BREAKING: Justice Eakin Suspended

Eakin-SadState Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin has been suspended.

That is the ruling of the Court of Judicial Discipline. Justice Eakin will be on leave with pay until he is given a formal trial.

“The totality of the circumstances has tainted the Pennsylvania judiciary in the eyes of the public,” the Court writes. “Until the trial on the merits, when the actions of the Respondent can be more closely reviewed, the integrity of the Pennsylvania judiciary has been and continues to be subject to disrespect. The only means to ensure the public’s confidence in the Pennsylvania judiciary is to suspend the Respondent pending the full trial on the merits of the Complaint.”

Eakin was initially cleared when news about his involvement broke last year. After Kathleen Kane stated that there were more messages, however, the initiative taken back up.

The schemes of his colleagues and his own pleas weren’t enough to prevent this action.

There will be a pre-trial conference in Harrisburg on January 21st.

UPDATE: Attorney General Kathleen Kane released the following statement in response:

“I applaud the Court of Judicial Discipline for its decision yesterday. For more than a year, the contents of Justice Eakin’s emails were known to officials within the justice system. Some chose to look the other way while others chose to call them ‘unremarkable.’ None felt they merited any discipline and all have undermined the credibility in our justice system.”

“This is yet another step in restoring our faith in our justice system. In the coming months, as the special prosecutor reviews over 1 million of these emails, I expect there to be more of these days. And with each one, we will come one step closer to restoring the credibility of our justice system. We will be one step closer to transforming our system of justice from the one we have to the one we deserve.”

December 22nd, 2015 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 110 Comments

110 thoughts on “BREAKING: Justice Eakin Suspended”

  1. Mike Royko says:

    Unsanctioned R I don’t feel the need to list my research to help your buddy. Let him pay his own attorney to do his research. You asked for one case and SpongeBob provided you that link before I could get to it. I explained what relevance That case had towards Mr. Diano’s attempted smear of Songebob’s character without fact. I explained that it is very possible that certain individuals who read this blog may know the true identity of SpongeBob and how Mr. Diano’s statement could damage his reputation. I’ve may have even gotten inquiries from those same people. You asked for one example and you got it. I suggest that since you are not identified that I feel no obligation to provide you and/or Mr. Diano the results of my Pennsylvania/Federl case law inquiries. Since you don’t pay me and since the onus is on Mr. Diano to retract his statement I feel no further obligation to “Do” anything that You ask of me. SpongeBob knows when and where we’ll converse more regarding the issue. If Mr. Diano were a person he claims to be he would have no problem in identifying certain parties. My interest is not who knows who but who makes vile, unsubstantiated , intentionally false, statements intended to demean the character of the other party.

    Now back to my liquid refreshments, my close friends, a good cigar and the football game. Good night all.

  2. aaron says:

    Has the other pathetic loser cry-baby (Eakin) resigned yet?

  3. aaron says:

    SpongeBob is a pathetic loser.

  4. SpongeBob says:

    David, it’s the holidays. I felt it better to start the new year off right. Also play it how you want about the info I have. I have access to resources way better than google. Merry Christmas all. And to all a goodnight.

  5. David Diano says:

    SpongeBob-

    Wow, you really aren’t too bright. Obviously, over the years, and due to Facebook, I (and everybody else on Facebook) have been contacted by people researching their families to see if we were related. I’ve even “friended” a few, despite there being no relationship, because one time someone sent me some research they came across on my own family tree that I didn’t know about. So, it requires no effort for me to recognize “tidbits” of identity mistakes I’ve run across before.

    You promised to rain a storm down on me weeks ago, yet I’ve yet to see even a light drizzle. I’m looking forward to you coming out of the shadows into the real world.

  6. SpongeBob says:

    Aww, so much time spent on lil ole me. My tidbits on you can’t be too far off because gee you spend a lot of time upset and focused on me if I was so wrong. And also how would these tidbits be aparrantly to you if they were in fact wrong. No I have more info than you know and enough for me to feel confident in what I say. Focus your attention on Kane as we soon won’t have anything else to talk about.

