided sources. She appears to be a distinct author from others with similar names, like Casey D. Parisi, who wrote a different book on the same event.[](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FQMF466K)[](https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9798264842788)[](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FQPNNPRL).”

(Interestingly, the ISBN information shown here didn’t appear until I pasted the text from Grok into the text editor.)

See anything wrong there? Grok is, of course, subject to hallucinations, so it called for the obvious follow-up question, “If Charlie Kirk was shot on September 10, how could this have been available on September 9?”, to which Grok replied:

“The discrepancy between the September 10, 2025, shooting of Charlie Kirk and the September 9, 2025, Kindle edition release date of *The Shooting of Charlie Kirk* by Anastasia J. Casey likely stems from a publishing error or confusion in the metadata. The hardcover edition is listed as published on September 11, 2025, which aligns with the event’s timeline, as it would allow time for the book to be written and published post-incident. The Kindle edition’s September 9 date, predating the shooting, is likely a mistake in the listing, such as a typo or an automated placeholder date not updated by the publisher. Alternatively, it could reflect an intended pre-release for a different book or an erroneous early digital release. No evidence suggests the book was actually available before the event, and such a discrepancy is common in publishing when metadata is not synchronized across formats.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk).”

While Grok is running to the defense of anything that might be truly out of the ordinary, others discussing the mystery on social media were less charitable, with one person noting that listing dates may be assigned when they are initially started – not when they are ultimately published. Undoubtedly there will be an abundance of speculation.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

PAGOP Putting Finger on Scale, Limits Exposure To Unendorsed Candidates

Executive Editor
-
0
PAGOP Putting Finger on Scale, Limits Exposure To Unendorsed Candidates

On Thursday morning this week, in a Facebook post, candidate Josh Prince called out the PAGOP for exerting inappropriate influence in his race for Judge of the Commonwealth Court. In his post, he was responding to a memo sent by Eric Anderson on behalf of the PAGOP, to party leaders across the state, forbidding unendorsed candidates from speaking or obtaining petition signatures at county GOP events. As a result of that directive, Mr. Prince was uninvited from the Carbon County GOP meeting. According to his statement, “I never said I was coming to collect signatures. I simply planned to stop by and meet fellow Republicans.”

The Liberty Lens is taking a position in support of Josh Prince – and any other non-endorsed candidates, now or in the future, who may be impacted by the current heavy-handed posture of the PAGOP. To be clear, this is not because of any partiality to Mr. Prince or any candidate. In doing so, we are taking a position in support of a basic democratic principle that is a pillar of representative government. Accordingly, we have released the following statement:

It is indefensible to exert this kind of control from the state level during primary races. It is also not supported by either state or county bylaws. True representative government is bottom-up, not top-down, and people at the local level must be afforded the ability to be well-informed about all candidates, and to speak according to their conscience, without any fear of punitive response. Even if this kind of influence were supported by the bylaws, it would only be evidence of inappropriate influence by design. Notably, Rule 11.1 in the state bylaws implies as much, but interestingly leaves out primary races from the list of the kinds of elections to which the section applies. This could be perceived as or reasonably believed to be intended ambiguity. For the state GOP to put it’s finger on the scale in primary races is unethical, and even hostile to foundational principles of representative government. Arguing that the decision is informed by state committee members is entirely unpersuasive. Many counties have a disproportionate share of votes, and their constituents may never be fairly represented by a few counties with larger, more dense populations. The purpose of a few state committee people should not serve to obscure a well-informed local electorate, or silence voices of primary candidates. On a national level, this is the spirit behind the Electoral College, and no Republican worth their weight would argue against the wisdom of the Electoral College. Asking counties to withhold an equal platform to inform voters implies a tendency toward manipulation that is obvious even to casual observers, and this must be addressed if we are to restore confidence in the PAGOP. As it is now, even good primary candidates endorsed in a system like this, may reasonably be regarded as suspect, as they are not competing for the hearts, minds, and will of the voters on an equal footing. Do all candidates (now and in the future) a favor: In Primary elections, remove the limitations on party officers and state committee people who, in good conscience don’t share the views of others in the party. In doing so, you will also do a favor, broadly, for election integrity and, in particular, for Republican voters.
– Lions for Liberty, parent organization of The Liberty Lens

