|
|
Post by Venter on May 12, 2014 11:25:51 GMT -5
Looks like Legal Technicalities Allow Clean & Green Abuses to Continue.
Just because Bruce Hollinger may not be a Lawyer, Doesn't Mean that the Judge should Allow the County to Slide on C&G.
If Judge Kuhn cares about the Legalities of C&G, then he should allow a bit of Leniency to a CITIZEN, when it comes to having to Cross T's and Dot I's in a Complaint.
Kuhn Should have had Hartzell Recuse Himself.
Shame on them all - they should want to fix it because it's broken - NOT because a Citizen is Forced to Sue them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Blonde on May 12, 2014 11:28:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on May 12, 2014 17:16:30 GMT -5
So you want Judge Kuhn to not follow the law? This seems pretty clear cut to me and Mr. Hollinger has the opportunity to file an amended complaint if he wishes. Blonde, There is "Following the Law", and there is "Failing to Do the Right Thing". |
|
|
|
Post by paulkellett on May 12, 2014 17:34:36 GMT -5
Unfortunately, as I found out, one person wanting the law to be followed is some how not enough. Well, it is often, but not when it comes to tax assessment. Bruce will have to form a class action law suit to continue. Mr. Hartzell certainly plays loose with the law when he says "illegal spot reassessment" as compliance with C&G is not reassessing and they change the C&G use values at the state every year, so he knows better. It would be nice if the government would follow the law without having to be sued?
|
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on May 12, 2014 20:48:34 GMT -5
I'll have to side with Blonde on this one. Judge Kuhn's ruling had nothing to do with "doing the right thing", he had to follow the letter of the law, two very different things. How far do you think the lawsuit would have gone had he ruled otherwise? That being said, I hope that Bruce doesn't give up the fight, and as Paul said maybe a class action suit is the way to proceed. And we can always hope that faced with the threat of a class action suit that the county government will look into the alleged inequities and a law suit won't be necessary.
And a question came to me as I read the article. Suppose the proposed property tax reform goes through. Wouldn't that effectively void the Clean and Green status when it comes to properties and how they are taxed? Anyone have a thought?
|
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on May 13, 2014 15:35:54 GMT -5
I also have to agree blonde and lifesaver here. It has to be done to the law.
Here is where I agree with Venter though. Our legal system has come to a point where the average man / woman can not take on the courts with out shelling out major dollars to hire a lawyer. IMO that is the problem today and it should not be like that.
I dont think anyone including moose is shocked by this. Ive seen first hand how our legal system works here in Adams county and its disgusting to say the least.
This is what they want though. They want to drag this out they want it to make it tough on moose and they want to make it cost him.
I hope that this doesn't discourage him but honestly in would understand if he gave up. This is going to be a long hard battle for him and they certainly will make it as hard as they can for him. Which as Venter pointed out is the sad part but when you have a good ole boy system like we do here in adams county its tough to over throw that.
good luck moose keep us posted!
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on May 14, 2014 8:45:05 GMT -5
 I knew as soon as I Posted, that it was ridiculous to mention that a Judge should "Do the Right Thing" by skirting Procedure. BUT, there is Always HOPE that he would admonish the County - especially Hartzell, for playing games like this. As mentioned, the LAW should be "for the people". It shouldn't be for the Lawyers. Bruce goes through the proper channels by addressing the Commissioners. Hartzell blocks him from that method of addressing the issues. So he tries to use the Court System, but he's blocked by the Judge. So what's the next step? Spend Thousands of Dollars, JUST to get to SPEAK! Bruce knows his Shit, and Hartzell and Kuhn KNOW he knows his shit, but unless he knows the "Secret Words", he'll never get to play with these Bozos. And that's just not right. 
