MontCo Filing - 7-5-11

ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D. 1219 Fairacres Road Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911 Petitioner, v.
TOWNSHIP OF ABINGTON 1176 Old York Road Abington, Pennsylvania 19001 Respondent, BAEDERWOOD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1301 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Intervenor * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION
JURY-TRIAL REQUESTED
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. 1219 Fairacres Road Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911 [215=333-4900] pro se MOTION TO QUASH INTERVENOR BAEDERWOOD LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS MOTION TO QUASH PROCEDURAL CHALLENGE AND ALTERNATE REQUEST FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A BOND
I, Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., certify that the following statements are true and accurate. This Reply is filed pursuant tonotice that a hearing has been scheduled for July 12, 2011 regarding the 6/29/2011 Motion filed by Intervenor Brandolini, seeking to impede [by quashing, dismissing or imposing a mandate that Petitioner post a bond] the Procedural Challenge to adoption by Abington of an Ordinance creating a Fairway Transit District. This counter-Motion is derivative of the Reply
thereto (filed on 7/1/2011), the contents of which have been mainstreamed (to maximize judicial efficiency) while recognizing its unorthodox character. Parties and Narrative 1. Petitioner does not challenge the Intervenors factual rendition of the case as portrayed in 1-14, except to the degree to which pejorative language has been utilized (e.g., incomprehensible); certain details thereof, however, profoundlyundermine the credibility of the legal-author thereof.
2.
Specifically, concern must be trained on one assertion { 14} that is intended to mislead the Court[Promptly upon the Courts issuance of its June 15, 2011 Order, the Township advised Landowner of the filings by Appellant and the Courts June 15, 2011 Order, and on June 27, 2011, Landowner filed a Notice of Intervention in the procedural appeal.] because the Solicitor [while in-chambers] specifically told the Court [in the presence of the Petitioner] that he had notified the Landowner last week of the Petitioners filing [and, thus, of the opportunity to have filed an Intervention Notice prior to June 15, 2011]so the Landowner cannot reasonably assert prior ignorance thereof.
3.
This recollection is particularly consequential because, operationally and ethically, attorneys are to function as Officers of the Court and, thus, must not obfuscate when portraying their involvement [or lack thereof] in the proceedings thereof; in this case, therefore, Landowner overtly has tried to mislead the Court into drawing an incorrect conclusion, namely, that Petitioner was so secretive about this entire challenge that Landowners interests were somehow compromised in the process.
4.
To the contrary, Petitioner has been quite vocal about this effort [as Landowner has illustrated by appending an excerpt of Petitioners blogging effort], and it has been cited during meetings of the Board of Commissioners [time permitting] in order to educate the populace as to the sad conduct of multiple people in trusted governmental positions [including, in particular, Commissioner Kline, who had spearheaded the effort to
steamroller the Commissioners into approving the rezoning]. 5. Thus, the political component of Petitioners rendition of personal conduct was consistent with an assertion that had already been filed before Landowners filing had been acquired{see 11}: It is recognized that a recognized method to resolve concerns regarding the honesty of any public official is to invoke the ballot-box but, in this instance, specific statutory violations are alleged.
6.
{Indeed, Petitioner lambasted Kline for having attacked another Commissioner [Wachter] for inviting a known-critic of Human Rights Commissions [for
gays/lesbians/bisexuals/transgenders] to a subcommittee meeting that is studying the creation of one such entity within Abington Township; he likened this conduct to inviting a member of the KKK to a study of laws affecting African-Americans or a Nazi to a discussion of Judaism [paraphrased] during the 5/12/2011 meeting of the Abington Board of Commissioners {seehttp://abington.org/channel43.htm}, denying the fact that the optimal way to formulate quality-legislation is to encompass input from its harshest critics.}
7.
Thus, to the Petitioner, there is no conflicting motive experienced when criticizing Kline, noting the documentation of his having consciously/repeatedly misled the public, and publicizing this fact will continue to be a priority when depicting the reprehensible behavior 3
exhibited by trusted-people; although the political-motive is recognized, this is totally factdriven [and, thus, open to critique].
8.
Contrasting this candor with the pre-meditated portrayal of what transpired by the Landowner, it is desirable to cite from the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct to determine whether the aforementioned filing has indeed run afoul of what the Court should expect from an attorney [see
http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/documents/RulesOfProfessionalConduct.pdf]; citing from this document is intended solely to ensure that the applicable reference is invoked when drawing reasonable conclusions about present [and, perhaps, projected] (mis)conduct. 9. Of-interest from Pennsylvanias canons of judicial ethics that attorneys are expected to exhibit by the public and by the Courtare the following excerpts from the currently-
active portrayal; phraseology that has been underlined is of particular import when an attorney fails to uphold his societal duty to ensure public-trust is maintained in the legal professioneven under the rules of law and of the adversary systemby being competent, prompt and diligent when maintaining communication with a client concerning his representation thereof, rather than attempting touse the law's procedures to harass or intimidate (rather than only for legitimate purposes): PREAMBLE: A Lawyer's Responsibilities [1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having a special responsibility for the quality of justice. As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the clients legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously 4
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
