
Charges filed against citizen removed from Luzerne County Election Board meeting
Mar. 21—A citizen removed from Wednesday's Luzerne County Election Board meeting has been charged with simple assault, disrupting a meeting and other alleged offenses by the county sheriff's department.
The citizen, 68-year-old Plains Township resident Joe Granteed, regularly attends election board meetings and had repeatedly threatened litigation against the county Wednesday as he was taken out by sheriff deputies.
The criminal complaint alleges the following:
At approximately 7 p.m. Wednesday, Granteed spoke at the podium during public comment about his belief that the county should only use paper ballots in elections and then "began to verbally attack the members of the Luzerne County Board of Elections, stating that they should be removed and that the board's existence is unconstitutional."
When his allocated three minutes for speaking expired, he continued to speak "and became increasingly disruptive."
"As the defendant was returning to his seat, he continued to verbally assault the election board members, singling out Member Rick Morelli. Election Board Chairwoman Christine Boyle continuously told the defendant to take a seat and keep quiet."
It said the defendant refused.
Sheriff Deputy Jerry DeHaza approached Granteed and "attempted to calm him down, but he continued to act out and stated that Deputy DeHaza did not have any authority to remove anyone from the meeting."
DeHaza continued the attempts and unsuccessfully gave him several verbal commands to exit the courthouse.
Corporal Wanda Babula arrived and conferred with DeHaza, while Deputy Ryan Morgans remained in the meeting room.
Babula and DeHaza returned to Granteed, and both issued verbal commands to leave the courthouse, and Granteed refused.
Babula attempted to gather Granteed's belongings on the chair next to him, and Granteed stated she could not touch his belongings and "swatted her hands away."
"This prompted Deputy DeHaza to attempt to gain control of the defendant by taking a hold of the defendant's right arm. The defendant pushed Deputy DeHaza away by striking Deputy DeHaza in the right shoulder with his left hand and left abdomen with his right hand," it said.
While Morgans was attempting to gain control of Granteed's left arm, Granteed "swiped his arm away from Deputy Morgans and again struck Deputy DeHaza in the right shoulder with his left hand."
Granteed continued to state the deputies did not have the authority to remove him and that his First Amendment rights were being violated.
County Manager Romilda Crocamo told Granteed the deputies absolutely had the authority to remove him.
"The defendant continued to flail his body trying to break away" as DeHaza and Babula gained control of Granteed's right arm and Morgans controlled his left arm. DeHaza and Morgans lifted Granteed from the chair and removed him from the meeting room with assistance from Babula.
Granteed was escorted to the elevator and then "calmed down and finally stopped his flailing," prompting DeHaza and Morgans to release their hold on Granteed.
The deputies provided their names to Granteed at his request. He stated he was injured but left the courthouse without responding when asked if he required medical assistance, it said.
Video footage of the meeting has been preserved as evidence.
Granteed faces misdemeanor charges of simple assault, disrupting a meeting and disorderly conduct and a summary harassment charge. He was arraigned Friday morning and was released after posting bail, which was set at $25,000.
Granteed declined to comment Friday.
More background
Granteed's public comment largely expressed his dissatisfaction with an election board majority's selection last month of a Democrat (Boyle) to fill the fifth board chairmanship seat.
The county's home rule charter requires the four council-appointed election board members — two Republicans and two Democrats — to choose a fifth citizen of any affiliation or no affiliation. The seat was open because Denise Williams, a Democrat, resigned in December to run for county council.
The council-appointed board members are Republicans Alyssa Fusaro (vice chair) and Morelli and Democrats Albert Schlosser and Daniel Schramm.
Following public interviews of applicants for the fifth seat, Schlosser nominated Boyle, and Fusaro nominated Frank Yamrick, a Republican.
With only one round of voting required, Boyle was selected by Morelli, Schramm and Schlosser. Fusaro was the lone vote for Yamrick.
Morelli said he based his selection on the interviews. To avoid a tie-vote impasse, at least one board member must select a chair that is not from his/her party because three votes are required. The county Court of Common Pleas would have to fill the fifth seat if the board cannot reach a majority decision.