  7. David Diano says:

    Hey, maybe we should ask Judge Eakin to weigh in on the insulting of anonymous posters. It looks like he’s got a lot of free time now. 🙂

  8. David Diano says:

    Mike Royko-

    I haven’t actually stated that he’s a pedophile. Just that I would not be surprised if he was, because he seems very creepy and stalky, and a bully. He certainly has stated that he is engaging in predatory behavior with regards to investigating information about me. So, please don’t misquote/misstate my position.

    “It appears to me that you are upset that he has ascertained your identity while you claiming your wealth of knowledge on a wide variety of subjects have failed in any of your attempts to identify him.”

    I’m posting under my own name, so I don’t have any qualms about my “identity” being known. However, SpongeBob drops “tidbit” about what he thinks are my personal life, but also has some wrong information, which leads me to suspect he’s looking so hard that he’s picking up information related to people that share the last name of me or other family members (but have no relationship to me). I’m hardly going to correct his errors, but in gives me insights into his searches.

    As for identifying him, I haven’t put much effort into it beyond capturing a few of his IP addresses. He’s a coward who talks big, but hides, because his own statements on this blog would do him far more harm than good. His statements against Kane are likely actionable as slander or libel, were his identity to be revealed, especially considering his claims of inside information.

    It would be pretty funny if the A.G. office got a warrant for PoliticsPA logs.

    But, I do appreciate your input. It’s pretty clear he’s a jerk, and an asshole as well. 🙂

    SpongeBob-

    Plenty of people read what I write here and formed an opinion. Good luck finding them all and changing it, especially without exposing your own identity.

  9. Unsanctioned R says:

    Nice Esquire. I was afraid professor Royko was all talk. Awful lot of caveats to his theory now. And I had such high hopes for him. At least it’s heartening, but not surprising, to know no one has attempted such a silly case in court let alone won at even the municipal level.

  10. Esquire says:

    There is no precedent in PA, nor do I believe anywhere else where someone has claimed injury as an anonymous speaker.

    You can say what you want about them without fear. Nice job Unsanctioned. You must have an army of underaged children doing research for you in your basement.

  11. Mike Royko says:

    Unsanctioned R Please allow me define the flaw of your argument. If you alledge that a known blogger cannot defame the character of a unknown blogger your assumption is wrong in the following way. Please try and follow this .

    That being while the unknown bloggers identity may not be known by the known blogger. The identity of the unknown blogger is known by other people who post on that blog thus the defamation.

    Mr. Diano, surely you can’t equate a person who utilizes legal methods to identify a person does not equate to the civil iliability of defaming their character by labeling him a predator. It appears to me that you are upset that he has ascertained your identity while you claiming your wealth of knowledge on a wide variety of subjects have failed in any of your attempts to identify him.

  12. SpongeBob says:

    David,
    No threats being made here. I simply plan to educate certain individuals about your words. Not made up phrases or name calling in an effort to defame you. I do however it lab to ensure certain things you have said and affirmed are known to people who may find them interesting. If that’s stalky then so be it. You feel you can come here and say anything you want with no repercussions to your personal or professional self. My goal is to help change that perception for you. If you view educating people about your thoughts and statements as threats then that is your opinion.

    Calling people who don’t agree with you a pedophile is an example of your character or lack thereof. Keep talking. You only make it easier on me.

  13. aaron says:

    Whatever, jerk-offs …Has Eakin resigned yet?

  14. Mike Royko says:

    Mr. Diano. Again I don’t wish to labor th point. In a case of this type the preponderance of the evidence falls upon you not SpongeBob. He would merely have to attest to the fact that he and he alone posted certain messages on the blog. His responsibility is to produce witnesses that will attest to how your post alledging to be a pedophile changed their opinion of him. Your reputation does have value monetary and otherwise. This alledging a person to be a pedophile is one of the worst things you could alledge I would imagine the monetary value would be substantial. Also, just because you said negative things about him before and there was not a negative reply from SpongeBob this does not give you any type of freedom to base an a false allegation of this type. Next time play it safe and call him a jerk.

  15. David Diano says:

    SpongeBob

    Given your threats against me outside of this blog, you should be very careful that I don’t zero in on your real identity.

    Your plan seems to be to contact people I know (or you think I know) in an attempt to defame me and cost me business. All without any worry on your part that someone I’m friends with won’t overhear you or get back to me to ask what’s wrong with you, thus revealing your identity.