asserts the clients position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others. In addition to these representational functions, a lawyer may serve as a third-party neutral, a nonrepresentational role helping the parties to resolve a dispute or other matter. Some of these Rules apply directly to lawyers who are or have served as third-party neutrals. See, e.g., Rules 1.12 and 2.4. In addition, there are Rules that apply to lawyers who are not active in the practice of law or to practicing lawyers even when they are acting in a nonprofessional capacity. For example, a lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of a business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. See Rule 8.4. In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt and diligent. A lawyer should maintain communication with a client concerning the representation. A lawyer should keep in confidence information relating to representation of a client except so far as disclosure is required or permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer's duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process. As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public's understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. A lawyer should aid the legal profession in pursuing these 5
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
objectives and should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest. Many of a lawyer's professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law. However, a lawyer is also guided by personal conscience and the approbation of professional peers. A lawyer should strive to attain the highest level of skill, to improve the law and the legal profession and to exemplify the legal profession's ideals of public service. A lawyer's responsibilities as a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen are usually harmonious. Thus, when an opposing party is well-represented, a lawyer can be a zealous advocate on behalf of a client and at the same time assume that justice is being done. So also, a lawyer can be sure that preserving client confidences ordinarily serves the public interest because people are more likely to seek legal advice, and thereby heed their legal obligations, when they know their communications will be private. In the nature of law practice, however, conflicting responsibilities are encountered. Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict between a lawyer's responsibilities to clients, to the legal system and to the lawyer's own interest in remaining an ethical person while earning a satisfactory living. The Rules of Professional Conduct often prescribe terms for resolving such conflicts. Within the framework of these Rules, however, many difficult issues of professional discretion can arise. Such issues must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the Rules. These principles include the lawyer's obligation zealously to protect and pursue a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the legal system. The legal profession is largely self-governing. Although other professions also have been granted powers of self-government, the legal profession is unique in this respect because of the close relationship between the profession and the processes of government and law enforcement. This connection is manifested in the fact that ultimate authority over the legal profession is vested largely in the courts. To the extent that lawyers meet the obligations of their professional calling, the occasion for government regulation is obviated. Selfregulation also helps maintain the legal profession's independence from government domination. An independent legal profession is an important force in preserving government under law, for abuse of legal authority is more readily challenged by a profession whose members are not dependent on government for the right to practice. 6
[12]
[13]
The legal profession's relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves. Lawyers play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship to our legal system. The Rules of Professional Conduct, when properly applied, serve to define that relationship.
{This excerpt is purposefully incomplete; intent is to show the existence of an issue.}
10.
Therefore, in his response to this filing, Mr. Kaplin is formally invited to divulge unequivocally What did you know and when did you know it? regarding when he first learned of this filing; although he may wish to portray such a request as tangential to the major proceedings herein, implications are myriad [to be explored infra] when assessing the credibility of other assertions that are prominent in his filing and, thus, knowledge of his fundamental understanding of his role is clearly of-interest when anticipating how he is to function during future interactions [assuming this matter is not resolved on the Townshiplevel, consistent with multiple efforts being promulgated by Petitioner that would be perceivable as functioning at cross-purposes with his politicsfor the ability to invoke continued existence of this litigation would instantly no longer be extant]. COUNT I
11.
Petitioners standing is challenged, notwithstanding awareness [because a copy thereof has been affixed to the filing] of the explicit judicial-orderapplicable in this casethat Petitioners standing not be subject to any challenge [see Point #3]; although further 7
elaboration should not be needed, it is noted that both legal citations provided by Mr. Kaplin are inapposite to his basic argument.
12.
In
discussion
of
Spahn,[http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1095018.html],
disclaiming any standing simply as a taxpayer is pivotal [despite the fact that Petitioner had not included any such assertion in any of these filings]; furthermore, the gravamen of the case-law (reflected in the quoted vignette, infra) does not capture the health/safety assertions that thread through all of Petitioners filings [emphasizing that increasing congestion at the T-Intersection choke-point would impede movement of emergency vehicles, not just delay movement of his own automobile]: Spahn lived approximately one and a half blocks from the subject properties, but that he only walked by the properties every day. Thus, the court concluded that Spahn's interest was no different from the interest common to all citizens regarding obedience to the law.
13.
And Northampton is tangential, for Petitioner is not (nor has he portrayed himself as representing) any type of community group (which might, consequently, be comprised of people who themselves do not properly merit being granted formal standing status within the judicial system)
[http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19740730_0041446.PA.htm/qx ].
14.
