The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-07916 , 1:1 H 1 1:1 "I i:, "I ill :,1 H 1.'...1. I;, I' 1:_, " I;: I' Iii ii! !:\ !II ;'j :'1 , i:i I i ;,i " ::1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , " ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.~ , . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . , , , . . .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNA. STATE OF , , , , , . . . , , , , . . . . , , , , . . , , , , . . , , , , , . . , , . . . . , , , , , . . . . . . . . , . , . , , , JlnglNn c. Brin7.~r. No. nn 7qlh Plaintiff VERSUS Ravrnond €I. Brinzer, nQ.To.nn;::ornt- DECREE IN DIVORCE X{:~p.M . oaM ~i AND NOW, ?nn~, IT is ORDERED AND Jinqlan C. Brinzer , PLAINTIFF, DECREED THAT R~nd LT. Br1n7.o.r , DEFENDANT, AND ARE DiVORCED FROM THE BONDS OF MATRIMONY. THE COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OF THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION FOR WHICH A FINAL ORDER HAS NOT YET BEEN ENTERED; Pl~intifft~ clnim for F~lirnhlQ. niRtrihnTloTI. A~imnny. Alimony Pendente Lite, COunsel Fees and enses. By ATTEST: J. '~~PPOTHONOTAP' , T. T. T. T. TT T T.T. T.T.T. T.T.T. T. T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T T. . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . , , , . , , , . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . TT.;t;:+:T. ~" '--'-'~~"""';''''- "-1"~~~~~~;~~';(wl:k~"'~~l"i...r."wK-""""""'IiWtllIlliIiliiI!f~lIIlillli1lWlNi'~'<iIirr lliiIilii'l illliililil '~ r . . ''{ ~.' :"t. . /~)d;;).Ot/ 6~-~~~..u$'~ /Od':; .$ ':1f~ ~ ;iF ~ ,."_!,,,_-1_1~,J;Ja:llkL;, _Un~il,lll!!!jl_L,'"''_'''''''''k___''' "."" "",-'- .",,,,,, '" " " =,,~"- - . YS. ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce. is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the office of the Prothonotary, Cumberland County, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER 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, PA 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 BATURIN & BATURIN Dated: By: ~ fv\ !L--. M DELAINE N. BATURIN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-2427 ;j'-W _,~" 1 " JINGLAN C. BRlNZER, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ) VS. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM ) RAYMOND J. BRlNZER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301(J1) OF THE DIVORCE CODE AND NOW, this day of July, 2003, comes the Plaintiff, JINGLAN C. BRINZER, by and through her Attorneys, the Law Offices ofBATURIN & BATURIN, and files this Plaintiff's Amendment to Complaint Under Section 3301(d) of Divorce Decree and avers the following: l. The Plaintiff is JINGLAN C. BRINZER, an adult individual, sui juris, who currently resides at 1106 Yverdon Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. The Defendant is RAYMOND J. BRINZER, an adult individual, sui juris, who currently resides at 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, l7011. "I' I) -" 'I ,. COUNT IV - REQUEST FOR ALIMONY UNDER SECTION 3701 OF THE DIVORCE CODF. 3. All of the averments in Plaintiff s Complaint in Divorce Paragraphs 1 through 18 and averments I and 2 above are incorporated herein as though each was set forth below. 4. Plaintiff lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable means and is unable to support herself through appropriate employment. 5. Plaintiff requires reasonable support to adequately maintain herself in accordance with the standard ofliving established during the marriage. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter an award of alimony in her favor. COUNT V - REQUEST FOR ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE, COUNSEL FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 3702 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 6. All of the averments in Plaintiffs Complaint in Divorce and averments 1-5 above are iucorporated herein as though each was set forth below. 7. Plaintiff has employed counsel, but is unable to pay the necessary and reasonable attorney's fees for said counsel. 8. Defendant is unable to sustain herself during the course of this litigation. 'if H. ''',~ ~', WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter an award of Alimony Pendente Lite, counsel fees, costs and expenses until final hearing, and thereupon to award such additional counsel fees, costs and expenses deemed appropriate by the Court. Respectfully submitted, BATURIN & BATURIN By: M (V' (L ---' MADELAINE N. BATURIN, ESQ. Attorney LD. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-2427 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: July ,2003 'I"" , '.'1 - VERIFICATION I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS AMENDMENT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301(d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED IN GOOD FAITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES ANDTHAT THE COURT MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A BAD FAITH VIOLATION. Dated:"')!'? /7003 ;?;~ t M/~ JIN AN C. BRINZER (SEAL) ,"I, , .,~ . ,- 1~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R>8 ~~ A~ ~ .<:; u.) '. 1-"' - =~-. 0- - - o r"- ;:.;; :I)'!~~-;.' !:.j :~.) c,:; "-.-[ ,- ;'J ~, .."- f\....'I ( :::;; ,0:;' --< ~Jm.J lr~..._!:!!ll!~ IWn ,~"",,",,~!~-~,jlIjli!~ti'1}""~~"'':~''"'~'T''''!i!l;1W~'r-I!m~_'''lj:~i%<~-\?~~,~l'lrEl~:f%fl'l'"J.~l,\\,~,,",';*f-;?,W~'iJi\;fl':'::!I:@ffl~~~ JINGLAN C. BRlNZER, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ) vs. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM ) RAYMOND J. BRlNZER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE PI.AINTTFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM FOR DIVORCE AND OTHER REUEF AND NOW, this day ofJuly, 2003, comes the Plaintiff, JINGLAN C. BRINZER, " by and through her Attorneys, the Law Offices ofBATURIN & BATURIN, and files this Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim For Divorce and Other Relief and avers the following: COUNT I - DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 3301(a)(6) OF THE DIVORCE CODE - INDIGNITIES 19. All of the averments in Paragraphs I through 18 of the Plaintiff's Complaint in Divorce are incorporated herein as though each was set forth below. 20. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has offered such indignities to Defendant, as to render his condition intolerable and life burdensome. Further, Defendant is not an innocent and injured spouse. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter a Decree in Divorce, divorcing the Plaintiff and Defendant, but not due to indignities by the Plaintiff. COUNT II - REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE DISTRlBUTION UNDER SECTION 3502 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 21. All of the averments in Plaintiff's Paragraphs I through 20 are incorporated herein -!''''' ^ ,~"-~ . _t<" - 'r ~ - " :- as though each was set forth below. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order equitably distributing all marital property between the parties. COUNT III - REQUEST FOR ALIMONY UNDER SECTION 3701 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 24. All ofthe averments in Plaintiffs Paragraphs I through 23 are incorporated herein as though each was set forth below. 25. Denied. It is Denied that Defendant lacks sufficient property to provide for his reasonable means and is unable to support himself through appropriate employment. 26. Denied. It is denied that Defendant requires reasonable support to adequately maintain himself in accordance with the standard ofliving established during the marriage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendant's request for alimony. COUNT IV - REQUEST FOR ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE, COUNSEL FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 3702 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 27. All of the averments in Plaintiff's Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated herein as though each was set forth below. 28. Denied. It is denied that Defendant is unable to pay the necessary and reasonable attorney's fees for said counsel. 29. Denied. It is denied that Defendant is unable to sustain himself during the course of this litigation. !;,JrX.,_____ ~ , "I - WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a Decree in Divorce: A. Dissolving the marriage between the Plaintiff and Defendant; B. Equitably distributing all marital property owned by the parties; and C. Deny the Defendant's request for alimony, alimony pendente lite, interim counsel fees and costs and expenses and any other reasonable relief requested by the Defendant. Respectfully submitted, BATURIN & BATURIN By: fV\ f'v\ (l ----/ MADELAINE N. BATURIN, ESQ. Attorney LD. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-2427 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: July ,2003 '~i"_, - VERIFICATION I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM FOR DIVORCE DECREE ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED IN GOOD FAITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.s. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE COURT MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A BAD FAITH VIOLATION. Dated: OJ / t7 / bOo") . , ~p~ ~ (}r~ . GLAN C. BRlNZER (SEAL) ,~~,~~ ~ ~,~ ":~. ., I ._. .- JINGLAN G. BRINZER, Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA v. :NO.00-7916 RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :IN DIVORCE PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Kindly enter the appearance of Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, Elizabeth S. Beckley, Esquire and Beckley & Madden, of Counsel, on behalf of the Defendant, Raymond J. Brinzer, in the above-captioned matter. DATED /.--5-01 ~~ Of Counsel BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 233-7691 ",!. t. _. '._ ,_, '> _'__'~'_" ;'. ,__~ '--"1-' , ~ . - ., , . '" . . " CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth S. Beckley, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was this day served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below. FIRST CLASS MAIL Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire Baturin & Baturin 717 North Second Harrisburg, PA 17102 DATED: ~ -5-01 -'I" ,",~,' ., ~I' '..,-. . - JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANlA v. :CIVIL ACTION -- LAW :IN DIVORCE RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant :NO.00-7916 ANSWER TO DIVORCE COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM FOR DIVORCE AND OTHER RELIEF AND NOW comes the Defendant, Raymond J. Brinzer, who, by and through his attorneys, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, Elizabeth S. Beckley, Esquire, and Beckley & Madden, of Counsel, files this Answer and Counterclaim averring as follows: COUNT I -- COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301 (d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE I. Denied. Upon information and belief Plaintiff currently resides at 1106 Yverdon Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. To the contrary, the parties did not separate until November 12, 2000, when Plaintiff moved out of the marital residence. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. '"' " ~ ',' ""0, _ ' ,~- '_~,' c' ,'."1- - - ,.<.- ~-- I - ,r "'"," ",0 , _,_< 10. Denied. On the contrary, Defendant does not believe the marriage is irretrievably brokeu. II. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of this allegation, and therefore said allegation is denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order dismissing Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT IT -- DNORCE UNDER SECTION 3301(a)(6) OF THE DIVORCE CODE -INDIGNITIES 12. Defendant incorporates herein by reference as though set forth in full his responses to Paragraphs 1-11 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 13. Denied. To the contrary, it is the Plaintiff that has offered such indignities to the person of the Defendant as to render his condition intolerable and life burdensome. Defendant, not Plaintiff, is the innocent and injured spouse. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order dismissing Count IT of Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT m - CLAIM FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 3502 OF THE DNORCE CODE 14. Defendant incorporates herein by reference as though set forth in full his responses to Paragraphs 1-13 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. Defendant joins in this request. 2 "4'ffilii!Jl, ,,~, '-,~ "" . ~-y" ,. - , I, "" WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order equitably distributing all marital property between the parties. COUNTERCLAIM COUNT I -- DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 3301(a)(6) OF THE DIVORCE CODE -INDIGNITIES 19. Defendant hereby incorporates herein by reference as though set forth in full the foregoing Paragraphs I through 13 of Defendant's Answer to Complaint in Divorce. 20. Plaintiff has offered such indignities to Defendant, the innocent and injured spouse, as to render his condition intolerable and life burdensome. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enter a Decree in Divorce, divorcing Plaintiff and Defendant. COUNT II -- REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION UNDER SECTION 3502 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 21. Defendant hereby incorporates herein by reference as though set forth in full the foregoing Paragraphs I through 20 of Defendant's Answer to Complaint in Divorce and Counterclaim. 22. Plaintiff and Defendant have acquired property, both real and personal, during their marriage which constitutes marital property subject to equitable distribution tlllder the Divorce Code. 23. Plaintiff and Defendant have been unable to agree to an equitable division of the said property. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order equitably distributing all marital property between the parties. 3 '\1- , ~ ,~ ..' "_.'~""O ,",. ."1" -,r_.'."' 1_ , - COUNT III -- REQUEST FOR ALIMONY UNDER SECTION 3701 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 24. Defendant hereby incorporates herein by reference as though set forth in full the foregoing Paragraphs I through 23 of Defendant's Answer to Complaint in Divorce and Counterclaim. 25. Plaintiff lacks sufficient property to provide for his reasonable means and is unable to support himself through appropriate employment. 26. Plaintiff requires reasonable support to adequately maintain himself in accordance with the standard of living established during the marriage. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Comi to enter an award of alimony in his favor. COUNT IV -- REQUEST FOR ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE, COUNSEL FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 3702 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 27. Defendant hereby incorporates herein by reference as though set forth in full the foregoing Paragraphs I through 26 of Defendant's Answer to Complaint in Divorce and Counterclaim. 28. Defendant has employed counsel, but is unable to pay the necessary and reasonable attorneys' fees for said counsel. 29. Defendant is retired and is unable to sustain himself during the course of this litigation. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enter an award of Alimony Pendente Lite, interim counsel fees, costs and expenses until final hearing, and 4 -lFL~ 0'.1-'. - .- ""'~I" "., , '1 thereupon to award such additional counsel fees, costs and expenses deemed appropriate by the Court. DATED: J/(p/O I Respectfully submitted, Of Counsel BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P. O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 233-7691 ~. as A. Bec ey, Esqu;re-- liz . eth S. Beckley, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant Raymond J. Brinzer 5 ., " ~' ~. ~, ,."... - 'd ,_" _ . =:'~ '" '" _' I ' ~, . VERIFICATION I, Raymond J. Brinzer, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing , document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: :}jG/O/ ~ Raymo mzer 1''> --. ~'-1 ' .".- ~..."-"' > , . . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth S. Beckley, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was this day served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below. FIRST CLASS MAIL Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire Baturin & Baturin 717 North Second Harrisburg, PA 17102 DATED: :;L/G/OJ ~"7 liz eth S. Bec 540 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 October 20, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: Raymond Brinzer, my next door neighbor, asked if I recalled a discussion we had earlier this year that concerned his wife Jinglan, separation, and the dogs. I told him I did. He asked if I would write a statement about it and I said ok. As I remember it, sometime in late February or early March Raymond and I were talking and I asked him where the dogs were? He told me that they were with Jinglan at the other house. He said things had gotten worse and they were separated again. I replied: "but I thought you two had gone back together. I wondered why I haven't seen them lately?" I saw Jinglan in the yard fairly frequently (the car was there almost all of the time; Raymond drove a truck). I spoke to her on numerous occasions whenever she'd be in the yard, or with the dogs, at the same time I was. Everything seemed normal between them, and there was no reason to believe otherwise. This is a true and valid statement in accordance with my memory of events. Sincerely, (1{jJ/t~ ~ Marcella Siemon DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 10'" 21-0~ ~(S pj m ~ ~ :Jc ~ j)f&Jt.ll tm. :f;n ~ ~ ~!t1 ~1;tlJt ~ JJi . J:~.~L......:T.. ~- .. '\ {i;. ~ J;t um MeoJCCctl S t oCR l'l1 Q vvt- I The !)cd 1 i?V\.f- C J I'V) tctlfl Co..\) ('a.MQ t'", fer fI L I-i. =~_~__13Qm~o.~!~_~~ -h<<~_~~~~_WQ ~_.-=~r~~~e~_~2 1"rt'te~ ~~ , d'S. u'" _ _ _~_u_J?_~::.~~\ec.C'M'~ eJ .tQ~_~~~~~_tlJq~__~ ;~cov.erf~ -t-tto.;f -.. .- l\ \ ~--,- - --- ________~ frx-tie4 \-tool C\ Ilor"/l'\tmQ.-( /'wJ:Jl().l1(Q /1V1 ~e.f z~/ 19~4. . . .<: AIM ,. ~--"'-----Tt7s-~;-~YI1M~"oIRol r/.tw!- ~ I)~~':ewf- NCellllQ iffT-./ " )! - &rH oV" IVr l-l' S'h~ I' ~ -t,.o (i.(>Cj..D~l.~ I n~'r.l -It I , D J<O.::J Cl. Ch d of - fr-6f Jiazh.eV1 <'?hu D.e...J?!J-V'tl'Y\rGVlfof_, Ob~tetJ..._~h(oL. Un 1m 1i~~plt(X.,( . -~. r~;jJ I lvl!<.otl ccd UV\ t've ~ d-ra ' (}.!tJ hOwl hR~ e.. k~ VI (l), ,',... J! D-€c N $, /9't'f. :2.6 x 19....,,7)-)8-6 ~ " ,- ,'. .~;).~$t Jf. ~ DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 2- '0." <' < S -0'1 ...;:, PSEC* Document Number: 1777992 Account 2483231662 BRINZER,JINGLAN Effect: 03/08/02 Post: 03/08/02 T1r: 0084 ID DUE DATE PRINCIPAL INTEREST FEES NEW BALANCE TRAN AMOUNT SEQ Wi thdrawa1 from REGULAR SHARE 01 3,000;00- 0.00 0.00 Prev Bal: 27.54 3,027.54 3,000.00 #381837 Check Disbursed HUANG DAI CAD 3,000.00- JINGLAN C BRINZER BE 530 BRENTWATER RD CAMP HILL PA 17011-2007 DocUment .NUmber: 1777992.. '.Account 2483231662 BRINZER,JINGLAN . ., . .." . . .. ... -- .-. . .. ... .. Effect: 03/08/0,2.Post: 03j(j8!02T1r:0084 '",ID DUE :bATE PRINCIPAL INTEREST . ... . FEES' I'IEW . BALANCE . T:RANAMOuNT SEQ .. , ..".. " .. .... . .. .. ., , " .. .." ., ,. .. ., , .. ..... ...... ....- -- -,- -.. - -,- -- - - - -- -- - ....-- - -.. - ------ - - -- - --- - - -- - - - -,- -,- - -',- ....- - -'.. ---_.... _....'_............... --.- ---- .. , .. "...... '.0..00 P,reV' '.~Bai" : 21.54 >3;,027.54 ..' . '3,...1100.00#381837 '.: :....--.. -... - ,,",- - '"" - - - -... - - -.. - -- -- --,- -.:"';;'.-'';'' -,':::' -::-..,-'-:- ...:-~,-:',;.;;. -.,-'- -- -;... - _:;;;',..:>-.;;;,.'-:';:::' ';;':;;",,:;':"-":.;;',)"';"'- :..:..-.......;.,....., --..;--.-'.,.:' ..--... . .......,.. .. .. .. ., ., . . .." .. ,",~eck DisbJ.lrse.d. ., ., ".,,,... .." .... ..... .., ., ....., .. ... , ,- .. ..., ... '" .......... . "...... "'".. .. ...." ., ,. .. . .." ^ . ......... .". . . "', ... . ..." - ..,.. . . - . .."..... . '-"... .. .- , .. .. . '''''. . "... . .. . ,... ....... . ., .. .,...... .. , . . . .. ..- .. ....... . . ." ". . , . . . . . ,.. ". " .. ,,'. . ,,,.... . ". . . ... .. . .. -. .-. .. .. .. .. .. .. ". .. -. ".. ". . .. .", ........,.. .. - ., ."." ..""..... ... .. ..". ... .-. ...,.. .....,.. ....."....".... .. ".",. . .,.. .- .. " ... ,.,. .. """"""", '" ...." ....,. ... .. ."... .........,.. ....... . ". ...,....,.....,,,,,.. .."" ... .. .. ..,...... .., ...... , .. -, . ",,,.,,, ......." ...,. ." "-, "',".' ""'..., - ... .. ...... .. '" ....,.....,,,,, ....... ..,......" .",... ..",.... ..,,'......,... ..... .... , .., ,., " ""'"'' ...." ""...". ...,. .... ..,..- ........ ""...,.... ...,........... ."..",., ,- ,,,. ,,,...,,,, ,.""" '" . ,. ....,.-.., '."'''''''., ......." ...,.... .. , "". ",. ,,,. ",., '" .", ".... '" . ."." '" ...................,.......... ...".." .. ".... . """"''''''''''''',.... ""... ,,,.. ". ......... ....... ............., ,",..- ..",..... . ... .. ... . .., ..... ,.. -. ,.." "" . ....-... .,............."....,......"... .-. ."..".......-- "''''''''...,.".....,. ... ..-..........- ,.,,'.... ..".-.. .. ... .. .. ... .. ... -". DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT .", ,..",.",. . "....,. . ........ . . .. ......... . . .""." ...., ...,..",. .. -.'..."....... . .. ,.". ..,.. . . ..".. ... .... ..".... . , . ......... . . , .". . . . . , . .. , .."... .. . .. , ..". ... ...- .." . . .. ..,.... , .. . ...... .. ... ." ., .,... .- -. . , '" "........ .". . ............ .." - ..-..... , ,""''''''.'''' ...,.". "". . . -..,,,.... .... .."'.-... .. ,,,.,,....., ...,... "..... .... .....,..,.., .. ...... ....... -. ". .". -. ""'" "". . , ,..... ......, , .. ..- -. ....,....... "......, ".....,.....,....,..... .... .. ...... .., ,-,......,.. .. .",. "" .."._".. ". .- ,".. . .. ..,...... ....- ..",... '"... . . ....,."."...,.- ...., ...,....,..... . '''''::'''':''':..':':'''':'::':'':::':.':''"..,....:.:':',::.:'::..:"..:'.::.:..'::.......",,, -'-:> ". :.:::.:::::,.::.:::,:,,:,:'::,:',:::'.:'::::,:.::::,::,:',:::::::::,::.:::':':'::::'::':'.::',:,:':':':,:',,',::,::::::,:;':.:':::::::::::;:i;:'::::,:'::'" :.,',;:: I ---:::> t: . .... ..:::'......:':.:,:.::_:':.:::::..::::',:':-:,::,::......:::'...:'::'::'...:.....::'::,:..::':':..".._:'(:::::,:...,:-.. ':-:::, 00_ 21' - <J'-f .s rs ;'.:: .". . "::.,.':''':'''::'::':-:,:::,:,:'.:(:,::::,:,:'::';:'::-':':';:':":::?:::':'-{:(::"'::':,::.: :":':::.',~~.-----"".=,-.",.,.."...::,,:, .,.:~:::':::'~::' .. :'11~Q:$:rQPeA'{ME:Nt.eE:.RMJtt~t?':';,,,:;,.....,..,.:..::......;..:............:.'...:.;.:'...":2:.~;.':..............:.:..,...........,;::............:. :........;........... "'.--':-:':' ~::f:::~::;":.:'::::::,,::.:':,: f:,f.:::::':'::::~::.:::..-,. ",,--,":,'..':.... .. ",':.:, ;:,:,:..;:,:.:,::.::/.': ~!,,: ..".. "'.':::";"-i.,;,:",...,,',:.,:'\'e"'-'''' PARTICIPATION AUTHORIZATION ~= Deferred ....L.o. Compensation ~ Program as De~ease (circle one) uing deferrals o Suspension: (circle one) Financial hardship Lower family income Investment perfonnance Other o Catch-up (circle one) YR I 2 3 $ (above NAP) The undersigned agrees to defer a portion Ofhis/h~on in accordance with the tenns of the Deferred Compensation Program. By signing this Participation Authorization. the Employe authorizes Depl of :tJJ.J'JD.AAcf,~7 nm) the Employer, to deduct the following amounts from thf'x-"ation otherwise payable to the Employe, The NEWTOTALnE~~AMOUNTPerp.yperiodis$ ~Q/}. sWting wilh pay date .' i,~ c@,' CurrentQro,sAnnualSalary(after SERSconfributwn)lS$ I~.l.,{.. [OIdTotalDelOrral unt"..-paypenod was $ ,_. .J . <> - -O:z-. J . ~ Iftht amount of the deferral specified in this Participation ,Authorization would exceed the. Program limitation. the defemll amount will be reduced without further notice to you. The Participation Authorization Card must be received by CitiStreet Retirement Services at least 31 days prior to the date on which you would like deductions to begin. However. your Participation Authorization win not be effective until your Employer and ita payroll system have executed it. Requests to suspend deferrals will be proc.....J _ve wilh the finI available pay date after receipt by your Employer. Yau acknowledge that you have received the Program Eoralbuent Kit which explains the provisions and restrictions of the Program. DATE / (/4,v n 2- ~~:7rDt:E~- NAME OF P T1CIPANT (TYPE OR PRINT) :i:i}" - 2..':1, - /6' 2.--- I.2:UA tJ ~oo '-- -PAbE-f> S CURITY NUMBER EFF. DATE DEPT. NAME FOR CITISTREET USE ONLY S1GNA1URJ!B~~ PROGRAM REPRESENTATIVE AE CODE INS 1# COl'nmon\\'lOalth OfPCllllSyl\'illli;1 DE.fl'rred Compensation Progralll CitiStl'ed Rt.'tpl't'JUt'nt ~e!'\'irl's TWlITowel' Center Eas'rBrnnswick, NJ 08!}16 1-800-422-1327 #Ol-23~3S1 (KBIsm:l) 10 3~-Copyright 01994-2001 C~etAl.wciatllsI.LC DEPT.-# White Copy-Employer ~p)'~partic:i~ ""~;;;"~'_'"'''_'1'~';;I~~~""",''''"",,''~I'l'~.plJllIt~,,~' 'it.IJQ!:<'Ji[II"'---" f" 1'~ 3-P04?_FRM (6IOJ) - -- --, " ~'''''__'~~Jl!II_~~~;-,._Ii<Oo1~'I1M""",_~,~"",;";,_...";~,.~illrio.~.",,,,"....", Manila Card-Cidstreet https:/ /homebank.psecu.comlHomebanklHistory/HistorySortFilter .asp Account History Select the Share or Loan to View: CHECKING (504) After you have made your selections, click "continue" to view history. You may then click on the column headers to sort your history. Sort Your History by Date Order: Chronological Enter start Date: (MM/DDIYYYY)iI 110/14/2003 "'" Select the Specific Transaction Type to View: No Preference - ALL History Enter End Date: 110/14/2003 (MM/DDIYYYY) Search Transaction Descriptions: Please Note: You may not view more than gO days of history at one time. .. Conti.nl1el Date Transaction Description Amount Balance Check/Mise 10/14/2003 DEPOSIT BY CHECK $7,000.00 $7,152.14 "" WITHDRAWAL HOME BANKING Ii 10/14/2003 TRANSFER -$7,000.00 $152.14 TO BRINZER,JINGLAN Ii ' 1483XXXXXX SHARE 01 Bllck toJoP . .1 DownIOi3dfor.QuiizkllO/MSMQney.! DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT '" .s -"'-a" ~rs 1 of! 10/21/20047:49 AM ~f "",.., . https:/lhomebank.psecu.comlhomebanklHistorylHistorySortFilter.asp Account History Select the Share or Loan to View: CHECKING (804) After you have made your selections, click "continue" to view history. You may then click on the column headers to sort your history. Sort Your History by Date Order: Chronological Enter Start Date: (MM/DDNYYY) I 10/13/2003 lit Select the Specific Transaction Type to View: No Preference - ALL History Enter End Date: 110/14/2003 (MMIDDNYYY) Search Transaction Descriptions: Please Note: You may not view more than 90 days of history at one time. lit Continue -I Date Transaction Description Amount Balance Check/Mise - 10/13/2003 DEPOSIT HOME BANKING $1,000.00 $1,185.17 TRANSFER FROM LOAN 09 -._- -. 10/14/2003 DEPOSIT BY CHECK $2,000.00 $3,185.17 - .. 10/14/2003 WITHDRAWAL HOME BANKING -$1.766.61 $1,418.56 TRANSFER TO LOAN 09 .-. .. . - Back to Top I DownlOfldforQuicken/M$Moneyj DefENDANT'S EXHIBIT (j €,(;; 10-2-1-0'" lof1 10/21/20047:44 AM 1:- "~~ " ene I'. -~ , ,",' JINGLAN C. BRINZER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. RAYMOND J. BRINZER NO. 2000-7916 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10TH day of SEPTEMBER, 2004, it appearing to the Court that there are factual issues in dispute regarding the length of separation and whether the marriage is irretrievably broken, a hearing on Plaintiff's request for the entry of a divorce decree pursuant to Section 3301( d) of the Divorce Code is scheduled for THURSDAY. OCTOBER 21, 2004. at 1:00 D.m. in Courtroom # 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pa. 17013. Testimony shall be limited to grounds for divorce under that section of the Divorce Code. Edward E. Guido, J. ,;! v1<1'adelaine N. Baturin, Esquire 2604 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pa. 17110 )> ~ymOnd J. Brinzer 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 :sld ;,; i I "I I :1 " i ~ o 9-/3-{J I f"t., ~.., ~"", ..~ _,_>__,"d_.uU""'.c~,~O~"~1 ",'",," "1 " ,_~.~ _ e' ~~~l1m~~Mil,'ID~~~~,;;;,<Ji,;;~j,''')l;lblliJjl1lib:k~~!''-l .<jLlh!',~< Ll'l ~~,""k".,,", """. ,~_~, ~_~, ."~" " >,0_.- ~~~ f'ILE") '''''"ICL'' ., :1 ""UI-;- 'l.': OF THE p~lOn.'!CNOTARY 20011 SEP 13 Fi'1 I: 00 CU~I~;:.;i".:'i-'::_, CUUNTY FEN;\!SYLV/\N:A o_~_'"' ,,~, .1i" IlldU'll ~~iIiIi-~' - 'fr. , . JINGLAN C. BRlNZER, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ) VS. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM ) RAYMOND J. BRlNZER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE PRAECIPE TO TRANSMIT RECORD To the Prothonotary: Transmit the record, together with the following information, to the Court for entry of a divorce decree: l. Ground for divorce: irretrievable breakdown under Section () 330Hc) m 330Hd)(l) of the divorce code. (Check applicable section). 2. Date and manner of service of the complaint: November 14. 2000. Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested. Restricted Deliverv 3. Complete either paragraph (a) or (b). (a) Date of execution of the affidavit of consent required by Section 3301(c) of the Divorce Code: by plaintiff ; by defendant (b)(l) Date of execution of the plaintiff's affidavit required by Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code: November 7. 2000 ; (2) date of service of the Plaintiff's affidavit upon the Defendant: November 14. 2000 '''"' ~.,,'''' . 4. Related claims pending: Eauitable Distribution. Alirnonv. Alimonv Pendente Lite. Counsel Fees and Expenses as per Court Order dated Julv 22. 2004. and signed bv the Honorable Edward E. Guido 5. Date and manner of service of the notice of intention to file praecipe to transmit record, a copy of which is attached, if the decree is to be entered under section 3301(d)(l) of the Divorce Code Counter-Mfidavit signed bv Defendant and filed in the Cumberland Countv Prothonotary's Office on February 6.2001 Respectfully, BATURIN & BATURIN fJ (V\ A-.. By: Date: 9-d.--d/ Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire AttorneyLD. No. 68971 2604 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 (717) 234-2427 -'~'..'-"~' . :"'ilij --~ JINGLAN G. BRINZER, Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSl\b V ANJA '?: (" - - . . -"'~ -n . v. :NO.00-7916 ri~ rf" ~~~~ ~~ ;Pre"" ~() P"t::' ~. "-' :< ':-? ~.., .oJ :0 ..,~, ,- '" ,I I cY' . ':-:: RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :IN DIVORCE ....., -.- ....- . ;-'-'" ~i'~i1 ~ :.< COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT UNDER 9 3301 (D) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. Check either (a) or (b): x (a) (b) I do not oppose the entry of a divorce decree. I oppose the entry of a divorce decree because (Check (i), (ii) or both): x (i) The parties to this action have not lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years. .k (ii) The marriage is not irretrievably broken. 2. Check either (a) or (b): (a) I do not wish to make any claims for economic relief. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if! do not claim them before a divorce is granted. ~ (b) I wish to claim economic relief which may include alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses or other important rights. I understand that in addition to checking (b) above, I must also file all of my economic claims with the prothonotary in writing and serve them on the other party. If I " , . . ~-I , '-I ! : I I , :1 'I 'I " 'I d ~ 1 'J I I 'I :-1 ;j ,'J -il . . . fail to do so before the date set forth on the Notice of Intention to Request Divorce Decree, the divorce decree may be entered without further delay. I verify that the statements made in this counteraffidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: ;1=6-0 J Raymon -." : . I {".1. ~o CERTIFTCA TE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth S. Beckley, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was this day served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below. FIRST CLASS MATL Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire Baturin & Baturin 717 North Second Harrisburg, P A 17102 DATED: ;)/(;(0/ . ~ ,. ~ ~, 11I!I!I!QlI,~~- - IT . (') ....., ~ c=> C ("-'> "~'-~- .r.- <'" -4 -"-1 ,-,.-' T . flt!'-, ; (""1 n;::D --"~ -,.- " .- ;,;;,'. I j5? r,r, W ... :~() ~S:~ ,.,. ,--":' {.-'):o -',"" :3: ~~(~ ~. '-, .> '.-' C)m r'~ :::.-; -" L ~~ ---j U1 -( \.D -< 1pI':II!~~~~=~~"~~,or~l"~~~l!lIOW_~!lW!!'I\1!lII\;::j'lgj1;.F1"_f;j~!;;'~~,:<.q :;"'-;""i't"'''';''''C:-1l'"~$''''',,",,'I:,,",,-Jj<"~'n-'_''''il'''!!~''?''i1:l,wtn~il':V'}"~ffl~~JllW~- VS. ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. OV - "7t}/tR CIVIL TERM JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the office of the Prothonotary, Cumberland County, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER 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, PA 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 Dated: November 7,2000 BATURIN & BATURIN j)// By.1j ~ J( . MADELA EN. BATURIN, ESQUIRE Attorney J.D. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-2427 "-"_,l'f_n '.~I:'""I "-~. JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. ()t), 7C}/f, CIVIL TERM vs. RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE COUNT I COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301(d} OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. The Plaintiff is JINGLAN C. BRINZER, an adult individual, sui juris, who currently resides at 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. The Defendant is RAYMOND J. BRINZER, an adult individual, sui juris, who currently resides at 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 3. The Plaintiff has been bona fide resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) months immediately prior to the filing of this Complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on February 5, 1994, in Wuhan, China. 5. The Plaintiff and Defendant separated on February 15, 1996, and have not been living as husband and wife since that date. 6. There has been no prior action for divorce or annulment of the marriage between the parties hereto in this or any other jurisdiction. 1 "1.).-, _rO I" J ~~ " :} 7. Plaintiff avers that there are no children of the parties under eighteen (18) years of age. 8. The Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of the United States of America. 