I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon: Bucks County Justice Center, 100 North Main Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY Filed with the Court Clerk in prothonotary office in the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY. Sent certified mail by Peter Sauers of 32 N. Westview Ave Feasterville pa. 19053.
Bell Atlantic Corp vs. Twombly. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure. established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, pleading requirement for civil cases.
Requiring for Plaintiff include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible. Plaintiff meets his burden of requirements for Reconsiderations and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Taxpayer funded Investigations revealed: Francis X. Dillon Begley Carlin & amp; Mandio, LLP ...Mr. Dillon serves as the Services Commission. Solicitor for Lower Southampton Township stated: & quot; Although a taxpayer-funded investigation was completed and available, the municipal planning code was not followed.
Mr. Dillon said the MPC sets procedures regarding what municipalities are supposed to do regarding the & quot;land development fee schedule, & rdquo; which was not updated to reflect the change in the state law, so state law was also disregarded in my opinion.
Look to 352 U.S. 112 (1956) & nbsp;WALKER. CITY OF HUTCHINSON ET AL. No. 13. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 15-16, 1956. Decided December 10, 1956. Notice so published in the official newspaper was not sufficient notice to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process clauses of both Federal and State Constitutions.
Honorable Judge Hon Judge Wallace Bateman and All Officers of the Court: Chief justice Bhandari once affirmed Justice delayed is justice denied. Someone from the Courts and judiciary must recognize the cases for what it is; a call for justice and a protest against Public Officials and Private Individuals, which caused civil damages, cry for equal justice, Due process and constitutional rights.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights. The Judge responsibilities are clear. Superior authorities clear the way for fair procedures, equal justice, Access to Courts, with proper government representation to repair the damages from political corruption and corruption that can be overlooked.
The sordid facts of the case and the convicted parties thereto are widely reported in Court documents, Investigations, Public Documents, local news, newspapers etc. Officials have made legal grounds for civil damages, the responsible of Honorable Judge Hon Judge Wallace Bateman Court to take actions to protect the superior authorities that is long overdue.
Some Public Official participants in the scheme leading to these cases have been convicted and gone to jail, some got fired, some lost political positions and others took obligatory questionable retirements. Based on new facts that were not know and in existence at the time of the original case action filed HONORABLE JUDGE WALLACE BATEMAN REASSIGNED.
April 8 2016, ORDER on or about: Filed April 18, 2016 Defendant & #39;s, Lower Southampton Township and Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice that was granted by HONORABLE JUDGE WALLACE BATEMAN (Based on his opinion.)
HONORABLE Judge actions was prematurely, on a 12(b)(6). Any action would have to be after April 12, 2017 or later and NOT before. (Because of lack of information) Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) Note: By law, a judge is a state officer.
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges & #39; orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. by an officer & #39;s interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act. & quot; -/ 42 U.S.C. & sect; 1983 does not independently create substantive rights, but rather merely & quot;provides a remedy for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution(s) or federal laws.
Pro-se Plaintiff Hereby re-affirms the original assertions made in the Original Complaint, violation of a right secured by the Constitution and deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law duty of care in breaching that duty of care Plaintiff suffered injuries, were the result of Defendant breach of duty.
Some Public Official participants in the scheme leading to these cases have been convicted and gone to jail, some got fired, some lost political positions and others took obligatory questionable retirements or resigned. Responsibility of the civil damages also involved State Actors as well Public Officials.
Based on new facts that were not know and in existence at the time of the original case action and civil damages that occurred well Public Official participants with private individuals filled their pockets at the expense of the Lower Southampton Townspeople, I was overpowered but The truth stands even if there is no public support (Mahatma Gandhi).
Political and administrative corruption can plague even the most civilized nation in the world and can hamper the lawful functioning of the government. However, there ought to be a legal recourse and remedy for ordinary citizens who suffer damage because of political corruption. The remedy would be to have equal access to the courts with state sponsored adequate representation for the ordinary citizen in pro-se civil cases at par with & nbsp;criminal cases, when the criminals are Government Officials otherwise deprives one of equal protection.
& nbsp;
Redfield v Fisher 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] ...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties in office is in his & #39;individual & #39;, not his official capacity... & quot; this includes Officers of the Court in this case. connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance-misfeasance, and for malfeasance Unsworn falsification to Authorities and Federal Authorities and the Intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering- into an agreement-without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Procedural due process is a legal doctrine in the United States that requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
The Petitioner / Pro-se Plaintiff Hereby re-affirms the original assertions made in the Original Complaint and all Related actions, requests this court to treat the Original Complaint and actions as part and parcel of this present in all actions. Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) B.Platsky v. CIA, 953 F.2d & nbsp; 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991), Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.
