Sunday, September 27, 2009

The LuLac Edition #956, Sept. 27th, 2009


PHOTO INDEX: JUDGE PETER PAUL OLSZEWSKI, JUNIOR (PHOTO EDITED FROM TIMES SHAMROCK) AND THIS BLOG EDITOR WITH JIM BUNNING, (CIRCA 1983).

ABOUT PETER PAUL

I was prepared to publish the photo of Judge Peter Paul Olszewski, Junior that was in the Citizen’s Voice the other day along with a YOU TUBE video that would make me appear to be somewhat satirical, cutting edge and funny. But then I had dinner with a friend at Mohegan Sun Friday night. The buffet was as always over abundant in quantity but not necessarily so in quality. While I sat looking at the hundreds of people in the ballroom, a few people approached me asking how I was, what I was doing, etc. They remembered me, asking detailed questions about my health, my mom’s death and my books. I was polite and even after one of them mentioned her name, I had no clue where I knew them from and under what circumstances. Then I began to wonder about the people who approached me. What was their story “now”? Surely I didn’t remember their story “then”!
Olszewski as you know is running for retention and his tenure on the bench has been above board and filled with exemplary behavior. In some cases the Judge has used his prerogative to make statements from the bench about defendants. Some feel these were well deserved and warranted, others did not. Olszewski was also the first Luzerne County Judge to express outrage at the behavior of Judges Conahan and Ciavarella. It always appeared to me that Olszewski was never interested in winning a popularity contest. I got the impression he just wanted Justice served.
My knee jerk reaction is to throw everybody out in government at this stage of the game. I am on video saying the entire Courthouse should be put on unemployment compensation and have everyone re-apply for their jobs. I hope and pray that every State Legislator has primary and general election opposition for their impotence in dealing with the state budget.
When the news came out that Judge Olszewski was at the Florida condo of Judge Conahan many voters in the area were suspicious of why Olszewski was there. His motives and character were questioned. Then a photo emerged with Olszewski along with another attorney, a convicted drug felon and Judge Conahan. It emerged in one of the local newspapers who received it anonymously. Without attribution, Times Shamrock printed the picture. Now you might say this is like the pot calling the kettle black for bloggers who use anonymous comments. Well so do newspapers. And, much to the chagrin of my regular readers, I edit those comments. Printing the photo and not knowing where it came from is a huge problem for me. Bloggers are constantly castigated for that. So I’m not sure if the newspapers have beaten us or joined us. But then there’s the timing. Here are the facts that have led me to an opinion on Judge Olszewski.
1. He went to the condo once on an invitation from his boss the President Judge. If you are an ambitious person (and anyone who runs for DA in their 30s and becomes a Judge in their early 40s fits that bill) you don’t refuse an invite from your boss.
2. His boss at the time, Michael Conahan, was riding high. The argument that he was an unindicted co conspirator in the 90s in a drug case was far away in time. Maybe Olszewski should have been quick enough to realize that, but in our society, old news is old news. And the President Judge seemed to have skated away from the case with the blessing of higher authorities than Peter Paul Olszewski.
3. There are no other reports that Olszewski enjoyed the hospitality of the Conahans of Florida. As far as we know it was a one-time thing. Do we penalize a judicial career for a one time visit?
4. As mentioned earlier the photo was not attributed. That bothers me.
5. Olszewski had his picture taken with guys drinking and exhibiting liquor. A mistake in judgment especially if you are serving on the bench. What if there were criminal charges on a drunk driving case coming before Olszewski? The only explanation I have for this is that when you are at a party, photos are going to be taken. Many times I have been in photos that on further reflection I should have stayed away from. But I didn’t. I think if the Judge had a “do over” in this case, he’d jump at it.
6. During the 2000 campaign, the handlers of Al Gore’s campaign talked about the “picture face”. The “picture face” was the look on Gore’s face that registered little emotion. If you had to caption it, you might see “I don’t know who this person is and why I’m having my photo taken with them”. Clearly this was not the case with Ozsweski’s photo. He looked like he was having a good time. But that’s not against the law. But no one is denying the fact from the Conahan camp that the question was asked by Olszewski who “Ronnie” was. The fact that Olzsweski asked that question and never went back again is okay with me. The voters? Who knows!
7. Olszewski stated he made the Florida trip when he was estranged from his wife. You go places and do things you never did before in that situation (I’m a recovering expert) because you feel like you’re missing out on something. And when the realization hits you that you’re not missing anything by that pattern of behavior you either rebuild the marriage or move on.
Olszewski has been candid and open about this latest flap. A flap that could very well end his career. People in this county are angry and they want to hurt someone. Conahan and Ciavarella are light years away from punishment which makes the two sitting Judges up for retention the easiest targets. I have never tried to impose my own voting and beliefs on any of my readers. I won’t start with whether Peter Paul Olszewski should or should not be retained. But I will urge all of my readers to think and reflect before they vote on this issue. A misguided one time photo at a time of personal upheaval in one’s private life at the home of your boss might be enough to indict someone of a singular count of guilt by association. But it shouldn’t be a kneejerk conviction that ends in the loss of a Judicial career that has been otherwise error free in the service to the public.

