Your voice has a chance to be heard now! - we bring changes together.

report scam

Bucks County Justice Center

Country United States
State Pennsylvania
City Doylestown
Address 100 N Main St
Phone 1 215-348-6000

Bucks County Justice Center Reviews

  • Jan 9, 2022

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.

  • Dec 15, 2021

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, 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.

Write a Review about Bucks County Justice Center