The Court of Common Pleas failed to do this so far, I`m a pro se litigant requesting Court of Common Pleas do so as not to create errors in this Reconsiderations, Appeal, etc. (Plaintiff Objection) Preliminary Objection shows errors Di Sarrio v. Mills, 711 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) Unsworn argument by counsel simply & ldquo;is not evidence.
On the other hand, Principal cases are clear and recognized by all Courts not to be overlooked as law of the land a supreme authority. This under no circumstances has this been out of the courts and to this point is uncompleted. Honorable Judge Hon Judge Wallace Bateman needs to reopen case under the outstanding motion and update his ORDER Filed April 18, 2016 that in error now for civil damages. A jury trial would be appropriate.
I Peter Sauers duly understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of law. I will file this with all appropriate interested parties and on-line.
Filed in the court of common pleas of bucks county, pennsylvania civil action – law 2021 -04674 to judge brian mc. Guffin in reference to the order and decree dated december 4, 2022, which should be december 4, 2021, received on january 3, 2022. Postmarked december 30, 2021) Filed within 20 days).
1. The present action is not barred by the statute of limitations, pursuant to 42 pa. C. S. 5524(7), as this provision does not apply in this first-time filing. Defendants’ objection was duly covered by the pleadings of peter sauers, the plaintiff, filed on 8-17-2015 at 10:18 am: to the court of common pleas for illegal land transaction and damages. Defendants only responded as on april 12, 2017, and later and not before such date. It is evident from the documents on record that the decision was taken in haste and without complying with the procedures established by the rule of law. Judge brian mc. Guffin of the common pleas is receiving this case without prjudice coming from an upper court for civil damages and was never out of court system. The decision as provided in 42 pa.C.S. 5572 Relating to time of entry of order) or, in the case of a deemed decision, within 30 days after the date upon which notice of said deemed decision is given as set forth in section 908(9) of this act. Actions of statute of limitations have been overcome by the plaintiff long before this civil case for damages comes forward without prjudice.
2. Plaintiff pro-se secured assistance to clarify legal writing only. Di sarrio v. Mills, 711 so.2d 1355 Fla. 2d dca 1998) unsworn argument by counsel simply "is not evidence.” principle cases are clear for a pre-trial conference at this point. Judge brian mc. Guffin is allowing a 12 B) (6) ruling in place, stating "plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” this is prejudiced and biased because judge brian mc. Guffin is disregarding principal cases and case-laws against his opinion. Principal cases show clear relief like in complain 461 us 30, 103 s. Ct. 1625, 75 l. Ed. 2d 632 - supreme court, 1983 - we granted certiorari in this case, 456 us 924 (1982), to decide whether the district court for the western district of missouri applied the correct legal standard in instructing the jury that it might award punitive damages under 42usc § 1983. -property, city manager liable for deprivation of zoning rights. Hon’ble gene e.K. Pratters has also vindicated that the facts are in favor of the principal cases and case will communicate actions to the courts.
3. Sims v. Aherns, 271 sw 720 (1925)b.Platsky v. Cia, 953 f.2d 25, 26 28 (2nd cir. 1991), "court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." the court of common pleas / judge brian mc. Guffin failed to do this. The plaintiff, a pro-se litigant requests a judge brian mc. Guffin to please provide instructions on how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings to prevent future errors. Dismissal of a case under section 12 B) (6) or judge brian mc. Guffin’s opinion according to the facts is not justifiable or permissible and the court should re-evaluate collateral estoppel and demurrer in this case to ensure equal protection of laws, due process and democracy. Defendants’ actions show cause and effect of property damages financial damages to the plaintiff.
4. Haines v. Kerner et al. Plaintiff: "allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith”. Legal conclusions should entitle plaintiff an opportunity to offer proof also in full use of witnesses, evidence and oral argument all denied to the plaintiff. Why? Plaintiff also willing to amend his complain making any plenary objections a moot point to judge brian mc. Guffin. Defendants’ actions fall under nudd v. Burrows, 91 u.S 426. "fraud vitiates everything” boyce v. Grundy, 3 pet. 210 "fraud vitiates the most- solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. Judge brian mc. Guffin needs to realize defendant’s counsel is not the original counsel for the defendants using original counsel contracts, documents. Judge brian mc. Guffin needs to show criterion to change a case without prjudice from one court to with prjudice in his court and also an opinion for pro se litigant about how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. Verification peter sauers ada pro-se verifies that he is one for himself in this action, and that the statements made in the forgoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of law "18 pa. C.S. Section 4904’, relating to unsworn, falsification to authorities. Plaintiff under first amendment rights will post this on posted rip-off Scamion, sent to all interested parties and filed within 20 days to the court.
