HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-04120
I
"
~l
-el
~
1
","
~1
I
...
"
-.Q
...
<J
-
\
I
\
\
i
J
J
/
j
l
,..:.:i
p'{.;:'-'
i
j
I.
I
[I
~
')0...1
"\-1
\'~
~I
01
'il
-i
~
, .
u..
<3--
; '."'.: :r:~.,,~'.,
'r'
,
,
"
,
"f;
'.
.'
,."',/,%,,
~ ,'. I' ,,'
,;;...; ,
I"'o,t',,
. ~ ~,'I:~
',~.
"
',,"
.,
<
1.{
I'
;i;~'
,'~i~
",,' .'"{I~(
."r :~,~,,'~
','l"'~'" "
'~ ~'r,':;'
,
,;,',,:1
~I;
.
.~ '.
C:\CoreIIOmee71 WI'DOCS\EST A TES\GEROERICOMI'LAIN. WPD
Revised: July 17, 1998.9
v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMOERLAND COUNTY.I'ENNSYLV ANIA
NO, 9 f. 'Ilclu ~ -r;,..../
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
MILDRED J, GERBER.
PlaintifT
MARILYN JO GERBER,
Defendant
COMPLAINT
COUNT I
INTRUSION UPON SOLITUDE
OR SECLUSION
I, The Plaintiff is Mildred J, Gerber. an adult individual, residing at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070,
2, The Defendant is Marilyn Jo Gerber, an adult individual, residing at 42 Drexel Place, (Lower
Allen Township), New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070,
3, During the period beginning on or about January IS, 1998, and continuing to the present
time, Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to privacy and intruded upon Plaintiffs seclusion,
solitude and private affairs and concerns as hereinafter set forth.
4, Defendant, without Plaintiffs consent, stated to the Harrisburg Hospital attorney, Richard
Seneca, and other hospital personnel that she was in charge of all family decisions for her
father, Fred E. Gerber, with respect to his illness, and she attempted to exclude the Plaintiff
from decisions with respect to the health care of Plaintiffs husband, Fred E, Gerber,
5, Defendant, without the consent of Plaintiff, ordered treatment of her father with herbal teas,
drops, lotions and potions.
6, Defendant, without the consent of Plaintiff, placed new age crystals, pyramids, sticks, rocks,
fir branches and candles throughout her father's hospital room,
7, Defendant, without the consent of Plaintiff, placed handwritten instructions to hospital
physicians, nurses and other personnel on the walls of Plaintiff's husband's hospital room
with demands for administering potions and lotions, and visualizing Plaintiff's husband's
spiritual health,
C:ICoreIIOfficc7\ WPDOCSIEST A TES\GERIlERICOMI'LA IN. WI'D
Revised: July 17, 1998.9
8, In February, 1998, ut u Hurrisburg Hospital physieiun und slaff confcrcncc, including Dr,
Cummings, thc physiciun in chargc of Pluintifl's husbund's curc, und Mrs, Nuncy Duffy,
Nursing Supcrvisor, Coloncl Frcd E, Gerbcr, II, Pluintiff und Dcfendant, Defendant
continuully interrupted the discussions so thut it wus dil1icult lor the Pluintiffto nmke proper
decisions for the medicultreutment of her husbund,
9, Defendunt uttempted to interfere with limeral urrangements which hud been mude by the
Plaintiff for her husbund und without the knowledge or consent of the Pluintiffinstmcted the
funeral dircctor to pluce feuthers, beuds und pottery in the Plaintiffs husbund's casket.
10, Dcfendant took the gurage door remote control opencr from the Plaintiffs residence at 623
Hilltop Drive, New Cumbcrland, Pennsylvania, without the PlaintiITs knowledge or consent,
and despite demand by Plaintiff, it has not been returned,
II, Dcfendant deprived the Plaintiff ofthc use of Plaintiffs automobile for a period of six (6)
wceks before the funeral of Plaintiffs husband, despite objections from the Plaintiff,
12, Defendant, prior to the funeral of Plaintiffs husband and without knowledge or consent of
Plaintiff, removed the PlaintiITs car from the Plaintiffs residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, and refused to return it.
13, Defendant, without consent of Plaintiff, forced her way into Plaintiffs residence at 623
Hilltop Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and in front of Plaintiffs family members
accused Plaintiff of killing her husband,
14, Because of Defendant's attempts to interfere with funeral arrangements which Plaintiff had
made for her deceased husband, Plaintiff hired a security guard to attend the funeral and the
interment.
IS, Defendant disrupted the funeral services for Plaintiffs husband by firing a shot into the air
from an honor guard's rifle at an inappropriate time, without the consent of Plaintiff,
16, Defendant removed personal letters and other personal documents from Plaintiffs residence
at 623 Hilltop Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, without Plaintiffs consent and
refused, and still refuses, to return thcm,
17, Defendant tape recorded personal conversations with Plaintiff and photographed personal
letters and documents of the Plaintiffiu the Pluintiffs residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, without Plaintiffs knowledge or permission,
18. Defendant visited PNC Bank, stockbrokers and others, and stated that she was the Gerber
family decision maker and they should take her orders in the future with respect to her
father's property and her mother's property, without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff,
2
C:ICorellOmce71 WPDOCSIESTA TESIGERI3ERICOMPLAIN, WI'D
Revised: July 17, 1998.9
19, Defendant, without the knowledge or consent of Plaint in: scheduled Plaintiff lor un MRI in
order to try to prove Defendant's ullegation thllt Plaintiff hud a stroke unl! wus mentally
incompetent.
20, Defendant badgered Plaintiff in an allemptto guin control over Plaintiff's checkbooks and
other assets,
21. Defendant told Plaintiff she would tuke legal action to be appointed Plaintiffs legal guardian,
because she said Plaintiff was incompetent.
22, After the Plaintiffs husband's funeral, Defendant made almost daily telephone calls to
Plaintiff and threatened to tell relatives, friends and others of an incestuous relationship
between Defendant's father and Defendant unless Plaintiff deposited $8,000 in the
Defendant's bank account by May 5, 1998,
23, In the telephone calls to Plaintiff, Defendant demanded use of Plaintiffs car and money from
Plaintiff and accused Plaintiff of killing Plaintiffs husband,
24, Defendant called Plaintiffs car insurance agent for infommtion about Plaintiffs car insurance
policy and instnlcted that Defendant be addcd to the policy, without the knowledge or
consent of Plaintiff.
25, On or about March 13, 1998, Defendant entercd Plaintiffs residence at 623 Hilltop Drive,
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, without invitation and stated she would not leave until
Plaintiff paid Defendant $2,000, Plaintiff gave Defendant $2,000, and threatened to call the
police on March 15, 1998, in order to persuade Defendant to leave the Plaintiffs residence,
26, Because of the incessant telephone calls by Defendant to Plaintiff, as set forth above,
Plaintiff installed a private telephone line with an unlisted telephone number and installed
an answering machine on Plaintiffs listed telephone line,
27, Plaintiff installed new locks and security devices on her residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, because she believed, from the Defendant's past actions, that the
Defendant would attempt to break into the Plaintiffs residence,
28, Defendant told Plaintiff that Defendant telephoned Plaintiffs friends and neighbors and
discussed private family matters, including an incestuous relationship between Defendant
and her father,
29, At the Plaintiffs residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, on March
14,1998 and March 15,1998, while Plaintiff was having private telephone conversations
with her son, Fred, Defendant listened on a telephone extension despite Plaintiffs demands
to Defendant to stop listening and hang up,
3
C:ICorellOfliee71 WPDOCSIEST A TESIGERIJERICOMPLAIN, WPD
Revised: July 17,1998.9
30, On June 20, 1998, Defendant sat down beside Plaintifl'in St. Theresa's Church in New
Cumberland, without the consent of Plaintiff, and hugged Plaintiff excessively and held her
hund during the Muss despite Plaintiff's orders to Defcndant to stop,
31. On June 20, 1998, Defendant followed Plaintiff into the parking lot of St. Theresa's Church
where Plaintiff's car was parked and stated to Plaintiff that she was coming back to the
Plaintiff's residence with Plaintiff, Plaintiff objected but Defendant insisted on coming to
the Plaintifi's residence with Plaintiff', Plaintiff then told Defcndant that her son, Fred, was
at the residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, Ncw Cumbcr/and, Pennsylvania, which was not true,
in ordcr to attempt to prevent Defendant from forcing her way into Plaintiff's car and into
Plaintiff's residence,
32, Defendant attempted to obtain the unlisted telephone number of Plaintiff from Plaintiff's
grandson in Chicago, even though Defendant could call Plaintiff's other telephone line and
leave a message,
33, On June 29, 1998, Defendant came to Plaintiff's residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumber/and, Pennsylvania, at approximately 9:00p.m, demanding to be let in, Plaintiff
refused and ordered Defendant to leave,
34, On June 29, 1998, Defendant refused to leave Plaintiff's premises and stated she planned to
sit in front of the house until the Plaintiff opened the door,
35. On June 29, 1998, Plaintiff called the New Cumberland Police who investigated and found
Defendant sprawled on her back in the front yard of Plaintiff's residence at 623 Hilltop Drive,
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania,
36, On June 29, 1998, the New Cumberland Police ordered Defendant not to come on to
Plaintiff's property again,
37. On June 29, 1998, the Plaintiff's neighbors watched Defendant and the Police,
38, Defendant told Plaintiff that she would call the Commanding Officer of Plaintiff's son,
Colonel Fred E, Gerber, II, and ruin his career if he interfered with the Defendant's intention
to live with the PlaintitT, obtain money from the Plaintiff, and use the Plaintiff's car,
39, On July 5, 1998, Defendant waited for and confronted Plaintiff at the end of the worship
service at St. Theresa's Church in New Cumberland in the St. Theresa's Church parking lot,
despite Plaintiff's efforts to avoid the Defendant.
40, On July 6, 1998, Defendant came to Plaintiff's residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, at approximately 9:00 p,m., stating that she hadn't eaten in thirty-
4
C:\CoreIlOmee7\ WPDOCSIEST A TES\GERBER\COMPLAIN. WI'[)
Revised: July 17, 1998.9
six (36) hours, was still sleeping on the floor, and needed some milk, Plaintiff refused
Defendant admission to the residence but gave to Defendant her remaining milk and told
Defendant to leave or Plaintiff would call the police,
41. On July 8, 1998, Defendant came to Plaintiff's residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, at approximately 12:00 noon, crying, screaming and demanding
to be let in, Defendant screamed that Plaintiff killed her husband, Fred E, Gerber, and that
she had told neighbors, friends and relatives about Plaintiffs husband's, Fred E, Gerber's,
sexual abuse of the Defendant.
42, On July 8, 1998, when Defendant refused to leave the Plaintiffs premises at 623 Hilltop
Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, Plaintiff called the New Cumberland Police
Department for help,
43, The Plaintitr~ because of the actions and conduct of the Defendant, sought legal advice and
incurred attorneys' fees,
44, The Plaintiff is a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities,
45, As a result of Defendant's conduct and actions aforesaid, the Plaintiff has lost sleep, has
become apprehensive for her health and safety, has lost peace of mind, and suffers undue
mental anguish, has become embarrassed, shamed and humiliated, and has suffered severe
emotional distress,
46, Defendant's conduct and actions were oppressive, malicious, outrageous, extreme, willful,
wanton, reckless and abusive for which Plaintiff seeks punitive damages,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:
A, For an amount in excess of $25,000, plus costs and attorneys' fees;
B, For punitive damages;
C, For an Order enjoining Defendant from intruding
upon the solitude or seclusion of Plaintiff;
D, For such other relief as may be necessary or appropriate,
5
C:ICorrllOnice71 WPDOCSIEST ^ TESIGERI3ERICOMPl.AIN. WPD
Revised: July 17, 1998-9
COUNT II
PLACING or PLAINTIFF IN FALSE LIGHT
47, Paragruphs 1,2, hereinabove arc incorporated herein the same us if set forth at length,
48, Defendant stated to Dr, Cummings, Nurse Nancy Duffy, Harrisburg Hospitnl Attorney
Richard Seneca, Colonel Frederick E, Gerber, II, and Jane Henin that Plaintiffwns mcntally
incompetent and could not make decisions, which statements were private facts and false,
49, Defendant stated to Colonel Prederick E, Gerber, II and Jane Henin that Plaintiff killed
Plaintifrs husband, which statement was a private fact and false,
50, The matters set forth in paragraphs 47 and 48 above arc not of legitimate conccrn to the
public,
51. The PluintilT, bccause of the actions and conduct of the Defendunt, sought legal advice and
incurred attorneys' fees,
52, Plaintiff is a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities,
53, Defendant knew or should have known that the false light in which she placed the Plaintiff
would be highly offensive to a reasonable person,
54, Defendant had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of her statements
and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed,
55, As a result of Defendant's conduct and actions aforesaid, the Pluintiff has lost sleep, has
become apprehensive for her health and safety, has lost peace of mind, and suffers undue
mental anguish, has become embarrassed, shamed and humiliated, and has suffered severe
emotional distress.
56, Defendant's conduct and actions were oppressive, malicious, outrageous, extreme, willful,
wanton, reckless and abusive for which Plaintiff seeks punitive damages,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendant as follows:
A, POI' an amount in excess 01'$25,000, plus costs and attorneys' fees;
B, POI' punitive damages;
6
I'
i,
f'"..'
I.,'
I,;:
!";"
f"
:::\
i.,'.
C "
I.::g.~
I'
kI
......
. ,Jlf:-'~
"
1Z>i ~ G.~
M;~ ~-t.- If f!
/!b: ~atljk,~ 1-'1,,-ItJ' 1-1Jw
7 ),...; ,hu-J.tM.du; .- d- o/>'rJ: r:/dd't-~&&e.
CU.'biliiJ(ut,'".r" ~ #" r'U />/;,/%;1;4
~ t&~~ ;fl#t )f,t/l&rL~::t:
~~pltll ~ , .tf! 1L;;;~)ff;7ifr
tUXf7-rlL tit' ~JU(UfL~tltth.z~.
ItU-rU ~~/L- ?l7U&t. .;@ttll;/ Atd /,;;,/O?t~ - /11t1
, ~t.1~~ ~;,'
~/Wl ~ /a/d-~!Uq/f~/f)A1,
-I~;ft;- !!2IUtt4f1P8 ;tf~U&;J--
1!tU/Qt- " .~;;hd?ft~C-!hcAt-/uLT/rU-
~d~~' t&(fY' - ~~ha;t~
'!,.,.--k /1' ' II ? I
crt?U~UG ~t!-U,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE:
MILDRED J GERBER, ) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff ) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVNIA
)
) NO: 98-4120 EQUITY TERM
v. )
MARILYN JO GERBER, ) CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
Defendant )
)
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 1998, comes the
Petitioner, Marilyn Gerber, Pro Se also the Defendant and
makes the following request: ~t,X;, 1.;;J.j..2$/'1& VV~ .e lMf''-4;,p
1. I respectfully request a continuance for the following ~
reasons:
A. I live in California and due to my physical/medical
disability, this rep~ents a physical and financial
hardship especially during these holidays.
B. I have continously called the Plaintiff's attorneys,
Herbert Rupp and Richard Rupp to discuss this case
and other pertinent cases and THEY REFUSE TO RETURN
MY PHONE CALLS. This is a violation of their duty
to acknowledge my Pro Se status and give me the
accord and priviledges of any opposing attorney.
C. Rupp and Meikle continously refuse to provide me
any consideration of continuance, they refuse to
mutually agree on court appearances, and better
yet, Richard RUpp in particular has been abrasive,
belittling and malicious on the phone with me for
the one singular time he spoke to me just before
Thanksgiving holidays. He has done no investigation
into this frivilous law suit as to its accuracy
and legitimacy. Richard RUpp has no knowledge or
history with me or my family.
D. Rupp and Meikle need to recuse themselves on this
case as a conflict of interest as they also represent
my beneficiary rights under the Trust Agreement established
by my father, Col Fred E Gerber, deceased, Feb 22, 1998.
E. Other legal actions present a conflict of interest and
gives them illegal access to discovery documents as
each of the Rupp attorneys work on my fathers trust,
my mother's beneficicary trust and now this legal action.
page two
F. My mother, Mildred Jane Gerer is in early stages
of Dementia and I have been my mother's nurse for
over three years. My mother has NO PRIOR financial
knowledge or legal experience to bring this action
independently. This was documented on Charles Schwab
documents in January 1998 as my father was hospitali-
zed. At that time, I met with the RUPP attorneys
to arrange and coordinate fiancial documents as well ,6ft,,1
as with Charles Schwab. My mother was fully awared-~ 1(1
and participated in these meetings. Please refer J 1
to my response of this law suit.
G. This law suit is the direct responsibility of my
brother, Col Fred Gerber, DaB 1/52, who has single
handedly and covertly manipulated our mother to
gain control of her assests, act as POA as well is
the appointed trustee of our fathers's trust.
H. My brother who is "drivingh- this case 8iId fueling these
actions, has now been formally charged in the military
court with my complaints and will receivep civil
complaints in the coming New Year.
I. This complaint has origins in my brother's long
verbally and physically abusive relationship with
me over the lasJ~..~202lx~rs. He is anc;jy as he is
being complaine~and'~~pely charged with malicious,
and perjuerous charges and complaints surroundling
my father, my mother and my Aunt's estates which
are well documented in the courts of Cumberland
and Allegheny Counties.
J. I am legally~partially disabled and have a Disabled
Handicap plate for my car. The federal and state
courts acknowledge special considerations have to~
accorded the handicapped, ie telephone conferences, ete
K. My father's trust agreement clearly allows me the
monies for medical, personal, and life stlye needs
ie. the request made repeatedly by me for monies
for legal representation. These requests have been
repeatedly denied. This is paramount to England's
debtors prison.
L.
I am fiancially without
generosity of friends.
assets in protecting my
mother.
means and living
I have exhausted
rights and those
off the
all of my
of my
M. The airline fares do not allow me to even dream of
appearing in court and my physicians have also well
counseled me that a trip at this time with my cardiac
and orthopedic injuries would be severely~~nter
productive at this time. 1~~~1{
.
,
page three
N.
~
I havef)advised by my physicians and therapists
to take a well needed rest and I beg the court's
indulgence and mercy during these holidays to
allow me to be a Human Being especially in the
fact that my brother has mercilessly tried to
restrict me form my mother. I have had no
contact or the ability to call her since the
end of JUly, 1998. Numerous friends of my
mother and deceased father have called and
wri tten me asking "where is your Mother", "
We can't call her, she does not answer the
door". These constitute abnormal behaviors
by my mother and she was preliminarily tested
in January 1998 with results indicating
"abnormal changes related to age".
Q. My brother has essentially single handedly disgraced
and fractured our family I fear ~irreparably.
7/04tr
I NEED A CONTINUANCE OR DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE WELL INTO
LATE February. If I cannot work, I cannot pay to travel,
eat, pay bills, etc.
O.
I have repeatedly asked that my mother be
tested further by independent experts in
Dementia and Alzheim~~~. This is my specialty
and I am !f1andated une'f~t:he nurse practice actJ ,L.
in Pennsylvania to report this and act a'# my "f'{"f'O
mother's advocate. This has been my responsi-
bility for over three years. My brother or
sister have had very little contact with my
mother or father and are not educated or
licensed in medicince and healthcare.
The balance of the other iSsu~~~ted in this
law suit are falacious and untrue and have no
basis for a law suit. In conclusion, my mother
in her right mind WOULD NEVER ENTERTAIN A LAW
SUIT OF THIS NATURE. The fact stands that I
saw my mother contin 'ously throughout the
Spring and Summer privately. She gave me food,
money and asked me to have "my attorney come and
talk to her". My mother does not understand why
she cannot see me. She was confused and tearful
and disoriented. She is completely ALONE WITHOUT
ANY OF HER CHILDREN NEAR HER. She has had
numerous histories of falls, a broken hip in
April 1997 and some auto accidents while driving in
1996-1997. My mother's mental and physical health
is at stake here in continuing this law suit.
P.
I'C :,11
I
.. ~~6.' C (:: i; r.
I:! :!:l-'l\li
.
(."\':18 t,W{'1
11,),\
'[S II,., III 1111;:1
:,,';1111:1
~ ,\1,! I \ II
r.
r-ly m(d 11(~r', r.li ldr('c1 ,Jan~~ C:I'r(.'l' 1::; j rt C':'ll'lv ~:I_dr.J{.'U
o! DC'!/Ii:ntL:1 anrl I Itd\tI,\ 1.)(.'I':n my 1I1()I.IH'::'1"~; ;11.11."':.5&' frn'
nV('C I hn'(\ Y(\~II':;'. t'ly rnp! hor ha~'; NO l'r~Tni~ : indn(~i,,:11
kll()wli.'{lq(: or l8q/Jl l':':'II.'L'l<~l1r:l: I (J bl'i!)f.) I il i~, ~::c.:.t.'lnll
i I~dnp{ ~rtdcl1l. I Y a 'Ph, :=i ',,'.1 ~,; d(..:H.:LlInc:n I cd (,)11 Chd r' I c.':., ScJH..'/J b
(h)\.'lHJh'~nt::; 111 ~/dnU.:.lry J l,lI)H d!3 my f,:jllll.'C' We':=: hC):"ipi 1.':'111-
',;;(l'Cla ,1'It. 1.11.'1/ I !Ili(.', 1 ll:l'~r, \';1 I tl the' I~tlpp .J1.lr)rne.Y::j
10 drr.~tr19(:' ~'nd coor(lin.1l~' i j;.lnci..:t1 docl1.trl(;'nt~':; d~: '","ul
/,::=: w.i 1!1 Ch"lc'I.(.':.; Scl1',;.:tb. ,":y l:illl.hl:,r '.',~I::, t II (l.y ':",W,:Il:l'!
nnd pi:lrtic:'lpal./.~(: ill It!o:.'~.;(' m..:!t,~,'l.ifll.;::. ~lli?z;::~r! [~';(~r'
/,('1 wy ('(.!~.;fl(Hr~3(' of this 1r':'."I ~;l/ i La
(~ .
'I'll i :.~ Id'N :.>Ltlt i~. th(.:;> (111'4.'1('1 r'i~~,;pO!l~.;jbi I i I.y ()L my
bt'I..)tl'H'~[', CuI l,'n'd (j(~['!)j""', DOH l/'i:~, \o/ho htJ::, :.;iflf.J!<'
!ll.Indc.'dly ,:,uld CClv~~rt!'/ m.."jrlipIJldLt.'d ()IJr 11!()Lh,'~'r to
qtJ.in (::onl [01 ul rlt.' [ ,,!l":~.;f}:.:.t~~, .-!cL ,.1:; PO!.. n:=; '.v(~11 t!.:
the t.!1~)P9intnd t.rIJ:o;j'un or ()1.lL' f(.itht..'~r:;I~; I.r'lll~;to
E..
~'ly bJ'('l:IH~r vitlO 'i:; <if ivillq thi~.., C(J~;(~ OOd fll(."llnq tIH::~r:
i.lctii(.H1S, hus no,,", b'21.~n frH'liuilly ch~lL.l)ed in tlhl l~ti i Ldry
CI..II1[.1', \..'il.il lilY comploiLrd~; dod .......ill 1"(!(:(~i.v(~d civi t
r:CJHlpl~!jl.ll!.; .iCl the' cO!II.Lfl~1 Ne,,, Y('!,~ra
1.
'['his (.'(JllIplalflL h.:.t:..i rJL'iqln~-: in mv brnllll"'c' ~ lonrr
verbally and physic.::.:ll:; ahlli,iv(:' {'('11l1 iUfl!.;hip ,.....i~,!~
l'lH:) nV~!f' LlH: 1.1.~il. :~;~ 't':-:"lr~:). Ht: i~; drlr.f\r! n!,;. he 15
bc.lrll] (.:QlllpJ.:'l Ln(.~d dncl IIOp!.! Y ('111.~ r.\]l'.:'d id th DId l.i C i ()l!~;,
anci r)("~t''iI!(~rcJtl~:; r:h"Jn',;~~~:; /1rn'1 ('nil!pl,'~ir!l":": ~_;llr.roLlndlin\:;'
my fatt.lt'~l., my !llolh<.'r' ;.1fld my Aunt10S r)::;l.,":!l.()~; \'itJ,ich
df.'(~ \,,(:11. d()(:tJHl(!I:I.{'~(j if! l.ll'.~ C:()IJrl':~ of C1.1mbct"1':Uld
and AlleSiheny Cotlflllcc;.
.J. l .'<01 lnqal1y partially disab1.ne] and Ii~v" " L1i'.'ablr.'<.J
H"'Jnd~.ctJp plc7tte fell. illY (,~I.l['. rrhl2 f*(Jl:!L'tJ] and :;L~l.c-
cou.r"t:; dckuo\~'l.()<i~l! ~=:p~!Cif:'i l,::('H!:::id(!r,~.li()i!~; tl."~'Jl~ 1:0
dcc:orded thE' h.:lnd.ic;-IPP(:~d Ii (' telc'pho1112 confe.rl;?nce~:;, 12tc
R. My f~I-,lll!C~IS tl~ust ugl~eCI!10rll clGurly 21lows me tile
r,lonics fOl. rr[(':dj~~,~l, p()r~;:(ln.'I.L, drl(~ !if\'; ~:: iye: rJ(~~~d::
it'!. tll~ 1"0(!lJest IIlUdc rep~~llcdly by rrl~ for mOI,je~
fQr It2l:ral r(:'pn.'l.;c,nl.11.LolI. 'l'hc:;<:' i"(.\(gH.':._I.:.; h;,l\/(:' t.H.~'.'rl
repealcdlv (lc~!lLncl. 7his ;_~~ p,:n','Hl1t"JI!!1: In ElJt!L=:l\d'~;
(lc.~t)l..:()r~; pr i::iono
L.
1 ,:ullli"ncjally i~rilh(JUi.
'jlf~nero~.; i ty 0 f I, ri ~!nc:s .
al'_;~-;ot.::-; ill protc.ct_i [\'.J my
mClth(:, r'.
I: ! 1(':
of my
my
m(',pll.: ;;l!ld l.i.vinq
I hu....l;o l:':.:h':Il.lstl?d
I' ;<,)111-." and t:l1n:"n
01 I
<\11.
of
j"\ Thl.=.' airlir1(~ La.r(!~; do not allovJ trh'~' b.) '~"Vl-;'n dJ~C'aIll of.
nppna r i liCJ in COl!J' 1 ,dfJ('i my ph,:-':::Jici"':l1"lS havlt.! .%ls() vJell
cOl1n~;cl(,~d !H(: thal" ;.! L.r::Lp ..~L l:tll~; l..im() \vo!.th my cArdittc
anej orr.!Jo[lcdlc: i rr j IJ.ri C~i wou ld b" ~;cv(.'n.'ly rrV"
prclduct ivl;' ;.1 L I. t! i!-, l. i lilt.'.
I ~. ~:I :)~
11::1',
~"HJ.I:I(J III n ~l ~
N.
'O'lf-. III 111I;!)
1,111 1\11
It.'JIIIII
o.
i ~,;I,"I
1 t1dV8fl':'1(lVI!;l!(J IlY r,1';' rJhy~,i{'I.:Jn:, .~lnd t;h..'r;!r,i:,I:~
to I..:!k.l' tl \'JL'11 p<'t'd(~(1 t'1.~:;t dnd I I)i~',l I hn l':I.~)111:t' t;
j{ldlilt'r~'r1{'\.~ ,:Jnd ~I(::'!:',~Y dllr'il!l~ :,h,:~~::t~ holidi.lY~.; I ()
~jllo~"III(! to br} i.1 llllllj,:j(l Heir!\:; (.\uP(\t',;iitl ly ill Lh~!
IdeL l',hllt tU'!, llrnt.h(:.'l' tld:; li:(~r'l'..i In::dily tri(;od Lc,l
rl!!:-;t:~-lcl IlIt~.' form lliV 11Il'lt:!1l:!t' _ T hc'.\v(.:' twd FlO
C("H,ll,;>lC:1. nt- ttll.' dllllitv Lo (.:;.:1.1 ill,'! ~;jlll"r! t.iH':'
Ul1d ~)f ,JlIly; llJ<JB. N;llll~'lrnll~:-' fl'il.~nds ot lilY"
moth.;-!!. and C.ic~CI:01::;('!d t,:tI, rll::f' hnv{l Cd J 1 U{J /Jnd
t,.1rlL lt~f1 01l'! c~skirlq lI'..Jh';:~l'(~ i~.:;, YOLlr t-iol.llI,'r,II, II
Wr! clIn I L cdl1 h.~!r, :..IH': dOI,l:-:j IH')t'. ;Jn~:;t,.,.'er the'
ddc)r,j, ~ 'l'h~~~(.:.' c.:c.lIl~';I',i tl1t(.~ ~\btlorll1.:.tJ. I.lI,'rldvi,t'lrS
by";Hly'lllollull ,:tlld ~,~tl\' '..,',.J;'; pr.,'ljl11,~I1.:,rily tf.~:,;l,~d
in:./0nuury It)l)B "...il,'\ r.i'~;I;ll:,., i!ldll.:.:jl.intJ
"d):ln~"1'm,11 Chi,ll!c.i.r!s t-o;::,lalt.:'(.1 l.t,l f;lq(~t\.
i: h;lV;,' rr,'I,":'" IJd i Y Cl,-,f;cd 1,11.,11. 111'1 111<,>1.1"'"'1' b..,
t~.~'~_~l(,'d : IJrther by i !!dl!~)(~ndl'~nr, If!;:p~rt~, in
()r:m',~nti':'l dl\d i\('/,h02iUlC[,lS. 'l'h,it~ i~; IllY ~:p~::t.;itjlty
C:lnd 1 dill 1ll;.illdat(~d IUlur th(! liUrSt:: l,ract l(.~c eel
i n renn~~ylvdllj/J t.o rcpor'L 1..!Ij,~; dlld ,~r:L a my
mqt;.her: I ~.; ,'lC'!V(")C\J.tc. '1'/11 ~': h.~~; bt.':r:n my rl?:..:,p()n~,~i-
bi lil.y fcn- (jVl.~r. Li11:e,? yt'~a[,l.;_ Ny broL.Jlt-.lL or
,;i :,:t.el:" h"v" had very 1 i 1:l.h, cont.act. willi lilY
molh\';~r or' father: ..-inrl (,,)J:'~ not educaLod or
) iC12nsc'd in IlH":dic,irlco and hE:althcare.
P.
'Vh8 bi.! I ,-jnC't.~ o[ 1.111~ nl'.h~:!l' ,i. ~"'~':;L'c.d ! Lt~l (~d i n r.hi~.:;
]a'..: :-,uil lire i~,ld<.'i()ll:;:, C:Hlll ~Ullf'Uf: dlld htJve no
b.:.~~;i~i fen: Ll .l,.~lti sUll_ in (:(JI"J(;lt!~~,.jon, my lIlc)lll(~i'
ill,l1c:l" ri~1111 mind \.,rOltl.P N~:Vr~n EN'TER'!'A1N ~ 1,/\\';
r.~U.J.'{" OF 'I'UI!..~ N/\'I'(!rn::_ 'l'lH:! lact ::;tClnt1~_, l.hdt.
~;,~v, my llIol:JH'!r conI in '()l.1s1y thrCH!qIICHlr. th(=
Spr'IIII'J al1cl ~~lllllllll.",'r pr.iv.~t:el":'- ~;h(' q,1V(-~ Ull~ rCICld,
lilnneY i;lfld asl<ii.rJ Ifl\~ t,CJ tli.-lV(;~ 1I1l1y at.tornc'y r;oUlU i.lnd
tC:J-1 k 1.0 he'r,lI. t>1y lI1(yLi1uc dC1C'~3!!()1.. {J!tdl!~rst.and \.;hy
f.jh(-, (:,~nnot :..;C(: tn\'::. ~~Il\.' v,'/::=, (:(Jfll!l~i(~d ,~nll t.earlul
and eli,.;",r:i e>nt.ed. c~IH" is cOlllpl (,(.l.',ly i\LI.lNE vlI'i'HOtJT
nNYOF HER CHILDREN NEI\H ITER. :.;11(-' I,,,:'; had
nllml=rOll~i histor:il.:~~' of Ln l..!~;, (.oj broken hiE) if I
Apr-i.:I lSl~)7 alH1 :"::;()llK~ ;:~Ilt() ~lc(.~ld(;"rll:~; \.;hi.lt'? drivin() in
J.!)II(j-l~)9'!. ~ly rnnt.he,r':,; lil(."nl.iJl and plly"ica] heall.ll
it- ;xL ::.t,akc\ ilrn;e i!l cCJntinulnq Iltj~:; l~Hl ~~l.lil_
Q_ r1y tn.-()th(."r~ !11!S C-'l;~;(:n:',i..:.\J!Y ::ill1,J'II,:: h~\tH.ic'.dly r1isqr';!C:(~f1
dn'c1 fr'i,lcl.lirc.(j our i;,!llli1y' T fCUf' 10 'jrr(;:'p;.Jr-"hly.
1 NI.:t-:1J A cnN'['TNl1f\.NC!~: (Jf\ DD:;j.1T~:.~;:Aj, (J\.;' 'l'HIS CA~.;J,: HELL IN'.l'U
T.A.rrr:: F(~bl'u':\I:-Y_ Tf J. ct!nnQt w' (,)rk, J. cann()t pi.1V Lu rxavc;":l,
eat., pay bUTs, (~L<.':.
/
LAW ,OFFICES
RUPP AND MEIKLE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Tn~ WAGNER. 8U1~DlNG.,SUITE 303
'355 NORTH 21ST STREET
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
"
.'
.
.;
..,.
'~"
. ~ ~ J '
'.',~~~ ; .t;"
:I.~ . ., ~ In'
. ,:,..,. I '1
.../I.'.....,,'J-
.~ "6':):. 3-
.'" '}'....~
'\''\;.' . ,r:"
\.... < ~.,{l~\ ':.~. ;.'
". , t'. ~ ~
: ;~~~. :"\
,,~'\ ~-- j ~
'p ...~
, .n\ '>..'
',oJ.' .....I.t;:.,
" -
i< ~ ' ,;,.\....
.:;';~; "' .
- i... ('~':,
,11. \: -:.~)' ;'-
1, :;l:
~l,. ~ t
.~~ , '..
'i-: ...::'
~'..
. ".it
,"f:t:-r-:1;~,,~ l
4: ' ' ~~:
..~:
;,;,4.
-..,'
~l ~
l"~
,
,',1'
~ ~j...t. ~\)..
.:.~11-J
"
.,~ '
,
J l!
~';"I~I\.>,f
, -,~ r '
'i ~.\"t'V
:' P
'.
"~ ",\.
'k":"' 0"
(..''l\cAi.....
~:l ~i.:,',~~t:,.t'
:" 1~,J..~"/
'1' ,':"
:,),~,~.
\/,
;t
"',?}):
~.'
<
..."'....,
~~/
,
~,
'I';~~
..~
.
.C:ICore 110 f1ice 71 \VPDOCS,IEST ATESIG E R!3 E R 1 I 00598,pet
Revised: Octub,.( 1.1.1998..1
10. Dcfendantliled an Answer to the Complaint on September J, 1998, after the Prothonotary
had entered a Default Judgment for Want of an Answer against the Defendunt.
II. This Petition is tiled in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1511(b) and
seeks an appropriate rimll Decree upon Judgment of Default.
12. Your Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court make findings of fact with respect to
Count I ofthe Complaint as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference,
13, Your Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court make conclusions ofIawwith respect to
Count I of the Complaint as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference,
I 4, Your Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court make findings of fact with respect to
Count II of the Complaint as set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference,
15, Your Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court make conclusions ofIaw with respect to
Count II of the Complaint as set forth in Exhibit "0" attached hereto and incorporuted herein
by reference,
16. Your Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court enter Orders enjoining the Defendant as
proposed in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
And she will ever pray,
17, IN THE AL TERNA TIVE, your Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court order a hearing
in the above-captioned action so that:
a, Your Petitioner may obtain an Order against the Defendant enjoining the Defendant
from Intruding upon the Solitude or Seclusion of your Petitioner; and
b, Your Petitioner may obtain an Order for damages, costs and attorneys' fees; and
c, Your Petitioner may obtain an Order for punitive damages; and
d, Your Petitioner may obtain an Order for such other relief as may be necessary or
appropriate; and
e, Your Petitioner may obtain an Order against the Defendant enjoining the Defendant
by statements or otherwise from placing your Petitioner in a False Light; and
f, Your Petitioner may obtain an Order for damages, costs and attorneys' fees; and
2
C:ICllreIIOflice7\ WPDOCS\ESTATES (i ERIl ERI 1 005'!S,pel
, .
Revised: OClober 14, 1998.4
VERI FICA TION
I, MILDRED j, GERBER, verify that I om the Petitioner in the foregoing Petition and the
facts set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge,
infonnation and belief,
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C,S, 4909
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Dote: 0 d J.. fA) /11 r
EXHIBIT "1\"
COUNT I
INTRUSION UPON SOLITUDE
OR SECLUSION
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF PACTS
I. The Plaintiff is Mildred J, Gerber, Paragraph I ofCompJaint,
2, The Defendant is Marilyn Jo Gerber, Paragraph 2 of Complaint.
3, On July 21, J 998, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Equity against the Defendant.
4, The Defendant did not file a Responsive Pleading to the Complaint.
5, On August 21, 1998, the Plaintiff served upon the Defendant a Notice that judgment might
be taken by default if the Defendant did not file objections or defenses within the allotted
time,
6, On September 2, 1998, the Plaintiff, through hcr attorneys, entered a Praecipe for Judgment
against the Defendant by Default for Want of an Answer.
7, On September 2, 1998, the Prothonotary cntered Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendant for Want of an Ans\\'er.
8, The Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint after Judgment by Default for Want of an
Answer had been entered,
9, In February, 1998, at a Harrisburg Hospital physician and staff conference, Defendant
continually interrupted the discussions so that it IVas difficult for the Plaintiff to make proper
decisions for the medical treatment of her husband. Paragraph 8 of Complaint.
10, Defendant attempted to interfere with funeral arrangements which had been made by the
Plaintiff for her husband and without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffinstructed the
tuneral director to place feathers, beads and pottery in the Plaintiffs husband's casket.
Paragraph 9 of Complaint.
II. Defendant took the garage door remote control opener from the Plaintiffs residence without
the Plaintiffs knowledge or consent. Paragraph 10 of Complaint.
12, Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of the use of Plaintiffs automobile for a period of six (6)
weeks before the funeral of Plaintiffs husband, despite objections from the Plaintiff.
Paragraph I I of Complaint.
Exhibit "A"
A-I
13, Defendant, prior to the funeral of Plaintiffs husband and without knowledge or consent of
Plaintiff. removed the Plaintiffs car from the Plaintiffs residence and refused to return it.
Paragraph 12 of Complaint.
14, Defendant, without consent of Plaintiff, forced hcr way into Plaintiffs residence and accused
Plaintiff of killing her husband. Paragraph 13 of Complaint.
IS, Because of Defendant's attempts to interfere with funeral arrangements which Plaintiffhad
made for her deceased husband, Plaintiff hired a security guard to attend the funeral and the
intennent. Paragraph 14 of Complaint.
16, Defendant disrupted the funeral services for Plaintiffs husband by firing a shot into the air
from an honor guard's rifle without the consent of Plaintiff. Paragraph IS of Complaint.
17, Defendant removed personal letters and other personal documents from Plaintiffs residence
without Plaintiffs consent and refused, and still refuses, to return them, Paragraph 16 of
Complaint.
18, Defendant tape recorded personal conversations with Plaintiff and photographed personal
letters and documents of the Plaintiff in the Plaintiffs residence without Plaintiffs
knowledge or pennission, Paragraph 17 of Complaint.
19, Defendant visited PNC Bank, stockbrokers and others, and stated that sh~ was the Gerber
family decision maker and they should take her orders in the future with respect to her
father's property and her mother's property, without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff,
Paragraph 18 of Complaint.
20, Defendant, without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, scheduled Plaintiff for an MRI in
order to try to prove Defendant's allegation that Plaintiff had a stroke and was mentally
incompetent. Paragraph 19 of Complaint.
21. Defendant badgered Plaintiff in an attempt to gain control over Plaintiffs checkbooks and
other assets. Paragraph 20 of Complaint.
22, Defendant told Plaintiffshe would take legal action to be appointed Plaintiffs legal guardian,
because she said Plaintiff was incompetent. Paragraph 21 of Complaint.
23, After the Plaintiffs husband's funeral, Defendant made almost daily telephone calls to
Plaintiff ,and threatened to tell relatives, friends and others of an incestuous relationship
between Defendant's father and Defendant unless Plaintiff deposited $8,000 in the
Defendant's bank account by May 5, 1998, Paragraph 22 of Complaint.
24, In the telephone calls to Plaintiff, Defendant demanded use of Plaintiffs car and money from
Plaintiff and accused Plaintiff of killing Plaintiffs husband, Paragraph 23 of Complaint.
Exhibit "A"
A-2
25, On or about March 13, 1998, Defendant cntered Plaintifrs residence without invitation and
staled she would not leave until Plaintiff paid Defendant $2,000, On March 15. 1998,
Plaintiff gave Defendant $2.000. and threatened to call the police in order to persuade
Defendant to leave the Plaintift's residence, Paragraph 25 of Complaint,
26. Because of the incessant telephone calls by Defendant to Plaintiff, Plaintiffinstalled a private
telephone line with an unlisted telephone number and installed an answering machine on
Plaintifrs listed telephone line, Paragraph 26 of Complaint.
27, Plaintiffinstalled new locks and security devices on her residence because she believed, from
the Defendant's past actions, that the Defendant would attempt to break into the Plaintiffs
residence, Paragraph 27 of Complaint.
28, Defendant told Plaintiff that Defendant telephoned Plaintiffs friends and neighbors and
discussed private family mallers, including an incestuous relationship between Defendant
and her father, Paragraph 28 of Complaint.
29, At the Plaintift's residence on March 14, 1998 and March 15,1998, while Plaintiff was
having private telephone conversations with hcr son, Fred, Defendant listened on a telephone
~,{tension despite Plaintift's demands to Defendant to stop listening and hang up, Paragraph
29 of Complaint.
30. On June 20, 1998, Defendant sat down beside Plaintiff in St. Theresa's Church in New
Cumberland, without the consent of Plain tilT, and hugged Plaintiff excessively and held her
hand during the Mass despite Plaintifrs orders to Defendant to stop, Paragraph 30 of
Complaint.
31. On June 29, 1998, Defendant came to Plaintift's residence at approximately 9:00 p,m,
demanding to be let in. Plaintiff refused and ordered Defendant to leave. Paragraph 33 of
Complaint.
32. On June 29, 1998, Defendant refused to leave Plaintift's premises and stated she planned to
sit in front of the house until the Plaintiff opened the door, Paragraph 34 of Complaint,
33, On June 29, 1998, Plaintiff called the New Cumberland Poliee who investigated and found
Defendant sprawled on her back in the front yard of Plaintiffs residence. Paragraph 35 of
Complaint.
34, On June 29, 1998, the New Cumberland Police ordered Defendant not to come on to
Plaintifrs property again. Paragraph 36 of Complaint.
35. On June 29, 1998, the Plaintiffs neighbors watched Defendant and the Police, Paragraph
37 of Complaint.
Exhibit "A"
A-3
36, Defendant told Plaintiff that she would call the Commanding Officer of Plaintiffs son,
Colonel Fred E, Gerber, II, and ruin his career ifhe interfered with the Defendant's intention
10 live with Ihe Plaintiff, obtain money from the Plaintiff, and use the Plaintiffs car,
Paragraph 38 of Complaint.
37, On July 8, 1998, Defendant came to PlaintiITs residence at approximately 12:00 noon,
crying, screaming and demanding to be let in, Defendant screamed thatl'laintiffkilIed her
husband, Fred E, Gerber, and that she had told neighbors, friends and relatives about
Plaintiffs husband's, Fred E, Gerber's, sexual abuse of the Defendant. Paragraph 41 of
Complaint.
38, On July 8, J 998, when Defendant refused to leave the Plaintiff's premises, Plaintiff called
the New Cumberland Police for help. Paragraph 42 of Complaint.
39, The Plaintiff, because of the actions and conduct of the Defendant, sought legal advice and
incurred attorneys' fees. Paragraph 43 of Complaint.
40, The Plaintiff is a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities, Paragraph 44 of Complaint.
41. As a result of Defendant's conduct and actions aforesaid, the Plaintiff has lost sleep, has
become apprehensive for her health and safety, has lost peace of mind, and suffers undue
mental anguish, has become embarrassed, shamed and humiliated, and has suffered severe
emotional distress, Paragraph 45 of Complaint.
Exhibit "A"
A-4
EXHIBIT "B"
COUNT I
INTRUSION UPON SOLITUDE
OR SECLUSION
t
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LA W
1.
Defendant's conduct and actions were oppressive, malicious, outrageous, extreme, willful,
wanton, reckless and abusive,
I
"
I!
"
2. Defendant's conduct and actions intruded upon the Solitude and/or Seclusion of the
Peti tioner- Plainti ff,
Exhibit "B"
EXHIBIT "E"
COUNT I
INTRUSION UPON SOLITUDE
OR SECLUSION
PROPOSED INJUNCTION
Marilyn Jo Gerber is hereby enjoined:
I, From approaching closer that 500 feet to the residence of Mildred ], Gerber at 623 Hilltop
Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania; and
2, From following and/or stalking Mildred J, Gerber; and/or
3, From confronting Mildred J, Gerber in her automobile and/or any public or semi-public
place including but not limited to streets, buildings, churches, grocery stores, department
stores and/or other types of stores, movie theaters, auditoriums, concert halls and parking
lots,
COUNT II
PLACING OF PLAINTIFF IN FALSE LIGHT
PROPOSED INJUNCTION
Marilyn Jo Gerber is hereby enjoined:
I, From placing Mildred J, Gerber in a false light including but not Iimted to verbal and
written statements or publications,
Exhibit "E"
>. C'> .......
~0 -- "
,.-, '"
ill ,
U
r~ '
():
, , G'
C,i I
u.:'
u:' "
,-'
1.1. ..- U
Cl r',-,
I :!! :!.; ~)'''1
"'\ '1'\
~. ,J'
'n' I ~"" I II I ill,.',l
1,\\' 1\\1
I,.'tlllll
\
~ ~;d:ti;:. 4# / ; / (l:s/ //;' .,: 1,(; . (. :;(:/
~r): {?2<I/U-l.{~X)\:"'!.d!t/!.!, ;:/(
PJi'!;: ; z~.cf'7't.)'
,4< 'atd~i/;. ""?/ o;/,,/;d' 1-1/'/
, /u? 0ln.JldU "'-a~"" ,fJ/;lx dt~h;&.&#'.
;7 AJ '-j" '/. '~../..- 1 ;;. .I/,;I
1A"<<.U.-'UJ:fU'r,,",-Tl1 r"fi/ ;!,/ t< "',,,,eJ "p .;/f<!, ;d, ,tJ
\ _..", J1,/."I;~() ;; /; 1/11 I' /; f' " //1 rf)..;i 'j" A ;) I ';:,,/J - . ,.,L.
/1/'1 /1,,&' C.-y( CO'-":;? /;~:(,jl" 7' )lllvff: {t'd IL.j /t,.<<...("... W -j.(t<<.,.,
j .' 11, Ii fJ, ' ~. ,,/ . //; .vjf. ./ t.
;..... j/{(.-jtU /(.ditt!/"I cr'(F.'IC:,:?l!fl ///II.C.//:Z(l./(.))'.:aJL<...
\ j oJ / . It/o' /~, ' . - 1" /1/1'"
,/0 _,,/, /' 1--" /, I." I.'," ,/ /i/
rr, '" l"'Y /( -,M',4/U<"'7C',,,,,,plt1"'rdk
Ii .,7 1);1; ri); / A
....Jj../f,(fli JJJ/!,{/:'/ :T".;;"/..-I/I.<d/.I;J~/'''' ..1(/.1)f- - /."' -/ I /1 //f/
t' .e",'" /".,1. ')flid:I.?//.;~-;-"""'{<'-::/ I.':;" - .', '''-"' -' l' l'l
, {'i Ad) /i ~ /. 1./ '7':" ,I /( .. ~ 1..1~;~ J; ),,:: ~/ -; /) ~l(,1
,,!i iVI,1 I,(/(f.,</ //.,'<" t /"' .(<,c,. '.(t.,I.,( .,t.f.., ;; ~ '",17' '/ '
f r t
" ,_ _ : 1/ J - - .../-
'7 /J.t/./I..j.fk Il(!!--/.../!/,;()"'l:.If./.J)'}..,5 /./ 4/l1.:c/.U
131 " "'[" /. ~ ""'dI II:/,' , ,,/1 / /,
/,In 1.1 " i / /.I -- I' >,/'/' ,/--';': /", "
/fllr. ry... .",I..l.",ic%/./..,:e;:-"-" I. ./7/:/ "., 1../\. i [cL/ .,/(c-_
/!t/;(tl ~L(,~?til;':'l'j;(!t..~-/( 1t..'./U.t~~fP-; J'J(/.t;'~t::~'
I ( 'f 1(" !.r".I:/f. ), 'I' 1/ / 1/
c: .. II" I 'f
/"'lua.l, . ,,1.4.,0,.(/ ,,'/:.'/ .
I
aif .J
/./ / '//1.//.-/:
/~ I/'I./0"'(~ / ..
/~J;>J:tt:{;;kI.J~(x;...{ 1;
/ (; / /4/2 <llf'c/
\
'.- l,f)
c::; I.~...:
".
,.."
f.!,J~;;
C'" ;
" ,
G: ,
,
(j I.
, C. C"I
Cil_
'-'.le_.
-.. I.' >, i iJ
Ci:: ;, s::: , ~::..
I.:
[1_ -~ .~J
'-'.~
0 c,', (J
MILDRED JANE GERBER,
plaintiff
I
I
I
I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANA
MARILYN JO GERBER,
Defendant
NO. 98-4120 EQUITY TERM
CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR COUNT 1
INTRUSION UPON SOLITUDE OR
SECLUSION
AND NOW, comes Marilyn Jo Gerber, plaintiff who repre-
presents herself as pro-se.
1. Admitted that the plaintiff is Mildred Jane Gerber, an 83
year old, frail recent widow of six months, residing at 623
Hilltop Drive, New Cumberland, pennsylvania, 17070.This
residence has been the family home for 30 years of which
three children lived along with their recently deaceased
father, col Fred E Gerber on February 22, 1998.
2. Admitted that the Defendant is Marilyn Jo Gerber, an adult
individual, residing at 42 Drexel Place, (Lower Allen Township),
New cumberland, pennsylvania, 17070.
3. Denied that during the period mentioned on or about January
15, 1998, that the defendant violated Plaintiff's right to
privacy and intruded upon Plaintiff's seclusion. TO the
contrary, the defendant was the plaintiff's caregiver being
a registered nurse and eldest daughter of the plaintiff. In
fact, the defendant has been the cargiver of plaintiff and
her deceased husband for approximately three years and was
living and working locally at the above ~ted family residence.
4. Denied that the defendant stated to the Hari.sburg Hospital
attorney Richard Seneca and other hospital personnel that
she was in charge of all family decisions for her father.
In fact, the defendant was a critical care_cardiovascular
specialist who was on staff at pinnacle and the admitting
nurse at Holy Spirit hospital as well as the transport nurse
in the Ambulance to Harrisburg Hospital on January 16, 1998.
The plaintiff deferred to the defendant due to her medical
expertise and licensure as well as stated to several of her
friends that will testify that the defendant was,"an expert
and knows what to do". The two siblings of the defendant
I
~,,'
in fact also deferred to the Defendant as they have no
medical expertise or ll...cense to make decisions medica lly.
The defendant was intimately involved in her father's
medical care as well as the Plaintiff's and also took
instruction from her father during his hospitalization.
5. Denied that the Defendant ordered treatment of her father
with herbal teas, drops, lotions and potions without consent
of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was present when physician, Dr.
John Sullivan ordered the said above mentioned treatments
and was on admission at Harrisburg Hospital and also had
the approval of her father's surgical group, Susquehana
Surgeons. It must also be stated that the Defendant's
father had taken many of the above mentioned treatments for
years prior to his hospitalization.
6. Denied that without consent the Defendant placed New Age
crystals, pyramids, sticks, rocks, fir brances and candles
throughout her father's hospital room. These items were
witnessed by the Plaintiff witout objection as well as the
approval of several nurses at the hospital.
7. Admitted that the defendant placed handwritten notes on
the walls of Plaintiff's husband's hospital room with the
consent and approval of the Plaintiff per the custom of
most families and nurses in American critical care settings.
8. Denied that in February, 1998 that the Defendant continually
interu' pted the discussions making it difficult for the
Plaintiff to make proper decisions for the medical treatment
of her husband. On the contrary, Dr. Cummings was not in
charge of Plaintiff's husband's care and it was Dr. Cummings
who deliberately prevented a second patient care conference
on that day much to the confusion and surprise of all the
other consulting physicians on the Plaintiff's husband's case.
It was Dr Cummings who caused chaos and confusion.
9. Denied that the Plaintfiff interfered with funeral arrangements
for the Plainfiff's husband and instructed for items to be placed
in the Plaitiff's casket. In fact, it was the Defendent's
brother, Col Fred E Gerber, II who engineered the exclusion
of the Defendant. It was also, Mr Steve Parthemore who stated
that the listed items would be returned to the Defendant on
the day of Defendant's father's funeral, February 24, 1998.
10. Denied that the Defendant deliberately took the garage door
remote control opener from the Plaintiff's residence. The
Plaintiff did not speak to the Defendant, nor make a direct
demand for the opener, nor had any knowledge that the Defendant
would have the opener. This is a fabrication of Defendant's
brother, col Fred E Gerber, II.
11. Denied that the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff use of
Plaintiff's automobile for a period of six weeks before the
funeral of Plaintiff's husband. Pla~ntiff had use of two
;
,
automobiles. The Defendant was also legally listed with
the deceased's auto insurance polic y as a designated driver
for well~N~~ a year for two of the family's automobiles.
12. Denied that Defendant took the Plaintiff's car from the
residence of the Plaintiff. As stated in 11. , Defendant
had permision as daughter and nursecaregiver of the Defendant's
parents to use the two family cars as well as used the two
family cars to go to work while she was living and visiting
the Defendant's parents as well as did the Defendant's siblings
over the past thirty years. This is a malicious fabrication
of the Defendant's brother, Col Fred E Gerber, II.
13. Denied that Defendant forced herself into the Plaintiff's
residence as the Defendant had been living at the family re-
sidence, was a child of the Plaintiff and the Defendant's
father as well as was the chauffer for both of the Defendant's
parents due to their poor, declining health and a recent accident
to one of the family cars. The Defendant almost exclusively
drove for the Plaintiff and her husband espcially since the
Plaintiff had broken her hip in 1997 and also frequently stated
that she was afraid of driving on the highways due to her
age, anxiety and fear of the trucks.
14. Defendants cannot anwer to this charge as Defendant is not
aware of the Plaintiff's fears or state of mind. It was
reported to the Defendant by several guests at the funeral
that is was the Defendant's broth~r, Col Fred E Gerber, II
who ordered and invented the need to order a security guard.
It would have been impossille for the Defendant to interfere
with funeral arrangements as the Defendant was not present,
included or aware of arrangements made by the Plaintiff.
15. Denied that the Defendant disrupted the funeral services for
Plaintiff's husband by firing a shot into the air from an
honor guard's rifle at an inappropriate time, without consent
of Plaintiff. Defendant is an experienced markswoman and
the first child and eldest daughter of the deceased mentioned
as well was captain of her varsity Rifle team and received
nprmission to fire the last volley as well as was invited tD
come speak at their VFW Post. The Defendan~ is also the
inspiration and founder of a new group of Honor Guard group
to serve upcoming veterans' funerals involving Ft. G Meade,
CarlislLe Barracks, the Pennsylvania National Arn,y Guard and
Indiantown National Cemetary.
16. Denied and this has already been mentioned in several
communications to the Plaintiff's attorreys. The Plaintiff
has not stated specifically what letters and other personal
documents have been removed. ilin contrast, the Defendant's
brother is preventing the Defendant from securing her
personal property and valuable confidential business items
from her mother's and family resisdence.
II:
.17. No response to the averments in paragraph humber 17 because
they are not relevant to the issues raised in ti,e civil action.
If, however, an answer should be required, the Plaintiff
needs to state on what dates alleged conversations were baped
and on what dates photographs were sili~ogedlY taken. and what
documents, letters were photographed.
18. Denied bbe~Defendant asked PNC Bank, stockbrokers and others
which are not identified in this Civil Action that orders be
taken in the future by her in respect to her father's and
Plaintiff's property. On the contrary, the Defendant worked
diligently during the illness and hospitalization of the
Defendant's father with the knowledge and participation of
the Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Herbert Rupp and several financial
institutions in order to arrange final arrangements made by
the Defendant's father for his wife and himself and also upon
the request of the Defendant's father just prior to his
surgery.
19. Denied that the Defendant scheduled an appointment for an
MRI in order to try to prove Plaintiff's incompetency. On
the contrary, the Plaintiff was aware of this appointment
as it was schedu~ed with the express knowledge of the Plaintiff's
husband, Plaintiff's daugher, Jane Gerber-Helfin due to the
fact that the Plaintiff had had a TIA on June 6, 1998 and that
the Plaintiff's husband and her nurse daughter, the Defendant
aunu~se had witnessed her TIA and knew of her progressive
mental and emotiIDna~ldecline.
20. Denied tbattDefendant tried to seek control over Plaintiff's
checkbooks and other assets. In fact, Plaint.iff's son, Col
Fred E Gerber attempted to take control of Plaintiff before
his father's death which he participated in removing life
support despite the father's express requests. Col Fred E
Gerber took control of his mother, the Plaintff the day after
his father's funeral on February 25, 1998.
21. Denied tbatJIDefendant told Plaintiff that she would take
legal action to be appointed Plaintiff's legal guardian.
In truth and fact, Col Fred E Gerber took control of his
mother, the Plaintiff prior to his father's death.
22. Denied that Defendant requested $8,000 be deposited in
the Defendant's bank account by May 5, 1998. The Defendanl
has legal rights to Part B of a Living Trust set up by the
Defendant's father, Col Fred Gerber deceased on February 22,
1998. The DefendanU,s had to call her mother, the Plaintiff
as the Defendant's brother, Col Fred E Gerber, II took
deliberate and mal icious measures to lock the Defendant out
of ~he family home as well as verbally and physica~lYiabused
the Defendant during the period of 38 days of her father's
hospitalization and subsequent death.
23. Denied that the Defendant demanded use of Plaintiff's car,
money or made accusations of plaintiff killing Plaintiff's
husband. On the contrary, the Defendant's brother, Col Fred
E Gerber maliciously prevented the Defendant the use of her
father's car which resulted in the Defendant having to rent
a car and incur several thousand of do11ars of expenses as
well as several thousands of dollars of hotel and food
expenses.
24.
Denied that Defendant
car insurance policy.
designated driver for
requested to be added to her
The Defendant was already a
both of the family cars.
father's
long time
25. Denied that the Defendant entered the family residence without
permission. In fact, the Plaintiff invited the Defendant
back to the~family home, fed her, invited her to sleep in
her bedroom..The Plaintiff also wrote out anch~~k for the
Defendant for $2,00.00 as a gift which was marked gift on
the check which was often done by her parents. It was the
Defendant's brother, Col Fred E Gerber who objected to her
sister's presence and drove up from Virginia in an attempt
to further abuse and harass his siser, the Defendant on March
14, 1998, The Plaintiff begged the
brother of the Defendant to let her daughter stay at the
family home but the Plaintiff's son, Col Fred E Gerber had
already taken control of his mother, the Plaintiff.
The Defendant fled for her safety on March, 15; 1998.
26. Denied that the Plaintiff installed a new telephone. This
action was taken and done by the Plaintiff's son, Col Fred
E Gerber in an attempt to control his mother, the Plaintiff.
Col F~ed E Gerber has essentailly isolated his mother with
a new phone which she is not capable of using nor requested.
27. It is not the Plaintiff who installed new locks.and security
devices on the Plaintiff's residence at 623 Hilltop Drive,
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. This action was done maliciously
in order to p~ent the Plaintiff's daughtel, the Defendant
from being with her mother or in the family home.
28. No response is made to the averments in paragraph 28, 29,
32,38113 ~ecause they are not material or relevcnt to the
issues raised in the Civil Suit. These averments are denied.
30. It isddenied that the Dtifertdant without consent of Plaiitiff
or hugged Plaintiff excessively and h0Ld herhhand without
consent. On the contraFY, the Defendant has fer years,
escorted her disabled Mother to St Theresa's Church and he~
mother, the Plaintiff has frequently reached over ar.d taken
the Defendant's hand and hugged her. They have had a close
relatfuonship especially since the Plaintiff's broken hip
in April, 1997.
31. It is denied that the Defendant followed Plaintiff to parking
lot and insisted on coming to the Plaintiff's resider.ce.
(J
The Plaintiff in fact was dialoguing with the De':endant alld
aaking her questionc regarding her father who was deceased
on February 22, 1998.
33~ It is denied that the Defendant demanded to be let in on
June 20, 1998 at the Plaintiff's residence. In fact, the
Plaintiff al~owed the Defendant to take her personal per-
sonal possessions out of the garage and gave her money and
food as the Defendant had done on numerous occasions pre-
v!ously. The Defendant also willing~and voluntarily gave
the Plaintiff the opportunity to ask' her to leave. The
Piliaintiff was let into the residence of the Plaintiff with
a police standby and the Plaintiff gave the Defendant several
of her personal possessions. Each time the Defendant would
say, "They tell me, you cannot come in, why?" I would ask
"Mother, who are they, is it Fred?". The Defendant would
become confused and cry at her distress in having her
daughter the Defendant barred from the family home where
the Defendant has been living for several years. Witnesses
shall come forward to testify to the Defendant's services
given to the Defendant and her deceased father as well as
her contributions to the Defendant's health and well-being.
Therefore, paragraph numbers 34, 35,36,and 37 are denied.
39. It is denied that the Defendant waited for and, confl-onted
the Plaintiff at St Theresa's Parish. In fact, the Defendant
who was attending Mass as she has done for 30 years there
when visiting her parents, came upon the Plaintiff upon leaving
the Church and the Plaintiff engaged in dialogue with the
Defendant, her daughter as any mother would do.
40. It is denied that the Defendant demanded food, and the
Defendant was given voluntarily food and money by the Plaintiff.
It must be stated that the Defendant has been bared from her
personal possessions and significant business possessions since
February 19, 1998 when the Plaintiff's two siblins, Jane Gerber-
Heflin and Col Fred E Gerber, II willfully and maliciously
denied the Defendant access to her family home and possessions.
The Defendant lives with only a futon on the floor(slab on grade)
a light lamp and her TV. The rest and bulk of her possessions
have been held hostage by her two siblings at the Plaintiff's
home.
41. It is denied that the Defendant demanded to be let in or was
screaming. The befendant had been called by the Plaintiff's
doctor and he) asked her to show at the Plaintiff's medic,.l
appointment the following day. The Plaintiff willingly gave
the Defendant money and food and said, "Are you alright, it's
so good to see you, why can't your attorney come to see me
and make this go away?".
42. The Defendant cannot anwer this question as the Defendant
left the premises after her visit with the Plaintiff and
has no knowledge of the Plaintiff's call to the police.
1.
44. TheDefendant questions the statement the the Plaintiff
is a reasonable person or ordinary sensibilities. The
Plaintiff has recently lost her husband as ~ell as her
neice on January 6, 1998, her brother on January 16, 1998
and also has had significant he~lth problems and emotional
problems in the last several years. The Plaintiff was
scheduled for a medical workup in late January upon the
approval of her husband, her two daughters after the
Plaintiff suffered from a TIA on January 6, 1998 and
witnessed by the Defendant. There are many witnesses
who have been long time friends of the Plaintfiff as
lwell of the Defendant who will testify that the Plaintiff
has been struggling with her memory and slipping over
the last several years. Since the Plaintiff's fall and
broken hip in April, 1997, the Plaintiff has almost no
memory of her hospitalization, her husbands death and
the details of the funeral and her neurological tests
have shown "abnormal findings related to age" as well
as the Defendant is a registered nurse and has significant
geriatri~ experience and is recognized for her expertise
in several states in the US.
45. It is the belief of the Defendant who denies this 2
avarnent that the Plaintiff sufferes lost sleep, has
become apprehensive for her health , peace of mind
and suffers undue mental anguish because her only son,
Col Fred E Gerber willingly and maliciously and recklessly,
revealed personal family history, pathology and the
long d~functional family behaviors during the time of
his father's hospital stay and subsequent death on
February 22, 1998. It must be noted that the sibling
of the Defendant, Col Fred E Gerber has a long personal
history of physical and verbal violence with the
Defendant and has recently been investigated by the CID
division of the Army Judge Advocate General's office.
Col Fred E Gerber took control of his mother, the Plaintiff
just days prior to his father's ventilator being dis-
connected upon the decision of <1:01 Fredl:E Gerber, II.
Col Fred E Gerber has gone out of his way to destrgy
and interrupt the Defendant's relationship with her
mother, the Plaintiff as well as act irresponsibly in
administering a trust fund for the Defendant and has
taken control of the Plaintiff's assests and living t~ust
when he was only listed as executor a[3csuccessor upon
the Plaintiff's death. Col Fred E Gerber is willfully
expending large attorney fees with the firm of Rupp &
Meikle without regard to prudence to the spiri t of the
monies left by the Plaintiff's husband.
The Defendant has expended all of her resources and
finances in securing a residence near her mother as
well as has been harassed by the NIW Cumberland Police
Department,1the firm of RUpp & Meikle, The Defendant
at no time has willfully or maliciously intended any
~? .
harm or ill feelings toward her mother or her family. She
has essentially been the sole caregiver for her parents for
almost three years. The Defendant shall produce letters,
sworn testimony supporting her family's support of the
Defendant's care to her parents. The Defendant has also
given up several executive positions nationally as wcll,l~
personal sacrifices to willfully provide care and safety
for her parents.
Col Fred E Gerber, II~ the Defendant's brother, has not
expended one cent of his personal assets to incur ,and
create these numerous legal procedures. He has used the
monies of our joint father, Col Fred E Gerber.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests as follows:
1. This civil suit be discontinued for no basis
of law.
2. Based on #1, that no punitive damages be awarded
to the Plaintiff who in her own right I do not
believe she is fully oriented, nor would she seek
$25,000 plus: damgges. The plaintiff in her own
right is a wealthy woman and never has sought
monies from her daughter. I believe this suit
ISmotivated by the Defendant's brother and the
law firm of RUpp & Meikle.
3. That no order be enjoining Defendant from intruding
upon the solitude or seclusion of Plaintiff; since
the plRntiff has willfu11Y given monies and food
on each visit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
It must also be noted that one hour after the Defendant
was arrested by the police chief of New Cumberland,
this suit was dated and stamped and subsequently
served on the Defendant in CCp,cas they were having
problems finding and serving the Defendant. It must
also be noted that this was retrobution and a
punitive action byuthe Defendant's bJi"othercand
his leg91 .:firm of Rupp & Meikle who have so far
received substantial financial benefits from these
\l;egaliactions.
4. The Defendant respectfully requests that this
Civil Suit be set aside and that if any monies be
a~/arded that they be awarded to the Defendant. It
is not and will never be the intention of the Defendant
to seek legal action against her mother, the Plaintiff
unless the brother of the Defendant cleverly couches
such actions under her mother's name.
,/
COUN'I' I I
PLACING OF PLAINTIFF IN FALSE LIGHT
47. The Defendant accep~the information in paragraphs 1,2.
48. It is denied that the Defendant made the following statements
to the individuals listed in paragraph 48. The Defendant
stated to the hospital staff at Harrisburg Hospital that the
Defendant had a recent TIA, had been tested by MRI, had
significant memory problems and was "slipping", and that
the Defenddnt's brother, Fred E Gerber,II dld not have
durable power of attorney over the family's father or
durable power of attorney over their mother, the Plaintiff.
There{;in fact witnesses to the fact that the Plaintiff is
now and has been mentally challenged and has no history cr
education in taking care of her financial affairs or m~king
major medico 1 decisions over hel' ,husband or family.
Itu~ust also be stated that Herber RUpp in his own hand tried
to conv.ilince the PLaintiff to make the Defendant legal POA
over the Plaintiff and her husband in late January, 1998. Copy
a~d original. shall be brought into evidence.
It must alse: be stated that the medical community at Holy Spirit
and pinnacle Health acknowledged ~he Defendant as the competent
family member to make medical decisions concerning her fabber
and consistently and continuously called upon her to make life
and death decisions. It must also be stated that the Defendant
had been a member of the nursing staff at both,hospitals.
49. It is denied that this statement was made as the Defendant has
had no uerbal discussion with either mentioned parties since
they continously han~ up on the Defendant. The last verbal
conversation with Jane Heflin resulted in Jane Heflin assaulting
the Defendant who was later seen and treated at an Emergency
Room. Letigation is pending upon this assault with the County
DA and civil actions.
tIt must also be stated the Fred E Gerber,II is the manager of
the trust set up for the Defendant and has consistently refused
to administer or discuss the trust with the Defendant. This
trUst is also adminstered by the firm of Rupp & Meikle.
50. The Defendant does not know how to respond to paragraph number 50,
51. The Defendant believes that the Plaintiff was forced into
legal advice and incurred attorneys'fees due to the actions
and ~nsistance of her son, Fred E Gerber,II who stated once
to his mother, "get rid of her" and once on the phone, "
Mom, you have to be strong, Jane and I have spent all this
money trying to get rig. of her". This statement waE; made
by the Plaintiff's son due to his lif~ long hatred and personal
abuse of his sister, the Defendant.
52. The Defendant questions the current sensibilities of the Plainfiff
and ~sks the Court to order a complete medica~lexamination of
10
the Plaintiff for early stages of Dementia and tb.r~le out
other mental and physical disorders.
53. No response is made to the averments in paragraph number 53
because they are not material or relevant to the issues in
this Civil Suit.
54. It is denied that the Defendant acted in reckless disregard
as to her statements about the Plaintiff.
55. It is denied that the Defendant is responsible for the
current state of mental, emotional and medical condition
of the Plaintiff. It has never been the intention to cause
any harm to the Defendant's mother, the Plaintiff~
56. It is denied that the Defendant's actions were malicious,
willfull,etc, etc as set out~in the averments in paragraph
number 56.
WHBREFORE~,the Defendant refuests respectfully that:
A,t The amount in excess of $25,000 be dropped, in
addition to costs and attornyes' fees based on the
fact that the Defendant believes these charges to
be forced by the Plainfiff's son, Fred E Gerber and
are punitive and disproportionate to anyuof the above
allegations and charges.
B. The Defendant requests that any punitive damages be
awarded to the Defendant for the grief and suffering
the Defendant has incurred as a result cf many civil
and criminal charges brought against her. It is not
the belief of the Defendant that the Plaintiff fully
understands these charges and civil suit.
C. The Defendant requests for the law firm of Rupp & Meikle
to voluntarily recuse themselves for severe conflict of
interest and for Col Fred E Gerberrto recuse himself or
be legally removed as executor and trust manager of the
Plaintiff and the Defendant due to conflict of interest.
D. It is the request of the Defendant t~at a new indepel.dent
law firm be appointed and an independent trust compnny
be assigned to manage the financial affairs of the
Plaintiff and the beneficiaries of the Living Trust
set up by Col Fred E Gerber, husband to the Plaintiff.
Respectully submitted,
MarilynltJo Gerber
'Pro-Se
PO BOX 215
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 233-9418
~;;~~~n.. J; ~~beill
y 21dU(J(;}(lj{d~
.J
..,.,
'"
c::..
,~
'"
<..,
.)
~ 1
"
~
..
,~ ~
~
l'
'- (1 \
c<; ~r~
t:-::
,~.\
ioU.,.
~:2 .
,-;- ; ,
(~) 1".1
Q , I
u I '.-.
_..1 C',_
r.c l..l:
!.h c...; ,
It.. G: ._.1
CJ C', ()
JUL-01-1938 11:51
i243354123 p.Og,ge
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIII
ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
CITATION
IN THE MA TTER OF THE ESTA TE OF:
FLORENCE GERBER CAPPE
DECEASED
NO. 7933 OF 1997
IN RE-PETlTION OF: MARIL YN JO GERBER
A Citation is issued to Samuel J. Gerber and to his legal counsel, Raymond R. Goehring,
-'
Esquire, and Nancy Duff and the executor's accountants, to show cause, if any tl1ere be, why
Samuel J. Gerber should not be removed immediately as Executor of the Estate of Florence
person or entity as this' Cou:1 may direct, should not be appointed as succeeding executor; why
Samuel J. Gerber should not be required to file an account of estate assets and a Pennsylvania
Inheritance Tax Return, and why he and/or the surety on his mismanagement of the estate
should not be taken out of his personal assets for all fees which has caused the estate and the
beneficiaries to incur needlessly, including all penalties for late filing, interest, attorneys' fees,
fiduciaries's commissions and such other relief as this Court may deem proper; citation to be
served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Samuel J. Gerber or to Raymond R.
Goehring. Esquire as his counsel.
A copy of the petItion sha/l be served with the citation.
Citation returnable the 24th day of July, 1998 at 2:00, p.m. Prevailing time. A status
conference to be held at the afore said time.
Parties in interest, may appear before the Judge of our said Orph,ms' Court Division on or
before Friday the 24th day of July A.D.1998 2:00 P.M. Prevailing Time. Then and there
to show calise, if any the:; have, why the prayer of peritioner shallllat bo gr<:nted.
Witness. The Hon. Robert A. Kelly, Administrative Judge
of our said Orphans' Court Division at Pittsburgh this
MILDRED J. GERBER.
Plaintiff
v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ClJMIlERLANDCOUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
NO. <;iT. '10.0 ri-L"':~I 'G-
CIVIL ACTION. EQUITY
MARIL YN 10 GERBER,
Defendant
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth
in the following pages, you must take aclion within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice
are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by allomey and filing in writing with the
Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail
to do so the case may proceed wilhout you and ajudgement may be entered against you by the Court
without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP:
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, P A 17013
(7] 7) 249.3166
lRUE. COpy FROM RECORD
In Testimony I'1l1er~:{lI, I here unto :::et my hand
and the seal 01 said CO\! t at Carlisle. Pa.
Thi ~/- d:YOf 199f'
Prothonotary
C:ICorellOfliee71 WPDOCSIEST ATESIGERIlERICOM PLAIN. WI'D
Revised: July 17. 1998.9
8. In February, 1998, at a Ilarrisburg Ilospital physician and staff confcrcnce, including Dr.
Cummings, the physician in charge of I'laintifl's husband's carc, and Mrs. Nancy Duffy,
Nursing Supervisor, Colonel Fred E. Gerber, II, I'lainliff and Dcfcndant, Defcndanl
continually interrupted Ihe discussions so thaI it was diflicul1 for the Plaintiff to makc proper
decisions for the mcdicaltrealment of her husband.
9. Defendant allempled 10 interfere with funeral arrangemenls which had been made by the
Plaintiff for her husband and without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff instructed the
funeral director to place feathers, beads and pottery in the Plaintiffs husband's casket.
10. Defendant took the garage door remote control opener from the Plaintiffs residence at 623
Hilltop Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, without the Plaintiffs knowledge or consent.
and despite demand by Plaintiff, it has nol been returned.
11. Defendant deprived the Plainliff of the use of Plainliffs automobile for a period of six (6)
weeks before the funeral of Plaintiffs husband, despite objections from the Plaintiff.
12. Defendant, prior to the funeral of Plaintiffs husband and without knowledge or consent of
Plaintiff. removed the Plaintifl's car from the Plaintiffs residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, and refused to return it.
13. Defendant, without consenl of Plaintiff, forced her way into Plaintiffs residence at 623
Hilltop Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and in front of Plaintiffs family members
accused Plaintiff of killing her husband.
14. Because of Defendant's allempts 10 interfere with funeral arrangements which Plaintiff had
made for her deceased husband. PlaintilThircd a security guard to attend the funeral and the
intennent.
15. Defendant disrupted the funeral services for Plaintiffs husband by firing a shot into the air
from an honor guard's rifle at an inappropriate time, without the consent of Plaintiff.
16. Defendant removed personal letters and other personal documents from Plaintiffs residence
at 623 Hilltop Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, without Plaintiffs consent and
refused, and still refuses, to return them.
17. Defendant tape recorded personal conversations with Plaintiff and photographed personal
letters and documents of the Plaintiff in the Plaintiffs residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, without Plaintiffs knowledge or pennission,
18. Defendant visited PNC Bank, stockbrokers and others, and stated that she was the Gerber
family decision maker and they should take her orders in the future with respect to her
father's properly and her mothcr's properly, without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff.
2
C:ICorellOflice71 WPDOCSIEST A TESIGEROER\COM PLA IN. WP[)
Revised: July 17, 1998.9
19. Defendant, without the knowledge or consent ofl'laintilT, scheduled Plainliff for an MRI in
order to try to prove Defendnnt's nllegation thnt Plaintiff had n stroke and was mentally
incompelent.
20. Defendant badgered Plaintiff in nn altempt to gnin control over Plaintiffs checkbooks and
other assets.
21. Defendant told PlaintilT she would take legal action to be appointed Plaintiff's legal guardian,
because she said Plaintiff was incompetent.
22. After the Plaintiffs husband's funeral, Defendant made almost daily telephone calls to
Plaintiff and threatened to tell relatives, friends and others of an incestuous relationship
between Defendant's father and Defendant unless Plaintiff deposited $8,000 in the
Defendant's bank account by May 5, 1998.
23. In the telephone calls to Plaintiff, Defendant demanded use of Plaintiff's car and money from
Plaintiff and accused Plaintiff of killing Plaintiffs husband.
24. Defendant called Plaintiff's car insurance agent for infonnation about Plaintiff's car insurance
policy and instructed that Defendant be added to the policy, without the knowledge or
consent of Plaintiff.
25. On or about March 13, 1998, Defendant entered Plaintiff's residence at 623 Hilltop Drive,
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, without invitation and stated she would not leave until
Plaintiff paid Defendant $2,000. Plaintiff gave Defendant $2,000, and threatened to call the
police on March 15, 1998, in order to persuade Defendant to leave the Plaintiff's residence.
26. Because of the incessant telephone calls by Defendant to Plaintiff, as set forth above,
Plaintiff installed a private telephone line with an unlisted telephone number and installed
an answering machine on Plaintiffs listed telephone line.
27. Plaintiffinstalled new locks and security devices on her residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, because she believed, from the Defendant's past actions, that the
Defendant would altempt to break into the Plaintiff's residence.
28. Defendant told Plaintiff that Defendant ,telephoned Plaintiff's friends and neighbors and
discussed private family matters, including an incestuous relationship between Defendant
and her father.
29. At the Plaintiffs residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, on March
14, 1998 and March IS, 1998, while Plaintiff was having private telephone conversations
with her son, Fred, Defendant listened on a telephone extension despite Plaintiffs demands
to Defendant to stop listening and hang up.
3
C:ICorellOniee71 WPDOCSIEST ATESIGERIlERICOM PLAIN. WPD
Revised: July 17, 1998-9
30. On June 20, 1998, Defendant sal down beside Plaintiff in St. Theresa's Church in New
CUll1berl:md, wilhout the eonsenl of Plaintiff, :md hugged Plaintiff excessively and held her
hand during the Mass despite Plainliff's orders to Defendant to stop.
31. On June 20, 1998, Defendant followed Plaintiff into the parking lot of SI. Theresa's Church
where Plaintiff's car was parked and staled to Plaintiff that she was coming back to the
Plaintiff's residence with Plaintiff. Plaintiff objected but Defcndant insisted on coming to
the Plaintiff's residence with Plaintiff. Plaintiff then told Defendant that her son, Fred, was
at the residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, NclV Cumbcrland, Pennsylvania, which was not true,
in order to attempt to prevent Defendant from forcing her way into Plaintiff's car and into
Plaintiff's residence.
32. Defendant attempted to obtain the unlisted telephone number of Plaintiff from Plaintiff's
grandson in Chicago, even though Defendant could call Plaintiff's other telephone line and
leave a message.
33. On June 29, 1998, Defendant came to Plaintiff's residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, at approximately 9:GO p.m. demanding to be let in. Plaintiff
refused and ordered Defendant to leave.
34. On June 29, 1998, Defendant refused to leave Plaintiff's premises and stated she planned to
sit in front of the house until the Plaintiff opened the door.
35. On June 29, 1998, Plaintiff called the New Cumberland Police who investigated and found
Defendant sprawled on her baek in the front yard of Plaintiffs residence at 623 Hilltop Drive,
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.
36. On June 29, 1998, Ihe New Cumberland Police ordered Defendant not to come on to
Plaintiff's property again.
37. On June 29,1998, the Plaintiff's neighbors watched Defendant and the Police.
38. Defendant told Plainliff that she would call the Commanding Officer of Plaintiff's son,
Colonel Fred E. Gerber, II, and ruin his career ifhe interfered with the Defendant's intention
to live with the Plaintiff, obtain money from the Plaintiff, and use the Plaintiff's car.
39. On July 5,1998, Defendant waited for and confronted Plaintiff at the end of the worship
service at St. Theresa's Church in New Cumberland in the St. Theresa's Church parking lot,
despite Plaintiff's efforts to avoid the Defendant.
40. On July 6, 1998, Defendant came to Plaintiff's residence at 623 Hilltop Drive, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, at approximately 9:00 p.m., stating that she hadn't eaten in thirty-
4
C:ICorellOffice71 WPDOCSIEST A TESIGERDERICOM PLA IN. WI'D
Revised: July 17, 1998.9
. '
. .
VERIFICATION
t,
i'
:' ~'
'11
I, MILDRED J. GERBER, verify that I run the Plaintiff above named and the facts set forth
in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the besl of my personal knowledge, information
and belief.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4909
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: fA fO
k-7_
;.( () I fC/1t
I I
~ "
Ii
~,
i
1-',(
I~ "
l~'
.f'
!~,
II.
,t't
If", '
'/..
I,"
\':',;
,'>X
r,
,'"
',.',
"-
.:;.\
\).t#
MILDRED./. GERBElt
PluintimPetitioner
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYI.V ANI,\
v.
NO. 98-4120
EQUITY TERM
MARILYN ./0 GERBER.
CIVIL ACTION EQUITY
OIWER
And now the lit-day of ~2000. Petitioner Mildred./. Gerber's
petition 10 vacate order is hereby GRANTED and [his courts prior order in this case of
December 28, 1998 is hereby vaealed.
/7;
BY THE COURT"./
, ,~:/
')
~
/1-/-00
RKS
;-,,:
':E
':~I'f/JlY
Q0 Fr:;1 -! Pi! I:~, '7
{,: I~/;,. ~.,. '_ - , '( ,; IV]"
....,v",......d.1 '_.' ..-.,.....1. I
FEN;'~~)YL;//..(,:~;\
,j,
,
MILDRED.I. GERBER,
Plaintiff/Pctitioncr
: IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PI.EAS
: CUMBERI.AND COUNTY. PENNSYI.V ANII\
v.
NO. 9l!-4120
EQUITY TERM
MARILYN.lO GERBER,
CIVIl. ACTION EQUITY
PETITION TO VACATE OIWEI~
AND NOW, comcs thc Petitioner, Mildred J. Gerber, by and Ihrough her counsd,
Joseph U. Metz, Esquire, who avers the I(lllowing:
I. The Petitioner is Mildred J. Gerber, Plainlifl' in the above-captioncd
action.
2. The Petitioner is the subject of a Court Order dated December 28, 1998 in
which the Petitioner's daughter, Marilyn Jo Gcrbcr is enjoined ~nd prohibited from
making any eonlacl with Ihe Petitioner, hcrcto attached al "Exhibil A,"
3. The Order of Coul'l datcd Deccmbcr 28, 1998 was enlered following a
hearing held on December 28, 1998 before the Honorable Judge Bayley.
4. The Pelitioner is now desirous of having and maintaining free and
unfettered contact with her daughler, Marilyn Jo Gerber.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, Mildred J. Gerber, respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to enter an Order vacating the prior Order of Court, and thereby
permitting free eontacl and association with her daughter, Marilyn Jo Gerber.
Dated: )~/J~/Q5~ ~<~'~ll-r-)---'
~j{U.~etz ~
A\rtr'ney1f6r Petitioner .
214 Pine Slreel
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-0879
i
,
p
: ~
':
MILDRED J. GERBER,
Plaintiff
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO.
qg-4/~o ~.:r~
MARILYN JO GERBER,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
OR D E R OF C 0 U R T
AND NOW THIS 1l> day of December 1998, upon
presentation of the Petition of Mildred J. Gerber and upon hearing held on
December 28th, 1998,
~T IS HEREBY ORDERED:
,
A. The Defendant Marilyn Jo Gerber is hereby enjoined and is
i
prohibitted from making any and all contact with the Plaintiff, Mildred J.
: . j
Gerber.
"'-. ::j':.... ":.::'".'.
'. '. ~ r .;
Br:h lbr t '-'- F; :::-