Judge says prothonotary candidate must pay filing fees for petition to eliminate competitor
A Fayette County judge on Tuesday denied a Fairchance man's request to delay payment of filing fees for a petition seeking to eliminate one of his competitors for the Democratic nomination for prothonotary.
Robert “Ted” Pritchard last week filed a single petition seeking to strike the nominating petitions of his three competitors, Pamela Hudson, Paul Shipley and Nina Capuzzi Frankhouser.
Judge John F. Wagner Jr. said in a previous order that Pritchard erred by putting the three candidates on one petition and paying just one filing fee.
He separated them into three petitions and set a hearing date for Hudson, whose name appears first on the original petition.
Hearing dates for Shipley and Frankhouser will not be set until Pritchard pays $86 in filing fees on each of the two other challenges, for a total of $172, according to Wagner's order.
Pritchard filed a motion Monday seeking to proceed as a pauper because he cannot immediately pay the fees. On Tuesday, Senior Judge Gerald R. Solomon denied the request in regard to Shipley's petition.
A different judge has been assigned to Frankhouser's petition, but no action was taken as of Tuesday afternoon.
In lieu of proceeding as a pauper, Pritchard on Tuesday filed motions seeking to make monthly payments on the fees. No action has been taken on those requests, according to court records.
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.