To the court of common pleas in bucks county and interested parties. As a lower southampton township homeowner my life, family and property were permanently damaged by the illegal actions of public officials, officers of the court, corrupt developers, and condoned by the court of common pleas in bucks county by removing equal protection and due process by way of politics with a 12 B)(6) motion.
Now the situation is entirely different and according to the new evidence not available at the time coming into light in the recent times which includes the abuse of office allegations against michael j. Savona, esq., and several others, it is pertinent that the decision of the court was prejudiced and biased because of the new facts of officials abusing their power, acted with a conflict of interest, taking part in criminal activities.
Under the circumstances and based on the actions of the public officials there is no doubt that the court’s decision was manipulated by politics and a misrepresentation, fraud occurred. The last decision of court for dismissal of case under section 12 B) (6) according to the recent facts is not justifiable or permissible and the court should reopen the case to ensure equal protection of laws, due process and justice for all. The last 12 B) (6) ruling must not have any legal standing now, which was granted without witnesses, evidence available at the time.
Michael j. Savona, esq., along with michael peters, john a. Vanluvanee, esq, robert p. Hoopes, john waltman, carol drioil and bill oettinger and other were taxpayer funded legal representation, but in actuality they were not serving the people but furthering their own objectives of illegal gratification. Now taxpayer funded legal representation now replaced by mr. Dillon is the new township solicitor of lower southampton and others.
The courts now has a new set of facts not known earlier to deal with and the court must reopen the case. "the principles of equality and justice for all, is the very basic requirement for a democracy”. Motion to reopen case 2015-05753 was filed the court of common pleas in bucks county has no one and has legal grounds not to reopen this civil matter and no one has come forward to show otherwise.
This was posted Scamion.com, sent to all interested parties. Please share or post. Hopefully this will be expos the truth and stop injustice! peter sauers feasterville bucks county pa. Injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere..! martin luther king jr.
Bucks County Justice Center Reviews
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon: Bucks County Justice Center, 100 North Main Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY Filed with the Court Clerk in prothonotary office in the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY. Sent certified mail by Peter Sauers of 32 N. Westview Ave Feasterville pa. 19053.
Bell Atlantic Corp vs. Twombly. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure. established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, pleading requirement for civil cases.
Requiring for Plaintiff include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible. Plaintiff meets his burden of requirements for Reconsiderations and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Taxpayer funded Investigations revealed: Francis X. Dillon Begley Carlin & amp; Mandio, LLP ...Mr. Dillon serves as the Services Commission. Solicitor for Lower Southampton Township stated: & quot; Although a taxpayer-funded investigation was completed and available, the municipal planning code was not followed.
Mr. Dillon said the MPC sets procedures regarding what municipalities are supposed to do regarding the & quot;land development fee schedule, & rdquo; which was not updated to reflect the change in the state law, so state law was also disregarded in my opinion.
Look to 352 U.S. 112 (1956) & nbsp;WALKER. CITY OF HUTCHINSON ET AL. No. 13. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 15-16, 1956. Decided December 10, 1956. Notice so published in the official newspaper was not sufficient notice to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process clauses of both Federal and State Constitutions.
Honorable Judge Hon Judge Wallace Bateman and All Officers of the Court: Chief justice Bhandari once affirmed Justice delayed is justice denied. Someone from the Courts and judiciary must recognize the cases for what it is; a call for justice and a protest against Public Officials and Private Individuals, which caused civil damages, cry for equal justice, Due process and constitutional rights.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights. The Judge responsibilities are clear. Superior authorities clear the way for fair procedures, equal justice, Access to Courts, with proper government representation to repair the damages from political corruption and corruption that can be overlooked.
The sordid facts of the case and the convicted parties thereto are widely reported in Court documents, Investigations, Public Documents, local news, newspapers etc. Officials have made legal grounds for civil damages, the responsible of Honorable Judge Hon Judge Wallace Bateman Court to take actions to protect the superior authorities that is long overdue.
Some Public Official participants in the scheme leading to these cases have been convicted and gone to jail, some got fired, some lost political positions and others took obligatory questionable retirements. Based on new facts that were not know and in existence at the time of the original case action filed HONORABLE JUDGE WALLACE BATEMAN REASSIGNED.