Therefore, the claim that Petitioner has not alleged a substantive property right that will be directly affected by the FTD Ordinance and/or the FTD Map Amendment is both
contradictory to the unambiguous judicial-order and unsupported [particularly use of the word property] in the cites. COUNT II 15. Petitioners compositional style is challenged, but its length is misconstrued as having sacrificed the need to be concise; here, because of the compulsion of a pro se litigant to ensure that all key-concerns have been pled, it is mandatory that its content be weighed preferentially; at no time has any evidence of due-diligence scrutiny of its assertions been demonstrated in this filing.
16.
Nevertheless, to preclude ambiguity [when tracing the pathway from the database through its reasonable assessment to conclusions incontrovertibly drawn therefrom], the recent judicial filing includes eight conclusory categories [buttressed by previously-generated facts] for candid review.
17.
Therefore, Landowners are invited to provide a paragraph-by-paragraph response thereto, rather than attempting to dismiss it peremptorily; obviously, if any of its components is viewed as unclear, Petitioner would be more than happy to elaborate thereupon [and document further its rationale].
COUNT III 18. It is possible that the retention skills of the Landowners are problematic, inasmuch as citations from the Petitioners filing are overtly incomplete; for example, procedural aberrations are tethered constantly toprospectively-articulated plans of the CommissionerChair to ensure all questions would be aggregated and addressed after completion of 9
public-comment [a conclusion drawn from her oral comments and reinforced when observing her scrupulous note-taking] and, thus, pivotal when portraying concerns with what occurred is violation of the mandate that a governmental entity follow its own rules [particularly those that had been specifically sculpted for the instant-case], notwithstanding additional concerns that the public was unanimously opposed to adoption of the Ordinances for myriad, specific, clearly-articulated, highly-germane, minimally-repetitive reasons. COUNT IV - CAUSATION 19. It is alleged that Petitioners political motives inter alia are intended to delay prompt resolution of a frivolous claim; discounting the allegation of frivolity is rather simple [and notably left unaddressed within this filing] when noting that the two-pronged concern has been exhaustively documented [health/safety and ignoring MontCos specified-critique by ignoring it and/or misportraying it].
20.
The best way to undermine the political component of this set of allegations is to scrutinize the distilled filing [which has crossed in the mail because the filing of the Landowners was received on the very same day the Substantive filing was delivered to the Township, less than 48-hours after the filing of the Landowners with the Township had been received]; thus, despite the desire of Petitioner to ensure maximal voter education transpires, every effort has been expended to prompt the Abington Zoning Board to issue a decision expeditiously; again, reference is made to the point made in all prior filings, namely, that the core-effort has been to provide relevant experiential data.
10
21.
Candidly, Petitioner is bemused by the reportage associated with what transpired at a luncheon [financed by the Township Manager, to pay-off a friendly-wagerpreliminarily], for intent to cite the word Kline as often as possible [as the Dybbuk-in-the-piece, noting sadly that he has consistently perpetrated lies/misrepresentations and/or sloppy public service, evidenced by how he had claimed endorsement by the MontCo Planning Commission while failing to revise the Ordinances as per the non-
conditional/myriad/explicit recommendations thereof] is not equivalent to claiming Petitioner intends to make the zoning hearing board hearings all about Commissioner Steven Kline and to referencing the classic Senatorial filibuster technique of decades ago when attempting to preclude adoption of civil-rights legislation [noting that three other items are on the July agenda and that control over chronology is clearly maintained under the aegis of the Zoning Board members]. 22. Also, in the interest of full-disclosure, the following assertion was used as a cover memo when distributing awareness of the distilled filing [from ~1100 pages to 208 pages, including attachments] that had been prepared ASAP for the upcoming Zoning Board hearing
[allowing for pre-review of the major tenets thereof, expediting the proceedings to the optimal power of this Petitioner]: THE ESSENCE OF WHAT IS REQUESTED FROM THE READER IS AS FOLLOWS. 1. PLEASE ATTEND THE MEETING, AND CRITIQUE EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID/WRITTEN. 2. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MAJOR PROCEDURAL DEFECT IS ON PAGES 123126 OF THE FILING, namely, the DETAILED REPORT BY THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WAS, ALAS, IGNORED; INSTEAD, ELITIST-PROPONENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE CLAIMED THAT THIS ENTITY HAD APPROVED THE PROPOSAL. THEY LIED, FAILING TO REPORT (let alone respond to) THE UNAMBIGUOUSLY CONDITIONAL CHARACTER OF THE LAST SENTENCE: PROVIDED THE CHANGES SUGGESTED ABOVE ARE 11
MADE. [Merely considering them wouldnt have sufficed, although even that gesture of recognition was not to occur.] 3. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD WILL BE COMPELLED TO ADVISE THAT AT LEAST ONE [IF NOT ALL] INPUT FROM MontCo BE HONORED; THIS WILL INSTANTLY VALIDATE THE NEED FOR THIS PROCESS TO HAVE TRANSPIREDEVEN IF NOTHING ELSE OCCURS. 4. THEREFORE, THE ENDORSEMENT NEEDED IS SIMPLY TO SUPPORT MY EFFORT TO ASK THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED ON THE COUNTY-LEVEL BE ASSESSEDAND HONORED UNLESS A COMPELLING REASON CAN BE DISCERNED TO SUPPLANT ANY INDIVIDUAL DATUM. 5. IN ADDITION, THE MANDATE FOR A TRAFFIC STUDYDUE INTER ALIA TO THE CHOKE-POINT AT THE T-INTERSECTION [OF SUSQUEHANNA ROAD AND WASHINGTON LANE]BE CONDUCTED PERMEATES THE INPUT PROVIDED BY MULTIPLE OFFICIAL ENTITIES OVER THE DECADES. 6. THE DENSITY-PROBLEM SHOULD BE RECTIFIED BEFORE ANY OVERT PERMISSION IS GRANTED THAT IT BE EXACERBATED BY CONSTRUCTION OF UPWARDS OF ~300 NEW UNITS, NEARBY. 7. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS NOT DISCRETIONARY, FOR THE POLICE-POWER OF THE TOWNSHIP MUST BE APPLIED WHEN THE HEALTH/SAFETY IS KNOWINGLY-CHALLENGED BY IMPEDING THE MOVEMENT OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES [AS PER THE REALEN OPINION BY THE PASUPREMES]. 8. THEREFORE, THE ENDORSEMENT NEEDED IS SIMPLY TO SUPPORT MY EFFORT TO ASK THAT THE RECOGNIZED TRAFFIC-CONGESTION PROBLEM BE CONFRONTED/RECTIFIED BEFORE ANY CARTE-BLANCHE APPROVAL IS GRANTED FOR AN OVERLAY-ORDINANCE IN THIS REGION. 9. BECAUSE GUZZARDI DEMANDS ONE SENTENCE WITH ONLY TWO SECTIONS, THE ABOVE HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED FOR SPEED-READERS [USING PARENTHESES TO AFFORD COMPLETENESS]. 10. OPPOSITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FAIRWAY TRANSIT DISTRICT IS MANDATORY FOR ABINGTON CITIZENS/RESIDENTS/VOTERS BECAUSE (A)THE TOWNSHIP MUST PRESERVE THE HEALTH/SAFETY BY ENSURING MOVEMENT OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES IS NOT IMPEDED BY INEVITABLE ENHANCEMENT OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION; AND (B)THE TOWNSHIP MUST HONOR FOUR REPORTS PROVIDED THERETO, UNLESS SPECIFIC REASONS CAN BE GIVEN TO IGNORE THE CHORUS OF SUGGESTIONS THEREIN [THE OLD YORK ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY, THE ABINGTON TOWNSHIP PLAN, THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING 12
