Take The Hint, Ralph

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that Ralph Nader, in a further effort to avoid paying an $81,000 judgment for court costs as a result of a successful challenge to his 2004 nominating petitions to get onto the presidential ballot in Pennsylvania, is crying about the fact that the law firm that filed the challenge should have revealed its ties to three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices who ruled against him.

The Inquirer story tells us that, while Nader’s case was pending, the Reed Smith law firm (which represented the party challenging Nader) also represented Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy (one of the three judges hearing Nader’s case) in a complaint that was dismissed.

As the story also tells us…

Nader further contended that the law firm also should have disclosed it had contributed $5,000 to the 2005 retention campaign of then-Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, and that Justice Ronald Castille had once worked for the firm and had an "open-ended offer of employment" there.

"Reed Smith's negligent or intentional concealment of these ties is misconduct that constitutes a fraud upon the court," lawyer Oliver B. Hall and three other lawyers contended in court documents.

Daniel I. Booker, an attorney at Reed Smith, said the law firm's representation of the chief justice had been widely reported and was well-known - and the law firm's political contributions were publicly filed. And Justice Castille did work for the firm, he said, "but all that was before he was ever on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania."

Castille said through a court spokesman yesterday that he "severed all ties with Reed Smith as of 1993. There is absolutely no 'open-ended offer of employment.' "

Cappy declined to comment, saying it would be inappropriate to do so while the matter is in litigation in another court. Newman, a former justice who has returned to the practice of the law, also declined to comment.

It just keeps getting more and more pathetic with Ralph, you know? And somehow I don’t think this is a situation where the loss of $81K would suddenly put Ralph in the poor house.

This Wikipedia article provides more background on Nader’s troubles in Pennsylvania in 2004…

…Although his campaign claimed to have turned in over 50,000 signatures by the August (2004) deadline, the Democratic Party launched legal challenges. A series of Commonwealth Court decisions in the fall of 2004 came to a final conclusion on September 2, 2004. On that day, the state's highest Court ruled that Nader could not appear on Pennsylvania's ballot as an Independent candidate, as he was seeking the Reform Party's nomination elsewhere.[23] When the Nader campaign moved to block the examination of its signatures, Pennsylvania Judge James Garner Collins rejected it, declaring that the campaign's plea "tortured the law."[24] Pennsylvania brought the Nader campaign another black eye: Nader was sued by a lawyer representing homeless people in the state who claimed that they had been hired to gather signatures, but not paid for their efforts.[25]

Also, here is a commentary on the Pennsylvania case written by an attorney who has represented Nader; even though it is sympathetic to Ralph, I should point out the following…

Even assuming fraud among some supporters, it must be remembered that the Nader campaign itself was found guilty of no wrongdoing. Political sabotage likely played a large part in Nader’s unfolding drama. (Who do you think signed names like “Fred Flintstone” and “Mickey Mouse”?) (to the petitions)

Yeah, yeah, political sabotage; it wasn’t Ralph’s fault at all. Not the fact that Nader’s whole venture was a cartoon of sorts anyway. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Oh, and did I mention that, according to Wikipedia, Nader also had ballot problems in Florida and Hawaii in 2004?

So now, in true deadbeat fashion, Ralph is screaming about alleged favoritism among Pennsylvania’s judges and lawyers to create a smokescreen (as if the issue of judicial elections versus appointments, valid though that is, is really at the heart of Nader’s case).

And this egomaniac is threatening to pull these shenanigans again next year.

Hello, corporate media; anybody else out there paying attention?