April 8 2016, ORDER on or about: Filed April 18, 2016 Defendant & #39;s, Lower Southampton Township and Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice that was granted by HONORABLE JUDGE WALLACE BATEMAN (Based on his opinion.)
HONORABLE Judge actions was prematurely, on a 12(b)(6). Any action would have to be after April 12, 2017 or later and NOT before. (Because of lack of information) Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) Note: By law, a judge is a state officer.
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges & #39; orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. by an officer & #39;s interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act. & quot; -/ 42 U.S.C. & sect; 1983 does not independently create substantive rights, but rather merely & quot;provides a remedy for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution(s) or federal laws.
Pro-se Plaintiff Hereby re-affirms the original assertions made in the Original Complaint, violation of a right secured by the Constitution and deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law duty of care in breaching that duty of care Plaintiff suffered injuries, were the result of Defendant breach of duty.
Some Public Official participants in the scheme leading to these cases have been convicted and gone to jail, some got fired, some lost political positions and others took obligatory questionable retirements or resigned. Responsibility of the civil damages also involved State Actors as well Public Officials.
Based on new facts that were not know and in existence at the time of the original case action and civil damages that occurred well Public Official participants with private individuals filled their pockets at the expense of the Lower Southampton Townspeople, I was overpowered but The truth stands even if there is no public support (Mahatma Gandhi).
Political and administrative corruption can plague even the most civilized nation in the world and can hamper the lawful functioning of the government. However, there ought to be a legal recourse and remedy for ordinary citizens who suffer damage because of political corruption. The remedy would be to have equal access to the courts with state sponsored adequate representation for the ordinary citizen in pro-se civil cases at par with & nbsp;criminal cases, when the criminals are Government Officials otherwise deprives one of equal protection.
& nbsp;
Redfield v Fisher 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] ...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties in office is in his & #39;individual & #39;, not his official capacity... & quot; this includes Officers of the Court in this case. connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance-misfeasance, and for malfeasance Unsworn falsification to Authorities and Federal Authorities and the Intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering- into an agreement-without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Procedural due process is a legal doctrine in the United States that requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
The Petitioner / Pro-se Plaintiff Hereby re-affirms the original assertions made in the Original Complaint and all Related actions, requests this court to treat the Original Complaint and actions as part and parcel of this present in all actions. Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) B.Platsky v. CIA, 953 F.2d & nbsp; 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991), Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.
The Court of Common Pleas failed to do this so far, I`m a pro se litigant requesting Court of Common Pleas do so as not to create errors in this Reconsiderations, Appeal, etc. (Plaintiff Objection) Preliminary Objection shows errors Di Sarrio v. Mills, 711 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) Unsworn argument by counsel simply & ldquo;is not evidence.
On the other hand, Principal cases are clear and recognized by all Courts not to be overlooked as law of the land a supreme authority. This under no circumstances has this been out of the courts and to this point is uncompleted. Honorable Judge Hon Judge Wallace Bateman needs to reopen case under the outstanding motion and update his ORDER Filed April 18, 2016 that in error now for civil damages. A jury trial would be appropriate.
I Peter Sauers duly understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of law. I will file this with all appropriate interested parties and on-line.
Filed in the court of common pleas of bucks county, pennsylvania civil action – law 2021 -04674 to judge brian mc. Guffin in reference to the order and decree dated december 4, 2022, which should be december 4, 2021, received on january 3, 2022. Postmarked december 30, 2021) Filed within 20 days).
1. The present action is not barred by the statute of limitations, pursuant to 42 pa. C. S. 5524(7), as this provision does not apply in this first-time filing. Defendants’ objection was duly covered by the pleadings of peter sauers, the plaintiff, filed on 8-17-2015 at 10:18 am: to the court of common pleas for illegal land transaction and damages. Defendants only responded as on april 12, 2017, and later and not before such date. It is evident from the documents on record that the decision was taken in haste and without complying with the procedures established by the rule of law. Judge brian mc. Guffin of the common pleas is receiving this case without prjudice coming from an upper court for civil damages and was never out of court system. The decision as provided in 42 pa.C.S. 5572 Relating to time of entry of order) or, in the case of a deemed decision, within 30 days after the date upon which notice of said deemed decision is given as set forth in section 908(9) of this act. Actions of statute of limitations have been overcome by the plaintiff long before this civil case for damages comes forward without prjudice.