|
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on May 14, 2014 15:58:37 GMT -5
I knew as soon as I Posted, that it was ridiculous to mention that a Judge should "Do the Right Thing" by skirting Procedure. BUT, there is Always HOPE that he would admonish the County - especially Hartzell, for playing games like this. As mentioned, the LAW should be "for the people". It shouldn't be for the Lawyers. Bruce goes through the proper channels by addressing the Commissioners. Hartzell blocks him from that method of addressing the issues. So he tries to use the Court System, but he's blocked by the Judge. So what's the next step? Spend Thousands of Dollars, JUST to get to SPEAK! Bruce knows his Shit, and Hartzell and Kuhn KNOW he knows his shit, but unless he knows the "Secret Words", he'll never get to play with these Bozos. And that's just not right. Id like to see Bruce run for CC .  wouldnt that be interesting if he got a seat. Boy I bet some people in the court house would shit their pants then Venter I got what you were saying in your first post and I think you and I pretty much in line here. I did notice one thing bruce hasn't chimed in here nor was anything up on spreadthemustard about this as of last night. So that kind of has my eye brows raised a bit and do remember him saying he had a few more cards up his sleeve awhile back........this might just get interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on May 14, 2014 21:32:10 GMT -5
I knew as soon as I Posted, that it was ridiculous to mention that a Judge should "Do the Right Thing" by skirting Procedure. BUT, there is Always HOPE that he would admonish the County - especially Hartzell, for playing games like this. As mentioned, the LAW should be "for the people". It shouldn't be for the Lawyers. Bruce goes through the proper channels by addressing the Commissioners. Hartzell blocks him from that method of addressing the issues. So he tries to use the Court System, but he's blocked by the Judge. So what's the next step? Spend Thousands of Dollars, JUST to get to SPEAK! Bruce knows his Shit, and Hartzell and Kuhn KNOW he knows his shit, but unless he knows the "Secret Words", he'll never get to play with these Bozos. And that's just not right. Venter, that same law system could work very much in your favor someday and yes, unfortunately, it sometimes comes down to the best legal representation money can buy. Sad but true. But IMO, even a HINT of a brewing class action lawsuit may help to, can we say, maybe bring some of these inequities to light and possibly the commissioners would take the lead to investigate and fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex Oreilly on May 14, 2014 21:44:19 GMT -5
I'm still unclear on why he can't continue, how can he not have standing, he is allowed to represent himself?
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on May 15, 2014 11:57:49 GMT -5
I'm still unclear on why he can't continue, how can he not have standing, he is allowed to represent himself? If he doesn't have standing, who actually does who wouldn't be biased? Are we supposed to wait for someone who wants to do something illegal under C&G to file a legal challenge because someone else can skirt the rules and they can't? I agree with venter, and would like to add to it that it is completely unprofessional in my opinion when problems with something you're involved with are pointed out and you don't fix them, whether or not you have to legally. That's just my opinion - there are a lot of people who hide behind legal procedure to behave in a way (or get out of behaving in a way) that is distasteful. |
|
|
|
Post by Venter on May 17, 2014 10:13:48 GMT -5
I'm still unclear on why he can't continue, how can he not have standing, he is allowed to represent himself? Alex, Without Legal Counsel, Bruce Hollinger may continue to unintentionally/unknowingly skip a step, or omit a procedure, which will allow the Judge to dismiss, or delay the suit. The Court, through actions which seem to ultimately be in favor of the Commissioners, (whether intentionally, or not) can continually Deny Bruce's Petitions on "Legal Grounds" - dotting T's and crossing I's.  Although WE may believe that Bruce should have "Legal Standing" simply because he is a Resident of Adams County, the Court may decide otherwise. An Attorney would be able to cut through that legalese bullshit. Law is not about Right and Wrong; It is about Language - Its Use and Abuse by both sides.
They know that they can wear an individual person down like this. But CAN they wear down a "CLASS ACTION SUIT"? No way in HELL!
What is needed is an Attorney with BALLS Enough to take this on GRATIS (or at least at a serious discount).
But... that Attorney would most likely have to come from OUTSIDE this County - for Obvious Reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulkellett on May 17, 2014 16:17:28 GMT -5
The courts in PA have decided that an individual tax payer has no standing to challenge the validity of the entire assessment process because they can challenge their own assessment and they need to prove that they did not get justice in that challenge. NOW, that just doesn't make any sense as Bruce not being a C&G land owner, challenging his own assessment, would not ever address the problems he identified with that program. The courts reasoning is that yes, the county may be getting away with murder, but unless Bruce is being murdered he cannot complain, because really- why does he think he is sooo special. This is the exact same problem I had in challenging the whole reassessment, I had proof that John Hartzell communicated with the "joint expert" even though the agreement said that any communication would be considered "contempt of court". Then after the election when I was no longer a supervisor, John wrote a letter to the township saying that since I was no longer a supervisor, and that I was continuing the case as an individual, that there was no reason for the township to be involved any longer, so the township quit and Hartzell then said I had no standing to challenge any of it. The Judge agreed and the truth was killed. I do not disagree that the Judge should follow the law, for the law is all that they have to command respect, Similarly, the county should follow the law, without having to be threatened or sued.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on May 20, 2014 9:25:40 GMT -5
Moose,
Is there a way you can be contacted? I tried to contact you through your website but I do not have outlook express. I'd like to inquire about possibly donating to your C&G efforts? I'm sure you are adding costs here and there and I'd like help out a little if I can.