COMMISSION, COMMISSION].
AND
THE
ABINGTON
TOWNSHIP
PLANNING
REMEMBER, THE PRELIMINARY INPUT REQUESTED SIMPLY UPDATES THE POSITION ADOPTED IN 2009, WHEN THE RMCA UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED A VIRTUALLY-IDENTICAL PROPOSAL. MERELY ASSERTING THAT THIS PRELIMINARY OPINION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF AN UPDATE [FOLLOWING DUE-DILIGENCE STUDY] WILL SUFFICE, SENDING A MESSAGE THAT SCRUTINY IS SORELY-NEEDED!
23.
One particular observation is of-interest when assessing the blogging provided by Petitioner, which was specifically prompted by recognition that rezoning efforts in suburban counties are, indeed, intended to enhance the density thereof [as had been predicted in prior emanations issued by Petitioner regarding the Baederwood/Brandolini Gambit]; a concerted effort has unabashedly been promulgated to educate the populace that the Abington effort is a microcosm of a looming conflict between those who would invite outmigration of those fleeing Philadelphia [due inter alia to safety/taxation concerns] and those who would want to preserve their suburban life-styles.
24.
Within this context, Brandolini excerpted a quotation from a 6/18/2011 posting [see 46]: It is curious to note that Kline is now claiming that he won, despite the facts that I sought remand and he [via Herder] sought quashing of my filing. He claims that the judge failed to toss the Ordinance, but he fails to note this was not a goal that had been sought; rather, the remand will allow for the community to become activated [enhanced by the Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association, which he had lulled into a coma via its past-President]. This will be occurring during the pre-election season, and everyone who attends the Zoning Hearings will be reminded [repeatedly, incessantly, overand-over, repetitively, continually and constantly] that his re-election in the fall would reward conduct that is antithetical to the basic suburban lifestyle that they pay taxes to maintain. (emphasis supplied)
13
25.
This quotation was [mis]portrayed thusly by Brandolini: Appellants oral and written statements demonstrate that Appellant instituted both his procedural challenge and his substantive challenge for an unlawful purpose to harass Township officials, to delay matters until the next election, and to attempt to bring pressure to bear upon the Township Commissioners to rescind the FTD Ordinance and FTD Map Amendment[quoting 47, see also 44]; to the contrary, Petitioners effort was rooted in comments delivered during the two 2009 Hearings and continually thereafter.
26.
Furthermore, amicable exchanges were held with Kline on multiple occasions, as documented in the previously-provided [and supplemented] record: (a)one year ago [see 32, infra], he told a group of approximately a dozen people of his take on the Baederwood/Brandolini controversy; and (b)when Klines response toPetitioners initial concerns with the Ordinances was publicly characterized as FANTASTIC! [See the
indented-paragraph in the 12/20/2010 memo written by Petitioner to Klinea copy of which was provided in the packet given to each member of the Board of Commissioners before the 1/6/2011 Public Hearingwhich starts on the 136th page of the submission to the Abington Zoning Board, which was appended to the 7/1/2011 Reply filing.] 27. There is also no evidence that Petitioners filing was intended to harass Township officials; indeed, interlaced within the filings was unsolicited recognition of their operational assistance and of a highly amicable level of interaction therewith [even so much so that the Township Manager even financed Petitioners triple-lunch plus that of a surprise date (Robert R. Guzzardi, Esquire) [see 21, supra], and Brandolini has failed to postulate why Petitioner would gain any particular benefit from having targeted these trusted employees, engaged in customary public-service. 14
28.
And there is no evidence that Petitioner wishes to delay matters until the next election [arguendo that Petitioner would harbor any control over the conduct of the members of the Zoning Board; nevertheless, as SECONDARY GAIN, Petitioner envisions pushing for heightened awareness of these proceedings after Labor Day, after which voters traditionally begin to pay some attention.
29.
Finally, indeed, for their own benefit, Petitioner confesses to an attempt to bring pressure to bear upon the Township Commissioners to rescind the FTD Ordinance and FTD Map Amendment, attempts that are ongoing and thatit is hopedwill be adjudged during their 7/14/2011 meeting; as has been averred repeatedly, were Abington to decide to start
over again, Petitioners overall legal effort would dematerialize instantly [notwithstanding residual ethical issues with Mr. Kaplin].
30.
Regardless of the degree of veracity of this tri-partite allegation [as critiqued supra], Brandolini has failed to cite any statute that renders any of these alleged stand-alone motives to be unlawful, particularly when, clearly, they are mutually exclusive of the substantive and procedural claims documented in the multiple filings promulgated by Petitioner [indeed, remitted to just about anyone and everyone who might not reject the opportunity to partake, reformulated to befit anticipated reception, and distilled for those who would wish only cursory information about local issues]. COUNT IV - DAMAGES
31.
Finally, having dispensed with any undertone of any ulterior motive, Petitioner challenges the claim that Landowner will suffer significant damages and may, in fact, suffer 15