The Rules of the PAGOP

According to Rule 11.1 of the Bylaws of the PAGOP it appears that, in disadvantaging a qualified Republican candidate, the state party may be in violation of it’s own bylaws. Disciplinary measures can be triggered, “Whenever it shall appear that any member of the State Party, Leadership… opposes the Republican State Party or any Republican Party candidate for office in either a Municipal, General Election or Special Election…”. Clearly, the spirit of the rule is that we are not to allow disparaging of Republican candidates. Beyond this, there are two questions that arise from the broader language in this rule: 1) Why would “Primary Election” be omitted from the list in the definition? and 2) What is the route to trigger a complaint, investigation, and redress, if the grievance is against the PAGOP leadership? Do we have something akin to a “Constitutional crisis” emerging here?

Moreover, it does not appear that this section grants any jurisdiction over county committee decisions or activities. In fact, upon examination of Rule 2.1, though county chairs are members of The Republican State Committee by default, it does not appear that individual county Committees comprise the committee (aka The State Party) in any way at all. Rule 1.2 defines them separately within a broader body, referred to as “The Republican Party of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” (hereafter referred to as “Republican party”). It is notable that each of the caucuses are independent bodies, separate from “The State Party” as well. What is the significance of this? Well, this would indicate that, while county chairs may have some accountability to take input to bring back to the county committees, county committees are actually sovereign entities, able to make their own decisions and endorsements, free of coercion from “the top”. Of course, with representative government, this is as it should be.

Now to be clear, the State Party is charged with the “general supervision, regulation, and direction” of the broader Republican party. Naturally, that should mean they ensure that meaningful representative government is taking place. Surely we weren’t given a model where the proverbial fox guards the henhouse, right? But also factoring into the equation are rules for county committees. Rule 6.1 informs us that “Each county Republican Committee shall adopt rules and bylaws, which shall not be inconsistent with the Rules of the State Party or law…”. The Pennsylvania Election Code further directs that county committees must promptly correct their bylaws if they are incompatible with those of State Committee. In a hypothetical situation, if the State Party were to change its bylaws in a way that made every county committee suddenly incompatible, would it more fitting for the State Party to adjust their bylaws, or for every county committee to rewrite their bylaws? The answer is – or ought to be – “it depends”. Which change would reflect the principles of a democratic system? Which change would better enable a well-educated elected electorate?

Finally, remember how the word Primary was omitted from Rule 11.1? It’s interesting to note that it’s back in Rule 14.1. This rule directs the process for any candidate seeking endorsement for a position on the statewide ballot: Rule 14.1 – Exhibit B (see the last 4 pages of the bylaws). We can only assume that the wording is intentional and the effect was clear. This is not a good look for the Republican party, and it is not in the interests of Pennsylvanians. Ultimately, this is about allowing voters to be exposed to a variety of perspectives and opinions so they may cast a well-informed vote. Is this important or relevant? Let’s visit a few quotes of Thomas Jefferson on the matter:

“A well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.”

“An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy.”

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

Clearly, to maintain parity, there are cases where it would be incumbent upon The State Party to change their bylaws to make clear a very basic tenet of representative government: Don’t presume to tell The People in County committees, or in The State Committee, who they can or can’t support in the primary. Our leaders shouldn’t expect to lose their First Amendment rights just because they take an interest in serving through an elected role in the Republican party. State Party, County committee leaders, and state committee people: regardless of how you may feel about a particular candidate, try to understand this. Then take your stand.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

A Silk Road Forgotten

Dr. Stephanie Coxon
-
0
A Silk Road Forgotten

While walking in a zombie-like state through 2013, I was completely unaware of a massive event playing out in financial tyranny.  I was still in my “most politicians were good” phase despite clear concerns with every president since Kennedy. It was so bad, I also thought that big pharma was researching their way for the best interests of citizens… but I digress.  A pardon came from President Trump this week that brought me back to 2013 and woke me up to how corrupt our government is not only in medicine, but in finances as well.  Perhaps like me, many of you have forgotten or never heard the name, Ross Ulbricht, the creator of the “Silk Road” website.  Regardless, he is free after 12 years.  So let’s talk bitcoin for just a moment and understand why this pardon is so important for every American citizen.

