Mott submits financial records requested by Borough Authority
| Share This Story: |
BY JAMES LOEWENSTEIN
STAFF WRITER
On Nov. 24, Lee C. Swartz, who is the authority’s lead attorney in its civil lawsuit against Mott, had filed a motion in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas that would have required Mott to comply with an October 2007 court order, which directed her to turn over numerous financial documents.
William Hebe, the attorney representing Mott, “produced a lot of documents, so the motion was withdrawn” on Tuesday, Canton Borough Authority Solicitor Matthew Brann said.
In a conference call on Tuesday involving the judge and lawyers in the case, Hebe said he has produced “the documents that we were looking for,” Brann said.
Swartz had said he needed the financial documents in order to depose Mott.
In a related matter, a court hearing on the Commonwealth’s proposal to modify Mott’s restitution payment plan, which was scheduled for Dec. 30, has been postponed to Jan. 6.
The 53-year-old Mott, who is the authority’s former bookkeeper, had pleaded guilty in 2005 to four felony charges involving the theft of money from the authority over a six-year period.
James Loewenstein can be reached at (570) 265-1633; or e-mail: jloewenstein@thedailyreview.com
| Towanda council narrowly passes .56-mil tax increase | Ridgebury Twp. passes budget |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
Linda from New Albany wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:39 AM:
Bob H wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:48 AM:
Cathy from Athens wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:08 PM:
local lady wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:28 PM:
Canton boro resident wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:45 AM:
Justice wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:41 AM:
Put them both in jail unit its paid back..
Justice "
Another Boro Resident wrote on Jan 3, 2009 1:51 PM:
Of course, we would need to spend a VERY short time in minimum security, but we'd have a work release... to work at our own lawyer's office, if we matched the penalty with her.
But that's a dream, isn't it? If you or I would have done the same crime, we'd be in jail for a very long time, paying full restitution.
Only a smidgen of justice was served when John was not re-elected. No problem for them, as they just ran to a new mini-mansion, and picked up a law practice with a Williamsport firm.
Answers still need to be provided, and restitution is due, not only to the Authority but also to the people of Canton Boro. Surely, our water and sewer bills have been higher due to this scam, and remain so.
More importantly, what was passed over in the way of improvements and water treatment for the Boro due to this theft? What wasn't done, because the money 'wasn't there'?... Will anyone ever know?
Perhaps a sharp lawyer, unafraid of the supposed judicial 'inside' clout that John has, will someday file a class action suit on behalf of the people of Canton Borough. Seize all assets, sell them off, and give us back our money. Our health, on the other hand, is sadly lost forever. "
saw the lite wrote on Jan 3, 2009 5:59 PM:
I had to look three (3) times to make sure I was seeing what I saw: A ring so big & shiny that it almost blinded me!
Why couldn't she sell her trinkets to pay the bills she duefully owes the fine people of Canton?
How is that their house did not have a liene put on it?
If you or I owed a bill, it would be turned over to a bill collector & we would have had to pay more then a mere $200 a month...what a slap in the face. SELL THE RING BRENDA! "
Linda From New Albany wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:16 AM:
OMG wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:49 AM:
Sally wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:27 PM:
EDITOR'S NOTE: We challenge you to point out examples you claim are there. This is a straightforward news story. It contains no misstatements of fact and has no meanspiritedness. It simply reports a news development. "
Sally wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:57 PM:
directed at!!
EDITOR'S NOTE: Where are the specific examples? The value of your criticism cannot be measured in the absence of specifics. "
local lady wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:12 PM:
Sally wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:39 PM:
"not a very friendly person, never comes into Boro of Canton" - meanspirited and untrue, I just saw her recently participating in a Christmas eve church service in Canton Boro, I see her in town frequently, and she's always very friendly.
"put them both in jail" - meanspirited and unamerican. Here we don't punish one person for what another did. That's what they do in China.
"I sat next to Brenda Mott ..... saw a ring so big and shiny it almost blinded me" - Not true. I was there. I am pretty sure there is no such ring, and even if there were one, I know she did not have it on that night.
Enough?
EDITOR'S NOTE: To be precise, the purchase price we reported was $240,000.
Here is the complete entry regarding the ring:
"I sat nex to Brenda Mott the night her husband lost his seat in the court house. I had to look three (3) times to make sure I was seeing what I saw: A ring so big & shiny that it almost blinded me! Why couldn't she sell her trinkets to pay the bills she duefully owes the fine people of Canton? How is that their house did not have a liene put on it? If you or I owed a bill, it would be turned over to a bill collector & we would have had to pay more then a mere $200 a month...what a slap in the face. SELL THE RING BRENDA!"
These are reader opinions and fall within acceptable limits of free expression. Our efforts are to edit when necessary, not censor reasonable commentary. Application of such a standard can be subjective, but as we have said repeatedly, we make every effort to be even-handed. Clearly, you disagree, and we have published your points of view, as well. By the way, we have found some commentary critical of the Motts to be unacceptable and have not allowed it to be published.
We make no attempt to correct readers' spelling and grammar in this blog. "
OMG wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:10 PM:
Good night. "
fact checker wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:03 AM:
There is not enough space here to actually cite all of the misrepresentation of the facts, slanted reporting, and out-right lies that you have sold to the citizens of Bradford County regarding this case. Your articles and editorials have been infested with your biased opinions and out-right lies. You respond to posts critical of you by asking for specific details. Why do you not respond to posts critical of the Mott's in the same way? Challenge those that spread lies and rumors in the same fashion that you confront those that ask questions about your lies that you attempt to sell as news and honest reporting.
EDITOR'S NOTE: You are entitled to your opinion, which we publish for all to read, unsubstantiated, off base and anonymous though it is. "

Ned Hornish wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:31 AM:
My opinion, and it's no more than that, is this situation in the aggregate is becoming, or already has become, a farce. "