irreparable harm if Appellants frivolous procedural challenge to the FTD Ordinances and/or FTD Map Amendment is permitted to proceed and Appellant is permitted to use the zoning appeal process for an unlawful purpose; not only is invoking the political process lawful [as the judge also noted in-chambers], but Landowners must shoulder a reasonable burden to document the credibility of this claim [recognizing understandable concerns that might arise regarding business-related confidentiality].
32.
Two datapoints are of-interest in this regard, one that was included in the initial Petition and one that has, as its basis for being asserted, the information and belief of what Kline said during a 2010 community meeting [held at Chilis, a few yards from the Baederwood Shopping Center]; regarding the former, it was explicitly noted [in the 3/31/2011 filing, 144]: Although there appears to be no time-urgency regarding the development of this tri-parcel [per Commissioner Peacock: In a conversation after the FTD hearing, Brandolini indicated that they have no immediate or foreseeable plans to re-develop the property. They have been directed by their investment partner, INVESCO, to tenants into the site.], this filing get had to be submitted within 30 days because, otherwise, the opportunity to do so would have been ceded.
33.
This oral assertion has been provided repeatedly during conversations with people who have quoted Brandolini-leadership [both those in officialdom and those who converse with developers, such as Mr. Bruce Toll], and they are consistent with observed-upgrades of physical faades; therefore, it is assumed that the Whole Foods assertion comprises the sum-total of whatever specificity can be proffered by Landowners when furthering the potential-claim of damages, noting that this store-building is located at the REAR of the property [and not along the Fairway]. 16
34.
The problem with this claim harkens back to what Kline said during the meeting held a year ago, namely, that the essential-impact of Brandolinis zoning-request is that denser construction which is already within its rights under existing law [as per the threat that has been trotted-out repeatedly during recent months]could be achieved in the REAR SECTIONS of the property, whereas the point-of-contention is the ability to situate it in the FRONT SECTIONS of the property, closer to the Fairway; during subsequent conversations, this portrayal has been corroborated.
35.
Therefore, in response to this filing, Landowners are cordially invited to provide documentation that the presumed contractual expansion-plan would be forestalled by Petitioners legal challenge; in this regard, Brandolini is requested to provide this
database prior to the 7/12/2011 Hearing, permitting Petitioner to scrutinize it while reviewing the currently-applicable ordinances/laws.
36.
There is a certain irony encased within the parting-assertion [The continuation of Appellants frivolous procedural challenge impedes Landowners ability to revitalize the Baederwood Shopping Center, which is a long-standing community goal of the residents of the Township] { 49}, recalling how Mr. Larry Kanes testimony would lead the listener to assign blame properly in this matter: I think this is a very sad day for AbingtonTownship because a company is getting rewarded for an absolute distaste and repugnant behavior toward this community. This Township has watched this shopping center in limbo for five or six years now. The property values have been devalued. Other vacant properties stand vacant on Old York Road. The town is one of the greatest places to live in America; we love the schools, we love the police, we love 17
the diversity, but what we dont like here is somebody coming in and degrading a shopping center. We dont like the shoddy construction. And the CarpentersUnion is right about that. There is dangerous construction that occurred, and I was right in the middle of it. We dont like the people who were assigned to this who conducted their construction in very unsafe ways, and I find it absolutely repugnant, as a citizen, that a company that cares nothing about this town is being rewarded in the end with a green light to go ahead. We are a very proud township with a lot of moxie and a lot of courage, weve done things well, weve had pretty good leadership over the years, and I dont think we should apologize or fail to go to court against anybody who treated us this way. Brandolini has the same problem in UpperDublinTownship, I hope youve examined that, and the problem is existing in urban blight there. If this happened on the edge of Willow GrovePark, or on the edge of Cheltenham, or on the edge of excuse me. I speak for a living. Im having trouble tonight. -- if you found this on the edge of Jenkintown, or any other place, you would also find this repugnant and horrible. This should not happen. And I know this ordinance -- I understand -Steve and Ernie, I understand the purpose of the ordinance is to protect the township, I understand that, but in the process you are going to set a precedent that is unprecedented, and you will open other builders to allow themselves to hold this township hostage, which this builder has for the last four or five years.
37.
One final observation is warranted; Landowners are self-portrayed as Intervenor/Appellee when providing a summary-statement; this places them firmly within the realm of defending the flawed Ordinances {as, frankly, had been anticipated by opponents thereof, absent concrete awareness of any coordination between these two entitiesthat were allegedly inconflictwhich has been both denied [in-writing, by the Solicitor] and affirmed [such as during the Town Meeting at Penn State]}.
18
38.
To summarize, there is no justification to challenge Petitioners standing [which inter alia is viewed as the law of the case] and there has been no documentation of alleged rhetoricalcomplexity; indeed, the attorney representing Landowners has attested to specific assertions that are incorrect and/or insufficiently documented, and the most rapid disposition of this case will be achieved if/when Landowners have responded to the 6/20/2011 filing, paragraph-by-paragraph.
39.
To document Petitioners credibility [and, now, as it turns out, to reference assertions herein], a copy of the filing to the Abington Zoning Board was appended to the Reply filing; although scrupulous efforts were made to accrue all applicable information within each incremental memo, Petitioner would be more than happy to provide additional relevant documentation to this filing.
40.