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on May 20, 2014 11:05:34 GMT -5
Moose, Is there a way you can be contacted? I tried to contact you through your website but I do not have outlook express. I'd like to inquire about possibly donating to your C&G efforts? I'm sure you are adding costs here and there and I'd like help out a little if I can. Email me at moose@spreadthemustard.com for an update if you like. Appreciate the thought, but I'm ok for now for funding. |
|
|
|
Post by Venter on May 26, 2014 9:03:05 GMT -5
I went to SpreadTheMustard.com to look at some things. Below is just an excerpt from Judge Kuhn's "Court Order", also known as "Look at What I Can Do!" If he were truly interested in "Justice", he wouldn't be so busy trying to make Hollinger jump through hoops, and instead, he would advise the County to try to make things right, and STOP Wasting the Court's Time! Instead, he is more concerned with the "Proper Methods for Addressing the Court" - in other words, "Learning the Legalese Bullshit Language". At least, in this instance, he saw through Hartzell's bullshit crying that Hollinger "didn't provide an address to respond to" (Even Kuhn realized that there are certain things that even HE considers too ridiculous to pass the muster  ) - UnFuckingBelieveable Here is the Court's Response to Hollinger, I only modified the size of the PDF file so I could load a link to it here. The original Link is better quality, and is available here: www.spreadthemustard.com/ and look for the link to the Court Order. Unfortunately, I glazed over after page 3, I don't know how Moose does it... COURT_RESPONSE_05-02-14_Condensed.pdf (680.04 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Jul 6, 2014 14:52:28 GMT -5
I'll have to side with Blonde on this one. Judge Kuhn's ruling had nothing to do with "doing the right thing", he had to follow the letter of the law, two very different things. How far do you think the lawsuit would have gone had he ruled otherwise? That being said, I hope that Bruce doesn't give up the fight, and as Paul said maybe a class action suit is the way to proceed. And we can always hope that faced with the threat of a class action suit that the county government will look into the alleged inequities and a law suit won't be necessary. And a question came to me as I read the article. Suppose the proposed property tax reform goes through. Wouldn't that effectively void the Clean and Green status when it comes to properties and how they are taxed? Anyone have a thought? |
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Jul 7, 2014 8:32:36 GMT -5
On June 27, 2014, I filed a Motion To Recuse / Disqualify and an Amendment to my Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas. The Motion To Recuse seeks to have the Honorable Judge John D. Kuhn to remove himself from the case. The reason I filed this Motion is because of the Judge's close personal relationship with one of the Defendants, Commissioner Randy Phiel. Being first-cousin to Commissioner Phiel is not a disqualifier according to Pennsylvania Law, however if there is any personal bias and/or prejudice in which the Judge's impartiality may be reasonably questioned, he should disqualify himself. In an appeal to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records for communications between the Judge and Commissioner Phiel, the Adams County Office of Open Records described the relationship between the two as quote, "Certain emails from Commissioner Randy Phiel to Judge John Kuhn include communications of a personal nature including scheduling of lunches, inquiring of the well‐being of family members, and other general interactions that were not official in nature and related instead to their close long‐standing close relationship". Either this description of the relationship is accurate, or someone in the Adams County Office of Open Records falsified information to restrict access to certain records. Additionally, through another Right To Know request, I found an email that was initiated by the Judge to Solicitor John Hartzell, which discusses my case. At first glance the email seems rather innocuous, but consider (1) there should be no communication between the the parties of a proceeding without the knowledge and consent of all the parties, (2) the Judge dispelled legal advice to Solicitor Hartzell in the email by telling him that there was nothing compelling the County to respond, and (3) the email suggested that there had been other communications between the two regarding my case, without my knowledge and/or consent. This can be interpreted as ex parte communications and be a disqualifier. The ex parte communications, coupled with the close personal relationship with one of the Defendants, creates an undeniable perception of bias and/or impartiality in which the Judge should disqualify himself and be replaced with a Judge whom is absent any bias. I also filed an Amendment to my Complaint with the same filing. The Amendment challenges some of the decisions the Court handed down in the Court Orders of May 2, 2014. I argue that due to the Judge being a trespasser of the law (regarding the ex parte communications) and loses subject matter jurisdiction, those Court orders are 'void'. It is clear the Court only considered the 'four corners' of the Complaint and did not consider all of my filings, which all contained valuable facts and exhibits. My lack of experience in the legal arena and failure to adhere to all the rules of the Court, resulted in the Court not considering a large amount of established fact. I have asked the Court to reconsider, as I am a pro se litigant and not to be held to the same high standards as those of an attorney. I ask the Court to render substantial justice and hear this case according to due process. All of these documents attached are now public documents available at the Courthouse for a fee. The media had been alerted to this filing as of July 1, 2014 but has yet to report on it. I choose not to speculate on the reason for this newsworthy event to go unreported by the media, other than they are possibly waiting for an official response from the interested parties. The essential documents to consider are all posted on www.spreadthemustard.com. They are a lengthy read, but very insightful. I urge you all to take a look. |