Ulbricht should really be referred to as the ultimate American hero.  To wit, we have been oppressed by our government through finances and health, to just name two.  They are continuing to architect ways to watch us, tax us, track us, and control us… all to ensure not a single opportunity is missed to tax the populous.  Every penny spent lights up the eyes of the politicians as they count the tax dollars flowing in from every possible angle.  Ulbricht simply used a tool to circumvent this oppressive system.  He created a flourishing marketplace, not unlike Etsy.  His crime?  Allowing users in this marketplace to barter using bitcoin rather than the fake fiat system that allows the government to take their pound in flesh.  He believed in freedom like many of us who have woken up to the deep state crescendos that have been hidden for far too long.

Like the olden days of town squares bartering and trade, this guy created a central space on the internet for open and unencumbered commerce.  A principled 26-year-old business genius with principles created a way for anonymous citizens to trade goods using bitcoin as the currency.  How many of us have traded with a friend or neighbor?  There was no illegal activity on his behalf despite false allegations by our own government.  The site officially “prohibited child pornography, violent services, stolen property, and generally anything used to ‘harm or defraud’ others,” according to freeross.org. Did illegal items get exchanged, yes (much like Etsy), however, according to a study by Carnegie Mellon University it was mostly marijuana for personal use (something that is now legal in many states and otherwise largely ignored across society and law).   But let’s say there were larger illegalities happening, what should the punishment be?  If we are talking about Biden-Era standards of criminals, he should be in and out of jail in a week (especially with the release of criminals during the Covid Era lockdowns). Instead, this nonviolent, first offense (non) criminal was served up a double life sentence on a silver platter without parole.  He would have been better to murder a group of people than disrupt the tax burden of the American people.

This is not okay. More people were hurt by Martha Stewart’s insider trading than by this young kid’s flourishing website and yet Martha spent the majority of her sentence at home being served steak and lobster.  Nonetheless, the allegations against Ulbricht were thrown out like spaghetti to a wall to see what sticks and none of it held.  This entrapped individual had zero charges from these allegations, yet was sentenced as if he blew up the White House.

In addition to the ridiculous accusations and sentencing, the judge seemed to be using the divisive Obama rhetoric of “privilege” in the sentencing. While it is indirect, it is strange that the sentencing was harsher due to the perceived notion of what could be taken as “white privilege.” Five times in the 30-page document, the word was used.  I guess him being born white and male is a double lifetime sentence against him . . . because he had control over that (hint of sarcasm).  It is unfortunate that his brain was more ingenious than the judge who completely demonstrated abuse of power only because she had it.  Perhaps she could be a stand in to finish out his sentence. That seems like the only justice to be had in this case, after all, how do you get 12 years back?

When we talk about the weaponization of our justice department, this guy’s name should be at the top of the list.  This is an American hero who scared our corrupt government and almost freed us from the bondage of our oppressors.  Our forefathers, who stood up to similar tyranny and gross taxation, would be proud. Today, I celebrate the liberation of one freedom fighter who showed us that things can be different.  Maybe it is just me, but perhaps we shouldn’t be thrown in jail for bartering that cup of sugar with our neighbor.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

An Interview with Bill Bachenberg, Candidate for PA GOP Chair

Ken Layng
-
0
An Interview with Bill Bachenberg, Candidate for PA GOP Chair

In a recent Liberty Lens interview, I spoke with Bill Bachenberg about his candidacy for PAGOP chair. The vote takes place on February 8, and the stakes are high. Hear what Bill has to say here (audio only), and share this with your local PAGOP committee person to help them make an informed decision when they cast their vote. Bookmarks / timestamps are listed below and are clickable in the direct Rumble video.