It was for these reasons that the initial Reply had contained the following conclusion: WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court enter an order compelling Landowners [Intervenor /Appellee] to provide documentation of specific assertions included in the instant Motion, including [but not limited to] contractual-proof of alleged potential-harm; a paragraph-byparagraph reply to the particulars alleged within the 6/20/2011 filing; and a narrative that details what Attorney-Kaplin knew of Petitioners filing and when he first learned of its existence (presumably, via oral communication).
NEW MATTERS 41. By information and belief, it is averred that Brandolini knew of this matter and of the 6/15/2011 Hearing as late as on 6/9/2011 [the latest possible date last week, per Mr. Herder], recognizing that Brandolini could immediately confirm that the initial filing had occurred on 3/31/2011; thus, more than 30 days had elapsed between the date on which the challenge was officially filed [recognizing the original Complaint had been revised following 19
receipt of Preliminary Objections] and the date (ranging from 6/6/2011 6/10/2011) when Brandolini was known to have officially learned of its existence [affording Brandolini ample opportunity to become involved expeditiously].
42.
Althoughthe property-owner has the opportunity as-of-right to become an Intervenor in such situations as this, Brandolini failed to act promptly when this matter was officially adjudicated; indeed, the judge has already issued an Order [dutifully appended to Brandolinis filing] to which both parties concurred that details the contemplated bifurcated disposition of this matter.
43.
Brandolini properly quoted from the Municipalities Planning Code regarding the posting of a bond and, thus, it is apt to quote therefrom regarding the prescribed timeframe for any such intervention: Section 1004-A. Intervention. Within the 30 days first following the filing of a land use appeal, if the appealis from a board or agency of a municipality, the municipality and any owner or tenant of property directlyinvolved in the action appealed from may intervene as of course by filing a notice of intervention, accompaniedby proof of service of the same, upon each appellant or each appellants counsel of record. All other interventionshall be governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
44.
This statute is silent regarding any consideration as to when the Landowner might have first learned of what had transpired, but Brandolini had ample time to file an Intervention Notice and ensure that it had been served within 48-hours [understood by Petitioner to be the norm]; thus, Landowner/Brandolini has forfeited the opportunity to interfere with the settled-law of this case, particularly regarding efforts that, for moral/ethical reasons [vide supra], constitute harassment.
20
45.
Petitioner reluctantly responds to this effort to burden an additional judge with the need to address this matter; nevertheless, Petitioner chooses not to be intimidated by any threat of fiscal-distress, particularly when his initial filing [which does not afford him any identifiable fiscal-benefit and, indeed, was initiated due to the philosophical charge Tikkun Olamto Repair the World] prompted the filing of a motion that is unabashedly predicated on a falsehood [that Brandolini undoubtedly was not told had been contravened directly to a judge by an attorney-colleague].
46.
To be clear, Petitioner has primarily been motivated to promote the publics welfare [even if certain members of the publicincluding purported leaders thereofhave been brought into awareness kicking and screaming]; it is for this reason that multiple subpoenas have been generated, preparatory to the 7/12/2011 Hearing, so that this dimension of sordid conduct can be aired.
47.
Also, to be clear, Petitioner has functioned pro se and, thus, has depended upon forthright judicial input [from all parties] to hone his arguments and to achieve a comfortlevel with results thereof;nevertheless, when corrupt conduct has emerged, it has been soidentifiedin publiceven when a Commissioner chooses to challenge the justification for calling a spade, a spade in this case.
48.
Therefore, the invitations within the Reply filing have been amplified in this CounterMotion; those who have been issued subpoenas have also been provided a copy of this filing, so that they can appreciate the rationale for this intrusion upon their ongoing personal/professional activities.
21
49.
It is recognized that, by having bifurcated the filing, Judge Del Ricci stayed its procedural facet and created the environment in which to create a record regarding its substantive facet; therefore, Petitioner has attempted to reflect this bifurcation in subsequent filings to both the Court and the Township Zoning Board [ensuring that potential-overlap has been retained in both renditions].
50.
Thus, it is anticipated that the Court may not currently be predisposed to deal with the particulars of what transpired, much as Petitioner has been prepared to do so following minimal provocation; furthermore, Petitioner is wary of being perceived as having inadvertently abused pro se status.
51.
Nevertheless, Petitioner is compelled to assess each issue that arisesas soon as it arisesbecause of the tremendous public health/safety implications that hang in the balance, let alone the expressed sentiments of all speakers at the 1/6/2011 Public Hearing; indeed, the anticipated presentation before the 7/12/2011 Zoning Board Hearing [ironically, to be held a few hours after that which will be assessing these juxtaposed motions] will thematically attempt to capture each of the parameters that emerged during recent months that should be weighed in this process. NEW MATTER COUNT #1 COUNTER-MOTION TO QUASH LANDOWNERS MOTION AS UNTIMELY
52.
Paragraphs 1-51 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
22
53.
So as to probe What Brandolini knew and when Brandolini knew it, subpoenas have been issued to those who were present when Mr. Herder said he had notified Brandolini of the instant-filing; additionally, knowledge of this notification-issue will be probed from all major Township Officials.
54.
Brandolini failed to file an Intervention Motion within 30 days of the filing of this litigation and, more specifically, Brandolini failed to file an Intervention Motion despite having been informed thereof (by Mr. Herder) more than 48-hours prior to the June 15, 2011 Hearing
before Judge Del Ricci. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that Landowners Motion be quashed.
NEW MATTER COUNT #2 COUNTER-MOTION TO QUASH LANDOWNERS MOTION AS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT 55. Paragraphs 1-54 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
56.
Petitioner notes failure to address the substantive/procedural components of the extensive filing; yet [see 1003-A(d)], It shall be the burden of the landowners to prove the appeal is frivolous.