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 8, 2014 9:35:35 GMT -5
On June 27, 2014, I filed a Motion To Recuse / Disqualify and an Amendment to my Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas. The Motion To Recuse seeks to have the Honorable Judge John D. Kuhn to remove himself from the case. The reason I filed this Motion is because of the Judge's close personal relationship with one of the Defendants, Commissioner Randy Phiel. Being first-cousin to Commissioner Phiel is not a disqualifier according to Pennsylvania Law, however if there is any personal bias and/or prejudice in which the Judge's impartiality may be reasonably questioned, he should disqualify himself. In an appeal to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records for communications between the Judge and Commissioner Phiel, the Adams County Office of Open Records described the relationship between the two as quote, "Certain emails from Commissioner Randy Phiel to Judge John Kuhn include communications of a personal nature including scheduling of lunches, inquiring of the well‐being of family members, and other general interactions that were not official in nature and related instead to their close long‐standing close relationship". Either this description of the relationship is accurate, or someone in the Adams County Office of Open Records falsified information to restrict access to certain records. Additionally, through another Right To Know request, I found an email that was initiated by the Judge to Solicitor John Hartzell, which discusses my case. At first glance the email seems rather innocuous, but consider (1) there should be no communication between the the parties of a proceeding without the knowledge and consent of all the parties, (2) the Judge dispelled legal advice to Solicitor Hartzell in the email by telling him that there was nothing compelling the County to respond, and (3) the email suggested that there had been other communications between the two regarding my case, without my knowledge and/or consent. This can be interpreted as ex parte communications and be a disqualifier. The ex parte communications, coupled with the close personal relationship with one of the Defendants, creates an undeniable perception of bias and/or impartiality in which the Judge should disqualify himself and be replaced with a Judge whom is absent any bias. I also filed an Amendment to my Complaint with the same filing. The Amendment challenges some of the decisions the Court handed down in the Court Orders of May 2, 2014. I argue that due to the Judge being a trespasser of the law (regarding the ex parte communications) and loses subject matter jurisdiction, those Court orders are 'void'. It is clear the Court only considered the 'four corners' of the Complaint and did not consider all of my filings, which all contained valuable facts and exhibits. My lack of experience in the legal arena and failure to adhere to all the rules of the Court, resulted in the Court not considering a large amount of established fact. I have asked the Court to reconsider, as I am a pro se litigant and not to be held to the same high standards as those of an attorney. I ask the Court to render substantial justice and hear this case according to due process. All of these documents attached are now public documents available at the Courthouse for a fee. The media had been alerted to this filing as of July 1, 2014 but has yet to report on it. I choose not to speculate on the reason for this newsworthy event to go unreported by the media, other than they are possibly waiting for an official response from the interested parties. The essential documents to consider are all posted on www.spreadthemustard.com. They are a lengthy read, but very insightful. I urge you all to take a look. I read about 95% of the information you posted on your site. The part of them talking about family stuff isn't all that alarming. The judge discussing the case and even giving them what appears to be legal advice is more than a bit disturbing though. Lets hope the right is done here although it should not have to come to you finding about this through right to know requests. These matters should have never taken place. |
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Jul 11, 2014 14:49:48 GMT -5
Just received word from the Court that all judges from the 51st Judicial District (Adams County?) have been recused from this case and the Honorable Stephen P. Linebaugh, President Judge of York County, is hereby assigned to the case. recusal_granted_07-07-14.pdf (759.14 KB) |
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Jul 14, 2014 10:33:22 GMT -5
I hope the york co. judge doesn't get "helpful emails" from adams co. court officials.