  • 00:19 How did you arrive at a decision to run?
  • 02:36 Self-funding / No political endorsements
  • 04:08 What does it mean to be a Republican (considering such a broad coalition)?
  • 05:38 Bill Bachenberg’s relevant background and experience
  • 07:50 Issues & Opportunities
  • 09:03 Election integrity
  • 11:30 Mail-in ballots
  • 14:47 Lawfare and judges
  • 16:54 Approach to winning local elections
  • 19:33 Are recent wins here to stay or was 2024 the “Trump effect”?
  • 21:25 Importance of voter registration
  • 22:48 More effectively communicating our values
  • 23:42 PAGOP Fundraising efforts, disenfranchisement, rebuilding trust
  • 28:06 New partnership and collaborations
  • 30:24 Flexibility to meet unique needs in different counties
  • 31:46 PAGOP Governance; How independent should county committees be of PAGOP? Endorsements.
  • 37:53 Secret ballots / voice votes with no roll call
  • 40:20 Final thoughts from Bill Bachenberg
  • 42:30 Improving the data quality for county committees
  • 45:30 How people can help Bill Bachenberg’s campaign

PA House Republicans Hand Speakership to Democrats… Again.

Ken Layng
-
0
PA House Republicans Hand Speakership to Democrats… Again.

Updated, January 7, 2025

As many Republican constituents suspected, a deal has been cut in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives between Democrats and Republicans. In the deal, in exchange for rules changes, Jesse Topper would drop out of the race, and Republicans would give the speakership to Joanna McClinton (D). After the initial vote deadlocked at 101-101, Jesse Topper (R) dropped out. The resulting uncontested vote was conducted with a voice vote that awarded the gavel to McClinton. SO, as many Republicans feared, there was no roll call.

January 6, 2025:

When the speakership of the PA House comes to a vote on January 7, some people are suggesting that Republicans will effectively, once again, hand the gavel to Democrats. 102 votes are needed to grant the gavel. With Rep. Gergley hospitalized, the vote for speaker would seem to stand at a stalemate of 101-101. However, Republican Rep. Tom Mahaffie has been known to be friendly to Democrats in procedural matters, and could move a tie-breaking vote for Democrats. Instead of delaying the vote, as would be a strategic play for Republicans, it appears that the House will hold a vote. At present, we’ll have a likely face-off between Jesse Topper (R) and Joanna McClinton (D). In addition to the concerns about the direction of Mahaffie’s vote, there are also fears among Republicans that Topper will drop out of contention, resulting in an uncontested voice vote, with no roll call for a record of who voted in which direction. This will undoubtedly have constituents across the state wondering how they are expected to make informed votes if their elected officials refuse to be identified with their votes.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

Account from A Watcher in a Pennsylvania Central Tabulation Facility

David Dix
-
0
Account from A Watcher in a Pennsylvania Central Tabulation Facility

NOTE: If you worked the 2024 election in any capacity, and would like to weigh in with your experience for a methodical collection and reporting of issues, you can do so through this data collector. The results will be released via a future Liberty Lens story.

It’s easy to speculate that mail-in ballot tabulation centers in Pennsylvania are nefarious hotbeds for voter fraud.  Certainly, the concept of voting by mail is in itself most susceptible to misconduct and fraud.  The lack of both proper identity verification of the voter and following the chain of custody would be two key elements I would describe as issues in these centers.  How could you spot misconduct and fraud in this fast paced environment, with so much going on and from a distance that you’d most likely need binoculars?  Sadly, even if you found misconduct you couldn’t challenge this during the count.  You might have recourse to bring the issue to light with the election center supervisor.  Most likely these battles will be fought after the fact, days later and with no real immediate resolution.  This is because once the Ballot hits the tabulators, there is no way to identify or remove the result.  

Some might say that it’s possible through court litigation and ballots found with issue before tabulation are certainly part of this process.  With the inability to challenge anything during the processing, this leaves only the options of taking notes and reporting issues.  I fear this sounds like I’m not doing my job.  While many times seated across the room from the tabulation machines. The inability to really walk, we can’t ask questions with the exception of one Person – the supervising election employee – there is little that can be discovered.  You’d stand a better chance as an election worker where you can see the ballots as they pass through your hands.