Here is a verbatim account of what transpired leading up to the sheriff department's intervention:
Granteed: First of all, if the object is to have free and fair and accurate elections, paper ballots are the only way to do that. Single election day. One election day. Voter ID. Tallied in the different wards by the people who run the wards and citizen witnesses. That's the only way you're going to have it. Any electronic system is subject to hacking, fraud and outside manipulation. We're wasting our time here if you want a free and fair election. It's easy to put paper ballots into use if you want to do it. I can't believe that we're still trying to run these elections the way we've run them over the last three or four years. They're so complicated. You could simplify everything by doing what I am suggesting.
The other thing I'd like to talk about is this board is made up currently of four Democrats and one Republican. Apparently Mr. Morelli forgot what he was seated to do.
The county is seeing — the country is seeing — that the Democrat party are nothing but criminals, traitors and frauds, and I'm afraid those descriptions are accurate in Luzerne County.
I'm calling for the resignation of everybody in this room and everybody in the (election) bureau.
The charter says that we're supposed to have equal representation, and after the vote for the chairperson — and this is nothing personal — but we did not get equal representation.
We have two spineless people on this board on the Democrat side and a walking example of fraud on the Republican side.
He voted against most conservative issues when you decided to show up for meetings and when you weren't in a hurry to get out of here.
This board is nothing but an unconstitutional group that doesn't represent the overwhelmingly conservative Luzerne County majority.
These issues should be decided by voters that are affected by the outcomes, not a partisan panel of activists that we thought had ended with the resignation of Denise Williams.
This board should be abolished due to its unconstitutional design and its unconstitutional charter design.
Chairwoman Boyle: Your time is up.
Granteed: Maybe Morelli supports drag queen story hour for children, radical trans surgeries for men and women..
Boyle: Sir. Sir. You are out of order. Your time is up. You will step away from the podium.
(As Granteed heads toward his seat, a sheriff deputy approached Granteed and pointed to the exit door as Morelli responded to Granteed.)
Morelli: Can I just ask you a quick question? What was I seated to do? What was I supposed to do? Please go ahead. Was I supposed to come in here and follow somebody? Maybe run for election one day, and you'll realize you've got to do the right thing. You'll learn how to do the right thing someday. I don't follow anyone's orders.
Fusaro: Banged the gavel three times.
Granteed: (Addressing the deputy sheriff) You don't work for them. You work for me. You put me out, and we're going to have a hell of a lawsuit against you. I can say whatever I want.
(The sheriff deputy temporarily left Granteed, who sat down)
Boyle: Ok, this conversation is done.
Boyle instructed the next speaker to approach the podium but then advised her to return to her seat until the matter with Granteed was resolved because two sheriff deputies approached Granteed to remove him.
As the two sheriff deputies were already attempting to remove Granteed, Crocamo spoke up for the first time and asked Granteed, "Sir, please leave."
Granteed told the deputies they have no authority "to take me out" and to not touch him, threatening a lawsuit.
Crocamo said the sheriff's department has absolute authority.
"He's disrupting the meeting. Remove him," Crocamo said.
Crocamo said later she had a responsibility to speak in support of the removal already initiated by sheriff deputies because he was resisting, and she oversees the sheriff's department and courthouse security.
There were counter-allegations of assault between Granteed and the deputies before they removed him.
Seeking clarity
Benjamin R. Herring sent a letter to Boyle Thursday indicating that his organization, Citizens Advisory of Pennsylvania, has been contacted "due to events that transpired" at Wednesday's election board meeting.
Herring said Granteed was providing comments during public comment "when a 'back and forth' ensued" between Granteed and Morelli.
"While we acknowledge and respect the decorum that is required per Roberts Rules as well as Luzerne County policy regarding conduct at meetings, the alleged incident that occurred may have been improperly handled. If in fact, Mr. Granteed was responding to comments being directed at him by Election Board Member Morelli, it would be hard to argue that he 'went over his allotted time,'" Herring wrote.
Herring said he will await posting of the video to "confirm what exactly transpired."
The board chair is the "sole authority" to enforce policy conformance during the meeting, maintaining that includes removal of a citizen, said Herring, who serves as the council-appointed Republican on the county ethics commission.
Video
Unlike county council meetings, no video of the election board meeting is posted on YouTube.
Scott Cannon, of Video Innovations, has an agreement to broadcast county council meetings for Service Electric Cable, and he agreed to post council meetings on YouTube more than a decade ago at the request of a council member for those outside the television station's broadcast area.
According to an October communication from Cannon, he started livestreaming county election board meetings independently several years ago as a public service when he was available, using free software from home and a private YouTube channel.
However, his October email said he would no longer be livestreaming election board meetings due to "conspiracy theories" about censorship spread on talk radio about a missed election board meeting. Cannon said he was unable to attend one election board meeting because he was filming a Wilkes-Barre League of Women Voters 119th District Forum held at the same time.
"Due to my wife's concern for these accusations and the potential for retaliation, I've decided to stop live streaming election board meetings. However, I'll continue broadcasting and livestreaming county council meetings per my agreement with Luzerne County," Cannon had said.
Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House tries to clarify Trump's threat to use 'heavy force' on 'any' military parade protesters
The White House on Wednesday attempted to clarify President Donald Trump's threat the day before to use "heavy force" against "any" protesters at the military parade this weekend in Washington celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary. "The president supports peaceful protests," press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a White House briefing after Trump on Tuesday did not distinguish between peaceful and violent protesters. "He supports the First Amendment. He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard," she added, after being asked what Trump would allow at the parade given his military response to the protests against his immigration policies in Los Angeles. "He does not support violence of any kind. He does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their job." "It's very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not," she said. "Unfortunately for Democrats, that line is not been made clear, and they've allowed this unrest in this violence to continue, and the president has had to step in." MORE: Trump warns 'any' protesters at military parade will be 'met with heavy force' The president's comments on Tuesday said protesters would be "met with heavy force" if they arrived in Washington for the parade, which occurs days after he sent the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests against operations conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "These are people who hate our country," he said in the Oval Office. "We're going to celebrate big on Saturday," Trump added. "If any protesters want to come out, they will be met with very big force." MORE: Nearly 7,000 troops, tanks and parachute jumps: Army confirms military parade coinciding with Trump's birthday U.S. Secret Service and local D.C. officials have said they only expect several small protests at Saturday's parade, and Trump himself on Tuesday night appeared to soften his earlier Oval Office comments somewhat, saying, "As long as we have the military there, the protests won't mean anything." "The military will be very heavy force -- very proud to tell you that," he told reporters who had asked him what he meant. "They might as well turn around. They're wasting their time." MORE: Army to go 'bigger' to mark its 250th. Could it be the military parade Trump wants? Tall fencing has been set up and other security measures have been taken around Washington in the lead-up to the parade -- measures the White House said are purely "proactive" and not in reaction to the protests in Los Angeles. "These are proactive security measures to protect those marching in the parade, many of whom will be veterans, and our brave men and women in uniform and Gold Star families," Leavitt said. "And of course, it's to protect the spectators who will be enjoying this incredibly patriotic show on Saturday." Leavitt's comments came as the first soldiers arrive in the district for the parade. MORE: Video Hegseth goes on the defensive over LA military deployment Approximately 6,700 soldiers will participate, and there will be eight marching bands, 24 horses, two mules and a dog. Dozens of tanks, military vehicles, howitzers and various aircraft, including those used in World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars, will be on display, and the Army on Wednesday added rocket launchers and precision-guided missiles to the festivities. The White House also made a last-minute request for the Air Force's Thunderbirds to fly over the parade, according to a U.S. official. The event has grown considerably in size in recent months, with a parade added after Trump's inauguration. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. ABC News' Anne Flaherty contributed to this report. White House tries to clarify Trump's threat to use 'heavy force' on 'any' military parade protesters originally appeared on
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Karoline Leavitt Snaps At Reporter For ‘Stupid Question' About Peaceful Protests
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt verbally slapped down a reporter for asking whether President Donald Trump would allow peaceful protests during Saturday's military parade. On Tuesday, Trump ramped up his language about demonstrators, warning that anyone who protests at his long-awaited event marking the Army's 250th birthday will be met with 'very heavy force.' So, it was perhaps to be expected that a correspondent would question Leavitt about the president's remarks at Wednesday's White House media briefing. NOTUS White House correspondent Jasmine Wright asked for a clarification on 'what kind of protest President Trump does support or find acceptable?' Leavitt replied that the president 'absolutely supports peaceful protests. He supports the First Amendment.' 'He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard,' she continued. 'He does not support violence of any kind. He does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their job. It's very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not.' Wright again sought clarity, asking: 'So if there were peaceful protests on Saturday for the military parade, President Trump would allow that?' Leavitt then gave the reporter short shrift. 'Of course, the president supports peaceful protests,' Leavitt told Wright. 'What a stupid question.' The $45 million parade in Washington, D.C. — which falls on the president's birthday — is expected to feature a display of military hardware and thousands of soldiers. Amid nationwide protests against immigration enforcement raids, Trump issued a warning from the Oval Office on Tuesday. 'If there's any protest that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force, by the way. And for those people that want to protest, they're gonna be met with very big force,' the president said. 'And I haven't even heard about a protest — but you know, this is people that hate our country,' he continued. 'But they will be met with very heavy force.' You can watch the White House exchange below. Trump Says Protesters At Weekend Military Parade Will Face 'Very Heavy Force' Cringe Karoline Leavitt Clip Perfectly Sums Up Trump's White House, Say Critics Karoline Leavitt Roasted Over Ridiculous Knock On Harvard Amid Trump Battle
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag
One of the more relevant maxims today, particularly in the age of social media, is the fact that saying the same thing over and over again does not make it a reality. There are many people—across the political spectrum—who should internalize this. President Donald Trump is one of them. While speaking at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, he re-upped an idea he has floated many times: "People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year," he told a crowd of U.S. service members in a now-viral clip. "And we'll see if we can get that done." They cannot, in fact, get that done. Trump is, of course, entitled to oppose flag burning on moral grounds. Many understandably find the act tasteless and offensive, as is their right. His administration will not be able, however, to address that using the blunt force of the law, as the highest law of the land already protects it as a form of free expression. This isn't new. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment," wrote U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1989, "it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." That came from his opinion in Texas v. Johnson, in which the Court said it was unconstitutional when Texas used a law criminalizing flag desecration to prosecute Gregory Lee Johnson, who had burned an American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan during the Republican National Convention. Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail. Sound familiar? Some lawmakers weren't happy with the Court's decision, so Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The law prescribed up to one year of incarceration for anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon" any American flag. In trying to dance around the Court's recent ruling, legislators got creative and shifted the focus of the law to preserving its literal physical integrity, which they hoped would be seen as content neutral. They were unsuccessful. "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering," wrote Brennan the next year in United States v. Eichman. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional. But what about recent high-profile prosecutions against people who burned the pride flag? There is a reason those cases were allowed to proceed under the Constitution: They concerned defendants who burned flags they stole. Law enforcement should not pursue hate crime enhancements for such offenses—or for any offenses, as prosecutors should be in the business of punishing bad acts, not bad thoughts. But there is a difference under the law between burning a flag you own, and stealing someone's property so you can then destroy it. You have a right to burn any type of flag you want, so long as it belongs to you, whether that be a pride flag, a pirate flag, a Pizza Hut flag, a "NO STEP ON SNEK" flag, an unofficial Antarctica flag (which appropriately looks a bit like a mistake), and an American flag. The list goes on. The debate here is increasingly fraught in a political climate that has a large appetite for red meat. "I'm with Trump on this one," said Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), an attorney, on X. "Anyone who burns our flag committing a crime should go to jail—double the sentence. Evidently all of Fort Bragg agrees." His phrasing is clever. Someone who "burns our flag committing a crime" will already be subject to arrest, prosecution, and jail for the crime they committed, because crimes are already illegal. That includes, for example, stealing and destroying an American flag—or any property—that doesn't belong to you. And, as Hawley certainly knows, if he is "with Trump on this one," then he is on board with prosecuting the expressive act itself, as the president has made clear over and over again. The latter idea is what some U.S. troops were heard cheering during Trump's speech. Their service in defense of freedom is admirable. But it's worth noting that they take oaths to the Constitution, not to the political moment. As Brennan reminded us decades ago, that document also protects the freedoms of people whose expression you may completely despise; any effort to uphold it has to include your ideological opposites, or it doesn't mean a lot. Perhaps ironically, nothing is more emblematic of that ideal than the American flag itself—and your right to do with it what you wish. The post Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag appeared first on