PARTIAL DOCUMENTATION OF p.a.t. GUARD, JOHN DORSEY, "HIT AND CHARGE" ILLEGAL TACTICS

OPEN LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO PORT AUTHORITY FROM DAWN NARET' THEIR VICTIM OF TERRORISM AND PHYSICAL ABUSE:

I attempted to submit this report yesterday, 4-23-07, but the library computer system kept interfering with my work. I did not have time to finish, before closing time and hit confirm, but I'm not certain that you got it. I will give all the info over.

This is the absolutely worst complaint I have ever had to send in. I was shaking still at 11PM over an incident at approx. 5PM. I could not calm down from concern of the immense malevolency the situation represents to our society.

I am the disabled woman who falls asleep on the bus from a medical condition of C.O.P.D., which occurs when my oxygen is low or your gases or carbon monoxide exhaust gases are high.

I apparently did doze off, I would have to say passed out, because I did not even feel tiredness coming on. I was on my way to the Carnegie library and was shocked out of sleep by a P.A.T. Policeman, J. Dorsey ofc. #30, beating me very hard on my left are. At least 12 times, he hit me. I woke up and looked at him and he continued to hit me yelling, "Com'on lady! “You're getting off this bus!!".

I was shocked and confused and said, "you're hitting me!! “Why are you hitting me?!!". He just kept hollering to get off the bus. We were at Swissvale busway. I stood up and was getting oriented to location and trying to find a pen in my purse to write down the name of the driver ect. to file a complaint.

I asked the driver if he had tried to wake me, before calling the PAT police and he said had. This verifies again, that I did not doze off. I must have passed out from fumes, because I am a light sleeper, except when I am being gassed or anesthetized. The driver had responded calmly and politely, but I could not get his name out of him. He appeared to be a new trainee, because he was wearing a thin zip-up fabric vest with the PAT logo and #1076 on it. when I ask him his number, he pointed to the vest, when I asked him his name he looked at the policeman and seemed to be taking a que to not answer. Or maybe it was not his vest and he didn't know the name that went with #1076. This driver was a white male, heavy build, with thin brown, short hair.

I still had not found my pen, the policeman had one in his pocket, but would not let me use it. He continued to yell at me to get off the bus, while I was talking to the driver and then grabbed my personal bags and carried them off the bus and put them on the ground. I took out my lipstick to continue trying to get the info I would need to file a report on this. and the policeman kept trying to stop me from taking down the info. I clarified to him that this was a very serious incident and I intended to file a complaint. He gave me his name and number and demanded to see my I.D. I gave him my PA drivers’ license and he called it into dispatch or somewhere. The driver said he had to leave to get back on schedule, and that there would be another bus leaving there in 5 min.

I listened to his info, but I was trying to hear what the policeman was saying on the phone while he was checking my ID.

I clearly heard a female voice say "negative" to his inquiry, but he was instructing her on something else. He said," Well, she is a frequent......(I could not make out the next word, possibly flyer)....So you had better go ahead and put her on that list anyway.".

I asked him what list he was talking about there, and he said it was none of my business. I became annoyed and said, "That's MY name you just used, It most certainly IS my business!!".

Then 2 more PAT policemen pulled up and got out. Ofc. Joe Smith #21 and Ofc. Dipippa #55. They approached calmly and seemed friendly, saying "What seems to be the problem here?" I told them that I was being hit repeatedly and I intended to file a complaint and I could not leave the bus until I got the info nec. To file the report.

When they became aware that I was planning to file a complaint, they turned mean and insulting. Dipippa said "where are you from, are you a German?" I said "yes, German/Austrian". Then Smith said are you one of those nazi cornels of the third reicht? Oh, It's not even a full moon!" Then when he saw me write these quotes down, he said "You're making ME mad now."

Then Dorsey jumped in and said "well, she'll be getting a citation" . I asked what is a citation? and he said it will come in the mail. I was upset now and said "is it like a ticket or something?" He said "yea, a citation". I asked if it would have a fine or anything like a ticket, and he said "Yea, it will be a citation for disorderly conduct".

I said, "What are you talking about?! “You were hitting ME and you want to give me a citation for disorderly conduct?!!!!". I stated again that this was all unacceptable and tried to walk over to where the bus would pick me up and Dorsey held out his arms in a block to my exit and said you wait right here, we're not finished yet. I said," you're just trying to make me miss that bus, you heard him say it would be leaving in 5 min.". Then the bus pulled off.