57.
Petitioner should be afforded the opportunity to prepare properly for any upcoming argument; thus, subpoenas have been issued to acquire a database sufficient to appreciate unstated assertions including, in particular, the allegation that a stay on development
23
(predicated on the Ordinances) precluded expansion of the Whole Foods building (seen as the only potentially-affected property). WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that Landowner produce all information that has been used to justify asserting the filing is frivolous.
NEW MATTER COUNT #3 COUNTER-MOTION TO QUASH LANDOWNERS MOTION AS FACTUALLY INACCURATE 58. Paragraphs 1-57 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
59.
Petitioner has painstakingly articulatedwith relevant referencesthe basis for request for filing this litigation, provided inter alia in numbered-paragraphs (particularly on 6/20/2011 & 6/30/2011).
60.
It is presumed that these filings have been scrutinized by Brandolini, else the claim that they are frivolous could not possibly have been conjured; even if some are arguably incomprehensible, others are not and, therefore, could be answered precisely and (in the process) narrow potential differences between/among the involved parties (and, therefore, promote resolution of the case).
61.
Despite having provided a level of detail that may ordinarily emerge during the Discovery process [such as via Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories, preparatory to taking Depositions], Brandolini apparently has concludedwhile remaining silent regarding its rationalethat the filing has failed to state a judiciable claim that is sufficient to overturn 24
the approval-decision; thus, subpoenas have been issued to acquire a database sufficient to appreciate unstated assertions.
62.
Furthermore, Brandolini cannot reasonably portray this as an onerous task because these issues will invariably need to be addressed by the Zoning Board; thus, Brandolini will predictably be requested to provide responses thereto that are cogent, referenced and potentially persuasive.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that Landowner provide a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the 6/20/2011 and 6/30/2011 filings. Respectfully Submitted:
_______________
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. 1219 Fairacres Road Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911 July 5, 2011 --pro se
25
ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D. 1219 Fairacres Road Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911 Petitioner, v. TOWNSHIP OF ABINGTON 1176 Old York Road Abington, Pennsylvania 19001 Respondent, BAEDERWOOD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1301 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Intervenor * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER AND NOW, this ___ day of _______, 2011, upon consideration of this COUNTER-MOTION TO INTERVENOR BAEDERWOOD LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS MOTION TO QUASH PROCEDURAL CHALLENGE AND ALTERNATE REQUEST FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A BOND, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the Brandolini Motion be QUASHED; FURTHER, Intervenor/Appellee shall provide (a)a narrative that details what Attorney-Kaplin knew of the Petitioners filing and when he first learned of its existence (presumably, via oral communication); (b)documentation of specific assertions included in the instant Motion, including [but not limited to] contractual-proof of alleged potential-harm; and (c)a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the 6/20/2011 filing.
BY THE COURT: _________________________ J 26
Affirmation I certify that all statements within this filing are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge.
_______________
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. 7/5/2011
27
Certificate of Service I certify that I delivered a true-and-accurate copy of this document to the following people, on this date. Robert Rex Herder, Jr., Esquire Attorney ID # 38827 Bresnan & Herder 311 Lindenwold Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Marc B. Kaplin, Esquire Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Simon, P.C. Union Meeting Corporate Center 910 Harvest Drive P.O. Box 3037 Blue Bell, PA 19422-0765
_______________
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. 7/5/2011
28
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Robert Rex Herder, Jr., Esquire [311 Lindenwold Avenue, Ambler, PA 19002]
You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] in the above case and to remain until excused. You are ordered to bring with you any and all personal and/or professional records regarding communication between yourself and any and all representatives of Brandolini during 2011. If you fail to attend as required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. Requested by Petitioner: Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., 1219 Fairacres Road, Rydal, PA 19046-2911 [pro se].
BY THE COURT,
29
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Steven Kline
1. You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] in the above case and to remain until excused. 2. You are ordered to bring with you the following: any and all personal/professional records regarding communication between yourself and any and all representatives of Brandolini during 2011.
If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment.
Requested by Petitioner: Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., 1219 Fairacres Road, Rydal, PA 19046-2911 [pro se].
BY THE COURT,
30
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Robert A. Wachter, Esquire
BY THE COURT,
31
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Michael OConnor
BY THE COURT,
32
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. John J. OConnor
BY THE COURT,
33
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Wayne C. Luker
BY THE COURT,
34
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Les Benzak
BY THE COURT,
35
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Ernie Peacock
BY THE COURT,
36
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Ms. Peggy Myers
BY THE COURT,
37
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Dennis Zappone
BY THE COURT,
38
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. James H. Ring
BY THE COURT,
39
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. William J. Lynott
BY THE COURT,
40
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Ms. Carol DiJoseph
BY THE COURT,
41
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Ms. Carol E. Gillespie
