Monday, November 26, 2007

A New Investigation in Penn Delco

So former Penn Delco school solicitor Mark Sereni is finally going to get independent investigation he always wanted into the Penn Delco school district mess.

Unfortunately (from Sereni's perspective), it won't focus on Business Administrator John Steffy's alleged failings, but on the split-dollar insurance policy deal that cost the district $640,000.

New solicitor Mike Levin has stated that the policy as it was written was in violation of the school code because it is illegal for a school district to invest in mutual funds.

Last week, the board unanimously voted a resolution authorizing Levin to investigate the deal.

Said Levin:

"According to my review so far, there were a lot of inappropriate things done in connection with this split-dollar policy, such that it is my recommendation that we ask New England Life Insurance to return all premiums and to seek repayment from Creative Financial Solutions, who was the broker who provided certain services."

As solicitor, Sereni reviewed the 2004 deal and approved it. If Levin is right, Sereni fell down on the job of protecting the district big time.

In the meantime, Levin has been hired on through 2008 to serve as the district's solicitor. It appears that those who feared The Return of Solicitor Sereni need not have worried so much.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying that Sereni fell down big time. That is an understatement. If he is great and wonderful, as some people are led to believe, why all the errors?

November 26, 2007 at 3:55 PM 
Anonymous Delco attorney said...

Spencer -

I'm a Delaware County attorney who would be proud to reveal his/her identity except that I'm afraid of becoming your next target.

Just where do you get off attacking highly-skilled, experienced and well-regarded attorneys like Mark Sereni (and more recently Bruce Irvine)?

Over the summer, I read your never-ending stories about Sereni, patiently waiting for the bombshell to explode. None did. Instead, Sereni was vindicated, and his call for an independent investigation into corruption and lack of accountability justified: three district officials were arrested and charged with public corruption.

Now you have the nerve to equate Sereni's call for an independent counsel with the present solicitor's recommendation to consider claims against an insurance company and its outside broker?

If I remember correctly, Sereni stated in writing to your newspaper that the insurance plan to which you refer was legal AS PROPOSED. All the present solicitor has stated to your newspaper is that the insurance plan AS WRITTEN may not have been legal. Surely you recognize the difference.

And if I also remember correctly, Sereni stated in writing to your newspaper that he recommended bringing in the district's broker to review the plan as written, and this broker found and corrected a problem, which made the plan legal.

The legal profession needs to hold people like YOU accountable for the damage you intentionally or recklesly cause it. I sure hope Sereni (and Irvine) do their part.

November 26, 2007 at 5:36 PM 
Anonymous Bill in Delco said...

delco attorney-

I agree with you about Sereni but have a hard time understanding your support of Bruce Irvine.

The article from last week seemed pretty black and white that Irvine has been acting irresponsibly. I haven't seen anything indicating otherwise.

I'm not an attorney but if the accusations against Bruce Irvine are true isn't he breaking the law?

Please explain. Thanks!

November 26, 2007 at 5:59 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

So which is it, Delco Attorney? Are you proud or afraid?

November 26, 2007 at 6:00 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Hey Delco Attorney:

Like Randall asked, are you proud or just afraid. I am not afraid which is why I tell people who I am. Your turn.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 26, 2007 at 6:20 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gil Spencer you are a malicious bully. I hope you get the pants sued off you and the Daily Times finally send you packing. Stop feeding the public lies.

November 26, 2007 at 6:20 PM 
Anonymous delco attorney said...

Bill in Delco - As I understand the Irvine situation, the township approved, and the developer approved and paid, Irvine's legal bills months and months ago. And now that the developer seems to need a scapegoat, the developer, aided and abetted by Spencer, suddenly claims, after months and months of approving and paying Irvine's bills, that they are improper? I just don't buy it. Besides, the Municipalities Planning Code places a deadline on the developer to challenge the bills, and that deadline has long passed.

Randall and Scott - Wow, what did I ever do to you fellows? Frankly, yes, I am afraid to reveal my identity. But that probably speaks less to my cowardice and more to Spencer's viciousness.

November 26, 2007 at 6:39 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Alleged Delco Attorney,

No solicitor is entitled to his or her taxpayer subsidized gig, as Mark Sereni's behavior indicated he believed this past summer and fall.

I have no problem with Bruce Irvine except for the fact that he rather blatantly overcharged charged a developer to attend a regular township meeting he was being paid to attend anyway. The developer has questioned dozens of other charges as well.
That there were approved by the township does no credit to Irvine or the township.

