Clairton, Liberty election challenges scheduled to continue in state court
Election challenges in Clairton and Liberty will continue in Commonwealth Court.
Appeals have been made to the state court by attorneys for Liberty council candidate Mark A. Suckfiel against incumbent S. Larry Sikorski, and for Clairton Mayor Richard Lattanzi against challenger Richard Ford III.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph M. James overruled objections aimed at keeping Ford and Sikorski off the May 21 ballot.
“We felt it was bad law,” Suckfiel's attorney J. Jason Elash said on Monday night.
Elash said Sikorski had no witnesses to his claim that a statement of financial interest was lost behind a Liberty borough office filing cabinet, and that James' ruling was “not in conformity with past court decisions.”
Sikorski's attorney Matthew D. Racunas declined comment.
Lattanzi's attorney Glenn A. Smith continued to press the argument that Ford, a city councilman, failed to disclose all his tax liens, including a reputed obligation to the Internal Revenue Service, on an amended statement of financial interest.
“The statement is a list of creditors,” James ruled on April 3. “The citizens of Clairton know he owes that money and he's listed it.”
Ford's attorney Burrell A. Brown declined comment, saying he had not seen Smith's appeal.
Dates and times for hearings on the appeals, scheduled before Commonwealth Court judges in Pittsburgh, were not available at presstime. Elash said attorneys have a Friday deadline to file briefs with the state court.
Patrick Cloonan is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161 ext. 1967, or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.