Know that someone is “watching”!  That alone might be a deterrent for misconduct. If it wasn’t effective then why did other tabulation centers find ways to have watchers removed or not present? I like to think that watchers come prepared. We’ve gone through training and have an idea of the task.  I arrive with a fresh notepad, prepared to fill the pages with anything that I can write.  Most information might be irrelevant.  Days later I’m able to reflect back and give answers using this seemingly irrelevant information to others’ surprise.  I also know the numbers.  I have an expectation of how many ballots will be processed that day.  I’m trying not to make this article county specific but each time I’ll have a copy of my counties voter rolls on my phone and can tell which individuals are mail-in ballot associated. The most important part has been the outcome at the end of the evening. Receiving totals finalizes that precinct or tabulation center.  Certainly, there will be provisional, overseas, military and federal ballots left to count.  There might even have been ballots that arrived on Election Day left to count.  Although not certified yet, the amount finalized at the mail-in ballot tabulation should signal an end to the election ballot counting.

One Day Becomes Two!

I’ve had mail-in ballot center counting go late into the night.  One specific time it was near 1:00 am when everyone was leaving.  The 2020 Presidential election threw everyone a curve ball and nobody in Pennsylvania was prepared for what transpired. I could imagine angry election officials not wanting to be watched over during this new mail-in ballot process.  I can also see watchers in their duties for the first time, unfamiliar with what to expect. One thing was certain: we had a lot to learn, so the next Presidential Election wouldn’t be like the last. The 2024 Presidential election was expected to take days to count. It was to my surprise when my county was finishing up in the late afternoon.  Some last minute hiccups delayed the final totals till near 8pm. They ran 3 tabulators at this mail-in ballot center.  Tabulators A, B, & C.  Precinct X was missing a single ballot, based on an envelope that seemed void of a ballot.  During that multiple count search, Precinct Z came up with 5 ballots missing.  It took time but the 5 missing from Precinct Z were found still in secrecy envelopes. That resolved this issue.  Precinct X wasn’t found and was assumed it might have been an empty envelope.  

These final precincts were run through the tabulators. Precinct X had been run through multiple times in the attempt to find one missing ballot.  It was hoped that the machine just miscounted one. It’s important to watch that the “BATCH” is zeroed out if they want to re-run a precinct through again.  We can only take notes and watch from a distance.  Precinct X and Precinct Z were in the notes that evening.

Once all tabulation is completed, there is a final report for each tabulator as the data is exported to a USB “thumb drive”.  This is secured and taken to the county building for transmitting and reporting.  In the past, this transmitting process hasn’t been “watched”.  This evening, we had an awesome watcher that followed that process through, and it was a good thing too. Out of three tabulators, two of them wouldn’t transmit and complete.  It was later decided that ballots from those two machines, A & B, would need to be processed again. After very little sleep, I was called on again to watch this process the next morning.  

Here we go Again!

Upon arriving, to our surprise, the ballots were already in the room. The prior night they had been bagged, placed in bins, with a security strap locking the bin from tampering. At this point the ballots were on a shelf in a caged cart. I didn’t see the bins anywhere.  It would appear that election officials don’t think the chain of custody is necessary at the Elections Office in the presence of county employees. They had initially waited for tabulators A & B to arrive and get set up.  These tabulators were the offending machines that caused the transmission issues.  Only ballots processed previously on tabulators A & B would be processed that day.  Tabulator C’s data had been successfully transmitted the night before.  Zero counts were verified, and the scanning began.  

There is a lot of time to think and plan while scanning is going on.  Thankfully the task of verification and removing ballots from envelopes had already been completed the day before.  County workers also commented that after a day of laying flat, pressed against one another the Ballots seemed to scan a lot easier.  Less rejection and jams in the discharge trays.  The watchers had asked if the county officials could let us know the precinct they’re scanning and the final total of that precinct.  They obliged by writing this information on the dry erase board each time. I found myself keeping track using the numbers I had calculated and the prior nights totals from the machines.  We had roughly 24,000 Ballots the prior evening, and that meant the two machines today would run roughly 13,400 Ballots.  Around mid-afternoon everything looked great for finishing before 5:00 pm.  I was excited to be finished and, having kept a running total, began showing the amount of ballots remaining to scan.  2,000 then 1,513 and then 600.  Soon, it was became obvious there were more ballots on the table remaining to be scanned than my count.  I started saying something to the officials and they didn’t want to hear this.  I remember the response was always “We’ll be with you in a minute!”  The county officials sat down and started going through the books and the numbers.  I checked mine also, as my lack of sleep might have led to a mistake.  Checking against the dry erase board, I found a mistake!  But that mistake added another 42 Ballots to the count.  We were now over by 961 Ballots! It was later found that Precinct Z had that exact amount of ballots (give or take 1).  County officials found that Precinct Z had been previously scanned on Machine C and was not intended to be scanned here today.  It mistakenly made its way here because the missing ballot from Precinct X had been in the lead of the stack.  We’ll just say at this point that their numbers matched, and the officials always resorted to that comment afterward.