As for Sereni, a more attentive solicitor might well have recommended against the split-dollar insurance scheme. The fact that Keith Crego wanted it so much (for whatever reasons) might have clouded Sereni's judgement. There were after all, political allies and friend.

If Sereni wasn't provided the correct information about the deal then he can claim that. However, his behavior over the course of the last year speaks for itself. Don't force me to reiterate it here.

BTW, Mr./Ms. Delco Attorney, I doubt you are less scared of becoming my "next target:" as you are revealing your legal connections and becoming the target of derision within the legal community itself.


November 26, 2007 at 7:05 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Delco Attorney,

It's all about Gil protecting his sources, regardless of whether or not they're corrupt.

Here's what's really going on.

Gil is buddies with Penn Delco CFO John Steffy's criminal defense lawyer, Art Donato. You probably know Donato. A top gun criminal defense attorney.

Anyway, everybody knows that Donato cut an immunity deal with the DA's office for CFO John Steffy so he would not be prosecuted for any possible criminal wrongdoing in Penn Delco. And CFO John Steffy has been one of Gil's sources.
The dots are really easy to connect.

Sereni was pushing to expose and stop corruption in Penn Delco and hold district officials responsible for turning a blind eye toward some pretty bad stuff.

CFO John Steffy got really nervous, and fed Gil information which made himself look good and Sereni look bad. Some of that info dealt with this insurance plan.

The proof behind what I'm telling you - Gil has never once questioned why CFO John Steffy, if he believed the plan was illegal or otherwise bad for the district, not only allowed the plan to go through, but worse yet
signed up for the plan himself in an effort to personally benefit from it!

After all, John Steffy was and still is the CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER of Penn Delco, right?

And we're paying CFO John Steffy more than $160,000 a year, right?

Any comment, Gil?

November 26, 2007 at 7:08 PM 
Anonymous delco attorney said...

Alleged Spencer -

Thanks for providing all of us with clear evidence of your propensity to viciously distort: I'm the "target of derision within the legal community" just because Scott Shields (an interesting fellow) asks me why I'm afraid to reveal my identity?

Aside from your apparent friend Scott, attorneys are lining up to represent Sereni and Irvine.
As I said, I sure hope those two do our profession proud and hold you accountable.


November 26, 2007 at 7:22 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...


The $160,000 they're paying Steffy is a lot less than the $260,000 plus the taxpayers were Sereni.

All the while, Sereni's buddy School Board Prez Keith Crego was allegedly lining his own pockets when he wasn't, you know, otherwise engaged.

As the clueless FOKKER Sereni summed up in his now famous e-mail to so nicely: "All in All, A Victory for Us."

Not in the end.

November 26, 2007 at 7:25 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

As for the anonymous FOMMER (Friend of Mark's) and all the attorneys lining up to "represent" Irvine and Sereni, don't you know how pathetic that sounds?

Another lawyer threatening a lawsuit and anonymously at that.

November 26, 2007 at 7:29 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gil, you are nuts. You are so intent on trying to hurt this guy Sereni. What is your problem? With all the smoke and mirrors you tried to put up, you got nothing. Are you just stinging because it was really you who made and continue to make such an ass of yourself? You should be, but something tells me you're not that smart.

November 26, 2007 at 7:39 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I'm developing a new theory concerning the anonymous Sereni defenders on this blog.

In actuality, they must harbor ill feelings toward Sereni or they wouldn't keep defending (or pretending to) his strange actions thus encouraging constant rementioning of his odd conduct as Penn Delco solicitor.

Just a theory.

November 26, 2007 at 7:42 PM 
Anonymous Delco Attorney said...

Alleged Spencer -

There you go again, giving us more proof of your propensity to distort: you're equating a CFO's SALARY to a law firm's legal bills?

Any half-wit can confirm on-line that Sereni's firm has six attorneys and probably just as many paralegals. And any half-wit knows that all law firms, like any other business, have overhead.

Why don't you address Anonymous' point about the district CFO, Spencer? Why haven't you criticized the district CFO in regard to the insurance plan? As you were asked, if this fellow Steffy thought the plan was not legal or a bad financial plan for the district, why did he sign up for it himself?

You've really gotten my Irish up, Spencer.

