18 MAY 2012 10:27 am M. COVIN HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D., and ANITA NEVYAS-WALLACE, M.D.

, and NEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C., Plaintiffs vs. DOMINIC MORGAN, and STEVEN A FRIEDMAN : : : : : : : : : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL DIVISION Philadelphia County NOVEMBER TERM, 2003 NO. 946

PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this ____ day of _____, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant Morgans Post-Hearing Motion and responses thereto, the Motion is GRANTED and: 1.
2.

This courts April 19, 2012 Order is VACATED, and Plaintiffs 11/29/11 Petition for Civil Contempt and Sanctions is DENIED. BY THE COURT:

__________________ Victor J. DiNubile, Jr., S.J.

Case ID: 031100946 Control No.: 12052374

Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperis PO Box 1011 Marlton, NJ 08053 (610) 364-3367 _________________________________________ HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D., and : ANITA NEVYAS-WALLACE, M.D., and : NEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C., : Plaintiffs : : vs. : DOMINIC MORGAN, and : STEVEN A FRIEDMAN : Defendants :

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL DIVISION Philadelphia County NOVEMBER TERM, 2003 NO. 946

DEFENDANT MORGANS POST-HEARING MOTION - THE TRIAL COURTS APRIL 19, 2012 ORDER VIOLATES PA.R.A.P.1701 1. The trial courts March 16, 2011 verdict, quoted below, found insufficient proof of any defamatory material not withdrawn years earlier. This Court finds that the material published by Morgan was defamatory and that he had previously agreed to withdraw it [in 2003] from the various websites and to refrain from making further publications. Morgan has maintained that he has not breached this agreement. This court finds that there was insufficient proof that there was a breach of this agreement. In order to protect the Plaintiffs in the future, however, this court has issued an injunctive order.... March 16, 2011 verdict at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW 10 (underlining added). 2. The trial courts April 28, 2011 Order, quoted below, says the defamatory material was all removed by 2005, if not by 2003. Plaintiffs maintain that this Courts injunctive Order against Morgan was ambiguous. This Court respectfully disagrees. A reading of the injunctive Order, coupled with the findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, make it clear that Morgans publications in the summer of 2003 were defamatory and that Morgan and the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement shortly thereafter, in which Morgan agreed to discontinue the publication of the defamatory material. In 2005, Judge Maier found that a valid settlement agreement existed, which was affirmed by the Superior Court. This Court has confirmed the previous rulings precluding publication of subsequent defamatory material. Paragraph Ten of this Courts Additional Findings of Fact states that there has been no proof of subsequent violations, at least since the hearing by Judge Maier. Whether Morgan breached

Case ID: 031100946 Control No.: 12052374

the Settlement Agreement prior to the hearing before Judge Maier does not, in any way, affect the legal significance of this Courts injunctive Order. April 28, 2011 Order at 1 (underlining added). 3. The trial courts June 17, 2011 Opinion for the Superior Court, quoted below, says the defamatory material was all removed by 2005, if not by 2003. Plaintiffs also argue on appeal that this Courts injunctive Order against Morgan was ambiguous. This Court respectfully disagrees. A reading of the injunctive Order, coupled with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, make it clear that Morgans publications in the summer of 2003 were defamatory and that Morgan and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement shortly thereafter, in which Morgan agreed to discontinue the publication of the defamatory material. In 2005, Judge Maier found that a valid settlement agreement existed, which was affirmed by the Superior Court. This Court has confirmed the previous rulings precluding publication of subsequent defamatory material. Paragraph Ten of this Courts Additional Findings of Fact states that there has been no proof of subsequent violations, at least since the hearing by Judge Maier. Whether Morgan breached the Settlement Agreement prior to the hearing before Judge Maier does not, in any way, affect the legal significance of this Courts injunctive Order. June 17, 2011 Opinion for Superior Court at p. 8 (underlining added) 4. From the time of the March 16, 2011 Order (see #1 above) through April 18, 2012 there were no text or document changes or additions made to any website owned or operated by Morgan. 5. There were no text or document changes or additions made on or about July 27, 2011 to any website owned or operated by Morgan. 6. Pa.R.A.P.1701 does not permit the trial court to change either its verdict or the status quo while the matter is on appeal. 7. This matter, captioned above, is currently on appeal as consolidated 1573 EDA 2011,1572 EDA 2011, and 1605 EDA 2011. 8. The trial courts April 19, 2012 Order enjoins Morgan from publishing some items and orders him to publish other items.

Case ID: 031100946 Control No.: 12052374

10. 11. 12.

The trial courts April 19, 2012 Order changes its March 16, 2011 verdict (see #1 above). The trial courts April 19, 2012 Order changes the status quo. The trial courts April 19, 2012 Order violates Pa.R.A.P.1701.

WHEREFORE, the trial court should vacate its April 19, 2012 Order as per the attached Proposed Order.

Date: May 17, 2012

__________________________ Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperis

Case ID: 031100946 Control No.: 12052374

VERIFICATION: I, Dominic J. Morgan, defendant pro se and in forma pauperis verify these statements to be true, and understand that these statements are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Very respectfully submitted,

Date: May 17, 2012

__________________________ Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperis

Case ID: 031100946 Control No.: 12052374

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify that a true and correct copy of the attached document has been e-mailed or mailed first class prepaid to the persons listed below on the date listed below. Honorable Victor J. DiNubile, Jr. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas 143 City Hall Philadelphia, PA 19107 Trial Judge Leon Silverman, Esquire Stein & Silverman, P.C. 230 South Broad Street, 18th Floor Philadelphia, PA. 19102 maryellen@steinandsilverman.com Maureen Fitzgerald, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 620 Freedom Business Center - Suite 300 King of Prussia, PA 19406 mpfitzgerald@mdwcg.com Meg Clark 100 South Broad Street Land Title Building, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19110 Meg.clark@phila.courts.gov Official Court Reporter Very respectfully submitted,

Date: May 17, 2012

__________________________ Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperis

Case ID: 031100946 Control No.: 12052374

Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperis PO Box 1011 Marlton, NJ 08053 (610) 364-3367 HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D., : ANITA NEVYAS-WLLACE, M.D., : and NEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C. : Plaintiffs : v. : DOMINIC MORGAN and : STEVEN FRIEDMAN : Defendants :

Defendant pro se & in forma pauperis

Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County Civil Trial Division November Term, 2003 No. 00946

REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT A Notice of Appeal being filed in this matter, the official Court Reporter is/are hereby ordered to produce, certify, and file the transcript in this matter in conformity with Pa.R.A.P. 1922. This Request is made in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1911. Defendant Morgan, who represents himself pro se, was granted in forma pauperis status by Judge Manfredi on February 15, 2005, and has verified continuation of that status by filing two (2) copies of a verification in compliance with Pa. R.A.P. 551. Defendant Morgan is legally blind. At the 2011 trial, the Court ordered a large TV-type monitor for his use. Defendant Morgan respectfully asks for all copies to be full-paged and also in PDF format for reasonably easy enlargement onto a large TV-type monitor; and permission to use copies of the trial transcript in every way he feels appropriate to effectively represent himself pro se, including permission to provide copies to attorneys who may be interested in representing him pro bono and in forma pauperis.

Date: May 17, 2012

_______________________________

Case ID: 031100946 Control No.: 12052374