So I was in a room with Bob “Crooksy” Brooks this morning. No, there wasn’t a fist fight. I was too busy guzzling coffee to cause a scene. I did meet his manager though. Nice young lady, we have some common friends. I hope she enjoys her stay here in the Lehigh Valley. Well, most of it.

Friday a local activist leader let me know she really liked Crooksy when she met him. I’m not shocked, the guy tends bar at the Holy Family Club in Nazareth, that takes people skills. I mean, gotta talk for them tips, you know? Anyway, she said she asked him about my allegation that he took $55k from his mother-in-law, and he answered it satisfactorily for her. His answer? It was all part of a messy divorce.

You know what, I get why that makes sense. Divorces are inherently messy, right? If this was a question of when the suit itself was filed, or why, that might be satisfactory. The problem is, the actual issue happened years, and years before the legal proceeding. The case was decided in the Superior Court in 2021. The initial trial was in 2020. The actual case took place between 2004 and 2008. From the Superior Court opinion:

In June 2004, Michael Wiley transferred title to a residential building lot to his future daughter and son-in-law, Jennifer and Robert Brooks (Defendants).2Prior to the transfer, Michael Wiley funded the subdivision of the land, and Defendants agreed to pay him $55,500 for the cost of subdividing and the value of the lot. However, Defendants never paid Michael Wiley.

In 2008, at the request of Michael Wiley, Carol Wiley had a promissory note drafted which memorialized Defendants’ debt, and provided that Defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay CarolWiley $55,500 at 6.5% interest, in 120monthly payments of $630.19, beginning July 1, 2008. On July 12, 2008, Wiley and Defendants executed the promissory note in the presence of a notary. Defendants never made any of the payments prescribed in the promissory note.

On August 27, 2018, Wiley filed the underlying breach of contract action against Defendants. Brooks filed a reply and new matter on October 25, 2018 raising several affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations, statute of frauds, and lack of consideration. On October 31, 2018, the trial court entered default judgment against Jennifer Brooks after she failed to respond to the complaint. Wiley filed a response to Brooks’ new matter on November 13, 2018.

The court held abench trial on August 11, 2020. At the close of Wiley’s case, Brooks moved for compulsory nonsuit, asserting that the action was barred by the four year statute of limitations governing contracts, and that no consideration was given for the debt because Wiley did not own the real estate and did not advance funds. The court denied Brooks’ motion, but ordered the parties to file post-trial briefs addressing the statute of limitations and statute of frauds. After reviewing the briefs, the court on September 11, 2020 entered a verdict in favor of Wiley and awarded damages of $130,386.36.

Let me break that down as simply as possible. In 2004, Mr. Wiley funded a subdivision of a property to Brooksy and his soon-to-be wife, to the tune of $55k, and they agreed to pay him back. They didn’t pay a red cent back. In 2008, FOUR YEARS LATER, Mr. Wiley was concerned enough that they would never pay him back that he and his wife made Brooksy and their daughter sign in front of a notary that they would pay them back, on a schedule, with interest. They never made one payment. Not a dollar. TEN YEARS LATER, Mrs. Wiley sued him and their daughter. The daughter didn’t even bother to contest the case. He did. TWO YEARS later, it went to trial. Brooks did not contest that he signed the note, or that he didn’t pay them back. He basically said they waited too long to sue him and Mrs. Wiley wasn’t the actual person who gave him the money, so she couldn’t sue. The court rejected that argument.

I’m not a lawyer. I also know that divorces are messy. I’m not here to comment on the legal questions raised. Here’s what I know- this dude got a loan from his father and mother-in-law in 2004 and paid back not one cent for 14 years before it went to court. He doesn’t even contest that he stiffed them for 14 years. He basically tried to say they’re shit out of luck for waiting to hold him accountable.

This is not an issue of an ugly divorce. This is just basic dishonesty.

The DCCC rumor mill is loud these days. As they try to prop up candidates they like and penalize candidates they don’t, they tell folks things in hope that they put it out there. I’m more than happy to oblige. In PA-7, they want you to back Bob “Crooksy” Brooks, a deadbeat who stiffed his mother-in-law, and will be torn to shreds over it by Ryan Mackenzie and the GOP. The guy is DOA in the general election, and probably wouldn’t be good if he did win, but he makes money for their chosen consultants, who happen to also be Senator Fetterman’s team, and he’s the head of a union. Sure, he’s a bad candidate, but he furthers some folks careers. So they want you to know that “Crooksy” is going to blow away the other four Democrats in fundraising, as this guy did last reporting period. They are telling people that Bob “Crooksy” Brooks will raise $400k in the third quarter.