November 26, 2007 at 7:43 PM 
Anonymous Becoming a FOMMER the more I read from you said...

I have a question that maybe His Eminent Spencer will deign to answer. Let's see.

Solicitor Levin was quoted as saying he was authorized by the school board to bring claims against the insurance company and the broker. Nowehere was he quoted as saying the former solicitor did anything wrong or that the board had authorized him to pursue any such claim.

Yet you have used Solicitor Levin's quote as an excuse to exhume your inexplicable vendetta against the former solicitor.

Here is my question: Did Mike Levin authorize you to expand his quote such that you have put him in the position of accusing the former solicitor of professional negligence?


November 26, 2007 at 7:45 PM 
Anonymous Del Co attorney II said...

I doubt whether Mark reads this nonsense, but I am a lawyer and a former client and I can tell you he is one of the finest attorneys I have ever met, both in terms of his skills and his ethical standards. Lots of people are envious of him for many different reasons. Mr. Spencer seems to be at the top of that list.

If you do read this nonsense, keep your chin up, Mark. He's just a gnat.

November 26, 2007 at 8:13 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Ah, thank you for asking.

Mr. Levin's quote was not "expanded" it was simply written and reported.

To the extent that the insurance deal reflects poorly on Mr. Sereni's stewardship as Penn Delco's solicitor is not Mr. Levin's fault.

One would expect such Levin's investigation to include a determination on whether the legal advice received by the district concerning plan was adequate.

If Sereni was misled about the details of the plan and how it was instituted that would be an excellent defense to any claim of what you call professional negligence.

As for his legal bills to the district, I don't know what the size of his law firm has to do with it. Only a half-wit would think so. Every solicitor I spoke too thought $250,000 was pretty darn high for a school solicitor to bill.

Maybe the Daily Times should look into all the school solicitorships in Delaware County, who charges what and who makes what? That would be interesting wouldn't it?

November 26, 2007 at 8:48 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

As usual, the attorneys in question post anonymously.

For a gnat, Spencerblog seems awfully frightening to them.

November 26, 2007 at 8:53 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

If they ARE attorneys.

November 26, 2007 at 8:55 PM 
Anonymous law prof said...

Mr. Spencer,

Do you obtain legal advice before submiting your material, especially your comments, or do you believe that you are above the law?

If you don't obtain such advice, perhaps you should start.

But if you do, perhaps you should seek a second opinion.

Even first year law students know when to tell a "client" to shut his mouth and stop digging himself a deeper hole.

As I've said before, I'm neither a Sereni supporter nor detractor, but I sure agree with the sentiment expresed here and elsewhere that he seems to have what it takes - both factually and morally - to hold you accountable.

And as I said before, I AM a Spencer detractor.

By the way, how's that discrimination lawsuit going, you know, the one brought by that African-American female attorney and former prosecutor whom you tried to "lynch" by calling her, in essence, a natural-born plaintiff?

Good night.

November 26, 2007 at 9:53 PM 
Anonymous EKAJ said...

Steffy of course is his source and of course that office would make that decision. I know that the truth will come out and I doubt highly that anyone other than Steffy even knew what funds we being used.

Spencer is on a slippery rope and the times will get sued and lose over some of his writings.

November 26, 2007 at 9:57 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Wow, all of this blabbering from "attorneys" that are afraid to show their face. I am astounded that there are lawyers that make comments anonymously. My parents taught me to not be afraid of anything. To Delco Attorney who thinks I am an interesting fellow, feel free to stop me in the courthouse to reveal your identity. I really am interesting!

November 26, 2007 at 10:50 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

To Law Prof

Only in a country run by lawyers for lawyers would a citizen feel frightened enough to have to go to a lawyer before expressing their opinion.

But in America we have a Constitution and a First Amendment Right to express our ideas and opinions.

We have nothing to fear from blow-hard lawyers who make suing noises, especially from those who do so anonymously.

As someone who takes taxpayer money from two public school districts Mark Sereni is not above or beyond scrutiny or criticism. Neither is Bruce Irvine. And neither is the black female attorney who sued Delaware County on a trumped up discrimination charge.

And no, I don't know how that case is going. If you happen to know feel free to share. Only lose the whiny lawsuit threats. They're unbecoming. But then so is hurling insults from the shadows.

However, if it's the best you can do (and somehow I think it is) Spencerblog feels sorry for you.