45 YEARS AGO: THE COLLAPSE

Sept. 27th, '64 Phillies.

The Milwaukee Braves beat the Phillies like a old rug with a 22 hit barrage. Lee Maye has a 5 hit game while Hank Aaron, Felipe Alou, Joe Torre, Dennis Menke and pitcher Tony Cloninger have multiple hits games too. The Phils fall out of first place, one game back as starter Jim Bunning is rocked for 10 hits lasting 3 innings and his replacement Dallas Green gives up 7 hits in just under 2 innings.

19 Comments:

At 11:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh man!!!! Yonki, now you're in the tank for PPO!!!! You are such a fair minded suck u0p. Vote them all out. You're a JERK!!!!!!

 
At 12:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a well thought out arguement for retaining a Judge who made one mistake. I'm still up in the air though.

 
At 3:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Dave but I'm to hung up on PPO voting for himself for President Judge. I think it was a strong sign of disrespect to Judge Muroski who will retire on Dec 31 of this year. Not to give the respect to Muroski is not just a sign of disrespect, it show arrogance and ego that we don't need or want on the Bench. PPO voted for himself but I won't. I'm not up in the air, I absolutely do not want that kind of ego sitting in judgement of me or anyone else. I've heard PPO was a spoiled kid and he proved that when he voted for himself. Keep in mind, he was the ONLY vote against Muroski for President Judge. People see a photo as being a bad think, I see a huge ego as being much worse. Yep, I vote no on PPO.

 
At 3:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor LuLac: WTF???? Saturday you have an edition slamming Peter Paul.....today you're kissing his butt. What's that all about??
Please illuminate.

 
At 6:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the one thing we know about. How many times have you gone to your bosses summer home? And what is with this lawyer, another good friend of kevin lynn? there have been other posts here asking about kevin lynn providing on air cover.

 
At 6:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He was made an offer he couldnt refuse

 
At 7:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your article was a nice justification for a very pompous guy. Are you guys pompous cousins or something?

 
At 7:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's look at your list of "facts":

1. "He went to the condo ONCE on an invitation from his boss the President Judge." How do you know it was once? How do you know who initiated the party?

2. "And the President Judge seemed to have skated away from the case with the blessing of higher authorities than PPO". As District Attorney, PPO was in a position to know. If he knew and still associated with Conahan, it reflects significantly on PPO's character.

3. "As far as we know it was a one-time thing." So get the Judge on record as to whether he states it was a one-time thing. Then get the sign-in books at the Condo.

4. I don't care where the info comes from; no one has implied it was photo shopped.

5. Poor judgment but not a deal-breaker.

6. "The fact that Olszewski asked the question and never went back is okay with me." The only fact it that Olszewski now states that he asked. We don't know if he asked and we don't know if he never went back.

7. I like his former wife, but it isn't my concern who he has sex with.

"It shouldn't be a kneejerk conviction that ends in the loss of a Judicial career that has otherwise been error free in the service to the public." So reaching a contrary opinion would be kneejerk?

Since the photo, at minimum, raises serious questions about Olszewski's judgment and character, there is enough time before the election for a serious journalistic investigation of the major civil and criminal cases that PPO has handled, and the lawyers involved. I'd want that before I'd label them error free.

 
At 8:22 PM, Blogger David Yonki said...

