ShareThis Page
Pa. Supreme Court justice denies benefit from alleged stolen union funds |

Pa. Supreme Court justice denies benefit from alleged stolen union funds

The Associated Press
| Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:43 p.m

HARRISBURG — A Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice who is the brother of an indicted Philadelphia labor leader is denying that he knowingly benefited from any money allegedly embezzled from the union.

The Philadelphia Inquirer on Thursday cited five unidentified people familiar with the investigation as confirming Justice Kevin Dougherty is “family member No. 4” in court documents. The documents say union funds were used to pay to remove snow from the relative’s home in 2016 and for construction, repairs and painting in 2011.

Dougherty’s lawyer tells the newspaper he never knowingly accepted any improper benefits.

The judge is a Democrat elected in 2015. He is not accused of wrongdoing in the indictment. His lawyer says he paid for all work at his home and had no reason to know who shoveled his snow on the date in question.

The Associated Press has left messages with the lawyer seeking further comment.

Republicans are asking prosecutors and judicial ethics boards to review the matter.

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.