BY THE COURT,
42
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Ms. Lori A. Schreiber
BY THE COURT,
43
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. John J. Carlin
BY THE COURT,
44
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Ronald Rosen
1. You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] in the above case and to remain until excused. 2. You are ordered to bring with you the following: any and all information sent to you regarding the Fairway Transportation District Ordinance proposal.
BY THE COURT,
45
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Charles Carter
BY THE COURT,
46
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Ashley Spearman
BY THE COURT,
47
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Van Strother
1. You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] in the above case and to remain until excused. 2. You are ordered to bring with you the following: any and all information sent to you regarding the Fairway Transportation District Ordinance proposal..
BY THE COURT,
48
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. John H. Kennedy [29 Main Street, Harleysville, PA19438-2510]
1. You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] in the above case and to remain until excused. 2. You are ordered to bring with you the following: any and all personal/professional records regarding communication between yourself and any and all representatives of Brandolini during 2011; andany and all information sent to you regarding the Fairway Transportation District Ordinance proposal during 2010.
BY THE COURT,
49
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Donald Marquardt
BY THE COURT,
50
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Lucy Strackhouse
BY THE COURT,
51
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Lawrence Matteo
BY THE COURT,
52
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Mark A. Penecale
BY THE COURT,
53
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Michael Narcowich
1. You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] in the above case and to remain until excused. 2. You are ordered to bring with you the following: any and all personal/professional records regarding communication between yourself and any and all representatives of Brandolini and Abington Township during 2010.
BY THE COURT,
54
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Marc B. Kaplin, Esquire
1. You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] in the above case [regarding when you first learned of the instant litigation] and to remain until excused. 2. You are ordered to bring with you the following: a paragraph-by-paragraph response to Petitioners filings of 6/20/2011 and 6/30/2011; any and all documentation [including contracts] regarding whether the Whole Foods building can be expanded under currently-functional ordinances and law; and any and all communication between your law-firm (and its affiliates) and any official representative of Abington Township during 2011.
BY THE COURT,
55
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: The Honorable Thomas M. Del Ricci, J.D.
1. You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] regarding what was stated in-chambers by Robert Rex Herder, Jr., Esquire [regarding when he notified Brandolini of this litigation] in the above case and to remain until excused.
BY THE COURT,
56
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Marc D. Jonas, Esquire [775 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike, Blue Bell, PA 19422]
You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] regarding whether the FTD Ordinance is constitutional, with particular regard to the case Realen v. Upper Merion.
BY THE COURT,
57
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: John/Jane Doe, Store Manager [Whole Foods Market, 1575 The Fairway, Rydal, PA 19046]
1. You are ordered by the Court to come to Court Room G, Montgomery County Courthouse, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., to testify on behalf of the truth [presumably, as portrayed by the Petitioner] regarding whether the absence of approval of the FTD Ordinance is precluding the capacity of the Whole Foods Market to expand. 2. You are ordered to bring with you any and all documentation [including contracts] regarding whether the Whole Foods building can be expanded under currently-functional ordinances and law.
BY THE COURT,
58
On July 5, 2011, I, Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., served_____________________ with the foregoing subpoena by personal delivery to his office. I verify that the statements in this return of service are true and correct.I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 P. S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
59

MontCo Filing - 7-5-11

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MontCo Filing - 7-5-11

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D. 1219 Fairacres Road Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911 Petitioner, v.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

{This excerpt is purposefully incomplete; intent is to show the existence of an issue.}

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

BY THE COURT: _________________________ J 26

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Steven Kline

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Robert A. Wachter, Esquire

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Michael OConnor

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. John J. OConnor

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Wayne C. Luker

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Les Benzak

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Ernie Peacock

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Ms. Peggy Myers

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Dennis Zappone

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. James H. Ring

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. William J. Lynott

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Ms. Carol DiJoseph

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Ms. Carol E. Gillespie

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Ms. Lori A. Schreiber

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. John J. Carlin

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Ronald Rosen

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Charles Carter

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2011-02540 CIVIL DIVISION

SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY To: Mr. Ashley Spearman

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA