Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06408 *'-' ~ --~. . GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs -- ,-" ,~'- : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.) and GEORGE 1. GARCIA, Defendants : NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1 ST day of APRIL, 2002, a hearing on Defendant's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is scheduled for MONDAY. APRIL 8. 2002. at 11:00 !!:!!!: in Courtroom # 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pa. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For the Plaintiff George J. Garcia Defendant/Petitioner ~~ :sld Edward E. Guido, J. "I_~..l.():u ~ - -1 !:.l:';liilt.~i~b ~,,---,,,,,,,, - ",,,',,, "".~" 1,,,.,u!!llII'!,,,l.,,w ,.l~ '1 --" ". .. CU;'/;t-~, r ''''''"1 1 II ~...'Ir' ~,', f .,' " ! . ~ ~ ,. J~~~lIli~~4~;,~~~~~~1!$l1~11;,*~~~~~~F~~~~,L,~,f,~~1]1_~,J_',Z} - - : r .. -.'\'i--k' ,. . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants Verified Statement illl Support of Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis George J. Garcia states under the penalties provided by 18 Pa CS Section 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities) that: I. I am the individual defendant in the above action and that because of my financial condition am unable to pay the following fees and costs: appellate filing fees, costs of reproducing records and briefs, filing of supersedeas security if irreparable harm would result if not waived, and any and all other costs, expenses, and/or other fees associated with any appeal(s). Page 1 of3 -8< > -~- .:.-....J. -- ",', ',', .~"L -iji'Jii'-' ... 2. My responses to the questions below relating to my ability to pay fees and costs of prosecuting an appeal are true and correct. (A) Are you presently employed? I am employed part time at Hecht's, Capital City Mall Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania and eam, on average, about $600 - $700 per month. Income therefrom is contingent upon the employer having "available part time hours" and my physical ability to work. I am also the Chairman of Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation, P.O. Box 934, Mechanicsburg, PA. 17055-8934, and I receive no income as such and do not anticipated any compensation therefrom in the next twelve months as the company is largely inactive. (B) Have you received within the past twelve months any income from a business, profession, or other form of self employment, or in the form of rent payments, interest, dividends, pensions, annuities, social security benefits, support payments or other source? No. (C) Do you own any cash or checking or savings account. I have approximately $20.00 in cash and do not have a personal checking or savings account. (D) Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property (excluding ordinary household furnishings and clothing). No. (E) List the persons, if any, who are dependent upon you for support, and state your Page 2 of3 'I: ...-1 ' j,-' ~ -'-';,l.,. ,;,,- -''It:'~i11! . "-'", relationship to those persons. Myself. (F) List all your debts and obligations. Miscellaneous debts of approximately $1,000.00. 3. I understand that a false statement or answer to any question in this verified statement will subject me to the penalties provided by law (misdemeanor in the second degree). Page 3 of 4 ,~ ~, " , ',-J""",_~, ' hJ:~-(lii~,: . . ~,~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2002, I hereby verifY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . Paige MacDonald-Matthes Paula D. Shaffner Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Page 4 of 4 ~ ,~~~,",-, - 'lfi~~iJ)i~r(~:d.~~~~~M~~~~W~Mfti~~-'~[!:r~~~ - -:1i~ ,-, - '~"r d .~l mJ ""-","'''"'l"."",',,el_ - ,If -''- : i.." ~-~~'... ,^- .'~ .......'1. , ~L.....~~ '- " -~ ," """"'~;3: . .- George J. Garcia, J.D. P.O. Box 394 Mechanicsburg, PA 1.7055-8934 Tel: 717.737.2682 Fax: 717.737.2587 E-mail: gjgareiajd@yahoo.com 26 March 2002 Hon. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 RE: George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger vs. Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation and George J. Garcia Verified Statement in Support of Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Docket Number 01-6408 Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed are three (3) originals and one (I) copy of my Verified Statement in Support of Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Please bring this to Judge Guido's attention ASAP. Also, please docket all copies of the Statement and return a copy to me in the enclosed stamped envelope. Enclosed is a docketed original of my PETITION TO RECONSIDER MOTION FOR SANCTIONS / NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed last Friday, should you need it. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. Enclosures: '"'~' '"" ,,~ ~ . .c-_~ 0"""-'.,; ., , "r '"'" ;, ----'-,-;_:;;,:-:~':" ~ ' c: ':.."_',,U ',-'-' ...,~, .. " " , { IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION No.12J- ('oLf() '8" vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to the authority contained in the warrant of attorney, a true and correct copy of which is attached to the Complaint filed in this action, I, appear for the Defendants and confess judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants as follows: Principal and Interest Due $23,938.40 $864.50 Attorneys' Conunission (5%, plus costs) Subtotal: $24,802.90 Additional Costs of Suit $114.50 628842.21l19101 , "" ,," < " ~"~ ,~-J , _L -~ "-1" ", ,,".-.- ""-,",,,' ,:;,i 'U~,~:<-',:::; ,-,',,'-,",-' ","c~~' ""'-';';"~1; ',-,,'( ... , Statutory Interest (6% per annum) from Date: 11/12/01 Amount: Total: Respectfully submitted, -C;;;;, ':f' IIV." "~N--"'O~ l!IM Hi tJVl. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 66266 Paula D. Shaffner, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 43542 Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7fu Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: November 13, 2001 628842.2l1f9fOl -2- .l' ~~.-'(\''-::''/''-C'" '''' ',,'~ '-' ;;~~~_;ajf"tL "--~iril1:~~MtI~~~~- ., ~~,..,k , '.':"/.u;'fiIj ~ ~~ ("0 ~. ~ ~ --- ,,-- 8 --t:. o(l / "G r G CJ '. -t ~ -=:5 ~ :sJ ,- cr- c~, r, r- -l r ~, ~ ITl 'S f:' ~ i...LJlI1l1 ![Ill ~,' '~ ,,:~~~,,o;:,,;~\<y>:,,,~,'''',,,, ,-,1,,':; ~~ '__",,';lo 1__11'" I. .1 I o ~~ ---rJ rn ~~ 2/1 ~~' ?,c-., -,,' I~- ',,,.., ~C )'-",('-; "7 ::2 . ,-~~" , -,-',-,, '. " L .: "_,1 , (=' :~~~ "....- Cr:. C5 :::> .-1 " ~;:; =-~ ~ ,,"';""'- -~ -,"- , - ,;., '"' " k _ ''-A", ^,' ,:, ;'_~' ,- , " '.oJ --' ,I~--I - ,-~' ",:'",~ ~,--' ,,;,;;.,,: - '~', '"'1iii~ . ( IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. Cd - Co '-f (j <1. vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 COMPLAINT FOR CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger, by and through their counsel, Saul Ewing LLP, and file their Complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 2951(b) for judgment by confession and aver the following: 1. The Plaintiffs George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger ("Plaintiffs") are residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 106 Heisey Avenue, Rheems, PA. 2. The Defendant, Steelton Capital, Ltd. ("Steelton") is a Pennsylvania business corporation having its principal place of business located at 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514. 3. The Defendant George J. Garcia ("Garcia") is Chairman of Steelton and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 628842.2llf9fOl - . ...J ", I ~, ..... .'''- ,1 ,j .,,',kA "~_'o " 'J. ,?~,.i-~:j 4. On or about April 8, 1998, Steelton signed a Note reflecting Steelton's commitment to repay a fifteen thousand dollar ($15,000) loan received from Plaintiffs. A true and correct copy of the April 8, 1998 Note is attached as Exhibit" A". Steelton agreed to pay fourteen percent simple interest on the Note and to repay the principal within one year. 5. Garcia signed a personal guarantee of Steelton' s obligations. See Exhibit "A". 6. On or about October 8, 1999, Steelton and Garcia made similar commitments for increased amounts of money by signing additional Notes and personal guarantees when the original loan was not repaid. True and correct copies of the additional Notes are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 7. On or about April 18, 2000, yet another Note and Guarantee were executed to reflect the additional sums due Plaintiffs by virtue of Defendants failure to pay the principal and interest on the earlier Notes. A true and correct copy of the April 18, 2000 Note and Guarantee are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 8. On or about April 18, 2000, Steelton and Garcia made a commitment to pay Plaintiffs Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Six Dollars and Eighty Eight Cents ($17,756.88) by May 18, 2000. Payment was not made. 9. Thereafter, payment under the Note was extended informally through February 18, 2001 with Defendants continuing to add interest through the extensions in a "Payoff Calculation". By December 19,2000, Defendant owed Twenty One Thousand One Hundred Eighteen Dollars and Eighty Eight Cents ($21,118.88). A true and correct copy of the "Payoff Calculation" prepared by Defendants in January 2001 is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 628842.21119101 -2- ." ',c_ __ .. ,,~ '~. _ ,\1 0" "", ,'~< "--,, ;,"., ~ , . : "r::~ -' -,;'",,- ,",'--" --'=>-< '<--;';\ 10. Defendants have failed, and continue to fail to pay Plaintiffs the principal and interest due under the Note. 11. Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs constitutes a material breach of the Notes and Guarantees. 12. By letter dated July 20, 2001, Plaintiffs' counsel advised Defendants of their default and Plaintiffs intention to confess judgment. A true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "E". 13. The Notes and Guarantees authorize Plaintiffs to confess judgment against Defendants for the amounts due, plus interest as stated, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees not to exceed five percent of the principal of the Notes. 14. The collective sum due for principal and interest is $23,938.40. This sum is broken down as follows: Amount calculated via Payoff Calculation through February 19,2001 $21,118.88 Interest at 18 % from 2/19/2001 through 11/12/01 $2,819.52 15. Judgment has not been entered in any jurisdiction on the attached instruments. 16. The attached instruments have not been assigned. 17. The judgment by confession sought by Plaintiffs is not against a natural person in connection with a consumer credit transaction. 18. The additional costs for attorneys' fees and costs of suit is as follows: (a) Attorneys' Fee 5% on $15,000 $750.00 (b) Filing Fees $14.50 628842.21119/01 -3- rs ~. .;~.. - ~ 0' ~ " - " ,-' <~,' " ~ ':', r,', - - "", ',"_' ,,''_''', , ',_ -;~\j;}~-_>i;;$,:;;::;;"~'~;._ , <'UiAIJM{~'.c: (c) Sheriff's service costs $100.00 19. Defendants' failure to pay the principal, interest and other charges payable to Plaintiffs under the Notes and Guarantees provides Plaintiffs with the authority to file this Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment by confession against the Defendants for monetary damages as authorized by the attached instruments in the sum of $24,802.90, plus post-judgment interest and cost of suit. Respectfully submitted, ~~"f ~-~IIM. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 66266 Paula D. Shaffner, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 43542 Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7fu Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: November 13, 2001 628842,2 It/9fOl -4- --"<>';i.>'~f:'--'~>~~'~_iii'j' "';~;~':';. ~"C '"'-~'lmiIi~~~:;;~illiill1~~~"' " "Ji'L.I' FW J . ~ -," "" ,__,,<>"_2,,0,.-.., "'-'""-,1____" ,~ ~ tl "0",,' ,_ c", ;"-,,:'"" ,,' ',,:~\ ; ';~:,-"';,' '.MI',~ "~' _,-.' C" " --, ""._'_ ~ 0'. - "'__ '~--" ._" ,,< . ,. ~ ~~f~;" "",,;'. '-j' ~i~ >=:;-...-;" >.~ .L... ~ -< ,.",~"~"""",~~ '} (.,'-' .r,,',' c,,::; => =0 -< ..... -- ,...~ ~ ~ .......~~ --' I' ,.,.. "..:..'-.~". ~' -- ,"~ ,_,; c_ ',~j~ R.ceived 0~/l0/2001 09:04PM in 01:32 on line [OJ for SUPERVISOR WORKSRVl printed 90090395 on 06/10/2001 , . 05/10/2001 iO:07 3573907 JILL TROSTLE 'I _,.""~ dq'd ._'\ \ Du,c., y: ~. ~ 0 \~\~ \ $17,100.00 Commonwealth ofl'ennsylvania ,5io;J-. ~isant ~m 09:06PM . Pg 1/3 PAGE 01 3Y DATE: (bfG: 1JpM.f ~ ?J /J$1-" l~ / 19 g Having r~ejved fifteen thoWland ($15,000.00) dollars, thl! undersigned STEELTON CAl'ITAL, LTD., a Delaware corporation, promises to pay seventeen thousand one hundred ($17,100.00) dollars - payable in twelve (12) equal interest only payments of $175.00 per mllntb, beginning one (1) month from the dl>te berecf - being fcurtcen (1~%) percent simple interest only; and to repay the principal Slim of $17,100.00 twelve (12) months from tbe date hereof . but in no event less than $17.100.00, tInis being a discount note - to GEORGE E. AND DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, 106 Reisy Avenue, P.O. Box 167, Rheems, PA 17570, or at spch other place as the holder hettof may, from time to time, designate in writing. In the event of default in the payment when due and the continuance of sucb default for a period of fifteen (15) days after written notice, (by certified or registered mail or band dtlivery), ofsuch default is reteived, this Note shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen (\8%) percent simple interest until paid. Presentment of payment, notice of dishonor, protest, and notice of protest are hereby waived. The maker of this Not~ hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney of any Court of record, npon default to appear in any Court having j lIrisdil:tion, and for it and iu its name, to confess jpdgUl.ent against it, in favor of the holder of this Note and for the amount then due on the Note, plus interest as hereinabove stated, costs ofsuit, and a reasonable attomey's fee not to exceed five (5%) percent ofthe principal amount ofthis Note. Stay of e:lecutioD i, hereby waived and the enmption of personal property from levy and sale on any execution is also expressly waived. {:J. -/~~~- "f~;"'~'" ~ ,~ Bv~ I .... Cha ,/ 5256 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 STEELTON CArnAL. LTD. ~"L. . ~ Ii'" 1",",,-,--,1. . '~ ^, . ~ 'c.' ~~. ~,~~(- Received 06/10/2001 09:04PM in 01:32 on Line [OJ for SUPERVISOR WORKSRVl printed B00803B5 on 06/10/2001 09:06PM * Pg 3/3 05/10/2801 20:07 3573g07 JILL TROSTLE PAGE 03 GUARAJVTY Tbe undersi~ned doel hereby ullconditionally personally guaranty payment of the attAched $17,100,00 note (the "Note") ofSteelton Capital, Ltd. Presentment of paymelllt, notice of dishonor, protellt.and notice of protest are hereby waived. The guarantor of this Note hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney of any Court of record, UpOIl default to appear im any Court having jurisdiction. and for him and in his name, to confess judgment against him, in favor of the holder oithis Note and for the amount then due on the Note, plus intere5t as hereinabove stated, costs of suit, and a reasonable attorney's fce not to exceed five (5%) percent ofthe principal amount of this Note. Stay of execution Is hereby waived and the exemption of personal property t'romlevy and sale on any executiQn Is also expressly waived. / GEORGE- "GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 ~)' -~=" ____oIiIi:iiIII '~ . '''', " -'-~f""'-'-'lM.~""i,w~-,t ~nstJllu11: ~JlItt $16,871.80 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DATE: 80ctober1999 Having received sixteen thousand three hundred and eighty dollars and thirty- eight (38) cents ($16,380.38), the undersigned STEEL TON CAP IT AL, LTD., a Delaware Corporation, promises to pay sixteen thousand eight hundred seventy-one dollars and eighty (80) cents ($16,871.80) two (2) months from the date hereof - this being a discount note - to GEORGE E. AND DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, 106 Heisey Avenue, P.O. Box 167, Rheems, PA 17570, or at such other place as the holder hereof may, from time to time, designate in writing. In the event of default in the payment when due and the continuance of such default for a period of fifteen (IS) days after written notice, (by certified or registered mail or hand delivery), of such default is received, this Note shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen (18%) percent simple interest until paid. Presentment of payment, notice of dishonor, protest, and notice of protest are hereby waived. The maker of this Note hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney of any Court of record, upon default to appear in any Court having jurisdiction, and for him and in his name, to confess judgment against him, in favor of the holder of this Note and for the amount then due on the Note, plus interest as herein above stated, costs of suit, and a reasonable attorney's fee not to exceed five (5%) percent of the principal amount of this Note. Stay of execution is hereby waived and the exemption of personal property from levy and sale on any execution is also expressly waived. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. By: Chairman 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 ~f1l -- ~ ~ - , .} - ; I ~~ ',,;: ~'L"'"" "'---'liltii.~~'li!I' '" GUARANTY The undersigned does hereby unconditionally personally guaranty payment of the attached $16,871.38 discount note (the "Note") of Steelton Capital, Ltd. Presentment of payment, notice of dishonor, protest, and notice of protest are hereby waived. The guarantor of this Note hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney of any Court of record, upon default to appear ill any Court having jurisdiction, and for him and in his name, to confess judgment against him, in favor of the holder of this Note and for the amount then duc on the Note, plus interest as herein above stated, costs of suit, and a reasonable attorney's fee not to exceed live (5%) percent of the principal amount of this Note. Stay of execution is hereby waived and the exemption of personal property from levy and sale on any execution is also expressly waived. GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Meehaniesburg, I}A 17055-351-t ~ ~' ...." r .._~ "- - -., ,.,,,~- . ~ 'I ',","",~~";"<-- . , "J_-,~t,.""v;~' }i'6? Discount Note $17,756.88 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DATE: 18 April 2000 Having received Seventeen thousand four hundred ninety-four ($17,494.46) dollars, the undersigned STEEL TON CAPITAL, LTD., a Delaware Corporation, promises to pay seventeen thousand seven hundred fifty-six dollars and eighty eight ($17,756.88) one (1) month from the date hereof - this being a discount note - to GEORGE E. AND DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, 106 Heisey Avenue, P.O. Box 167, Rheems, PA 17570, or at such other place as the holder hereof may, from time to time, designate in writing. In tine event of default in the payment when due and the continuance of such default for a period of fifteen (15) days after written notice, (by certified or registered mail or hand delivery), of such default is received, this Note shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen (18%) percent simple interest until paid. Presentment of payment, notice of dishonor, protest, and notice of protest are hereby waived. The maker of this Note hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney of any Court of record, upon default to appear in any Court having jurisdiction, and for him and in his name, to confess judgment against him, in favor ofthe holder of this Note and for the amount then due on the Note, plus interest as herein above stated, costs of suit, and a reasonable attorney's fee not to exceed five (5%) percent of the principal amount of this Note. Stay of execution is hereby waived and the exemption of personal property from levy and sale on any execution is also expressly waived. STEEL TON CA Chair n 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 By: ~~...... -, -~~' , I ,-,,-,"', , .- ,; '~~, liIM,dSli::~"""-f';'>""'~'b,-j, GUARANTY The undersigned does hereby unconditionally personally guaranty payment of the attached $16,17,494.46 discount note (the "Note") of Steelton Capital, Ltd. Presentment of payment, notice of dishonor, protest, and notice of protest are hereby waived. The guarantor of this Note hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney of any Court of record, upon default to appear in any Court having jurisdiction, and for him and in his name, to confess judgment against him, in favor of the holder of this Note and for the amount then due on the Note, plus interest as herein above stated, costs t}f suit, and a reasonable attorney's fee not to exceed five (5%) percent of the principal amount of this Note. Stay of execution is hereby waived and the exemption of personal property from levy and sale on any execution is also expressly waive . GEORGE J. AReIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 ~""-~ . IF' A 1{(Q)IFJF CAILCC1IJJLA'ITI[(Q)W Agreed upon payoff figure as of 19 December 2000 . Principal $15,000 . Interest $ 5,484 Extension Date - 19 February 2001 Per Diem rate of Interest $ Ut-:fJfj' 'if /0, ^ Y .18 X $ 20.484 = $3687.12 (year) = $10.24 day 360 --- Payoff Figure on or before Extension Date . Principal $15,000.00 . Interest . thru 18 December 2000 = 5,484.00 . 19 Dec thru 19 February 2001 . 62 days X $10.24 Per Day 634.88 00 CWPT SCLOf.LJNOTE_CARRIGERJPAYOFf 19 JAN 0\ GJG 19)ANO\ /~/eO ;?-v&;-. .' .. ' - i,~- " ". ',c""c ,tU:oi:%~~.J,:; $20,484 'C; --.... . , ,~J ~~ "~~ .'~. . ~~lii'~'i!l~:-i" +' . ..... !AUL , . ~WINGuP COpy ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAULA D. SHAFFNER Phone: (215) 972.8695 Fax: (215) 972-1915 pshaffner@saul.com www.saul.com July 20,2001 CERTIFIED MAIL AND U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL George J. Garcia, Esquire 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3154 Re: NOTICE OF DEFAULT OF NOTE PAYABLE TO GEORGE E. AND DOROTHY E. CARRIGER Dear Mr. Garcia: We represent George E. and Dorothy E. Carriger in connection with your obligations under a Note dated April 8, 1998, as amended ("Note"). You are and have been in default in the payment of your obligations under the Note. This letter constitutes written notice of the default in accordance with the provisions of the Note. Should payment in full, including interest, not be received on or before August 4, 2001, a judgment will be entered against you for the full amount of the Note, interest, costs, attorneys fees and all other reliefto which the Carrigers are entitled. Very truly yours, Paula D. Shaffner PDSlkg CERTIFIED RECEIPT NO. 70000600002245759159 Centre Square West. 1500 Market Street, 38'~ Floor. Philadelphia, PA 19102.2186 Phone: (215) 972.7777 . Fax: (215) 972-7725 616732,IIl/S/OI BALTIMORE CHESTERBROOK HARRISBURG NEW YORK PHILADELPHIA PRINCETON WILMINGTON A OELAWARE UMl'fED UABIU'fY PAR'fNERSHIP 'n'_,. '," ,'C- 0,";.. 'c ,-, , ,j "';"~'::';". ~ ",,:- ,/ ~,,;,\:;L(,:-<]';;,~:,;Li;~~"; _ , ' . .~_. II I.. _. """'"' "ci.i':'a";Iii.:,{~i VERIFICATION I, Dorothy! E. Carriger hereby acknowledge that I have read the foregoing Complaint; and that the fljlcts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand also that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~r:. ~~ Dorothy E Carriger Dated: (J cr f/ "-0" I 628842.110/5101 -",,,""",, ,-, ~ , , ,---"';'" ','1"', ",,>,__,":~{--;.,;;'" :.""o",~j"'~,'"",, "",' "~;,' " . . VERIFICATION I, George E. Carriger hereby acknowledge that I have read the foregoing Complaint; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand also that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated:/~ I[ - 0 ( /~~ ~ c?ri' h 11 )..'~~ George E. Carriger 628842.110/5101 :;11: ~!;,.;o;-{>-';'~~~;';' -" ~~;"lj"",c,,~,'l\-'~;'-':' :"! -~., '1.;"-;.kl:TIR-Tf~'-iMt~r~;>~ -"lr'-ltJ'~tJ:(Li '<'.f" .;.' ~ r} ~, -. --- 7: ~ ~- - gr Q 00 (j +- -.t -' ~ f~ ~ tJ 9--J -::::, ~ ~-:J ~ ~ t- " c=~ c p 0' ~ . """iiili"':'= '~:..~,~ ,-.- , "_ ";",,, ,';~h "> "";"''''" ,"~"I" 'u;O- "',~:~;" < -:i.;, ,; ~,~ '" ,~,', <"''''''".:4., . ~ T '":,..... 52 .-;':) "/ e,/, G !::: , ". .',,-'~ , ~~ ( , (~:! S:? ~ --I :::::, , -- , -< -~ ~ ~--' -< -'---' .~ ~",..:;,--< "<' ~-- -' -"'-, - , _ ,i ~:, F'~:--,~'-'J'" '" --: -,;'i>,",;:,j~~,~':',__'';';:,::):.)", ,< _ .,. . , .. .1' _. .'. . .'-<iiiJli~~f_: .. . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERJLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARGIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 CIVIL ACTION NO. () 1- (0'1 Of)' AFFIDAVIT OF LAST KNOWN ADDRESS I, hereby, certify that the last known address of Defendant, STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD is 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514. Respectfully submitted, <'~'''''''''~-~ Paige . acdonald-Matthes, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 66266 Paula D. Shaffner, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 43542 Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7fu Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: Novernber 13, 2001 628842.21119/01 ,', _, , rr:~~ ':'~~~~~j~~~la"';'i~~lliH~.i1'J;~:;;h ~"""Jilr.rim-iit'*" '~i. '"'," -b~"i"~- C',< '~,,,._~.: 1,~,nLt ~~~ -""~~" o ,~: l) j::;'~ i'f7';-"" ?= ~1 0~S~- .i~~ "':..~ ~i ~L! J". , ~, ., ., ., '-_..I ~ ~, :) ::--: -, G,-; ~~ 'h -~'. ~,_.1 .. -::;, --.j ...' , , , i~ ..::;: ,,,;1; ,~~ _' 'j.; : ,;,;',;,,--, :; ",:i-,i:.-m-;~.c-""b ",oY,:.._""" '<' _,' '_,", '_.y,;;,,:~; " . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514 CIVIL ACTION NO. ()/- (0 LJ ()?: AFFIDAVIT OF LAST KNOWN ADDRESS I, hereby, certify that the last known address of Defendant, GEORGE J. GARCIA is 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514. Respectfully submitted, ~'':i(> ~~)-\"'''-H-iAul Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 66266 Paula D. Shaffner, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 43542 Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7fu Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: November 13,2001 628842.21l19101 -">'l t~~mllib~",,~I1<~~~~_lii:li!.rn~~i!!ru~"o - ,.,;;;'. ._'~',f". V' '_"~i"ifrj~' ""'",,,.,,' .lXWll III '~'..", "",,",, " "",'.", H:iP-':' [i;,~" -<' ~.: -;-.~ ~~~,' -'-~:; ",,':'. . .. () c c :::> -''-., . -><.1 <:'.s ~ lti1::..i:>.Ll' - -> ~~ '. . .J : ___':'.!l~?LfI._; y- ~. DEe 1 2 2001 vI) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL VANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, YTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg,PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED And now, this lL day of December 2001, on consideration of the foregoing petition/motion, a rule is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel to show cause why the judgement entered in the ;otJ .) above case shou:d not be struck off and sanctions entered. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ '): 00 ,. t\II. '- c.., ~ 'e:I ~ 11:tt (' - ~ Cc". ,d--...'t( I a....c...;.t., i Ie..... ,1. .~ b~~'k -'t 1/1 -9 ,- \', ~TIJJf':I_~ -~ ~~~~ ~ '-"""A""'..;,"'""~~,,,,, - _ """'1~--_L, ,~,ITr,. ~~ ,-. - -~ ^ ~, -,'q ',10'," "'.>J-M,"N';"-'-" ~ '\--"l'''E' Cjl::n.-ll',1-Jr}" 0",-- '," \,':'~"i:'~~'!'~:L.Jl(~~J01''''''' i'-" ~\"iL j""~,,;;', ",;1',' Mni O OFC 2\ A111O= 32 I ..' CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA "'~ Jr::tiffi.~~l1L,.-..,-,t,~ ,_~,"Ijl!!~~"~:WI~,#\",7fl',""",,;1-~,'1i';'Y'<P;"'IIH1,1~S1;r*"';;W~~il!~~g%'(f!W""F"'''lii''''i!l:)Ko';$J,11TWj''''-f'~1i~:<~1I!f!f,' " iilWt:It....l =- . " ~~ ~' -, - Jii"Uiilm~t.;l:,'i , .. 0,; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheenls, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGEMENT To the Honorable Court, the Judges of said Court: NOW COMES, George 1. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GJG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and moves the Court strike off the judgement heretofore entered therein for the following reasons: I. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure must be strictly followed if a valid confession of judgernent is to be entered. (Scott Factors, Inc. v. Hartley (1967) 425 Pa 290), 228 A2d 887; Citizens National Bank v. Rose Hill Cemetery Asso. (1971) 218 SuperCt 366, 281 A2d 73.) These Rules were and are written to give a debtor additional protection by prescribing requirements in the procedure for relief from confessed judgements. There is no reason in page one of eight ':il . I 'w ~ '" '.:"",' :~"'-.:Ji'~~k .' law or policy for permitting the abborgation by a court of these protections by waiving the mandatory provisions of the Ru1es. (Citizens National Bank v. Rose Hill Cemetary Asso. (1971) 218 Super Ct 366, 281 A2d 73.) 2. Pa R Civ P Rule 2952(a) requires that the Complaint must contain the names of the parties. 3. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the prothonotary must enter judgement by confession AGAINST THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED IT. (Pa P Civ Ru1e 295 l(a).) 4. When a proceeding to enter judgement by confession is commenced by the filing of a complaint, the complaint and the confession of judgement are to be read together in determining whether or not there are defects apparent on the fact of the record. (Parliament Industries, Inc. v. William H. Vaughn & Co., (1983) 501 Pa I, 459 A2d 720.) Accordingly, the Court is asked to take Judicial Notice of the Complaint, Judgement, and exhibits to the Complaint that: Plaintiff has sued and taken judgement by confession against Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Corporate Defendant"), NOT against the maker of said note(s) and that all of said notes on their face say "Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation" (hereinafter called the "Borrower") and that the attached Guaranty Agreement(s) is/are for and of "the attached... Note" (i.e., that of Borrower and NOT the Corporate Defendant); 5. The Court is further asked to take Judicial Notice of the exhibits of Plaintiffs that: the Corporate Defendant never signed ANY OF the exhibited documents - but one or some of them were signed by a Delaware corporation and that the Corporate Defendant never gave any warrant of attorney to PlaintiffslLender to confess judgement. Accordingly Plaintiffs page two of eight 'i\,} .i:" -'~ ~~,.....;". " . I '-'-'\"""'L"'---'~<llid.< .- are not authorized by the face of any of the notes exhibited in the Complaint -to confess judgement against the Corporate Defendant and GJG never guaranteed any of the exhibited notes on behalf of the Corporate Defendant. 6. A warrant of attorney to confess judgement is the very essence of the judgement, not a minor part of the clerical process, and without such warrant, ajudgement is void. (Wells v. Cahan (1988) 1 D & C4th 394.) Therefor, the Judgement is void. 7. Judgements by confession can and must be stricken for irregularity in the record (Pennwest Farm Credit, ACA v. Hare (1991) 410 Super Ct 422). Suing and taken judgement against the wrong party - NOT a maker of any of the notes in the Complaint and GJG as the guarantor of notes NEVER signed or made by the Corporate Defendant and/or without its warrant of attorney is/are "an irregularity." 8. A release of errors (IF naming a Pennsylvania corporation, as the Corporate Defendant, and taking judgement by confession against it is a "mistake or an error") INSTEAD OF AN INTENTIONAL ACT, does not cure a lack of authority to confess judgement against the Corporate Defendant and thus against GJG . 9. It is believed that taking judgement against the Corporate Defendant - without it ever signing any of the notes exhibited in the Complaint and without granting any warrant of attorney to confess judgement - was and is a deliberate and fraudelent act - of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs Counsel- made to deceive the Court into entering judgement against an entity other than the Borrower so as to defraud GJG and/or said Corporate Defendant and/or in an attempt to extort money from said Corporate Defendant and/or GJG by virtue of a judgement obtained by confession. page three of eight ~~~> ~au.l!l~'.~ -- ~ , J", ..J '" ii!idh, ," . A. Plaintiffs signed Verifications, that the facts in the Complaint were true and correct and that they were aware of the penalties of unsworn false statements; YET permitted the Complaint and Judgement to be filed and entered! B. Plaintiffs Attorneys are members of the Pennsylvania State Bar, assumed to know the applicable law, rule, and regulation, are officers of this Honorable Court, and (unless grossly incompetent or "plain stupid") can read the notes attached to the Complaint, know that the Borrower was and is Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation, know that the Corporate Defendant did NOT execute any warrant of attorney, nor that GJG did NOT guaranty ANY of the note(s) of Borrower attached to Plaintiffs Complaint; and know who to sue - as well as they may NOT confess judgement against. Yet here we are!!! C. The Corporate Defendant and/or GJG has, have, or may suffer irreparable harm, loss, cost, and expense because of the improper judgement and the actions and inactions of Plaintiffs and/or the Firm. D. While the Judgement taken by confession is a nullity and is of no more force and effect as if taken against "Mickey Mouse;" GJG regrets to say that it could be called a "Mickey Mouse Judgement" and holds this Court and the LAW up to possible scorn and redicule. The Honorable Court is NOT a "Mickey Mouse Court!" E. As Melvin Belli, Esq. said, " the Law is not an ass - but those who try to bend and . ARE" pervert It - . F. By preverting the Rules and by fraud and deception, Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel has/have for their own financial gain caused the Complaint to be filed and page four of eight - - .' Iii:-..........~, ...- - ~ _Jl ,-, "'.-,-- fh'-iN~E,'.' . , the Judgement to be entered - seemingly "all in a legal way!" (in an effort to intentionally inflict emotional stress and depression upon GJG.) 10. The First Note was paid in full and refinanced by the Second Note (or some subsequent note), can not therefor possibly be in default, and if not in default - judgement can not be confessed against any debtor and/or any guarantor;. II. The Second Note (or the note which actually paid in full and refinanced the First Note) was paid in full and refinanced by the Third Note - and accordingly can not possibly be in default, and if not in default - judgement can not be confessed against any debtor and/or any guarantor;. 12. There appears to possibly be some valid Third Note - but the Corporate Defendant never signed it (or the First or Second Note) and thus said Pennsylvania Corporation AND/OR GJG can not be liable under the Third Note in this action. 13. It is unclear which of Plaintiff's exhibited notes and guaranties are confessed (as the Complaint contradicts itself saying its the First, some combination of the First, Second or Third, the Third, and/or all or some of the First, Second or Third plus (perhaps) its exhibited "Payoff Calculation" - therefor, due process and equal protection (for Corporate Defendant and/or GJG) requires that ANY Judgement to be stricken. 14. The Second Note exhibited is unsigned and can not possibily bind ANYONE TO ANYTHING! ! 15. The alleged "Payoff Calculation" (exhibit) is unsigned, contains handwritten "scribbling" and alterations from a person or persons unknown, is not proof of any indebtedness by ANYONE, or any interest thereon, and can not be used to confess judgement or calculate the page five of eight % ".~_Ic. ~ - - ., I. ,c._~_' 'Co' /'''_'1;,,_ . '--' ~6f balance of any loan(s). 16. The First Note, as exhibited, also seems to have been altered by persons or persons unknown and is not "true and correct." 17. If the exhibited First and Third Notes - along with the unsigned Second Note and/or the unsigned Payoff Calculation are to constitute one note/loan/debt or agreement - there is no way that one ANYTHING exists - which may be confessed against ANYONE. 18. The Second Note to valid and enforceable must be BUT was not signed and contains a warrant of attorney NOT accepted or granted by any maker and/or guarantor thereof; 19. The exhibited Second Note contains a Guaranty agreement which is also unsigned and is of no force and effect. 20. The Plaintiffs never gave Borrower and/or Corporate Defendant and/or Guarantor notice of default under any note which was received or offered proof to the contrary; 21. The Notice of Default (Plaintiff's Exhibit "E") was never received by GJG who demands strict proof that GJG signed ANY certified receipt therefor. 22. Any "notice" attempted by Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel was and/or would be invalid as the Corporate Defendant never executed any note(s) to, for, or with PlaintiffslLender and GJG is not the guarantor of any obligation of the Corporate Defendant to Plaintiffs - since no know such obligation(s) exist(s)! 23. There is no note of the Corporate Defendant to Plaintiffs, no guaranty ofGJG thereto, their was no notice of default and if so, so what, if there were no notes or guarantees; 24. Judgement by Confession against the Corporate Defendant and GJG is by surprise and represents fmancial and legal terrorism and must and can not stand page six of eight ~ ~...do ~~~~ - - "r,". ,'~<.; iii",:r'~i." 25. The Judgement is grossly excessive, not authorized by the instruments exhibited, and ANY recovery by Plaintiffs or fees to Plaintiffs' Counsel is unconscionable. 26. Plaintiffs "proceedings" totally deprive the Corporate Defendant and GIG of equal process and due process oflaw; 27. The Borrower has defenses which is could raise and are not to be waived hereby and the Corporate Defendant and/or GJG can and may not so waive any defense, claim, counter- claim, or cause of action which the Borrower or GJG may have as a Guarantor of any note(s) or other obligations of Borrower (IF ANY) to Plaintiffs which arises out of or is in reflation to this action, any note(s), or guaranty agreement(s), or otherwise. 28. GJG reserves the right and seeks leave of the Court to retain Pennsylvania legal counsel and/or to otherwise subsequently raise any other defense(s) as may be available and does NOT waive any such defense or remedy by virtue hereof - in this or any other proceeding. 29. Corporate Defendant never executed the notes exhibited on which Plaintiffs have taken judgement and accordingly GJG can not liable as a guarantor under any or all said notes. 30. Plaintiffs have NO authority to sue and confess judgement against Corporate Defendant and GJG, as the guarantor of notes never executed by said Corporate Defendant. 31. Steelton Capital, Ltd, a Pennsylvania corporation and the Corporate Defendant, is not Steelton Capital, Ltd, a Delaware Corporation, and never has been; nor has it borrowed any money from Plaintiffs. Accordingly, GJG has never guaranteed any loan or note of Steelton Capital, Ltd, a Pennsylvania corporation to Plaintiffs. 32. Plaintiffs, at all times, dealt with and apparently may have lent money to Borrower, as a Delaware corporation, and NOT to or with the Corporate Defendant, a Pennsylvania page seven of eight ''1 ~I.~" - -...... ~ . - corporation. 33. Neither the Corporate Defendant or the Borrower has been served with the Complaint and Confession of Judgement. 34. Service on the Corporate Defendant is a nullity since the Judgement is null and void. WHEREFORE, GIG prays this Honorable Court to grant a rule on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel to show cause why the said judgement should not be struck off and sanctions imposed against Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel; all proceedings to stay. page eight of eight '" ,,<<j~, ~ ~ M-.......-~ - 'J <0'-"-,'0. ,,~.8."(~U . , -, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2001, I hereby verii)' that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: · GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 . Paige MacDonald-Matthes and/or Paula D. Shaffner and/or Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 ~mlt.l;!,;t1l\!1,iAAlir'i:"Ji~:,;-jq'-'iIL'ftl\"j%j\;"Jl1!~"~",m''''~Ji,\,,,-";~b""0&,;w!~j_~~"'_~~lmJii1iL:Bill"" L -" < o~~,~'''''''',_",,_.,,",,=,~" ,'~ -lifu -~" {. ~ ;, .. ~"- ~j"";" ,,,,,j,,,,,,,, . C> 0 c\ CJ C --n p 9 2:' '7J CA:J '''fJ fT-~ :'1"1 ,:TI flll - C) (> -?--- r ~- -I-' -!':.;;-- ~'--', '11 ~ f' ~!: :;:,~? "" ----- Q 1\,.1 ":J ~"n -, -, (" , ._.I'~ ,! ;_:,~ 'r' " (') ",-Y l-i ~ ::r C~ r;::> :;:t::J ~~ - ' jJ ~ -< c> -< ~ (5 ~~"fi''f~ ,,,,~,,,~,," -~.,-~~. .~ ,~,"~~~,~--~ ""~ - Zj;1j~,;'~'_Vi' },~~r~3;:,j,~-B:~' ~J1;'tP< :~~-t:~':) ;~-,-~_':~l, "'"' ,{!,:,,; ~ ~ '.). it ,'. ^~",~-, i 11 i) r II, ~ ;g lii ~ o o 4:: f.. '" ;.., (1) 'df ;g~ 1l_ liif ~;2 h'"O = t'-- "'-a~O- is " .-lij -< ,"~-lCll~ ..c:~OJJ " lfJ g.S '€ e!J ci ::8 ,l'( .$ ..5 ~ (1) ~ rL-<.f.') - ""- 0 to: ;:j."", ;:j at a ~~~~:r: "" M ~ ;; I Il'l ~ ~ ,.. ': ~ !S . .~"" i ~~~ i S"i fl= .::: = . ~ ~ Q ~ ~=-:~ I", \\Wf%:; ,;L~" (;1':4-2<' t'I;f-,; }??,~WRE;91t:;;-;";;E!iff_;tt,1-Eitg:::;;;;&-~;f ;it"" ., <"-~....',-,",. ~ .l: ' -- ",~ ~,'~"~mi&, SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR 4 CASE NO: 2001-06408 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL VS STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL DAVID MCKINNEY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN was served upon GARCIA GEORGE J the DEFENDANT , at 1750:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of December, 2001 at HECHTS DEPARTMENT STORE CAPITAL CITY MALL CAMP HILL, PA 17011-3514 by handing to GEORGE GARCIA a true and attested copy of CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: ~.r?../f . .t ~ -1" ~"''"''~p~ R. Thomas Kline 12/11/2001 SAUL EWING Sworn and Subscribed to before By: ~~1irl' Deputy Sheri ~ me this J3fe. day of APuP~.t.n dJooj A,D. 0'1'r~tB;n~ ' ~~ ii:c.,"",,"""'~ "''',,~..uI :tSt l!!" " ""'1: " _~~_n' -,. -.. -- ,L_~ . <~.~ <- "-- -;"';:iMi.~_(4'_' SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-06408 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL VB STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL JODY SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN was served upon STEELTON CAPITAL LTD the DEFENDANT at 1415:00 HOURS, on the 11th day of December, 2001 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ CARLISLE, PA 17013-3514 by handing to GEORGE GARCIA FOR STEELTON CAPITAL a true and attested copy of CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 26.00 .00 10.00 .00 54.00 .~~r"-t:~ R. Thomas Kline ' 12/11/2001 SAUL EWING me this l:3f#::.- . day of By: ~ cf~ ~uty Sheriff Sworn and Subscribed to before ~ .:Un1/ A.D. ~O~.~ P othonotary ,jf, ~;';~'f,.-?j~&m~lRll~!;r"i~jir,i?J1",':{j~ir4,,@~,~~~~~;;ljj\I,ij,.wt~ig.~~I.-i:ii,'{~~~\:L~AWJ;\I\~~~i~,~~j:il};g@'Sk1?'~i~~~m;.~ ,,;,,~>\ ..u.illilW"'~~_ 1iDl.i!',,; . ~.. .~ IIII - ',""'~'",",,-, -~ ' ,~" =- ".....__.to.-' " '.' ."~'- , .. -c - . ~ :~ 1 " ~ ", - OI-~LfO~ c.;:lj CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 26th day of December, 2001, I hereby verify that I caused a true and correct copy of the RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED, entered by the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on 21 December 2001, to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 . Paige MacDonald-Matthes Paula D. Shaffner Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7fu floor Harrisburg, P A 17101 Ge ,,'" '^' '-'^'-';"- ''"'''tho, -~'. ~J - 0' ""I , , 0" ,~J ,","" ",,,, ";;""oC~"'O'_4:" . ,.. .. ~- UEC 12 200il.O IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, YTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED And now, this ~ \ day of December 2001, on consideration of the foregoing petition/motion, a rule is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel to show cause why the judgement entered in the ) ()) above case shou~d not be struck off and sanctions entered. [h.b. ~.~ ~:.4 Q ~ ~) 0 ~ '):O()t.".,. __Co, tw-..'I:Il~1cttC- '~Cc.n. -d-.tl Ire.... ,1. '-,!:;~--"ilr~h~'A~,;"jM~1:f!'-1hr,tir;'''''cl.-t;il:ii!Eifui4~'ii;~JWkii!*,~fll!.l-1ii:,!M'tjj,i(-", _'ii",ki fo';;""i:'fiIDl~~~"'''''~~iiili(i--rJ "'- ',-" "Wb'';'N'''~~ '-l1.[j~ll',~~~~:';""'~ i!liI. '_""":,f!" () 0 r', C $"0 '" :::"'~ -r; r l'J r;; t_ -..) mr'" );>> :z:' ~ "1') -1'" :z:e I F~- fTI ::9 <;."..::: Gee \,"} kt:~ , :g C; "" ',-, 2[;,1 _.;J,~ ~~? f~3 $" . '''c ~) :'51'" ~ :n :::::-i .-J,~'. ,',) :;:'J -< ,(.,LihUIllIJll ~ , ~<r I ,<..'<"",'_' m '" - _ ,,,,,,~,','.'tl'~,,,~,,,, ~~, ,_, ",,,",,~_ , "'.""" , ,~ , ~, '. -".' .- '~~' . , . ~. 3 " ~~,~ ';= 1"- , I '--"-","',;' "- ,'-"1.>0;,-, c'.... ,><'-'<0' _."C'-"",'f;,::';;, ,~,' '~'M"'.-{;"t GEORGE E. CARRIGE~ and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, 106 Heisey Avenue, P.O. Box 167, Rheems,PA 17570-0167 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD., 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA, 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Civil Action Docket No. 01-6408 Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION To the Prothonotary: Please issue a Writ of Execution in the above matter, (1) directed to the Sheriff of Cumberland County; (2) against Steelton Capital, Ltd., 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055-3514 and George 1. Garcia, P.O. Box 934, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055-8934, defendants; and (3) against Mid Penn Bank, 4622 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg Pennsylvania 17050, garnishee: (4) and index this writ (a) against George J. Garcia and Steelton Capital, Ltd., defendants (b) against Mid Penn Bank as garnishee, as a lis pendens against real property of the defendants and the name of garnishee as follows: (a) any and all bank accounts titled in the name of George 1. Garcia, Individually and Steelton Capital, Ltd., and account no. 001094 0313088079502048 titled in the name ofSteelton Capital, Ltd. (5) Amount due $ Interest from $ 11113/01,6% per annum Plus Costs $ $ 24,802.90 to be determined 165 OJ. 'fJP. 40 <- f'1..4. S'O M,ls ~h[ f~l.f, f6J.9o . *~ Dated: January 2, 2002 ~ ~~ '-" ~\ A -..\}~At:HA 0..<) Paige Macdonald-Matthes (Bar ill: 66266) Paul D. Shaffner, Esquire (Bar ill: 43542) SAUL EWING LLP Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7fu Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 86708,l1/2lrJ2 ~-, ~m~.OO.'ll~~~~~~~~E~- ":";'t.:i,:~,:~::j",-"'-",~~<:1:i"--~~"~-~"~,;~-,"~n" ~'--.';1'- ~'~i' "j ... -''-,--,'"';.'-,,,'[."'&'',, - ----, . ''',,"," ,n'_nv', ", "';"lk ~ Jr -cJ ~f r r Rr' ~ [5::,' p ( 8 $/k -, f[ OJ 0 () ~ ",'4. ~ (") ::t-~ ~ c: N T: ..... ~~. .--,~ v. . -. .11( c, 6 . . "1:JG.J ~~,71' ' '" ~ d CJ S [TIfT. '- g D a & :zc I ?-J , DO a (j) ,I" c,.) r'-~ C> I ~~' -f', r;: I I I --'(.J "" , -"," ,.- / '., ~ b0"V 2::0 -,,,-",' f'. -' - [ n ~ ~-~{'-; ~ " - S;c ~ ~ ... ... ., r -/ -r::~ ... ... :::; t......) :'iJ -< C,.J -< E:; . - . .~ r- -, ~ ... ~ " \"I ("c' fff/ ""'-- ~~ ",",~ .' ~,~,,,",,"'l""''''-'-,__,..,____n',,,,,,~,,,,, ,,'-"-,.. " .' "'"<~ ~<~ .. '-, ""--- ~ - , ,,~ ,- "J'~ " >' -" ",:." :;.,,, ;~ -~' Wr,-, GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiff/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendant/Petitioner NO. 01-6408 CIVIL TERM IN RE: BRIEFS DUE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2002, both parties having agreed that the petition to strike judgment rises or falls based upon the complaint for confession of judgment and the exhibits attached thereto, they are directed to file briefs in support of their respective positions. The brief of the moving party is due on Monday, February 4, 2002. The brief of Respondent is due on Monday, February 11, 2002. The parties are directed to also address the validity of the petition filed on behalf of the corporation by an officer and/or shareholder. The parties are also to address the appropriateness of an amended petition to strike the judgment which includes a request to open the judgment. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J.. ~ ~aige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire fi ~ ~ ~ Attorney for Plaintiff/Respondent L- ' l ~ ~ > ()f-J...t.J-OJ. ~eorge J. Garcia Defendant/Petitioner srs r~ If ''I,".. ,.', "t -T,~r4~", "if' "~ _ Jffi~,~1I!.l" 0, - ""JlJJ!t, ", >, '_'".,' ">,'1,, ." , _ w" ";",,,,_,,,,'~'""_'<' ",'''''''''',"'_'--~'''' __""'=_~ _~~'~""~ " IlIRI III "nu." n, t.'I-L.f\;qCE :-:u.:tJ ": '.'-"O""A",\1 , ,. -,,",r-'\\~il 1'\' )\["Inl Clf ;,,!,;:, '!",",I"i \ "..";,, ()2 ,H\N 24 Pl~ \: 1\ CUM~51~~~tlJ~~~"l1\' 'I'~'::' :,.,,,:,J'!!!"j!liW~llll"~""-;"'~"'--!"~f','j--"t,"~~',,,"'-m"-!MI;Ji';;AA!U:ll!,J{~<~r~~~~~~ij~~~~mt~~~"~i! ..........,.." ' . ,",=' - -' ~' '.- ,';,-,.i ~ ~ "" ",',,'." )_; 7;'~,:-""~;~,',,~:,;:;;{;;~;:io.:S::;-,,,;;~, :.; : "". --"'iWi,;j , GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems,PA 17570-0167 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, Civil Action v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Docket No. 01-6408 Defendant. NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Steelton Capital, Ltd. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055-3514 George 1. Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM THE SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOu. Respectfully submitted, ~~,.u'^.,.JjN""'Jl.,;L~oJ, Paige Macdonald-Matthes (Bar ill: 66266) Paul D. Shaffner, Esquire (Bar ill: 43542) SAULEWINGLLP Penn National Insurance Tower .h 2 North Second Street, 7t Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7500 Dated: January 10, 2002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs R6662.l1l1()/02 ~ , , .- ':'iIliliiliiil('" ,- - "'''- . ,cC" ~", L' , ~ ,'," ' ,;", ,'; ,;i.',. ,;";,, ~d",; - 4C- 'l~1i,ii{t, GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box: 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, Civil Action v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514 Docket No. 01-6408 Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT AND NOW COME Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel Saul Ewing LLP and file their Reply to Defendant George J. Garcia's Petition to Strike Off Judgment and in support thereof avers as follows: I. The averments set forth in Paragraph 1 in the Petition to Strike state conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. 2. Denied as stated. It is denied that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2952( a) "requires that the Complaint must contain the names of the parties." By way of further reply and correction, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2952 (a)(I) provides that the Complaint shall contain the names and the last known addresses of the parties. 3. Denied as stated. It is denied that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2951(a) provides "that the Prothonotary must enter judgment by confession against the person who executed it." To the contrary, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2951(a) requires that the Prothonotary enter judgment by confession on a note, bond or other instrument confessing 86662.11/10/02 ~ = .,. '^'.-......;.;,.'~ Nt'" _ , " .~.'."'" '-":OJ"",,'; '~:>. ~,:.::.;:,,-~ i;C;'-, "Jli~~j;; judgment or authorizing confession by an attorney at law or other person against the person who executed it in favor of the original holder or, unless expressly forbidden in the instrument, in favor of the assignee or other transferee without the agency of an attorney and without the filing of a Complaint, for the amount which may appear to be due from the instrument. By way of further reply, Plaintiffs confessed judgment against the Defendants in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2951(b). 4. The averments set forth in Paragraph 4 of the Petition to Strike state conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments in set forth in Paragraph 4 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff has sued and taken judgment by confession against Steelton Capital, Ltd. as evidenced by the caption that appears on the face of the Complaint. It is further admitted that Plaintiffs have sued and taken judgment by confession against George 1. Garcia, individually, by virtue of a personal guarantee issued in connection with the Note issued to Plaintiffs by Steelton Capital, Ltd. It is denied that Steelton Capital, Ltd. is not the maker of said Note. It is further denied that George J. Garcia did not personally gnarantee the obligation of Steelton Capital, Ltd. Finally, it is denied that Petitioner has correctly set forth the correct caption of the within action in his Petition to Strike Off Judgment. 5. Denied. It is denied that Steelton Capital, Ltd. did not sign "any" of the exhibited documents. By way of further reply, a review of Exhibits "A" and "C", which are attached to Plaintiff's Complaint clearly reveals that Steelton Capital, Ltd., by and through its Chairman, Defendant Garcia, did in fact execute each of the Notes which include a Warrant of Attorney to confess judgment. By way of further reply, the signature block that appears on each Note indicates that Steelton Capital, Ltd. has a place of business located at 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, 86662.11110/02 -2- , " - ,,~" ,- ~' e",-~"ic"o: "~~' - - t":" "',:;"_':"-,',,;,::;:' 0"'--""','"" Ct.,.),.>,~ 'd";,\",,,;,/~,"':';;',,-;L,~" """_,~V" ,:~; Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055-3514, which is the same address that is reflected in the caption of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Finally, and by way of further reply, executed copies of the October 8, 1999 Note and corresponding personal gnllranty are attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "A". 6. The averments set forth in Paragraph 6 in the Petition to Strike state conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averment that the "judgment is void" is expressly denied. 7. The averments set forth in Paragraph 7 in the Petition to Strike state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, it is denied that Plaintiffs sued and took judgment against the wrong party. 8. The averments set forth in Paragraph 8 in the Petition to Strike state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averment that Plaintiffs did not have authority to confess judgment against the Defendants is expressly denied. 9, Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs improperly confessed judgment against the Defendants. It is further denied that Plaintiffs' confession of judgment against the Defendants was "a deliberate and fraudulent act of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs counsel." It is further denied that Plaintiffs' confessed judgment against the Defendants was "an attempt to extort money" from the Defendants. A. [sic] It is admitted that Plaintiff signed Verifications which are attached to the Complaint. 86662.11110/02 -3- '" '.."G<"-";;J,~" '''...c'_ -.,,'. I ", :-"-:"'1 ""~_~~;i " B. [ sic] The averments set forth in Paragraph B of the Petition to Strike constitute a speaking demurrer to which no response is required. By way of further reply, the averments set forth in Paragraph B [sic] of the Petition to Strike are wholly irrelevant, improper, and fail to conform with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. C. [sic] The Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in Paragraph C [sic] of the Petition to Strike and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. D. [sic] Denied as stated. It is denied that judgment taken by confession against the named Defendants is a "nullity." It is further denied that the judgment taken by confession against the named Defendants is "of no more force and effect as if taken against 'mickey mouse"'. E. [sic] The averments set forth in Paragraph E [sic] of the Petition to Strike constitute a speaking demurrer to which no response is required. By way of further reply, the averments set forth in Paragraph E [sic] of the Petition to Strike fail to conform with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. F. [sic] Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs have "pervert[ed]" any rules. It is further denied that Plaintiffs' action in confessing judgment against the named Defendants was fraudulent or deceptive. By way of further reply, the Notes and the corresponding Guarantees were all prepared by the Defendants, and Defendants themselves included the Warrant of Attorney which authorized Plaintiffs to confess judgment against them. 10.' Denied. It is denied that the first note was paid in full. To the contrary, no payment has been received. 86662,11/10/02 -4- , "- ,-_'' ,~,' ~ c"t-, ",~"",,;~,::., ,I_, ',;' "' I "-, - L.,,', ,',,;~'fu:! l',',;":'" , ::" ':',',::,/_<,! -;....;',""'~b:.i II. Denied. It is denied that the second note was paid in full. By way of further reply, Defendants sent Plaintiffs a letter dated October 8,1999 in which Defendants enclosed a post-dated check with the instructions that Plaintiffs were not to cash the check until December 8,1999. When Plaintiffs attempted to cash the check after December 8,1999, however, they were advised by the Defendants' bank that there were insufficient funds in Defendants' account to cover the check. A true and correct copy of Defendants October 8, 1999 correspondence, together with the post-dated check, are attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "B" . 12. Denied. It is denied that there is "possibly some valid third note." By way of further reply, there is in fact a third note which Plaintiffs have attached to their Complaint as Exhibit "C". It is further denied that the Steelton Capital, Ltd. never signed the third note. It is further denied that the Defendant, George 1. Garcia did not sign the personal guarantee that accompanied the third note. Finally, it is denied that Defendants are not liable under the third note. 13. Denied. It is denied that it is "unclear which of Plaintiffs' exhibited notes and guarantees are confessed. It is further denied that Plaintiffs prepared the "payoff calculation" which is attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint as Exhibit "D". By way of further reply, Defendant George J. Garcia prepared the payoff calculation as evidenced by the initial at the bottom, lefthand corner of the document, which are attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint as Exhibit "D". 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the copy of the October 8, 1999 Note which Plaintiffs have attached to their Complaint as Exhibit "B" is not executed. An executed copy of the October 8,1999 Note is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". As 86662,11/10/02 -5- l' 'J.lLJL" -"".'-, ' -.....' "- ,J ",;,,-';';'~':'::, ~'- ;'.' "~,, .""Se__ ':h: to the balance of the averments set forth in Paragraph 14 in the Petition to Strike, those averments state conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the "payoff calculation" attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint as Exhibit "D" is unsigned and contains handwritten changes. It is denied that the payoff calculation was prepared by a "person or persons unknown." To the contrary, review of the payoff calculation reveals that it was prepared by Defendant George J. Garcia on January 19, 2001. Finally, by way of furtherrep1y, the "payoff calculation" was not used by Plaintiffs to confess judgment, but rather was used by Plaintiffs as further evidence of Defendants' acknowledgment of their obligation to Plaintiffs. 16. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the first note, as exhibited, was altered. It is denied that the alteration was done by a "person or persons unknown." By way of further reply, Defendant George 1. Garcia made the alterations to the fust note as evidenced by his initials which appear on the document. 17. The averments set forth in Paragraph 17 in the Petition to Strike state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments in set forth in Paragraph 17 are denied. The first, second and third notes, together with the corresponding personal gnarantees, all include warrants of attorneys authorizing Plaintiffs to confess judgment against the named Defendants. 18. The averments set forth in Paragraph 18 in the Petition to Strike state conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further reply, an executed copy of the October 8,1999 Note is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "A". 19. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the copy ofthe Guaranty to the Second Note which Plaintiffs have attached to their Complaint is not executed. The 86662J 1110/02 -6- " ,,~ -"""-'<>".'..;'""'W"x,,>~-'''' ,-'-'~,,;', ;'\" ";"":0. "';':,,,' ,;;'u' ,,:'1'; ,..'..;.: -~---, '~'. -,:';~)i~~~j,:-:Ch~ti;~",i', ,_."~'t",,, -'i:1wi:ki balance of the averments set forth in Paragraph 19 of the Petition to Strike state conclusions of law to which no response is required. 20. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs did not give the Defendants Notice of Default. By way of further reply, Plaintiffs gave Defendants written notification of their default on or about July 20, 200 I, as evidenced by the copy of the letter attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint as Exhibit "E". The letter was sent to Defendants at the Defendants' address indicated on the face of the documents (that Defendants prepared), via regnlar and certified mail. 21. Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments set forth in Paragraph 21 of the Petition to Strike and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. By way of further reply, Plaintiffs' Notice of Default was sent to Defendants at Defendants' last known address by way of certified and regular mail. Defendants received the Notice of Default as evidenced by the certified mail, return receipts received from the post office. True and correct copies of the written Notices of Default and the return receipt cards are attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "C". 22. The averments set forth in Paragraph 22 in the Petition to Strike state conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments in set forth in Paragraph 22 are denied. By way of further reply, it is expressly denied that the Defendants were not aware that they were indebted to Plaintiffs by virtue of the Note and corresponding guarantee. To the contrary, Defendants have at all times acknowledged their indebtedness to the Plaintiffs. 23. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Steelton Capital, Ltd. did not execute a Note in favor of Plaintiffs. It is further denied that Defendant George J. Garcia did not give a corresponding personal guaranty. Finally, it is denied that there was no Notice of Default. 86662.11/10/02 -7- ,I"~ "".-'^'liA":;" ~,!.,,,,, e-', , '--.-", ^,'-, .-' ';, :;'";i;.;'-,;j~j,t~,, "'~,-,,, "''-"Q',:,<t';'''~r1,,,; 24. Denied. It is denied that judgment by confession against the Defendants was a "surprise and represents financial and legal terrorism and must and cannot stand." By way of further reply, the Defendants were very much aware oftheir obligation to Plaintiff as evidenced by the email communication sent to Plaintiffs via email on or about December 13, 2001 by Defendant George 1. Garcia. A true and correct copy of Defendant Garcia's email correspondence, together with the "Settlement Agreement" referenced therein, is attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "D". 25. Denied. It is denied that the judgment is grossly excessive and not authorized by the instruments exhibited. It is further denied that "any recovery by Plaintiffs or fees to Plaintiffs' counsel is unconscionable." To the contrary, the judgment entered in this matter against the named Defendants is expressly provided for in the instruments attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 26. The averments set forth in Paragraph 26 in the Petition to Strike state conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, Plaintiffs note that the fact that the very documents which provided them with the authority to confess judgment against the named Defendants were prepared by the named Defendants. 27. Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in Paragraph 27 and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. By way of further reply, Defendants have filed a "Petition to Strike Off Judgment" not a Petition to Open Confessed Judgment. Consequently, Defendants may not raise any defenses to the confessed judgment other than the alleged "defects" which appear on the face of the record. 86662.11/10/02 -8- ," "-', '~.il- -, ,~ ", ,- " ,1,,: ",",",'- :<,:,~--,-,~:'"~'-'~~' '~'~ ' "--;"f1--'c-"-,w~ " 28. Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in Paragraph 28 in the Petition to Strike and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. 29. Denied. It is denied that Defendants never executed the Notes on which Plaintiffs have taken judgment. It is further denied that Defendant George 1. Garcia is not liable as a guarantor under the Notes. 30. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs have no authority to sue or confess judgment against the Defendants. To the contrary, the Notes and corresponding personal guarantees clearly provide Plaintiffs with the authority to sue and confess judgment against the Defendants. 31. Denied. It is denied that Steelton Capital, Ltd., has never borrowed any money from Plaintiffs. It is further denied that George 1. Garcia never guaranteed a loan or Note of Steelton Capital, Ltd. By way of further reply, Steelton Capital, Ltd., is licensed to do business in the state of the Pennsylvania as evidenced by the records obtained by the Pennsylvania Department of State Corporation Bureau, which are attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "E". Notwithstanding Petitioner's averments that Steelton Capital, Ltd. is a Delaware corporation, the Office of the Secretary of the State of Delaware reports that there are records of two void corporations known as "Steelton Capital, Ltd." The first Steelton Capital, Ltd. was incorporated on June 4, 1985 and became void on March 1, 1988. The second Steelton Capital, Ltd. indicates that that entity was incorporated on September 2, 1994 and became void on March 1, 1996. Due to the Plaintiffs' limited resources, Plaintiffs are unable to pay the $110 sum necessary to obtain a certificate from the State of Delaware, Secretary of State, for each of the void companies and would ask that the Court take judicial notice of the information provided to their counsel by the Secretary of State for the State of Delaware. ~2.1\I\O{02 -9- ~- ."" . , , , _1 ~ __, ,~. ,- - " "', , I "j- " ,'"' ~ "~ 0,";';";'" '~''''~':;;~2' ;~ "",y'. -"..:h,.~, . " 32. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs "at all times dealt with and apparently may have lent monies to borrower, as a Delaware corporation, and not to or with the corporate Defendant, of Pennsylvania corporation." By way of further reply, Plaintiff at all times dealt with George J. Garcia, Chairman of Steelton Capital, Ltd., a corporation having its principal place of business located in Cumberland Connty, Pennsylvania, as evidenced by the Defendants own documents and confirmed by the information obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State. Finally, by way of further reply, Defendant George J. Garcia's December 13, 2001 email communication to Plaintiffs clearly evidences Defendants' fmancial obligation to Plaintiff under the Notes and corresponding personal gnarantee. 33. Denied. It is denied that the Defendants have not been served with the Complaint in confession of judgment. To the contrary, Defendant George J. Garcia was served with Complaint in Confession of Judgment on December 5, 2001 by the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office. A true and correct copy of the Sheriffs Return for Defendant George J. Garcia is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "F". Defendant Steelton Capital, Ltd. was served with the Cornplaint in Confession ofJudgment on December 11, 200 I when Defendant George 1. Garcia personally appeared at the Cumberland County Sheriffs' Office to accept the same. A copy of the Sheriffs Return evidencing service on Defendant, Steelton Capital, Ltd. is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "G". 34. The averments set forth in Paragraph 34 of the Petition to Strike state conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments in set forth in Paragraph 34 are denied. 86662,11110/02 -10- -~ ~. ,., ',,, ,- - -" ~ "~,,, . -', ,'-' '",~ '1.- I '~, y. ~ "",';-';-;,.,';-c:iA':~' ';:-~kiii -' NEW MATTER 35. The averments set forth in Paragraph 1-34 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth at length herein. 36. According to the Secretary of the State for the State of Delaware, there are no records of an existing corporation known as Steelton Capital, Ltd. In fact, the records show that the only corporation known as "Steelton Capital, Ltd." became void on March 1, 1996, two (2) years prior to the first note being executed by Steelton Capital, Ltd. 37. According to the Pennsylvania Department of State, Corporation Bureau, Steelton Capital, Ltd. is a Pennsylvania business corporation, and its Chief Executive Officer is identified as Defendant, George 1. Garcia. A true and correct copy of the information obtained from the Department of State's website is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "E". 38. A review ofthe Notes which Plaintiffs have attached as Exhibit "A, Band C" to the their Complaint and the Note attached hereto as Exhibit "A", clearly reveal that the address provided by Steelton Capital, Ltd. is 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514. This is the same address which Plaintiffs used to identifY the corporate Defendant in the caption of their Complaint. Consequently, Defendant Garcia's arguments are without merit and are little more than subterfuge. 39. On October 8,1999, Defendant Garcia, Chairman ofSteelton Capital, Ltd. wrote to Plaintiffs and acknowledged Steelton Capital's indebtedness under the Note. A true and correct copy of Garcia's October 8, 1999 letter (on corporate letterhead). See, Exhibit "B". 40. On December 11, 2001, Defendant George J. Garcia appeared at the offices of the Cumberland County Sheriff to accept service of the Complaint in Confession of Judgment on behalf of Steelton Capital, Ltd. By virtue of Defendant Garcia's acceptance of service on behalf 86662-1t/t0102 -11- .'~ ...' _ . ,,' , .' ~" -F, "",co '".--."" ' 'I ;'- ", -,-!, ->l"'-_, ,"'" ,,,-"~';;',>,---,,,~, -'- - -~:ti, " of a corporation, Defendant Garcia has waived any right to challenge service of the Complaint against the Defendants in regard to this matter. 41. On December 13, 2001, Defendant George J. Garcia sent Plaintiffs an email communication wherein he acknowledged the obligation of Steelton Capital, Ltd, under the Note and corresponding personal guarantees. See, Exhibit "D". 42. Judgment by confession was entered against Steelton Capital, Ltd. and against George J. Garcia as a result of a Note and corresponding personal gnaranty issued by the Defendants. 43. Defendant's Garcia argument that the judgment against Steelton Capital, Ltd. is null and void based on an averment which appears in the body of the Complaint for Confession of Judgment is disingenuous in light of the fact that the documents, which Defendant Garcia acknowledges were executed, clearly indicate an address for Steelton Capital, Ltd. of 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514 -- the same address identified in the caption of the Complaint filed in this matter. 44. Assuming argnendo, the Plaintiffs reference to Steelton Capital, Ltd. as a Pennsylvania corporation in the body of its complaint is an error (which Plaintiffs dispute) the error is de minimis and does not constitute sufficient grounds to strike the judgment entered. 45. The Defendants have waived their right to protest the entry of the confessed judgment against them by virtue of the express terms set forth in the warrant of attorney which Defendants included in each of the Notes they executed in favor of Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant Garcia's Petition to Strike Off Judgment, with prejudice, affirm the Judgment by Confession against the Defendants for 86662.11110/02 -12- ~ - ,',H-.l"_,, ;""~",-Jr;;-';t~.,.""",,,:.:,,, '-J '.',-'.^ ~:", '-'i,;.:.,~ >' .~;, '"JlG:,;:i monetary damages as authorized by the instruments attached to Plaintiffs Complaint in the sum of $24,802.90, plus post judgment interest and costs of suit, and further award Plaintiffs all such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted, -.--< ~ '-<> ~ l!\'n.~~",^ -.~ Paige Macdonald-Matthes (Bar ill: 66266) Paul D. Shaffuer, Esquire (Bar ill: 43542) SAUL EWINGLLP Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, ih Floor Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 257-7500 Dated: January 10, 2002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 86662.11/10/02 -13- ~, ~" ~..,~"-'< ". . . ,~~, , , .' .' I...:;, '.'. '-.'~ " ,', '~--'~i~~iiF' Received 12/27/2001 07:49AM in 01:54 on line [10) for 4023 WORKSRV2 printed BOOA031B on 12/27/2001 07:51AM ~A~~ 4/~4 . 07/18/2001- 20: 31 3673907 JILL TROSTLE ~iDat ~ $16,871.80 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DATE: 8 October 1999 Having received sixteen thousand three hundred and eighty dollars and thirty- eight (38) cents (516,380.38), the undersigned STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD., a Delaware Corpc:Jratiolll, promises to pay sixteen thousand eight hundred seventy-one dollars and eighty (80) cents ($16,871.80) two (2) months from the date hereof ~ this being a di&:ount note - to GEORGE E. AND DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, 106 Heisey AveDu~,p.O. Box 167, Rbeems, PA 17570, or at such other place as the holder lI1ereof may, from time to time, designate in writing. In the event of default in the payment when due and the continuance of such default for a period of fifteen (IS) days after written notice, (by certified or registered mail or hand delivery), of such default is received, this Note shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen (18%) percent simple interest until paid. Presentment of payment, notice of dishonor, protest, and notice of protest are hereby waived. The maker of this Note hereby authOlues and empowers any attorney of any Court of ncord, UPOD default to appear in any Court having jurisdiction, aDd for him and in his name, to confess judgment against him, in favor of tbe holder of this Note aDd for the amount then due on the Note, plus interest as herein above stated, costs of suit, and a reasonable attorney's fee not to exceed five (5%) percent of the principal amount of this Note. Stay of execution is hereby waived and the exemption of personal property from levy and sale on any executiontAs also expressly waived. STEELTON CA ITAL, LTD. By: Chair aD 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 -----... ~ ~ " ; J- Rec~ived 12/29/2001 02'40PM in 00'56 l' 07/2112001 " 03: 23 35i390~n lne r11] for 4023 WORKSRV2 printed BOOA06CO on 12/2912001 // " I 1 JILL TROSTLE I>" U ,.j/ , . 1 ./ / ." -.<'-<-""' '4i&~g;;4;' 02:42PM . Pg 2/2 PAGE 02 The undersigned does hereby unconditionally penonally guaranty payment of the attaehed $16,871.38 disCOUIJt note (the "Note") of Steel ton ClIlpitaI, Ltd. Pn:aentment of payment, notice of dishonor, protest, and notice of protest are hereby waived. the guarantor of this Note hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney of any Court of record, upon default to appear in any Court havillgjurisdiction, and for him and in his name, to c:omeu judgment against him, in &vor of the holder of this Note and for the lUDount then due On the Note, plus interest lIB herein above stated, costs of suit, and II reasonableattorney'a fee not to exceed five (5%) pen:ent oithe principal amoUJltoftbis Note. Stay ofexec:ution is hereby waived and the ex_ption of penonal property from levy ale on any execution is also expressly waived. GE CIA 52 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 ~. ..........-.~' <~.~ . - .......... iiIllIliIIllI '_ ' l ' ~ " ..1.1 .....- " ,"", ,j" "'>;'-'"~~~h' Rec~ived 12/27/2001 07:49AM in 01:54 on line [10] for 4023 WORKSRV2 printed BOOA031B on 12/27/2001 07:51AM * Pg 515 07/18/2001 -20:31 3673907 JILL TROSTLE PAGE 05 ~tultnn Cltapital, IZtb. Jt.~I$fRIIf"N 52SO ~D F....,. Rood 8DIte 330 llIIlufJaltbfmrJ, P.17D5S-3n4 ToIt 717.737.2682 PUI 530.34.8.8206 E-maib 8Ieekcw@....bollpedlel 8 October 1999 Mr. and Mrs. George E. Carriger P.O. Box 167 Rheems, P A 17570 RE: George E. and Dorothy E. Carriger r'Lender") _ Steelton Cllpitlll. Ltd. ("Borrowel") SHi.871.80 Discount Note Ret'l\yIIlent Ch",,1c . Dear Dot and George: Enclosed please find llotrower's check nwnbered 1094, drawn upon its general account, in the l'ffiount ofSI6,871.80, payable to Lender, written today and dated for 8 December 1999. This check to be held by Lender wrtil the lIIlItutity date of the captioned lolUl and when deposited and paid shall be in full and final-pe.yment of said loan. Upon payment of this check, Lend"l shall mark the discount note paid in 1. sign it, and return it to Borrower. ia.J.D. Enolosure: check #1094 DD CWP'7G1G~ClllUUOEIlPOS'l'DA'I1lDCHIlCI:IIR1TI!B. -..- ~ \,',,, ,,"-- ~ (""" '>0;<', ~k~ Rec~ived 12/27/2001 07:49AM in 01:54 on line [10] for 4023 WORKSRV2 printed BOOA031B on 12/27/2001 07:51AM .Pg 2/5 07/18/200120:31 3673907 JILL TROSTLE PAGE 02 ..;t m o M .J ~ ~ !"'1f ." "'- z~"1 f"'~ oY:i i~ '" " "' :i . I':l ~ . ih ...." 's, ~ ~~ _w .. z Q W ....1:1 .... ~ ~ - tIJ.t 'I!l>>qUl\l"I~ IICIpnIOUIAJl\llKlf~ e <II '" o ~ oog .....; l'" DO 3 ..... ... , ~ b... 0'0 -. w ~l) effi ,.0 <'" ..0 . ~ ~ CO . oJ J 0 '" 0 111 . []" w ~ f I>- 0 CO l:lI 0 ..., ... p ..., 0 ~ .as ~~ l ~ oJ 11 []" 0 W ... 0 )..' 0 ~ J 1-J ~;o ~ w :; *t"I1IOI90 "? ~.-.....", '" --- , ._."-" .oil... ,~"",,~""'^ u~.l "-" ~"~,.",f,""r. ,:. '_~'~~ R~celVed 12/28/2001 09:45AM in 01-52 on li DEe 28 2001 09:56 FR SRUL EWmG for 4023 WORKSRV2 printed BOOA04F3 on 12/28/2001 09'48AM * 215 972 7725 TO 1717257758311- . P.~ 3/5 cenmed FOl!I Alt\Irl'l ReCtlpt fje ~g.wnent Rq,iftrG} AWttdecf DelMly Fto 'tEnd~nlntR~ "'''' _..a to.. $ ~~I-t<>"7.:.~:I~l-~,"l~~;:~~.' ~~;~."l _"",r;q.;",pos.."'" . ~ \~~~.n.fi:r~..iI~..,.~:..,!.~_......_.........__.. tc.chl .r. fA 5S~3IS'l- =-:-- ,..,-.'.- UNITED STATES POSTAL S!RVjCE .: " ' Fir~t-Cllii~M.ai1" . I." ..,.. 1>o&lage a'~ Paid \':: ,. USPS -.,," . ... ...,... ,.... PJl!l\1lt N6:G::10 .. . ,'. ~,\ .. ~ . Sender: Please p . \ ", address:a1'ill'Z~:rInthiSDllx' .. ..-'. 1Qu.~ D. S~ffh~"l f.~1U.;,..e. 5aulj E:.~ Ll. P C4\tr(..S~(.(pre.. wes~ lEiOO Mar W Shw, o~MtfI"'... 'Phil..deAphi6/ p,.. I'hbg -BIIi/p ':.1111'1 ,.,...'. i. , i i. --"._, .. CcciipiEile~etllSi; ~,.md3:Ai5i>C6inplGiO Item 41f floollrlcted Delivery ill deo/rVlI. . . Print ~our ~8lII. anclaclllfess llI) the ,.......... so that we can return the Card to ~CU. . Altad1lhis can:! to tile baCl<'.ollllD ma11pleca, or on the front" Bpaoe penn/ts. 1._"__1<>: ;I~ .... )to '1:1 Add...... _ D.lsdolivoly_c1W....""""iIlIml? Cv.. IfnS. QrMr deRvtly addrallS below: .No ". ~<lI> :'r':'" .'. ..."..,::. , ...... , StU.ltr..n, c.::.pitai.' Ltd. 6.250 5r", p$al\ firr.s~d &ute. aaO J\~hal'\(c.s bu.';2. PA 170$~ilS~ fl-thI, G...r.!)Co:t, Go,uc"i/. E.'5i' , Ii. AttId& Number ~ ~ teNlcslabel) , 1001\,. :0111)0 ,~ln~'1 ,,~'S qU.sa PSF"",,381';~u1Y191l9''''''''' , , bomesllc:ROt\IInI\eCQlpt' I I , 3.._1\'Po I ilIi CortItIod Mail C e.".... ..,.;, _, I , lJ ReI1Is1Aood C Return A..,,;pl for M_ I . 1:1 In.uto<J Mail C O.O,D. ! .. _od DeOv<t)'/ l6<l!a FveJ lJ Yes ! i I' 'f- '"f' I. "'1~1 ,; -- .~. A'TTCRNt\'S AT LAw J~ ~ ' . ,'~ . ,;_ 'i , ,I. j_," _ " .. "-}..':',, ,'~, ,.'" 'r'-t'" ~ liJ;ii ~eceived 12/28/2001 09:45AM in 01;52 on line 3 DEe 28 2001 09: S6 FR SAUL EwfJ. for 4023 WORK~r@ '9~ted BOOA04F3 on 12/28/2001 09'48AM . _ 7725 TO 1717257758311- . P. 02/~ 2/5 i' ... VV I I PAULA. 1), SIW'I'NER 1'1"'0" (215) 9'12.B6~ Fax: (2ISl 9'11.1915 psl1affIl<t@&>uJ..,..", ~ WWW.sau.t.c.om July 20, 2001 CERTIFIED MAIL AND U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL Steelton Capital, Ltd. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 ~ec~csburg,PJ\ 17055-3154 At1n: George J. Garcia, Esquire Re: NOnCE OF DEFAULT OF NOTE PAYABLE TO GEORGE E. AND DOROTHY E. CARRIGER Dear Mr. Garoia: We represent George E. and Dorothy.E. Carriger in connection with your obligations under a Note dated J\pri18, 1998, as amended (''Note"). You are and have been in default in the payment of your obligations under the Note. This lettor constitutes written notice of the default in aocordance with the provisions of the Note. Should payment in full, including interest, not be received on or before August 4, 2001, ajudgment will be entered against you for the full amount of the Note. interest, costs, attorneys fees and all other reliefto.y.:,hich the Carrigersare entitled. Very truly yours, " Paula D. Shaffner ., . . PDS/kg CERTIFIED RECEIPT NO. 7000 0600 0022 4575 9142 CeJUlc:: '4par. Wesl . l~OO Matk~t SU'~II~, 38" Ploor . PI1Uadclllbl.a. ~A 19102-21B~ Ph...: (21S) 972-7117 . P..: (213] 972.7?2S .,."..,...., DUTrA/OU 'cHIlS1E~D~OOK HAR~ISBO~O NEW YORK P]llLAllELPIIlA Pl!INCETON WILMI"GTON "CriU\9IAIIEwmmLWWl'YMRtN~ --- '>H " ,-._~ ,~~~ " - ..~-* R~ceived 12/28/2001 09:45AM in 01.152 on l- DEe 28 2001 09:57 FR SAUL"~.f~G for 4023 WORK~rg '9~ted BOOA04F3 on 12/28/2001 09'48AM' 5 7725 TO 17172S7?S8311- . P . 0S/~~ 15 lr '" '" .,. '" .- UJ :;t" ru nl "" ."" ce~aFca P.- ""'" l\sIl$n~i~tFeB (En1l;taemonlFl~ R~drwJ\/ery'eB \'ENIl:I1'I8/MftlFlcq.JIt';dl c;:J = ..JI "" ~fI'lt~.ff:~.~;'~~~ .,. ~l!:ft.__..._...__....,_..._n._'" o ~....,.,,,,...Ho. S .ft. g ~~.~f!r.IP~Y.l..f.Sr.t~_.~n~'J-"'_"'r:__...33Q._.... r- 'i'. Pr 11P~ ~ ~15* 'T9\i.1 ''ilStat- . '.e. I JNITell STATes POSTAl SE'ilV'~t':~\11111 j-: ,n."::' -w.ri~.llS Mall~ ' . i ~ PI" n' . ,~' p,j.llIgUF.aB!!_~~ . i ,_ . USPS -.. "-, , .. '-"'Parma No. @:l'o' -" , <. .: ""I -" ... -. ~.: 1 . Sender: Please p~nty~uf~a~e: address, a~d ZIP+4 in this bl)X' ! fau.lll- 1l. s.h~ffll"0 ~v\irc. I Sa...I) lWI~ \...Lf' { ~trt. Sql.LllV't- (.Uu;.t 1- 1500 tr'\,)r k.e...t- s;tl"~e.:/" 315m f"lcol' I . I , 'Pili 1.:"It1. Iphii'j fA 1410A- 3-lil# .,~ 1 .. . " ! . C9l1lil1iiiltllilnlG1,:2:1iiId3.AiSO'CCriiPf~ . Item 4 N fIe$lrIctad DellVlllY js desired. . PrInt yo.... name and add_ on the reverse eo that we oan retUrn \ltG card to you. . AIIach this carillO the back of\ltG mallpiecol, or on the llllnt N epliCe parmlls. ',_Ad_to: G-eorgl!. J. G-a,rc.l<'l, Esjv.i..-e. &.60 '5iWlpaYl Fu>'~ 'RAl'Id ~1M+e. 1;50 rn"Ch.l(\ia;,,"r~ PA llO$-31Slf oIii<l~' Z)~6' ; X ~:::.... . p, ,"~""".....d"df.,."tf"'mI/Sm1? c..... "YFS. om.<d.llvory _Ilo_ ~. . ..... 0..- . 3. SotVI.. Typo ~Comr""tAw1 O_MaII , CRo~ [Jlle!IlrnllOcolpllor-t [J In_ tAw' [J c.o.p, . 4. _ Dellvllry? _ Fool a..... ~. Mfofo""mw jCepy........- _ - _ i 'HMb t6,-~"d ibiiif~iiqJ~;H!'! l! PS Form 3811. July 1999 _. Rotum R/lcoIpt " t02Sts.oo.M-C&52 - TOTAL PAGE.05 _ ~ " .,i- www.saul.com . . July 20, 2001 CERTIFIED MAlL AND U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL George 1. Garcia, Esquire 5250 Sirnpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mecbanicsburg, PA 17055-3154 Re: NOTICE OF DEFAULT OF NOTE PAYABLE TO GEORGEE.ANDDOROTHYE.CAmUGER Dear Mr. Garcia: We represent George E. and Dorothy E. Carriger in connection with your obligations under a Note dated April 8, 1998. as amended ("Note"). You are and have been in default in the payment of your obligations under the Note. This letter constitutes written notice oftbe default in accordance with the provisions of the Note. Should payment in till!. including interest, not be received on or before August 4, 2001. a judgment will be entered against you for the full amount of the Note, interest, costs, attonleys fees and all other relief to which the Carrigers are entitled. ."..". Very truly yours, PaulaD. Shaffuer .~ - ~- PDS/kg CERTIFIED RECEIPT NO. 7000 0600 0022 457S 9159 CC1UTC" Square We-&( + UOQ Matkct $lrtt~. .u~ FlbDf . Ptliladc:fpfliil. fA 19101.2116 PIIOas: (:,.,5) 972.7771. Fax: (215) 912.7725 ...,,~"_L BALTlM08E CIIUTERBROOK HAaalSllURG NEW YORK PIULADELPIUA PRINCETON WILMINGTON A l:Ia,#.WAMUMItID UAlJILm' l'AA~p ---- - ~,!~ - "-';;(-'-j:~ ....~..._....-"'.- I .~~ ,.''"' ,- ,-~~ -. " . ,-,I, ,_ '.~,~,,~ 'i,""-,,j .,:'':-,-, '.." .', "T"~~ SeItlomcmAi_ '1bundo"o.-berI3,200lI2:S3:16PM' Pagelofl Wob'l'V Nolworb \?>_,O\ /1- E-mail messag~ From: Date: To: Subject: , gjgarciajd@yahoo.eom (G I GARCIA) Thu, Dee 13, 2001, 6:59am (EST-3) georockflsh@WEBTV.net Settlement Agreement PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Settlement Negotiations George and Dorothy Carriger . , The Settl'ement Agreement sniiil iffiIiled to you with a Drop Dead Date of 15 December ~ 2001 is hereby revoked and is null and.void. ~ Your recent actions have made it impossible for you to truthfully make the representatiOlls contained in the Agreement and for me to secure the necessary approvals, consents, and other happenings necessary or required to raise the money to repay - in full - the Principal 'Sum of the SCLDEL loan. ,...--.....-... This is a shame, since I had tried to see that the Principal Sum was repaid im full. Now it appears that not only have you lost your principal; to add insult to injury, you are adding legal fees and costs to your losses - so as to compound your self inflicted injury. I guess that is like shooting yO!lrself in the head, paying for the bullet, and then getting..a hospital and funeral bill. . , It has been my practice to make ONE offer and NOT to make a "low ball" offer and subsequently raise or increase It; but IF a second offer is made, that it be LOWER than the first. However, since ,you have suspended or effectively tenninated or undermined ANY offer, their can not be~ "........ I had warned you tI:iat any precipitous action on your part would in all probability have disastrous results for you and could prejudice the oppormnity of financing ANY repayment. Several times, you !lave drug your feet l\D.d mjssed the "window of oppoi'tunlty....; now, you seem to have closed it forever. ' It is said that "while genius knows it limits - stupidity knows NO bounds!" I hope the George relieves his back and other problems. In any event, I wish you a Merry ChristrnlliS and a happy New Yearl George J. Garcia, J.D. -' ' Do You Yahool? Check out Yahool Shopping and Yahool Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ., ~0 38~d 311S~1 llIf L06EL9E LS:p0 100~/011L0 LIZ 6d. HdOZ:~O 100Z/9L/21 uo ~6~J600a pa~u!Jd Z^~S~~OM ~ZO~ JOt [OIl aU!l uo ~O:~O U! HdSI:~O L002/9L/2L pa^!a'a~ "'" . . -, -- " iiliiio.iloo .1 '.-- J, . L -,,,,,,,':,~,,,,,,,,,---;,-~ ,,'-iM'~,>':"_'-'" ~';"-""-_ii': . L SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT , TIDS AGREEMENT (the "Settlement Agreement"), is made by, between lIDdIor among George E. Carriger lUld/or Dorothy E. Carriger (jointly and severally hereinafter called "Lender") and George J. Garcia (hereinafter called "GWlr8ntor and/or "GJG"). BACKGROUND WHEREAS, Lender funded a $15,000.00 (the "Principal Sum") loan to Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation (''Borrower''), evidenced by a certain Discount Note (the "First Note") from Borrower to Lender, dated 8 April 1998, which note was guaranteed by the Guarantor. WHEREAS, ,the First Note was repaid and refinanced by a certain DiSCount Note in the amount of $16,380.38, dated 8 October, 1999, (the "Second Note") from Borrower to Lender, which note was guaranteed by the Guarantor. WHEREAS, the Second Note was repaid and refinanced by a certain Discount Note in the amount of $17.756.88. dated 18 May 2000, (the "Third Note") from Borrower to Lender, which was guaranteed by the Guarantor, WHEREAS, the Third Note has been exteuded by various written extension agreements by and among the Lender, Borrower. and Guarantor (jointly the''l'iiifa Note Extension J\greements") - with the Third Note and the Third Note Extension Agreements are incorporaled herein by reference and made a part hereof and hereinafter are called, jointly and severally, "the Loan." WHEREAS, there have been a series of transactions by. between, and/or among the Lender, Borrower, and/or Guarantor relating to the First Note, the Second Note, The Third Note, lUld the Third Note Extension Agreements - including, without limitation, the giving to Lender by Borrower of various postdated checks (with the refinancings and/or extensions of the First and/or Second Notes) - which checks have been and are being held by the Lender and which represent promissory notes of Borrower to Lender to facilitate payment by the Borrower and said checks/promissory notes beclUne null and void upon the issuance of the Third Note); WHEREAS. the Third Noteilnd the Third Note Extension J\gremnents are hereinafter called, jointly and severally "the LalUl" and are evidence of Borrower's being initially advanced or lent, by the Lender, the sum of$lS,OOO.OO (the "Principal Sum") plus certain interest payments on principal balanoes of said loan. WHEREAS, Lender and Guarantor desire hereby to settle any and all past, present, and future disputes and differences relating to the Loan and/or any matter related thereto and/or arising out of. page one of four E0 3~Vd 311S0~1 llIf L06EL9E Lg:P0 100~/0!IL0 l/~ 6d. HdOZ:~O LOOZ/BL/2L uo ~6~~600B pa~U!Jd 2AHSlHOM ~zo~ JO~ [OLl aUI! uo ~o:~o UI HdSL:~O L002/BL/2L pa^laOaH -~,. ~ ........... .> ' I -.~ '. J,' , ""' "'-" " ..{-, -'-,.-:.~-"; '-""'~--a"~-ocil'~61~~" '. AGREEMENT WHEREFORE. in consideration the promises and covenants herein contained, the adequacy lUId suffioiency of which are acknowledged by the Lender, intending to be legally bound thereby, Lender and om mutually agree lIS follows: 1. The foregoing BackgrollDd is factually correct and complete and is made a part of this Settlement Agreement and/or the J\GREEMENT portion thereof. 2. That upon pllyment of the Principal Sum of the Loan - i.e., the sum of 515,000.00. to the Lender - on or before 31 March 2002 (the ''Termination Date" of this Settlement J\greement): J\, Lender will and hereby does accept the same in full satisfaction and discharge of the Loart and/or any Loan guaranty by GIG thereof and releases the Borrower and Guatalltor; B. The payment of the Principal Sum is and will be in full settlement, accord, and satisfaction of any and all claims, demands and causes of action of every nature which the Lender now has and/or hereinafter may have against the Borrower and/or the Guarantor because of the Loan or any matter arising out of or related thereto and remises, releases. and fOrevCli' discharges Borrower and/or Guarantor from any further claims, payments, debts, demands, damages, actions and causes of action under lII!d or pursuaJ\t to the Loan, any guaranty agreement thereof, or any mat'ter(s) arlslI1g out of or related thereto (including, without limitation, Lender's legal fees or costs); C. Lender indemnifies and holds harmless Borrower and/or Guarantor from and against any and all liability, claim, action or cause of action, matter(s), loss. cost and/or expef1SC (including legal fees and costs) arising or growing out of or related to the First Loan. Second Loan, the Third Loan, the Third Loan Extension Agreements, andf(l1' any guaranty agreement(s) thereto - including, without limitation, Lender's legal fees and costs;. D. Any telease and/or indemnification by Lender of BOlTOwer and/or Guarantor hereill set forth shall, will, and does extend to any and all heirs, executors, administrators, successors, directors. members, officers, employees, and/or assigns of Borrower and/or Guarantor (jointly and severally the ReIeased!Indemni1ied Parties") - and runs or is valid from the beginning until the end of time. 3. Upon payment of the Principal Sum, Len!ler hereby expressly agrees (from the beginning until !he end oftime).to indemnify and hold harmless BolTOwer and/or Guarantor from and against any and all claims, loss. damages, injury, and liability however caused, resulting from page two of five p0 3~~d 311S0~1 llIr L06EL9E L9:p0 100~/0t/L0 l/~ 6d. Wd02:~0 L002/SL/ZL uo ~6~j600S pa~U!Jd 2^~S~~OM ~zo~ JO. rOLl aUll uo ~O:~O uI WdSL:~O LOOZ/SL/ZL pa^!a'a~ ,b; ., " '1iilliiiiiiiI-' "'.-. . . J , - - ..~-,t<_-_-.,~ , - '" "il - ,,_.:, ,- '~1I;'1~ ~t~: or arising out of the First, Second, and/or Third Notes and/or The Third Note Extension Agreements and/or the Loan and/or this Settlement Agreement. including, without limitation, Lender'slegal fees or expenses. 4. Lender has and will not during the term of this Agreemen"t (i.e, until after the Termination Date"). give Borrower and/or Guarantor any notice of default under the Loan, seek to enter or confess any judgement(s) on the Loan, Or take or pennit to be taken any action to collect any sum(s) which may be due the Lender under the Third Loan and/or the Third Loan Extension Agreements and/or any guaranty thereof. TO DO SO. LENDER AGREES, RF.PRESR)llTS AND WARRANTS WIn CAUSE GUARANTOR I~~EPARABI,E RARMANDLOSS AND IS AN 1MMF."IATF. CANCEU.ATJON OF THIS AGREEMli'.NT AND IMMEDIATELY RF.l.'F.ASES. FOR AU, TIMF.. THE GtJARANTO~ FROM ANY AND AI.{, UAIULITV TO LJ<;NDER AS IF BE HAD NEVER. EXJ;CIITED. .A.NV. GVARI\NTY AGREEMENTlS\ TO mE FIRST. ~RCOND.. AND TmRDNO'l~. AND/OR TH'E LOAN, AND/OR AS IF THE BORROWER HAD NEWR EXECllTRnSAJD NOTFS. . AND/OR AS IF l,ENDER. HAP~~R ADVANCED ANiY MONEY TO BORROWER. AND/OR FOR mE PRINClP;4LSIJM ANll/OR A~ OTllER SUMlS) DUE LENDER. AND/OR FOR ANY OT~~ MATTElR OR THING ARISING our QF Ot.{ IN :pLATION THERETQ,. 5. The Release and Indemnification provisions hereof shall and will survive and not be merged into the payment of the Principal Swn, the cancellation of the Third Note and/or the Loan, the breach imd/or substantiahepudiation and/or cancellation of this SettJement A.gre'ement by the Lender. 'and/or any other document, illStrument, event, or happening. 6. Should the Principal Sum not be paid to the Lender on or before the Termination Date, this Settlement Agreement is null and void. 7. Upon payment of the Principal Sum, Lender will return to GIG the original of all notes, checks, guaranty agreements, and extension agreements marked paid in full and releaSed, dated. and signed by the Lender. 8. So that Lender may consult with accounting, legal. tax or other counsel, if any, Lender is hereby given until IS December 2001 (the Drop Dead Date'') to review, execute, and return to G10 all three copies of this Settlement Agreement 9. This Agreement will be null and void ani". three completely signed eopies are returned by Lender to AND RECEIVED by GJG - ONLY by prepaid, regular, flnt $ss U.S. mail, on or hefore 15 Deeember 2001 (the Drop Dead Date"). 10. . This Settlement Agreement shall, will, and does survive and not be merged into payment of the Principal Sum, any breach, repudiation, or cancellation hereof by the Lender. and/or page three oftive 50 39Vd 311S0~1 llIf L06EL9E L5:p0 t00~/0t1L0 LIS 6d. Hd02:~0 1002/91/21 uo ~6~J600a pa~u!Jd 2^~S~~OM ~20~ JO~ [01] aU!l uo ~O:~O U! HdSI:~O 1002/91/21 pa^!a,aij ;~ ~~ =~~- -... , A" ,-~ -'".,~ ~~--" -'- '''';''';'>'-''';('''V,i,~! :. . 4 any other document, instrument, event, or happening. 11. The Date of this Agreement shall and will for all purposes be the date that it is executed by GIG. 12. Notices shall be given at the following addresses - for any and all purposes - AND must be by prepaid, regular, first class U.S. mail ONLY, or by such regular mail at such other address as a party shall so notifY an other party. . LENDER: George E. Carriger and/or Dorothy E. Carriger P.O. Box 167 Rheems, pJ\ 17570-0167 . GUARA.NTOR: George J. Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 13. This Settlement Agreement is executed in triplicate by the parties, each to have the full force and effect of the original for all purposes and with each counterparts constituting one original agreement. 14. If any provision of this Settlement Agreement is ruled to be illegal. not binding, or invalid the remainder _thereof shall 'not be effected thereby, as if said provision(s) never existed. 1 S. Each party hereto acknowledges receipt of a complete copy hereof. 16. This Agreement is executed in and shall be governed by the laws of the State of PClUIsylvania, may only be changed or modified in writing. signed by all parties hereto. and setS forth the entire agreement and understanding between the parties, merging herein any and all prior oral or written agreements or understandings and with there are absolutely no oral or written contemporaneous agreements or understandings. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals, as of the dates set forth, in agreement of the foregoing and intending to be legally bound thereby. WITNESS: ~!l. George E. Carriger date ss: Dorothy E. Carriger date page four of five 90 39~d 311~1 llIf L06EL9E LS:p0 100~/011L0 LI9 Bd. WdOZ:~O LOOZ/9L/ZL uo ~6~J6008 pa~u!Jd Z^HS~HOM tZO~ JOJ [OL] aU!l uo ~O:~O U! WdS~:~O ~00Z/9~/Z~ pa^!aoaH '') - .-. ~ '. L I _', ,;,~ '\_'--'0' ":;"_'f">-1_"~_~'~" WITNESS: ~s: George J. Garcia cIal:e DD CWP'J OIO/CAJUUOD.t'L.OANISE1"rI.BMDn' A~MI!Nt ftNAl. DllAJlT29 NOVOI "" oro page five of five L0 39~d 311S0~1 llIt L06EL9E LS:P0 1000/01/L0 LIL Bd. Hd02:~0 ~OOZ/g~/Z~ uo ~6~.6008 pa~U!Jd Z^HS~HOM ~zo~ JO~ [O~] aU!1 uo ~o:~o U! HdSI:~O 100Z/g1/Z~ pa^!a,aH \$'1 Pennsylvania Department of State - Corporations ( " I Corporations Department of State Secured Transactions InfomH'ltien SerW:es FemlS Filing Information Fees So Payment Business Names Searchabja Database F AQ Additional Resources Return to Searchable Database Main Menu (Use Last Name, First Name for business names which consist of a person's fIrst and last name (i.e" Smith, John Inc.)) General Name Search G Entity Number: I Name: I ,~.... '.,"",...~.... .. Search Completed for: steelton capital Entity umber 155140 Name .ty Type ILEMOYNE I INCORPORATED BUSINESS emarks Pennsylvania Department of State 206 North Office Building. Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone - (717) 787-1057 DOS Home I DOS Phone Directorv I Site Map I Contact DOS I Events I Directions to DOS I Search DOS Site http://corps.state. pa. usl gnsearch. php ~ ;--"' , "~'-t'~~~h4i Page I of 1 12/26101 - Pell]lsylvania Department of State - Corporations , -crj.~.~" f:hadties , 1.-_ "~ ~' .,,,..,c;;-~-,;-,,,,,.,,:,_:,-- '-'<'rr-~-"-;"'~k:i Page 1 ofl Corporations Department of State Secured Transactions Information SeF\lces Forms Filing Information Fees & Payment Business Names Searchable Database FAQ Additional Resources Return to Searchable Database Main Menu (Use Last Name. First Name for business names which consist of a person's fIrst and last name (i.e., Smith, John Inc.)) Basic Entity Information Q INCORPORATED BUSINESS I ENTITY NO: 111551405 TYPE: H INCORPORATED BUSINESS II CONSENT: IIN FILED DATE: 2-13-1990 CURRENT NAME: STEEL TON CAPITAL, L TO, ORIGINAL NAME: STEEL TON CAPITAL, L TO, ADDRESS: 717 MARKET ST STE 210 CITY: LEMOYNE STATE: IlpA IIZIP: 117043 COUNTY: . Cumberland CNTRY tJURIS: IlpA PURP/DESCtCMNT: BROAD L TO AUTH: N II L TDtlNC TERM II PERPETUAL Corporate Officers I Instrument History I Pennsylvania Department of State 206 North Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone - (717) 787-1057 DOS Home I DOS Phone Directory I Site Map I Contact DOS I Events I Directions to DOS I Search DOS Site http://corps.state.pa.uslbasicentity.php?entityno=155l405 12/26/01 Pennsylvania Department of State - Corporations , ^ . Department I .-, L " __J "' -~-., c'. <{.ok ,;~- -~-, l':'l!:i!~il'liM, , Page 1 of 1 Corporations Department of State Secured Transactions Information $er.4ces Forms - Filing Infonllation Fees & Payment Business Names Searchable Database F AQ Additional Resources Return to Searchable Database Main Menu (Use Last Name. First Name for business names which consist of a person's fIfst and last name (i.e.. Smith. Jotm Inc,)) Corporate Officers & ENTITY NO: 1551405 II REPORT FILED AS OF: 1112-31.1989 NAME: STEEL TON CAPITAL, L TO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: GEORGE J GARCIA TREASURER: GEORGE J GARCIA MAILING ADDRESS: C/O GEORGE J GARCIA PO BOX 521 CITY: EUZABETHTOWN II STATE: UPA II ZIP: 11170220000 Basic Entity Information I Instrument History I Pennsylvania Department of State 206 North Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone - (717) 787-1057 DOS Home I DOS Phone Directory I Site Map I Contact DOS I Events I Directions to DOS 1 Search DOS Site http://corps.stat...Icoroff.php?curpage=l &entityno= l551405&cornam=STEEL TON%20CAPIT AL, %20L TD 12/26/0 I - . ~ ^" I -.~,J." ~-~ "-,>i--",'~' '".;"'"-':';-y' j-;i' Page 1 of 1 Pennsylvania Department of State - Corporations , Corporations Department of State Secured Transactions Infomlalion Se~ces FOl1lls Filing Infol1llation Fees & Payment Business Names Searchable Database FAQ Additional Resources Return to Searchable Database Main Menu (Use Last Name, First Name for business names which consist of a person's fITst and last name (i.e., Smith, John Inc.)) Instrument History G ENTITY NO: CURR.ENT NAME: DATE: 2-13-1990 3-10-1994 TYPE: ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION-BUSINESS CHANGE OF REGISTERED OFFICE Basic Entity Information I Corporate Officers I Pennsylvania Department of State 206 North Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone - (717) 787-1057 DOS Home I DOS Phone Directory I Site Map I Contact DOS I Events I Directions to DOS I Search DOS Site http://corps,stat. ../corhis,php?curpage= l&entityno= 1551405&comam=STEEL TON%20CAPIT J\L, %20L TD 12/26/01 - I~~ , ,- "c', cO ";~1'"'-' "'t~~;): SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-06408 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL VS STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL DAVID MCKINNEY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN was served upon GARCIA GEORGE J the DEFENDANT , at 1750:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of December, 2001 at HECHTS DEPARTMENT STORE CAPITAL CITY MALL CAMP HILL, PA 17011-3514 by handing to GEORGE GARCIA a true and attested copy of CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: /-/~''''''~' ,~/.", l:/~.$';.." ,_< ~h' ~f' - ....y:.t4r'.>-~'>':#~-< ~,.,..~ R. Thomas Kline 12/11/2001 SAUL EWING Sworn and Subscribed to before By: ~~~~ Deputy Sheriff me this day of A.D. Prothonotary . .< ~,~ - ~. , 0' " .,.,,~__,,~^_ ""~",):, SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR . . 'CASE NO: 2001-06408 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF,CUMBERLAND CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL VS STEEL TON CAPITAL LTD ET AL JODY SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN was served upon STEELTON CAPITAL LTD the DEFENDANT , at 1415:00 HOURS, on the 11th day of December, 2001 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ CARLISLE, PA 17013-3514 by handing to GEORGE GARCIA FOR STEEL TON CAPITAL a true and attested copy of CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Aft idavi t Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 26.00 .00 10.00 .00 54.00 rMrt:~~ R. Thomas Kline 12/11/2001 SAUL EWING me this day of By: r;; /cf~ ~uty Sheriff Sworn and Subscribed to before' A.D. Prothonotary -J,. ~ ~ ,.-,., "<" " ,,~ .J~,-:' ,'~';~~,_"~,--,--, ,Co..; ;;:s,l"".A'''i",~'!.-;.,.:':ii.~0i2 ';.";-:';;'"k" --:-E-!~~;:1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige, Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 10th day of January, 2002, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Petition to Strike Off Judgment via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Steelton Capital, Ltd. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055-3514 George J. Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 ~~,~~~~. Paige Macdonald-Matthes 86662.11110/02 liItkur ;";'~''i~)jfn <"':'i'd~--t~,,~':;L"'"i-""1'(""il~~~;- -,,~,--~~" -< ""-- '; '1tl' ,.;;~ ," "'k' '~';'"X'-''OP''.-k.~,;,,:;',,'", ,.~- "'d.:w' ".;_:" J'"' r'N. ",,,,,--,.,.',,,,~ -, ~ . . 0 c.-:> C1 c '''.J- Il '- '- :.::::i i:; i.:::.' ~I."':-:O rn pi .;:::: :':i_: / ,.. U) - -- r::' '- -':'J , c, ( " ,- c. (' c nl ~L". ( ,- .," ~, );;.-: =2 3,J to -< ^'-~ 2S 6f t ~~ ,'~,"" ,-<""'" iIlMIiiIiI" - - ~~ ,I ~~_~ , - ~ - ~ ,- j"'~""'"i:;j~ii~- .. ,", . SHERIFF'S RETURN - GARNISHEE Vi' CASE NO: 2001-06408 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL VS STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL And now GERALD WORTHINGTON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, at 0015:30 Hours, on the 8th day of January ,2002, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and moneys of the within named DEFENDANT in the STEELTON CAPITAL LTD hands, possession, or control of the within named Garnishee MID PENN BANK 4622 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to KELLY KUNKLE (HEAD TELLER) personally 3 true and attested copies of the within WRIT OF EXECUTION and made the contents thereof known to Her . Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So answers: .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ~~~~~~, R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County 00/00/00~ ~~ By ,......d. t-. . , Deputy eriff Sworn and subscribed to before me this " ~. day of ~H.7 ;Li}O ~ A.D. Q;t,'f. Q "M.ll,,',^f1 Prot 0 otary ^, ,-"",,-- "'>," ,".~ ~o,~" _ n ,.~_: =~'I",.._...'oLI","" ",~..., L,~ _~ ~ .c.--,.I'..1~_-_"~ ".,.;<.1.0."," .' . SHERIFF'S RETURN - GARNISHEE . CASE NO: 2001-06408 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL VS STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL And now GERALD WORTHINGTON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, at 0015:30 Hours, on the 8th day of January , 2002, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and moneys of the within named DEFENDANT GARCIA GEORGE J , in the hands, possession, or control of the within named Garnishee MID PENN BANK 4622 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANI CSBURG , PA 17055 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to KELLY KUNKLE (HEAD TELLER) personally 3 true and attested copies of the within WRIT OF EXECUTION and made the contents thereof known to Her . Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Aff idavi t Surcharge So answers: .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ~~~1f:~1 R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County o%%oo~ L ~ By , ^ J>tvtJ .-:> Deputy S r~ff Sworn and subscribed to before me '''!Jut''' A g~y of (). .'"7 t', () "'N,,'Rf.. , . ~. P 0 honotary ji. " ,,~ "-~ ]"'--'~*,j-- J, r;, '" " 200r, lie . :di\ii ~~. I.: _"v-Jt.1J' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE After due consideration of the pro se petition, motion, pleadings, and arguments of George J. Garcia, this Court having concluded that said Petition should be granted, '^" . ... ~ D€NIG'{-). It IS, therefor, ordered that, 1:tt ~ r ~ nable House , d Dated:ll1t ,2002 J. ~~ ."-~ . "" '," -~ ""-' ,."", "~>-"-'~-" .- ~g-j r'i ~'[! ,.,.., /'I~. 't~:.... ,,-! '~I...I,..1'" ' II" "t.',,~ f'.' ....,/ j'vt~ ~'I "} ~ I. '~_'''_'_'''I .. " ., ,!t,t-:ONOrARY 02 J~ NN22 Pill:30 C'JMBEh'LihD couNTy PfNNsYLVI-W/A iI r ~ ! ~ ^ ,*~C} 4 ~ il jo ~~ 1 } , ! ,'_~m__!!!l!~ ~~~l"f'~~(H""?ji;;!;:~,r!'r-<;:"l'n-~,~,ll!!\i1_;P~ !l!!m!ll!lll~,~ ,. ~'~~""c~-_~:~__!l:(1U,~,-".._,~~", ' " ~-~~ ~~.~ ,- ,I ':-::J . __'>:--i-_,,~;;~., '--~-''"'--i>~;'_~'''-lifi~w,_ :- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, P A 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants PETITION TO CONTINUE HEA!RING ON RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED To the Honorable Court, the Judges of said Court: NOW COMES, George J. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GJG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and moves the Court reschedule and continue the hearing on the Rule to Show Cause Why Judgement Should Not Be Stricken And Sanctions Imposed (issued by the Hon. Edward E. Guido, on 21 December 2002), set for 23 January 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom #5 of the Carlisle County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, for the following reasons: 1. GJG is a disabled individual within the meaning of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA" - Public Law No. 101 -336, 104 Stat 327 (1990), 42 USCA Sec 1210 et seq) ~ - ~- ....L - I -,> "., "", ... ,.' iJiilk H>ili'll!:liIM.j-L~f in that he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or has been regarded as having such an impairment (42 USCA Sec 12102(2) - namely - without limitation, walking, standing, rnobility, and hearing Gointly and severally the "Disabilities"), 2. That without reasonable accommodation of the Disabilities, GJG is and/or will not be able to adequately assist in, prepare for, prosecute his case, and/or to effectively participate in any hearing(s) thereon - in short, "be heard and hear;" 3. GJG has been for over a week and is currently ill with "the flu" and has not been able to arrange to be represented by and/or confer with Pennsylvania legal counsel - having contacted the local bar association for assistance in obtaining such legal counsel, 4. GJG was unaware until yesterday that a hearing was set upon his Petition for next week - believing that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel had until 23 January 2002, to respond to Defendant's Petition to Strike and Impose Sanctions; 5. GJG yesterday (14 January 2002) contacted the Assistant Court Administrator and Judge Guido's law clerk, learned of the hearing date next week, explained his Disabilities and requested "Reasonable Accommodations," and was told that a petition must be submitted to obtain a continuance; 6. GJG received, only last Saturday, 12 January 2002, Plaintiffs' Reply to Petition to Strike Off Judgement ("Plaintiffs Reply") and a Notice to Plead requiring a written response within twenty (20) days from the service (i.e., it is assumed, on or before 20 days from 12 January 2002) - which is AFTER the scheduled hearing); 7. It is unclear to OJG, what is required of the Individual Defendant under the Cumberland County Rules of Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit (C.C.R.P.) and/or the applicable ....~ ~, ~'- ~~~ JIL"= "I ~ .~- ",' d~' "',',~,, , ':','-4.-+", - Pennsylvania State Rules of Civil Procedure regarding briefs - or a mernorandurn in support of the Petition to Strike and hnpose Sanctions -prior to the scheduled hearing or subsequently rescheduled hearing and GJG wishes to confer with local counsel so as to comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable rules and avoid and not suffer any liability, loss, cost or expense or default for any - even inadverent - noncompliance; 8. Plaintiffs Reply grants Defendant time beyond the scheduled hearing to respond or plead and Plaintiffs are therefor not prejudiced by an extension of time and continuance as requested; 9. Failure to grant the requested continuance will deny the Individual Defendant proceduural and substantive due process, the right to confer with and be EFFECTIVELY represented by connseI, and deprive the Individual Defendant of his right to assist in, prepare, and present a vigorous defense - all of which will result in substantial and irreparable harm, loss, cost, and expense to the Individual Defendant and/or Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation (in that one or both will be deprived of property without due process of the law)- and would be fundamentally unfair. It is therefore asked that the Court grant a continuance (for a period of at least thirty (30) days from the scheduled hearing date) of this action, direct the Court Administrator or other designated official to assist GJG in the reasonable accommodation of his Disabilities, and that all proceedings to stay. Respectfully submitted, Geor . Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 717.737.2682 ~- ...... """""""' i' J - "'-"- ~ .'"," - 1-" - ,"";"c- -h'" "-~;-"ltl~'''i~j(.. . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2002, I hereby verifY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . GEORGE E. CARRlGER and DOROTHY E. CARRlGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 . Paige MacDonald-Matthes and/or Paula D. Shaffner and/or Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 arcla 11 ~~!l~~;;,.d!J"'}f;;~,',i:u,-'r';;~~!;iOI'~'Ji#;,","'iBowtJh!!!~';"'i-~-"!:f~"':l'_>.i-j,:"'t";ltiJr~:~~iW~lm..L L 1. II u o. ,~" .<<'_~.c-"".cN?'_, ......,~, ~ --"'~~:i[)-> ...~"Di!;f;j~- ~,29 ~ r ~31i? -r::- CllC ~ tn ~" ,- >.~,.~. '~r., M#ij. (") C:. "D~~ l;~~I ,L' t/) - ,/ c;t-:' ,~-- Z~) ~~(~= :z; =< F-S eft .ii' . c.~~;' f,-' ,-p ('.. .~ ' ,.J ::t: ,-1" -;/.,! ,- .:" ;'I"~i ?~~ ~o =< .:'Jl (,.) ~-"-,'~ ", w',.{, ,,,-._, ',_" ~";,.,-,~'!,,"~, I.' ',"--''-'>' , , ..,,','".,;;' _ ;~d;'-~';'';'~';~;'',~i_,,.<,_,,,.___ ~-~'~ GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems,PA 17570-0167 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs Civil Action v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Docket No. 01-6408 Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' PETITION [sic] TO CONTINUE HEARING AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger, by and through their counsel, Saul Ewing, LLP and files their Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Petition [sic] to Continue Hearing on Rule to Show Cause presently scheduled for January 23, 2002 at 2:00 p.m., and in support thereof aver as follows: 1, Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in Paragraph 1 of Defendants' Petition and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. By way of further reply, Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver the Defendant Garcia is sufficiently ambulatory such that he is able to work at the Hechts Department Store, Capital City Mall location, which is where the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department located and served Defendant Garcia with the Complaint in this matter. 2. Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in Paragraph 2 of Defendants' Petition and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. By way of further reply, Plaintiffs believe and 87125,11117/02 ~, "-,"-' -<-, ".',' "", _<1'0_'"' j,~2;-0.-'---e-' '-- "__:..i.'-'~"'_~''''<'' '-;;,,'ie-, """",:,, '-'; --', '.;., l~li'iMi.~j-i therefore aver the Defendant Garcia is sufficiently ambulatory such that he is able to work at the Hechts Department Store, Capital City Mall location, which is where the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department located and served Defendant Garcia with the Complaint in this matter. 3. Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth ofthe averments set forth in Paragraph 3 of Defendants' Petition and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. By way of further reply, Defendants could have arranged to be represented by and/or confer with legal counsel at such time that Defendants undertook to file their Petition to Strike. Defendants have been aware since December 26,2001 that a hearing has been scheduled by the Court in response to Defendants' Petition to Strike by virtue ofthe fact the Defendant Garcia served Plaintiffs with a copy of the Rule issued by the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendants have had more than enough time to consult with legal counsel, if they so chose, and that Defendants sole purpose in presenting their Petition is to further delay the proceedings in this matter. 4, Denied. It is denied that Defendant Garcia was "unaware until [January 15. 2002] that a hearing had been scheduled by the Court on the Petition to Strike for January 23, 2002. To the contrary, Defendant Garcia knew on December 26, 2002, the date he served Plaintiffs with a copy ofthe Court's Rule, that a hearing had been scheduled by the Court for January 23,2002. 5. Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth ofthe averments and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. 6, Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs served Defendant with a copy of their Reply to the Petition to Strike on January 10, 2002. Plaintiffs are without knowledge to form a belief as to when Defendant received a copy of Plaintiffs' Reply and strict proof ofthe same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of hearing. By way of further reply, 87125,]1117/02 '!#, - -~"--- ~'-"'~- y --~,' "0< o~_,;li_',- ,c.'-""" :~';-',~.- ~"";'---:i .;;.::,7;J:>_;;....>~\,,-'.'..,_;- c" '_~'"": 'oj, _ _'!>I:''-_ Plaintiffs were not obliged to serve Defendants with their Reply until January 23, 2002, the date the Rule is returnable and thus the fact that Plaintiffs served Defendants with their Reply in advance of the January 23,2002 return date does not serve to change the hearing date set in this matter, 7. Denied, It is denied that Defendant Garcia is "unclear what is required of the individual defendant under the Cumberland County Rules of Court." By way of further reply, Defendant Garcia filed the Petition to Strike on December 11, 2001 and had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel prior to filing his pleading and failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Moreover, Defendant Garcia has known since December 26,2001 that a hearing was scheduled in this matter and his argument that he now needs to consult with counsel is disingenuous in light ofthe delay of his request, and is reasonable calculated to cause further harm and prejudice to the Plaintiffs. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs Reply grants Defendants time beyond the scheduled hearing to reply to Plaintiffs' New Matter. It is denied that Plaintiffs' Reply was due before the Rule Returnable Date, January 23,2002, By way of further reply, the early service of Plaintiffs' Reply has no bearing on the Rule Returnable date in this matter. Finally, it is denied that Plaintiffs are not prejudiced by an extension oftime and continuance requested. To the contrary, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to prejudiced by Defendants' dilatory tactics, 9. The averment set forth in paragraph 9 of Defendants' Petition state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that it is judicially determined that an answer is so required, the averments are denied, 87125_11/17/02 :~ ~.", . ~';'"-1Jtiii..- --"J'~' """" .',-'''.!- -'"~'." , ",.1'.;-.;.." ., .U,"-, 10~~ ~'.,,"; <='/ ;:"i.-,,:"ii.:;',~-,,--,.:-:~. . ":niill:fis~Li WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny Defendants' request for a continuance of the January 23, 2002 hearing, deny Defendants' request for a thirty (30) day extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs Reply to the Petition to Strike, and further award Plaintiffs all such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted. -O-=~~~~ Paige Macdonald-Matthes (Bar ill: 66266) Paula D. Shaffner, Esquire (Bar ill: 43542) SAUL EWINGLLP Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7'h Floor Harrisburg,PA 17101 (717) 257-7500 Dated: January 17, 2002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 87125.11/17/02 !J ""~". .', .'~ . '<., ,~~' ,--0" cr .;;" " ,I," ","" '",' ,';';"'7" ~"-~--:'; '," -" ;;,.,,:..~ ,!^,,-,j'fdi.f~ """"j.,:,, ',;, >.-.t'"--"'i4:~L.:: . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 17th day of January, 2002, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Petition [sic] to Continue Hearing via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Steelton Capital, Ltd. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055-3514 George J. Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 G ~ ..lM.a.M~'AA~WA Paige Macdonald-Matthes 87125,11/17/02 ~~jjm~l~~~m.,,";ji!l~~~:1ii,l-~ ~~~.,-,.~."--""".",,, '''''~o~'- .<,,-" ~_ _', -,'0 ."~ - , ~, - (") c:: :r-:: -00) u;t}"~ .?- ~':;; Z~_~ c.P.,o:". ;,.(~ '::,- r:::u ,,~C' r:;.;-? -' CQ rC Z :2 c::: r.......; ,- ~; ...~ -- cP ~, .~ 6 .. s:- o:> Il . - , -~:~-,: -~-:.f(\ ~:\ ::Q - - - '" ~ p.",' , -, -;. -,,,,, _i';__ - -"'- --i'u't- 'J,u .Ji~ S~U~ YEWINGLLP ATTORNEYS AT LAw .IAN 1 8 2002 yl PAIGE MACD'I5NALD-MATTHES Phone: (717) 238-7675 Fax: (717) 257-7583 pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com www.saul.com January 17, 2002 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Richard J. Pierce, Court Administrator Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3387 Re: George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger vs. Steelton Capital, Ltd. and George J. Garcia; CCP. Cumberland County, Docket No. 01-6408 Dear Mr. Pierce: Enclosed please fmd two copies of the Plaintiffs' Reply In Opposition to Defendants' Petition to Continue Hearing. Kindly forward one copy of this Reply to Judge Guido for his consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, lfa~ ~~h-:~/J/Ij; PMM/LBZ Enclosures cc: Steelton Capital, Ltd. George J. Garcia 2 North Second Street, 7'h Floor. Harrisburg, PA 17101-1604. Phone: (717) 257-7500 . Fax: (717) 238-4622 87137,11117/02 BALTIMORE CHESTERBROOK HARRISBURG NEW YORK PHILADELPHIA PRINCETON WILMINGTON A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ~c.;. ~..;.. -I: "o!_'_ .-,'A' ,-,_C'4 " .-, -~',. _ _ B . .-' -~- \'i'l~'~W;-iiit ~. George J. Garcia, J.D. P.O. Box 394 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3934 Tel: 717.737.2682 Fax: 717.737.2587 E-mail: gjgarciaJd@yahoo.com ,:s;j JAN 1 8 2002"'J ~ 17 January 2002 Mr. and Mrs. George E. Carriger 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 RE Veracity Notice Dear Dot and George: While it was quite evident from the complaint that your lawyers and you filed - AND WHICH THE TWO OF YOU VERIFIED - to confess judgement against Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation, and against me, that you "do not have a firm grip on the truth" and that you will say and do anything - no matter how deceptive or untrue - in an effort to obtain rnoney. However, you really oudid yourself in your latest document filed with the Court entitled "Plaintifs" Reply to Petition to Strike Off Judgement (the "Reply") - which was sent to me thru the US mail. Item 31 of the Reply F ALSL Y states that "Due to Plaintiffs' limited resources, (EMPHASIS ADDED) Plaintiffs are unable to pay the $110 sum necessary ...!" This was and is a "whopper!" This is truly "a new high in low." Your net worth is in the low seven figures and from the books of account - in Dot's handwriting - which you showed to me, the two of you are highly liquid and have investments in securities, mutual funds, various stockbrokerage accounts, bank checking and savings accounts, and other cash deposits. This is in addition to your holdings in residential and commercial real estate. In fact, on numerous occassions, you have asked for advice in estate and financial planning since your estate for federal estate tax purposes would require substantial tax payments. Also, as you have told me, you have engaged and may still be engaging in gift programs of your assets to your children and grandchildren to reduce your estate. I believe you have even given a house to one or more of your children. "People of modest means" is yet another attempt, thru deceit and deception, meant to trick the Court and to defraud. It is lying to the Court. Since it is easy to disprove the outrageous statement, it is also "just plain stupid!" We discussed on several occassions the problems President Clinton got into because oflying and using deception in court proceedings and (as George said) how he was lucky not to go to jail. I would suggest that the two of you rnay have similar problems. Also, since a scheme to defraud using the mail and/or the wires (telephone, fax, and Internet) are multiple criminal violations of Title .~- ~.. ~J_J -',- . ~ ..,' ',,",~' C", v. ,~,o= c,. -~'" -'~;~li1l-~~ '. i~~,: ,~ page two 18 of the U.S. Code, you could or may also be in "federal trouble." While, I really would not like to come visit you in jail and hope you stop your campaign of lies, deceit, deception, and fraud; I have an obligation to bring this latest lie to the attention of the Court.. All the s ! arcia, J.D. C: on. Judge Edward E. Guido Steelton Capital, Ltd. (PA) Saul Ewing, LLP (DEL) ""i ':~'~"\"Mo'@!J"iiJrJTh.i>~u;';1'fflfll",,~[0!0i'~~l&i.:Eil;<}!i~~10~;;!,6",".n'k*c"_"";''!""""';_Ib~~\li-2Ai~*~itlt,~W\~~,lF!I'J,;.~iiItliJla~ !L"JI!.JII, ." ~. ~ > -<-<, . ~-,- ~; :Flr-!iliilH&.~..J'~"'''~ .' (') c:: ~. $: ~va" !p [l7 Z:C" (f)_t_:' ::<.:;::~ f;Ec:-Z en <0 :$c ~ N " c.n 07 _!lO!!!!llil , r..::.> f\..) , ;;; ~ (') -n , --~ - -"--":if:! f:'~{(~l 'oT"f ,';5-r1 ~,{~ QJ! .::-/ 55 -<: co -0 ""'<". ~. , , ~~'.- ~ " ,._, 'iilfln~:, , 'i1~ 01- i;, li-Of{ c.u::~ -r<:.._i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2002, I hereby verifY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 . Paige MacDonald-Matthes Paula D. Shaffner Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg, P A 17101 ......"" ~ ~ . George J. Garcia, J.D. P.O. Box 394 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 Tel: 717.737.2682 Fax: 717.737.2587 E-mail: gjgarciajd@yahoo.com 17 January 2002 Hon. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Court of Common Pleas of Curnberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 RE: George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger vs. Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation and George 1. Garcia Docket Nurnber 01-6408 Dear Mr. Long: '^ ,^-" Enclosed is one original and one (1) copy of my "Verasity Notice" letter of even date herewith to the Plaintiffs and a certificate of service. Please file the original, timestamp and return the extra copy to me in the enclosed stamped envelope, and bring the original to the attention of the Hon. Judge Edward E. Guido. 1-c If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. Enclosures: C: George E. Carriger Dorothy E. Carriger SteeltonCapital, Ltd. (PA) Saul Ewing, LLP (DEL) , , ~, - '-:IHf~lli!@:ii"; ,-,,~ _~,t; ~1~I~;\i6~j;i'ti;;~;'~#FJ1'!1:fr~;;?ltillit~;;~;h#&4'Mt~Zt~~~k~~;Bk II '" '" 0, co .;.. or. o r- ~ ~ '" 'g " ~ dg::~ ....; ><.~ " 0 " bJlal '" l-; .15 as 00) 00.;::;: ..~ ~~ =, C'l~ , l/~ l/~ =~ Q t. ~. ..; ..~ ,i =. .~ lW '" is (,J M ~= =" " ..; '.i :<i ... ~ = := l.V ~ " ~: c . :~ ~, Q .. . .. Cll.. .. e , ~_~~)~i0~'fW'~~i\~~"1Kj&t~~;$S~~~~ " -- ~-~~ ~. ;, ~~ ~.. . '~.I - ~.ii.j[j:r--" t~ijllli<:~-llwi; , . JAN 2 3 2002 -SG' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL VANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, YTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA .5250 Sirnpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE OPENED AND SJ\NCTIONS IMPOSED And now, this _ day of January 2002, on consideration of the foregoing petition/motion, a rule is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel to show cause why the judgement entered in the above case should not be opened and sanctions entered. All proceedings to stay. Rule is returnable by 2002 ,J. -~ ~jH",.i~ ~ ~, ""'^'~'..Ill'-:i.i"',",-i'~_'_' 0, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANIJ\ GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE l. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants AMENDED PETITION TO STRIKE OFF IOPEN JUDGEMENT To the Honorable Court, the Judges of said Court: NOW COMES, George 1. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GlG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and moves the Court strike off or in the alternative open the judgement heretofore entered therein for the following reasons: A. PETITION TO STRIKE JUDGEMENT 1. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure must be strictly followed if a valid confession of judgement is to be entered. (Scott Factors, Inc. v. Hartley (1967) 425 Pa 290),228 A2d 887; Citizens National Bank v. Rose Hill Cemetery Asso. (1971) 218 Super Ct366, 281 A2d page one of eleven .........._~ ~L ~ I _ L ~L .,-'-^- " ,~'li,..,.i""d" 73.) These Rules were and are written to give a debtor additional protection by prescribing requirements in the procedure for relief from confessed judgements. There is no reason in law or policy for permitting the abborgation by a court of these protections by waiving the mandatory provisions of the Rules. (Citizens National Bank v. Rose Hill Cemetary Asso. (1971) 218 Super Ct 366, 281 A2d 73.) 2. Pa R Civ P Rule 2952(a) requires that the Complaint must contain the names of the parties. 2. .The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the prothonotary must enter judgement by confession AGAINST THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED IT. (Pa P Civ Rule 295 l(a).) 3. When a proceeding to enter judgement by confession is commenced by the filing of a complaint, the complaint and the confession of judgement are to be read together in determining whether or not there are defects apparent on the fact of the record. (Parliament Industries, Inc. v. William H. Vaughn & Co., (1983) 501 Pa 1, 459 A2d 720.) Accordingly, the Court is asked to take Judicial Notice of the Complaint, Judgement, and exhibits to the Complaint that: Plaintiff has sued and taken judgement by confession against Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Corporate Defendant"), NOT against the maker of said note(s) and that all of said notes on their face say "Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delawll1'e corporation" (hereinafter called the "Borrower") and that the attached Guaranty is for and of "the attached... Note" (i.e., that of Borrower and NOT the Corporate Defendant); 4. The Court is further asked to take Judicial Notice of the exhibits 0 fPlaintiffs that: the Corporate Defendant never signed ANY OF the exhibited documents - but one or some of page two of eleven ~:: =, lIllliII ~. ! I , ",'. ^-,' ~ ~ _" _ v' ";"'~\f.;'~Ii: them were signed by a Delaware corporation and that the Corporate Defendant never gave any warrant of attorney to Plaintiffs/Lender to confess judgement. Accordingly Plaintiffs are not authorized by the face of any of the notes exhibited in the Complaint -to confess jUdgement against the Corporate Defendant and GJG never guaranteed any of the exhibited notes on behalf of the Corporate Defendant. S. A warrant of attorney to confess judgernent is the very essence of the judgement, not a minor part of the clerical process, and without such warrant, a judgement is void. (Wells v. Cahan (1988) 1 D & C4th 394.) 6. Judgements by confession can and must be stricken for irregularity in the record (Pennwest Farm Credit, ACA v. Hare (1991) 410 Super Ct 422). Suing and taken judgement against the wrong party - NOT a maker of any of the notes in the Cornplaint and GJG as the guarantor of notes NEVER signed or made by the Corporate Defendant and/or without its warrant of attorney is/are "an irregularity" 7. A release of errors (IF naming a Pennsylvania corporation, as the Corporate Defendant, and taking judgernent by confession against it is a "mistake or an error" INSTEAD OF AN INTENTIONAL ACT does not cure a lack of authority to confess judgement against the Corporate Defendant and thus against GJG. 8. It is believed that takingjudgernent against the Corporate Defendant - without it ever signing any of the notes exhibited in the Cornplaint and without granting any warrant of attorney to confess judgement - was and is a deliberate and fraudelent act - of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs Counsel- rnade to deceive the Court into entering judgement against an entity other than the Borrower so as to defraud GJG and/or said Corporate Defendant and/or in an page three of eleven -- ""', " - ~~"~ 1.,- , ilii\i!l!:d':iiii!fi;;,'Il'""j,-, attempt to extort money frorn said Corporate Defendant and/or GJG by virtue of a judgement obtained by confession. )\, Plaintiffs signed Verifications, that the facts in the Complaint were true and correct and that they were aware of the penalties of unsworn false statements; yet permitted the Complaint and Judgement to be filed and entered. B. Plaintiffs Attorneys are members of the Pennsylvania State Bar, assumed to know the applicable law, rule, and regulation, are officers of this Honorable Court, and (unless grossly incompetent or "plain stupid") can read the notes attached to the Complaint, know that the Borrower was and is Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation, know that the Corporate Defendant did not execute any warrant of attorney, nor that GJG guaranteed the attached note(s) of Borrower and NOT he Corporate Defendant, and know who to sue - as well as they rnay not confess judgement against.. Yet here we are!!! C. The Corporate Defendant and/or GJG has, have, or may suffer irreparable harm, loss, cost, and expense because of the improper judgement and the actions and inactions of Plaintiffs and/or the Firm. D. While the Judgernent taken by confession is a nullity and is of no more force and effect as if taken against "Mickey Mouse;" GJG regrets to say that it could be called a "Mickey Mouse Judgement" and holds this Court and the LAW up to possible scorn and redicule. The Honorable Court is NOT a "Mickey Mouse Court!" E. As Melvin Belli, Esq. said, " the Law is not an ass - but those who try to bend and pervert it - ARE." page four of eleven . ~~ ii'l;j,~~ ~v_.'" ..~ -, ~~ - - ~ - - -, .J ___~,~) -I. .'"_ '"". ~ , -.,W.-;@~iw"-'- F. By perverting the Rules and by fraud and deception, Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel haslhave for their own financial gain caused the Complaint to be filed and the Judgement to be entered - seemingly "all in a legal way!" 9, The First Note was paid in full and refinanced by the Second Note (or some subsequent note), can not therefor possibly be in default, and if not in default - judgement can not be confessed against any debtor and/or any guarantor;. 10. The Second Note (or the note which actually paid in full the First Note) was paid in full and refmanced by the Third Note - and accordingly can not possibly be in default, and if not in default - judgement can not be confessed against any debtor and/or any guarantor;. 11. There appears to: possibly be sorne valid Third Note - but the Corporate Defendant never signed it (or the First or Second Note) and thus said Pennsylvania Corporation AND/OR GJG can not be liable under the Third Note in this action. 12. It is unclear which of Plaintiff's exhibited notes and guaranties are confessed (as the Complaint contradicts itself saying its the First, sorne combination of the First, Second or Third, the Third, and/or alios some of the First, Second or Third plus (perhaps) its exhibited "Payoff Calculation - therefor, due process and equal protection (for Corporate Defendant and/or GJG) requires ANY Judgement to be stricken. 13. The Second Note exhibited is unsigned and can not possibily bind ANYONE TO ANYTHING! ! 14. The alleged "Payoff Calculation" (exhibit) is unsigned, contains handwritten "scriblings" from a person or persons unknown, is not proof of any indepetness by ANYONE, or any interest thereon, and can not be used to confess judgement or calculate the balance of any page five of eleven ~-" =~~ I I ~_ , : ~"', . < , I!l~~:t".."ktf,,!"m loan(s); 15. The First Note as exhibited also seems to have been altered by persons or persons Wlknown If the exhibited First and Third Notes - along with the unsigned Second Note and/or the unsigned Payoff Calculation are to constitute one note/loan/debt or agreement - there is no way that one J\NYTHING exists - which may be confessed against ANYONE. 16. The Second Note to valid and enforceable must be BUT was not signed and contains a warrant of attorney NOT accepted or granted by any maker and/or guarantor thereof; 19. The exhibited Second Note contains a Guaranty agreement which is also unsigned and is of no force and effect. 20. The Plaintiffs never gave Borrower and/or Corporate Defendant and/or Guarantor notice of default under any note which was received or offered proof to the contrary; 21. The Notice of Default (Plaintiffs Exhibit "E") was never received by GJG who demands strict proof that GJG signed ANY certified receipt therefor. 22. Any "Notice" attempted by Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel was and/or would be invalid as the Corporate Defendant never executed any note(s) to, for, or with Plaintiffs/Lender and GJG is not the guarantor of any obligation of the Corporate Defendant to Plaintiffs - since no know such obligation(s) exist(s)! 23. There is no note of the Corporate Defendant to Plaintiffs, no guaranty ofGJG thereto, their \ was no notice of default and if so, so what, if there were no notes or guarantees; 24. Judgement by Confession against the Corporate Defendant and GJG is by sunrise and represents financial and legal terrorism and must and can not stand. 25. Judgement is grossly excessive, not authorized by the instrwnents exhibited, and recovery page six of eleven - ~ .......... ..-~"L"bo 'liih~ ,~ "l'~i"liil\~","""..~"l",fJi:,. unconscionable. 26. Plaintiffs "proceedings" totally deprive the Corporate Defendant and GJG of equal process and due process of law; 27. The Borrower has defenses which is could raise and are not to be waived hereby and the Corporate Defendant and/or GIG can and may not so waive any defense, claim, counter- claim, or cause of action which the Borrower or GJG may have as a Guarantor of any note( s) or other obligations (IF ANY) to Plaintiffs which arises out of or is in reflation to this action, any note(s), or guaranty agreernent(s), or otherwise. 28. GJG reserves the right and seeks leave of the Court to retain Pennsylvania legal counsel and/or to otherwise subsequently raise any other defense(s) as may be available and does NOT waive any such defense or remedy by virtue hereof in this or any other proceeding; 29. Corporate Defendant never executed the notes exhibited on which Plaintiffs have taken judgernent and accordingly GJG can not liable as a guarantor under any or all said notes. 30. Plaintiffs have NO authority to sue and confess judgement against Corporate Defendant and GJG, as the guarantor of notes never executed by said Corporate Defendant. 31. Steelton Capital, Ltd, a Pennsylvania corporation and the Corporate Defendant is not Steelton Capital, Ltd, a Delaware Corporation, and never has been; nor has it borrowed any money from Plaintiffs. Accordingly, GJG has never guaranteed any loan or note of Steel ton Capital, Ltd, a Pennsylvania corporation to Plaintiffs 32. Plaintiffs, at all tirnes, dealt with and lent money to Borrower, as a Delaware corporation, and NOT the Corporate Defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation. . 33. Neither the Corporate Defendant or the Borrower has been served with the Complaint and page seven of eleven 1IIiiiiliIili~~ ,- ," ~ , "' 'I 1 Iimmii';~.4,iU.,\i1,w.~n~1..-; Confession of Judgement. 34. Service on the Corporate Defendant is a nullity since the Judgement is null and void. WHEREFORE, GJG prays this Honorable Court to grant a rule on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel to show cause why the said judgement should not be struck off and sanctions imposed against Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel; all proceedings to stay. ALTERNATIVE: PETITION TO OPEN JUDGEMENT NOW COMES, George J. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GJG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and moves the Court in alternative to striking off the judgement heretofore entered therein, open said judgement - for the following reasons: 35. Those reasons set forth above; 36. There exists NUMEROUS factual disputes and questions of fax (set forth in items 1 - 34 hereof) which at trial would be required to be submitted to a jury and require J:h.e Judgement to be opened (pa. R Civ P Rule 2959( e); 37. There exists meritorious defenses to the original action (again as set forth in items 1 - 34 hereof) (Roundleyv. D.C. Ventre & Sons, Inc. (1987), 361 Super Ct 253,522 A2nd 569, app den 516 PA 614,531 A2d 781); 38. This (alternative) petition is equitable in substance and seeks equitable relief 39. GJG and/or Steelton Capital, Ltd. (PA) would have the opportunity of asserting counterclaims - for fraud, etc. (Allied Discount Co. V. McClinton (1981),286 Super Ct. 21, 428 A2nd 217; 40. Failure to open the judgement would deprive GJG and/or Steelton Capital, Ltd. (P A) of property without due process of law, of equal protection of the laws, and be fundamentally unfair; page eight of eleven ~~" " """~~ - ~~-,.. .iIj~ ~~A;:-e<_E 41. Opening the judgement would afford the Defendants the right of discovery and to a trial by jury. WHEREFORE, GJG prays - in the alternative - this Honorable Court to grant a rule on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel to show cause why the said judgement should not be opened and sanctions imposed against Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel; all proceedings to stay. Geo J. G cia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 717.737.2682 page nine of eleven ,. . ~ ~l;; .l.<_j ~_'~,~.L,.'~" _~,,,,,,,"~,,,,..,j,,, . ' - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2002, I hereby verifY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the u.s. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems,PA 17570-0167 . Paige MacDonald-Matthes and/or Paula D. Shaffuer and/or Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 ,.- '."""""W'" h.. .- _1.I.Jl "' I. I ,I ~ ~ ,_. 1l "\li'~'''li~-0-lq C;l, JAH 2 3 ZOOZ Sf;. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLV ANlA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHYE.CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CNIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, YTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 "':;"""!o..-_' ,,,,--,,;... RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE OPENED AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED And now, this _ day of January 2002, on consideration of the foregoing petition/motion, a rule is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel to show cause why the judgernent entered in the above case should not be opened and sanctions entered. All proceedings to stay. Rule is returnable by 2002 ,J. ,- ,- "'~"""""""~ ~~. - ~' I ;.1 .~ ""-"-~"~~""'" --...k,,;.;.'~tM""~)~d:<,.; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, YTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE OPENED AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED And now, this _ day of January 2002, on consideration of the foregoing petition/motion, a rule is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel to show cause why the judgement entered in the above case should not be opened and sanctions entered. All proceedings to stay. Rule is returnable by 2002 ,J. , - IMA.'''"~ ._~ ~""","",","",^"" I,., ',.iiI,_ , L" =. ." .c !'...."'"~.1 ;&h"";;",!~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheerns, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEEL TON CAPITAL, YTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE OPENED AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED And now, this _ day of January 2002, on consideration of the foregoing petition/motion, a rule is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel to show cause why the judgernent entered in the above case should not be opened and sanctions entered. All proceedings to stay. Rule is returnable by 2002 , J. -.. --, - o o '" - .g "0 a F-- ;e!-< 1i:f ~~ ~- ~a ~~ "'0;'" c: r-- co (1) A.. 0""" os~~<C Qc;Q.....:I<ZlA.. g ~ .ff'€ e.B ~~J3z~ .~:; :; ~ la &::~,;g~~ "'" M =- == , '" '" ie ~ ... ...., if .. .~ ~ ia""'.s '-:~f5 ~ ~'i f!l = -= ;;> . '" 8~~ -'...'~ .. -.... , ~ .~ u r"j t- E '0 e a) ~ 0" t- aG Vi -c> r-- g<r--- . ;;.-.~< w. ~ i< ~ Q.)'- 0 v..... ~~t:O 8 g:gci] d..-dl':~ .... ~ = , "" ~ Q "" .; ;; .5 ~ ~.... ~ '"'~-= .; ~.~ l,) Q O! ~Q:l -= ~ . .., o "' ~~ lit..;.. ,'" " , , <t '" '"' 00 .;. .,., g - , -< " 0.. '0 oB ;:s -:::t" S 0"'.0 ,",00 .....; :<.~ " 0 g e!l1=Q..s::: :5 d g op.;::;2 "'" .,., ~ . lI> lI> = . t- ~ ... . -< .... ;l... ~ .~ "'" i I;;""~ . ~ ~ .... ~ '::l ~ ~ a tD..g ~ 0 Q,) oc.:::;1 ~.- I .~~~~. j -~.. .~~ " c :' ..,. ,..~-L ._~, ~, oj , - "' -.' '''''I~~ff#j""~'fiI>j,,;, ... o. JAN 2 3 ZOOZ .jG- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheerns, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Sirnpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514 Defendants MEDICAL/DISABILITY CERTIFICATION To the Honorable Court, the Judges of said Court: NOW COMES, George J. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GJG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and moves the Court take judicial notice of the attached Medical Certification of George T. Loose, D.O., dated 22 January 2002, marked "Exhibit A," which certifies GJG's medical conditions and disabilities and states a need for GJG to have "reasonable accornrnodations" because of said certified medical conditions and disabilities; and of the attached Placard I.D. Card No. P227242 issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation to GJG, attached hereto and marked "Exhibit B,,, wherby GJG has been found to be a "Person with Disability" and issued said Parking Placard I I.D. Card as a" reasonable accomodation" because ofGJG's disability. . 'kJilil~ .~~ "" page two .~ , I, :. Respectfully submitted, ri! Ge6rge 1. Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, PAl 7055-8934 717.737.2682 ~ "~. -"!Liliir"ill ~." ""~,k.""""O"; I' .f' " ; i :l'~ .., .'~ ,,' ,~', 'il' \~, . > . :~ t ...1, ;f .J ,'.~: ...It:, ~~, " .:, l' '" ! " :<f., .':~' ~: I, ~ ,,'-r ~' , .. :,'1(, '. )', ',~ ;~%~. page three I EXHIBIT "A" J :T; ;--:--;-- -- - T- '''. " .". ~J~~,,~; j i ~ (:: " " r " '.~. , .. " ;, " . . \ < ~ : . ... . , . ~ , , '..~,.:... '; ~ ! "',"'~ , .. ,A:.. '....l. ..... : ~ ' page four ~ EXHIBIT "B" ~ ;:~7t2j~{~,~~?-~~i ".. ^,..'...." ,-,. :~\~-'. .~'"'_.,i.~lt":,-_.-. .... '. .:l~~#::~~. ,.: .'S-~~;.. -' -----,_....,~ , ii ;: i I ~- itil ~ -- "'4__" J"":ili.i!t:~w.,,~,,-__.j - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2002, I hereby verify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 . Paige MacDonald-Matthes and/or Paula D. Shaffner and/or Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg, P A 171 0 I ,.,,--,<, "c" ,', ' . r~j[:.ilI~~~~K~~'jP.!:l;if:"i';;&ih\i;,iS;;m'h'i>&'tl;i,]j,~J;: .~" ,~,~,' ~11l1""~:""'~~~ ",,-:..,;i --lJU~ <.. ['till i-J.j;,.'1.<b~;""il" - '"" "i~ ,;,~ '. '.'., ~_ ~, 0 ;::;,:) ,~ '_,7 C 1".) '--Z -~ "'''- ,,- "'- -0 C) ')~';'l..' {TIn' ;-~;: . "'c. ,"{?US -;r ""T- '"'-.-'- f'-> -u:::l Z'- en;::' (...J ,>." , -<:L'.: ~'.:..;.Cj r:c:..c :s:: v ~r~ .",., L----- z() -." C5 :.~.J _':0. Le. zU :Pc g'" z w :> =< (n ~ L,,;lIl~lIlll1l T II T 'iUt IIllJD ! [ mm ., ,., ,"",,'''.~,''', "~ ".ct"""",.. 4,"",,~ "<w," ~,' ~J. ~ ~~"" ~~,~ _~ ~ ,'~."', , ... ~~ ,( ~ ,,-,~ ~ c'd'h<""J"_';':-Z'''f. '" ,~ FED 5 - 20'of!! IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, pJ\ 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Sirnpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGEMENT AND A-MENDED PETITION TO STRIKE OFF / OPEN JUDGEMENT To the Honorable Court, the Judges of said Court: NOW COMES, George 1. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GJG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and pursuant to the order of 23 January 2002, issued by the Honorable Judge Edward E, Guido, Jr. entitled In Re: Briefs Due (the "Brief Order") respectfully offers and submits this brief to the Court. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Plaintiffs have submitted a Complaint for Confession of Judgement (the "Complaint") to this Court and averring that: (A) Steelton Capital, Ltd., (the "Corporate Defendant") is a ,. -~ "' _" ~ , J "1 - "~~': ' ---'Jnilili-~M-t!'(-i ~ " page two Pennsylvania business corporation and that GJG is its chairman; (B). that the Corporate Defendant "signed a note dated 8 April 1998" (attached as Exhibit "A" and sometimes hereinafter called the "First Note"), " received $15,000 frorn Plaintiffs, and agreed to repay the note with interest"; (C) that GJG signed a personal guaranty of the First Note; (D) that on or about 8 October 1999, the Corporate Defendant and GIG "made similar commitments for increased amounts of money by signing additional Notes and personal guarantees when the original note (the "First Note") was not repaid" and that "True and correct copies ofthe additional Notes are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" - when, in fact, a single unsigned note and a single unsigned guaranty is attached (hereinafter called the "Second Note"); (E) that on or about 18 April 2000, "yet another Note and Guaranty were executed (by Corporate Defendant and GJG, as gnarantor of tllle Corporate Defendant) and that "a true and correct copy" is attached as Exhibit "c" (hereinafter called the Third Note"); (F) that the Corporate Defendant and GJG committed to pay Plaintiffs a certain sum by the Third Note and that "payment was not made;" (G) that the (Third) Note "was extended informally (how and under what terms and conditions are not stated); (H) that a "true and correct" "Payoff Calculation" is attached as Exhibit "D"); (I) that the Corporate Defendant and GJG failed to "pay Plaintiffs the principal and interest due under the Note (i.e., the Third Note) and that such failure to pay Plaintiffs constitutes a material breach of the Notes and Guarantees" - apparently the First, Second, and Third Notes; (J) that (in item 13) "the Notes and Guarantees authorize Plaintiffs to confess judgement against Defendants (i.e., against the Corporate Defendant - a Pennsylvania Corporation - and GJG, as tllle gnarantor for said Pennsylvania -........ I'.l' '" L_' "mK,ilfiiii'.;,it.i>A_, , , page three corporation - EMPHASIS ADDED) for the amounts due, plus interest as stated, costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees not to exceed five percent of the principal of the Notes;" (J) amounts for principal, interest, attorney's fees, filing fees, sheriff's service costs are stated; (K) that (in item 19) "Defendants' failure to pay... provides the authority to file this Complaint"; and Plaintiffs requested that the Court enter judgement by confession against Defendants "as authorized by the attached instruments in the sum of $24,802.990, plus post- judgement interest and cost of suit." 2. The Complaint was verified! by each of the Plaintiffs acknowledging that (s )he had read the foregoing Complaint and "that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief' and that "1 understand also that any false statements herein are rnade subject tp the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities." 3. Plaintiffs attorney's Paula D. Shaffner, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, and Saul Ewing LLP (DEL) Gointly and severally sometimes hereinafter called "Plaintiffs' Counsel"): prepared and submitted the Complaint to this Court and caused it to be entered on 13 November 2001 along with an attached a Notice of Judgement (to the Corporate Defendant and GJG as the guarantor of the Corporate Defendant); 4. On 11 December 2001, GJG, pro se and as the Individual Defendant named in the Cornplaint, GJG (for himself) filed a certain Petition the Strike Off Judgement (the "Petition") - which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof - with the Court and for the reasons stated in the Petition asked the Court to strike the judgements entered by confession thru the Complaint, declare that the judgement( s) against the , u I , .- ,~. ,J , , ,'- ' >-".<',-----miI.lJ"~~_j;i::, " .' page four Corporate Defendant and GJG a nullity since said Pennsylvania corporation was and is not the rnaker of and GJG, therefor not the guarantor therefor, of any or all of the First, Second or Third Notes, alleged fraud by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel and seeks certain sanctions against Plaintiffs AND Plaintiffs' Counsel; 5. On 21 December 2001, the Honorable Judge Edward E. Guido, Jr., for the Court, issued on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel a "Rule to Show Cause Why Judgement Should Not Be Stricken and Sanctions Imposed" (the "Rule to Show Cause"); 6. Plaintiffs Reply to Petition to Strike Off Judgement" thru Plaintiffs' Counsel ("Plaintiffs' Reply") was filed with the Court and mailed the GJG; 7. On 23 January 2002, GJG, pro se, filed with the Court a Petition to Continue Hearing on Rule to Show Cause Why Judgement Should Not Be Stricken and Sanctions Imposed" (the "Hearing Continuance Petition"), which is incorporated herein by reference and rnade a par hereof; 8. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Hearing Continuance Petition; 10. GJG filed, pro se, on 23 January 2002, an Amended Petition to Strike Off / Open Judgement" (the "Amended Strike/Open Petition" - which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof - and sought and is seeking the relief requested in said amended petition; 11 .The Hearing Continuance Petition was denied and the 23 January 2002 hearing on the Rule to Show Cause was held over the objections of GJG - said objections of record are incorporated herein and made a part hereof; 12. at the hearing on 23 January 2002, Plaintiffs Counsel and GJG stipulated that the Petition to Strike "rises or falls based upon the complaint for confession of judgement and the ~ ->. L"~_ ." j." '~,-- '~,"L.'" "OZ$~-'11i1;"i"i~ '. page five exhibits attached thereto;" 13. At the hearing on 23 January 2002, the Brief Order was entered and the Court held that GJG was not to respond to Plaintiffs' Reply (and its new matter) - and accordingly no such response is included herein. 14.. In summary the facts - frollll the Complaint and the exhibits attached thereto - are as follows: A. Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the "Maker") signed one or more notes which are Plaintiffs exhibits and GJG may have guaranteed one or more notes for said Delaware corporation (the Third Note's exhibited Guaranty not rnatching in dollar amount the note); B. The Second Note exhibited was NEVER signed by the Maker the Corporate Defendant, or GJG; C. Plaintiffs' sued the Corporate Defendant (a Pennsylvania Corporation), never sued the Maker, and sued GJG as the guarantor of the Corporate Defendant and NOT the Maker; D. The Notes exhibited do not contain any warrant of attorney to confess judgement against the Corporate Defendant or any Pennsylvania corporation or GJG as the guarantor therefor; E. Plaintiffs have sued the wrong party and entered judgement, on the record, against the wrong party and GJG as the guarantor of the wrong party - based upon the Complaint and the attachments or exhibits presented therewith; F. The Third Note's guaranty does not match in dollar amount the note; - . ~ _..J I" <,,~ "'''!ii#!;,' .' page six G. the Maker of the First, Second, and Third Notes (from the exhibits attached) was never been served and is not a party to the Complaint. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. The Pennsylvania Rilles of Civil Procedure must be strictly followed if a valid confession of judgement is to be entered. (Scott Factors, Inc. v. Hartley (1967) 425 Pa 290), 228 A2d 887; Citizens National Bank v. Rose Hill Cemetery Asso. (1971) 218 Super Ct 366, 281 A2d 73.) These Rilles were and are written to give a debtor additional protection by prescribing requirements in the procedure for relief from confessed judgements. There is no reason in law or policy for permitting the abrogation by a court of these protections by waiving the mandatory provisions of the Rules. (Citizens National Bank v. Rose Hill Cometary Asso. (1971) 218 Super Ct 366, 281 A2d 73.) 2. Pa R Civ P Rille 2952(a) requires that the Complaint must contain the names of the parties. 3. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the prothonotary must enter judgernent by confession AGAINST THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED IT. (Pa P Civ Rille 295 l(a).) 4. When a proceeding to enter judgement by confession is commenced by the filing of a complaint, the complaint and the confession of judgement are to be read together in determining whether or not there are defects apparent on the fact of the record. (Parliament Industries, Inc. v. William H. Vaughn & Co., (1983) 501 Pa 1,459 A2d 720.) Accordingly, the Court is asked to take Judicial Notice of the Complaint, Judgernent, and exhibits to the Complaint that: Plaintiff has sued and taken judgement by confession against Steelton , ,- .hOlltl'i"',,,",Y-;:,-:J " page seven Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Corporate Defendant"), NOT against the maker of said note(s) and that all of said notes on their face say "Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation" (hereinafter called the "Borrower") and that the attached Guaranty Agreement(s) is/are for and of "the attached... Note" (i.e., that of Borrower and NOT the Corporate Defendant); 5. The Court is further asked to take Judicial Notice of the exhibits of Plaintiffs that: the Corporate Defendant never signed ANY OF the exhibited documents - but one or some of them were signed by a Delaware corporation and that the Corporate Defendant never gave any warrant of attorney to Plaintiffs/Lender to confess judgement. Accordingly Plaintiffs are not authorized by the face of any of the notes exhibited in the Complaint -to confess judgernent against the Corporate Defendant and GJG never guaranteed any of the exhibited notes on behalf of the Corporate Defendant. 6. A warrant of attorney to confess judgement is the very essence of the judgement, not a minor part of the clerical process, and without such warrant, ajudgement is void. (Wells v. Cahan (1988) 1 D & C4th 394.) Therefor, the Judgernent is void. 7. Judgements by confession can and must be stricken for irregularity in the record (Pennwest Farm Credit, ACA v. Hare (1991) 410 Super Ct 422). Suing and taken judgement against the wrong party - NOT a maker of any of the notes in the Complaint and GJG as the guarantor of notes NEVER signed or made by the Corporate Defendant and/or without its warrant of attorney is/are "an irregularity." 8. A release of errors (IF naming a Pennsylvania corporation, as the Corporate Defendant, and " .... ~"~ ...- j, I 'I,_'J , - -' '.' > "k'_ - ,- ',,,,- - d 1_" "'/ii;M~11IL~~'-":t1.'~~ . page eight taking judgement by confession against it is a "mistake or an error") INSTEAD OF AN INTENTIONAL ACT, does not cure a lack of authority to confess judgement against the Corporate Defendant and thus against GJG. 9. It is believed that taking judgement against the Corporate Defendant - without it ever signing any of the notes exhibited in the Cornplaint and without granting any warrant of attorney to confess judgement - was and is a deliberate and fraudulent act - of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs Counsel- made to deceive the Court into entering judgement against an entity other than the Borrower so as to defraud GJG and/or said Corporate Defendant and/or in an attempt to extort money from said Corporate Defendant and/or GJG by virtue of a judgement obtained by confession. 10. The First Note was paid in full and refinanced by the Second Note (or some subsequent note), can not therefor possibly be in default, and if not in default - judgement can not be confessed against any debtor and/or any guarantor;, 11. The Second Note (or the note which actually paid in full and refinanced the First Note) was paid in full and refinanced by the Third Note - and accordingly can not possibly be in default, and if not in default - judgement can not be confessed against any debtor and/or any guarantor;. 12. The Second Note exhibited is unsigned and therefor is unenforceable against anyone and no judgement by confession can be entered thereon AGAINST ANYONE - EVER; 13. There appears to possibly be some valid Third Note - but the Corporate Defendant never signed it (or the First or Second Note) and thus said Pennsylvania Corporation AND/OR GJG can not be liable under the Third Note in this action; ., ~< ~'''''~il";,,f'~ page mne 14. The guaranty to the Third Note does not match in dollar amount the dollar amount of the note and said contradiction must be resolved in favor of GJG; 15. It is unclear which of Plaintiffs' exhibited notes and guaranties are confessed (as the Cornplaint contradicts itself saying its the First, some combination of the First, Second or Third, the Third, and/or all or some of the First, Second or Third plus (perhaps) its exhibited "Payoff Calculation" - therefor, due process and equal protection (for Corporate Defendant and/or GJG) requires that ANY Judgernent(s) to be stricken; 16. The alleged "Payoff Calculation" (exhibit) is unsigned, contains handwritten "scribbling" and alterations from a person or persons unknown, is not proof of any indebtedness by ANYONE, or any interest thereon, and can not be used to confess judgement or calculate the balance of any loan(s). 17. The First Note, as exhibited, also seems to have been altered by persons or persons unknown and is not "true and correct." 18. If the exhibited First and Third Notes - along with the unsigned Second Note and/or the unsigned Payoff Calculation are to constitute one note/loan/debt or agreement - there is no way that one ANYTHING exists - which may be confessed against ANYONE. 19. The Second Note exhibited is unsigned and can not possibly bind ANYONE TO ANYTHING! !; 20. The alleged "Payoff Calculation" (exhibit) is unsigned, contains handwritten "scribbling" and alterations from a person or persons unknown, is not proof of any indebtedness by ANYONE, or any interest thereon, and can not be used to confess judgement or calculate the . ""'.~ ,^ <- , jJm~~~il1li,,\i~ " page ten Balance of any loan(s) or note(s); 21. If the exhibited First and Third Notes - along with the unsigned Second Note and/or the unsigned Payoff Calculation are to constitute one note/loan/debt or agreement - there is no way that one ANYTHING exists - which rnay be confessed against ANYONE. 22. Corporate Defendant never executed the notes exhibited on which Plaintiffs have taken judgement and accordingly GJG can not be liable as a guarantor under any or all said notes. 23. Plaintiffs have NO authority to sue and confess judgement against Corporate Defendant and GJG, as the guarantor of notes never executed by said Corporate Defendant. 24. Steelton Capital, Ltd, a Pelllnsylvania corporation and the Corporate Defendant, is not Steelton Capital, Ltd, a Delaware Corporation, and never has been; nor has it borrowed any money from Plaintiffs. Accordingly, GJG has never guaranteed any loan or note of Steelton Capital, Ltd, a Pennsylvania corporation to Plaintiffs, 25. Service on the Corporate Defendant is a nullity since the Judgement and Complaint on the Corporate Defendant are also a nullity. 26. Since a petition to Strike is determined on the face ofthe record (Heller v. Go1dsrnith (1930), 14 D & C 746) and the record is apparently so very, very defective as to invalidate the judgements entered thereon (Cummings v. Ventura (1953) 174 Super Ct. 429, 101 A.2d. 166); 27. Extrinsic evidence (to the record) is not considered (Broadway Natal Bank v. Siskin (1932) 105 Super Ct 279, 161 A. 470) so that what is apparent on the face of the record is not affected by matters outside the record; 28. A void judgement is a nullity without legal effect (Centennial Bank v. Germantown -Stevens ~ '.' "'""~_~!iJ-"'.j.;, page eleven Academy (1980) 277 Super Ct 134,419 A2d 698); 29. A judgement may be struck off because of the use of fraud in obtaining the judgement (SaUada v. Mock (1923) 277 Pa 285, 121 A 54; Fisher v. Hestonville, M. & F. P. R. Co. (1898) 185 Pa 602, 40 A 97; 30. In the Petition to Open, GIG (in item 28" reserves the right and seeks leave of the Court to retain Pennsylvania legal counsel and/or to otherwise subsequently raise any of the .defense(s) as may be available and does NOT waive any such defense or remedy by virtue hereof - in this or any other proceeding;" 31. Knowingly suing the wrong party - not the maker of ANY note(s) to Plaintiff, confessing judgernent against the wrong party (the Corporate Defendant) and GIG as the guarantor for the Corporate Defendant, and continuing to maintain this action and seeking to take property of the Corporate Defendant and GJG IS FRAUD. STANDING 32. In its essence, the question of "standing" is whether a litigant is entitled to have a court decide the merits of a dispute or of particular issues. (Pennsylvania Assn of Home Agencies v. Snider, 826 F.Supp 948.) 33. George J. Garcia has standing in either or both the Motion to Strike/Sanction and/or the Amended Motion to Strike/Open/Sanction in that he is "aggrieved" by Plaintiffs' Complaint and Confession ofJudgement and has a right to obtain judicial resolution of his challenge(s). (In re TJ., 699 A.2d. 1311, appeal granted TJ. v/ Petition of City of Philadelphia, County Office of Mental Health and Retardation, 723 A.2d. 673, 555 Pa. 705, reversed 739 A.2d 478,559 Pa. 118.) o _~ ~ ~.~ ~ .....~~ J.. "''"~~' U1'.",..,,,,p-d,iih,,a-. page twelve 34. To maintain an action, a party must have "standing," that is, a stake in the outcome of the proceedings. (Jefferson Bank v. Newton Associates, 686 A.2d. 834,454 Pa. Super 654.) The law of "standing" provides that one can not evoke jurisdiction of a court to maintain a civil action unless (s)he has, an individual or representative capacity, some interest in the cause of action, or legal right, title, or interest in the subject matter or controversy. (Per Tamila J., w/three judges concurring. In interest of G.C., 673 A.2d. 932,449 Pa. Super. 258, appeal after remand 685 A.2d. 180,454 Pa. Super.265, appeal granted 694 A.2d. 1226, 558 Pa. 116, appeal granted 689, A.2d. 234, 547 Pa. 728, affirmed 735 A.2d. 1226, 558 Pa. 116.) 35. "Standing" is the requirement that a person bringing the action be adversely affected by the rnatter(s) challenged in order to assure that the person is an appropriate party to bring the matter to judicial resolution. (Drurnrnond v. University of Pennsylvania, 651 A.2d. 572, appeal denied 661 A.2d. 875,541 Pa. 628.) 36. GJG pro se, has asked this Court (among other things) to strike the judgements against the Corporate Defendant and GJG, to declare the judgement against the Corporate Defendant a nullity, to rule on the validity of obtaining confession of judgement without the record showing that the Corporate Defendant executed ANY NOTE(S) to Plaintiffs or granted ANY warrant of attorney to confess judgement, AND that GJG NEVER guaranteed and note(s) ofthe Corporate Defendant to Plaintiffs (because there NEVER were any) - so that GJG can NOT be liable for ANY guaranty for the Corporate Defendant since GJG NEVER gave any guaranty therefor. 37. GJG is aggrieved by Plaintiffs Complaint and the Confession of Judgement against the Corporate Defendant and GJG, as the alleged guarantor therefor, in that: .'-- ~ _ _, c '=' '-~'cillf,j>{i, page thirteen (A) he is being held liable as a Guarantor for note(s) of the Corporate Defendant, (B) Plaintiffs entered judgement by confession against the Corporate Defendant and have issued a Writ of Attachment, against certain of its property, (C) GJG is the sole officer and director of the Corporate Defendant, a Pennsylvania Corporation licensed therein as a corporate real estate broker - which, prior to the confession of judgement entered against it by the Plaintiffs - engaged in commercial real estate and mortgage brokerage - with GJG as the broker-of-record therefor; (D) as the broker-of-record, GJG may act as a real estate broker only for the Corporate Defendant and MAY NOT act in an individual capacity; (E) GJG has a fiduciary responsibility to the Corporate Defendant to raise the issues placed before this Court and has done so - BUT has not sought to bring or maintain action on behalf the Corporate Defendant "pro se" or otherwise; (F) Plaintiffs' actions have caused the Corporate Defendant to suspend operations and therefore made it impossible for GJG to act as a real estate and/or commercial rnortgage broker; (G) GIG has brought the Petition and the Amended Petition not for or on behalf of the Corporate Defendant but as an aggrieved party with standing to so do pro se; (H) A finding by the Court that the confession of judgernent against the Corporate Defendant was and is a nullity, that the Corporate Defendant NEVER executed ANY notes to Plaintiffs or granted ANY warrant of attorney; that accordingly, if there were no such notes executed, GJG could NOT POSSIBLE HAVE guaranteed and be liable therefor; that Plaintiffs have sued the wrong party; and that the Law and Justice - ._~~ ~ ..........~ - ,~_,....J ""~$;j_~ page fourteen demand that such judgements MUST BE STRICKEN; would act as collateral estoppel and res judicata against ANY confession of judgement against GIG; (1) without right of standing, GJG is or will be deprived of property (money, the right to act as broker-of-record, etc.) without equal protection of or due process of law. RIGHT TO AMEND PETITION TO STRIKE 35. GIG has brought the Petition to Strike pro se - WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL - and over his protests and requests to obtain counsel - has and is proceeding pro se - WITHOUT COUNSEL; 36. In the Petition to Strike, GIG (in item 28) "reserves the right and seeks leave of the Court to retain Pennsylvania legal counsel and/or to otherwise subsequently raise any of the .defense(s) as may be available and does NOT waive any such defense or remedy by virtue hereof - in this or any other proceeding;" 37. Pa R.C.P. 1033 governs the amendment of pleadings and provides that by leave of the court, at any time, the form of an action may be changed, even though so doing may give rise to a new cause of action; 38. Pennsylvania courts have established the policy that amendments to pleadings will be liberally allowed to secure a determination of cases on their merits (Stephenson v. Greensburg, 421 Pa. Super. I, 6, 617 A.2d. 364, 367 (1992); 39. In pro se motions courts are to consider all relevant arguments which are even suggested by wording of the motion/petition (U>S> v. Cappucci, 342 F. Supp 790). 40. The Court is within its descrition to allow the alternative pleading. - '>- " , .1< 'ii~cr~M~"""-:d."<_:J , page fifteen CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing, George J. Garcia, pro se, respectfully requests that: 1. The Judgements entered be declared a nullity and stricken with prejudice so that Plaintiffs may never ever seek or enter, by confession or otherwise, any judgement against the Corporate Defendant and/or GJG under the note(s) and/or guarantees exhibited in the Complaint; 2. That in the alternative, the Court grant the Amended Petition to Strike/Open and grant GJG a jury trial; 3. That the Court impose severe sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel for their conduct and actions related to the Complaint and these proceedings - including, without limitation, fines and costs, referal of Plaintiffs' Counsel to the Disclipinary Review Board., and referal of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel for investigation to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to determine if state and/or federal criminal charges are warrented for, without limitation, false swearing, perjury, conspiracy, mail and/or wire fraud, bank fraud, extortion, and any and all lesser included or related offenses. Ge arcia .0. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 717.737.2682 - ~~ - ',I- ',_ ~ J L ',1 """'"'~"'~;'''!'r.,),j" 1 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2002, I hereby verify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing docurnent to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Paige MacDonald-Matthes and/or Paula D. Shaffner and/or Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg,PA 17101 . ......" - """" . , I" ._ L 1.- _-^ '" '-~:~1fi; , " SAUL EWING, LLP Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court ill No. 66266 Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs COpy GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 COURT OF COMMON PLEJ\S CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs Civil Action v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Sirnpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Docket No. 01-6408 Defendants. RULE AND NOW, this day of February 2002, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Attendance of Defendants Steelton Capital, Ltd. and George J. Garcia at Deposition, a copy of which is attached hereto, a Rule is issued upon Defendants, to show cause, if any they have, why Plaintiffs' Motion should not be granted. Rule returnable days from the date of service. BY THE COURT: J. 87680.1 211 If 02 .~~ - ~~-- ~_.- ~ --'j - 1''':,0 .', - ;..1 - ~'~'~_~]l;;ili'g,j~~< , " SAUL EWING, LLP Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court ill No. 66266 Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 COURT OF COMMON PLEJ\S CUMBERLi\ND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs Civil Action v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Docket No. 01-6408 0 CJ C, C I ;;:7 -0"' lJ ;"Y-1 m i,.j) !'J . 41... 7: (.. -, C/) u .J -< . , ~~~ -- , c:; . ., j.: C:j 1',) .. C.:: z => .. --1 -<. -"-- -< Defendants. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS' ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy Carriger (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, Saul Ewing, LLP, and files their Motion For Sanctions and For Court Order Directing Defendants Attendance at Deposition in Aid of Execution, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On November 13, 2001, Plaintiffs confessed judgment against Steelton Capital, Ltd., and George J. Garcia (hereinafter collectively "Defendants"). 2. On December 11, 2001, Defendant Garcia filed a Petition To Strike Off Judgment on behalf of the corporate defendant. The Court subsequently issued a Rule to Show Cause with a return date of January 23, 2002. 87680.12/11/02 tT , . ~ ~~~ "'''''....... ". I.'~ ~ 1"1- ..--J.,_ :~ ~-'1;#i,,-':oiIl;J>><\'-J:ii~&::i~'~- 3. On January 23,2002, the Court specifically granted Plaintiffs' request to conduct discovery in aid of execution, whereupon Plaintiffs counsel served Defendant Garcia with a Notice of Deposition in open court. 4. Pursuant to the Notice of Deposition, Defendants were to appear at Harrisburg, Pa office of Saul Ewing, LLP on Thursday, February 7, 2002 for a deposition in aid, of execution. Defendants were further directed to produce at the deposition certain documents pertai~ing to the judgment entered and the identification of the Defendants' assets. A true and correct copy ofthe Notice of Deposition is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "A". 5. In anticipation ofthe deposition in aid of execution, Plaintiffs counsel spent several hours reviewing relevant file documents and preparing question for the deposition. In total, Plaintiffs' counsel spent 5.3 hours preparing for the deposition in aid of execution, at a rate of$220. per hour. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' counsel billing statement relevant to this matter is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "B". 6. On Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at approximately 11:00 p.m. Defendant Garcia telephoned Plaintiffs' counsel and left a voice mail stating that he would not be attending the deposition due to problems with his back. A transcript of the voice mail is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "C". 7. On Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 11:08 p.m. Defendant Garcia sent an email to Plaintiffs' counsel advising that he would not be attending the deposition as he had "managed to injure [his] arthritic back and hip by lifting boxes, [and] [was] in a great deal of pain, and will be resting on a heating pad and taking 150% of the standard dosage of pain rnedication." A true and correct copy of Defendant Garcia's email is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "D". 87680.11/11102 -2" (~ :i!. '=>. ....,........... ~- . l "~" -- i~ , _._-~ ~ ~ L oj "" ";U_O" ,,- ~ "'~-l.ll"'":it:s.;:Jn~, .. 8. Plaintiffs were already en route to counsel's office when Plaintiffs' counsel received the messages from Defendant Garcia and thus, Plaintiffs were forced to travel unnecessarily to Harrisburg from their home in Rheems, P A- a total round trip travelling distance of 45.8 miles, at arate of$.345 per mile. Total cost $15.80 9. On February 7,2002, Plaintiffs' counsel received in the mail a copy of Defendants' Motion for Protective Order/Stay of Notice of Deposition in Aid Of Execution, which according to the certificate of service attached thereto was filed with the Court on February 5,2002. A true and correct copy of the Motion for Protective Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "E". 10. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4012, the filing ofa motion for protective order. . . shall not stay the deposition. . . unless the court shall so order. II. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendant Garcia fabricated his medical problems when he realized that the Court was not going to promptly act on his Motion for Protective Order. 12. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendant Garcia will continue to avoid responding to discovery otherwise permitted by the Court in this matter unless and until an Order is issued by the Court directing Defendant Garcia's attendance at deposition. 13. Plaintiffs have already been and will continue to be prejudiced by Defendant Garcia's willful and deceitful conduct. 14. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Garcia's conduct, Plaintiffs have had to incur the additional cost of preparing and filing a Motion to Compel for which Plaintiffs should be reimbursed. 87680.12/10/02 -3- "'; ~-~~;;~'. --l"~_ ..... ": ~ _ J ii.: -.._L ,~ j',.l "~ -,.,-> . "'~1~"" '._'hl~..,; -'~ """~~~C;!~~) . , WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy Carriger, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant their Motion to For Sanctions and award Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs in the sum of $ 1181. 80 . Plaintiffs further request that this Honorable Court issue and Order directing Defendant's Appearance at the Deposition in Aid of Execution to be scheduled at the office of Plaintiffs counsel, and further award Plaintiffs all such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted, SAUL EWING, LLP ~~,~-d,~ Paige Macdonald-Matthes Attorney ill No. 66266 Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Date: February 11, 2002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 87680_12110/02 -4- ~ ~ "~" ~ IiIlIlIIiiIIIIl " " " L .,1.0.1' " _ ~_ , , , ,',-. "~.~'i..-" ~_@,i!< GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue I P.O. Box 167 Rheerns, pJ\ 17570-0167 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiffs v. Civil Action STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Docket No. 01-6408 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION TO: GEORGE J. GARCIA P.O. Box 394 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the deposition of GEORGE J. GARCIA will be taken at the Law Offices of Saul Ewing LLP, 2 North Second Street, 7'h Floor. Penn National Insurance Tower, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on February 7, 2002 commencing at 10:00 a.m. until excused before a CQurt Reporter duly authorized to administer the oath, pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In accordance with Rule 4009.1 ofthe Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Deponent is requested to bring with him to the deposition the iterns and/or documents listed in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Dated: January 23, 2002 , Respectfully submitted, < o.J-o,f~~-~' Paige Macdonald-Matthes. Esquire Saul. Ewing LLP Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street. 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17108-1291 (717) 238-7675 Attorney for Plaintiffs 87268.11123/02 ~ , ~"""- L_ .. JJ-. ,1L -;0 , - "'ed"""'c""i""~_i!lf~' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, hereby certifY that on this 23rd day of January 2002, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition of George J. Garcia, via HAND SERVICE in open court upon the following: George J. Garcia P.O. Box 394 Mechanicsburg, P J\ 17055-8934 ~~~.~..xv..~ Paige Macdonald-Matthes 87268.11113f02 "( _L "~ . , j-'I -"i.-(ii{~;4;i: EXHIBIT" A" 1. Copies ofthe Articles of Incorporation and the Corporate Minute Book for Steelton Capital, Ltd. 2. Copies of any Articles of Dissolution for Steelton Capital, Ltd. 3. Copies of Corporate tax returns for Steelton Capital, Ltd. for the past five (5) years. 4. Copies of all financial statement prepared on behalf of Steelton Capital, Ltd. or submitted by Steelton Capital, Ltd. to any lender or lending institution during the past five (5) years. 5. Copies of all certificates oftitle to any property owned by Steelton Capital, Ltd., including any copies of any DCC filings. 6. Copies of all loan documents prepared at the request of or on behalf of Steelton Capital, Ltd. during the past five (5) years. 7. Garcia. Copies of all loan documents prepared at the request of or on behalf of George J. 8. Copies of all bank statements for Steelton Capital, Ltd. generated during the past five (5) years. 9. Copies of all bank statements for George J. Garcia, individually, generated during the past five (5) years. 10. Copies of all titles for vehicles owned by Steelton Capital, Ltd. or vehicles in which Steelton Capital has or may have had an ownership interest. 11. Copies of all titles for vehicles owned by George J. Garcia, individually, or in which George J. Garcia.has or rnay have had an ownership interest. 12. Copies of all deeds to real property, wherever situate, in the nameofSteelton Capital, Ltd., or in thenanie of Steelton Capital, Ltd. and another party. ' 13. Copies of all deeds to real property, wherever situate, in the name of George J. Garcia, or in the name of George J. Garcia and another party. 87268.tll2JiO:l -3- 4t --, I~ I ~. i, -"'-iWi!l41M~';"~~ffi'~""_~' +~" ATTORNEYS AT LAW Federal Identification Number: 23-1416352 Accounting Phone: 215-972-7782 www.sauLcom STATEMENT. Statement Date Client Number Matter Number, 2/11/02 015526 79771 Re: George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger v. Steelton Capital, Ltd. and George Garcia FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Date Atty Hours Value ------ ----- ------- 02/05/02 PM REVIEW FILE AND BEGIN DRAFTING QUESTIONS 2.0 440.00 FOR DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION 02/06/02 PM TELEPHONE TO G. CARRIGER REGARDING 0.1 22.00 DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION 02/06/02 PM PREPARE FOR AND DRAFT QUESTIONS FOR 2.2 484.00 DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION 02/10/02 PM PREPARE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 1.0 220.00 ------ ------- SUBTOTAL HOURS 5.3 1166.00 ATTORNEY TIME SUMMARY: Attorney Hours Rate Value PAIGE MACDONALD~MATTHES 5.3 at 220.00 = 1166.00 CURRENT FEES 1166.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS STATEMENT 1166.00 ------------- ------------- 2 North Second Street, 7tb Floor. Harrisburg, PA 17101-1604. Phone: (717) 257-7500. Fax: (717) 238-4622 8768ELl 2/11ti!ALTIMORE CHESTERBROOK HARRISBURG NEW YORK PHILADELPHIA PRINCETON WILMINGTON A DELAWARE LIMITED UABIUTY P ARTNERSHll' IliIIII :,1-, , ,,,,.:,,.;-,,,,;-,,-- , ; ,,~- "'~i?~%~,~: MEMORANDUM To: Carriger File Paige Macdonald-Matthes February 11, 2002 V oicemail Message from George Garcia ( February 6, 2002 @ 11 :07 p.m.) From: Date: Subject: Ms. Matthes, it's about seven after eleven, it's George Garcia. I just sent you an email telling you that I managed to injured my arthritic back and will not be at the deposition tomorrow. I apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you. On this 11 th day of February, 2002, I , i\imee J. Albright of Saul Ewing LLP, transcribed the above voicemail message that was left for Paige Macdonald-Matthes on 2/6/02 at 11 :07 p.m. by George Garcia. =~~t t:l#~ 87685.12/11/02 ft:' - . ~ -~ .,;..,,-, " . T- Macdonald-Matthes, Paige From: Sent: To: Subjeot: G J GARCIA [gjgarciajd@yahoo,com] Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11 :08 PM pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com Deposition Ms. Macdonald-Matthes: Thank you for giving me a card with your e-mail address. I will not be able to attend the deposition tomorrow since I managed to injure my arthritic back and hip by lifting boxes, am in a great deal of pain, and will be resting on a heating pad and taking 150% of the standard dosage of pain meds until my doctor can "rnanipulatell my back on Friday morning. Generally, it takes a about a week or so until the pain vanishes (unless additional manipulation is needed). I had hoped to quickly resolve this matter and am sorry for any inconvenience. I'll also leave you a voice mail message. George J. Garcia DO You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eeards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com 1 r"-- "- - . ," - '~l'r~J!@,~&fuit:!iW~,,~c -.. ...............~ .. . - '.t. ~._,-,' ""'t~~:: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL V J\NIA GEORGE E. CARRlGER and DOROTHY E. CARRlGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL J\CTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants ORDER After due consideration of the pro se motion, pleadings, and arguments of George J. Garcia, this Court having concluded that said Motion should be granted, It is, therefor, Ordered that, 1. George J. Garcia is hereby granted a hearing on this motion; 2. the scheduled deposition is hereby canceled or postponed and aU proceedings stayed pending the outcorne of said hearing; 3. the Court Administrator is directed to assist George J. Garcia, in the reasonable accommodation of his Disabilities (in providing a place for the hearing in the Court House and facilities and/or equipment to accommodate said Disabilities); 5. The hearing granted is set for 2002, at in the Cumberland County Courthouse; 6. AU proceedings are stayed. By the Court: Dated: ,2002 . J. - J J -'~ '; ~'-' '-' ~__' , -- ,",;j '~~1jfil;" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHYE.CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA. 5250 Sirnpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER I STAY OF NOTICE OF DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION To the Honorable Court, the Judges of said Court: NOW COMES, George J. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GJG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and rnoves the Court reschedule and continue the deposition in aid of execution of the Individual Defendant, currently set for 7 February 2002 at 10:00 AM (in this case, pending before the Hon. Edward E. Guido) pursuant to a certain Notice of Deposition in Aid of Execution (the "Notice") served upon the Individual Defendant on 23 January 2002. and grant the other relief requested below - for the following reasons: The relief requested is as follows: 1. That GJG be granted a hearing on this motion; '<>. ___<;0' ~~ - - ~~ ~ "- ~ ~~ oJ Ii -" c. ,~-- >~ .tf",..o-" 'ki;i~_~~f,; page two 2. That the scheduled deposition be canceled or postponed and all proceedings stayed pending the outcome of the requested hearing, 3. That at the hearing, the Court resolve any disputes about the Notice and/or the proposed deposition - to permit this case to proceed with dispatch, 4. That the hearing be held in the Court House in a room in which all parties, the Court, the reporter, counsel, and GJG may be seated around a small conference table so that GJG may face everyone and have an opportunity to better hear and take part in the proceedings (the "Requested Accommodation"); 5. and such other relief as justice may demand or require. In support of this motion, the following reasons are assigned: 1. Individual Defendant, pursuant to the Order of Court, In Re: Briefs Due, ("the Brief Order"), dated 23 January 2002, is required to file a brief or memorandum with the Hon. Judge Guido, on or before Monday, 4 February 2002, even though GJG submitted a Medical Certificate (which was and is unchallenged by Plaintiffs), asked for a three week period to prepare the required brief AND to obtain legal counsel. and asked for the continuation of the 23 January 2002 hearing; 2. GJG is a disabled individual within the rneaning of The Americans with Disabilities Act of ' 1990 ("ADA" - Public Law No. 101 -336, 104 Stat 327 (1990), 42 USCA Sec 1210 et seq)- in that he has a physical or mental irnpairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or has been regarded as having such an impairment (42 USCA See 12102(2) - namely - without limitation, walking, standing, rnobility, and hearing Gointly and severally the "Disabilities"), Ii'$; -. '""~~ ~ I l j, l-,- ',',,',. - -~.d~l!~'! page three 3. The Court, at the 23 January 2002 hearing, offered "reasonable accommodations" to GIG, such as handicapped parking, accommodations for his hearing loss, "whatever you need," etc.; 4. GJG, a "person of relatively modest means" and a disabled individual, has not had time to consult with legal counselor obtain representation and is being forced to proceed pro se within a very short time frame: 5. GIG is unaware of all applicable procedural rules (state and/or local) which may be or are applicable to this case, is not represented by counsel, and has so informed the Court; 6. GIG has limited resources for doing the legal research and the drafting required to prepare and subrnit the required brief/rnernorandum; A. It is assumed that failure to submit the brief timely could and/or would result in a default and in irreparable harm, loss, cost, and expense to GIG; B. The library available to GJG has limited hours, little evening or weekend hours, limited handicapped parking, a short time limit for such parking, and GIG is required to do research there because some books "do not circulate," and in fact, on occasion, receives physical assistance ob~g books frorn the able and friendly staff' , C. the staff can and will not offer legal advise; 7. to comply with the Brief Order and than be deposed with "two days rest" will not permit GJG to prepare for the scheduled deposition and/or conduct the search for the information or exhibits requested; 8. GIG continues to suffer frorn his disabilities and has not been able to ascertain if reasonable Ii<1 , "~-""",", - - .1",""" I .1 " .'-~- _ 1'_ ~".