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Jul 17, 2014 17:29:28 GMT -5
Not sure what's going on there at the Gettysburg Times but I communicated everything they needed to know regarding the recent filings and they apparently chose NOT to report on the alleged ex parte communications between the defense counsel and the judge. That is their prerogative I suppose, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Judges are afforded Judicial Privilege when it comes to Right To Know requests, and now it appears they receive Judicial Immunity when it comes to reporting facts (or alleged facts) in the media. Judges are not always above the law and sometimes don't always do what is ethical and/or moral, as we found out during the Cash for Kids scandal. I'll try to keep an open mind going forward, but would be negligent not doing my homework on the new appointed judge. Early results don't ease my mind any. There are a lot of allegations of judicial corruption over there in York County. I wish Judge Kuhn could have distanced himself from his cuz and his others buds in the courthouse. Now I must venture into the unknown, but the law is the law, no matter what Pennsylvania county you are in. As Johnny Cochran probably once said, "If you're right, you gotta fight". That's what I intend to keep on doing. Facts are facts and the law is the law...pretty simple actually, or so it would seem. Edit: added link |
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Jul 17, 2014 21:11:51 GMT -5
Not sure what's going on there at the Gettysburg Times but I communicated everything they needed to know regarding the recent filings and they apparently chose NOT to report on the alleged ex parte communications between the defense counsel and the judge. That is their prerogative I suppose, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Judges are afforded Judicial Privilege when it comes to Right To Know requests, and now it appears they receive Judicial Immunity when it comes to reporting facts (or alleged facts) in the media. Judges are not always above the law and sometimes don't always do what is ethical and/or moral, as we found out during the Cash for Kids scandal. I'll try to keep an open mind going forward, but would be negligent not doing my homework on the new appointed judge. Early results don't ease my mind any. There are a lot of allegations of judicial corruption over there in York County. I wish Judge Kuhn could have distanced himself from his cuz and his others buds in the courthouse. Now I must venture into the unknown, but the law is the law, no matter what Pennsylvania county you are in. As Johnny Cochran probably once said, "If you're right, you gotta fight". That's what I intend to keep on doing. Facts are facts and the law is the law...pretty simple actually, or so it would seem. Edit: added link The Evening Sun also failed to include anything that alleged ex parte communications. I included the actual email in my communications with them...it's not like I was making it up. You could argue that the email did not constitute ex parte communications, but it sure smelled like it to me and it suggested other communication between those parties. Still the media could have alleged it. Judges aren't always angels, you know (Kids for Cash). Now they have Judicial Immunity in the media, too? Phiel thought including the obits of his parents was 'over the top'. I've included factual evidence (proof) of all of my claims. He should have asked his cuz to step down on his own, to save face. It should have never had to come to this. |
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Jul 19, 2014 17:49:32 GMT -5
Hot off the press! Just got served papers that has the County of Adams is appealing the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records that granted me certain emails requested in a Right To Know request. This is public information available at the Courthouse, so I'm not divulging anything that can't be found with a small amount of effort. I am not going to hear/try the appeal in this forum. You may do that if you so choose. All I want to do, is ask a few simple questions: - Why do you think they are appealing this?
- Shouldn't the Office of Open Records, be 'open' and/or 'transparent?
- Didn't these Commissioners campaign on openness and transparency?
- Is it a coincidence that Hartzell failed to mention anything about the ex parte communication?
- How do you think an appeal from the 'County of Adams', to the 'County of Adams' Court of Common Pleas (which includes requests for emails to/from one of its compatriots), will unfold?
- Maybe Hartzell doesn't have enough to do. Why waste time and taxpayer money on this? What could be so bad that there is a need to protect these communications so fervently?
|
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 20, 2014 5:35:11 GMT -5
Hot off the press! Just got served papers that has the County of Adams is appealing the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records that granted me certain emails requested in a Right To Know request. This is public information available at the Courthouse, so I'm not divulging anything that can't be found with a small amount of effort. I am not going to hear/try the appeal in this forum. You may do that if you so choose. All I want to do, is ask a few simple questions: - Why do you think they are appealing this?
- Shouldn't the Office of Open Records, be 'open' and/or 'transparent?
- Didn't these Commissioners campaign on openness and transparency?
- Is it a coincidence that Hartzell failed to mention anything about the ex parte communication?
- How do you think an appeal from the 'County of Adams', to the 'County of Adams' Court of Common Pleas (which includes requests for emails to/from one of its compatriots), will unfold?
- Maybe Hartzell doesn't have enough to do. Why waste time and taxpayer money on this? What could be so bad that there is a need to protect these communications so fervently?
Very interesting indeed and im sure we all know the answers to the questions above. Im just waiting to see what the final technicality is that gets them out of this one. It really sucks the papers arent printing your story. |
|
wouldnt that be interesting if he got a seat. Boy I bet some people in the court house would shit their pants then 
) - UnFuckingBelieveable 