November 27, 2007 at 9:01 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Slapping them around and all they can do is interject the Race Card and employ their usual shrill-elevating buzzwords like "Lynch". Libs and their hurt feelings really are pathetic.

Libs don't much care for free speech when they disagree with what is being said.

November 27, 2007 at 9:36 AM 
Anonymous law prof said...

Mr. Spencer,

Given my line of work, chances are that I know a bit more about the First Amendment than you do, but I may be presuming too much.

Either way, you should know that neither you nor anyone else has the right under the First Amendment or any other law to maliciously communicate to others false and defamatory statements of fact about another.

I'm intellectually curious. Before you maliciously communicated to us your false and defamatory statement of fact that this young lady's discrimination lawsuit was "trumped-up" (which Webster's defines as "fraudulently concocted"), did you obtain legal advice?

November 27, 2007 at 10:33 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spencer - glad to see you admitted to going too far, albeit in a totally left-handed way, with the slant that Levin was advocating that Sereni had fouled up.

Maybe there is hope for you yet.

Oh, and as far as threatening Sereni supporters by stating, essentially "Don't force me to slime him again." Are you ten years old? Do you know how silly and vindictive you sound? Stop humiliating yourself, man.

By the number and nature of your responses to the Sereni supporters, they have gotten under your skin!

November 27, 2007 at 10:36 AM 
Anonymous Bill in Delco said...

Delco Attorney-

I live in Newtown Square and have been following this saga for more than 2 years now. From my standpoint it does not seem like Town Center developers are being treated fairly.

I attend the board meetings regularly, and some of the Supervisors are clearly leading BPG around in circles.

I see why you think Irvine is being made a scapegoat by the developer but it looks like BPG has just finally gotten fed-up with the run-around and doesn't want to put up with the board's shenanigans anymore.

Is it really too late for BPG to challenge a bill from July? It has only been 4 months. What is the time frame for challenging a bill before the deadline passes?

Even if it is too late to challenge Bruce Irvine's bills that doesn't mean he hasn't done anything wrong does it? If someone commits a crime and the statute of limitations runs out it doesn't mean they are innocent.

In other words, this is more than just a challenge to the validity of Irvine’s bills. This is an example of an appointed official acting irresponsibly, and possibly unethically.

November 27, 2007 at 11:10 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Are you ten years old? Do you know how silly and vindictive you sound? Stop humiliating yourself, man.

LOL! Uh, have your read any of your buddies' childish and petty comments on this board?

November 27, 2007 at 11:30 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randal - What buddies? Don't make assumptions. You just make an ass out of you

November 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Law Prof,
Under my skin? Nah.
I actually enjoy the give and take. But it can get tedious after a while.
Trumped-up also has the more colloquial meaning of "bogus."
As I have written elsewhere, I think the discrimination suit against DA Mike Green and Delaware County is both lame and winnable.
Such is life.

November 27, 2007 at 2:09 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, Spencer? Law prof didn't say posters were getting "under your skin" - I did. You should be more careful about how you attribute your quotes so as not to mislead. Sloppy, sloppy. Tsk. It's so unlike you!

November 27, 2007 at 2:30 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I stand corrected.

November 27, 2007 at 3:08 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

And you would be...? Oh, never mind.
But thanks for reading.

November 27, 2007 at 3:09 PM 
Anonymous law prof said...

Mr. Spencer,

Must I give you another lesson on our cherished First Amendment?

What matters under defamation law is what the average reader/listener understood your communication to mean, not necessarily what you intended it to me.

To borrow a phrase, if you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and there is no fire, it does not matter that you allegedly meant something else, like "it's so hot in here that I feel like I'm on FIRE."

The average reader would understand "trumped-up" to mean what Webster's primary definition says it means: fraudulently concocted. (Its secondary and only other meaning - "spurious" - does not help you either.)

To use the vernacular of a first year law student (which you may better understand), "You're screwed, Mr. Spencer."

Please enjoy your day.

November 27, 2007 at 4:21 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Isn't it pretty to think so.

November 27, 2007 at 6:47 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And checkmate. Law prof, you rock!

November 27, 2007 at 6:57 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Hi Law Prof:

I accept your challenge to Gil on First Amendment law. It wouldn't be fair for him to argue against you as he is not a lawyer. However, he would still smoke you in a debate about the limits of the first amendment.

I think that I challenged you once to an intellectual debate on the first amendment and the other free speech clause contained in our Commonwealth Constitution (you know, the one that is an independent source of rights). You never responded.

Stop hiding behind your anonymity and lets see who you are. If you really are a law professor I would like to know what you have accomplished as well as what you have published.

Please Please Please????????

November 27, 2007 at 8:51 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott Shields, why do you continue to interject yourself into the discussions of others? Know why no one is accepting your pathetic little challenges? No one cares what you think. Give it up. It's just sad.

November 27, 2007 at 8:56 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Umm, I believe that the cowards are afraid of getting humiliated Mr. Shields.

November 27, 2007 at 9:24 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


Actually, I have had discussions with Law Prof previously. Remember this is a blog! I challenged Law Prof and I was ignored. Must be a great law prof. As for you, do I hear you asking me why I am interjecting myself in someone else's discussion? Don't you think you are being hypocritical as you are trying to interject yourself into what I am saying?

I am always amazed at how cowardly people like you are who will hit and run under the cloak of anonymity. How about a good old fashioned intellectual debate? Are you up for the challenge?

November 27, 2007 at 10:44 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


The anonymous ones are cowardly and they will get humiliated. They throw out a proposition then immediately stick their fingers in their ears and start repeating - "I can't hear you"....

Oh well, you can't help everyone!

November 27, 2007 at 10:47 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why all this harping on anonymity? It's a weak attempt at deflection to me. The blog gives you the choice to post anonymously, if you don't like it Spencer maybe you shouldn't have a blog. It's the internet, some people prefer to remain anonymous. I don't think it should detract from very good points that posters have made, nor does it make one cowardly or more likely to be humiliated.

November 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Law Prof?" I doubt it. But, let's accept that accolade for the moment.

There are two fundamental aspects of your putative defamation action which doom it to failure.

First, as a trial attorney like Mr. Sheilds can tell you, a defamation action requires quantifiable damages. As I understand it, Mr. Spencer's comments have cost her no money.

Second, no one with standing to sue has brought an action. An academician might not be aware of the more practical aspects of law. For instance, you cant win a law suit no one will ever file.

November 28, 2007 at 9:32 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Spencer..I go away for a few days and your blog heats up..... I to shall remain anonymous because I #1. can be more open and #2. I dont want the boys in Media to go after me. It is interesting that while in a law office this morning you blog was the talk..then at the court house your blog came up and at lunch at the Towne House your blog was mentioned. The 4 attorneys that were talking said that you have to be stopped before you make it impossible for any township or school district to hire any attorneys. They all commented that Bruce Irvine and Sereni are the masters at padding the bills. And if they are exposed it will only make it rough for the rest of them. The most surprising fact that I heard was that they are all more scared of Irvine than anyone. "He knows where the bodies are buried" said one attorney and Joe Catania who heads the Newtown Board wont do anything to cross him. Since the money is not comming directly out of the tax payers funds the people of Newtown wont press the issue. Irvine will go on making hundred of thousands of dollars and be a model for all attorneys to follow.

November 28, 2007 at 2:25 PM 
Anonymous law prof said...

Dear Anonymous Student of Defamation Law,

I'm afraid you have a lot to learn.

Perhaps you missed my lecture on
the concept of defamation per se.
Look it up sometime.

As to your second alleged point, I must tell you that I have no idea of what you're trying to say.
Give it another try.

November 28, 2007 at 3:00 PM 
Anonymous Bill in Delco said...

I am truly appalled that Bruce Irvine holds so much power in our township.

He is the solicitor, not the "sixth supervisor".

If he and Houldin continue to screw with BPG we are going to get stuck with a huge box store right in the middle of Newtown Square
that nobody wants.

It's time to rid our township of the corrupt scum.

Doesn't anyone out there know where Irvine's or Houldin's bodies are buried?

November 28, 2007 at 3:07 PM 
Anonymous delco attorney 3 said...

Hey Anonymous law office/court house/Towne House visitor - And let me guess. Then a pink elephant starting talking about Spencer's Blog, too!

I don't buy your story. Lawyers pay as much attention to Spencer as they do pimples on their own behinds. (Except the pimple is more relevant.)

Almost everyone I know - lawyers and non-lawyers - thinks that Spencer is a two-bit sensationalist who suffers from massive personal issues.

November 28, 2007 at 3:08 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Law Prof,

Why are you calling out someone for being Anonymous when you have never revealed your identity?

There is no difference between your name "law prof" and "anonymous" until you prove your identity. In the meantime, this is just another instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

And when have you ever lectured us? If you think your earlier posts are lectures you are sorely misguided.

Besides Webster's Dictionary, you haven't provided us with a single reference to back up your claims.

Some "professor" you are.

Start backing-up your allegations. Until then I'll just assume you're pulling everything out of your ass.

November 28, 2007 at 3:36 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Sounds like you hit a nerve, Anon. And all the more reason for Gil to continue doing what he's doing.

November 28, 2007 at 3:37 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey delco attorney 3.. you must not know many people then..and probably the ones you know travel in the same circles as Bruce Irvine.. They keep screwing the public with over billing and pad their pockets with phoney expenses...I am glad Spencer has finally become the voice of the people and will continue to keep this up until you guys learn.. I hope someone in Newtown can shed some more light on some of these charges. I hope Spencer is contacting all the builders out there so they can compare notes..Your days are numbered delco attorney...Spencer is on the Job!!!!

November 28, 2007 at 4:12 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Law prof,

I'm guessing you are a paralegal. Maybe a year of law school where you did poorly. You know some legal terms but, can't correctly apply them. So, here's your lecture on defamation

1. opinions can never be defamatory, only assertions of fact. For example, if i were to say that I belive you lack the intellectual gifts to spell out the word "professor" much less act as one, that is my opinion and not defamation.

Arguably, Mr. Spencer's entire collumn was opinion and therefore can not form the basis of a defamation suit.

2. You indicated that defamation per se does not require damages. That's not quite correct. Defamation per se applies when the defamatory comment is so horrible that damage to one's reputation can be presumed. Still, that presumption remains rebuttable. Therefore, she'd still need to be able to show damages if challenged.

Moreover, defamation per se only applies in extreme cases. Mere insults are not sufficient.

To illustrate, if I averred that you suffer from a loathesome disease the mere mention of which would cause others to discriminate against you, that could be per se defamation (assuming it is not also true). The claim that someone filed an inappropriate lawsuit is not inherently severe enough that per se defamation applies.

Finally, if I am wrong, and you are a professor, please let me know where. I don't want to hire anyone from there.

November 28, 2007 at 5:19 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what is so funny? That Gil Spencer should find a following as the voice of the common folk. He is the child of a rich daddy and grew up with serious wealth and a silver spoon up his um, nose. Your typical lazy failure to live up to daddy's example, he now gets paid a bunch of money to sit on his ass and make stuff up about people who actually work for a living.

Good role model guys!!

November 28, 2007 at 5:20 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Great word, rebuttable.

To illustrate, if I averred that you suffer from a loathesome disease the mere mention of which would cause others to discriminate against you, that could be per se defamation (assuming it is not also true).

Liberalism is such a disease!
I would sue if someone called me a filthy Lib! That is not only insulting and untrue but would be damaging to my reputation!

November 28, 2007 at 5:56 PM 
Anonymous law prof said...

Dear Anonymous Who Thinks I'm a Paralegal,

Thank you for the compliment. Many paralegals eventually go on to law school, and they make some of the brightest students and most skilled and ultimately succesful attorneys around.

Your spelling is as accurate as your arguments are cogent. (Yes, spelling counts!)

You are way off-base concerning your analysis of Mr. Spencer's defamation per se. If you would take a moment to read his comment, you will see that he referred to "the black female attorney who sued Delaware County on a trumped up discrimination charge."

That is a statement of fact.

That statement is defamatory.

According to both the EEOC and this young lady's attorney, that statement is false.

Because that statement accuses her of fraudulently concocting her lawsuit, it constitutes defamation per se.

Please tell me what you're having trouble understanding.

November 28, 2007 at 7:01 PM 
Anonymous another Delco lawyer said...

I'm a Delco lawyer and I have never heard anything about Gil Spencer or this blog except that he is notoriously anti-lawyer and, I'm sorry to say, an "idiot." Reading his print columns and blogs of late, I would have to agree that he has some kind of vendetta against lawyers. He tries to create tempests in teapots and is unmistakably vindictive. He is very unprofessional, assuming that you believe what he does constitutes a profession.

November 28, 2007 at 8:13 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

What say some of you cowards piling on Gil reveal your true identities?

My name is Randal Davis and I approve this message.

November 28, 2007 at 9:02 PM 
Anonymous DEL CO ATTORNEY FIVE said...

I'm also a lawyer in Delaware County.

The fact that Gil goes after lawyers like Mark Serini and Bruce Irvine proves he's an idiot.

Serini is known to be a straight shooter and all-around decent guy. And he's one of the best courtroom lawyers I've seen in action.

Irvine may not be as much of an angel as Serini, but he's a respected senior member of our bar, politically savvy and way too smart to get himself into trouble.

I join my colleagues in condemning Gil's slimy tactics.

November 28, 2007 at 10:21 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gil - Why are you afraid to answer the question about your connection with criminal defense attorney Art Donato and his client John Steffy, the Penn Delco CFO?

And why are you afraid to answer the question about why you have never criticized Steffy, even though he's the Chief FIancial Officer?

November 28, 2007 at 10:27 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Law prof,

let me apologize for letting this get too heated.

But, you are, clearly, not a lawyer or a professor. Now, I don't expect you to admit that. And I will not continue to engage you.

If anyone wants to believe you know what you're talking about, there's no harm in that.

But, anyone with even a passing familiarity with law can tell that you are no law professor.

November 28, 2007 at 10:58 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr/Mrs Delco attorney. First off there was no independent counsel started in Penn-Delco by Mr. Sereni the outcry of the taxpayers squashed that from happening. Secondly it was not anything that Mr. Sereni did to help put the three people in the dier straits that they find theirselves in.He was not the super hero of Penn-Delco. He was however friends of two of the people charged as they were both his employers. One voted him in each year and the other authorized his bills. The third person voted to have him removed and suffered the reprecussions of that action. With the help of some of his so called friends that were board members. Maybe the next thing that should be looked into is a complete financial accounting of Penn-Delco's books. Since both the Superintendent and the School Board President were charged with felony's. I bet that would be an interesting read. What do you think Mr. Levin?? I am surprised that the Attorney General has not requested that a complete audit be done to make sure nothing illegal took place. But hey this is after all Delaware County so I guess we shouldn't count on that happening any time soon. From the talk of the town looks like some of the same is in store for this school board. It's politics at it's best or should I dare say worst. The only new and refreshing thing on this board will be a solicitor who doesn't listen to a political party. Good luck to all you Penn-Delco residents looks like your going to need some.

November 29, 2007 at 12:17 AM 
Anonymous to the PDSD village idiot said...

Another idiot making up lies and slinging them like hash.

Sereni is an amazing lawyer and he SAVED Penn Delco tons of money. He got blamed as a scapegoat by ignorant people like you, corrupt board members and administration and Slimeball Spencer because he was an easy target. And idiots like you bought it hook line and sinker.

If the books do get reviewed, you can have some egg on your face to go with your hash. Oh, and what the books might reveal about Mr. Steffy - he's in charge of the books, right? - LOVE to see that!

Somehow I think Spencer won't print that though because it sounds like Steffy is his bed partner.

November 29, 2007 at 9:39 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sure do hope that when that hook line and sinker gets thrown in the water it comes up with a real BIG FISH on the end of the line.

PS: As for Sereni saving Penn-Delco money he was well compensated for his duties as solicitor.Well over the amount thrown around by a few.That's quite a lot of hash oh I mean cash. Time to move on to greener pastures as this subject is getting quite boring. Good luck fishing watch out for those sharks you just never know where they may turn up and bite you in the azz.

November 29, 2007 at 11:49 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see...who seems to be the only person Spencer never criticizes? John Steffy. Interesting, especially since he is Chief Financial Officer of Penn Delco District and was responsible for the split dollar life insurance plan AND reviewing bills paid to solicitor AND making sure financial interest statements got filed and on time (which they didn't).

That's a whole lot of smoke, Gil. But then Gil likes to poo-poo the minor stuff. You know, like felony charges and felony convictions.

Oh, and Steffy also has a very distinctive writing style. You can pick him out every time.

November 30, 2007 at 7:08 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 4, 2007 at 4:02 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Hey, no s-bag references.
Repost without it and I'll let it stand

December 4, 2007 at 5:20 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I didn't mean to use the s bag reference. No need to re-post.

December 6, 2007 at 3:15 PM 
Blogger raybanoutlet001 said...

michael kors purses
ugg outlet
nike huarache
ugg outlet
michael kors handbags
nike tn
kobe 9
nike shoes
nhl jerseys
coach outlet store

July 27, 2017 at 1:56 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home