    I run into people all the time who know me only from this blog and are glad to finally meet me in person, and express their support.

    “soon when Kane is gone my caring for being here will likely fade too” hmmm. What’s your real beef with Kane? Sounds personal, or you work with/for her political enemies.

    “I still plan to ensure that your prior transgressions follow you in the year or years to come. That’s the difference between you and I, you talk a big game, while I walk the big game.”

    That threat sure sounds very “stalky”. If you want to play “the big game”, then reveal your name and take the chance that I can “walk” all over you. But, you remain a coward, and blustery like a bully.

    Mike Royko-

    As you can see from SpongeBob’s threatening statements to take things outside the blog and continue after he leaves the bold, he demonstrates real problems. He’s got some kind of fixation on me, and exhibits delusions of grandeur.

    He admits: “I do already know a lot about him”

    Very stalky (in my humble lay opinion).

  16. SpongeBob says:

    Unsanctioned R,
    I honestly don’t know whether there is a legal leg for someone to stand on, but for me personally I don’t care. I was more interested in just saying that I guess there are cases where people can be sued for the things they are saying but as I have posted before and just did again, I think that since I am not using my real name and since others as evidenced below when someone else posted using the same name I can’t see how legally these things matter. Again I am not in the know enough on this topic, I simply don’t put stock into what Diano or others say when they make derogatory comments. I just let that define their character.

  17. SpongeBob says:

    That being sais notwithstanding the post of someone else who used the same name as me below, I have no interest and can say here that I could care less what he posts about me. I think that the more he insults he wants to see the harder I will push. I do already know a lot about him. But he thinks he knows about me, too bad he is not even close, nor will he even come close. I mean I don’t see him dropping tidbits about my life into his posts.

    David acts like a child who stomps his feet and calls names but it bothers me not at all. He has no juice, no influence that matters. He’s just a guy who likes to have an opinion. It’s what makes our country great. Guys like him can scream from the rafters about me but when I Look at what I have personally and professionally I know that we need people like him to serve us in a drive through or clean up the restrooms.

    So speak away David Diano, because soon when Kane is gone my caring for being here will likely fade too. But as you mentioned I still plan to ensure that your prior transgressions follow you in the year or years to come. That’s the difference between you and I, you talk a big game, while I walk the big game.

  18. Unsanctioned R says:

    Spongebob, you just gave an example of why spongebob cannot libel David Diano, not why David Diano can’t libel spongebob. That’s not what Mike said. I’m not a lawyer, but if Mike is and can’t back up his claim, what’s that say about him?

  19. Unsanctioned R says:

    I challenge Mike Royko to present evidence of (1) singular case where an anonymous commenter ultimately won a libel case.

  20. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R-

    You R’s really need to take a remedial reading comprehension class.

    The content of the emails are a non-issue (for me) because his attempted cover-up violated the rules. The content could merely have been embarrassing or revealed an extra marital affair. But, the other judges and people on the review board DO find the content sufficient to suspend him.

    To put in perspective of my earlier analogy, for someone on the high court:
    Kane’s actions: Stealing a hubcab
    Eakin’s emails: Stealing a car (calls his bias into question)
    Eakin’s cover-up: hijacking a plane (abuses his office/position)

    SpongeBob –

    My boss keeps employing a programmer who’s a total screw-up, because he’s his buddy and is a total yes-man. Bosses like that. The boss also keeps me around because I challenge him and fix the screw-ups. So, who knows why Kane hires/fires/promotes staff? Probably loyalty to her.

    Mike Royko-

    SpongeBob has already claimed that my insults don’t bother him, which also gives me a free pass.

    But, the others who may know his identity are not my target audience. I can say that he SEEMS to me to have that stalking personality (and if challenged, I can certainly find plenty of examples in his posts of searches into my identity, visits to my website, and threats against me and my livelihood). So, I could offer a reasonable basis for my personal opinion.

    Also, any such action would require a complete log dump of the site, to verify any alternate aliases of SpongeBob, myself and other posters. Considering the political hacks in Harrisburg who do post here (from their government computers), I think there would be tremendous resistance from many sides. (Look at what happened to kanesdriver who got outed as a special agent with the Pittsburgh OAG.)

    Also, what “damages” could SpongeBob claim? His identity is not public knowledge, and given the context/nature of this site, the comments could be viewed as satirical/figurative rather than literal.

    You also said: “the only thing SpongeBob has to prove that it was him who was posting on the blog”

    Not true. He’d have to prove that I knew the real him from the fake him and which one I was insulting. That’s impossible for him to prove as I have had no means of determining who is actually posting.

    SpongeBob would likely be in much greater harm if his identity were revealed, because he has claimed insider knowledge regarding the Kane case on several occasions .

    If his real identity were revealed, I could easily retract my “impressions” of him based on that additional information. But, of course, all his own postings would be tied to his real identity, which would be far more detrimental than me finding him “creepy”.

    However, I do appreciate the legal advice, so I will “clarify” my comments regarding SpongeBob to say that from my perspective: he APPEARS to be a creepy person, who has publicly admitted searching into my personal life and threatening me through my business contacts, so if he did turn out to be a pedophile, I would not be shocked. 🙂

  21. SpongeBob says:

    David thinks he knows me. It is true that I would like to stalk and molest children but I don’t because they might talk. So I molest small animals instead and just picture children in my head.

  22. Mike Royko says:

    R Sanctioned. Another non lawyer heard from. Your information is incorrect. There is both State and Federal case law that deals with this exact issue. There is even a greater harm with falsely labeling a person a possible pedophile by its sheer term as opposed to a tax cheat or even a drug addict as both State and Federal Courts have held. Mr. Diano has already verified that he made those remarks. The burden of proof rests with the defendant ( that’s the guy who made the scandalous comments for you other non lawyers) the only thing SpongeBob has to prove that it was him who was posting on the blog, the harm caused by the false statement and any additional person(s) who may have been influenced by the scandalous comment made against SpongeBob. There is a loss of reputation, loss of buisness, personal harm to he and his family (I’m not assuming one way or another that he has a family) financially and otherwise and too much more to list on Christmas Eve. I’ll tend to my family this Christmas Eve and Christmas Day and leave this issue with Mr. Diano to worry about. Merry Christmas to all.

  23. Unsanctioned R says:

    David, I think you’re safe to demean the anonymous commenters. Among other reasons, anyone can spoof a name. That is to say, it could have been me posting as spongebob making the comments you reference. No one has ever been sued over an issue like this, to my knowledge. It is you’re one debate advantage–otherwise tort level ridicule of the unknown–that you’re afforded by using your legal name.

  24. Mike Royko says:

    Mr. Diano, I can see why people are so frustrated with your “I know more than you attitude” Your response is legally wrong for this reason. Just because you may not know the identity of SpongeBob does not mean that there are not others who monitor or post on the blog that do know his identity. Therefore, since you admitted you don’t know him how could you accuse him of “having a stalking personality of a pedophile” The people that do know his identity or those who learn of his identity at a later date could have formed an opinion based on your statement unless retracted. In conclusion, making that statement and admitting to not knowing his identity makes you socially stupid and at best civilly liable. Enjoy your holiday.

  25. Unsanctioned R says:

    David, Thank you for clearing up that Eakin’s emails are a non issue. That means he has no motive for doing the things you accuse him of. Truth is, you have to have a bias to overlook the preponderance of evidence that EAKIN’S ACTIONS were not colored by underhanded motives. Or, to put it in Obama’s words, “there’s not even a smidgen of corruption.”

    Kane on the other hand tried to shut up Fina, etc. by holding what she thought were embarrassing (non-criminal) emails over their heads. And, I’m glad you brought up Hypocrisy, because even though she cries crocodile tears now about how bad these emails are, Kane’s known about them since 2009, and known that her sister was in on the ring. You may want to consult Meriam Webster for the definition of “blackmail.” Firing whistleblowers, BTW, is witness intimidation–the mark of a great Democrat AG.

    The fact is, there’s no evidence of who leaked from the GJ. Given her strange behavior, it’s at least as likely Kane did it herself, knowing her enemies would look bad to a jury and they’d never be able to prove that they didn’t do it.

    But, by all means, keep lovin’ on Kane.

  26. SpongeBob says:

    David,
    You defend Kane to the end but give her a free pass on her transgressions like promoting to Chief of Staff who was investigated by her own HR and internal affairs teams and found to have committed sexual harassment. She then allowed him to fire the HR staffer who according to reports ignored those who voiced concerns about him recommending the firing because of other incidents where Kane showed favoritism. Even if those reports are ignored she allowed a resource who had for years gotten glowing performance reviews and then was terminated. Did he magically become a bad employee or is there something more?

    I am sure you will brush past it as usual but its pretty sad that you have such an interesting point of view. I guess it’s brave on your part to come out as anti special needs kids and now anti women. At the rate you are going maybe you can help drive the family pet vote for the D’s

  27. SpongeBob says:

    aaron,
    If I am a coward what does that make you? I don’t see you volunteering your personal info on here either.

  28. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R-

    Blackmail? Whom?

    She put hypocrites on notice that they’d be exposed if they engaged in politically prosecuting/persecuting her. Certainly, Eakin could have avoided his fate had he recused himself. So, outing him, brought him a well-deserved fate (same for his pal that found “nothing remarkable”).

    Are you now fantasizing that she was interested/engaged in blackmail for years? Did she get people to pay her off? Buy her jewelry? Do her dry cleaning errands?

    As far as I can tell, she only used the emails to discredit those who attacked her first. That’s self-defense, not blackmail.

    But, as I understand the timeline, she looked into the Sandusky case and found a lot of impropriety. Those who had mishandled it, and other cases preemptively went after Kane for doing her job. Fina is the likely culprit behind the original leak about Kane dropping the sting case.

    Her retaliation against Fina was a misstep (and in hindsight there were better and more damaging ways to ruin him), but that misstep was a misdemeanor at best. The response by Fina, Carpenter and the Montco DA was completely out of proportion, and they are the ones that unleashed the holy hell of her wrath, and forced this out into the open.

    It’s a shame we don’t know who leaked Kane’s case, as I’m sure learning of those involved would bolster Kane’s claims of bias.

    Why are you harping to me about Eakins emails? My issue with Eakin has NOT been the content of his emails but rather his refusal to recuse himself ruling against Kane, his attempts to stack the deck in appointing a member of board that would review him, using a former campaign staffer to “independently” review his email and declare them “not remarkable”. THESE are the breaches that deserve suspension without regard to the content of a single email.

    His fellow judges and members of the legal profession have made additional determinations regarding the content of his emails, but his attempts to cover up and failure to recuse himself are more than sufficient for him to be removed.

    Seamus was a Democrat and I didn’t put up a fuss when he resigned. How Kane is being treated is a disgrace that far outweighs anything she’s been accused of.

  29. Unsanctioned R says:

    David, I’m the one who made the point, here it is s l o w l y. Kane didn’t lift a finger regarding the emails other than to use them as blackmail (and I know you’re trying not to admit it) FOR YEARS while in office. It wasn’t until she needed leverage for her self inflicted crimes that she started to drip them out against her enemies–not even acknowledging her sister’s involvement…or her own l o n g knowledge of them.

    You continue to ignore her crimes because she’s a Democrat. I know it hurts to see her fall, but still, did she have to commit crimes to out this bad, non-criminal behavior? Nope, she could have done it in 2013, 2014, …but, no, she just saves her own skin, even finally throwing her sister under the bus.

    It’s all about Kathleen. She’s done whatever it takes to hurt her perceived enemies. Rendell was right.

    And let’s stop pretending that all emails are created equal. You indict Eakin, you’re indicting a lot of regular people who have a sarcastic sense of humor who have sent this stuff themselves. Are you saying all these regular people can’t not be racist/sexist? Admittedly, I have not reviewed Eakin’s sent emails first hand, but can you honestly produce one that says this person has done a tenth the damage of one desperate and vindictive AG who’s M.O. Is to silence witnesses with blackmail and whistle-blower firings?

  30. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R

    No. You miss the point.

    The hundreds of lawyers/judges sending/receiving these emails should a f*cking said something years ago. They ALL knew better.

    Kane is the ONLY one to finally do something about it, but she couldn’t do anything in 2009, because she didn’t have the access/authority from the top. 2009 Kane did not have the ability to go after the big fish, like supreme court judges.

    Look at all the forces and trumped up charges thrown up against when she did gain access.

    That bastard Eakin ruled against her, when he had a vested interest in removing her to hide his emails. She didn’t blackmail him, but he tried to railroad her.

    In the grand scheme of things, Kane is guilty of stealing hubcaps in order to identify members of a car theft ring.

  31. aaron says:

    Agreed, David. SpongeBob is a coward.

  32. Unsanctioned R says:

    That’s the point. She knew like everyone else who received this stuff, but she used it as a threat how many times before she found it useful for saving herself? She’s the holder of all the emails and chooses to protect her sister. There’s nothing virtuous in her motives. She’s a hypocrite and a snake who fires whistleblowers. Her crimes don’t compare to Eakin’s behavior.

  33. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R

    She wasn’t A.G. in 2009, so that is irrelevant. There are hundreds of emails. EVERYONE on the inside knew this was going on for years. Kane is the first one to expose it.

    SpongeBob

    The only “power” you’ve shown is the ability to waste electrons and search public databases.

    Kane’s taking down a republican supreme court judge and creating a new opening for Dems to have even more power on the court.

    The GOP has ruined itself with this budget battle (and the next one is during election season, and a presidential year with high dem turnout).

    The next A.G. will still be a Dem.

  34. Unsanctioned R says:

    How many people did Kane blackmail before someone stood up to her? She had the emails in her inbox since 2009. Believe me, I want that trial to go slow, all the way to verdict.

  35. Unsanctioned R says:

    Oddly enough, there’s only one person to blame for why we don’t have a budget. And he wants Kane gone too, but Wolf won’t even have Democrats as friends any more (because they love her) if he doesn’t let the Senate make it easy for him to do his Constitutional duty of removing a crooked AG.

  36. SpongeBob says:

    David, when do you think you will figure out who I am? I mean we know you have no friends, no life to speak of other than being and Internet tough guy. You strike me as the type of guy who got bullied for being a bit of a weakling so you want to prop yourself up here. No worries as you carry such little influence I could care less what you say about me. I prefer to demonstrate power rather than pretend. I think 2016 is going to introduce some challenges for someone like you who wants to be internet tough. Just like 2016 will see the end of Kane as AG and Eakin on the bench. I am done with engaging Diano on this because his brain is so one sided he can’t see how much good Kane is doing for the republicans or he would also be yelling for her to step down before she wrecks things for the Democratic Party.

  37. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R

    Trying to overturn an election is the game republicans have been playing.

    And, speaking of games, what’s the GOP doing with the budget?

  38. Unsanctioned R says:

    “Every day spent trying to remove Kane is a disservice.”

    It’s all a game to Democrats.

  39. David Diano says:

    Counselor at Law

    SpongeBob is a fake/anonymous identity (and multiple people have posted under it at various times). As long as he remains anonymous, and non-unique, I can make any claim against him I want, because he can’t be harmed by claims/insinuations real or imagined, and has no actual identity linked to the real world (yet).

    However for me to have the impression that he seems like a pedophile is just my opinion/vibe.

    But, Bob can’t come forward to make a claim without revealing himself and exposing himself to breaches of confidentiality or professionalism for the claims he’s made about claims. He’s dropped more than a few hints that he does IT work for government (so, he could be in trouble if that were the case).

    Also, he could never prove that he is the one and only SpongeBob, nor that I can separate the real from fake ones.

    So, I can as speculate as to his many possible/likely sexual perversions and motivations with impunity.

    But, SpongeBob is a total pussy who will hide as long as he can, while I post under my own name.

    SpongeBob-

    Why the f*ck would I want that job and have to live/work in Harrisburg?

    More people are going to write in Kane than SpongeBob.

  40. SpongeBob says:

    Counselor,
    I think that’s what he wants because he clearly can’t figure out who I am otherwise.

  41. Counselor at Law says:

    Mr. Diano, I read this blog on a dailey basis and find the back and forth very amusing. However, when a person like you says; “you have the stalky personality of a pedophile” you are on very dangerous ground. It appears to me that you make such a statement to damage the credibility of th other person and make such a statement without sufficient knowledge or facts that would tend to substantiate you claim. If you don’t have such proof I would suggest you retract that statement with an apology or risk a civil suit being filed against you.