Crooksy’s number, if he actually reaches it (a month ago they were saying $200k, so read into it what you will), is pretty decent. It’s not shocking though, nor is it a number that makes him a prohibitive favorite. “Crooksy” Brooks hired folks who helped build Bernie Sanders and John Fetterman’s mythological campaigns, and also raised a bunch of money when people believed they were working class heroes. In Fetterman’s case he raised a bunch of money online and basically drowned his primary opponents, before going on to basically vote with the Republican Party in the United States Senate. Crooksy is just their new grift to get paid. With three full quarters of fundraising, and reasonable depreciation built into it after his launch, Crooksy would be on pace to reasonably raise about $1 million for this race. The problem for Crooksy is he starts way behind, and people don’t really like him more once they’re told about him. He’ll need to spend most of his million introducing himself and making people like him, and that’s assuming no one comes in and tells the voters he’s a gun nut racist, who stiffs his mother-in-law, to the cost of a few hundred thousand dollars. He’ll need a lot more.

Then there’s Union-Busting Ryan Crosswell, who was at one point the darling of the Washington types, but then the DCCC got some flack for running a Republican and backed away. The truth is that they’d still be fine with Crosswell as their nominee, but they know they can’t say that out loud, and now they got some static from the district, so they have to pretend they don’t like him. The truth? He’s probably actually better than Crooksy, provided that you don’t care at all what your Congressman actually believes, or if they actually have any grassroots support in the district they aren’t even from, or really if you just don’t care about anything. Since they know Crosswell is a bad look, they have to at least go through the motions of shitting on him. They are putting out there that he will not hit his $300k goal for the third quarter, as donors back away from him as they learn more. If Crooksy wasn’t better for business for the Beltway types, I’d predict him getting this same treatment next quarter.

Then there’s poor Carol Obando-Derstine, an actual Democrat from the Lehigh Valley who doesn’t hate Colin Kaepernick. Sure, Carol’s pretty corporate in her career choices, but she at least has business running in this race. So of course, the Beltway crowd wanted her to drop out, thereby pushing any women candidates out of the race. Then, when she got endorsements from some Latino Groups and Emily’s List, Bernie’s DSA goons made sure to deny her the SEIU endorsement that the local members wanted to give her. Crooksy needed that endorsement, stealing from his mother-in-law wasn’t going to finance this campaign on it’s own! Honestly, this kind of treatment of a former Democratic staffer is a really bad look, but she’s in the way of the fat cats getting paid. The Beltway elites want you to know that her entire campaign staff is fleeing her in droves, and she’s refusing to raise money. They’re predicting she’ll raise “under $100k.” She might. They want you to know that though so you back their chosen candidate though.

Then there’s Lamont McClure, Northampton County’s two-term Executive, who isn’t raising cash fast enough for their liking. To hear these Beltway warlords tell it, McClure might not report any money at all this quarter. Dude can’t even rub together two nickels for heat. What’s the guy even doing in the race? We know he gave himself $200k this quarter, so I assume he’ll raise that much at least. They assume though that the one candidate to win a major local office in this race is dead at this point. In fact, that’s their excuse for why the Governor didn’t tell him to drop out. To date, my math says he’s raised at least $430k for this race, which is less than Crosswell for sure, and maybe Crooksy, but probably enough for him to stay in. Basically though, the Beltway Chieftains want you to know that while local voters, elected officials, and unions always like him, he’s dead.

Then there’s Mark Pinsley. The rumor here is he’s still on Planet Earth. Poor Dude won a couple of elections and these folks act like he doesn’t even exist. They didn’t even take time to shit on him in their rumors. Hell, they didn’t even let lunatic Bernie endorse him, and he’s trying to run like him. I guess they hope he just goes off and runs for State Senate, again.

Part of the reason the Democratic Party loses is voters see right through our astroturf narratives. Republicans put up authentic lunatics, we put up Crooksy. It seems that in the case of PA-7, the Beltway Elites are desperate to find literally anyone to be their candidate besides a Democrat from the Lehigh Valley. I’m sure voters will love that.