9. The Defendant is not a member on active duty of the Armed Forces of the United States of America nor any of its allies. 10. The Plaintiff avers that the grounds upon which this action is based is that the marriage is irretrievably broken. 11. Plaintiff has been advised that counseling is available and that Plaintiff may have the right to request that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling. COUNT n COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301 (a)(6) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 12. All of the averments in Paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated herein as though each was set forth under Count II as in Count I. 13. In the alternative, Plaintiff avers that the Defendant hath offered such indignities to the person of the Plaintiff, the innocent and injured spouse so as to render his/her condition intolerable and life burdensome. COUNT III CLAIM FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 401 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 14. All of the averments in Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein as though each was set forth under Count III as in Count I and Count II. 2 -l~:"P lnl~ '", ., I ~, 15. Plaintiff and Defendant are the owners of real property that qualifies as marital property as defined in the Pennsylvania Divorce Code and is subject to equitable distribution by this Court. 16. Plaintiff and Defendant are the owners of various items of personal property, furniture and other household furnishings acquired during their marriage, which are subject to equitable distribution by this Court. 17. Plaintiff and Defendant are also owners of other various items of property, such as motor vehicles, bank accounts and other items of personalty acquired during . the marriage that are subject to equitable distribution by this Court. 18. Plaintiff requests the Court to equitably divide, distribute or assign the marital property between the parties. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a Decree in Divorce: A. Dissolving the marriage between the Plaintiff and Defendant; B. Equitably distributing all marital property owned by the parties; and C. For such further relief as the Court may determine equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, BATURIN & BATURIN BY1Jv1 jJ, k MADELAINE N. BATURIN, ESQ. Attorney I.D. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-2427 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: November 7,2000 3 T~' -<I " ?, VERIFICATION I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS DIVORCE COMPLAINT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED IN GOOD FAITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE COURT MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A BAD FAITH VIOLATION. ;?~ c Ik.~ (SEAL) JI . LAN C. BRINZER Dated: 1/ /(/7 /7t:Je'fD {/ 4 ,~ .r VS. ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff NO. CIVIL TERM RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE WAIVER OF COIJNSEUNG JINGLAN C. BRINZER, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: 1. I have been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and understand that I may request that the Court require my spouse and I to participate in counseling. 2. I understand that the Court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Office of the Prothonotary, which list is available to me upon request. 3. Being so advised, I do not request that the Court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling prior to a divorce decree being handed down by the Court. I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS WAIVER ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. 94904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. Dated: J I/O -r/ Z-fT'l?V , I ~ C~BRf:zr (SEAL) 5 ~'J . ~ l , ~I . , " . JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff vs. ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. CIVIL TERM RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT If you wish to deny any of the statements set forth in this affidavit, you must file a counteraffidavit within twenty (20) days after this affidavit has been served on you or the statements will be admitted. Plaintiff's Affidavit Under Section 3301 (d) Of The Divorce Code 1. The parties to this action separated on February 15, 1996, have continued to live separately for a period of at least two (2) years, having not lived together as husband and wife since that date. 2. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 3. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a Divorce is granted. I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS WAIVER ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. ~4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. Dated: / I /0 7 J 2 ccn..) '" ' ~tt!~ ~/ (#~SEAL) J GLAN C. INZER ~~~.... - .- VS. ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE I, Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire, of the law firm of Baturin & Baturin, attorney for the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, do hereby certifY that on November 10, 2000, I deposited in the United States Mail, at the United States Post Office, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, an article of Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, marked "Restricted Delivery", a certified copy of the Complaint in Divorce and Notice to Defend and Claim Rights attached thereto, bearing Article No. Z 483 895635, addressed to: Raymond J. Brinzer, 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, P A 17011. The said article of Certified Mail, as shown by the Postal Return Receipt Card was received by the Defendant herein on November 14, 2000, and according to same, was signed by him, to wit: Raymond J. Brinzer, which card is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A", along with the deposit slip dated November 10, 2000, for said article of Certified Mail aforementioned. BATURIN & BATURIN By: Madelaine . Baturin, Esquire Attorney I.D. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 171 02 (717) 234-2427 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Dated: November 20, 2000 -:~!Il/ilIll!:!U ""-,' ,,,,,-"- ."" Z 483 895 635 us Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail See reverse Senuo t<aymond J. Brinzer Street & NumOOr 17011 .55 1.40 2.75 (\ 1.25 ~~:. !! . complete ite~ 1 andlor 2: for $:~onal s",rvices. (II . Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. IX . Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this ... card to you. ~ . Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not jj;; permit. . Write NReturn Receipt Reques~d" on the mall piece below the article number. lD . The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date ;:; delivered. 5 3. Article Addressed to: " .. 'il ii E o " I al$0 w~-to receive the foltGwi.':'9 ~lVices (for an extra fee): 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2.;p(Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number Z 483 895 635 Mr Rayrrond J. Brinzer 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill. PA 17011 4b. Service Type o Registered D Express Mail o Return Receipt for Merchandise 7. Date of Del've I <I: 5. Received By; (Print Name) ~Certified D Insured DeOD ress (Only if requested '. 102595-98-8-0229 Ddrmestic EXHIBIT "A" n "'!"' Q; " ~, .. f/l' a' "ij, " .. 0: c - " 'il 0: '" c .;;; " - .e " g, '" c ., .<:: .... JINGLAN G. BRINZER, Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANlA v. :NO.00-7916 RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :IN DIVORCE COUNTER-AFFIDA VlT UNDER 9 3301 (D) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. Check either (a) or (b): (a) I do not oppose the entry of a divorce decree. x (b) I oppose the entry of a divorce decree because (Check (i), (ii) or both): x (i) The parties to this action have not lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years. x (ii) The marriage is not irretrievably broken. 2. Check either (a) or (b): (a) I do not wish to make any claims for economic relief. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if! do uot claim them before a divorce is granted. :( (b) I wish to claim economic relief which may include alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses or other important rights. I understand that in addition to checking (b) above, I must also file all of my economic claims with the prothonotary in writing and serve them on the other party. If I <: "',~~~: ~ -'- .., @)"'_,.' '-'f ""',~ I' !0- - . ~" '"'"""", .,. '" fail to do so before the date set forth on the Notice of Intention to Request Divorce Decree, the divorce decree may be entered without further delay. I verify that the statements made in this counteraffidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 9 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: )./p -0 } , , , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth S. Beckley, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was this day served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below. FIRST CLASS MAIL Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire Baturin & Baturin 717 North Secoud Harrisburg, PA 17102 DATED: ~rJOI ~~ n.~_'^ ~ " - ~ To: The Honorable Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, PA Fm: Raymond J. Brinzer, Pro Se Re: Civil Action - Law in Divorce No. 00-7916 Civil Term Purpose: Skeleton Outline Addendum to the 5 Dec 2003 Raymond J. Brinzer Preliminary Development Date: 25 Feb 2004 This Addendum outline is keyed to resources intended to back-up/elucidate upon the 5 Dec 2003 Civil Term Submission No. 00-7916 that respectfully entered a list of requests numbered 1)-5). It is keyed to back-up resources that present changes and additional information pertinent to the charges and circumstances of the alleged complaint and claims ... and is to be used only if circumstances and the best interests of the defendant ... (are at stake). Main Body Around 12 Feb 04 Complainant Jinglan Brinzer casually informed her husband(the defendant,) that her attomey had told her he was "making trouble." On the way to her workplace on 19 Feb 04 she told her husband that "her attomey had decided to go ahead with the separation of the divorce from the financial settlements ... previously she had wanted to do them both together, but ... (Questions: who is getting this divorce - Jinglan or her attorney? Is Jinglan doing this or being led/pushed?) The last time Raymond and Jinglan had conjugal relations as husband and wife occurred at 2900 Sunset Drive on 17 Jan 2004, in the home Raymond had combined with Jinglan to purchase. Something (?) happened after that (perhaps she had an attomey app't?) and there have been no conjugal relations since. II. Matters have become extremely strained. Jinglan is currently experiencing workplace pressures once again due to workload and an impending evaluation. On 15 or 16 Feb Jinglan called and told him (defendant) she needed him to come and help her with her evaluation Self-Report ... . i"-~ , , -, I -'! ,- Jinglan has told her husband that everyone in her department knows what he has done ... Raymond has continually instructed Jinglan not to discuss personal or familial problems in the workplace ... . IV.Despite the fact Jinglan's work performance far exceeds that of many higher-ranked employees ... she has been discriminated against and received largely invalid evaluations. V. Re.# "7) Jinglan developed well-documented health problems as a result of discriminatory and harassment pressures ... add the following information. 1. Jinglan developed periodontal disease ... 2. Raymond took Jinglan to Johns Hopkins for 2003 ob/gyn exam ... 3. Recently Jinglan asked Raymond who the counselor and doctor (psychiatrist) were he had her see during the height of her 2000-01 workplace problems when she was in severe distress, had extremely high blood pressure as a result, and was being harassed. ... 4. John Mira, MD, prescribed, among other things, Wellbutrin ... Ambien ... 5. Raymond sought out and took Jinglan to a Primary Care Physician for her blood pressure problem resulting from stress ... 6. Jinglan recently complained to Raymond that he was using her medicines/prescriptions to control her ... 7. On a number of occasions it seemed that some of Raymond's medicine was missing ... . VLRe. # 9) Jinglan Brinzer's original complaints ... were ... . ... Jinglan attributes her holdings ... to her "saving." ... Jinglan's Current Economic Worth... Total @208,000. Vll.Jinglan has no relatives in the U.S. ... Raymond has always attempted to put everything in joint accounts for tax, inheritance, and related purposes. In addition, Raymond has always attempted to list Jinglan's family as beneficiaries on her accounts (e.g., IRA's insurance, deferred comp, etc.). It has been legally impossible to list Jinglan's family members as beneficiaries on virtually most, if not all, of her accounts ... because in each and every instance he has been told they must have a social security number. ... ... Raymond discems and claims discrimination (against Jinglan) based on ethnic group and denial of human and constitutional rights. People such as Jinglan are ... U.S. Citizens in name only - and second and lower class citizens in virtually every other domain. ... Vill.Jinglan has often claimed Raymond doesn't want her to have friends. Jinglan seems totally naIve as concems people, their behavior, and some of the potential .1'1 - rl ... dangers inherent in some situations in westem society. ... Jinglan doesn't understand why her husband is so negative/averse to her friendship or association with such types. ... She thinks her husband doesn't want her to have friends (concerning these types of people - she is absolutely and irrefutably correct). ... Professor Y ongyi Song of Dickinson College ... replied without hesitation (re. The Chinese in American culture): they are too naIve; they take people at their word and tend to believe everything they say (this is paraphrased). Iinglan's husband has always wanted her to have friends. But drug addicts, prostitutes, felons, sociopaths, petty criminals, hit-men, sexists, potentially homocidal individuals, rapists, pathological liars, swingers, perverts, embezzlers, misogynists, and other such types are not on the list. IX.Jinglan is once again making ominous remarks and charges to her husband. The last time ... circa 1999 ... she filed a PFA, the complaints of which were contradicted by a .... (witness) who ... overheard the events ... - and an experienced investigating... Police Officer who ... contradicted ... allegations. ... X. In November 2003 ... Jinglan blurted out ... she didn't want people spying on her... (there were 18th-century figures woven into the fabric). She repeated this in an agitated state several times ... XL... downloaded a Schedule 1040-C... XII.Jinglan has (been concerned)/complained about Raymond's "controlling" her. Raymond has continually attempted to get Jinglan to handle medical, prescription, and all other matters - but she shows no interest nor motivation and tells Raymond to do it. ... Xm.One of the charges of Jinglan's 1999 PFA was that she was afraid of Raymond. Yet, Iinglan knows and demonstrates by her actions she has no reason(s) to be afraid ... . ... It is highly improbable that a person who is afraid of another person would be alone with that person so frequently, if at all ... the relationship has been very strained since sometime in J an 04 since Jinglan has been communicating more regularly with her attomey ... . ... XIV.In evening conversation of 23 Feb 04 - Raymond brought up the subject of the PFA Jinglan had filed in 1999. ... Given Raymond's knowledge of his wife's behavioral patterns, her increasingly morbid state of late (she is under intense pressure at work with evaluation preparations and job responsibilities), questions she has interpolated into conversations, statements that have '- <'~~ '-I " .. .. been made that don't really fit the flow of conversations ... and other salient cues - Raymond is very apprehensive that Jinglan is going to file another PFA. ... xv.... Jinglan took them to the 2900 premises (she did this without Raymond's consent ... ) ... XVI. ... Jinglan continually eschews any medical treatment or coverage that she thinks is going to result in any costs ... XVII.... at the current time Jinglan is back in divorce mode and in heavy pressure in her workplace. ... her spouse wonders why she has not asked him for the edited copy that was so urgent and required a special trip ... XVIII.In conversation on 23 Feb 04 - Raymond again voiced concern about her promise to payoff the money she pressured him to borrow for acquisition of the ... property. Jinglan again assured Raymond she would make restitution as she promised ... Her husband then stated if there were a divorce he wanted the items he went into the marriage with, and wanted his half of the other property. ... When this happened there was a hiatus in the conversation. ... ... when Raymond asserts his interest in and claim to equal distribution of property rjghtsJjnglan announces she isn't arguing about it, obviously Raymond isn't interested in being fair, and she becomes agitated and ceases to communicate ... XIX. When the total pattern ... is considered - Jinglan's husband senses what he doesn't want to consider.. that he is somehow inexorably being set up. ... These ... concomitants come just as they did in 1999 ... . xx.... the possibility Jingan Brinzer has someone other than her attorney involved ... that person will be charged with invasion of privacy, sued in a civil court, and ... be faced with a criminal complaint charge. Respectfully submitted, C~ Raymond 1. Brinzer, Pro Se 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 USA ci'i,_~ . 1-- -I' t., " Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ITNGLAN C. BRINZER, vs. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE RAYMOND J. BRINZER, INTERROGA TORTES IN DIVORCE ACTION TO: Mr. Raymond J. Brinzer clo Elizabeth S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MEADDEN Cranberry Court 212 North Third Street Post Office Box 11998 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1998 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS ofPa.R.C.P. 1930.5 and 4001, et. seq., you are required to file the original and serve a copy on the undersigned of your Answers and Objections, if any, in writing and under oath, to the following Interrogatories within (30) days after service of the Interrogatories. The answers shall be inserted in the spaces provided after each Interrogatory. If there is insufficient space to answer and Interrogatory, the remainder ofthe answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing in nature in accordance with the provisions ofPa.R.C.P. 4007.4, as amended. Any information secured subsequent to the filing which would have been includable in the answers had it been known or available, are to be promptly supplied by supplemental answers. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS Answer every interrogatory. No question is to be left blank. If the answer to an interrogatory is "none" or "unknown", such statement must be written in the answer. Ifthe 'I -'-'1 questions is inapplicable, "N/ A" must be written in the answer. 1. "Documents" is an all-inclusive term referring to any writing and/or recorded or graphic matter, however, produced or reproduced. The term "documents" includes without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, interoffice communications, minutes, reports, notes, schedules, analysis, drawings, diagrams, tables, graphs, charts, maps, surveys, books of account, ledgers, invoices, purchase orders, pleadings, questionnaires, contracts, bills, checks, drafts, diaries, logs, proposals, print-outs, recordings, telegrams, fihns, tax returns, and financial statements, and all other such documents tangible or retrievable of any kind. "Documents" also include any preliminary notes and drafts of all the foregoing, in whatever form, for example, printed, typed, longhand, shorthand, on paper, paper tape, tabulating cards, ribbon, blueprints, magnetic tape, microfihn, fihn, motion picture film, phonograph records, computer discs or other form. 2. With respect to documents, the term "identifY" means to give the date, title, author and addressee; "identifY" with respect to documents further means: a. To describe a document sufficiently well to enable the interrogator to know what such document is and to retrieve it from a file or wherever it may be located; b. To describe it in a manner suitable for use as a description in a subpoena; c. To give the name, address, position or title of the person(s) who has custody of the document and/or copies thereof; 3. "IdentifY" when used in reference to an individual means: a. To state his/her full name; b. Present residence address or last known residence; :_:_n" <.", r- , I - c. Present or last known business address; d. Present employer or last known employer; and, e. Whether ever employed by any party to this action and, if so, the dates he/she was employed by such party, the name of such party, and the last position held as an employee of such party. 4. Whenever the expression "and/or" is used in these Interrogatories, the information called for should be set out both in the conjunctive and disjunctive, and wherever the information is set out in the disjunctive it should be given separately for each and every element sought. 5. Wherever a date, amount or other computation or figure is requested, the exact date, amount or other computation or figure is to be given unless it is not known; and then, the approximate date, amount or other computation or figure is an estimate or approximation. Respectfully submitted, Date:~ll/ 03 :;~;rA)7 ~ Madelaine'N. Baturin, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 171 02 (717) 234-2427 Attorney for Plaintiff '-1 INTERROGA TORTES 1. Please state your full name, your present home address, the name and relationship to you of each person residing with you, your social security number and your date of birth. ANSWER: "if!' ~ - T- ~~ I 2. If you are presently employed, state fully for each employment, the full name, address and telephone number of your employer, the date you commenced your employment; your job title or position and responsibilities; your employee or payroll number; the name, address and position of your innnediate supervisor; and the name and address of each bookkeeper, payroll clerk or otherperson(s) who has custody of records of salaries, commissions, bonuses, allowances, expenses or any other sums of money paid to you by your present employer(s) during the term of your employment. ANSWER: --''11~ r,- 11-" " 3. State the names, the hours and the rate of payor earnings, setting forth particularly your gross average weekly salary, wages, commissions and overtime pay, any bonuses, gratuities, expenses and drawing accounts and allowances for transportation and other accommodations and expenses, all pensions, stock purchase options, t\retirement plans, insurance, profit sharing or other benefit plans. If there is a contract of employment, state the terms thereof or, if in writing, attach a copy thereto. ANSWER: , II 4. What was the amount of your gross salary from all sources for 1995 to the current year. Please attach a copy of your 1995 to the current Federal Income Tax Returns. ANSWER: -"," >-1 5. If you are self-employed or conduct a business or a profession as a sole proprietor, partner or corporation, state: \ a. Which it is b. The nature thereof c. The name, address and telephone number thereof. If a partnership, list the names and addresses of all partners and the extent of their interest therein. If a corporation, list the names and addresses of all directors, officers and shareholders, the extent of their shareholdings and the relationship to you of all partners, shareholders, directors and officers. ANSWER: "n1Y , .-~- - " 6. With reference to the enterprises set forth in the preceding question, state where the books and records thereof are kept, the name and address of the person in whose charge they are and the name and address of any accountants and auditors whose services are used. ANSWER: Ii'~ , 7. Do you, individually, or with anyone else, now hold or have you held any interest in any real property at any time during the past five (5) years; if so, state fully the name and address ofthe entity or individual( s) in whose name the property is titled, the address and legal description of the property, the date of acquisition and consideration and the original amount of mortgages thereon, the balance due thereon and the name and address of the mortgagee, and the present fair market value of the property. ANSWER: j"" "J'., " , I 8. If you own any stocks, bonds, including U.S. Saving Bonds, or other securities of any kind, state the description and identification of the security or bond, the identity of any co- owner or interest holders, date of acquisition, value of acquisition, number of shares or bonds presently held, the amount and frequency of dividends or income payable, and the present location. Also, if any stocks or bonds have been sold or otherwise transferred since January 1995, state the date of said transaction, number of shares or bonds involved, consideration received and disposition of said consideration. ANSWER: "'" , I 9. IdentifY all banks and savings and loan association accounts, time deposits, certificates of deposit, treasury notes, savings, clubs, thrift plans, money market funds, checking accounts, individual retirement accounts, credit union accounts in your name alone, with any other individual or in any other individual's name in your behalf and for each such item state the location of the account or other item, the account number or other identifYing number, the balance or value of said account or other item since January 1995, to the present, name and address of each co-owner or person named on said account or item, and if any such items have been disposed of since January 1995, state the date, amount involved and disposition of funds realized therefrom. Attach copies of all monthly or other periodic statements for said accounts since 1995 to the present. ANSWER: : '''''.~ J L " 10. If you own and/or possess any personal property, including, but not limited to, such items as cash, furniture, appliances, jewelry, precious metals or stones, coin collection, stamp collection, weapons collections, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles and any recreational or other vehicles, or any other item of value, identifY the item and state fully the description of the asset and the title owner, the present location of the asset, the purchase price or other consideration furnished for the asset, the present value, stating how said value was calculated, and name and address of any co-owners. ANSWER: "~,. , " :'1 "' '! -," [""'-T '--f'r~<r' - -~~<- , luUll 11. Set forth a list of all monies or other assets received by you in way of gifts, inheritance, or any other source other than earnings, since January 1, 1995, setting forth for each, the date received, amount received, name and address ofthe person, firm or corporation from which received, the reason or basis of receipt and if the gift or inheritance was received in a form other than money, indicate the value of the gift, when it was received, if sold, date of sale, consideration received and disposition of the proceeds. ANSWER: " I' 'I I.: 1-,--, . . , I: 12. List all life insurance policies of which you are the owner, insured or beneficiary, and for each, please state the identity of the insurance company and policy number, the face amount, the identity of the owner, insured and beneficiary and any relationship to you, the annual premiums of the payer, the present cash surrender value and the name of any beneficiaries of any insurance policies which have been changed during the past five (5) years. ANSWER: " - ~""'" 13. Do you have any interest, vested or otherwise, in any pension plan, profit sharing plan, IRA, Keough or any other retirement plan. List all information regarding plans since 1995. If so, please state the name of the plan, the name and address of the plan administrator, the types of plan( s) established for your benefit, whether your employer contributes to the plan and, if so, on what basis, the date the first contribution was made by you or on your behalf to the plan, the value of your interest in the plan( s) as of this date, and how you determined the value. If you have made any withdrawals of funds from said plan( s) state the date, amount and disposition of each withdrawal. Attach a copy of the plan(s) and all statements received by you for each of the past five (5) years to your answers to these Interrogatories. ANSWER: 1''''1'''~ "1 I I I'''^'''J!>...--..'l'!'' 14. Do you have, or have you had, during the past five (5) years access to any safe deposit box or other depository for valuables and, if so, describe in detail the contents which were in the safe deposit box during the past five (5) calendar years and identifY any items which may have been removed from same during that time setting the date of removal and disposition of the items removed. ANSWER: , I " 15. List any and all amounts due to you of whatever nature, and for each amount listed, the identity of the obligor or debtor, the original and current amount of indebtness, the term of the obligation, and attach any and all documents relating thereto. ANSWER: 1+ , '"" 'r :'1 16. IdentifY any and all liabilities or obligations of whatever nature, including a list of credit card accounts that you may have which are not disclosed in prior Interrogatories, and for each, please state the nature ofthe liability or obligation, the date initially incurred, the identity of the creditor or obligee, the amount of the original liability or obligation, the outstanding balance, if any, the account number and the amount and frequency of payments thereon. ANSWER: i'>1""fT ,...,... !" , I 17. Have you prepared or had prepared on your behalf or for your benefit any loan application or financial statements within the past five (5) years, and, if so, attach said loan application or fmancial statements. ANSWER: : "J'","" ~ I- 18. If you will do so without a request for production of documents, attach check stubs, check registers and canceled checks for all bank accounts in which you individually or jointly with anyone or more other parties, were an authorized signatory, as ofJanuary 1, 1995. ANSWER: IC-.w. _ , I 11-''" 19. If you will do so without a request for production of documents, produce all monthly credit card statements for the period from January 1, 1995, until present date. ANSWER: ". ~-- 20. Set forth a list of all monies borrowed by you during the current year and the past five (5) calendar years, setting forth as to each such separate borrowing: a. Date when each amount was borrowed; b. Amount borrowed; c. Name and address of persons, firm or corporation from whom borrowed; d. Method of which funds were received, that is, cash or check; e. Whether the loan was evidenced or secured by any note or any other evidence of such obligation; f. Name and address of any person who co-signed or guaranteed such loan; g. If loan is secured in part or in full, description of security given; h. Dates and amounts of any payments made on account of any such loan and method of payment; 1. Present unpaid amount; and, J. Rate of interest on loans. ANSWER: 1''0 , , I 21. Please state your complete educational history commencing with high school as well as any specialized training you may have received. ANSWER: )'~- "I r~ ~ - - 22. Please state your complete employment history commencing with date of completion of your formal education through and including the present time indicating by whom you were employed, the nature of employment, the dates worked for each employer and the gross and net earnings realized from each position. State the source and amounts of all income received since the date of separation not already identified in the answers to these Interrogatories. Attach copies of all documentation verifYing said income. Attach copies of your resume or curriculum vitae. ANSWER: ,-' . "c ,. -l- :-1 I' - 23. If during the last five (5) years you have sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of any items in questions 5 through 14, or any interest therein, state which items were sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, to whom, the date of the transaction and the consideration received for each. ANSWER: I';n; r - 24. If you contribute to anyone's support or welfare, list: a. The name and address of those whom you support; b. Their relationship to you; c. Amount and frequency of support payments; d. Whether voluntary or by Court Order; and, e. Name and address of Court and every attorney involved. ANSWER: .I"n",~ > ~ , 25. Itemize your average monthly living expenses in detail, including but not limited to, rent, clothing, food, utilities, telephone, transportation and car, medical and dental insurance of any nature, mortgage and other loan payments, taxes and other regular personal items of any nature. ANSWER: [",$ "~ , I ...~. r 26. Are you the grantor, beneficiary or holder of a power of appointment for any trust created by you, the members of your family or by any corporation? If so, for each trust, state: a. The date of the trust instrument b. The name of the settlor of each trust c. The name of the beneficiary of such trust d. The amount of each trust corpus e. Any restrictions on alienation to which such corpus is subject f. The terms of each trust instrument ANSWER: 'i'7:11 , 11 27. List any gifts or contributions made by you in excess ofthe sum of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars within the past five (5) years. For each such gift or contribution, state: a. The name of such gift b. The amount of such gift c. The reason of such gift d. Whether or not any gift tax return was filed in respect to such gift ANSWER: '-;'-._" .1 i-'" -~~-'" '~',"~. , . , . 28. State the date that you and your spouse separated. ANSWER: I '-I ^ . , . VERTFICA TION . I . , I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENT MADE IN THESE INTERROGATORIES ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA.C.S. SECTION 4904, RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. Dated: RAYMOND J. BRINZER i'" , '1' . I' (SEAL) 4 I , .. .. ' , ~ \ ' I . Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JINGLAN C. BRINZER, vs. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE RAYMOND J. BRINZER, CRRTIFICATR OF SRRVICE AND NOW, this 1~ay of May, 2003, I Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby certifY that I have served by hand delivery a copy of the attached Production of Documents to be Provided by Raymond J. Brinzer, this day to the following address: Mr. Raymond J. Brinzer c/o Elizabeth S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN Cranberry Court 212 North Third Street Post Office Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Attorney for Defendant Respectfully submitted, Date: :;\ 'I \ C) 3 \ \ :~BA~ Madel . ~turin, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17102 (717) 234-2427 Attorney for Plaintiff N\l!,_ ! I' "I ~~ . . ~~ ',~ '" '" .~ . o 92e tE:J:~ ~(:' :f(~' ~(= C -'.;7 ::~ -< 111ft '-"", ".,., c.:~ >-j -'''. G) :n r....,) -''-,.("-)1 :-,~ iOn ;~ ~ -< -, ~!!ll!ill'~~qm01-'ijp",~~;r-~;''''~~'''_li'''ll'F''I!l~%.W~'1''1l'lI~}t>9-W''>)''''1<,"-'--","g,;"F'r>;'!'~",'nf:C""-?,!""'N>-~F!"~;~~~1~:N"@~'~~~~~w,q-H-''1ij~I1!~ . , Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JINGLAN C. BRINZER, VS. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE RAYMOND J. BRINZER, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED BY TO: Mr. Raymond J. Brinzer c/o Elizabeth S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN Cranberry Court 212 North Third Street Post Office Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Pursuant to Rule 4009 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, JINGLAN C. BRINZER, requests that Defendant, RAYMOND J. BRINZER, produce for inspection and copying the documents and tangible things described below. These requests are continuing. To the extent Defendant, RAYMOND J. BRINZER, discovers documents and tangible items after he has responded, Defendant, is requested to promptly serve supplemental responses. The words "document" and "documents" as herein used include but are not limited to any written or graphic matter of any kind or character, however produced or reproduced, and any other matter concerning the recording of data or information upon any tangible thing by any means, including, but not limited to, the original and by any non-identical copy of any ofthe T"'_"__ . , -,- ~ ~ I , , following (regardless of however or by whomever prepared, produced or reproduced): books, records, reports, memoranda, notes, letters, speeches, telegrams, diaries, calendar or diary entries, schedules, maps, graphs, contracts, appraisals, studies, analysis, sunnnaries, instructions, photographs, films, surveys, messages, correspondence, letters, tables, drawings, and including preliminary versions, drafts or revisions of any of the foregoing as well as all other documents defined by Rule 4009. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. All documents required to be identified in your answers to the Interrogatories addressed to Defendant. 2. All documents, not subject to privilege or confidentiality, in your possession, custody or control which were prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial of this Petition. 3. All bank statements of Defendant, including but not limited to, checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, Christmas clubs, or any other such accounts in which Defendant has had any interest whatsoever, whether as sole owner, joint owner, trustee, power of attomey, or other such interest or control since 1995. 4. Front and back photocopies or originals of all checks and deposit slips since 1995, from all checking accounts, presently or formerly held, in which Defendant has had any interest whatsoever, whether as sole owner, joint owner, trustee, power of attorney, or any other such interest, control or capacity. 5. The entire file accumulated by you relating to the incident which is the subject of this litigation, including but not limited to any item within the definition of documents explained . -',-"~, ~ , i ~ ., . ~ ( above, as well as any other document or tangible object, correspondence, memoranda, notes, photographs, telephone log, guidelines in the possession or control of your accountant, bank, stock broker, or savings-and loan institution which in any way relate to the incident which is the subj ect matter of this litigation. 6. All expert opinions, expert reports, photographs, expert sunnnaries or other writings of experts in your custody or control or in the custody or control of your attorney, insurer, or anyone else acting on your behalf, which relate to any aspect of the subject matter of this litigation. 7. All other deeds to all properties in the name of the Plaintiff, Defendant or both. Respectfully submitted, Date:~~ BY:~. '-' Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire Attorney LD. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17102 (717) 234-2427 Attorney for Plaintiff < ,'-, _r,,_ . 'I , .. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JINGLAN C. BRINZER, VS. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM Defendant CNIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE RAYMOND J. BRINZER, CERTIFTCATR OF SRRVTCR AND NOW, this l ~ay of May, 2003, I Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby certifY that I have served by hand delivery a copy of the attached Production of Documents to be Provided by Raymond J. Brinzer, this day to the following address: Mr. Raymond J. Brinzer c/o Elizabeth S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN Cranberry Court 212 North Third Street Post Office Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Attorney for Defendant Respectfully submitted, Date: <:::h/o3 { I BA=:4ATURm k By: '1 11 Madelam N. Baturin, EsqUIre Attorney J.D. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17102 (717) 234-2427 Attomey for Plaintiff I"""""; , ", : I ="' c JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff VS. ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire, of the law firm ofBaturin & Baturin, attorney for the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, do hereby certifY that on July 24, 2003, I deposited in the United States Mail, at the United States Post Office, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, an article of Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, marked "Restricted Delivery", a certified copy of the Plaintiffs Amendment to Complaint Under Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code and Notice to Defend and Claim Rights attached thereto, bearing Article No. 7000 0520 0023 0131 7601, addressed to: Raymond J. Brinzer, 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011. The said article of Certified Mail, as shown by the Postal Return Receipt Card was received by the Defendant herein on August 9, 2003, and according to same, was signed by him, to wit: Raymond Brinzer, which card is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A", along with the deposit slip dated July 24, 2003, for said article of Certified Mail aforementioned. BATURIN & BATURIN By: (V\ ~ t1 ~/ Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire Attorney LD. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg,PA 17102 (717) 234-2427 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Dated: September 11,2003 ":',1,'-, ,~,- " , ,., -"'1 .oJ I m Return Receipt Fee ru ~?,ement Required) C RestrIcted DelIVery Fee C (Endorsement Required) _"""",&Fees IIAIlR1SBllR6 Pt\ 17110 Postage $ $0.37 ',-'I 'rT1 ,-'I D . Certified Fee D ru U"J eclplent's Name (Please Prlnt Clearly) (To be completed by mailer) D .........!:!!;..,....!!-.~.Y.l!lg.~.9-_..~,..Y.Eb.!'!~.~~........_............. C Street,.4J?t No.; or PO IJOX No. D 530 Brentwater','Road-' D ciij;,.s;.;;;;.Zi,;;;,-..-...-...--..-.-........-...-..-...-...-.... l'- Cam lUll, PA 17011 $ $7.92 - ii--- Complet~"items 1;- 2-;- and 3. 'Also com-p~l-ete-- item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. . Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the mail piece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Mr. Raymond J. 530 Brentwater Camp Hill, PA Brinzer Road 17011 3.3rvice Type ","Certified Mail o Registered o Insured Mail o Express Mail o Return Receipt for Mel'Ctlandlse o C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) os '2. Article Number (Copy from service label) P<ll Form 3811, July 1999 .' - 7000 0520 0023 De,mastic Return Receipt Q131 c,. 7601 102595~o-M-0952 1; ~- Exhibit "A" ,~1!I_ ",~o ,_ ~ _"",_ ~"- ,_,f? ,,~ h"_ .,~ .'"" ^~"- ,-'~ .-~ -,~,-,,^,,-,',", .~"' ~."~' "'We",,-_;;:, -""""-,--,,,'- - ":'''~''-'''''~'!'.'1v.~:> "n I!J] -: ~ -' ..........-. "<-0 >c: ~ c/) 0"1 ~:J :;_;1 \D o -n ['7T'ff"'" .", _ ,illfi,~~~~~~!!IlII~l~~<~.'C~m~~~~~~ll,~"I\i~_"iM'!ki-~~~'W:1~~~Z~Wljf~~~'lfit!j;W'!'!#-~ilWf!!:"ft!1t~IJIj!!'~~Wlf\1i\~JIl(~I!'1Il'i!!!=!li!!P~\-'c1~""r';4'1!f""~~~~~ t5 JINGLAN C. BRINZER, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ) vs. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM ) RAYMOND J. BRINZER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this '1....... day of N ~ ,2003, in consideration of the Petition for Bifurcation filed by Plaintiff, Jinglan Brinzer, a Rule To Show Cause is issued on Defendant, Raymond J. Brinzer, to show cause why Plaintiffs Petition For Bifurcation should not be granted. RULE returnable ~ days after service on Defendant. J. D~ ~\' \ ~ 0'7 l' \\~\ "9'~,~. ,.'-::: ~_ ,.. ~ , - ., ~ " ~~ "~'l<.~\~~..~ ,__(~j!]lil![',F ~~~~!'~~';;H'j,l,iili1r:'Mlll":\';'~";~!'~JI",~~;;'M'"Pc. ;'." l:c4i"-' ",.,"",-,~",,,; 'c"""f_"l';"""!:)"'~"'i;"i.,,~"'~~&m.~jj,'II't.w-."'r'ti>i""\V"-m~:I.i:;1l&L~&o.","\~~~"b"~.~ltil.#\'~~-iMj~~~~~~< , "'""'"""""'";- 03 filM! 7 CUM,c,< PB\jF/sWVA~~UtVT,( /::'/i,,--,.. OF T,,,I-~Ll~~-!'--oFA.'''\c ,I,-C ; "~--;r:'ri _r,.\~l.. ',' ,'f('l~!ny ~-. ,,',}ft'lll MI9:'>/ ". ,Ill....,....... ..,.."....., . ","__-,c.",'., ~".-, "~_"".. ,.. ",~"' .'~."~- JINGLAN C. BRINZER, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLANDCOUNTY,PA ) VS. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM ) RAYMOND J. BRINZER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR RIFTJRCA TION AND NOW, this day of October, 2003, comes the Plaintiff, JINGLAN C. BRINZER, by and through her Attorneys, the Law Offices ofBATURIN & BATURIN, and files this Plaintiffs Petition For Bifurcation and avers the following: 1. The Plaintiff is JINGLAN C. BRINZER, an adult individual, sui juris, who currently resides at 1106 Yverdon Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. The Defendant is RAYMOND J. BRINZER, an adult individual, sui juris, who currently resides at 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 3. The parties in this matter separated more than two (2) years ago and have not cohabited or lived together since that time. 4. Plaintiff filed the original Complaint Under Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code on November 8, 2000, alleging indignities and separation. 1 ,~ ,~.,,,. co. 0 - ~, , " ~ ~ ..d' 5. There are no economic issues in this case that will be adversely affected by a bifurcation of these proceedings and the entry of a final decree of divorce at this time. All economic issues can be reserved by an Order of this Court to be resolved later in the proceedings if the parties can not reach an agreement concerning same. 6. Neither party will be prejudiced by a bifurcation of these proceedings and the entry of a final decree in divorce at this time with a reservation of all economic issues to be decided later. 7. On May 7, 2003, Counsel forPlaintiffforwarded Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Counsel for Defendant. 8. Counsel for Plaintiff received correspondence dated May 12, 2003, from Counsel for Defendant indicating that she had forwarded said discovery request to Defendant and had received no response as of that time; said correspondence is attached hereto and made a part hereof and referred to as Exhibit "A". Counsel for Defendant further advised Counsel for Plaintiff that Plaintiffs Counsel should forward same directly to Defendant. 9. Plaintiffs counsel was further advised in Correspondence dated May 12,2003, from Defendant's Counsel that Defendant had no contact with his counsel in response to any documentation forwarded to Defendant from his counsel; said correspondence is attached hereto and made a part hereof and referred to as Exhibit "A". 10. On May 19,2003, Plaintiffs counsel forwarded Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directly to Defendant by first class 2 !i't~_" ?__ ~._ _~ " --,,- mail, United States Postal Service, certified mail, return receipt requested as per instructions from Defendant's counsel. Defendant was served with same on May 21, 2003. 11. As of this date, neither Plaintiff, nor Plaintiff's counsel have received any response from the Defendant or his counsel in regards to the Plaintiff's First set ofInterrogatories and/or Request for Production of Documents. 12. On July 23, 2003, Plaintiff's Counsel filed the Plaintiffs Amendment to Complaint Under Section 330l(d) of the Divorce Code and Notice to Defend and Claim Rights with the Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office. 13. A certified duplicate original Plaintiffs Amendment to Complaint Under Section 330l(d) of the Divorce Code and Notice to Defend and Claim Rights was forwarded to the Defendant on July 24, 2003, by first class mail, United States Postal Service, certified mail, return receipt requested, marked "restricted delivery" and same was signed for by the Defendant on August 9, 2003. 14. Defendant's counsel has informed Plaintiffs counsel that Defendant's counsel is in the process of drafting a Motion to Withdraw her appearance. 15. To date, neither the Defendant, nor Defendant's Counsel have filed a response to the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, nor answered the Plaintiff's Interrogatories and/or Request for Production of Documents, or had any contact with the Plaintiff and/or her counsel regarding this matter. 16. However, in the event the Defendant determines that he is not willing to proceed 3 -"Gt~.. r , :,eo 0" ^ ~. !:" ' .-. e and have a bifurcated Decree entered, Plaintiff desires to proceed and obtain a bifurcated Decree. 17. Plaintiff desires the divorce, as she needs to proceed with her life. 18. At this time, the Plaintiff does not have the money to proceed with the discovery process, but does desire a divorce. 19. Plaintiff does want to preserve the economic issues of the divorce for a later time, and, therefore, she wants to bifurcate the divorce. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Honorable Court bifurcate these proceedings and enter a final Decree in Divorce, divorcing the parties and reserving the economic issues which have been raised to be decided at a later date. Respectfully submitted, Dated: October.., , 2003 BATURIN & BATURIN By: ~fl7. ~ HARRY . BATURIN, ESQ. Attorney I.D. No. 83006 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-2427 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 :"-'1R'~!Il':1lt ~,. , ~~ """~ VERIFICATION I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN TillS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR BIFURCATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED IN GOOD FAITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 P A. C.S. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE COURT MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A BAD FAITH VIOLATION. DatedUthA.? /"0703 ~t-M~ JI LAN C. BRINZER (SEAL) 'i"'~il!i~, __'r'" ;-, ' - - BECKLEY& MADDEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW CRANBERRY 'COURT 212 NORTH THIRD STREE'l.' POSTOFFlCEBOX1l998 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1998 FAX NO. 17171 233-3740 AREA CODE 717 TELEPHONE 233-7691 FILE NO. May 12, 2003 40712 Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire Baturin & Baturin 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 RE: Brinzer v. Brinzer Cumbo Co. # 00-7916 Dear Madelaine: Enclosed please find the discovery you sent to our oftice on May 7,2003. I sent Ms. Brinzer's settlement proposal to Mr. Brinzer on February 7, 2003, but have not received a response. Please feel free to forward these discovery requests directly to Mr. Brinzer. I will draft a Motion to Withdraw our appearance in this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thanks very much for your cooperation. Cc: Raymond Brinzer Very truly yours, B~~KLEY 8<; IVIADPEN' (. 113~/I~ .7 ~ --,' ..;:l . -) I ~ ,..' / .1<<X;/t7j. -fl~/";"Z/ C"'hzAbeth S. Beckley/ ,// ~'r- --.-'" Exhibit "A" .,- ,~ - , ~', !?Sll !I , " -~ . -~. -.', -""",-~"",,. Q ~- <- -0"'" 11 C'_, .lp'" Zj,: zr- (J) 1:::., -/'-.' ;;;:;6 Pf-' z......... --(; >c:: z =<! ..'Imlli' lUIIlltiil il".T..- () -T! -;:;;:: (:::- ,._c,-= ~-l ] I-.;c;c 'f,'r; ~-. v - ~:; , "1"\ :~~f~ 33 --;;: ~~) "~~ , =.. ~ 'riWW~_~~~~\,!~~I"'l;''''fF'''''_~'ffi~'1i~~~~~-?iIT'~)'B'{o''''.'-''~'~'''';f''_''k'-"', "j-"t'''''*$__'_'H'f''<;.fii'!.\t'''&;;,(~l~\l~S"Jfl~,,!;)'-l~I'W(,'<I',"~ .-.' vs. ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Harry M. Baturin, Esquire, ofthe law firm ofBaturin & Baturin, attorney for the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, do hereby certifY that on November 24, 2003, I deposited in the United States Mail, at the United States Post Office, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, an article of Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, a certified copy of the Plaintiffs Petition For Bifurcation and Rule returnable 20 days from service attached thereto, bearing Article No. 7000 052000230131 7953, addressed to: Raymond J. Brinzer, 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, P A 17011. The said article of Certified Mail, as shown by the Postal Return Receipt Card was received by the Defendant herein on November 25, 2003, and according to same, was signed by him, to wit: Raymond Brinzer, which card is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A", along with the deposit slip dated November 24, 2003, for said article of Certified Mail aforementioned. BATURIN & BATURIN By: ~nJ0~ H~n, EsqUlre Attorney J.D. 83006 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-2427 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Dated: December 1, 2003 "'-~~""j. " , ~', , ~, " ". rn Rectum Receipt Fee ru (Endorsement Requ1ffld) CJ Fm:Ulcted De!1vety Fee C f,Endorsament Required) C Total Pestagl)- &. Fees $ ru U1 fJlccipJent's Name (Plt:Ml$ll Prlnt Clearly) (To Iu1 ccmp!$ted by m$!for) Cl ____Mr~__.BgYJllQOO_J;lbju<l.eJ:._____________________ E::I Strollt, Apt. No.; Qr PO &>>t No. g ____~~Q__~~!!twe.ter Rogi____________________ f'- CIly.~ZJPMll, PA 17011 Postage $ W,60 m U1 rr f'- r'I 'm r'I i:J .qertifJedFee :u ... '. w , ~ ~ , ":'. Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ',iI Print your name and address on the reverse 5:0 that we can return the card to you. 'ii" Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Mr. Raymond Brinzer 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. Service Type ~ Certified Mail 0 Express Mail D Registered 0 Return Receipt for Metchandi~ o lnsursd Mall 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Foo) 0 Yas ',:'PS Form 3811, August 2001 2. ArtIcle Number (Tr.nsf.rfi'om~eriflC81;IDe1) ,7000 0520, 00;23 0:L3;L-7~5,3,' OomestJc Return ReceiPt' ~,,~.. ~ 102SSS-02.M.1$40 ~,;; :__^,__~,,--~-,-,,-,,----=_,--=,>---,,=,c~;,,, N~_~~__~"-'~'_",e_~C,"C_~"._.~__~___, ",~.;,-~_.~~._~_--,""'=' __~~,~~","~_ ---,,-C'.',', Exhibit "A" _ ~~.". ~~~ < "~v ---,,- " "~', - ~~-"" .' '-:,>" ':~" , (,h ~. ;,;:0 ~g ?j ;,' '''-..) "''''''''''-~-~'~ "-Iffii'M!I'Ij~~~~~~~_~~~''wfW'1Wi!!r~-JiW!,,'_~''ji'l''''~-''f;'~~l,~pr;~!'!':~!'lB'!t~':'''''\F>'li''I'_,"''c,,-.Fl''--lL,'''I~;1!'!''';'''in'_;:''I'-_:t'' ;~;"'"'_~,!fW~Wi"',?:JY';")"If"~_;"'"i~'4""'~,'C\'_'.~:_e',~"WiRl-"~I;'!,!,''\'I>'-''~'~~-~~ To: The Honorable Court of Cornmon Pleas Cumberland County, P A Baturin & Baturin (specifically M. N. Baturin) Attorneys at Law Re: Civil Action - Law in Divorce No. 00-7916 Civil Term Issues PnmaJy Issue for this Response: 1) Opposition to M. Baturin Request for Bifurcation of Divorce Action; request to deny Bifurcation based on monetary, property, physical, emotional, vocational, conjugal relations, and other circumstances(some of which follow) which repudiate most of the original grounds cited by Jinglan Brinzer for a divorce (while some "grounds" are a product of misunderstanding. Oli1er Relevant Issues Pertinent to 1) Preceding and li1is Action. 2) Forced Entry of the Defendant Raymond J. Brinzer under duress in Pro Se Status due to inability to afford legal representation (loss of attorney). 3) Disappearancelloss of documents necessary for Raymond J. Brinzer to defend and present (specifically, the Bifurcation Request and an earlier document that outlines actions, charges, and requests). 4) Other relevant information that can, along with the preceding, be verified! proven and invalidates some of the basis for this divorce action (see 1) preceding), 5) Jinglan Brinzer's mistaken notion that she must divorce the defendant in order to keep her job. 6) The marriage is not irretrievably broken as previously unconsidered information and changes will confirm; 7) Jinglan developed well-documented health problems as a result of discriminatory and harassment pressures in the workplace circa 2001. 8) Jinglan does not understand the marital asset and other matters regarding her situation (she controls/holds most of the assets). 9) Jinglan Brinzer's original complaints which led her to file for divorce were, according to her: 1) economic problems, 2) physical problems (the conjugal relationship had ground to a halt), and 3) emotional problems (which largely stemmed from the workplace and 2) preceding. 10. The parties to this action have not lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years. Fm: Raymond J. Brinzer, Pro Se, aka. Raymond 1 Brinzer, Ph.D. 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, P A 17011 Date: 5 Dec 2003 Preliminary Development/Explanation of the Issues The defendant, Raymond]. Brinzer, asks the Honorable Court and!or its duly appointed representative to ~. ".~ ' . ~.I ,I -- '-" -~ " consider the following explanatory information related to 1-9 preceding (redundancies occur throughout). l)Defendant Raymond J. Brinzer opposes the M. Baturin request for Bifurcation of this action based on the fact that such action is a prejudice against him in the context of his actions and the situation, a potential harm/extreme disservice to the best interestsllivelihood of Jinglan Brinzer, and an injustice. Given the financial situation Raymond, and Jinglan, are in - and the concomitant variables that are the basis of this action and not a matter of record - this information needs considered by the court in perspective and not in isolation, due to the fact it is intrinsic, inseparable, and currently unspecified/unknown. Consider the following reasons. A. One instance weighing against Bifurcation is the fact Raymond and Jinglan have regularly cohabitated as husband and wife for periods of time over at least the last 24 months (punctuated periodically by estrangement periods of several days that occur like clockwork after Jinglan has met worth her attorney(s)). This fact can be verified by neighbors, Raymond, and probably Jinglan herself in that she is generally very truthful and disinclined to prevaricate (she prefers not to answer or evade and eschews lying). These relations have occurred at least once weekly; sometimes more frequently. (The problems that occur elsewhere also periodically affect Raymond.) B. Another instance weighing against Bifurcation is the fact Jinglan labors under the misapprehension that she must divorce Raymond in order to keep her employment (this misapprehension arises out of Jinglan's culturally disadvantaged background (formerly foreign national), discrimination problems that affected her in the office and elsewhere - and which Raymond pressured her to pursue via official rectification mechanisms (one example: her union president, Art Reed, had a sworn affidavit by Jinglan's former supervisor that her official evaluation had been altered and signed using her name by Jinglan's new supervisor (who subsequently soft-soaped Jinglan and persuaded! intimidated her into dropping the action in the name of unity, error rectification, misunderstanding, cooperation, and the greater good (all of which he subsequently renigged on in various ways). C. Another instance weighing against Bifurcation is the fact Raymond was under extreme duress, financial and other, and worked at peril to his best interests ((which precluded response to this civil action due to these problems and other responsibilities). In brief, Raymond had to get Jinglan out of a dangerous housing situation she was in that was causing her mental anguish and presented a clear and present potential for grave physical harm (specifically, she was recently being stalked by 2 extremely savvy individuals who appeared to be working in tandem (she thought there was one); priorr problems along this line (she went to Raymond for help on the prior occasions) and the actions of the subsequent individuals necessitated Jinglan's departure from a potentially dangerous situation (at least one of the stalkers functioned in a manner that indicated he was probably in a pre- release program or out on parole). Jinglan communicated her problems/fears to Raymond, he looked into the situation, and discovered what was transpiring. (The solution was to get her into a private dwelling and leave a c/o forwarding address.) D. Another instance weighing against Bifurcation is the verifiable fact of the depth and breadth of Raymond's financial and other . -'j~:( ...L , , r ~ ,~- ']11 ~ "'" involvements - and the utter defeat of the ends of justice if a Bifurcation request is granted (Attorney Maturin's request includes a statement leaving the door open for "future financial considerations," a travesty when the allotment of marital assets is considered. (Raymond has fev! marital assets other than Y, ownership of the 530 Brentwater Road residence (his motor vehicle is currently inoperable and scheduled for repair), his monthly income (he owes a considerable amount of money - some of which derived from Jinglan's needs (while Jinglan has present value retirement, of @ $85,000., a number of IRA's, a deferred comp plan with assets of @+$42,000. a Mazda sedan (value @$8000.), a residence at 2900 Sunset Drive, joint ownership of a residence at 530 Brentwater Road (both Camp Hill), valuable furniture, virtually no debt. E. Bifurcation and completion of proceedings prior to April 2004 harbours the potential of placing Jinglan in a severely compromised position (she will be disqualified from Raymond's retirement and other benefits by a matter of months); given the physical and emotional problems that arose out of Jinglan's workplace problems - such action would not only be objectionable, it would be extremely irresponsible and open the prospect of a liability (due to it's potential catastrophic effect, unsoundness, and the nature of the problems, their potential effect on her livelihood, and her lack of familial and other supports (Naturalized citizen Jinglan Brinzer has no living relatives in the U.S. Or other dependable supports other than her U,S, family by marriage)). F. On 30 Oct 03 Jinglan Brinzer had a total of @$80. in her bank account; when she states she doesn't have the financial wherewithal at this point in time in the M. Baturing Bifurcation request she speaks truly. G. Jinglan Brinzer has a number of outstanding medical bills at the present time; she does not have the knowledge necessary to get them solved via her insurance and must rely on Raymond Brinzer to conduct this business. In addition to her medical bills a change in her tax status in the near future would have disastrous financial consequences that she could not cover The potential for these to ruin her credit and cause her other insurmountable problems also weighs against this action. 2) Forced Entry of the Defendant '" as Pro Se: Raymond J, Brinzer, who has no law degree nor appreciable legal experience, lost his attorney, Elizabeth Beckley, due to a lack of funds necessary to pursue the action via her continued services. A. Raymond J. Brinzer has been involved in helping his spouse/the plaintiff, Jinglan C. Brinzer, obtain enough money to purchase a home aside from their joint ownership residence at 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, PA. Prior to that he supported her in numerous other ways. I) This purchase action and other actions placed Raymond under duress and prevented him from taking any action reo this divorce action/his defense that might prevent Jinglan from obtaining said residence. 2) This purchase action and actions leading up to it have left Raymond without the necessary funds to defend himself via legal representation. a. This purchase action has also left Jinglan Brinzer without the necessary funds to pursue her action; specifically, after the closing on 29 Oct 03 she had @$80.00 U.S. Total in her account. 3) This purchase action was largely enabled by Raymond's gratuitous contributions, actions, and support of Jinglan's needs, as well , , as his completion of all related business, legal and other. B. Raymond Brinzer does not wish to engage in action against Jinglan; it is personal, demeaning, and the nature of the model is such that everyone loses and someone is viewed as the culprit (i.e., Raymond). 3) Raymond has been frantically searching for the legal documents necessary to prepare his defense and enable a fair and just outcome to these actions. However, he has been unable to relocate them - and must request that the Court honor his appearance as Pro Se and enable him to obtain copies of the documents necessary to bring this matter to a fair and equitable conclusion for him and Jinglan. (This is not a ruse or stall, as not having the documents places him in a maximally disadvantaged/compromised position (stalling/delaying would necessitate use of the documents; this is not the direction he wishes to take - nor his intent.) Raymond had these documents in a box as recently as Thanksgiving Day 03; he is at a loss as to their location (he has mislaid things before). Jinglan had access to the documents, but upon query replied she did not take them - which has a 99.999999 validity probability rate. As matters stand now - he must go forward blindly. 4) Relevant Pertinent Information reo the plaintiffs and defendant's status includes the fact they have regularly cohabitated and engaged in conjugal relations as husband and wife systematically over in excess of the last 2 years. Raymond has been reluctant to bring this forward until this time because: A. Jinglan withdraws, becomes uncommunicative, argumentative, estranged, and depressed for periods of time each and every time she meets with/communicates with her attorney re, divorce action. Furthermore, she refuses to let Raymond touch/get close to her when these stressful episodes occur Gust as everything is going great - disruption occurs as a result of stirring up the fIres). B. Raymond doesn't want to rock the boat; exacerbate good relationships. C. Raymond has always acted in Jinglan's best interests - even at the sacrifice of his own best interests. These actions have been monetary, social, and otherwise, This active conjugal relationship invalidates one of the original grounds upon which the original action was lodged. At that time, the absence of conjugal relations stemmed from Jinglan's refusal; Raymond complied/accepted and it exacerbated the situation further. 5) Jinglan Brinzer has communicated to Raymond in the past that she must divorce in order to keep her job. This is her misapprehension/conclusion based on a variety of factors, not the least of which is her cultural disadvantage. It is one of life's ironies that Jinglan reached this conclusion based on Raymond's attempts to protect her and have her protect herself. Jinglan works in a virtually all male enviroument (she was formally the only female worker-level employee in her division, and one of only 3 females in a bureau of approximately 30). As an unprotected minority group member from a culture with a history of compliance, acquiescence, and dutiful submission to authority - this places her, depending upon the administration, in a maximally compromised/susceptible position. Jinglan's mentorlleader, Robert Walker, kept propositioning Jinglan on the job. She communicated this information to Raymond - and his reactions were '-:'~ .""""'" ,,""~ such that, in the context of Jinglan's gender, minority group status, and culture they exacerbated the situation. (Males are more aggressivelless intimidated and inclined to take formal action; Jinglan was terrified by the prospects of strife, authority, her lower status and lack of power, her potential loss of her job, her gender-based approach (cooperation and working for a common goal), and severe marital problems erupted. After Jinglan failed to comply with pressures - she received a poor evaluation and Raymond pressured her to take AFSCME Union and other actions. Jinglan did; eventually she was soft-soaped by the architect of the fraudulent EPR, her bureau chief. Upon acquiring the house Raymond helped her get - Jinglan informed Raymond that she must now keep her job and therefore had to go ahead with the divorce action. This erroneous conviction arose from legal/procedural actions that Raymond had her engage in because of discriminatory, sexual harassment, and other actions that she was subjected to (these are a matter of written record) in the workplace. That she would be in such a position is an irony of the first magnitude. This is because: A. She does not fully understand this culture. B. Raymond picked the college and sent her to college to train in her career area; he paid all necessary costs. C. Raymond found the job she currently holds at the college career center. D. Raymond applied/handled the paperwork/communications for position acquisition: Jinglan took the qualifying tests and interviewed accordingly (Raymond prepared her for the interview; Jinglan can pass any test)). E. Raymond deferred his military service credits to Jinglan - which gave her a preeminent edge on hiring (her position resulted from that edge - and her hard work, intellectual ability, aptitude, and test performance took care of the rest (Jinglan is mentally academically gifted - as well as vocationally (she was formerly an engineer)). E. Raymond has consistently advised and supported her development and professional efforts (including her language development): his pressure on her to not let people unfairly roll over/discriminate against her based on her gender and ethnicity has caused many of these problems and resulted in her 'erroneous conclusions. F. Jinglan cannot tolerate strife and pressure in the workplace: she is bowled over by it, and there are psycho-physiological-emotional consequences that ensue (e.g., blood pressure problems). Being caught between a rock and a hard place - has left Raymond holding the Sh011 end of the stick (when it comes to her marriage or her job (all or nothing) Jinglan feels pressured by circumstances/necessities to choose the latter). Jinglan's inability to tolerate workplace pressures combined in the past with home pressures forcing her to flee one or the other (on numerous occasions she was threatening to flee the workplace due to pressures therein), G. Raymond pressured Jinglan to file a union grievance due to the fact she received a fraudulent evaluation (EPR). Her former supervisor signed a sworn affidavit that the EPR was not the one she prepared, nor was the signature on it hers, Jinglan's new bureau chief soft-talked! manipulated her into dropping the grievance and promised to rectify the matter. In the interests of harmony, peace of mind, the face of administrative pressure, her lack of power/rank, her minority group status (she is a member of an unprotected minority group - which has the de facto effect of declaring open season on its members) and her belief based on promises her work would be judged fairly she did. The bureau chief renigged on his promise and followed up in a get-even 11 , 'I ~ p Dl~ ,~ , '-. ,- ,-~ manner; she filed again and collapsed under the strife, soft-talk, and withdrew again. The AFSCME union president, Art Reed, had the grievance won: he most certainly did not appreciate her pulling the rug out from under him after all of the work he did, his conclusion he had a winner, and the related problems that were occurring: Jinglan took action that she mistakenly believed would lead to the better good and bureau excellence (this is cultural); she was naIve and helped others discriminate and punish her in an illegal manner, get away with and continue it. Jinglan had other harassment problems and pressures in the workplace that were out of hand and causing her psycho-psychical-emotional problems: Raymond prevailed upon her to file in-house, she did, and the in-house findings were that it was her word against theirs - which, according to an attorney consulted by her husband was a win in the circumstances and necessary to go to the next level for solution. (He said it was a necessary action to win at the civil rights leve1.) Jinglan rationalized that she could depend upon her ability and work performance (she always had before); she failed to consider other variables over which she had no control (including prejudice, female and minority group resentmentJdiscrimination, poor management, insecurity and inability to admit wrongs, and a get-even attitude, etc.), Jinglan rationalized that her husband had placed her in the situation she found herself in - and concluded erroneously that to keep her job she must succumb!comply with pressures (any and all as she confided to Raymond) and terminate the marriage. These problems stem largely from her gender, workplace female ratio (formerly 3:30), her cultural/minority group disadvantage (she is the only Chinese American in her bureau), and the pressures, financial, emotional, social, and other - to keep her employment. In reality, her husband Raymond, a former state supervisor over circa 2700 people who also taught tests and measurements at Penn State and had extensive evaluation/administrative experience - readily discerned markers that Jinglan was being discriminated against, evaluated invalidly (criteria weren't even applied), and set up for dismissal or compliance with unreasonable and illegal demands (e.g., male employees were starting arguments with her in, e.g., her cubicle - and she was being censured for the problems while they were taken at their word (at least several were pressuring her for sexual favors, including the "mentor" who influenced a change in her evaluation from all pluses to minuses/inadequates). H. A final straw that broke the camel's back occurred when Jinglan was being pestered in her office by higher level employees from another office who told her she might someday end up working with/for them. The principals, Karen Fenchak and Richard Giani (a married man), were lovers who were attempting to draw Jinglan into a group sex arrangement (they showed up at her apartment unannounced and attempted to engage/draw her into same). Raymond contacted the Inspector General's office (a John Montgomery) - who then either went or sent an official to Jinglan's cubicle who promptly began discussing the problem in a loud voice within earshot of everyone. Jinglan almost had an apoplexy and cardiac arrest combines - as everyone can hear everything that transpires in the area. This stupid, inane, destructive, invasion of privacy/compromising modus operandi by the IG office led Jinglan to the conclusion that in order to keep her job she must divorce; she was livid and wanted to kill Raymond (figuratively speaking) for embarassing and shaming her in such a fashion in the workplace (he was perceived as causing problems when he attempted to get the principals to leave her alone/stay out of her office and stop pressuring r I , ,." "_~ 1 _, 'c." '-~-" her and using their rank/manipulative strategies to do it; little did he realize the indiscreet, "public address/infonnation methods" of Confidential complaints by the IG's office. I. Jinglan Brinzer does not understand nor appreciate the fact that her actions in filing warranted grievances and complaining about discriminatory actions had the effect of removing the overt/traceable components of these actions, improving the environment, and guaranteeing her, for a period of time at least, a fairer shake, more favorable work environment, and equal opportunity than she ever would have enjoyed without such action. Unfortunately, she still is assigned high level work which she readily completes (while other high-ranked personnel failed to a lesser or greater degree - and often cannot complete such work) that far exceeds her job level (this claim was verified by the union president who had experts analyze her work products and perfonnance) - and deprived of advancement based upon her "spoken English communications skills:' (This criticism is contradicted by the Communications Skills criteria which she generally meets or far exceeds; it is bogus and the product of incompetent, prejudiced "evaluation." ) 6) The marriage is not irretrievably broken as previously unconsidered infonnation which follows will confirm. But, it is periodically battered by pressure applied by others for Jinglan to divorce, her cultural gullibility/naivete (this includes her role as a plaintiff in a legal model that inexorably incites, promotes, encourages, and pushes and prods to conclusion (divorce) once involved/engaged in the process/mechanism (the nature of the monetary model is such that attonnheys, "social workers," and casual others (including female administrators - virtually all of whom Jinglan confided are divorced and advised accordingly (either because they have been there before themselves and are proponents, or because they don't know the relevant factors or have ulterior motivations (valid explanation nor understanding are essential; fact of influence/authority status suffices)). A. Jinglan and Raymond have regularly cohabitated in a conjugal relationship as husband and wife before (but not immediately before) (verifiable)) her filing divorce actions and subsequent to the filing (as a point of fact: things/the relationship improved dramatically circa the summer of 2001). The neighbors think Raymond and Jinglan are back together. B. Raymond has supported Jinglan financially (verifiable). C. Raymond has always worked to protect Jinglan's best interests, physical, social, emotional, psychological, financial, vocational, educational, long-range security, and otherwise. D. Jinglan is involved in a process which encourages, reinforces, pressures, and leads to divorce; it weighs against reconciliation for economic and other reasons (the model and its principals need bnsiness) This process and its principals become authority figures and pressure through to the end despite what happens elsewhere. 7) Jinglan developed health problems as a result of workplace discriminatory actions and harassment pressures for sex (this is documented in official medical records not specified/developed at this point) Raymond ensured that she got the necessary medical help. On another occasion Raymond refused to let physicians perfonn "exploratory surgery" on Jinglan (they had approximately 6 different diagnoses; they were changing hourly/daily), and on yet another he refused to let her unknowingly and unwittingly participate in a research study that would have exposed her to @ 6 radioactive procedures in a research study to detennine "which procedure was best." (Jinglan was in the process of unknowingly signing consent papers to participate when Raymond balked, explained to the physician(s) she hadn't understood/didn't have the medical tenninology background necessary to make an infonned and competent decision (at which point they became embarrassed, apologetic, and "withdrew" the "offer:' (In one instance - her English language backgroundlU.S. Residency was only 3 yrs., hardly enough to make an infonned decision.) ,,"- " , - . Jinglan had no health problems whatsoever before she was subjected to discriminatory, social, and other problems in the workplace (e.g., propositions by higher rank personnel). She developed severe problems as a result of these pressures/incidents which resulted in Raymond's taking her to emergency health services and securing counseling with a counselor as well as psychiatrist. Jinglan has had to take medication of various sorts ever since, and she is left with at least one residual (high blood pressure) that directly resulted from workplace problems. Note. Placing culturally different minority group members (especially females) who are members of non-protected groups in hostile work environments and discriminating against them/denying them equal rights/opportunities/pressuring them has the potential for demonstrable physiologicallpsycho-emotionallsocial negative consequences. 8) Jinglan does not fully understand the extent of her marital assets and other relevant circumstances. The figures and requests of Attorney Baturin do not validly reflect any of these matters, and Raymond's lack of financial wherewithal to legally pursue this matter has resulted in a largely invalid divorce action and requests. Jinglanthinks Raymond holds the keys, while she has and receives the infonnation but is unaware of or uninterested in it (predominantly through direct mailings). Jinglan never checks the status of her deferred comp, retirement, IRA's, or other holdings except as they are brought to her attention by Raymond: she appears to deal solely with her bank account, and has only lately taken a look at the tax code. 9) Jinglan Brinzer's original complaints which led her to file for divorce were, according to what she told her husband and others: 1) economic, 2) physical, and 3) emotional (she considered this in the perspective of workplace problems and 1) and 2) preceding, as well as her perception her husband did not provide her a safe harbor from the workplace. A lot of people have 1) economic hardships; Raymond's primary sin pursuant to this civil action was a failure to withdraw investments from the stock market/funds prior to the collapse which began iu March 2000. While it is true Jinglan kept urging Raymond to withdraw, Jinglan failed to realize Raymond didn't want to and couldn't legally liquidate IRA's, was reluctant to face tax consequences, and adhered to, once the decline began, the conventional "ride it out" advice that is ubiquitous. Additionally compounding this problem was the fact that Raymond put even more into the mutual funds market - which subsequently virtually disappeared. Jinglan Brinzer still smarts about the failure of these investments and Raymond's refusal to act. The court should consider Jiuglan's economic scenario; doing so invalidates this concern. Regarding the 2) physical relationship (conjugal) - it was resurrected and has been alive for the last couple of years. This matter is outlined elsewhere herein. As regards 3) (the) emotional component - many of the problems of this union have resulted from the actions, misactions, pressures, manipulative, and even coercive attempts of others, Jinglan's cultural disadvantage, her fear of and penchant for submission to authority, her desire to survive via keeping her job, her desire to be agreeable, avoid strife and stress, and get along with others (for a while she felt (and was) socially ostracized in her bureau), and her naivete and inclination to take others at their word and think the best of everyone (even those who would and/or wish her harm). Raymond has done everything he could ",;"" , , ~.,^, ~"",' . - ". ., _f.'-- ~~ <,. . ~:tJ!ll~, to support, protect, and guarantee her equal opportunity - emotionally, vocationally, and every other way - and ensure her safety and mental, physical, and fmancial health. Unfortunately, Raymond is not God, can only act within the principles of the law, and must take actions which sometimes ultimately exacerbate the marital situation and place him, by default, in a personna non grata light. 10) The parties to this action have regularly lived together on a systematic basis (sometimes continuously); they continue to function as husband and wife. To wit, they were living together on 31 Dec in 2001, 2002, and have continued to do so on and off (verifiable by official records and via witnesses), despite the fact Raymond helped Jinglan obtain a separate residence to which she could withdraw when she felt a need to be alone, and which would serve as an investment for her ultimate retirement purposes.. All of the foregoing are a matter of record, official as well as anecdotal, and verifiable accordingly. RelieflRequests Raymond J. Brinzer, defendant, respectfully requests that: I) Attorney M. Baturin's action to Bifurcate the proceedings be denied, 2) Raymond J. Brinzer be permitted to act in a Pro Se status, 3) the other information presented herein be considered in this divorce action and made a part of the official record, 4) Jinglan Brinzer's best interests, retirement, support, and other - be considered before any irreversibly punitive (to her) decrees are issued. Ray:mond J. Brinzer, Pro Se, further asserts that he grounds for this divorce complaint are largely invalid in some instances and invalid in others, misrepresented, have (in some instances, e.g., conjugal) changed, derive from uncontrolled variables (e,g., the workplace and its inherent problems), and that the grounds for any Bifurcation are contradicted by the circumstances and facts presented herein as well as others, Thus, the divorce complaint - based on presented and nonspecified evidence, should either be reformulated to be valid or dismissed entirely. Certificate of Service I, Raymond J. Brinzer, Pro Se, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was this day served upon the persons/agencies and in the manner indicated following. FAX and First Class Mail Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire Baturin & Baturin' 717 North Second St. Harrisburg, PA 17102 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, P A Date: sJJ~O 3 <~ Raymond J. Brinzer, Pro Se ,~, ,- ., ~r,,; , , " ~ ,- """,r" ~,..~_.j, . ~ ? < ~.. ~n~ () .~ 1m :t. r-.. .." ;:s::~' :;:::v .go ~o c ~ . c-. i:; (::J "'1 C") , c; " :~ o -:.,. "'of ~ r>O nl~: -~~~ t!J ('~ r ::,,::t.0 r-\ -;1 .0'<':') C-;f'!1 $1 .:u -< ~, .:.." \0 ~_~~"''''J~''l''Y&<~t,tHlJ~-_'M'''''~''''~'''l'''_1~~W''ii!'~Q''l~,!\Itll!!f!'i'=~.M'~Iq!~~ " !H ... . (j JINGLAN C. BRINZER, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ) VS. NO. 00-7916 CML TERM ) RAYMOND J. BRlNZER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE ORDER AND NOW, thiS/;'~Y ofA~1. 2004, in consideration of the Plaintiff's Petition to Bifurcate, and the Defendant's Answer to the Rule to Show Cause, a Hearing on Said Petition , - 8:,J()A.m. - To Bifurcate is scheduled for W Ea. Vtlll/G at O'clock in Courtroom ,.j .eA ;.O(} t/ at the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, P~sylvania. J. cc: Baturin ~ Bllturin Raymond J. ~. Brinzer ~J~ </./;;)..0'1 C}-.. "'i"~\A ,,"'"'" ,_, ~ ", _" . iihW ll&~.a'~_',4h;:"'W=O)d"-l"",ool!),~""",'t*""-.1;~i,~,"",P'Jd,,",11~",0",_i'_"..,,!:"_''''"-Al''do"~,,,,,,,,",'-,,,,:,-;)'--<;,<n'ilZk4i,~,,'li~wililill!llj~~,,,;,,,,,",,!,,,,,,,,,;,!l>-""><l.-~-~'~ ~<"-'"l!!f.i~1lm ---~. -HC;C dO" C';ct.'0-0Ycvl'AO \ r ,r\' ''-'000\'\-;\ \'r\'C:. \., 01( ?\~ 'l.d:J \ ~9\\ \ 'l. 1~~'u, \ " i(iS~\\i C" ',:.:\ (,;-:\) .,<:\\~ ,......,1 rN,.\.:.,.,:.l "~:,,,C",',{\:;JN'." \.;'..J ;:);:\'\\"~0 \ , -' .... '~'-', ''''"",,,"",,,. -~., ",,", "" """~,, " -,~. " . .~ ~J1NGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ) vs. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM ) RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR HEARING ON BIFURCATION PETITION AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2004, comes the Plaintiff, JINGLAN C. BRINZER, by and through her Attorneys, the Law Offices ofBATURIN & BATURIN, and files a Request For Hearing on Bifurcation Petition and avers the following: 1. The Plaintiff is JINGLAN C. BRINZER, an adult individual, sui juris, who currently resides at 2900 Sunset Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. The Defendant is RAYMOND J. BRINZER, an adult individual, sui juris, who currently resides at 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 3. The parties in this matter separated more than two (2) years ago and have not cohabited or lived together since that time. 4. Plaintiff filed the original Complaint Under Section 3301(d) ofthe Divorce Code on November 8, 2000, alleging indignities and separation. 1 ,""':~ ;'-"- 1'-: ' ,~ ,'" ,. - 5, There are no economic issues in this case that will be adversely affected by a bifurcation of these proceedings and the entry of a final decree of divorce at this time. All economic issues can be reserved by an Order of this Court to be resolved later in the proceedings if the parties can not reach an agreement concerning same. 6. Neither party will be prejudiced by a bifurcation of these proceedings and the entry of a final decree in divorce at this time with a reservation of all economic issues to be decided later. 7. Plaintiff filed a Petition to Bifurcate on November 7, 2003. The Honorable, Judge Edward E. Guido, issued a Rule to Show Cause on November 17, 2003, why Petition to Bifurcate should not be granted. 8, The Plaintiff properly served the Defendant with the Rule to Show Cause on November 25,2003. 9. The Defendant filed an Answer to the Rule to Show Cause on December 5, 2003, 10. The Plaintiff would like to proceed with her Petition for Bifurcation and is requesting a Hearing on said Petition to Bifurcate. 11. Plaintiff does want to preserve the economic issues of the divorce for resolution at a later time but needs the divorce in order to move on with her life. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Honorable Court bifurcate these proceedings 2 'Y>'!"T. '_<0_"""_. e~ _, "'Ii , - ,~ and enter a final Decree in Divorce, divorcing the parties and reserving the economic issues which have been raised to be reviewed and concluded at a later date. Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 23, 2004 BAr\:i\ATURIN By: MADELAINE N. BATURIN, ESQ. Attorney J.D. No. 68971 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-2427 Attorney for Plaintiff 3 :;'-';""lIl'A/.. ,~ .. .,0 ~, . ,'I . " ~. . VERIFICATION I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN TillS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR BIFURCATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED IN GOOD FAITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE COURT MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A BAD FAITH VIOLATION. Dated: 3/2 3jb~ I r ~t#n t~ tW~ JI LAN C. BRINZER (SEAL) :'-"""'" , _ "'l ~~ -. _,.- , . , , '" ~ ",,"" ~,.~.~ ~ ~.~ " ~"~. ~w.' .'~ ,"' ,..'" , ~ = 0 c = -., s~ z- "'t) ,...-..., ::ll: ..... '- ~.I "T' r:-l ,- ~, ;r... ffi:TI --" :;0 / , vITI (J') r" i!5Y -< co .' r:~ ~9 "c'- C:r ~~ cj-n ::::': ::.-:::;: () -.70 c: "'" Om ~.;;;:.. .::;:-l -i (..., .,,...... -<, :-:0 0-1 ~< ~~~ "_..~_...,~ejll'lf.! ~_~ ~,,,,,,,,,, 44h. !:IAI!R'lIWI~~'f.!WI'W"1'f~:>'!'I~<l~Yf''!1If''~1W,~~1WlI~~i'i'.~~~!'!1;!lW~~_....,.,..~,,..'f' '" .,' v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2004, after hearing, the Plaintiff's Petition to Bifurcate is granted. She may proceed to litigate the issue involved in the severance of the marital ties without addressing the economic claims raised, which include equitable distribution, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and expenses. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over those claims and upon request enter any appropriate orders to protect the economic interests of the parties in the marital estate. ourt, J. Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire For the Plaintiff Raymond J. Brinzer 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendant, Pro se ~ ~ 1-.).) .0'1 C}-. () tJ Nd- C/uJ( r/~ srs i:;~ ,~ ,~'^^~/. ,.,~, . ','"]. J - I ~ J!"" '<'-'~' , ,JiIl,,)~II~ 'Ocl'~ f__liiin 'C :.i. ~" ~"i:w ,'< """%l"--l"i.,h""",,,lirifu__JM1iil!I>~.IIIll~._ ,"' 't -" , u 'iI tt'~I" - .~~....~--- F~LED-~OFr;iCt. '1~ 'fl-j~ D'Y'T' ,~" I'j-"'" I ,.. ,- "~'. I, !.--,,( i'\', ~ 1;,I.{V -...1 .... 111...- 11,,,'.- ",\.1 ~rn!. Ii ii ")2 l.!JU'i v.,},_ c_ Pi'! 3: 26 CU>,..1-:~~~;' ',"", -',"" '~..'L..UN1Y PL.(~f<.sYL)/i1,>-ii/\ ~. ^ - ,," - _..--." ;..._ -.~"""d", ,. -, - -- -'-"' . JINGLAN C. BRINZER V. RAYMOND J. BRINZER - : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2000-7916 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25TH day of AUGUST, 2004, Defendant's Request that we reconsider our Order of July 22, 2004, granting the bifurcation of these proceedings is DENIED. ~n & Baturin 717 North Second Street -, Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 " ~rinzer 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 :sld [1 '"" e Court, Edward E. Guido, J. Og .2~ -QV .-< ,';'",,'. '~;~'_',jl8i'1d:dil'1riI~IJ';'lIIi!it!I~~-W~~~~I~~iiIiIi.&' - '"""~'it"'1l. 11~~iullll-~l!:illIr-"- -0' Wlll.~~= FILED-OFFlCE OF THE PROTHONOTAqy znn~ AUG 26 AM 10; 34 ClhVSERL~~D CCX~ PENNSYLVANIA "'-~, ~ , ,- ~~- .- - ~"-" ". """. g[l, , >.~. D . '- I!s~ K (fl<.~ '"J:" &rJ 2EL ~oJiYrif; J AUG 2 0 2004 tr Iu/f,- r n I:" \....Ov(2T Or ~ nc:4~ Co,.,,., 0.0 LvhEc. R /. -..d C - D fJ, ~ <)UN 'J J 'U) 0. 00 --71 It/' /- <-Jill tu-h Cr v v / t}CltotJ - hfrt.J IrJ avo/?(: :r; tJG,lt'ttJ {:. 814~{(1 -EJ1ItINll FI~ Of2d2(2- -IttJd ~I,J fl,.s 1'71/.1:>'1'1 of 1/-<l~"512cdl (;,M?5 '!hE [::EhND.4<"'~ f?....orJ -:To jt~!tl ~tfo~ "va-f '> II vAl f2d ov f;rrvrUAT I 'lJ J ii;rL4,.JTEb ,oJ tt" It 6;.I-C Rz:rt;R-E)Jcfd as E-, ---rI:s d. 1J Ih: c'v~,=' c c " ~<..IG1I.J -4r- ~~J (Lt ,J ~KtJlMO.J€> ~ ~/,J"lU (( .' ,,' ~", ',0'0, -.'.-\0',,)., _ ,-,,": ,--I' ",r '.-"". , ',- _"1 .~ . , , ,~H n ,n -- -" Jinglan C. Brinzer, ) In the Court of Common Pleas Plaintiff Cumberland County, P A ) vs. No. 00-7916 Civil Term ) Raymond J. Brinzer, Civil Action - Law in Defendant ) Divorce DEFENDANT'S APPEAL TO THE ORDER OF COURT DID. 22 TIlLY. 2004. GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR BIFURCATION AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE ORDER BE VACATED OR RESCINDED AND THE UNITARY PROCEEDINGS BE REINSTATED. OVERVIEW The court granted a bifurcation request to the Plaintiff. The Defendant respectfully protests the bifurcation of divorce proceedings from the financial/property, appeals bifurcation based on the following, and requests that the unitary procedure be reinstated. 1) The Plaintiff has consistently maintained that she has no romantic or other interests, This removes any sense of urgency from the proceedings, and as such is not a consideration weighing in favor of bifurcation. 2) The Plaintiff did not pursue her action timely. In fact, the couple had reconciled and were cohabitating through Dec 2003 as can be proven by sworn statements and other proofs that can be provided. The Court should not permit the Plaintiff to reconcile, fail to pursue action, take advantage of marital union benefits, and then have a change of mind, represent reconciliation time as separation time, expunge reality, and claim to have met a two year separation period qualifying for bifurcation and/or divorce. (This is tantamount to circumventing legal requirements and playing games.) 3) In October 2003 the Plaintiff got her Spouse to borrow a significant amount of money (@$12,OOO.) outside of normal channels in order to purchase another property. In combination with a significant amount the Defendant had already contributed (@$27,000.- 28,000.) - the Plaintiff acquired the property (actually, she just showed up for and signed the papers). Then, the Plaintiff used her Spouse's income for yet other expenditures and told him she'd replace it - as he had diverted it from other responsibilities. The Plaintiff subsequently told her Spouse that she didn't have the money "right now" and would return it sometime in the future when she was able to get it. This gives the appearance of deception if not de facto premeditated fraud, and it speaks to the issue of a divorce action that was not pursued, a reconciliation, and a sudden desire to go forward and distort bad time (i.e., reconciliation) into good (i.e., two-year separation period), The Defendant I 'U~",_" , I " - ~-~"~'. - , . asserts and can prove via records, documentation, and neutral observer statements that the clock did not begin to run until J an 2004 - after the Plaintiff had come under the influence of another woman (Le., according to the Plaintiff - and if she had not come under this woman's influence considerably earlier than she represented to the Defendant). 4) At the 22 Jul 04 hearing the Plaintiff asserted that she was "supporting" herself. Official records can verifY this simply is a partial truth/distortion - and finances were conjoined with the Plaintiff paying some obligations and the Defendant others. 5) Given the Defendant's financial situation arising from the marriage (he wasn't even able to retain his attorney) and property acquisition - the Plaintiff should not be permitted to suddenly change her mind once again - and leave the Defendant in a position th.at he can do nothing at all and just sit. The marriage is inextricably intertwined with the fmancial situation - and the circumstances proscribe bifurcating them due to the injustice and prejudice to the Defendant (a bifurcation should be in the interests of both parties) - and should not have the effect of decimating one of them. If a divorce occurs before a marital property/fmancial resolution - the Defendant will not have the funds to be nresent (as he intends to relocate), and he will not be able to represent himself nor obtain representation - which will, given the Plaintiffs penchant for painting polarized pictures, severely discriminate against the Defendant (e.g., there are bank, traveler's check, and other records that confirm the source of funds used by the Plaintiff in property acquisition (the Defendant can back up everything he asserts - in virtually every instance). 6) In 1999 when a first separation occurred as a result of workplace problems that are formally detailed elsewhere (including in doctor's offices and in her own department) - the Plaintiff filed a PF A in Dauphin County against the Defendant. The Defendant had two witnesses (an East Pennsboro Policeman and a son-in-law who was residing with them while attending school) who testified and refuted the Plaintiffs assertions which were the basis of the PF A. The judge sat on the PF A and refused to grant it due to the strength of disqualifYing evidence, and the Plaintiffs attorney of record prevailed upon her to drop it. Shortly thereafter the Defendant and Plaintiff reconciled and went back together. Eventually, another round of workplace problems ((2000-01) outlined elsewhere) in which the Plaintiff was discriminated against and harassed brought the couple closer together If the bifurcation is allowed to stand and the divorce goes forward without financial settlement - the Defendant believes he has good reason to fear the Plaintiff will file another PF A when she sees any form of financial "threat." 5) The Plaintiffs attorney based the bifurcation request upon Plaintiff assertions that were verifiably either partial truths, distortions, errors of commission and omission, and instances that had occurred but were no longer valid (e.g., the statements that there were no conjugal relations through the date of the hearing, whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant had reconciled and were regularly engaging in conjugal relations that continued through Dec 2003 (the last occurred 15 May 2004, but detachment and then estrangement occurred after Dec 03 when the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that, due to the fact she had obtained a residence (which the Defendant provided the primary support/resources for) and subsequently had to keep her job - she had decided that the divorce had to go forward as the Defendant and her job were incompatible. This situation needs clarified and resolved. 1/' 'Yllf; ,I "~_.~"" ,.~ -~ '. 6) Due to his reluctance to take actions that will cause a major conflagration in the relationship (the Plaintiff is fearful/apprehensive of losing her job and has been discriminated against, intimidated, bullied, harassed, and manipulated in the workplace) the Defendant has refrained from filing Civil Rights and Civil Court legal actions that derive from illegal workplace actions against his spouse and have caused severe marital discord and infringed upon his own Civil Rights (the Plaintiff is fearful of authority, power, and this fearfulness is recognized by some of the "dominant" males in her workplace and exploited in various ways, many of which are a matter of written record and verifiable via official state documents). The Defendant refrained because his spouse had dropped discrimination, sexual harassment, and prejudicial actions under duress, pressure, manipulation, deception, intimidation, multiple instances of "enticement" in one instance - and under emotional, vocational, and social duress and isolation in another. He did this because any legal actions he personally took would be viewed as problematic, intrusive, adversarial (job threat) and result in further actions against her (a cultural, minority group, gender, and national origin problem exists that prevents the Plaintiff from "attacking the group," as one against all seems impossible to her and her perception and rationalizations combine to overwhelm her into making whatever concessions members of the majority and privileged minority groups want.) Furthennore, she would have viewed him as meddling and causing all of the trouble, shaming her (an insunnountable problem given her cultural background), and threatening her job security (whereas in reality the only thing that kept her job security was filing valid complaints which put people on notice and altered their behavior accordingly). The Defendant has vested financial, property, and legal interests in the Plaintiffs job, and most importantly a moral and emotional interest in her safety and well-being (physical, mental, and otherwise). Furthermore, the Plaintiff has been discriminated against, bullied, intimidated, threatened, and held back in the workplace; her situation and the Defendant's reaction have caused severe problems in their relationship, as she has been culturally and emotionally unable to defend herself against prejudice, discrimination, and demonstrably unethical, fraudulent, harrassing, and unprofessional treatment. The Defendant does not want to lose his first amendment, civil, and other rights - and if he loses his right to file legal action due to his loss of spousal status - this will be the exact outcome. If the trial goes forward on a unitary basis and the petition for bifurcation is vacated - the Defendant will have enough time to prepare and file the legal actions he believes he has a right to by law. 7) Bifurcation will have a prejudical affect on the financial and property divisions as regards fairness and the Defendant's best interests. To wit: "Jurors (or in this case whomever (a master)) who heard the bifurcated case and awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiff were heavily inclined to award punitive damages as well, so that the net effect of bifurcation (considering both probability of a plaintiff verdict and the average level of damages awarded) was a higher expected loss than with a unitary trial." (Dispute Resolution and Litigation. Www.abf-sociolegal.org/1997) The Defendant asserts that absence of the divorce component, which largely went uncontested in the hearing and was distorted, piecemealed, and misrepresented by the Plaintiff (as can be proven by official :3 , '-,' '1 : - records), from the property/financial/etc. domain will profoundly prejudice the property/financial dimension, and disproportionately empower the Plaintiff against the Defendant. 8) The Plaintiff and Defendant, wife and husband, have had severe problems on a number of occasions followed by reconciliations (no separations occurred prior to 1999). According to the Plaintiff, the most severe problems involved his failure to properly support her in her job and provide a safe harbor for her upon herreturn. 10)While the claimant did maintain a separate address - for which she paid, it can be demonstrated conclusively that due to her workplace problems, rationale for the second residence, personal reasons, and regular cohabitation with her husband - without stretching matters - she and her husband had reconciled (they went everywhere and did everything together, and took care of all legal, utility, and most shopping obligations through Dec 2003). 11)The representation that the Plaintiff and Defendant did not enjoy regular conjugal relations over the years 2001-2003 is simply untrue. These marital relations waned in 2004 - which should be the point at which the clock starts running. The reasons the the marital relations waned should be taken up by a counselor. 12)If the Plaintiff and Defendant divorce - the Defendant does not want to be kept waiting around for a property/financial settlement to perform on-going service as a "cash cow" and de facto surrogate husband. Due to the financial circumstances the Defendant is in as a result of his Spouse's property acquisition and other factors - the Defendant pleads with the court to rescind the bifurcation, which will protect him, his legal interests, his property, his constitutional and civil rights (his wife had attempted to remove them before/muzzle him by filing a PFA) - as well as the Plaintiffs interests and property. 13)Everything the Defendant "alleges" can be born out by written documents that are a matter of record in, e.g., Dauphin County. The Plaintiff should not be allowed to create a new history that does not concur with the formally documented history - due to a change of mind and a misannrehension that she needs to l!et rid of her husband in order to keen her iob. l4)The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, despite her academic/intellectual brilliance (the Defendant, who has terminal degree certification in Educational Psychology among other things, is preeminently academically and experientially qualified to make such determinations), does not fully understand the situation she is in (this is a cultural deficit), the mechanics at play, and is in dire need of counseling. 15) The Plaintiff has made distorted/unsupportable claims about the counseling for her workplace and its related psycho-emotional fallout poroblems. This is another instance in which the written evidence and historical record contradicts her rendition portrayed onf 22 July 04. If the Court lets the bifurcation stand and the Defendant is deprived of his constitutional and civil rights, the effect on the Plaintiff will be akin to abandoning a vi ,';(~ - ~- baby in the woods. 16) The Plaintiff shouldn't be permitted via bifurcation to have her cake and eat it too. This is the de facto fallout denouing from bifurcating the property/financial/et al. Interests from the marital union. 17)Given the tenuous financial situation of the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff, leaving the bifurcation stand has the very reall potential to result in financial, and subsequently, further emotional/psychological harm and damage, to both. 18)The Plaintiff and Defendant currently have only one automobile, an automobile that was paid for out of the Defendant's income. Bifurcation will result in denying the Defendant the use of transportation when needed - due to the fact separation of property from marital action will relegate the Defendant to a totally adversarial and personna non grata position. Such matters need worked out in conjunction with marital disolution, not separate from it. (E.g., on a number of occasions the Defendant had to obtain medical treatment; the Plaintiff matter-of-factly told him to walk (which was a total impossibility due to the fact he had been suffering from lower extremity DVT's at the time) 19)Recently the Plaintiff had the Defendant send $1000. (he funds) to her family for her nephew's educational purposes, and had him acquire a new washer and dryer - which she promptly renigged on compensating him for (she said she didn't have the money at the present time). What this amounts to is - the Plaintiff has exhausted the Defendant's credit and funds, and diverted her own and is alleging that she has no money. While the Defendant has never objected to supporting her family when support is needed - he questions the timing, her modus operandi, and her (since January 04) attitude. The Plaintiff cannot commingle finances in nonnal marital union manner - and then make allegations that she supports herself (in this instance it should be noted that the money that went to her family did come from her income, but in the past many thousands came from her spouse's and/or were enabled via marital union (as recently as @2003(?) when she diverted @$6000, with her husband's concurrence, to her brother's family's flat acquisition fund. Once again, the Plaintiff should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of marital union, claim she is separated and supports herself, when in fact she couldn't have done what she did without spousal income, agreement, and support. This also speaks to a misrepresentation of the 22 Jul 04 hearing upon which the bifurcation order was granted. (memory error) 20)Plaintiff Jinglan Brinzer has never seen a counselorwho has dealt with her marital, financial, social, legal, and relationship situation together with her husband. Her infonnation has come from people who are unqualified, self-serving, hostile to the Defendant, and eager to say anything they think the Plaintiff will listen to (To put it mildly - her husband wouldn't give the time of day, while the Court would probably give them a sentence (if it already hadn't in the past. The Plaintiff should be required to see a marital counselor with her husband ... who could clarify the situation for her, and if / ~ i r I ~ - necessary for the Court. 21) If there are any criminal allegations that arise in any aspect of these proceedings - the Defendant goes on record as saying he will undergo a polygraph examination, and will expect anyone external from the Court making such allegations to submit to same. (In a scenario of he said - she said, he said-he said, etc. - the Defendant has had enough and will use every tool available within the legal framework to ensure justice.) 22)The Plaintiff has made allegations against the Defendant in the past about beneficiaries, insurance, forceful exploitation, etc. As a naturalized citizen from a country other than Mexico and Canada - the Plaintiff does not know, nor does she understand, the untenable and hostile position the law places people from such a group in. While her husband has attempted to explain the laws regarding beneficiaries, wills, inheritances, etc., these matters need explained to the Plaintiff by an independent expert - so that she can correct her erroneous and mistaken beliefs and understand that neither she, nor her husband, had any choice regarding governmental, employer, insurance, and other requirements (e.g., IRA's/mutual funds require social security numbers for beneficiaries, etc., while unfortunately her family members have none). 23)Regarding the family dogs: the Plaintiff recently "divorced" (she seems to have cut relational/emotional ties with the dogs - which the Defendant finds bizarre and troublesome) the dogs after one of them bit her hand when she clipped his claw through to the quick (if that happened to her, or the Defendant, they'd bite too). Prior to that the Plaintiff simply took the dogs over the protestations of the Defendant (circa March 2004 neighbors asked the Defendant what had happened to the dogs; they never saw them anymore? (prior to that they were always with the Plaintiff, and virtually always at their Brentwater Road domicile - as was the Plaintiff)), accused the Defendant of abusing them, abandoning them, and not caring for their basic needs (in the meantime, she demanded that the Defendant purchase the food necessary for their sustenance - which he did). This may seem irrelevant, but it alarms the Defendant because it has implications for the property division and divorce via bifurcation, as well as the Plaintiffs psycho- emotional health. 24 )The Plaintiff and Defendant had reconciled and were and continued to regularly cohabitate after a property acquisition on 31 Oct 03. Matters began to go downhill during Dec 03 (the Defendant associates this, subject to verification, with a contact/discussion with her attorney; after every such "conference" she would become detached, withdrawn, argumentative, and hostile)). This cohabitation occurred at their Brentwater Road and Sunset Drive residences. Based upon the chronology of events and incidents - the appearance of fraud emerges as a possibility (it didn't take long after the property acquisition for matters to deteriorate, which may have been a matter of coincidence/spontaniety, or design). If this is the case - any bifurcation should not stand, as it is based on spurious allegations. 25)The Plaintiff has involved others beyond the Court in the private fmancial, marital, ~ ':'!ff':"~ -., T-" I': , . '!ft' .__'_;0'_<0'_ ~- medical, and other concerns of the Defendant (all of which the Defendant considers invasions of privacy). Letting the bifurcation stand and granting a divorce prejudices the Defendant's rights and capacity to pursue legal remedies for these invasions of privacy, and further encourages them in the matters of property, taxes, and financial affairs.. 26) Other pertinent grounds for bifurcation recission are contained in the Plaintiffs/Defendant's file and will be presented in the appropriate form at the appropriate time. 27)As the Plaintiff indicated to the Court on 22 Ju1 04 - the Defendant had supplied all requested fmancial records and documents as requested. If this is so, then why didn't the Plaintiff and her attorney proceed with the action (if there were no other considerations in play) timely, and why was a bifurcation ever needed in the fIrst place? This scenario in the total context raises the suggestion that other considerations were at play, and a bifurcation is not justified. Concluding Summary The Defendant formally appeals the bifurcation order, and respectfully requests that his appeal be granted just consideration and hearing. Circumstances, allegations, and new infonnation have given rise to this appeal. In addition, and most importantly, the Defendant requests his appeal be given just consideration and approved so that: 1. He not be placed in a targeted position and set up for an opportunistic PF A. 2. He not have his constitutional and civil rights (and ultimately his Spouse's) de facto revoked by denying him the legal grounds on which to pursue and seek legal remedy for the egregious discriminatory, prejudicial, sexual harassment, and other actions taken against his Spouse, the Plaintiff, which occurred as recently as August 2004 and have been occurring since circa March 2000. (Letting the bifurcation stand and going forward with the divorce prior to his ability to fIle a complaint defeats the ends of justice for all concemed and encourages and rewards those guilty of injustice by letting them off the hook (and impaling the Defendant upon it). 3. He not be fInancially prevented from having legal representation due to the fact his fInancial resources have been exhausted by his Spouse, the Plaintiff. (The situational irony here is incredible; the implications render him incapable not only his own, but also his Spouse's, interests. 4. The Plaintiff not be rewarded for reconciling and then deciding to expunge any history of sarne. 5. The preceding and other reasons in the fIle be considered accordingly. Wherefore, the Defendant requests that the Honorable Court consider I , . and grant an appeal to the bifurcation awarded by the Honorable Court on 22 July, 2004, and delay entering "a fmal Decree in Divorce, divorcing the parties and reserving the economic issues which have been raised to be reviewed and concluded at a later date" as requested by the attorney for the Plaintiff' until after the Appeal is resolved. Respectfully submitted, Se By: Raym 530 Bre Camp USA Dated: 19 August 2004 ~ -":ar ,~~ 1-< 'l . . "> <, , . VERIFICATION 15 \ () -e P~aJ fl AU <<'" I VERIFY THAT mE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS ~PEAL'TO ~ RECONSIDER AND V ACATE/RESCIND mE BIFURCATION GRANTED BY THE HONORABLE COURT ON 22 JULY 2004 ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT mE DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED IN GOOD FAITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 pa. c.s. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE COURT MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A BAD FAITH VIOLATION. DATED~UGUST 2004SA . '-'1 ," - ------------------(SEAL) ZER, PRO SE 530 BRE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 7177638388 ur I' ~ -"'0 ~,= I~", ,J """"",,- -'-"'-<";;C~'/O'-" --"^="",,,., "'~o,,,.,,~~< - Ii -lllili ...... r~" . . N 0 <:.-::::> ? '-/1 .-1 :p.... ::[ ~T1 C,7. 111j= (;-:1 -etn ';,>" ~~ \.!:) __(1 -,.' (.,) "P' 01 ~~ (.Fl "".~ r= ,~,..!lMlJIIl~Uill1~,lrJ. ,_~ ~"'j_d_~fWl'!ilI!"""'1'\'i\'~!@I:W;>~~"'f,_""~'l;""""JfmI""'i".",*1Io:f~,">1-~'''''PH~~~~i!'''_'W'Iii~.a~-~~, ".-, .,.,..!<,,~~~ Re. Jinglan C. Brinzer, Plaintiff, vs. Raymond J. Brinzer, Defendant In the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, PA No. 00-7916 Civil Tenn Civil Action - Law in Divorce The purpose of this submission is to present a Response which includes some of the concepts and infonnation which militate against and show cause why the Bifurcation request submitted by Madeline N. Baturin, Esq., attomey for Plaintiff Jinglan Cai Brinzer, should be denied. ~~ Date: 15 Jul 2004 <., . ., . = .- vs. ) ) ) In the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, PA Jinglan C. Brinzer, Plaintiff No. 00-7916 Civil Term Raymond J. Brinzer, Defendant Civil Action - Law in Divorce LIMITED INFORMATIONIRESPONSE/ADDENDUM PERTAINING TO THE DEFENDANT'S REOUEST THAT THE BIFURCATION REOUESTRD BY THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD BE DENTED. AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2004, comes the Defendant, RAYMOND J. BRINZER, PRO SE, to provide infonnation and comments, which are not necessarily comprehensive, that the Plaintiffs attorney's request for Bifurcation be denied. The Defendant avers the following. 1. The Defendant is against a divorce for reasons specified here and elsewhere - and considers Bifurcation a clever way of circumventing and preempting the relevant variables and issues of this action, maximizing injustice, and negating the necessity of substantive grounds for divorce. 2. There are two sides to many legal actions. In the situation reo No. 00-7916 there are considerably more than two sides due to cultural, employment, social, property, economic, pets, financial obligations, and other interrelated variables that cannot be solved via "Procrustean Fit" action. Some of these "sides" are noted or referred to elsewhere. 3. Bifurcation should be used "... only when it is clearly necessary for the best interests of the parties." (Clayton V. Clayton (sp?), 393 SO. 2D 1061, 1062 (Fla. 1981) ... .) The Defendant believes and the relevant variables and issues confirm that Bifurcation will defeat the ends of justice, irreparably damage the interests of the Defendant, and harm the Plaintiff. For a variety of relevant factors, as well as the complexity, interrelatedness, and inseparability of any divorce action from property, economic, and other rights - Bifurcation would constitute a King Solomon scenario solution. (It is akin to "dividing the baby in half," literally and figuratively. 4. As stated elsewhere, the alleged grounds in the divorce complaint either are or were not valid in whole or in part - and as they have not been validated nor adjudicated, they cannot be disregarded by a circumvention via Bifurcation. Unverified and contested allegations can never be accepted as conclusive evidence, final facts, or bases for fundamental situations from which they devolve. 5. As stated elsewhere, the Plaintiff believes in her own mind that she must divorce in order to keep her employment. This belief derives from the misactions and manipulative influence of some others not the subject of this Bifurcation hearing. "~ " <. '-""; ','!, !, -. ~ 1. Plaintiff Jinglan C. Brinzer has been discriminated against, bullied, intimidated, prevented from advancing, and manipulated in the workplace - part of a verifiable scenario that is a matter of record elsewhere. This employment survival situation and the problems constitute an inseparable component of and reason for this divorce action - and preclude Bifurcation. (The Plaintiff alleges that "everyone" in her workplace hates and fears the Defendant, and she must get rid of him to placate and satisfy them.) In fact, the Defendant believes that he can demonstrate he has a legal interest in the Plaintiffs job, as well as her fair, just, and humane treatment in the workplace. 6. The Plaintiff has told the Defendant that she has no other romantic interest nor intent and does not intend to remarry. Consequently, there is no overpowering basis for granting bifurcation - especially in the context of the other relevant intrinsic variables which characterizes and constitutes this marital union. 7. The Defendant has very significant property (financial, furnishings, pet, et al.) interests in a property the Plaintiff acquired. Without his resources the Plaintiff could not have obtained such property. In addition, the family pets enter into the equatio~ The Plaintiff informs the Defendant she has no money - and may take in a b del. The Defendant has warned her about the legal and property implications of "s ared expenses," human behavior, property attitudes, theft and destruction, and other considerations (personality, etc.). The Plaintiff informed the Defendant she knows what she is doing; she needs the money. The Defendant is alarmed about the prospects of "renting space" to people met on public transportation and elsewhere, and knows, based on experience, formal academic studies, professional experience, and a lifetime of associations, observations, and discenunents that based on his knowledge of human nature, the Plaintiffs relationship with her own sanguinal family members and others that such an "arrangement" would not work, would compromise his and his spouse's best interests, and, given a BifurcationlDivorce, would place him in the position of not being able to protect his (and de facto his wife's) best interests, financial, professional, social, legal, property (joint and individual) and other9- tl!7e:.e..'f;;$7>Q The Defendant's affection for the family pets, his investment, his property, his spouse, his (and his spouse's and her family's) own best interests - all contribute to a heightened sense of foreboding, trepidation, fear, injustice, and helplessness given the granting of a Bifurcation. His fears are not a product of an overactive imagination. 8. The Plaintiff is at a cultural disadvantage insofar as certain classes and behavioral groups/types of people are concemed. Professor Song of Dickinson College cited that the biggest problem he perceived in America with his own native group (Immigrant/Naturalized Citizen Chinese) was their gullibility, naivete, implicit sense of trust (of others - no matter the circumstances or their intents/motivations). The Defendant has noticed just such a shortcoming in the Plaintiff - and has always labored to protect her (and himselt), while educating her accordingly. ,~~, . 1.' :'j' . While most believe they are qualified to serve the best interests of the Plaintiff (e.g., physicians) - the Defendant has continuously observed and confirmed that they can and do not, no matter their intentions. Consequently, the Defendant has attempted to offset this disadvantage by obtaining, in the example of physicians, those who have a commonality and vested interest in serving the Plaintiffs best interests - while minimizing cultural deficits (e.g., Dr. Leong (Penn State HMC Primary Care, Dr. Lee (Johns Hopkins Gynecology)). The Defendant can prove that he has functioned in the best health interests of the Plaintiff - and given a Bifurcation she would be at a disadvantage without himself (the Defendant has always made certain he was present during and in the course of medical emergencies and matters other than routine treatment - so that cultural disadvantages would be precluded. (Some of the following ideas were noted in Bonnie Barrett, Petitioner, vs, Harry Barrett, etc.., Respondent. In the Supreme Court of Florida Case No.: 96,583 as regards bifucation denial.), while others come from the Defendant. 9. The Plaintiff cannot refuse to do things (e.g., grant the Defendant legal authority) - and then blame the Defendant for not doing the things he could not legally (without permission) do. 10. As concerns Bifurcation - the "Better situation is to require/complete the judicial labor and consider the evidence before dissolving the marital union." . 11. There are critical income tax fi(~g status, property, pet, familial, professional, and other considerations that militate against granting a Bifurcation. 12.The Defendant discussed the possibility of a marriage counselor with the Plaintiff, but due to cultural, fait accompli, employment, monetary (a Plaintiff who does not want to "waste" money or time on taking care of her own best health interests - is certainly not going to want to "waste" money on a counselor) and other considerations and differences the Plaintiff simply was not interested (Indeed, when the Plaintiff was having severe workplace harassment, discrimination, and other problems affecting her blood pressure, sleep, emotional well-being, and work - she was extremely upset that the Defendant was using his own out-of-pocket money (i.e., marital resources until dissolution) to provide her with medical care. 13. While the Defendant submitted financial and other information - the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant controlled all of the information and never submitted any herself. The Defendant continually (over the course of the marriage) has attempted to get the Plaintiff to take an interest in the financial affairs - yet she has continually demonstrated no interest except in the bottom line, and has blamed the Defendant' for "controlling" everything. The Defendant has ample evidence and cause to suspect that the Plaintiff has provided y~ _0.', personal and private financial and other information to extermals - who have no right to his private financial, personal, and familial information. The Defendant considers such instances invasions of privacy. l4.The Plaintiff continually tells the Defendant he is irresponsible and "abuses" the family pets. In point of fact, the Plaintiff often leaves the family pets "home alone" for @ 10 hours at a clip, is sometimes ignorant of their need for attention and affection (especially when she first returns), and is lackadaisical about their water supply (even on hot days). If there is one thing the Defendant has learned in life - it is that dependent creatures MUST be provided with an adequate water supply - especially in hot weather. While it is true that the Plaintiff loves, indulges, and treats the family pets as part of her own family - it is not true that the Defendant "abuses" them. Nor is it true that the Plaintiff always functions in their best interests (she sometimes seems oblivious to their basic needs) On @Saturday last (@10 Jul) the Defendant arrived to find the pets locked outside. He discovered their excitement at his arrival, which included uncharacteristically barking, was probably because they had no water (he concluded this when he looked, found none potable, and filled their water bowl and gave it to them). The Plaintiff has the best intentions in the world regarding the family pets, but her allegations that the Defendant "abuses" them, and that she always functions in their best interests - is erroneous for the former and occasionally erratic for the latter. The foregoing and other unspecified related reasons militate against Bifurcation. l5.Without going into details or causations - the Defendant wonders if the Plaintiff ever had an out-of-state bank account? 16.The Plaintiff recently began liquidating her savings (large heating oil purchase (necessary), family schooling help (nephew), and got the Defendant to purchase a washer and dryer on one of his separate accounts - which she said she would repay forthwith. When he asked about the money she replied she didn't have it (she did at the time) and muttered she'd pay him back in the future. In the context of other loans and investments (as well as unrelated considerations) by her husband, the Defendant, it can be stated that a Bifurcation would severely and unfairly penalize him. 17. The Plaintiff alleges that her husband is impotent. The fact of the matter is: he is not (variability/performance problems vanish(es)) when he uses Viagra (he considers Cialis much better insofar as he is concerned)) The Plaintiff told the Defendant a number of years ago that her closest brother was "having problems." While she cannot "divorce" her older brother on behalf of her sister-in-law (and wouldn't; she maintains that they have a son which makes everything different) because he is ''<1, _ __,_, c_I'>'_O(_ . "'1 -, impotent - she shouldn't divorce her husband (or at least not be granted a Bifurcation) because her husband sometimes has problems that are minimized/precluded by contemporary medications. The Defendant has reason to believe that the Plaintiff has discussed his "problems" with externals; he considers this an invasion of privacy that is related to discussion of personal and private financial, vocational, legal, familial, medical, and other private information. The Defendant believes that such indiscretions by others place them in legally untenable civil rights and civil liability positions. Preliminary Conclusions The Plaintiff has repeatedly told the Defendant that there are no plans to remarry, and the primary reason for a divorce is she needs her job (She views her job and the Defendant as mutually contradictory/incompatible (she must get rid of one to keep the other.). Bifurcating the proceedings is clearly in the worst possible interests of the Defendant, even the Plaintiff (discrimination and prejudice continue to occur in the workplace), and their marital property and interests (as well as the family pets). The idea to Bifurcate the proceedings came from the Plaintiffs attorney - who has a vested economic interest in, advertently or inadvertently, moving the proceedings forward and avoiding reconciliation. The Plaintiff has always done what she wanted. Bifurcation will give the Plaintiff license to open the Defendant's property, pets, and best interests to others. Once others enter the picture - the plaintiff will be unduly influenced, and the Defendant's rights, property, and best interests will no longer exist (he will be subjected to gross injustice). The Defendant has always functioned in the Plaintiffs best interests; others cannot be depended upon to function so, and some may even function as self-interested adversaries whose incentives will increase their drive, motivation, and effect. Violence, spousal abuse, and fraud are non-issues. Given the foregoing and the complexity and inseparability of the property and interests, as well as best intent, there is no overwhelming basis for granting Bifurcation. There are, however, legitimate, substantive reasons for denying it. The fairest, most equitable, best fit, just disposition of the Request for Bifurcation in this case, and the parties' best interests (Plaintiffs as well as Defendant's) - combine and militate against Bifurcation. The Defendant understands the nature of the cultural and other differences involved as they affect himself, the Plaintiff, the workplace, the society, and others. The Plaintiff does not fully understand many of these factors (despite her academic brilliance). Counseling and ,of" , . h'_, ._<.,_", _." \ ,._ ,. " clarification of the issues and problems, financial, social, relational, professional, and others - has never been tried nor occurred. (In point of fact, there are few who have the knowledge and experience, cultural, inter/cross-cultural and other skills, knowledge, and strategies necessary for problem resolution (although most fail to view, or even be aware of, consider, or even be interested in, their limitations and the lack of good fit between the principals and the problems in the social and familial context). Bifurcation should be used "only when it is clearly necessary for the best interests of the parties." Bifurcation in this case will trigger an economic disaster for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and totally prejudice the Defendant's (and the Plaintiffs, for that matter) property, financial, and other interests. Evidence confirms that bifurcating the proceedings is clearly to the detriment of both parties - and the request should be denied for the aforementioned and other uncited reasons. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Honorable Court of Cumberland County deny the Petition to Bifurcate and move to "enter a final Decree in Divorce, divorcing the parties and reserving the economic issues which have been raised to be reviewed and concluded at a later date" as reasoned and requested by the Plantiffs counsel. Respectfully submitted, 0-~ Raymond J. Brinzer, Pro Se 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, P A 17011 USA 717-763-8388 Dated: 15 Jul2004 '~1:'f__, , . I :- I ~ , Verification I verify that the statements made in this Defendant's Response to the Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation are true and correct and that this is a good faith submission document. I understand the implications of false statements as being subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities and the Court's potential imposition of appropriate sanctions for bad faith violations. 15 Jul 2004 '~''''' '_,,",0 ~ r- . . <~4""", "_'.' A.'d'''O," ""'~,,,_. ""~ illlUr'fr"'" Q ......, 0 = "'''' ", 'C;-;;.>' ...,- ''-~.> <- ::rJ -n -;:;-i', r, C:, rT1p r"- -r'Jrn "DO u. ;::J L. :""-lc,; -0 ~Ji~ :rc w t-sm -1 > =2 '-" :2 -' ~ .~ ~ ~"",w__ffii_""'M~,~_,__~i~il:;j~~tll'i@~~r, "_3,,~. llIllllml!,li fJn~n _ ~,_",,!I\l_ *~!!?jf,:(,!i'ilRI!&'~ if<i;'_1',!'i,,,'{:-_,;~WV~W"__"!"1-';"j!YI'n.Tj"'_~n""',,,,:n~;;~H-~l~'{'NW",\f"-)f-"-",,,,~!j!~""-"'-*WW(~'~~ JINGLAN C. BRINZER, Plaintiff ) ) ) ) VS. RAYMOND J. BRINZER, Defendant . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Madelaine N. Baturin, Esquire, of the Law Firm ofBaturin & Baturin, attorney for the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, do hereby certifY that on April 14, 2004, I deposited in the United States Mail, at the United States Post Office, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, an article of Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, marked "Restricted Delivery", a certified copy ofthe Order of Court for Plaintiffs Request For Hearing on Bifurcation Petition attached thereto, bearing Article No. 700005200023 0131 8332, addressed to: Raymond J. Brinzer, 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, P A 17011. The said article of Certified Mail, as shown by the Postal Return Receipt Card was received by the Defendant herein on May 1, 2004, and according to same, was signed by him, to wit: Raymond Brinzer, which card is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A", along with the deposit slip dated April 14, 2004, for said article of Certified Mail aforementioned. Dated: May 7,2004 '"l,T ~_~:",,= ., _'. .1' - 'I ' BATURIN & BATURIN By: OM 01 c-/J Madel eN. Baturin, Esq . e Attorneyl.D. 68971 2604 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 (717) 234-2427 (Attorney for Plaintiff) /" ~ ~ - ;: - ~ _ _ ~ 2_ J- I~ \ ~ " ~" f\ I ,.. I )omestlc Mall Only No Inswance Cove/age PIOV'_ ~~, m Return Receipt Fee ru (Endorsement Required) C Restrlctecl Delivery Fee C (Endorsement Required) _, Po..... &.... $ Postage $ ru ", ", oQ 0-'1 ", 0-'1 c Certlfled Fee c ru ""0 U'l Be/plant s Name (Pleass Print Clearly) (To be comp C .M.E.,...B.~y!!!~!!.~...:J..'m~;,.i nzer ..___..mm.m....._........ Sfr8et, Apt. No.; or PO Box No. .5..3.Q...!1X.!lF..tlf.'!.~.?.!....B2.ad ._...._...._...._...___.._..___....._ CIty. Slate, ZIp.,. 4 - 1 am Rill PA 7011 .. earn"lel itel1'1S 1, 2, ancfs. Also Complele .. item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. . Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. : , ,. 1. Article Addressed to: ":::' Mr. Raymond J. 530 Brentwater Camp Hill, PA Brinzer Road 17011 ~' 3. Service Type .. Certified Mall o Registered o Insured Mail o Express Mail o Return Receipt for Merchandise o C,O,D. 4. Restriqted Delivery? (Extra Fee) Dyes 2. Article Number (Copy from service {abeQ ,700q Pi5:{O m}t3 iql3l[$33:2 [ i. t PS Fmm 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt " 1 02595.0@,M~aQ8,~ Exhibit "A" "-,- "". -c..,'_ .~ .- "":<~',;.- ~, ,,""'''e, ~.,"~. --.. I r-- nn{ ..(.1 "'" r.:;:.:. 0 = "Tf ...- ::l: ::;1 "'Ii, ;". rnfIJ ZXl -<: &is:; N -OfT] :J:]X ;:$' -.J '90 __0 2:("'1 :J.? A.~~ L .' ;So ::.::;.c) , ~.. :_~i-n ~.. f'-~) "? ==, f'.' ""- Ui ''li'il'f."_ ~_. p~ ~ ~ ...d r~;;"IWir*"'t'il!t:\lI~l~"=..".", ~_JifIIIl!!IIl" l c ~ 1!l!.I~~~!lIl'l11W d,'!".\",~~~~~~~[I?NP'\'II1~m~~I!!I'i>t!!(I!!i!f~~;'!r~tr'lffill3!~ll'1ijrW-:I'llM~.'1ilIc.'-l'.1,((;,.,'"0"'-,, "i'"",-r.,"-~"""""""'~;'-'~ C{ 1<~. 'J~uLI,Cl1\.I c- jSRIIJ.:z:.612.. .p(tttN/tj" r "'I J) :g ~l w~(2. bEFi::N.l>ITIJ'/. t No. 0 0 -'1116 G v r / IE. e f-/f V5, PI>r41'-to,.J-A :::J: JUN 0 i zoofS: t~ u ',nr . tJ t<- dE: fL. () rev 1<..1 Jl is f-kA a.. IN ~ V S Y?cscht:dv (t:; if -fPR.~ 7huta"'~.l;,I'I 4\~ J.()(J~~ f:OdA.tn. Ou.t:l GE: D~ O'v.Of): ''f~,,,,,. _ ,,__, , " ' ~~!III'.j;Cj""i<!J-JJ\IU!il\:Hi;'~:UiW"'~OI,~~*i,."liOl<h,!~w.r.,~f'i<<J,",j,""'-Ni~',~,,,.od,i'"~~i.,,,,'~1!ll;ill~'5!b'cl",".:~,;;"~..!&~WlI'~.~ 'li' 'fr11I:f""='M.~~IiIli~-t,i;!~,:,~~~IIilWi~f:l~ t'" '" -~'~ """ F'''E IL D-oPC:/Cc: OF THe PR01HO~!oI"RY 2004 JUN -2 ill" 9' lid " ~il CUj\ir", '~,' " "':"J<':;!-<, i~""', ,"_" ""': ':'~ ',oC" . I 'u' '/11")1 /"'t:rf:- !'~'" {-...... IV; ,. "\::>iL.'v/N!A . I JlIll.IL.,.. ....., ..,. ..'., , ""'-"'--'- m' To: Office of the Prothonotary (faryn N. Dixon, Court Administrator) Fm: Raymond J. Brinzer, Pro Se (Plaintiff) Re. Jinglan C. Brinzer, Plaintiff, vs. Raymond J. Brinzer, Defendant No. 00-7916 Civil Term Civil Action - Law in Divorce Subject: Urgent Petition for a Continuance for a Bifurcation Hearing scheduled for Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 8:30 A.M. In Courtroom 5. Date: 1 June 2004 Dear Honorable Court Administrator: The purpose of this petition is to request a Continuance for a No. 00-7916 Civil Term Bifurcation Hearing scheduled for 2 June 2004 at 8:30 a.m. In Courtroom 5 at the Cumberland County Courthouse in Carlisle, P A. The reasons for this request follow. 1. The Defendant, Raymond J. Brinzer, requests this Continuance due to a life- threatening illness that resulted in his hospitalization at the Lebanon V A Medical Center for Bilateral Deep Venous Thromboses and subsquent treatment and medications that prevented him from deskwork (he was ordered not to sit), completing his brief, and preparing for this hearing timely. 2. Due to the intervening hospitalization and treatment problems - the Defendant's schedule was disrupted. Additionally, on Sunday the 30th of May, Plaintiff Jinglan C. Brinzer, the Defendant's spouse, asked him if he were going to attend the hearing and if so how he was going to get there? The Plaintiff was taken aback when Jinglan Brinzer informed him that the hearing was scheduled for the 2nd of June (due to health problems and a misunderstanding, he erroneously thought the hearing was scheduled for the 8th of June). 3. Defendant Raymond Brinzer has specific information that is extremely pertinent to this action, and granting a Bifurcation without considering this information will extremely prejudice Plaintiff Jinglan Brinzer's best interests, as well as the Defendant's. Furthermore, a failure to consider this information will defeat the ends of justice. 4. Due to the Defendant's grave illness (DVT's are life-threatening and not to be trifled with) and the nature and critical importance of the information, any Appeal would be irreparably crippled if the action goes forward without granting a one-time Continuance. 5. Aside from the Plaintiffs and Defendant's best interests, the Defendant has severe concerns regarding his and the Plaintiffs property rights that militate against a Bifurcation. Given the foregoing and other pertinent verifiable reasons not presented here due to the lack of time before the scheduled hearing - the Defendant, Raymond J. Brinzer, Pro Se, respectfully pleads that the Honorable Court grant this one-time Continuance. Sincer , . - 0. _ __/7.P "'0 ('A"'fH,JI rfl /117/1 Raymon J. zer, Pro Se (plaintiff) ~~.co fQtl':c tJ'1WA I c: 1<.. "0" J I Z _ R Od Cc. Madelaine N. Baturin, Attorney (Phone: 717-234-2427/FAX: 717-234-7544) 717 - ",{!J 300 ..,'!;!IT, , J , , _ ,. _""'"= _ __, ',. ~ , ,'_ 'I . " jm Rl ~ ~- -",",~- - '. '"_ _'.c .~,-~' -'-~""" '~~'_, 'l>~"",","'~'P - II" (') "" = 0 c: = -fl ~~ ~- L --i c:: I-n ~~;-' :;e nlp (/, I CJITl :06 - 9, c:; ~;~ :I"> -.LT; ::14 ,--'"):!J 7C) D (s,n ;-:: ._, ...4 if, :1> -< :n <..' -< ,,; l>_~i~~!<1lll!Rn~1J'm~"'l"'~I"t'~~T~:c"'i(RJ;l"_e;11f~1",~--p,_'illmm~)"t,Ii$~wm$?lj"f~:;1<,<:\'1'~-"","""~~!\1liI!~~_ '~!!!J!!' \1Zc J,1l4/AI\l C- j!;,RIIJ:c..612. -P(l\-rA!Tr{ p ~ )) .D Ri w~(2. bEF2N1Yt~'- ( V 5 I? A ~j"" o,.J.A J. JUN 0 1 2004'>- vOfJl==t:tt::Ji[) r No. () 0 - lq I 6 C V I / Tee fo-1 o {<.. dE:. fL 0 rev IZ.."- It ~ H:c.,z" fl.. IIV ~ t S PE,Sch2dv (2 cf -t-tR.- 7hull..S""~ lklY "'~ d.(J()/;'~ ?:OdA./TJ 0u.r:>6E ..,.t, ,,"',,~_., .~_ ."..< _ ", ' "_ ,_ ", ,,- o. , ~ .- ,. I>,'~" ;;liil~i[j~-...W.""""";'..IEd!.>t~_i~_-~"'~,""f';a!~,,,,,,,,,,~"M,:,Mm;!ifn~,""""""J'~"'~1,,<'iiri.j~'~lOf.Jlifi;jiiflfifllM__~.~w'i~:i!"'''",,,,1- FILED-OfFiCE 0-= TI.)1: DRO'rl"'O"o'i"bRY j fIt... I I r _,111\. ;. <. 20114 JUfJ - 2 PJ1 9: 43 ell/',,':;":',' " " ,y,' 'f'ITV ,I v,,-, "..1 ','iL, <~,'._;'J \1i I F'JE{\!\!SYLVi\i\!!/\ I""" ,~.~,.~~"~. ~~. ~'A,_. " _~' ~"O~.l_, _ ^'..-. I!Ji! .0 JINGLAN C. BRINZER ) PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ) VS. NO. 00-7916 CML TERM ) RAYMOND J. BRINZER DEFENDANT CNIL ACTION---LA WIN DNORCE DEFENDANT'S ADDENDUM (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) TO WE ~ DEC 2003 RAYMOND J. BRINZER PRELIMINARY DEVELOPME~ ~ THAT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL IN FORMATION AND ELUCIDA!I1IbN~ Gi; I -<,. i-~,,:,<j This Addendum/resource is intended to back-up/elucidate upon the 5 Dec 2003 00-7~}P?Civ& Term Submission that respectfully requested: '5> :::; -7. 1) Attorney M. Baturin's action to Bifurcate the proceedings be denied, :3 OJ 2) Raymond J. Brinzer be permitted to act in a Pro Se; status, 3) the other information presented ... (therein) be considered in this divorce action and made a part of the official record, 4) Jinglan Brinzer's best interests, retirement, support, and other (factors) be considered before any irreversibly punitive (to her) decrees are issued," (5)) "... .the grounds for this divorce complaint are largely invalid in some instances and invalid in others, misrepresented, have (in some instances, e.g., conjugal) changed, derive from uncontrolled variables (e.g., the workplace and its inherent problems), and that the grounds for any Bifurcation are contradicted by the circumstances and facts presented herein as well as others. Thus, the divorce complaint - based on presented and nonspecified evidence, should either be reformulated to be valid or dismissed entirely," This addendumlback-up resource presents changes and additional information pertinent to the charges and circumstances of the alleged complaint and claims, is anticipatory and protective in nature, and is to be used only if circumstances and the best interests of the defendant are otherwise compromised. It is also intended to make a formal written record of particulars that are relevant to/impact upon/are causative of a major portion of the stress and strain that has been exacerbating the Defendant's and Plaintiffs marital union. Information follows. Main Body Around 12 Feb 04 Jinglan Brinzer casually informed her husband that her attorney had told her he "was making trouble," On the way to her workplace on 19 Feb 04 she told her husband that "her attorney had decided to go ahead with the separation of the divorce from the financial settlements ... previously she had wanted to do them both together, but Prefatory Note. Complainant Jinglan C. Brinzer has heen very withdrawn, detached, and seemingly bordering on hostility for somewhere around several weeks now, These periods seem to emerge and be exacerhated by other events, such as communicating with her attorney (previously mentioned) and possibly one unknown other. Last week Jinglan Brinzer informed she had an appointment scheduled with her attorney Monday (a fed and state holiday); Monday 16 Feb) came and went and she said upon question it had been changed to Friday. Regardless, it seems she met with someone for several hours ;'^, " "" ~'" < .. .-, " , , ~ 1::n rnr- :gm6 o --It ,..'TI (';5 ..." -,0 f'iro. ~2: ~J -< Monday concerning this divorce action; these discussions can always be detected by telling questions and other markers tbat occur shortly thereafter. At any rate. her behavior is such that it alarms the defendant - as in tbe past such "moods" were followed by actions and incidents that were apparently "in the works" for sometime previously (no examples cited). Upon question, Jinglan advised the attorney meeting was changed to Monday the 23rd Feb - then later said it would be the 24th, Continuing, linglan reported the meeting was changed to 23 Feb, then 24 Feb. he was making trouble so she had decided to separate them." Only the attorney and Jinglan know about the veracity of this statement, but given the fact Jinglan has no legal background and this is legalese - it seems probable to assume that the attorney was the source. 1. In rhe 5 Dec 2003 Response - Jinglan's husband Raymond had asserted that "6) The marriage is not irretrieveably broken as previously unconsidered information and changes ... (would) confirm." The last time Raymond and Jinglan had conjugal relations as husband and wife prior to 15 May was 17 J an 2004 at 2900 Sunset Drive in the home Raymond had helped Jinglan purchase. Something happened in the Christmas-New Year period and there hadbeen no conjugal relations since till 15 May (without going into details - Jinglan dropped two names in another context on April 13th in discussion; her husband had seen this pattern before, and considered it a purposeful distraction intended to mislead (this behavior happened on several occasions previously, and the pattern was always the same which marks it as a developed strategy rather than a fortuitous occurrence) II. Matters have become extremely strained. Jinglan is currently experiencing workplace pressures once again due to workload and an impending evaluation. On 15 or 16 Feb Jinglan called and told him (defendant) she needed him to come and help her with her evaluation Self-Report; when he looked it over on the computer he told her he couldn't do it all right then and there; he'd have to take it with him and do it in a place he could concentrate. She initially balked at that - but finally relented. Raymond subsequently analyzed the Self-Report and informed her it is in need of further development - especially as the Job Description is literally unorganized (its initial page consists of a bunch of willy-nilly goal statements) - which makes developing a Self- Report much more difficult that it ought to be. In addition to the lack of organization, her Job Description contains a bunch of goal statements (as stated) - which have no standards, criteria, or specifics - deficiencies which make it highly invalid, idiosyncratic, unreliable, ultra-subjective, and of low utility. *** These types of pressures create stress in Jinglan for which Raymond gets the lion's share of the blame. When subjected to multi-source stress - Jinglan responds by becoming unglued and flees (which is a rather normal response to a noxious stimulus/stimuli array; however, it is amplified in her). Furthermore, vague, rather amorphous, evaluative instruments that are lacking in criteria and specificity implicitly put the evaluators in the position of being able to do anything they want, as they are held to no standards or discrete evaluative criteria - and the evaluatees don't have specific requirements to guide their responses." *** ***Note. Defendant Raymond Erinzer was team leader for a Penn StateTests and Measurements section, taught and -q;; -.. - ~- developed evaluation instruments, and was a PA certified supervisory with evaluative responsibility. (He was also co-author of an evaluation text produced and distributed by tbe main campus bookstore.) Consequently, he is qualified to opine, IILRegarding the 5 Dec 03 Response number "5) Jinglan Brinzer's mistaken notion that she must divorce the defendant in order to keep her job" - she has increasingly reiterated this message lately as the workplace and other stresses (including attorney meetings/pressures) have picked up. Past pressures on Jinglan, including demonstrably discriminatory evaluations, resulted in Raymond's pushing her to action (some of which was outlined in the 5 Dec Court Response). Jinglan knows she must keep her job - and due to problems that have occurred in the workplace, Raymond's reactions and subsequent actions, and Jinglan's resultant formal complaints - she rationalizes that the way to alleviate the pressures and obtain valid evaluations that judge her fairly as she justly deserves, and escape the pressures and placate the powers that be - is to get rid of her spouse. (i.e., avoid confrontation/censure, take the path of least resistance (i.e., the dimension over which she has most control and least chance of public ridicule and censure (a most potent variable in her cultural group))) Jinglan has told her husband that everyone in her department knows what he has done (2 union grievances (she was soft-soaped into withdrawing), a civil rights complaint (in-house which produced a your word-their word finding as outlined elsewhere)) ... and they (in his eyes - the foxes in the chicken coop) consider him "dangerous." Raymond has continually instructed Jinglan not to discuss personal or familial problems in the workplace (he has even given her articles by experts to that effect), but she imagines, and sometimes rightfully so, that others are fully aware (indeed, the IG Office's bungling "handling" of a complaint he had based on harassment/passive coercion by a two-person team of higher rank individuals who were continually going to her office (she was intimidated and incapable of telling them leave her alone (and they told her she might be working for them someday) was handled in a way that ensured everyone in her office would know; once out of the bag these things just don't go away, and a revision of investigative "procedures" in that office needs undertaken. (The effects of embarrassment, fear of ridicule, intimidation, publicizing sensitive information - ought to be taken into consideration; they blatantly are disregarded - thus de facto intimidating people who are having problems and forcing them to fail to report them.) In Jinglan's instance - the investigator operated like a jr. high boy with a megaphone. This is discussed in the 5 Dec 03 Response, also, but worth repeating in that her cultural background, gender, minority group status, personality type (an individual variable) all combine to make her unassertive, overly-sensitive, passive, easily shamed and maximally subjective to the manipulations, intimidations, subtle coercions by others of higher rank/status/majority & "protected minority group membership in the workplace (the perceptions that some individuals enjoy special protections, considerations, and benefits are well known by all but the most naIve adult professionals - just as they are so readily and keenly discerned and observed by schoolchildren). IV. Despite the fact Jinglan's work performance far exceeds that of many higher ranked .W1f. .-f. ~ ~ "~ " ,~~ r ,,," > , employees, some of whom needed the benefits of affirmative action (indeed, one "problem child" who had harassed her kept telling her he was a man, of higher rank, and she couldn't disagree with him/had to do what he said (this was an individual who physically harassed her)), she has been discriminated against and received largely invalid, biased evaluations. In short, Jinglan can be intimidated due to her background/unprotected minority status (by the same token - there are those who are experts and specialize in intimidatio.) and function accordingly, even though she has few professional/intellectual weaknesses (sometimes spelling, syntax, occasional pronunciations, e.g.) - she will most certainly once-again receive a largely invalid evaluation which will preclude her promotion and/or transfer. This will be blamed on her spouse, whereas it is an artifact of poor evaluation instruments, negative attitudes and work environment, male/other ethnic group bias/prejudice, a pre-ordained evaluative set that focuses on negatives and denieslcontradicts positives at every chance (When Jinglan does something extra- meritorious - it is initially (or eventually) degraded and denied; then-again later its excellence and her role are admitted to (but the corrections are never forthcoming; the cycle continues; the males never learn or rectify)). These observations may seem irrelevant - but they constitute a major component of Jinglan's divorce action/foundation, emotional state, and the problems between her and her husband. V. Re. # "7) Jinglan developed well-documented health problems as a result of discriminatory and harassment pressures in the workplace circa (2000) 200 I" add the following information. 1. Jinglan developed periodontal disease (medical literature confirms the role of stress/anxiety as causative to disease onset/exacerbation) during this time despite her meticulous oral hygene habits. After she went to a standard periodontist who operated but failed to cure the problem - her husband sought out a dentist who specialized in pathogen genetic testing and disease curation. Accordingly, she was given an antibiotic "cocktail" keyed to the specific disease pathogens. Jinglan followed the first regimen of treatment with splendid results, but when the disease reemerged and her husband obtained follow-up testing and antibiotic measures - she refused to follow the doctor's prescription and directions. This caused strife - as her husband pressured her to take the medications, but she asserted she was cured, knew her body, and refused to comply. Her husband was greatly disburbed, because he knew the medical literature and association between periodontal, heart, and other diseases. 2. Raymond took Jinglan to Johns Hopkins for 2003 ob/gyn exam (he was frightened away by the local physician he had obtained for her when the woman refused to look at her uterine CT scans, as she said: "Oh, I never look at those; I can't read them." ) At any rate, Jinglan initially refused to go because she was "afraid to miss work." (She had been criticized, formally, in her evaluation for "missing work" (Regardless of the facts she completed all of her assignments timely and even ahead of schedule, had been sick as a result of workplace problems and their effects, and the absences were legall)) Her exam resulted in questionable mass in the left breast. Raymond made a follow-up exam for mammography and ultra-sound testing to determine if the condition were dangerous; Jinglan refused to go because she didn't want to miss work (she had been intimidated) and she knew her own body. After considerable coercement by her husband, and inducement, she finally consented to undergo prescribed testing. Fortunately, the results were negative (benign body); the point will follow later. (The negative effects of criticizing people who complete their assignments timely and ahead of schedule for missing work due to workplace caused problems and their effects are over- whelming.) 3. Recently Jinglan asked Raymond who the counselor and doctor (psychiatrist) were he had her see during the height of her 2000-0 I workplace problems when she was in severe distress, had extremely high blood pressure as a result, and was being harassed. Raymond told her Cheryl Shope (counselor) and John Mira, MD (psytrst). Jinglan subsequently informed her husband she may need to see them in the future, and when she last saw them she told them "everything about our marital relationship." She also told him Counselor Shope, who had a relationship with the department (which was one reason Raymond picked her out) - had told her he (Raymond) was the one causing the problems. Raymond was appalled by the claim a counselor would say such a thing (indeed, he thinks Jinglan misunderstood or rationalized it; otherwise he would say such a claim would be unethical, unsound, and ill- advised (turning blame for external actions internally - despite hard and fast objective evidence (in writing) to the contrary - takes a leap of "faith" in one instance - and could constitute a degree of institutional/status quo protectionism in another). Regardless, the record speaks for itself (Raymond was not in Jinglan's office pawing her, arguing with her in attempts to get her to go with him (all harassment), and using higher rank and his sex to put her "in her place" and force her to comply. Morever, Counselor Shope noted contradictions and other written evidence which spoke to the core of the psycho-emotional-physical problems. 4. John Mira, MD, prescribed, among other things, Wellbutrin (an anti- depressant/stress med) and eventually Ambien (a sleeping medicine (Jinglan's sleep was disturbed)) for Jinglan's condition/workplace problems. Jinglan for whatever reasons refused to take the Wellbutrin, and the first time she took the Ambien she told Raymond to "give me two ofthem." Raymond balked and she told him to give her the medicine; she knew her body and what she needed (and he was stupid). Raymond was told "don't argue with me." (Which is a standard response when he disagrees.) Raymond had no control or say in another medical matter. Jinglan grabbed the container and took two of the pills; Raymond was appalled. More recently Jinglan had an -''1\1 ! ,or' <"~ _~""c_ ~,,~ appointment to see Dr. Mira in the evening; she refused to go and had Raymond cancel it. S. Raymond sought out and took Jinglan to a Primary Care Physician for her blood pressure problem resulting from stress (prior to these workplace problems her blood pressure had always been remarkably low) - which after months of problems by this time had become chronic. This Penn State HMC physician, S. Leong, was female and had a cultural background similar to Jinglan's. After a physical problem with the medications, and communication with the physician's office - Raymond told her to take the first one by itself (triamterene/hctz - a diuretic) and see Dr. Leong about the problem (once again Jinglan balked at the prospect of missing work (she was mortified); finally Raymond was able to get evening appointments). The diuretic in and of itself was all that was necessary to control the problem - and Jinglan has been on this med since (the blood pressure med was discontinued). Jinglan kept discontinuing the triam./hctz - and the problem kept reemerging and Raymond kept after her to take it regularly (her concern with the med was that she "had to go to the bathroom more frequently," and she would have to leave her desk/job (she was totally intimidated to the point of being afraid of going to the toilet too often) - due to her fear of professional censure that would show up in her evaluation!). Eventually, Jinglan determined to take the medicine in the evening - and go to the bathroom at night. Dr. Leong was somewhat taken aback when she was confronted by Jinglan's fear/hesitation - and advised accordingly. Also, she ordered her to resume taking it in the morning. (Being afraid to go to the toilet too often due to a workplace- caused medical problem - speaks to the potent disproportionate effects that unfair evaluations and treatment, unilateral blame for problems no matter the source, bias, and prejudice - can have on people from some minority cultural groups (This entire scenario may sound incredible - but it is verifiable, and speaks to the unhealthywork environment that Jinglan Brinzer finds herself in (no wonder it's the job or her husband)). 6. Jinglan recently complained to Raymond that he was using her medicines/ prescriptions to control her (as stated, he had recently taken her to Dr. Leong where she got an RX for triam./hctz for I yr. Of refills (her husband doesn't know if this came from her, her attorney, or an "advisor" )). Raymond took the prescription and turned it in to Carlisle Pike Rite Aid, which will refill for 90 days at a clip (other stores will only do 30), so that Jinglan could pick the med up when she was in the area on her way to K-mart. Jinglan seemed to get upset at this action - but she would have mislaid the RX and would have failed to get it refilled (furthermore, she prefers Raymond pick up her medications, gas up the car, and perform other functions that he ends up paying for (and then she criticizes him for either wasting money or controlling)). Jinglan often fails to open her mail; along these same lines a $720. deferred compensation overpayment check was mailed to her by the state in Jan 2003. Her husband noticed a letter from the State Treasurer's 1. . " , '<-<"~ ~ ,~ Office circa Oct 2003 that asked why she hadn't cashed the check and notified her it was null and void (180 day limit)? Upon question, Jinglan informed her husband she must have thrown it away; he took her to the notarist to get an official request to issue another check and she recently received the amount over a year after it was initially issued. 7. On a number of occasions it seemed that some of Raymond's medicine was missing (e.g., shortly after opening when he looked in - what had been a full container seemed half-full). Raymond asked Jinglan if she had taken any; she assured him she had not. Raymond has mislaid many things, and found them later (ranging from his keys to his medicines to money to papers), and he took Jinglan at her word as he is inclined to do. A major point to the preceding examples is: Raymond has always taken care of Jinglan's medical needs/appointments - all of a sudden lately she has stated that he is "controlling" her prescriptions/medications. (Yet, she refuses, like in many other areas, to do it herself (Raymond says: "you go get it," you need to learn how to do these things - and she turns it back on him (she says she's busy, tired, etc.).) Other points are: Jinglan does what she wants medically (she tells Raymond he's stupid and follows her wont), always thinks she knows best (is headstrong), takes whatever medicines she wants, sometimes alters the dosages, and often doesn't take medicines she should (e.g., Jinglan continually wants to take aspirin during menses; Raymond has explained the potential bleeding problems caused by aspirin (he also replaced standard with enteric-type aspirin to minimize stomach problems and told her to use it instead), considers most medical expenditures a waste of money, doesn't always follow directions as concerns her own best interests (which is contrary to her performance in her workplace - where she always complies with the rules, regulations, timelines, and requirements), and does not take medicines according to prescription recommendations.) As concerns these matters - she tells Raymond: "don't argue with me; I know my body!" lncreasingly, Raymond has learned to just keep his mouth shut at that point and take the path of least resistance (when he wants her to adhere to the rules he is told to shut up and not argue (Jinglan says this gives her a headache)). Finally, Jinglan has been complaining about headaces once again, a complaint that leads her husband to worry if she is taking her diuretic or not. Indeed, if the court grants the divorce action Jinglan Brinzer filed - then the court should assume the responsibility of appointing someone who will coordinate her medical treatment and needs - or take such action as is necessary to ensure she obtains same. Jinglan Brinzer does not always follow medical instructions, sometimes functions irresponsibly, and does what she wants. Her husband attempts to get her to follow directions and comply accordingly - but this oftentimes causes strife and leaves her "' viewing him as argumentative, controlling, and "stupid." Regardless, such problems are not grounds for granting a divorce - but rather for not approving a divorce request that is based on demonstrably insufficient grounds and not in the best interests of the claimant who continually vacillates (nor the defendant). VLRe. # "9) Jinglan Brinzer's original complaints ... were ... 1) economic problems, 2) physical problems, 3) emotional problems (... workplace and (2) physical .., preceding). " Regarding 9) 1) economic problems: on the morning of 19 Feb 04 en route to her workplace (her spouse had to use the car) - Jinglan informed Raymond "she never had any money until they separated." She also remarked that "after the divorce I will control all the money." (A review of the financial records will confirm Jinglan did not get to her current level of retirement and other holdings on her own.) Jinglan attributes her holdings (retirement, house(s), etc.) to her "saving." While it is absolutely true Jinglan is frugal and Raymond not necessarily so (sometimes wasteful) and made an egregious financial error (failed to liquidate from the market (along with 97% or so of the fools in the population) when Jinglan repeatedly urged him to do so)) - Raymond argued to invest money and completed the following (in the case of, e.g., Jinglan's deferred comp there were disagreements over the amount per paycheck. (Jinglan always wanted the minimum; whenever Raymond had "control" the amount was the maximum allowable by law per year ($12,000. in 03; 11,000. in 02, etc.) - while Jinglan's standard response has always been "I can't afford it." Jinglan's Current Economic Worth (unorganized/incomplete conservative estimate) 1. @$14,000. in Jinglan Brinzer's IRA account (the maximum for the years 1997-02; 03 is already partially funded); the IRA's are depressed and currently losing money due to a bear market. (In 1997 Raymond initiated the IRA's and borrowed the money to fund this account (which he subsequently paid back).) 2. @$43,000. in Jinglan's deferred compensation retirement account which Raymond has attempted to fund at the maximum (@ 7500. per yr. average); this has been accruing since @ 1999 when Raymond figuratively "twisted her arm" to sign the contribution paper. 3. (@$86,000.) Present Value of Jinglan Brinzer's PA Retirement Account. (currently $7200. per yr. Income at age 60 till death - and increasing) 4. @+38,000. equity in the 2900 Sunset Drive, Camp Hill property obtained by Raymond and Jinglan Brinzer (in Jinglan's name) in Oct 2003 (plus @$6000. in closing costs ($47,000. total investment)). About +38,000. of the 47,000. total came via Raymond. S. @$16,000. in the auto obtained for Jinglan (it is in both names; present value @6000.). 6. @$6,O00. for a flat purchased for Jinglan Brinzer's parents in China (this is not in Jinglan's name - although her husband supported the outlay). 7. (@$S,SOO. contributed to Jinglan Brinzer's brother's family purchase/payment on a flat (supported by her husband)) '~-:-: , " ,,~- "'t_~'__~" ",,".,- ~- - , - . -, ~ ,^ 8. @($25,000.) in furnishings and decor in the 2900 Sunset Drive Property (includes $2500. in computer equipment purchased by Raymond). 9. (@+60,000.) in equity in the jointly held property at 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill (excluding furniture, computer equipment, upgrade investments/renovations, etc.). lO. @ 10,800. yearly ad infinitum Social Security retirement benefit beginning at age 60 on her husband's account. In regard to the preceding, Jinglan Brinzer has @: Cash/semi-liquid: 57,000. (includes IRA's/def cmp) Bank Account (?) cash (3,500.) Total Semi-Liquid/liquid" $60,500. (Primarily in retirement vehicles) 4. 2900 Sunset Drive, Camp Hill breakdown (Raymond contributed at least @+3S,000. (+5000. furnishings/upgrades post-closing)) $+21,000. Raymond's money (one lump; other lumps follow) $ 2,500. cash (Raymond's IRA redemption) $ 2,000.* Raymond cash contribution (borrowed fin daughter) $ 10,000. * Raymond cash contribution (borrowed fin. Aunt) $ 3,000. Raymond cash contribution (fm. an Aug and Sep check (1500. ea.)) Total: @+$38,SOO. contributed by Raymond. (combined costs were @47,000. as stated) Jinglan Brinzer's income during her working years was@: (Prior to '98 earnings were negligible) Total: 1998 25,500. 1999 32,500. 2000 34,500. 2001 36,500. 2002 38,500. 2003 40,500. @$208,000. Net after taxes, retirement deductions, union dues, etc. @70% Net dollar amount after deductions: Minus Sanctuary (Get-away) Living Expenditure Jinglan stated she needed "space" $145,600. -@$ 40,000. Working capital Minus deferred comp @$1OS,600. @$ 43,000. @$ 62,600. @$ 6,000. Adjusted Net Minus Parents' flat contribution " ' 1\ . f'"'"'~ ,1 Minus Brother's family flat contribution Husband-paid first trip/gifts to visit family and friends (@$ 8,000.) from his money Husband-paid second trip to visit family and friends @$ 56,600. @$ 5,500. 51,100. 43,100. Clothes, watches, pearls/jewelry (@+21,000. factored in elsewhere) (@5000.) Debt (includes 12,000. loans had husband secure for house investment) (@-13,SOO.) Adjusted Net , Husband Raymond Brinzer's Current Economic Worth 1992 Mazda Pickup Truck IRA's Cash on Hand 530 Brentwater Road Residence Half-Ownership Stocks, Bonds, Other Furniture, Computer Equipment, other Debt Uncluding loans for wife's property investment) @$ 51,100. o o @400. @30,000. o 5,000. -@18,000. *Jinglan Brinzer has repeatedly promised to "repay" these loan monies Raymond ohtained in conjunction with the purchase of 2900 Sunset Drive. In the meantime. Raymond is making the payments on them (she says she can't afford it; will put her income tax refund on the indebtitures). VIIJinglan has no relatives in the U.S. Raymond and Jinglan are married - and Raymond has always attempted to put everything in joint accounts for tax, inheritance, and related purposes. In addition, Raymond has always attempted to list Jinglan's family as beneficiaries on her accounts (e.g., IRA's, insurance, deferred comp, etc.). It has been legally impossible to list Jinglan's family members as beneficiaries on virtually most, if not all, of her accounts (despite a myriad of phone calls, research, and repeated attempts) because in each and every instance he has been told they must have a social security number. Nevertheless, he has listed them on mutual fund accounts when possible. Raymond is absolutely certain Jinglan is suspicious and doesn't believe him when he tells her she cannot list her family (for a long, long time - he, himself, could not believe such an unconstitutional discriminatory inequity existed!). Digression is necessary for a moment. When Raymond looks and sees that Mexicans, Canadians, and some others can be listed beneficiaries whether they have social security numbers or not, can be claimed as dependents for U.S. income tax deduction purposes, and have all benefits just as if they were American citizens - while other American citizens such as Jinglan are legally blocked from doing these things and enjoying the rights that accrue to others - regardless of whether they (the others) are U.S. Citizens or not (a ,~ 0" ." ,~ , "" " green card is sufficient) - Raymond discerns and claims discrimination based on ethnic group and denial of human and constitutional rights. People such as Jinglan are, in essence, U.S. Citizens in name only - and second and lower class, citizens in virtually every other domain. (Even as regards discrimination and sexual harassment!) In Raymond's opinion - such treatments, obstructions, denials, actions, and deprivations of rights, property, & due process are unconstitutional - as previously stated. In years past Raymond got the paperwork and demanded, repeatedly, that Jinglan remove his name and the names of other required secondary beneficiaries from her legal matters. Jinglan steadfastly refused - time and again. As a last alternative Raymond informed Jinglan that he was going to call, write, and personally have his name removed as a beneficiary. Jinglan told him not to meddle in her affairs and cause trouble and embarrass her. Raymond relented; he has no legal power to do anything with Jinglan's affairs - other than she reluctantly and suspiciously granted under limited powers of attorney (these requests to empower so that legal matters could be taken care of always caused strife, suspicion, and discontent on Jinglan's part). Someone needs to explain the laws to Jinglan regarding beneficiaries - and her total lack of a legal right to list her family members as beneficiaries on her account! Over the years - things have gotten worse (i.e., it has legally become increasingly difficult to take care of things and many things ground to a halt (e.g., taking care of medical bills as simple as health plan restitution for covered services (e.g., eye exams, ob/gyn exams, etc., due to IDPP A, etc.) Raymond is caught between a rock and a hard place in these and other accounts, and when the business blows up due to nonpayment - Raymond will be blamed as causing trouble, obstructing, incompetent/stupid, and attempting to undo Jinglan financially (the conclusion will be he did it on purpose). VIIIJinglan has often claimed Raymond doesn't want her to have friends. This has been absolutely untrue (with reservations (Raymond has always encouraged Jinglan to form friendships).) There are 3 basic types of intelligence: social, practical, and academiclintellectual. Insofar as social intelligence in the western culture is concerned - Jinglan is naIve, gullible, and - despite her social affability and deep needs - deficient (Contrarily, her husband has seen people with academic IQ's in the retarded range (65-70-75) by formal test who are social geniuses as it were (and he has watched them figuratively skin many academically/intellectually brilliant people alive). Her husband has always encouraged his wife to have friends and supported her accordingly, as stated. There are instances in which Raymond has criticized some people & told her there is something wrong with them, their attitudes, & their behavior ... & he has advised her to steer clear of them accordingly. In some instances Raymond has predicted some of these people's patterns of behavior based on cues, probabilities, and experience with such types who engage in generic behavioral patterns that characterize certain groups (e.g., con artists, intimidators, felons), their attitudes, their values, and their strategies, motivations, and behavioral patterns. Jinglan seems totally naIve as concerns " , ~ ~ e. 0",. II people, their behavior, and some of the potential dangers inherent in some situations in western society. A few examples will suffice on this point, and they involve the type of persons who her spouse does not respect, finds reprehensible, considers personologically and morally defective, and criticizes accordingly (unfortunately, Jinglan displays terribly poor judgment when it comes to high-risk people, potentially dangerous environments, and the problems inherent in engaging in trusting and exposing onesself in situations involving the foregoing (Jinglan wants to be nice to everyone, likes having friends, and has naively gotten herself into a number of difficult situations that her husband had to take action to get her out of).) Jinglan always tells her husband what goes on with people - either sooner or later. In some instances he sees cues of ethical/moral malignancy, personality dysfunction, and disturbed behavior. Several years ago she was teamed with a young man named Lonergan in her office. During this time Mr. Lonergan was "dating" one of the secretaries in the office, a secretary who Jinglan reported was quite beautiful and had two children. Lonergan's pronouncements to assigned teammate Jinglan about this woman (when someone such as Jinglan is passive - this is perceived as a green light to go ahead by more aggressive and manipulative types - who proceed as far as they can without restraint) were very unsettling - in that they revealed Lonergan was a very calloused, self- centered, mean, and cruel person (there has to be some type of personality malignancy for such attitudes and behavior). The gist of the matter was, as reported by Jinglan and interpreted by her husband: Lonergan ridiculed and disdainfully derided this woman, criticized her status (two children), asserted he'd never give a thought to marrying such a woman (Who would want two of someone else's children was his statement?), and had negative things to say about women in general (e.g., the only reason he'd ever get married would be for someone to fix his meals; he was tired of eating out and fixing his own food). In addition to this misogynistic attitude - Lonergan attempted to arrange dates for teammate Jinglan with a friend of his - and let her use his apartment to visit with him (this sounds like using the workplace to pimp or procure while on the job). On another occasion - he outright asked her if she wanted to have sex with him. Naturally, her husband asks: what the hell is Mr. Lonergan doing functioning in such a manner in a professional environment, meddling in other people's marital affairs, engaging in such topics, and attempting to serve as a procurer of sexual services for his friends? Jinglan's husband's attitude towards people who function in such a manner is extremely negative. Such functioning is characteristic of street-pimp behavior among certain classes and groups of people (who engage in a lot more than the verbal end of things); employing it in professional settings with others, & especially with females from minority groups (married or single) & cultures who are at extreme disadvantages in terms of rank, gender, assertiveness & fear of offending the majority group (this is a woman who is afraid to take medicine that will cause her to go to the restroom too often!), their superiors, & their co- workers to begin with (Jinglan found that whenever she complained - she was the one censured, held accountable, and penalized while the offender(s) she complained about (e.g., "'YifOj "~c' -,<' ", , -~ Lonergan) were protected by administration. This is a total no-win situation (it doesn't take a genius to discern the consequences, inequities, hostile discriminatory environment, etc.), is extremely unwise for a variety of reasons (one cannot help but entertain the possibility that a number of the horrific problems that have occurred from time to time in diverse workplaces have been precipitated by just such behaviors as they affect certain types of people in certain situations). Such behavior is extremely repugnant, negative, and fraught with liabilities (from a legal repercussions sense). Jinglan's spouse, a former state supervisor, believes in doing things by the book - & finds no place for such behavior in the workplace. Mr.Lonergan, a man who instead of focusing on his work was more busy eating breakfast in the office on a daily basis & causing severe professional problems and exacerbating emotional and familial problems for Jinglan (e.g., damaging her software programs resulting in total re- write needs, significant time losses, amplifying frustrations, anxiety, etc.) had his active-destructive sexist behavior rationalized and justified by her supervisor, and used against her in her evaluations. By continually entering her work, making changes that rendered it dysfunctional and resulted in her increasing frustration, Jinglan was prompted to password the work which prevented Lonergan from entering and damaging it. She was then criticized formally for obstruction, not being a team-player, belittled, etc. (at every turn of events - Jinglan was criticized in writing in reaction to her complaint(s) ) & downgraded and denied promotion. This type of behavior, given the scenarios, can only be explained in terms of prejudice & a good 01' boys network (Lonergan appeared to Jinglan to be a friend of the boss)). Lonergan's "good intentions were touted by Jinglan's supervisor (an example of pure prejudice, perverted distortion, and defensive-aggression. Male Lonergan was protected - female minority group member Jinglan was attacked, censured, and denied promotion. These are bully/fraternity playground tactics. This type of prejudicial bias has been consistent, well- documented in writing, and used to discriminate against, deny promotion, harass, deprive, batter psycho-emotionally, and excerbate marital problems for Jinglan and her spouse (this good 01' boy network modus operandi is a matter of written formal complaint on Jinglan's part and contained in memo's and Jinglan's evaluation report ~ as well as other complaints). Furthermore, it has caused severe emotional and related physical problems for Jinglan (e.g., high blood pressure, depression), and, as previously stated, caused and exacerbated severe problems in her relationship with her spouse. When her spouse saw what was transpiring - he pushed her to action, an action she had absolutely no cultural background in/predisposition for, no gender orientation for (active-aggressive), no social support structure for (she was singled out as a triple-minority to begin with), no heart for, no constitutional tolerance for (which added yet more tension and fuel to the fire and exacerbated in physical problems), no psychological orientation for, and which was laden with stressful forces that were anathema to her well-being. Unfortunately, Jinglan was in a situation from which she could not escape, had no recourse, and had to passively tolerate indignities, deprivation of legal rights, benefits, and privileges. She perceived capitulation, acquiescence, and submission as the only route to harmony, peace, advancement, job security, and a tolerable workplace (and her spouse, in an already strained relationship, ended up bearing the blame and as a sacrificial goat). .ii^_ _ ~ - More recently Jinglan brought home more information about Lonergan; in some ways her otherwise profound memory is short and her perceptions are distorted (If Charles Manson told her what a nice and trustworthy guy he was - she'd take him at his word and believe him). Contrarily, Jinglan's husband has an audit trail that confirms Mr. Lonergan is a base, cruel, egocentric, mean, unprofessional, and untrustworthy young man who obstructed Jinglan's work, progress, and misrepresented Jinglan and her work/performance to her superior). The boss never-even bothered to check to find out if the machinations were true* (her bureau supervisor simply takes the males at their word - while doing things like taking their side and calling Jinglan a "liar" in writing (based on the word of, in every instance, a male. If this isn't sexism - then it doesn't exist. Jinglan's spouse full-well knows that the attitude Lonergan has towards others and his former actions are telling - and are the best precursors of how he feels about, views, and can be depended upon to function with Jinglan or most anyone else (and especially females) in the future. One other example involves a Carla Meinert who "befriended" Jinglan. Every action and strategy this woman, a former drug addict who her Jinglan's husband surmised had been imprisoned (her story to Jinglan was she was in a drug rehab hospital for I year (assumed by her husband based on his experience with such types to mean she had been incarcerated for, probably, prostitution, drugs at one level or another, and possibly something else (e.g., robbery/grand theft)). The fact of the matter here is: her husband told Jinglan what this woman would do, how she would operate, and what her motivations were based on salient features/harbingers related by Jinglan that her husband recognized as common strategies and manipulative ploys used by others of similar character, behavior, and social class he had seen operate in the past. Jinglan doesn't understand why her husband is so negative/averse to her friendship or association with such types (Although it is hard to avoid when one must work on the same team, share office space, etc.) - nor does she grasp the implicit danger of letting them into one's social sphere other than on a professional basis (as demanded by assignments and job requirements), and engaging in anything but professional discourse. She thinks her husband doesn't want her to have friends (concerning these types of people - she is absolutely and irrefutably correct). Perhaps professor Y ongyi Song of Dickinson College summed it up right when asked in a tv interview if he had a major criticism of the Chinese in American culture - what it would be? Professor Song replied without hesitation: they are too naIve; they take people at their word and tend to believe everything they say (this is paraphrased). Jinglan's husband has always wanted her to have friends. But drug addicts, prostitutes, felons, sociopaths, petty criminals, hit-men, sexists, potentially homocidal individuals, rapists, pathological liars, and other such types are not on the list. Jinglan's husband is not mean- spirited, controlling, and isolating in that he knows for a fact (this is not an assumption) that it is statistically safer, more prudent, and in the best personal interests of all concerned (philanthropic and do-gooder considerations aside) to avoid certain behavioral types h~<~ _^'"_<<'" _ _, _._,"" _ . r I' ,,~ , '" '_~_ n altogether (insofar as one is able). Her husband's viewpoints are not without informal and formal credentials, and they come from common sense, formal studies in psychology (social, behavioral, cognitive, clinical, etc.), a vast array of formal and informal 'The supervisor claimed Lonergan was "just trying to help out." linglan had repeatedly asked Lonergan to desist and stay out of her work file a number of times, to no avail, before lodging a complaint with the supervisor. Motivation is questionable, but the action of her teammate is clear, as is the action of the supervisor. experiences in diverse educational and social environmental cultural/class settings (which includes astute street sense) - and his urgings for his wife to form friendships with certain types (i.e., the normal types (good guys)), and avoid certain other types (rather than play Russian Roulette). This is especially important for Jinglan - who has no coping skills for such behavioral types. Although trust, acceptance, and affability are admirable traits from some vantage points when dealing with good/trustworthy people - it can be a catastrophic weakness when dealing with certain personalitylbehavioral types (e.g., con artists, street people, the criminal element, types who look for and readily recognize people who are only too gullible and ready to be taken advantage of for whatever ulterior motives deviants have in mind.) Jinglan Brinzer tends to view all people as trustworthy, good, and to be taken at their word; she is lacking in western society social experience - a deficiency that had no weight or punitive effect in her social strata in China (Jinglan was a professional engineer with lifelong friends who were too focused on study, career, contribution, family, profession, and friends to develop the types of skills, behaviors, and modus operandis that one would expect and find in a drug culture, prison population, mental institution, or some other disproportionately aberrant group.) Many would say most of these things are none of Jinglan's spouse's business (e.g., the goings-on in the workplace). This is poppycock; when others outside the home relationship in, e.g., professional settings engage in actions, behaviors, and treatments that are illegal, have no place in the workplace, and these actions cause emotional and professional problems for the employee and home problems with the employee's family - then the people who misbehave in such a manner open themselves up to legal and professional repercussions. Furthermore, when such employee's supervisors support, justify, and protect them and their misbehavior, and discriminate against people who are professional, blameless and the targets of the offenders' discriminatory, destructive, and illegal actions - then their supervisors open themselves and their employers up to the same legal repercussions. (Professional settings and govemment agencies are not barrooms, social clubs, or school yards where cliques, gangs, and "fraternities" of like- minded people are free to function in manners that are totally illegal and unprofessional. (Yet some of the males in Jinglan's professional setting/workplace function exactly in the fashion some jr. high boys or gangs do.) The Catholic Church (and its staff-workers (priests)) is not the only institution which has liable employees for illegal behavior and must provide safe environments. Jinglan's office employees and administration are not immune either. --]11 " ,- ^ -'~-" IX. Jinglan is once again making ominous remarks and charges to her husband. The last time she was in this frame of mind and hostile (towards her husband) mode was circa 1999; at that time she filed a PFA, the complaints of which were contradicted by a party who was in the house and overheard the events at that time (a son-in-law) and who testified accordingly (Jinglan has ever-since maintained he was a liar) - and an experienced investigating East Pennsboro Police Officer who also contradicted the physical abuse allegations. The point is, based on markers, comments, demeanor, detachment, and mental state that have emerged recently (and have been largely absent since the initial episode due to improved relations and relationship), Jinglan's husband is fearful that such an action may once again emerge (Jinglan has informed him she has an app't with her attorney Monday the 23n1 of Feb - and the statements, questions, sub-vocalizations, and tone and tenor of her actions bode an ominous feeling). After the judge sat on the PF A and Jinglan's then-attorney prevailed on her better sense and she returned to a state of emotional normality, she withdrew the PFA and she and her spouse got back together. When Raymond asked her why she said the things she said (e.g., physical abuse) when they weren't true - Jinglan replied: "what's the difference; emotional abuse or physical abuse - they are all the same." This leveling/ commingling shocked her spouse. PFA's are a necessary legal mechanism. However, the fact of the matter is: the first person who files a PF A is assumed as right and all the rights thereunder accrue to that person - whether the PF A is valid or not. Furthermore, a PF A has the potential, if lacking in validity, to do grave personal, legal, financial, etc. injustice to the person it is filed against. A better mechanism is needed - however, the defendant in this civil action has no concrete definitive suggestions as to what to do about it (it's akin to the pundits who criticize our president - yet have no viable plans or curative programs of their own.) Such situations are slanted and prejudiced - in that if an individual really has the best interests, welfare, and survival at heart, and if the individual has a propensity for truth - then an individual can be at the mercy of forces that prevent him or her from defending themselves. Sometimes the PF A is a Procrustean fit mechanism in its de facto effect, if not its mechanism. Raymond and Jinglan spent time together shopping and eating, etc. (Feb 22nd) ~ but despite his attempts to defuse and mollify the situation ~ Jinglan remained strangely detached, distant, moribund/depressed, and quixotic. These states Jinglan sometimes enters unnerve her spouse - he attempts to keep a distance (previously he attempted to get close to her; these attempts proved to be drastic mistakes) that will provide her with enough space and which will not trigger a response. For he full-well knows that once Jinglan erupts - it is virtually impossible to get her back under control. Believe it or not - Jinglan's spouse is fearful - because he has total control over his physical actions/reactions based upon years of training, discipline, and experience and cannot defend himself nor stave any onslaught. (Unfortunately, he does not have total ~", .~ - " .7 control over his tongue - and sometimes says things he immediately regrets, but to no avail (it's like trying to cancel out a knee-jerk reflex after the fact).) X. In November 2003 Jinglan and Raymond were at Olean Mills and had closed a drape material purchase when Jinglan suddenly blurted out she didn't want the drapes after all because she didn't want people spying on her (there were 18th-century figures woven into the fabric). She repeated this in an agitated state several times in a loud voice. The saleslady had done a considerable amount of work and was taken aback, while Raymond was startled, embarassed, and concerned about the psychological implications of such a change of mind and reason (specific mental trait types notwithstanding). XLWhen Raymond was printing Jinglan's evaluation self-report from the computer for review, the favorite sites visited screen was up. On this were several items that surprised, including one for going abroad that included jobs teaching English in China. This revelation clicked with one of two income tax documents Jinglan had downloaded that had been on the dining room table, specifically the 1040 and a Schedule 1040-C. There is absolutely no reason on earth that Jinglan should have downloaded a 1040-C - which is a document entitled "U.S. Departing Alien lncome Tax Return" - which is for an individual and a spouse. 1040-C is not a final income tax return; it is for green card holders who will be departing the country for a period of time. Jinglan is a U.S. Citizen, has been to China twice and full-well knows she does not need such a form, has continually stated for some time now that she cannot afford to visit her parents/family, has been saving her leave time (which is natural; she was censured in her 2002-03 evaluation for legally using it), yet is researching going abroad and departing alien income tax returns. These types of contradictions raise questions; if her spouse would ask her about it she would state "none of your business" which would be followed by a period of strife and resentment that her husband "was spying" on her. Her husband encourages Jinglan's visiting family and friends and has footed the bill for two trips in recent years - however, he has no intentions of footing any bills for anyone else, which is another reason why any divorce action must be tied to a fair and equitable division of property/finances prior to granting any divorces. (This includes Jinglan's restitution of monies she had her husband borrow from his family that she promised to pay back that are currently invested in the 2900 Sunset Drive property.) XIIJinglan has (been concerned)/complained about Raymond's "controlling" her. Raymond has continually attempted to get Jinglan to handle medical, prescription, and all other matters - but she shows no interest nor motivation and tells Raymond to do it. On this account Raymond has set up and funded/enabled funding for all of Jinglan's retirements/savings vehicles, found and completed the paperwork/communications for the job she has, pursued and obtained her citizenship, handled airline and other transportation matters, handled all medical matters, set up and paid for her university/college attendance, selected (with Jinglan's concurrence) a major/profession that drew on Jinglan's last profession (engineering) and provided her with maximal job opportunities and employment security, taken care of all utilities and other transactions, handled the motor vehicle and insurance needs, sent support to her parents the first several years of the marriage, and conducted whatever needs done according to the best of his ability. , '''r ~" ,y In the meantime, Jinglan worked phenomenally hard (not just hard) in a no-nonsense manner to improve herself (such work is characteristic of her ethnic and national group). Given Jinglan's full-time-job status, which consumes much of her energy, a division of marital labor occurred that was natural. Periodically, Jinglan considered the portion of work her husband has done as "controlling" and thwarting/obstructing her development. Such a viewpoint, given the circumstances, is not entirely rational, nor is it objective, balanced, and fair. XIII. One of the charges of Jinglan's 1999 PF A was that she was afraid of Raymond. Yet, Jinglan knows and demonstrates by her actions she has no reason(s) to be afraid of him. Furthermore, Jinglan never -ever demonstrated nor evinced any fear of her husband, either during the time that PF A was in effect nor any other time before or since. If Jinglan, who is under intense pressure these days in the workplace, has financial pressures, has pressure from this action (and does not function well at all under pressure and can be counted on to attempt to reduce pressures over which she perceives she has more control no matter the cost or consequences) comes up with a new PFA that claims she fears her husband - it would be hard to explain why they ate dinner together at 2900 Sunset Drive (Raymond had refused lunch) and shopped at Sarn's Club on 22 Feb 04. On 21 Feb they ate lunch at 2900 Sunset Drive, and were together at 530 Brentwater Road on 20 Feb 04 evening, etc. It is highly improbable that a person who is afraid of another person would be alone with that person so frequently, if at all (e.g., if Raymond feared Jinglan he would avoid her entirely, for her own sake (in the event she would do something wrong) if not for his own (this comes from someone who has little if any fear, yet is attuned to and avoids potentially dangerous situations). While the relationship has been very strained since sometime in J an 04 since Jinglan has been communicating more regularly with her attorney and is once-again in a divorce mode - it was on a relatively even-keel prior thereunto (punctuated by periods of estrangement/distance seemingly after attorney discussions). The point is: Jinglan Brinzer is not afraid of her husband (whereas he admits to a degree of apprehension/anxiety with Jinglan when she is in extremely depressed moods - as he does not want to trigger any reactions that will take weeks to get over. Whereas Raymond recovers quickly from problems/events, Jinglan smolders on and does not (part of this behavior is gender-based (male-female) according to professional psychological/personality and human behavior literature - and Raymond is fully aware of the differences, his own inadequacies, and their contributory negative effects.)) Workplace and other pressures/problems tend to exacerbate a condition, prevent recovery, prolong agitation, and predispose to more problems. XIV.In evening conversation on 23 Feb 04 - Raymond brought up the subject of the PFA Jinglan had filed in 1999. Jinglan immediately attacked Raymond's daughter/her daughter-in-law, their son-in-law, but omitted reference to the policeman who testified. When Raymond stated the truth was the best path - she stated she would tell the truth and has learned since the last time; she didn't know what she was doing then and would not make the same mistakes this time. This sounded ominous.. c. ""',,~ "'~,' .' " '". . ,- ._,.'. Given Raymond's knowledge of his wife's behavioral patterns, her increasingly morbid state of late (she is under intense pressure at work with evaluation preparations and job responsibilities), questions she has interpolated into conversations, statements that have been made that don't really fit the flow of conversations but reflect what is going on in her interior, and other salient cues - Raymond is very apprehensive that Jinglan is going to file another PF A. Such an intuition is akin to waiting for the executioner to arnve. XV.Raymond purchased two pedigree Pekingese dogs in 2002. Jinglan took them to the 2900 premises (she did this with Raymond's consent because Raymond knows they have a therapeutic as well as security value, and she loves the dogs (at least he knows she loves one of them; the one which idolizes her and obeys her every command - is a type of (relatively speaking) "canine non grata." During the week of 16-20 Feb 04 Jinglan told Raymond she wasn't going to fight over the dogs; she'd give him their belongings and he could have them. Raymond replied ok. Later Jinglan took the dogs over Raymond's objections; said she'd changed her mind. She stated, as she has repeatedly stated, "you'd just abuse the dogs anyway." No one abuses these dogs per se. E.g., Jinglan (and Raymond) purchases chicken (when it is at .25-.9 cents per lb.), turkey, ham, etc. for these dogs. However, the dogs are shut in all day when Jinglan is at work. While it is true the dogs have gotten away from Raymond on several occasions which exposes them to danger and death (which Jinglan criticizes him for and defines as abuse) - they have also gotten away from Jinglan. (Which she does not consider or view as abuse.) Obviously, abuse is a one-way street from Jinglan's eyes - and Raymond is the only one capable of it. XVLWhen her employer pressured employees to change their health insurance coverage plans recently (the letter could be viewed as intimidating/pressuring) - Raymond completed the paperwork timely. Upon question, Jinglan stated she never handed it in - effectively removing Raymond from coverage. Prior to that coverage Raymond had maintained an additional plan for several years that covered his spouse so that she would not be without medical coverage (he subsequently dropped that plan when the new plan went into effect). Such actions delineate a difference between Jinglan's modus operandi - and Raymond's. Jinglan continually eschews any medical treatment or coverage that she thinks is going to result in any costs whatsoever (as taken up earlier - Raymond has always, without exception or regard to costs, sought the best medical coverage/treatment available for his spouse). XVII.As stated previously, att the current time Jinglan is back in divorce mode and in heavy pressure in her workplace. Despite the fact she is pressing to get her self-evaluation completed - her spouse wonders why she has not asked him for the edited copy that was so urgent and required a special trip on @lS/l6Feb. Jinglan's programming, thinking, analytic, synthetic, evaluative, coding, and other computer skills are profoundly powerful. However, she does sometimes make spelling, syntactic, ".~~ ,,~., ,r___ ',_~,' " and other errors (these errors increase when she is on medication (such as during the 2000-2001 crisis)). Error-rate increases can be by-products of medication). Knowing Jinglan as Raymond does, and knowing her behavioral patterns and press to complete assignments (when something needs to be done, Jinglan wants to have it done yesterday) - Raymond knows that her failure to press for this edited document telegraphs that she may have made other arrangements and is functioning accordingly. This fits with other behavioral cues and reinforces them and raises questions about her direction. XVIII.In conversation on 23 Feb 04 - Raymond again voiced concern about her promise to payoff the money she pressured him to borrow for acquisition of the 2900 Sunset Drive property. Jinglan again assured Raymond she would make restitution as she promised; when Raymond replied he didn't know how she could based on her income she ambiguously and vaguely replied it was none of his business how she did it; as soon as she got the divorce she was going to earn money somehow through the house (?). This thinking has emerged previously. When Raymond told Jinglan he could guarantee, based on experience and a high incidence of human nature, that items would be stolen, broken, etc., and she wouldn't be able to do anything about it - she replied she knew what she was doing, knew people, and could handle everything. As taken up earlier - Jinglan is socially!culturally naIve - and befriends, trusts, and believes virtually anyone (as demonstrated by the continual problems that emerge when she goes against her husband's advice). Jinglan mistakes friendly treatment, no matter the source, as good intentions, integrity, and character. Some of the problems that emerged as a result of this modus operandi have been outlined elsewhere. Her husband then stated if there is a divorce he wanted the items he went into the marriage with, and wanted his half of the other property. He also stated he had invested @$38,000. in the Sunset Drive property - and rattled off a general breakdown. When this happened there was a hiatus in the conversation. When stress and argument got to Jinglan in the past - she sometimes flew into rages and began destroying everything in sight, valuable or not. Her husband learned as a child to hold his temper, check his actions, and not destroy things or do things that would result in irreversible damage to property, animals, - or human beings. Jinglan considers everything hers - and says one thing regarding division of property but thinks another. Her husband knows that Jinglan has good intentions when talking, but her intentions will change abruptly when things don't go her way or in accordance with her liking/sense of justice. Raymond has no intention of giving up his property rights as per the holdings and worth obtained over the term of the marriage. Raymond communicated these things to Jinglan; he knows that she has no intentions of concurring. Furthermore, when Raymond asserts his interest in and claim to ''', , equal distribution of property rights - Jinglan announces she isn't arguing about it, obviously Raymond isn't interested in being fair, and she becomes agitated and ceases to communicate (at which point Raymond attempts to calm her down). These things happen when Jinglan is under stress. Raymond has no intention of remaining in the area once and if a divorce is granted - and he will not be able to represent himself, receive a fair and equitable property rights distribution, and take possession. Given the foregoing it is imperative that any Bifurcation requested by Jinglan Brinzer's attorney be denied and settlement remain tied to any divorce action and not be separated. XIX.When the total pattern of behavior, questioning, allusions, statements, detachment, intimidations, criticisms, requests, and other concomitants is concerned - Jinglan's husband senses what he doesn't want to consider, face, or believe - that he is somehow inexorably being set up. These intuitions, the pattern, and the concomitants come just as they did in 1999 - only this time the pattern is complemented by a corroborating sense of modified deja vu (which isn't all that odd - because personality constructs are relatively consistent over time). XX.The final concern involves the possibility Jinglan Brinzer has someone other than her attorney involved in this process (in fact, the Defendant, who is not prone to wishful thinking, is certain of it as a preponderance of evidence confirms). If she does, and if and when it is found out, that/those persons will be charged with invasion of privacy, sued in a civil court or charged with civil rights infractions, and - depending upon the nature of the advice if determinable - possibly faced with a criminal complaint charge. Respectfully submitted, By: Raymond J. 530 Brentw r Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 USA Defendant Dated: I Jun 2004 ,,'"' r,., ..-'" VERIFICATION I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN TIDS DEFENDANT'S ADDENDUM (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) TOTHE 5 DEC 2003 RAYMOND 1. BRINZER PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT THAT PROVIDES ADDmONAL INFORMATION AND ELUCIDATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND DISCERNMENT, AND THAT THE DOCUMENT IS SUBMITIED IN GOOD FAITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE COURT MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A BAD FAITH VIOLATION. DATED: I '5 vi J D 4- * (SEAL) RAYMOq .BRINZER,PROSE DEFENDANT "!"" ~ < _- 1 "i " ,~-. .'''''''''''' _~ ._,.,J'imj~,,~ "e~.~" ~~_F-_"I"iI')_,m'f''''"',",h:l'j~''~m~[!I;._~~f!llj<1*?l"''.*-'1iI~!'!l'';-'~'''-3.,j'-i","'-, """'-..,,-,-- ~.. "'<'~~- (') ,...., = ~ r-: 5l ;2; L. ::;i L , c;;:: Fr":;:D z ',- I -eJm ::00 01 ~ ";-J~r.; ,r",:JJ :3f~ - :;-! ~.D I".C ,-< ,"""""":".',''':_,0;:'' 'c""''''''-;'N:n"~,,,'i'!!~~K~I.f~i:lWj\''''J!:+~f\11li,,:I,f~-j~m:!M,\~'*~ Jinglan C. Brinzer ) Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ) vs. NO. 00-7916 CIVIL TERM ) Raymond J. Brinzer Defendant CIVIL ACTION---LA W IN DIVORCE DEFENDANT'S INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR HEARING ON BIFURCATION PETITION AND RELATED INFORMATION Issues Pzimary Issue for this Response: 1) Opposition to M. Baturin Request for Bifurcation of Divorce Action; request to deny Bifurcation based on monetary, property, physical, emotional, vocational, conjugal relations, and other circumstances(some of which follow) which repudiate most of the original grounds cited by Jinglan Brinzer for a divorce (while some "grounds" are a product of misunderstanding. Other Relevant Issues Pertinent to 1) Preceding and this Action. 2) Forced Entry of the Defendant Raymond J. Brinzer under duress in Pro Se Status due to inability to afford legal representation (loss of attorney). 3) Disappearancelloss of documents necessary for Raymond J. Brinzer to defend and present (specifically, the Bifurcation Request and an earlier document that outlines actions, charges, and requests). 4) Other relevant information that can, along with the preceding, be verified! proven and invalidates some of the basis for this divorce action (see I) preceding). 5) Jinglan Brinzer's mistaken notion that she must divorce the defendant in order to keep her job. 6) The marriage is not irretrievably broken as previously unconsidered information and changes will confirm; 7) Jinglan developed well-documented health problems as a result of discriminatory and harassment pressures in the workplace circa 2001. 8) Jinglan does not understand the marital asset and other matters regarding her situation (she controlslholds most of the assets), 9) Jinglan Brinzer's original complaints which led her to file for divorce were, according to her: 1) economic problems, 2) physical problems (the conjugal relationship had ground to a halt), and .~,-,~ " ,-, Co ,'-~' ". -, ,-, 3) emotional problems (which largely stemmed from the workplace and 2) preceding. 10. The parties to this action have not lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years. Fm: Raymond J. Brinzer, Pro Se, aka. Raymond 1 BJinzer, Ph.D. 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Date: 5 Dec 2003 Preliminary DevelopmentlExplanation of lhe Issues The defendant, Raymond J. Brinzer, asks the Honorable Conrt andlor its duly appointed representative to consider the following explanatory information related to 1-9 preceding (redundancies occur throughout). I)Defendant Raymond J. Brinzer opposes the M. Baturin request for Bifurcation of this action based on the fact that such action is a preiudice against him in the context of his actions and the situation, a potential harm/extreme disservice to the best interestsllivelihood of Jinglan Brinzer, and an iniustice. Given the financial situation Raymond, and Jinglan, are in - and the concomitant variables that are the basis of this action and not a matter of record - this information needs considered by the court in perspective and not in isolation, due to the fact it is intrinsic, inseparable, and currently unspecified/unknown. Consider the following reasonS. A. One instance weighing against Bifurcation is the fact Raymond and Jinglan have regularly cohabitated as husband and wife for periods of time over at least the last 24 months (punctuated periodically by estrangement periods of several days that occur like clockwork after Jinglan has met worth her attomey(s)). This fact can be verified by neighbors, Raymond, and probably Jinglan herself in that she is generally very truthful and disinclined to prevaricate (she prefers not to answer or evade and eschews lying). These relations have occurred at least once weekly; sometimes more frequently. (The problems that occur elsewhere also periodically affect Raymond.) B. Another instance weighing against Bifurcation is the fact Jinglan labors under the misapprehension that she must divorce Raymond in order to keep her employment (this misapprehension arises out of Jinglan's culturally disadvantaged background (formerly foreign national), discrimination problems that affected her in the office and elsewhere - and which Raymond pressured her to pursue via official rectification mechanisms (one example: her union president, Art Reed, had a sworn affidavit by Jinglan's former supervisor that her official evaluation had been altered and signed using her name by Jinglan's new supervisor (who subsequently soft-soaped Jinglan and persuaded/ intimidated her into dropping the action in the name of unity, error rectification, misunderstanding, cooperation, and the greater good (all of which he subsequently renigged on in various ways). C. Another instance weighing against Bifurcation is the fact Raymond was under extreme duress, financial and other, and worked at peril to his best interests ((which precluded response to this civil action due to these problems and other responsibilities). In brief, Raymond had to get Jinglan out of a dangerous housing situation she was in that was causing her mental anguish and presented a clear and present potential for grave physical harm (specifically, she was recently being stalked by 2 extremely savvy individuals who appeared to be working in tandem (she thought there was one); priorr ',,!,. ,~_'_r<"'__ ~-_-_' "-_" .. d---r problems along this line (she went to Raymond for help on the prior occasions) and the actions of the subsequent individuals necessitated Jinglan's departure from a potentially dangerous situation (at least one of the stalkers functioned in a manner that indicated he was probably in a pre- release program or out on parole). Jinglan communicated her problems/fears to Raymond, he looked into the situation, and discovered what was transpiring. (The solution was to get her into a private dwelling and leave a c/o forwarding address.) D. Another instance weighing against Bifurcation is the verifiable fact of the depth and breadth of Raymond's financial and other involvements - and the utter defeat of the ends of justice if a Bifurcation request is granted (Attorney Maturin's request includes a statement leaving the door open for "future financial considerations," a travesty when the allotment of marital assets is considered. (Raymond has few marital assets other than Y2 ownership of the 530 Brentwater Road residence (his motor vehicle is currently inoperable and scheduled for repair), his monthly income (he owes a considerable amount of money - some of which derived from Jinglan's needs (while Jinglan has present value retirement, of @ $85,000., a number of JRA's, a deferred comp plan with assets of @+$42,OOO. a Mazda sedan (value @$8000.), a residence at 2900 Sunset Drive, joint ownership of a residence at 530 Brentwater Road (both Camp Hill), valuable furniture, virtually no debt. E. Bifurcation and completion of proceedings prior to April 2004 harbours the potential of placing Jinglan in a severely compromised position (she will be disqualified from Raymond's retirement and other benefits by a matter of months); given the physical and emotional problems that arose out of Jinglan's workplace problems - such action would not only be objectionable, it would be extremely irresponsible and open the prospect of a liability (due to it's potential catastrophic effect, unsoundness, and the nature of the problems, their potential effect on her livelihood, and her lack of familial and other supports (Naturalized citizen Jinglan Brinzer has no living relatives in the U.S. Or other dependable supports other than her U.S. family by marriage)). F. On 30 Oct 03 JingJan Brinzer had a total of @$80. in her bank account; when she states she doesn't have the financial wherewithal at this point in time in the M. Baturing Bifurcation request she speaks tmly. G. Jinglan Brinzer has a number of outstanding medical bills at the present time; she does not have the knowledge necessary to get them solved via her insurance and must rely on Raymond Brinzer to conduct this business. In addition to her medical bills a change in her tax status in the near future would have disastrous financial consequences that she could not cover The potential for these to ruin her credit and cause her other insurmountable problems also weighs against this action. 2) Forced Entry of the Defendant.., as Pro Se: Raymond J. Brinzer, who has no law degree nor appreciable legal experience, lost his attorney, Elizabeth Beckley, due to a lack of funds necessary to pursue the action via her continued services. A. Raymond J. Brinzer has been involved in helping his spouse/the plaintiff, Jinglan C. Brinzer, obtain enough money to purchase a home aside from their joint ownership residence at 530 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, PA. Prior to that he supported her in numerous other ways, I) This purchase action and other actions placed Raymond under duress and prevented him from taking any action reo this divorce action!his defense "~ ~. c. " , . .' ,I' .":-.!i '^'~. , that might prevent Jinglan from obtaining said residence. 2) This purchase action and actions leading up to it have left Raymond without the necessary funds to defend himself via legal representation. a. This purchase action has also left Jinglan Brinzer without the necessary funds to pursue her action; specifically, after the closing on 29 Oct 03 she had @$80.00 U.S. Total in her account. 3) This purchase action was largely enabled by Raymond's gratuitous contributions, actions, and support of Jinglan's needs, as well as his completion of all related business, legal and other. B. Raymond Brinzer does not wish to engage in action against Jinglan; it is personal, demeaning, and the nature of the model is such that everyone loses and someone is viewed as the culprit (i.e., Raymond). 3) Raymond has been frantically searching for the legal documents necessary to prepare his defense and enable a fair and just outcome to these actions. However, he has been unable to relocate them - and must request that the Court honor his appearance as Pro Se and enable him to obtain copies of the documents necessary to bring this matter to a fair and equitable conclusion for him and Jinglan. (This is not a ruse or stall, as not having the documents places him in a maximally disadvantaged/compromised position (stalling/delaying would necessitate use of the documents; this is not the direction he wishes to take - nor his intent.) Raymond had these documents in a box as recently as Thanksgiving Day 03; he is at a loss as to their location (he has mislaid things before), Jinglan had access to the documents, but upon query replied she did not take them - which has a 99.999999 validity probability rate. As matters stand now - he must go forward blindly. 4) Relevant Pertinent Information reo the plaintiffs and defendant's status includes the fact they have regularly cohabitated and engaged in conjugal relations as husband and wife systematically over in excess of the last 2 years. Raymond has been reluctant to bring this forward until this time because: A. Jinglan withdraws, becomes uncommunicative, argumentative, estranged, and depressed for periods of time each and every time she meets with/communicates with her attorney re. divorce action. Furthermore, she refuses to let Raymond touch/get close to her when these stressful episodes occur (just as everything is going great - disruption occurs as a result of stirring up the fires). B. Raymond doesn't want to rock the boat; exacerbate good relationships. C. Raymond has always acted in Jinglan's best interests - even at the sacrifice of his own best interests. These actions have been monetary, social, and otherwise. This active conjugal relationship invalidates one of the original grounds upon which the original action was lodged. At that time, the absence of conjugal relations stemmed from Jingian's refusal; Raymond complied/accepted and it exacerbated the situation further. 5) Jinglan Brinzer has communicated to Raymond in the past that she must divorce in order to keep her job. This is her misapprehension/conclusion based on a variety of factors, not the least of which is her cultural disadvantage. It is one of life's ironies that Jinglan reached this conclusion based on ~, , - Raymond's attempts to protect her and have her protect herself. Jinglan works in a virtually all male environment (she was fonnally the only female worker-level employee in her division, and one of only 3 females in a bureau of approximately 30). As an unprotected minority group member from a culture with a history of compliance, acquiescence, and dutiful submission to authority - this places her, depending upon the administration, in a maximally compromised/susceptible position. Jinglan's mentorlleader, Robert Walker, kept propositioning Jinglan on the job. She communicated this infonnation to Raymond - and his reactions were such that, in the context of Jinglan's gender, minority group status, and culture they exacerbated the situation. (Males are more aggressivelless intimidated and inclined to take formal action; Jinglan was terrified by the prospects of strife, authority, her lower status and lack of power, her potential loss of her job, her gender-based approach (cooperation and working for a common goal), and severe marital problems erupted. Mter Jinglan failed to comply with pressures - she received a poor evaluation and Raymond pressured her to take AFSCME Union and other actions. Jinglan did; eventually she was soft-soaped by the architect of the fraudulent EPR, her bureau chief. Upon acquiring the house Raymond helped her get - Jinglan infonned Raymond that she must now keep her job and therefore had to go ahead with the divorce action. This erroneous conviction arose from legal!procedural actions that Raymond had her engage in because of discriminatory, sexual harassment, and other actions that she was subjected to (these are a matter of written record) in the workplace. That she would be in such a position is an irony of the first magnitude. This is because: A. She does not fully understand this culture. B. Raymond picked the college and sent her to college to train in her career area; he paid all necessary costs. C. Raymond found the job she currently holds at the college career center. D. Raymond appliedlhandled the paperwork/communications for position acquisition; Jinglan took the qualifying tests and interviewed accordingly (Raymond prepared her for the interview; Jinglan can pass any test)). E. Raymond deferred his military service credits to Jinglan - which gave her a preeminent edge on hiring (her position resulted from that edge - and her hard work, intellectual ability, aptitude, and test perfonnance took care of the rest (Jinglan is mentally academically gifted - as well as vocationally (she was fonnerly an engineer)). E. Raymond has consistently advised and supported her development and professional efforts (including her language development); his pressure on her to not let people unfairly roll over/discriminate against her based on her gender and ethnicity has caused many of these problems and resulted in her erroneous conclusions. F. Jinglan cannot tolerate strife and pressure in the workplace; she is bowled over by it, and there are psycho-physiological-emotional consequences that ensue (e.g., blood pressure problems). Being caught between a rock and a hard place - has left Raymond holding the short end of the stick (when it comes to her marriage or her job (all or nothing) Jinglan feels pressured by circumstances/necessities to choose the latter). Jinglan's inability to tolerate workplace pressures combined in the past with home pressures forcing her to flee one or the other (on numerous occasions she was threatening to flee "-~ ~- .",-- -,~ ". "I I" the workplace due to pressures therein). G. Raymond pressured Jinglan to file a union grievance due to the fact she received a fraudulent evaluation (EPR). Her former supervisor signed a sworn affidavit that the EPR was not the one she prepared, nor was the signature on it hers. Jinglan's neW bureau chief soft-talked! manipulated her into dropping the grievance and promised to rectify the matter. In the interests of harmony, peace of mind, the face of administrative pressure, her lack of power/rank, her minority group status (she is a member of an unprotected minority group - which has the de facto effect of declaring open season on its members) and her belief based on promises her work would be judged fairly she did. The bureau chief renigged on his promise and followed up in a get-even manner; she filed again and collapsed under the strife, soft-talk, and withdrew again. The AFSCME union president, Art Reed, had the grievance won; he most certainly did not appreciate her pulling the rug out from under him after all of the work he did, his conclusion he had a winner, and the related problems that were occurring; Jinglan took action that she mistakenly believed would lead to the better good and bureau excellence (this is cultural); she was naIve and helped others discriminate and punish her in an illegal manner, get away with and continue it. Jing],an had other harassment problems and pressures in the workplace that were out of hand and causing her psycho-psychical-emotional problems; Raymond prevailed upon her to file in-house, she did, and the in-house findings were that it was her word against theirs - which, according to an attorney consulted by her husband was a win in the circumstances and necessary to go to the next level for solution. (He said it was a necessary action to win at the civil rights level.) Jinglan rationalized that she could depend upon her ability and work performance (she always had before); she failed to consider other variables over which she had no control (including prejudice, female and minority group resentment/discrimination, poor management, insecurity and inability to admit wrongs, and a get-even attitude, etc.). Jinglan rationalized that her husband had placed her in the situation she found herself in - and concluded erroneously that to keep her job she must succumb/comply with pressures (any and all as she confided to Raymond) and terminate the marriage. These problems stem largely from her gender, workplace female ratio (formerly 3:30), her culturallminority group disadvantage (she is the only Chinese American in her bureau), and the pressures, financial, emotional, social, and other - to keep her employment. In reality, her husband Raymond, a former state supervisor over circa 2700 people who also taught tests and measurements at Penn State and had extensive evaluation/administrative experience - readily discerned markers that Jinglan was being discriminated against, evaluated invalidly (criteria weren't even applied), and set up for dismissal or compliance with unreasonable and illegal demands (e.g., male employeeS were starting arguments with her in, e.g., her cubicle - and she was being censured for the problems while they were taken at their word (at least several were pressuring her for sexual favors, including the "mentor" who influenced a change in her evaluation from all pluses to minuses/inadequates), H. A final straw that broke the camel's back occurred when Jinglan was being pestered in her office by higher level employees from another office who told her she might someday end up working with/for them. The principals, Karen Fenchak and Richard Giani (a married man), were lovers who were attempting to draw Jinglan into a group sex arrangement (they showed up 0" Jl ~ ^,_, ~_ ~. ~ ,-,' -"-<" at her apartment unannounced and attempted to engage/draw her into same). Raymond contacted the Inspector General's office (a John Montgomery) - who then either went or sent an official to Jinglan's cubicle who promptly began discussing the problem in a loud voice within earshot of everyone. Jinglan almost had an apoplexy and cardiac arrest combines - as everyone can hear everything that transpires in the area. This stupid, inane, destructive, invasion of privacy/compromising modus operandi by the IG office led Jinglan to the conclusion that in order to keep her job she must divorce; she was livid and wanted to kill Raymond (figuratively speaking) for embarassing and shaming her in such a fashion in the workplace (he was perceived as causing problems when he attempted to get the principals to leave her alone/stay out of her office and stop pressuring her and using their rank/manipulative strategies to do it; little did he realize the indiscreet, "public address/infonnation methods" of Confidential complaints by the IG's office. 1. Jinglan Brinzer does not understand nor appreciate the fact that her actions in filing warranted grievances and complaining about discriminatory actions had the effect of removing the overt/traceable components of these actions, improving the environment, and guaranteeing her, for a period of time at least, a fairer shake, more favorable work environment, and equal opportunity than she ever would have enjoyed without such action. Unfortunately, she still is assigued high level work which she readily completes (while other high-ranked personnel failed to a lesser or greater degree - and often cannot complete such work) that far exceeds her job level (this claim was verifIed by the union president who had experts analyze her work products and perfonnance) - and deprived of advancement based upon her "spoken English communications skills." (This criticism is contradicted by the Communications Skills criteria which she generally meets or far exceeds; it is bogus and the product of incompetent, prejudiced "evaluation." ) 6) The marriage is not irretrievably broken as previously unconsidered information which follows will confirm. But, it is periodically battered by pressure applied by others for Jinglan to divorce, her cultural gullibility/naivete (this includes her role as a plaintiff in a legal model that inexorably incites, promotes, encourages, and pushes and prods to conclusion (divorce) once involved/engaged in the process/mechanism (the nature of the monetary model is such that attormheys, "social workers," and casual others (including female administrators - virtually all of whom Jinglan confided are divorced and advised accordingly (either because they have been there before themselves and are proponents, or because they don't know the relevant factors or have ulterior motivations (valid explanation nor understanding are essential; fact of influence/authority status suffices)). A. Jinglan and Raymond have regularly cohabitated in a conjugal relationship as husband and wife before (but not immediately before) (verifiable)) her filing divorce actions and subsequent to the filing (as a point of fact: things/the relationship improved dramatically circa the summer of 2001). The neighbors think Raymond and Jinglan are back together. B. Raymond has supported Jinglan financially (verifiable). C. Raymond has always worked to protect Jinglan's best interests, physical, social, emotional, psychological, financial, vocational, educational, long-range security, and otherwise. D. Jinglan is involved in a process which encourages, reinforces, pressures, and leads to divorce; it weighs against reconciliation for economic and other reasons (the model and its principals need business) This process and its principals become authority figures and pressure through to the end despite what happens elsewhere. 7) Jinglan developed health problems as a result of workplace discriminatory actions and harassment pressures for sex (this is documented in official medical records not specified/developed at this point) Raymond ensured that she got the necessaIy medical help. ~- "' - , -'1I1I!f, On another occasion Raymond refused to let physicians perform "exploratory surgery" on Jinglan (they had approximately 6 different diagnoses; they were changing hourly/daily), and on yet another he refused to let her unknowingly and unwittingly participate in a research study that would have exposed her to @ 6 radioactive procedures in a research study to determine "which procedure was best." (Jinglan was in the process of unknowingly signing consent papers to participate when Raymond balked, explained to the physician(s) she hadn't understood/didn't have the medical terminology background necessary to make an informed and competent decision (at which point they became embarrassed, apologetic, and "withdrew" the "offer." (In one instance - her English language backgroundlU.S. Residency was only 3 yrs., hardly enough to make an informed decision.) Jinglan had no health problems whatsoever before she was subjected to discriminatOlY, social, and other problems in the workplace (e,g., propositions by higher rank personnel). She developed severe problems as a result of these pressures/incidents which resulted in Raymond's taking her to emergency health services and securing counseling with a counselor as well as psychiatrist. Jinglan has had to take medication of various sorts ever since, and she is left with at least one residual (high blood pressure) that directly resulted from workplace problems. Note. Placing culturally different minority group members (especially females) who are members of non-protected groups in hostile work environments and discriminating against them/denying them equal rights/opportunities/pressuring them has the potential for demonstrable physiological/psycho-emotional/social negative consequences. 8) Jinglan does not fully understand the extent of her marital assets and other relevant circumstances. The figures and requests of Attorney Baturin do not validly reflect any of these matters, and Raymond's lack of financial wherewithal to legally pursue this matter has resulted in a largely invalid divorce action and requests. Jinglanthinks Raymond holds the keys, while she has and receives the information but is unaware of or uninterested in it (predominantly through direct mailings). Jinglan never checks the status of her deferred comp, retirement, IRA's, or other holdings except as they are brought to her attention by Raymond; she appears to deal solely with her bank account, and has only lately taken a look at the tax code. 9) Jinglan Brinzer's original complaints which led her to file for divorce were, according to what she told her husband and others: 1) economic, 2) physical, and 3) emotional (she considered this in the perspective of workplace problems and 1) and 2) preceding, as well as her perception her husband did not provide her a safe harbor from the workplace. A lot of people have 1) economic hardships; Raymond's primary sin pursuant to this civil action was a failure to withdraw investments from the stock market/funds prior to the collapse which began in March 2000. While it is true Jinglan kept urging Raymond to withdraw, Jinglan failed to realize Raymond didn't want to and couldn't legally liquidate IRA's, was reluctant to face tax consequences, and adhered to, once the decline began, the conventional "ride it out" advice that is ubiquitous. Additionally compounding this problem was the fact that Raymond put even more into the mutual funds market - which subsequently virtually disappeared. Jinglan Brinzer still smarts about the failure of these investments and Raymond's refusal to act. The court should consider Jinglan's economic scenario; doing so invalidates this concern. ,"'- " Regarding the 2) physical relationship (conjugal) - it was resurrected and has been alive for the last couple of years. This matter is outlined elsewhere herein. As regards 3) (the) emotional component - many of the problems of this union have resulted from the actions, misactions, pressures, manipulative, and even coercive attempts of others, Jinglan's cultural disadvantage, her fear of and penchant for submission to authority, her desire to survive via keeping her job, her desire to be agreeable, avoid strife and stress, and get along with others (for a while she felt (and was) socially ostracized in her bureau), and her naivete and inclination to take others at their word and think the best of everyone (even those who would and/or wish her harm). Raymond has done everything he could, to support, protect, and guarantee her equal opportunity - emotionally, vocationally, and every other way - and ensure her safety and mental, physical, and financial health. Unfortunately, Raymond is not God, can only act within the principles of the law, and must take actions which sometimes ultimately exacerbate the marital situation and place him, by default, in a personna non grata light. lO)The parties to this action have regularly lived together on a systematic basis (sometimes continuously); they continue to function as husband and wife. To wit, they were living together on 31 Dec in 2001, 2002, and have continued to do so on and off (verifiable by official records and via witnesses), despite the fact Raymond helped Jinglan obtain a separate residence to which she could withdraw when she felt a need to be alone, and which would serve as an investment for her ultimate retirement purposes.. All of the foregoing are a matter of record, official as well as anecdotal, and verifiable accordingly, Relief/Requests Raymond J. Brinzer, defendant, respectfully requests that: 1) Attorney M. Baturin's action to Bifurcate the proceedings be denied, 2) Raymond J. Brinzer be pennitted to act in a Pro Se status, 3) the other infonnation presented herein be considered in this divorce action and made a part of the official record, 4) Jinglan Brinzer's best interests, retirement, support, and other - be considered before any irreversibly punitive (to her) decrees are issued. Ray;mond J. Brinzer, Pro Se, further asserts that the grounds for this divorce complaint are largely invalid in some instances and invalid in others, misrepresented, have (in some instances, e.g., conjugal) changed, derive from uncontrolled variables (e.g., the workplace and its inherent problems, as well as manipulating and bullying individuals in the workplace which led the Plaintiff Jinglan C. Brinzer to the conclusion she has to quit her maniage in order to keep her job (due to some legal actions her husband, the Defendant (as well as her union president) led her to engage in)), and that the grounds for any Bifurcation are contradicted by the circumstances and facts presented herein as well as others. Thus, the divorce complaint - based on presented and nonspecified evidence, should either be refonnulated to be valid or dismissed entirely, Respectfully submitted, :;~~ 530 Brentwater Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 USA Defendant Submitted: I Jun 2004 'WlW . VERIFICATION I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN TIDS DEFENDANT'S INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR HEARING ON BIFURCATION PETITION AND RELATED INFORMATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND DISCERNMENT, AND THAT THE DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED IN GOOD FAITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE COURT MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A BAD FAITH VIOLATION. DATED: / '30 ~ 0 J (SEAL) . BRINZER, PRO SE ""~~ ~. ,-, -~--,,-". ,~- - ~ ,1' '" ~ ~" ~~" " ". ',,",-' "'~ '", "'=.. _, v.J. o ('" ? 1(" ~.- C i ',' ,~?-::_.' j:~t~ ~.'; '"-C_' '~ 0.) o rlnll!"] , ....., "" "'" .:- <- c: ;;;;,.; , ~ -i Fr,;g , ::gg) 01 """"10 :-r::-:::1 0?=5 ;~f nl "'":~ ~: "U :3:: -r_,_>,e ~~Jlf~<l\l'JF'.,t""''''_,No;J''''''~~-'-'~If!ill'~1!IIIlI(Imflll{m~~<;1i\1tw''~f'''1i;,...r,--"n''w''''""'TJ1^.:i'1i~",O"1:iI_""~~'iWJ[,!j!~';~"~~~~N("">..<r.''''-PJq!'F,-''''''''''''''''~'"'~"'n~