2. Plaintiff pro-se secured assistance to clarify legal writing only. Di sarrio v. Mills, 711 so.2d 1355 Fla. 2d dca 1998) unsworn argument by counsel simply "is not evidence.” principle cases are clear for a pre-trial conference at this point. Judge brian mc. Guffin is allowing a 12 B) (6) ruling in place, stating "plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” this is prejudiced and biased because judge brian mc. Guffin is disregarding principal cases and case-laws against his opinion. Principal cases show clear relief like in complain 461 us 30, 103 s. Ct. 1625, 75 l. Ed. 2d 632 - supreme court, 1983 - we granted certiorari in this case, 456 us 924 (1982), to decide whether the district court for the western district of missouri applied the correct legal standard in instructing the jury that it might award punitive damages under 42usc § 1983. -property, city manager liable for deprivation of zoning rights. Hon’ble gene e.K. Pratters has also vindicated that the facts are in favor of the principal cases and case will communicate actions to the courts.
3. Sims v. Aherns, 271 sw 720 (1925)b.Platsky v. Cia, 953 f.2d 25, 26 28 (2nd cir. 1991), "court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." the court of common pleas / judge brian mc. Guffin failed to do this. The plaintiff, a pro-se litigant requests a judge brian mc. Guffin to please provide instructions on how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings to prevent future errors. Dismissal of a case under section 12 B) (6) or judge brian mc. Guffin’s opinion according to the facts is not justifiable or permissible and the court should re-evaluate collateral estoppel and demurrer in this case to ensure equal protection of laws, due process and democracy. Defendants’ actions show cause and effect of property damages financial damages to the plaintiff.
4. Haines v. Kerner et al. Plaintiff: "allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith”. Legal conclusions should entitle plaintiff an opportunity to offer proof also in full use of witnesses, evidence and oral argument all denied to the plaintiff. Why? Plaintiff also willing to amend his complain making any plenary objections a moot point to judge brian mc. Guffin. Defendants’ actions fall under nudd v. Burrows, 91 u.S 426. "fraud vitiates everything” boyce v. Grundy, 3 pet. 210 "fraud vitiates the most- solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. Judge brian mc. Guffin needs to realize defendant’s counsel is not the original counsel for the defendants using original counsel contracts, documents. Judge brian mc. Guffin needs to show criterion to change a case without prjudice from one court to with prjudice in his court and also an opinion for pro se litigant about how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. Verification peter sauers ada pro-se verifies that he is one for himself in this action, and that the statements made in the forgoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of law "18 pa. C.S. Section 4904’, relating to unsworn, falsification to authorities. Plaintiff under first amendment rights will post this on posted rip-off Scamion, sent to all interested parties and filed within 20 days to the court.
To the court of common pleas in bucks county and interested parties. As a lower southampton township homeowner my life, family and property were permanently damaged by the illegal actions of public officials, officers of the court, corrupt developers, and condoned by the court of common pleas in bucks county by removing equal protection and due process by way of politics with a 12 B)(6) motion.
Now the situation is entirely different and according to the new evidence not available at the time coming into light in the recent times which includes the abuse of office allegations against michael j. Savona, esq., and several others, it is pertinent that the decision of the court was prejudiced and biased because of the new facts of officials abusing their power, acted with a conflict of interest, taking part in criminal activities.
Under the circumstances and based on the actions of the public officials there is no doubt that the court’s decision was manipulated by politics and a misrepresentation, fraud occurred. The last decision of court for dismissal of case under section 12 B) (6) according to the recent facts is not justifiable or permissible and the court should reopen the case to ensure equal protection of laws, due process and justice for all. The last 12 B) (6) ruling must not have any legal standing now, which was granted without witnesses, evidence available at the time.
Michael j. Savona, esq., along with michael peters, john a. Vanluvanee, esq, robert p. Hoopes, john waltman, carol drioil and bill oettinger and other were taxpayer funded legal representation, but in actuality they were not serving the people but furthering their own objectives of illegal gratification. Now taxpayer funded legal representation now replaced by mr. Dillon is the new township solicitor of lower southampton and others.
The courts now has a new set of facts not known earlier to deal with and the court must reopen the case. "the principles of equality and justice for all, is the very basic requirement for a democracy”. Motion to reopen case 2015-05753 was filed the court of common pleas in bucks county has no one and has legal grounds not to reopen this civil matter and no one has come forward to show otherwise.
This was posted Scamion.com, sent to all interested parties. Please share or post. Hopefully this will be expos the truth and stop injustice! peter sauers feasterville bucks county pa. Injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere..! martin luther king jr.