So, why do I type all of this about watchers and a rescan of ballots?  Thinking back, there were lots of opportunities for misconduct had watchers not been present. And even with watchers present, there were many opportunities for mistakes or fraud that watchers would not be in a position to identify. Why hadn’t the initial scanned ballots been able to transmit the night before? If the same two tabulators were used to scan again, what changes could have been made to allow it to work this time, when previous attempts failed? What’s the sense in a locked bin with security tags if the county can simply open them without anyone witnessing this action? The biggest question might be if I hadn’t been counting down, would this final tally have had 961 additional ballots added to the voting? I checked the Precinct Z totals for Mail-In Ballots and this would have equated to roughly a 370 vote advantage to the Democrat Party.  Perhaps an honest mistake, but one I’m sure the county didn’t want to have happen either.  Residents should be thinking about ways to press their elections officials to find ways to eliminate these kinds of vulnerabilities. In the meantime, watchers… keep honing your watching skills!

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

Court Clerks Providing Procedural Cover for Activist Judges?

Mike Miller
-
0
Court Clerks Providing Procedural Cover for Activist Judges?

I’m Michael Miller, a pro se litigant from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, challenging what I see as an abuse of power by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Clerk’s Office. Without judicial direction, the Clerk’s Office recently stayed my appeal and marked it for possible summary action—moves I believe are unlawful and violate my right to a fair appellate process.

This appeal stems from a case I filed against Lancaster County for First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The stakes are high, not only because of the personal impact but because the case directly affects a related lawsuit I’ve filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which raises similar civil rights issues. A quick resolution is crucial to prevent conflicting rulings, so I asked the Third Circuit to expedite my appeal. Instead of moving things forward, the Clerk’s Office, without judicial directive, stayed the case and listed it for possible dismissal—decisions they don’t have the authority to make .

On October 29, I was notified that my appeal was being considered for summary action, meaning the court might dismiss it without full briefing. The notice referred to the court’s internal rules but failed to specify any grounds for this decision, leaving me in the dark about why my case might be dismissed. As a pro se litigant, I’ve worked hard over the past two years to get these issues heard, and now, I’m being denied a full and fair opportunity to present my arguments. Due process demands more than vague administrative actions in cases involving fundamental rights.

In my filings, I’ve argued that the Clerk exceeded its role. According to Third Circuit Local Rule 27 and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, clerical authority is limited to purely administrative tasks, not substantive case decisions like staying an appeal or setting it up for summary action. Such decisions belong to the judicial panel. Yet, in my case, the Clerk acted without authorization, disregarding the procedural safeguards meant to protect due process .

To address this, I’m formally requesting that the court overturn the Clerk’s actions, reinstate my briefing schedule, and clarify the limits of clerical authority to prevent future overreach. I’m also seeking $4,000 in damages for the time, stress, and resources I’ve spent on this procedural fight. For someone representing themselves, these battles take time and resources that should have gone toward advancing my case, not dealing with administrative overreach. If clerks are allowed to take actions like these, unchecked, it sets a dangerous precedent that could limit access to justice for others as well.

This situation underscores a bigger issue of where clerical authority should end and judicial authority begin. Clerks are vital to court operations, but their power must have limits, especially when due process is at stake. I’m not the only pro se litigant to face procedural obstacles like these, and if we allow boundaries to blur, we risk eroding the protections that ensure fair treatment in our courts.

This legal battle has shown me how challenging it can be to navigate the system without a lawyer. My case is a call to preserve procedural integrity and transparency in the courts, to make sure everyone—whether represented by counsel or not—gets a fair chance. The Third Circuit’s response to my challenge will show whether the system is willing to protect that fairness for all.

My appeal goes beyond just my case; it’s about safeguarding a just process for everyone who comes after me.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.

123...9Page 1 of 9
- Advertisement -
Google search engine