Then another car pulled up with a very heavy black man in it and they said he was the Chief. He asked what was going on here and I started to tell him all these things. I asked him his name and he would not give it. One of the other men said, "just call him Chief". He was not in a PAT car or a PAT uniform. These 4 men were terrorizing me in the parking lot of the Swissvale busway and then suddenly said, "You have to get OFF this property NOW!!" 2 minutes ago I had tried to get the bus and they physically blocked my exit.

I left then and went over to wait for a bus at the passenger benches. I got on the #61B 5039, inbound and requested to go to the swissvale police station. The driver did not know where that was. A rider told me to get to it I should take the 61A.

I wanted to go to the real police to check on the conversation with the dispatcher. I thought, perhaps they had called my license into Swissvale police station to have it checked on. I realized that they never asked me my mailing address or my physical address they just said where do you live and I said Squirrel Hill. No more was asked. My license still has an old Lancaster, Pa address on it that they told me would not be updated until I get my renewal and new picture done this oct.

But I am concerned about being on this "LIST" I want my name removed IMMEDIATELY. And also, how could they mail me a citation without having my address? If I did not receive it in the mail, I would be denied "DUE PROCESS" of appealing anything on it and if I was not notified of a fine They could put out a warrant for not paying it!!!

Is THIS the kind of terroristic, predatory tactics that our citizens are being stalked with today? How many others have suffered from these brutes trying to harass and intimidate innocent citizens. Possibly causing them to have a criminal record or some undeserved tarnish to their record or reputation. I demand that I receive your written promise that NO CITATION and NO LIST will be registered with my name on it .

Very seriously looking for legal, mayoral and news media recourse,


EXIBIT #2

COPY OF LETTER TO P.A.T., RELAYING RESULT OF HEARING PROCESS AT JUNE 19, 2007 HEARING




Dawn Naret'

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/EXPANDED REPORT OF COMPLAINT DATED 06-19-07.

I DISCOVERED THAT, ON MY PRINTED HARD COPY, SOME PORTIONS OF THE FULL REPORT, SUBMITTED 06-19-07, HAD BEEN ERASED, BY AN UNKNOWN HACKING SOURCE, WHILE I ENTERED IT INTO THE SYSTEM AT CARNEGIE LIBRARY, SQUIRREL HILL, PA

I am filing a complaint to report, to you, that I am still having great problems occurring, due to the physical assault, on my body, by your PAT Policeman, J. Dorsey #30. I will give a quick overview of the incident.

On 04-23-2007, I was heading for the Carnegie Library and dozed off enroute. I was shocked out of sleep by officer Dorsey hitting me, repeatedly, on the arm. I hollered to stop and asked for the name and empl. # of the Pittsburgh PAT policeman, and of the driver.

The PAT policeman tried to obstruct me from getting the info I needed, to file a complaint of physical abuse, by refusing to allow me to use the pen, sticking up in his pocket, and by directing the driver to not reveal his name.

All this was turned in to your web site complaint route on 04-23-07 and on 04-24-07.

There were also 2 other officers, Joe Smith #21 and officer Dipippa #55, who showed up and terrorized me, with ethnic/national insult about my German Heritage. Then FALSELY implied that I had a history of psychiatric care at Western Psychiatric Hosp.

After the driver had left, with the bus I had been on, the 3 PAT officers had me standing outside a storage bldg., between the bldg. and a parked bus, at the far end of the Swissvale Bus way, away from where the passenger benches were. When I tried to leave, to get another bus back into town, Officer Dorsey jumped in front of me and held out both his arms and obstructed me from passing to the walkway. He said, “We’re not through with you yet”.

Then, a 5th employee showed up, being called “Chief” by the men. But he did not wear a PAT uniform or drive a PAT car. I don’t think he even worked for PAT, because he refused to give me his name or badge number.

This is the main reason that I do not believe that he worked for PAT. A legitimate “CHIEF” would have been more professional and would never refuse to identify himself.
The chief listened to my short version of what had occurred and that I wanted to file a complaint and left to speak with the men. He left the area without returning to me.

Then one of the officers came up to me and said,” You have to get off this property Immediately”. This was most absurd, because I had tried to leave and they had blocked my path. The only possible explanation for this mixed up, inappropriate instruction, would be that the Chief had more intelligence than they did.

When they told him they were going to cite me up for refusing to get off the bus, He may have drawn their attention to fact that I WAS already OFF the bus and THEY HAD OBSTRUCTED ME FROM LEAVING THE AREA! Now, how could they write me up for refusing to get off the bus? So they decided to cover it and hope to cite me for not leaving the PROPERTY as ordered.

The terrorizing was bad enough, but as a punishment and further intimidation, I was told that a citation, for “disorderly conduct”, would be issued, because I refused to leave the bus. It was the officer who was disorderly, by hitting me. You cannot instigate an issue by physically violating their body, and then cite them for complaining.

In my complaint, I demanded that you destroy any citation, because it was the Pittsburgh PAT officer being disorderly and abusive and that you make sure that my name is removed from THE LIST, that he instructed someone to register me onto, after I gave him my I.D. He had called it in to somewhere and I clearly heard a female respond “NEGATIVE” to his inquiry. He said “Well she is a frequent (some word-perhaps “flyer”) so, we had better go ahead and put her on the list.

You did not repair the damage he had done, and I received a citation, in the mail, with a charge of disorderly conduct.

The hearing was today and I am complaining two-fold.

One: that he was permitted to further damage my reputation with a criminal citation.

Two: that he perjured himself on 7 counts, in testimony about the incident. He gave a long FALSE history of what a problem customer I have been, that I always sleep on the bus, and that I always give them a hard time and will not co-operate, that PAT Executive management prefers that I not even ride the buses, that I resisted giving him my I.D. immediately, and that he only tapped me lightly on the arm when he woke me up. In truth, it was repeatedly and hard enough that it left bruising. But, HE DID ALREADY CONFESS THAT HE HIT ME. What right did he have to touch my body AT ALL!

The Magistrate seemed to me, to be about as corrupt as the officer was. He wanted to refuse to allow me to testify, that I had been hit and that was why I did not get off the bus immediately. I also wanted to tell him that when I tried to leave, these “3 Pittsburgh PAT officers from hell”, who were terrorizing me, blocked my path and said they were not done yet.

The Magistrate shut me up at every effort to speak and demanded to know, “Did you ARGUE with him?” I said yes and he declared me GUILTY.

I immediately appealed the ruling, through the County Circuit Court. The appeal was filed within 1 hour after leaving the hearing. And I am taking action to move the process to have criminal corruption charges filed against the three officers and the Magistrate. If YOU could not stop the fraudulent slandering and personal damage, then the Magistrate SHOULD have.

I am warning you, that you must reel these lying deceivers and abusers in, before they cause YOU to also be on the list for criminal charge processing. I have told you repeatedly, that I am a medical, COPD patient and suffer shortness of breath and sleepiness from low oxygen. My lungs go into spasm with stress and I could die instantly. I also have Congestive Heart Failure, and cannot tolerate stress.

If you are now aware of the condition and you cannot stop these hooligans from persecuting and harassing me, It will clearly be considered a PRE-MEDITATED, WREAKLESS ENDANGERMENT to my health.

If I should have a heart attack or die of lung spasm during, or as a result of one of their terrorizing episodes, of abusing your customers, then it will be deemed PRE-MEDITATED MURDER.

You have been fully informed and fully warned. I have already spoken with an attorney and the County Circuit Judge. I will be turning in a request to the State Internal Investigations Office, to please investigate these numerous complaints of abuse, perjury and slander.

I really do not want to give PORT AUTHORITY a problem. That is why I keep you fully informed about who is doing what to the riders. But I need co-operation from you, that you will get rid of these abusers, who are trying to put you out of business.

I also request that if you need policemen to protect the drivers from robbery or danger, I congratulate you. But their authority must be limited to that of protectors and not permitted to be abusing authority by fabricating disorderly conduct citations, where there was no aggressive threat from the rider and especially not where there was a criminal act committed by the PAT officer and he is trying to cover it up.

It seems that a more professional, safer policy would be; to strip these SECURITY officers from the right to issue any citation, since they have proven a tendency to abuse authority. They would be required to arrive immediately to the site of a problem, assess it, release the driver to continue on schedule and do what they can to resolve it, then call the official Pittsburgh Police to come in if an arrest seems in order. The bus could be on its way and no further danger to passengers if the perpetrator is removed from the bus and left in the custody of the SECURITY officers to prepare a report of the incident.

I will keep you informed, as always,

Dawn Naret’

NOTE: THIS CASE DECISION WAS APPEALED AND AS OF 5/23/08, IS STILL AWAITING A COURT DATE WITH THE PA SUPERIOR COURT - DAWN NARET'

IN ADDITION TO THESE 2 EXAMPLES, I HAVE A DOZEN OTHER COMPLAINTS OF ABUSE, FROM P.A.T. DRIVERS AND SERVICE AND THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT HEARING, SHOWING THAT CLEAR AND BLATANT PERJURY WAS STATED, IN HIS OWN WORDS.

I INTEND TO ALSO POST THE VERY LONG "BRIEF", PREPARED FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL, A WORK OF PROFESSIONAL ART, THAT TAKES THE COURT ON A STEP BY STEP, LINE BY LINE REVELATION OF PERJURY AND ALSO OF A DEVELOPING AND PROVEN PATTERN OF INTENTIONAL SLANDER, CRIMINALIZATION WITH TOTAL FINANCIAL AND LIFE DESTRUCTION.

THAT IS THE PROCESS AND A CONSISTENT PATTERN I HAVE WITNESSED, LIVED AND CONTINUE TO SUFFER FROM AND EXPOSE, SO THAT THESE CRIMINALS CAN NO LONGER MANIPULATE EMPLOYERS OR THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM ,TO ASSIST THEM IN BRINGING CITIZENS TO A POINT OF DESTITUTION, WHILE THEY MOVE IN AND STEAL THEIR IDENTITY AND ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS.

HOW CORRUPT EMPLOYEES OF PA STATE GOVERNMENT CAUSED ME TO BECOME AND REMAIN HOMELESS

THIS ONE IS DESIGNATED FOR STALKING CRIMINALS AND THEIR CRIMES.

MY LIFE HAS BEEN OBSTRUCTED AND DESTROYED BY CRIMINALS AND THEIR CRIMES. FROM WHITE COLLAR CORPORATE SABOTAGE TO STREET SLIME STALKERS AND FALSE WITNESSES FOR HIRE.

THROUGH IT ALL, I HAVE MAINTAINED MY SANITY, MY INTELLIGENCE, AND MOST OF ALL, MY HONOR. I HAVE DISCOVERED ENEMIES AND CRIMINALS IN EVERY ENDEAVOR I HAVE MADE IN CAREER AND BUSINESS DEALINGS AND HAVE DROPPED MY JAW AT THE INTER-CONNECTED IMPLICATIONS THAT THESE REVELATIONS HAVE COGNIZATED.

TODAY, WILL BEGIN A LONG SOMETIMES CHOPPY DISORTATION, AS I GATHER AND REVEAL THE VICTIMIZATION THAT I HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO DURING THE TRADGETY OF MY UNLIVED LIFE.

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, I EXPECT THE USUAL HACKING, INTERFERENCE AND ATTEMPTS OF OBSTRUCTION, BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT.

I MUST EXPOSE THIS DEGENERATE SYSTEM OF EVIL , ESPIONAGE AND GENOCIDE, FOR THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF ALL THOSE VICTIMS STILL IMPRISONED IN ITS PROCESS.

I WILL SUPPORT THEIR INDIVIDUAL STORIES OF VICTIMIZATION WITH FACTS OF MY OWN TO HELP THEM PROVE THAT IT WAS NOT A "COINCIDENCE" OR "ALL IN THEIR MIND".

GOD BLESS AND PROTECT US AS WE "DO THE RIGHT THING".

I CANNOT START AT THE VERY BEGINNING, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A LIFE LONG ABUSE OF DISCRIMINATION, BUT FOR NOW, I WILL PRESENT SAMPLES OF MORE RECENT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SINCE 1992, AS I GATHER IT TOGETHER.

1ST, IS A SAMPLE OF THE INJUSTICE I SUFFERED IN 2004, BY THE STATE OF PA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DEPT., WHEN THEY EVALUATED AN UNJUST TERMINATION FROM A JOB WELL DONE AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY WOULD RATHER VIOLATE THEIR OWN CODES AND RULES THAN TO PROTECT ME FROM EVICTION AND HOMELESSNESS THAT RESULTED FROM THE CORRUPTION THAT WAS THE FUNCTIONING PHILOSOPHY IN THE HARRISBURG AND LANCASTER, PA OFFICES.

1ST IS THE "STATEMENT OF THE CASE", WHICH IS A CHRONOLOGICAL CALENDAR OF HOW THE EVENTS AND DEMISE OF MY FINANCIAL SURVIVAL PLAYED ITSELF OUT. I DID UPDATE THIS, AND HAVE REPLACED THE ORIGINAL WHICH ONLY WENT TO NOV. 2004. THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REVEAL HOW THE INJUSTICE OF THE CORRUPTION, IN THE UCBR DEPT AND THE PA JUDICIARY SYSTEM, ADDED STILL ADDITIONAL TRAGEDY ONTO THE DESTRUCTION OF MY LIFE AND ALL EFFORTS TO SURVIVE IN A NORMAL QUALITY OF LIFE.

I INTEND TO UPDATE IT YET AGAIN, TO INCLUDE ALL THE LATER INJUSTICES AND PREDATORY ACTIVITIES AGAINST MY EFFORTS AND MY LIFE, THAT HAVE BEEN OCCURING, SINCE THIS LAST UPDATE OF JUNE 27, 2007, AND REPLACE IT WHENEVER I FIND ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO EXPAND THIS CALENDAR.

FOLLOWING THIS WILL COME EXAMPLES OF THE CORRUPT JUDICIARY PROCESS THAT I WAS VICTIMIZED BY AS WELL. I SERVED AS MY OWN ATTORNEY, AND DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF GOING BY THE BOOK, WITHIN ALL DEADLINES AND PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED AND RELATIVE DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCES.

WHAT DID I GET? SHOVED UNDER THE RUG, BY A CORRUPT GENERAL CLERK AND 2 CORRUPT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEGAL DEPT. OF THE PA UCBR.



EXIBIT #1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
NARET v. UCBR NO. 1742 CD 2004 (2004)

BY DAWN NARET', ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:This is an appeal of the final determination of the Unemployment compensation Board Of Review, (hereafter referred to as UCBR), which ruled, on July 17, 2004, that claimant was not entitled to Unemployment Compensation Benefits, (hereafter referred to as UC Benefits).

On February 7, 2004, the Unemployment Compensation Department ruled that the claimant was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law

On March 12, 2004, a service-contract company from missouri named TALX filed an appeal to that determination claiming itself non-legal agent of the employer. A hearing was held April 21, 2004 before referee, Marilyn Gunden. A local employee of the employee was present to represent the employer.

The claimant was late to arrive and was denied during two (2) phone requests to allow her a few more minutes to attend the hearing or to deliver a written testimony to be evaluated before a final decision.

The referee held a 15 minute hearing with the employers representative while the claimant was on the phone but was denied the opportunity to testify. The referee decided on May 17, 2004 in favor of the employer and ruled that the claimant was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits under section 402(e).


On June 1, 2004 Claimant appealed the decision of the referee with the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (hereafter referred to as UCBR) and forwarded written testimony to the UCBR as instructed by the referee's office.

On July 21, 2004 the UCBR ruled in favor of the referee and denied the claimant's request to have the decision remanded. The presiding board members were: William A Hawkins, Chairman Eileen B. Melvin, MemberRichard W. Bloomingdale, and MemberClaimant sent the UCBR a request for reconsideration and was denied a reconsideration.Claimant is now appealing to the honorable judges of the Commonwealth Court of Pa. A brief was hand-delivered by claimant on October 8, 2004 and was rejected by an unnamed person.


FACTUAL HISTORY:

On February 21, 2004 The Unemployment Compensation Department "Notice of Determination", listed a fact finding survey of the employer.the employer denied willful misconduct in the findings of fact:

1. The claimant was last employed on February 5, 2004
2. The claimant's job title was LPN Charge Nurse.
3. The claimant was discharged as a result of "unsatisfactory work performance".
4. The claimant had been warned about the unsatisfactory work performance.
5. The claimant worked to the best of her ability.

Based on the employers testimony in the fact finding survey, the Unemployment Compensation Department rendered a decision of eligible for UC Benefits pursuant to section 402 (e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.On March 12, 2004 A service-contract company named TALX, from missouri, filed an appeal to eligibility, claiming itself representative and non-legal agent of the employer. Their appeal was charging willful misconduct that was already denied by the local employer. an appeal hearing should not have been granted


On April 21, 2004 A hearing was held at 10:30AM before referee, Marilyn Gunden. The representative for the employer, Ms. Donna Bowman, Director of nursing, arrived and was invited to inspect the file. She looked at the already existing file containing documents #1 through #31.

The referee stated that she would now enter items #1 through #31, (that were not presented by Ms. Bowman), into the record if THERE was no objection, and Ms. Bowman was sworn in for testimony. The claimant was late for the hearing. She phoned in to request a short recess of a few minutes untill she could arrive. The request was denied. She was told that the hearing had already started and she was too late to attend.

She phoned back a second time to request permission to drop off a written testimony, including evidence to be evaluated before a final decision by the referee. The request was denied. She was told that she would have an opportunity to present testimony to the UCBR, in an appeal process available to her if the referee decided in favor of the employer.

The hearing lasted 15 minutes and the claimant was on the phone twice, during that time, trying to attend or at least drop off written testimony.


On May 17, 2004 the referee made a determination in favor of the employer and reversed the original determination of eligible to not eligible.

On June 1, 2004 claimant filed an appeal to the UCBR, and mailed to them a 15 page initial cover letter plus 50 pages of example correspondence she had had with her superiors, aiding them in having full knowledge of problem areas and reporting her efforts to inspire state and corporate compliance and efficient functioning in the facility.
She requested a timely review, by the UCBR, because UC Benefits were immediately cut off upon the referee's decision of not eligible.

On July 6, 2004 A letter of inquiry was sent to Mr. Bill Truskey, Legislative Liaison for UCBR from the honorable Mike Sturla, PA State Representative to attempt to aid the claimant, his constituent, in ending the financial duress being suffered while awaiting remanding by the UCBR upon examination of all the testimony and evidence presented.

On July 21, 2004, three (3) months after the referee's hearing, the UCBR supported the referee's decision and denied eligibility of UC Benefits based on; "the entire record of the prior proceedings, including the testimony submitted at the referee's hearing".

There was no due process available to the claimant. Her testimony and evidence were not even evaluated in the appeal. There was no appeal process.

Her testimony was rejected from being accepted into the record. The discarding of the testimony of the claimant was stated to have been done because; "The claimant has not established good cause for her actions. The claimant's request that the record be remanded for additional testimony (the claimant's ONLY testimony) is denied as she has not advanced proper cause for her failure to appear at the original referee's hearing.".

Page one (1) and page two (2) of the 15 page initial letter filing appeal to the UCBR gave a clear explanation that the claimant was indeed attempting to attend but was forbidden to attend and also forbidden to deliver written testimony.

On July 28, 2004 claimant submitted a request for forms to enter an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of PA., in the event that a reconsideration would also be denied by the UCBR.

On July 29,2004, following a telephone request, a written request for all transcripts and records of the hearing was e-mailed to the UCBR.

On July 29, 2004 a five (5) page brief request for reconsideration, citing the list of items being appealed, was faxed to the UCBR.

On July 29, 2004 Claimant also post-marked and mailed a 34 page hard-copy letter to the UCBR, making a formal request for reconsideration and listing specific arguments to the final decision. The specific arguments from this letter were used in the original brief presented October 8, 2004, on pages two (2) through thirty-three (33) of the "brief of petitioner" portion listed in the table of contents. (That original brief was rejected and this one is a re-submission of brief.)

On July 29, 2004, The same day the e-mail and faxed requests were received by the UCBR, the staff of the UCBR prepared a packet of several form letters, acknowledging receipt of communications, but did not include any copies of the record of the hearing.

On August 4, 2004, five (5) days later, UCBR denied the request for reconsideration leaving the denial decision standing as final.

On August 5, 2004 claimant filed official forms, requesting an appeal to the decision of the UCBR, in the Commonwealth Court of Pa., prior to the 30 day deadline of August 30, 2004, and following the denial for reconsideration.

On September 2, 2004 a motion was filed and approved requesting permission to submit fewer number of briefs to the Commonwealth Court of Pa. claimant had still not received copies of hearing records that were imperative to the preparation of the court brief.

There was also a discrepancy existing with the name of legal council for the UCBR, listed on the order to submit a brief by October 12, 2004. Council listed was Clifford Blaze, Esquire, c/o UCBR, respondent. Unable to locate a phone # for attorney Blaze.

On October 8, 2004 Claimant traveled to Harrisburg, Pa and hand delivered five (5) copies of brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pa. prior to the October 12, 2004 deadline.

Also, one (1) copy of brief and certificate of service were delivered and accepted by ms. Denise Roddy, Supervisor of UCBR, 10 th floor Labor and Industry Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. Ms. Roddy signed the receipt of acceptance and explained that Clifford Blaze, Esquire had left his assignment as legal council for the UCBR in August 2004 and she was currently handling appeals for the UCBR. Claimant had still received no response to two (2) requests for copies of hearing records, but was forced to submit a brief before the deadline.

On October 13, 2004 five (5) days later, claimant received an order of rejection of brief with a full list of required form, but no listing of any specific inconsistency to acceptable form. There was also no copy of brief returned with the order.

This created great unfair demand to create and submit a new brief because no indication was given as to why the original had been rejected. The new deadline for submission was November 12, 2004.

On October 25, 2004 claimant e-mailed a third (3rd) request to the UCBR to please expidite the July 29th telephone and e-mail request for copies of the hearing records.

On October 26, 2004 that e-mail was responded to and a transcript of the taped testimony of the employers representative was forwarded to the claimant by Gerard M. Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Council for UCBR. However, on page two (2) of the transcript a reference was made to documents #1 through #31 being placed into the file before the employers representative arrived at the referee's office. The representative was given an opportunity to look at them and then they were entered into the record and the representative was sworn in to begin testimony.

On October 25, 2004 claimant mailed a hard copy letter to the Commonwealth Court requesting, "to re-open records of this proceeding for the reception of further evidence." and also requesting a verification that all major testimony and correspondence, from claimant to the UCBR, were available in the file presented to the Commonwealth Court of Pa.

"My main concerns are that you have copies of: 15 page initial letter to UCBR requesting an appeal, a 50 page packet of sample communications to my superiors and a 34 page letter requesting a reconsideration of the UCBR denial of my request for an appeal. and an authentic copy of corporate termination rules to be included.". (none was presented to the referee, termination policy and "just cause" requirements were accepted on hearsayof the representative).

On October 26, 2004 a response to that letter was prepared and mailed to claimant by Mr. C.R. Hostutler, Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk. Verification was given of the presence of a 15 page initial letter, a 50-page packet of sample correspondence to superiors and the five page brief request for reconsideration that was faxed on July 29, 2004.

It was discovered that the hard copy full request for reconsideration, with itemized points of dispute, that was post-marked the same day, was not included in the file. There was no mention of records and transcripts of the hearing that were available.

"If you believe the record is incomplete, you may file a motion to modify the record with this court." The motion to modify the record was the letter he was responding to. The request to re-open the records for reception of further evidence was already submitted.

On November 3, 2004 claimant e-mailed a forth (4th) request for full release of all records of hearing, specifically documents #1 through #31 that were entered into the record on page two (2) of the transcript, but not identified or quoted from during the hearing and not presented by the employers representative during testimony. (Claimant is now facing a deadline of November 12, 2004 for re-submission of brief.)

On November 8, 2004 The 4th request to the UCBR for the remaining records of the hearing, specifically documents labeled #1 (one) through #31 (thirty-one) have not been forwarded for inspection or consideration in the preparation of the replacement brief demanded by C.R. Hostutler, Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk.

Claimant is therefore requesting an immediate remand or reversal with prejudice on this case due to lack of timely release of records that are imperative to the preparation of the brief.

We are now four (4) days from the deadline of November 12, 2004 slated for submission. It is inconsistent with PA Code 101.54 which requires timely release of "INFORMATION FROM THE FILE" that are necessary for the preparation of a brief.

NOVEMBER 10 Post-mailed Official Motion by Appellant to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice to Commonwealth Court. Included a duplicate copy of the 34 page letter, requesting re-consideration, that was not appended to the record by UCBR, as verified by Mr Hostutler, Chief Prothonotary. E-mailed copy and Certificate of Service to Gerard Mackarevich .

NOVEMBER 11, 2004 Phone call from Mr. Don Wagner, Prothonotary clerk, requesting Copy of Certificate of Service for Motion to be forwarded. Acknowledged receipt of Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice.Provided Fax # 717-787-9559. "no hard-copy follow up required"

NOVEMBER 11, 2004 Phoned P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative to request permission to have faxing done by his staff. He agreed to leave written permission for assistance to be given Monday – I declined immediate need.

NOVEMBER 12, 2004 Discovered that E-Mail to Deputy Mackarevich was returned by the UC Dept. staff with a note that this should be sent to Commonwealth Court (??).Faxed copies instead to number listed on Deputy Mackarevich's stationery 717-783-5027. – "Successful Transmission" – From F&M College Campus.

NOVEMBER 12, 2004 Also faxed copy of Certificate of Service to Mr. Wagner, per his request, at number provided, "Successful Send" – From F&M College Campus.

November 14, 2004 Prepared Addendum to Motion of the Appellant to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice and faxed to both Commonwealth Court at the number provided by Mr. Wagner, Prothonotary Ofc. And to Deputy Mackarevich at his ofc. Fax number. Included a cover letter with a 5 th request for the remaining records, specifically items #1 to #31. Transmission Incompleted at F&M College Campus. Resent both from Office of P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative. –"Successful Send" left copy in his office file.

NOVEMBER 26, Received copy and Certificate of Service for 11/24/04 Motion by UCBR to Dismiss Petitioner"s Appeal, submitted by UCBR Counsel, Janet M. Tarczy, Assistant counsel for UCBR. Motion, in its text, acknowledges receipt of; 10/25/04 request for records that was E-Mailed to the same address; as the later Motion by the Appellant to Remand, that the staff refused to accept for Deputy Mackarevich. Therefore, this was a correct number and the delivery should not have been refused.

The text in the Motion by the UCBR to Dismiss, also acknowledges receipt of my 11/8/04 Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice, plus Addendum, plus cover letter making the 5 th request for missing records.

NOVEMBER 29, 2004 Prepared Opposition to the Motion by Janet M. Tarczy to Dismiss the Petitioner's Appeal.

NOVEMBER 30, 2004 Faxed copies of Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss to both Counselors Mackarevich and Tarczy at UCBR and to Commonwealth Court, using same correct fax numbers. – "Successful Transmission" from the office of P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative. Left a copy of this plus 5 other letters of communication, pertaining to this case, in his hard copy file.

Transmitted E-Mail msg. and attachment of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss document to his Legal Liaison, Pat Coller to make available in his system file.

DECEMBER 6, 2004 Received notice from Prothonotary's office that this case will be dismissed, per request of UCBR, due to lack of reponses or evident interest from appellant, IF a brief is not submitted by Dec. 15, 2004.

* Prothonotary Clerk is still refusing to submit the motion to remand or reverse with prejudice TO THE JUDGE, as is required to be done, immediately upon receipt. The prothonotary clerk is ALSO still demanding submission of a brief which was deemed a canceled dead-line requirement, upon the submission of the motion to remand or reverse with prejudice.

BRIEF WAS NOT SUBMITTED – BECAUSE LEGAL PA PROTOCOL CANCELED IT AS A REQUIRED SUBMISSION, PENDING INVESTIGATION, BY THE JUDGE, INTO COMPLAINTS OF LACK OF COOPERATION FROM UCBR.

THE UCBR HAD 20 DAYS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES TO THE COMPLAINT AND NEVER OFFERED A DEFENCE. THEY INSTEAD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPELLENT'S CASE. A CLEAR REJECTION OF PROPER PROTOCOL AND FINAL EVIDENCE THAT VERIFIED AND VALIDATED THE APPELLANTS CHARGE OF NO COOPERATION.

CASE WAS DISMISSED AND CLOSED 12-15-04 BY DECISION OF THE ATTORNEY FOR THE UCBR COMMANDING AND CONTROLLING THE PROTHONOTARY CLERK.

(The official Judge never heard of it or saw the evidence – the PA Judicial System was to corrupt to follow the proper procedural process).

ON DEC. 13, 2005, APPELLANT WAS EVICTED FROM APARTMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT. HAVING NO WHERE TO GO, NO MONEY AND NO VEHICLE, SET OUT ON FOOT. WITH A PULL TOTE. ALL PERSONAL BELONGINGS WERE LOST, INCLUDING FAMILY PHOTOS, HISTORY, ANTIQUES AND PIECES OF ORIGINAL ART, COLLECTOR PRINTS AND LITHOGRAPHS
.
APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SEEK SHELTER IN THE LOCAL TOWN HOMELESS SHELTER.
OVER-EXPOSURE TO INSECTICIDE AND A DEPLORABLE ENVIRONMENT, NOW FOLLOWED THE RECENT ON-SET OF DETERIORATING HEALTH THAT WAS INITIATED WHILE EMPLOYED AT THE LAST JOB POSITION.

THERE WERE CONSTANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS CAUSING AN ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE OCCURRENCE OF RESPIRATORY AND INFECTIOUS ILLNESSES AMONG STAFF AND RESIDENTS.
APPELLANT WAS HOSPITALIZED AND DIAGNOSED WITH C.O.P.D., CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE AND PERMANENT LUNG DAMAGE.