  42. SpongeBob says:

    Clearly I meant actions like not doing anything about her sexist, racist sister while railing against the likes of Eakin. Those are helping kill her approval rating.

    Also I was so sure you were full of yourself that you would write your own name in for AG. I mean you do pretend to know the law and talk out of both sides of your mouth. Kane is proving those are the prime qualities one must possess to be AG.

  43. David Diano says:

    SpongeBob

    Your statement is more than ridiculous:

    “She is doing her best to remove herself.”

    If that were true, she could just quit and take a plea deal. Duh.

    Eakin tried to pack the board with a stooge.

    The “lie” that Kane supposed asked the witnesses to tell was to ask for lawyers to delay testimony. That’s just tactics. The assholes who were part of this embarrassing/disgraceful sting operation had a vested interest in trashing/tarnishing Kane to cover their own misbehavior.

    Everyone on that case should have been fired the day Kane dropped it

    You don’t seem to care about the information leaked in her case, but are all bent out of shape by her trying to investigate it herself.

    I may have to write Kane’s name in if she doesn’t run for reelection.

  44. SpongeBob says:

    David,
    She is doing her best to remove herself. She is a horrible AG who is a blight on the commonwealth. you and a sad few others are the only ones thinking she is doing a great job. Point to a case where someone like Eakin allowed perceived values deemed by the emails he got reflect on a case. If they existed the appeals would be public. This AG is accused of crimes, accused of authorizing secret access to grand jury information, telling agents of her office to LIE and you think removing her is a disservice. I feel sorry for the hardship your brain goes through when you formulate these thoughts. Luckily you have Voterweb to keep you busy when Kane is gone and my business here is done….maybe

  45. David Diano says:

    SpongeBob

    Every day spent trying to remove Kane is a disservice .

    Imagine if Kane had not been elected. This whole scandal, reaching to the supreme court, would be completely unknown to the public, and business as usual for the judiciary.

  46. SpongeBob says:

    David,
    You remind me of Eakin crying like a little kid since he was caught…why? Yes I have been predicting Kane’s demise but things take time. Did I ever say she would be gone by a certain date? Also since when is responding to peoples comments on here Stalky? I don’t see you accusing HAHAHA of the same….

    You keep bringing up that I pretend to have insider knowledge yet I have lost track of how many times I have been on the mark. Was it 1, 6, maybe 236. I was at a place called the Cornerstone café and I heard someone say “I don’t need a Newton telescope to see that Kane will be gone soon.”

    Kane is doing the commonwealth a disservice every day she stays in the job. Defend her all you want David and attack me all the same but nothing can change that. By the way I don’t see you challenging others to use their real name if they agree with you. Maybe you can tone down your stalker fantasies about me and focus on someone weak minded like HAHAHA. I mean is there nothing better to do in Broomall than think about me?

  47. Porn Justice I Justice Denied says:

    Its about time Scum Eakin is thrown off the Bench Now we are down to 3 Justices Lets get rid of all of them and start over

  48. David Diano says:

    SpongeBob

    You’ve got the stalky personality of a pedophile. You’re the one “amping” things up with nonsense trying to connect independent investigation with lack of funding elsewhere.

    You’ve been predicting Kane’s demise, and yet she’s still standing. I feel she should have her day in court, and not be subject to political machinations of the Senate to subvert the state constitution. It’s hard to imagine that she will get a fair trial, considering the grand jury leaks and the lack of interest by Montco in pursuing them.

    You keep pretending to have insider knowledge (effectively admitting you are breaking confidentiality, while accusing Kane of the same). You are a coward and a hypocrite. You’d crawl back in your hole if anyone shined light on you.

  49. SpongeBob says:

    David,
    You seem awfully amped up all of a sudden. Why is that? Oh I am so offended you think I am in a van stalking kids. Your attempts to attack me are pathetic. You are consistently proven wrong and you like your one friend HaHaHa feel the best method to respond is by personal attacks.

    I am not concerned about you outing me because honestly you just aren’t that good. You should think about the things you write as words have a funny way of coming back on people. Maybe you should put that energy into something else.

Comments are closed.