IN RESPONSE
WTF???? Saturday you have an edition slamming Peter Paul.....today you're kissing his butt. What's that all about??
Please illuminate.
THE SATURDAY INTERVIEW IS NOT MY OPINION. IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PERSON I AM SPEAKING TO AND ASKING QUESTIONS. IT IS ANONYMOUS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE MORE FREE TO TALK. I GIVE READERS CONVERSATIONS WITH AVERAGE EVERYDAY PEOPLE I AM CURIOUS ABOUT. REPEAT: NOT MY OPINIONS.

 
At 8:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Knew you were biased from the start when you didn't use the group photo. You love any dem dont'cha????

 
At 10:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Anon 8:51, What's not to love?

 
At 9:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think by editing the photo of the Judge, Mr. Yonki was making the point all too well that Peter Paul should be judged on the totality of his character and not a one time visit.

 
At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read a note that puts things into perspective. We need a judge with character, not a character for judge. I agree 100% that when Olszewski voted for himself as the lone vote against Retiring judge Chester Muroski, that showed his character and showwed it with a spot light on it. I'm for Peter Paul forming a partnership with Anne Lokuta. The only problem they will have is whose name will be first? Won't somebody please provide a horse and buggy and let these two ride off into the sunset?

 
At 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, He was unawares of the company he was keeping. WTF! Is he that friggin' stupid or is he just a big dummy! You can't tell me he is so squeaky clean as he puts on!

 
At 5:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i was wondering about the kevin lynn thing myself... how many of his good friends maybe in cahoots and he knew nothing about it???? please

 
At 6:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yonki!!!!! You're defending Peter Paul because he goes to your church!! And I bet you were invited to some of those sunny and warm places with your man crush buddy Kevin Lynn. He and you are always talking about Jamaica.

 
At 8:49 PM, Blogger David Yonki said...

IN RESPONSE
!!!!! You're defending Peter Paul because he goes to your church!! And I bet you were invited to some of those sunny and warm places with your man crush buddy Kevin Lynn. He and you are always talking about Jamaica.
HOLD IT, I SAW HIM IN MY CHURCH STS. PETER AND PAUL IN PLAINS ONCE WHEN HIS PARENTS HAD THEIR 50TH ANNIVERSARY. I DON'T KNOW THE GUY EXCEPT BY NEWS ACCOUNTS. AND AS FAR AS BEING INVITED ON TRIPS BY POLITICAL BIG WIGS....PLEASE. THE LAST TIME I WAS INVITED ANYWHERE BY A POLITICIAN WAS 1972 WHEN THE HUMPHREY CAMPAIGN SAID I COULD GO TO THE CONVENTION IN MIAMI. THEY RAN OUT OF MONEY AND I WAS STUCK WORKING IN A MOVIE THEATRE IN WASHINGTON DC FOR THAT FATEFUL SUMMER OF '72. I'VE BEEN TO JAMAICA FOUR TIMES, ONCE I WON A TRIP FROM THE COMPANY I WAS WORKING FOR, THE OTHER TIMES LIKE KEVIN LYNN, I PAID FOR MYSELF. FOR THE RECORD, I'VE NEVER SEEN HIM IN JAMAICA. NOR HAVE I SEEN PETER PAUL JUNIOR THERE EITHER! OR ANY MEMBER OF MY PARISH. HERE ARE THE CONTACTS I HAVE: THOSE OUT OF OFFICE, THOSE WHO HAVE PISSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OFF MORE THAN ME AND THOSE WHO THINK THEY HAVE INFLUENCE BUT REALLY DON'T.

 
At 9:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Yonkster's pressure is hitting the red zone. Easy big guy, the children are at play so be like the old guys in the park, sit and smile ..... you're getting to them.

 
At 9:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Dave:
Your opinion of PPO is much more positive than mine. I think he's made numerous bad decisions from the bench and as a member of the media, I covered him as a DA and thought he did a poor job -- the Curley case, for example. Still, I agree with you about TS publishing the photo. I too have major problems with it. In fact, had I a management position with that firm, I'd have not run it. As you note, it was published without attribution, so exactly from whom did it come? Someone with an axe to grind? Ciavarella? Conahan? But more importantly, exactly what is its news value? I see none. It told us nothing we didn't know before. We knew he'd been at the condo; knew he was friendly with his fellow judges. So the photo conveyed no new info whatsoever. As a newsman, I'd have wanted to know who sent me the photo and why; and unless there was some compelling reason not to, I'd have identified the sender. I respect TS, but I think it erred here.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home