~- '-';f:;~'ti~h: . page four accommodations exist at the deposition location so that he may adequately participate;; 9. The Notice is extremely vague and subject to dispute - in apparent violation ofR Civ P Rule 40l2(a)(5) in that it requests from GJG information about Steelton Capital, Ltd., without identification of its jurisdiction of formation, requests various documents, certificates, bank statements, etc., etc. etc. for said corporation (for a five year period); 10. This vague and extremely broad request is an unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden, and expense to GJG (in violation of PA R Civ P Rule 40l2(a) and of Dettinger v. Fry Communications, Inc. (1988),49 D & C 3d 106 - also see Hagy v. Premier Mfg. Corp. (1961) 404 Pa 33-, 172 A2d 283; Simon v. Simon (1077) 6 D & C3d 196; McCrary v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital (1977) 1 D & C3d 443; Y offee v. Golin (1968), 45 D & C2d 318); 11. Plaintiffs' must describe with "reasonable particularity" the matters being inquired into and the materials to be produced (PA R CivP Rule 4007.l(e) and PAR Civ P Rule 4009.1 1 (b); 12. The Notice improperly requests GJG to produce documentation for a corporation when the applicable procedure appears to be for Plaintiffs to serve notice on said corporation or other entity and for said corporation or other entity to designate a director, partner, officer, employee, manager, oragent to respond or object to the request; 13. The Notice and all discovery is in bad faith - just as was and is the "sneak attack" complaint and confession of judgement against a Pennsylvania corporation and GJG, as the alleged guarantor therefor - in violation of P A Rule Civ P Rule 4011; 14. For good cause shown the Court may stay all proceedings until it disposes of the Motion (Pa R Civ P Rule 4013); 'f~ ~"~, .,1 - '-I . " , ~!\M~';rIM;"M'J"r-_ . page five 15. Plaintiffs' and Plaintiffs' counsel are attempting to abuse the discovery process for their own pecuniary gain; 16. Holding the deposition, as scheduled, will result in additional rnotions. petitions, hearings, etc. - which will only serve to delay these proceedings and which could be resolved by a stay of the deposition and holding the requested hearing. Respectfully submitted, P.O. Box 4 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 717.737.2682 . ,. , " '"",",,l;' ',~',,-,"; 'J._ ,"'''-C~oo,il:~rik'' . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW. this 4th day of February, 2002, I hereby verifY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the U.S. mail, fIrst class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . Paula D. Shaffner and/or Paige MacDonald-Matthes and/or Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg.IPA 17101 , '1 ') '!... v , I!!(' ~ "e_. , , ,~- -. ,,- -" i. 'l~W'0_-cil"-".;ll;; . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Sanctions and To Compel Attendance of Defendant at Deposition, was served on the following by first class mail on February 11, 2002 at the following address: George J. Garcia P.O. Box 943 Mechanicsburg, P J\ 17055-8934 Steelton Capital, Ltd. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514 ~<'y 1.J.,,,,,,.d"~_..l~ Paige Macdonald-Matthes 87680.12/10/02 -6- -~ .". . " ~ , J:_I ~~~. '1"""","_.,'"""",50,\, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA r' ttyV\ FEU 0 7 200Z GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg,PA 17055-3514 Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 ORDER After due consideration of the pro se motion, pleadings, and arguments of George J. Garcia, this Court having concluded that said Motion should be granted, It is, therefor, Ordered that, 1. George J. Garcia is hereby granted a hearing on this motion; 2. the scheduled deposition is hereby canceled or postponed and all proceedings stayed pending the outcome of said hearing; 3. the Court Administrator is directed to assist George J. Garcia, in the reasonable accommodation of his Disabilities (in providing a place for the hearing in the Court House and facilities and/or equipment to accommodate said Disabilities); 5. The hearing granted is set for 2002, at in the Cumberland County Courthouse; 6. All proceedings are stayed. By the Court: Dated: ,2002 .J. ~ -. ,~,~ ,~, _ ~o h" ~_ ,- i.A _~="";:".:'c:,,,_~"-I, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL VANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514 Defendants MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER I STAY OF NOTICE OF DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION To the Honorable Court, the Judges of said Court: NOW COMES, George J. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GJG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and moves the Court reschedule and continue the deposition in aid of execution of the Individual Defendant, currently set for 7 February 2002 at 10:00 AM (in this case, pending before the Hon. Edward E. Guido) pursuant to a certain Notice of Deposition in Aid of Execution (the "Notice") served upon the Individual Defendant on 23 January 2002, and grant the other relief requested below - for the following reasons: The relief requested is as fdllows: 1. That GJG be granted a hearing on this motion; - ..- - , ~ ~ . .'.L,,,,- - ' .,._ ~_.~ .~".. ","""I';"'~',""'--~'"".,;,"" '. page two 2. That the scheduled deposition be canceled or postponed and all proceedings stayed pending the outcome of the requested hearing, 3. That at the hearing, the Court resolve any disputes about the Notice and/or the proposed deposition - to permit this case to proceed with dispatch, 4. That tpe hearing be held in the Court House in a room in which all parties, the Court, the I reporter, counsel, apd GJG may be seated around a small conference table so that GJG may face everyone and have an opportunity to better hear and take part in the proceedings (the "Requested Accommodation"); 5. and such other relief as justice may demand or require. In support of this motion, the following reasons are assigned: 1. Individual Defendant, pursuant to the Order of Court, In Re: Briefs Due, ("the Brief Order"), dated 23 January 2002, is required to file a brief or memorandum with the Hon. Judge Guido, on or before Monday, 4 February 2002, even though GJG submitted a Medical Certificate (which was and is unchallenged by Plaintiffs), asked for a three week period to prepare the required brief AND to obtain legal counsel, and asked for the continuation of the 23 January 2002 hearing; 2. GJG is a disabled individual within the meaning of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA" - Public Law No. 101 -336, 104 Stat 327 (1990), 42 USCA Sec 1210 et seq)- in that he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or has been regarded as having such an impairment (42 USCA Sec 12102(2) - namely - without limitation, walking, standing, mobility, and hearing Gointly and severally the "Disabilities"), " " _,' ,l,,_ _._.' -~-'-"".a",,-lW~'>;f,,". page three 3. The Court, at the 23 January 2002 hearing, offered "reasonable accommodations" to GJG, such as handicapped parking, accommodations for his hearing loss, "whatever you need," etc.; 4. GJG, a "person of relatively modest means" and a disabled individual, has not had time to consult with legal counselor obtain representation and is being forced to proceed pro se within a veIY short time frame: 5. GJG is unaware of all applicable procedural rules (state and/or local) which may be or are applicable to this case, is not represented by counsel, and has so informed the Court; 6. GJG has limited resources for doing the legal research and the drafting required to prepare and submit the required brief/memorandum; A. It is assumed that failure to submit the brief timely could and/or would result in a default and in irreparable harm, loss, cost, and expense to GJG; B. The library available to GJG has limited hours, little evening or weekend hours, limited handicapped parking, a short time limit for such parking, and GJG is required to do research there because some books "do not circulate," and in fact, on occasion, receives physical assistance obtaining books from the able and friendly staff; C. the staff can and will not offer legal advise; 7. to comply with the Brief Order and than be deposed with "two days rest" will not permit GJG to prepare for the scheduled deposition and/or conduct the search for the information or exhibits requested; 8. GJG continues to suffer from his disabilities and has not been able to ascertain if reasonable -."'" '~ ' ol ~ ",~,,, ,I. -'!W:.~~"'",,,lf+, " ... page four accommodations exist at the deposition location so that he may adequately participate;; 9. The Notice is extremely vague and subject to dispute - in apparent violation ofR Civ P Rule 40I2(a)(5) in that it requests from GJG information about Steelton Capital, Ltd., without identification of its jurisdiction of formation, requests various documents, certificates, bank statements, etc., etc. etc. for said corporation (for a five year period); 10. This vague and extremely broad request is an unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden, and expense to GJG (in violation of PA R Civ P Rule 4012(a) and of Dettinger v. Fry Communications, Inc. (1988), 49 D & C 3d 106 - also see Hagy v. Premier Mfg. Corp. (1961) 404 Pa 33-, 172 A2d 283; Simon v. Simon (1077) 6 D & C3d 196; McCrary v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital (1977) 1 D & C3d 443; Yoffee v. Golin (1968), 45 D & C2d 318); 11. Plaintiffs' must describe with "reasonable particularity" the matters being inquired into and the materials to be produced (PA R Civ P Rule 4007.1(e) and PA R Civ P Rule 4009.1 1 (b); 12. The Notice improperly requests GJG to produce documentation for a corporation when the applicable procedure appears to be for Plaintiffs to serve notice on said corporation or other entity and for said corporation or other entity to designate a director, partner, officer, employee, manager, or agent to respond or object to the request; 13. The Notice and all discovery is in bad faith - just as was and is the "sneak attack" complaint and confession of judgement against a Pennsylvania corporation and GJG, as the alleged guarantor therefor - in violation of P A Rule Civ P Rule 4011; 14. For good cause shown the Court may stay all proceedings until it disposes of the Motion (Pa R Civ P Rule 4013) ; ",~.' '"'"'~ , J..;., ,- ~ -.;~, ~.lli&,,_~.J~ . page five 15. Plaintiffs' and Plaintiffs' counsel are attempting to abuse the discovery process for their own pecuniary gain; 16. Holding the deposition, as scheduled, will result in additional motions, petitions, hearings, etc. - which will only serve to delay these proceedings and which could be resolved by a stay of the deposition and holding the requested hearing. Respectfully submitted, ~ P.O. ox 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 717.737.2682 - , ~ - . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2002, I hereby verifY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . Paula D. Shaffuer and/or Paige MacDonald-Matthes and/or Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 - . , ~j:~'7>_' ~, i:'-.i'--~-~'~' ::'~~lm;';;-;i'-":''J~iifijjJ~t~ tJ:' -"" ,:~--. ,~"';;:,"' ~"Jj~lj~gl!ltf4<~lifullJft}~.,,,'t_:in...,;~i>>~~iH";"'" ,.= ,~ .- '0" ~_ . -,~ -". --.-. "'0_"'__ C<~ . , 0 C) C '''''.} -r.;tE ""1 ~ ~ , g:r>:; in <"_ .J. CO 65):., I ---,'-." C~ ~, ~f~i ...,::;: " -.. ~E~ . ~ , N ~-.) 2.: ~ =< .:.,., ~,; S-:J -< .c.__ _._ .- " - < " "I J~. '.~~" _"-"'~-J"'",:f~:_,.rub,1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs ~Jr~200l CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg,PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants ORDER After due consideration of the pro se motion, pleadings, and arguments of George 1. Garcia, this Court having concluded that said Motion should be granted, It is, therefor, Ordered that, 1. George J. Garcia is hereby granted a hearing on this motion; 2. the scheduled deposition is hereby canceled or postponed and all proceedings stayed pending the outcome of said hearing; 3. the Court Administrator is directed to assist George 1. Garcia, in the reasonable accommodation of his Disabilities (in providing a place for the hearing in the Court House and facilities and/or equipment to accommodate said Disabilities); 5. The hearing granted is set for 2002, at in the Cumberland County Courthouse; 6. AIl proceedings are stayed. By the Court: Dated: ,2002 . J. - '"'" , .1 ..:...~ " . " '0' - Itl,,;";j&~,;-"';:b-I. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs " ryl./v Ff~ 0 7 2002 CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEEL TON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants ORDER After due consideration of the pro se motion, pleadings, and arguments of George J. Garcia, this Court having concluded that said Motion should be granted, It is, therefor, Ordered that, I. George J. Garcia is hereby granted a hearing on this motion; 2. the scheduled deposition is hereby canceled or postponed and all proceedings stayed pending the outcome of said hearing; 3. the Court Administrator is directed to assist George 1. Garcia, in the reasonable accommodation of his Disabilities (in providing a place for the hearing in the Court House and facilities and/or equipment to accommodate said Disabilities); 5. The hearing granted is set for 2002, at in the Cumberland County Courthouse; 6. All proceedings are stayed. By the Court: Dated: ,2002 . J. - ~ 0 '0'- ,_," , . --~ - < !!l><i"~t6");;.K.j,".;I fES 11 ZOOZ l)) IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA copy GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY CARRIGER, 106 Heisey Avenue P,O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. 01-6408 Pllaintiffs v. STEEL TON CAPITAL, LTD. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO STRIKE CONFESSED JUDGMENT AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy Carriger (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), by and through their counsel, Saul Ewing, LLP, and file their Brief in Opposition to Defendants' .Petition to Strike Off Confessed Judgment and in support thereof avers as follows: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The present action was commenced on November 13, 2001 when Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Confession of Judgment against Defendant, Steelton Capital, Ltd (not &7679.12/11102 ""~LQ;1';';t - .. O' - ,. '"'~J.i0&i\%.~~ti4;" "Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation" as Defendants' have averred) and against Defendant, George J. Garcia. The Complaint in Confession of Judgment is based on the warrants of attorney contained in the Notes issued by Defendant, Steelton Capital, Ltd. (hereinafter "Steelton") and on the warrants of attomey set forth in the Guaranties given by Defendant, George J. Garcia (hereinafter "Garcia"). On December 5, 2001, the Cumberland County Sheriff served Garcia at his place of employment, Hechts Department Store, Capital City Mall, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Garcia refused to accept service ofthe Complaint on behalf of Steelton, and upon information and belief, represented to the Sheriffs Deputy that he had "nothing to do with Steelton." On December 11, 2001, Garcia personally appeared at the office of the Cumberland County Sheriff to accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Steelton, notwithstanding his prior representation to the Sheriffs Deputy on December 5, 2001 that he "had nothing to do with Steelton." On or about December 11, 2001, Garcia, as a pro se litigant, filed a Petition to Strike the Confessed Judgment (hereinafter "Petition to Strike") against the corporation. In the Petition to Strike, Garcia seeks to have the judgment entered against the Steelton declared "a nullity" based on Garcia's claim that "the Pennsylvania corporation was and is not [sic] the maker of the Notes" upon which the judgment was entered. On December 21, 2001, this Honorable Court issued a Rule to Show Cause Why the Judgment Should Not Be Stricken, setting January 23,2002 as the Rule retum date. On January 23, 2002, and literally moments before the argument on Defendants' Petition was scheduled to commence, Garcia served Plaintiffs' counsel with a copy of his 87679.12/11f02 2 ~ft~_j > ~ I "'" '"'0'. 1~~l1icik", "Amended Petition to Strike Off/Open Judgment," (hereinafter "Amended Petition"). Per the time stamp that appears on the face of the pleading, the Amended Petition was filed with the Court twenty-six (26) minutes before the argument was scheduled to take place on the Petition to Strike. During the January 23,2002 argument on the Petition to Strike, Garcia admitted to the Court that he was not a licensed attorney in any state and that he had filed the Petition to Strike on behalf ofthe corporation and himself. Garcia further advised the Court that neither he nor the corporate defendant were represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the parties were directed to file briefs in support oftheir respective positions, and to include in their briefs argument on the validity ofthe underlying Petition to Strike filed on behalf ofthe corporation by an officer/shareholder, and the appropriateness of the Defendants' eleventh- hour Amended Petition that includes a request to open the judgment. This brief is submitted in opposition to Defendants' Petition to Strike Off Judgment and Amended Petition, and in accordance with the Court's January 23, 2002 Order of Court. II. COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS In or about April 1998, Garcia as)<:ed Plaintiffs to invest in his business corporation, Steelton Capital, Ltd. ("Steelton") by way of making a loan to the corporation in the sum of$15,000. As an incentive for the Plaintiffs to make the loan, Garcia represented that Steelton would give Plaintiffs a Note and that he would personally guaranty payment of the Note. Plaintiffs, (who at the time were in their early 87679.12/11102 3 illlS:: - .-, -,""'" . " "'"~1"'(k~, 80's), unwittingly agreed to give Garcia $15,000 believing that their money would be returned, with interest as Garcia had represented. On or about April 8, 1998, Garcia, as Chairman of Steel ton, prepared and executed a Note in favor of Plaintiffs. Pursuant to the terms of the Note, Steelton was to pay Plaintiffs the sum of$17,100. at a rate of14% simple interest for a term of one (1) year. See Complaint Exhibit "An. The Note was signed by George J. Garcia, Chairman of Steelton Capital, Ltd. (emphasis added). The Note issued by Steelton Capital, Ltd. (emphasis added) further identified Steelton's address as 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514- the same address for Steelton Capital, Ltd. that appears in the caption of the Complaint filed in this matter.] Garcia also prepared and executed a Guaranty in favor ofthe Plaintiffs, by which Garcia personally guaranteed payment of the April 8, 1998 Note issued by Steelton. See Complaint Exhibit "A". Both the Note and Guaranty contain a warrant of attorney that includes a waiver of errors proVISIOn. Steelton and Garcia defaulted on their payment obligations under the April 8, 1998 Note and Guaranty (hereinafter "First Note and Guaranty"). Notwithstanding Garcia's repeated assurances to Plaintiffs that the First Note and Guaranty would be satisfied, the First Note and Guaranty remain unsatisfied. I Defendants have intentionally misrepresented to the Court the identity of the corporate defendant in this matter. The corporate defendant against whom the judgment was entered is "Steelton Capital, Ltd., 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA t 7055-3514," NOT "Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania Corporation," as Defendants have averred. Defendants' argument that the judgment against Steelton Capital, Ltd. is "null and void" based on an averment which appears in the Complaint is disingenuous in light of the fact that the documents, which Garcia has admitted were executed by him, clearly identify Steelton Capital, Ltd. in the sarne way that Plaintiffs have identified Steelton Capital, Ltd. in the caption of their Complaint. Defendants have intentionally misrepresented the caption of the original Complaint in this matter in furtherance of their attempt to avoid liability on the judgment. 87679.12l1tf02 4 -,-" '>,~ "'".',- ""'-"~J:W~~~ On or about October 8, 1999, Steelton and Garcia issued a second Note and corresponding Guaranty to Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Second Note and Guaranty"). The Second Note and Guaranty were prepared by Garcia and provided that Plaintiffs would be repaid the sum of$I6,87I.80 within two months of October 8,1999. The Note further provides that interest was to be paid on the Note at a rate of 18% per annum in the event of default. See Complaint Exhibit "B". See also, Plaintiffs' Reply to Petition to Strike Off Judgment Exhibit "A". The Second Note and Guaranty contain the same warrant of attorney and release of error provisions that were contained in the First Note and Guaranty. It is also worthy of note that the Second Note issued by Steelton Capital, Ltd. (emphasis added) identifies Steelton's address as 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514- the same address that appears in the caption of Complaint filed in this matter. Defendants defaulted on the Second Note and Guaranty. Despite Defendants' repeated assurances to Plaintiffs that the Second Note and Guaranty would be satisfied, the Second Note and Guaranty have not been satisfied. On April 18, 2000, Defendants gave Plaintiffs a third Note and Guaranty (hereinafter "Third Note and Guaranty"). Pursuant to the Third Note and Guaranty, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs the sum of$17,756.88.2 The remaining terms and conditions of the Note and Guaranty, including interest and the warrant of attomey 2 In the Petition to Strike, Defendants attack the validity of the Guaranty arguing that the dollar amount on the Guaranty does not reflect the amount on the Note. Garcia's argument is disingenuons for several reasons. First, A review of the Guaranty reveals that it contains a nonsensical number, to wit: tr $t6,17,494.16". Plaintiffs attached the Third Guaranty to the Complaint as evidence of the fact that Garcia continued to give a Guaranty which each Note issued by the Corporation. Second, Garcia admitted to the Comt on January 23, 2002 that the signature on the Third Guaranty is his signature. Finally, Garcia admitted that he gave a Guaranty in the settlement proposal which he sent to Plaintiffs in December 2001 which includes a brief narrative history of the three (3) Notes and Guaranties. See Plaintiffs' Reply in Opposition to Petition to Strike Off Judgment, Exhibit "D". 87679.12fllf02 5 J1; ....... i....~',~ I .' - , ~ 'fr.O:~~,,~h,~,i':: provisions, are the same as those terms and conditions set forth in the First and Second Note and Guaranty. See Complaint Exhibit "C". The ThirdNote issued by Steelton Capital, Ltd (emphasis added) also identifies Steelton's address as 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514- the same address that appears in the caption of the Complaint filed in this matter. Defendants defaulted on the Third Note and Guaranty. According to Defendants' own calculations, by December 19, 2000 Defendants owed Plaintiffs the sum of $21,118.88. See Complaint Exhibit "D"? To date, the Third Note and Guaranty remain unsatisfied. During the first week of December 2001, Garcia proposed that he would repay Plaintiffs the original sum loaned by Plaintiffs- $15,000. - without interest. See Plaintiffs' Reply to Petition to Strike Off Judgment Exhibit "D". Included in the December 2001 Offer is background information on the First, Second and Third Notes and corresponding Guaranties given by Garcia on each one of the Notes Following service ofthe Complaint in this matter, Garcia sent an email to Plaintiffs dated December 13, 2001 in which Garcia specifically acknowledged his continuing obligation under the Guaranties. See Plaintiffs' Reply to Petition to Strike Off Judgment Exhibit "D". 3 The initials on the document attached to Exhibit "D" reveal that the document was prepared by George J. Garcia. 87679.12111102 6 ~~' ! - - .....,~ -, - -""'"--~". '''-'.ol.c."",""",~ii,,"f.'- III. QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. SHOULD THE COURT PROPERLY DENY THE PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT FILED BY AN OFFICER AND/OR SHAREHOLDER OF A CORPORATION? Suggested answer in the affirmative. B. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT, SHOULD THE PETITION BE DENIED BECAUSE THE RECORD UPON WHICH JUDGMENT WAS CONFESSED IS REGULAR ON ITS FACE? Suggested answer in the affirmative. C. SHOULD THE COURT DENY DEFENDANTS' AMENDED PETITION TO STRIKE JUDGMENT THAT INCLUDES A REQUEST TO OPEN THE JUDGMENT? Suggested answer in the affirmative. 87679.12/11/02 7 '~ -~ , _'J , J, '"' .' - - -~ ~~Iillk"""""'AAlI>'iC',i.-c III. ARGUMENT A. THE COURT SHOULD DENY THE PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT FILED BY AN OFFICER AND/OR SHAREHOLDER OF A CORPORATION In Pennsylvania, it is a well settled principal oflaw that non-attorneys may not represent parties before Pennsylvania courts and most administrative agencies. See The Spirit of the Avenger Ministries v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. _,767 A,2d 1130 (2001). A corporation may appear in court only through an attomey at law admitted to practice before the court. See Walacavage v. Exce1l2000, Inc., 331 Pa. Super. 137,480 A,2d 281 (1984). The purpose of the rule "was not the protection of the stockholders but the protection of the courts and the administration of justice, and that a person who accepts the advantages of incorporation for his or her business must also bear the burdens, including the need to hire counsel to sue or defend in court." Id at 284. The Third Circuit in Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373 (3rd Cir. 1966) sununarized the policy underlying the rule as follows: "The confusion that has resulted in this case from pleadings awkwardly drafted and motions inarticulately presented likewise demonstrates the wisdom of such policy." Id at 375. Garcia has admitted to the Court that he is not a licensed attorney, authorized to practice in any court. Despite the fact that Garcia is not a licensed attomey, Garcia has undertaken to file a Petition to Strike Off Judgment which is fraught with errors oflaw and errors of fact. Garcia's pleadings are rambling, and the averments and arguments contained therein are improperly framed or are simply irrelevant. Moreover, Garcia has attempted to change the caption of this action (See Petition to Strike off Judgment and 87679.1 211 If 02 8 -~ - ~ " ..,.1 .,c,'. -""'J.1IL'~~f; Amended Petition to Strike Off Judgment), without leave of court, in an ill-fated attempt to bolster his already weak and disingenuous argument that Steelton Capital, Ltd. did not execute the Notes in favor of Plaintiffs. In light ofthe fact that Garcia has filed the Petition to Strike on behalf of the corporate defendant notwithstanding the fact that Pennsylvania law clearly prohibits a corporation from appearing in court without an attorney at law admitted to practice before the court, the Petition to Strike should be denied. B. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PETITION TO STRIKE IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT, THE PETITION TO STRIKE SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE RECORD IS SELF- SUSTAINING AND THE JUDGMENT IS REGULAR ON ITS FACE In support ofthe Petition to Strike, Garcia raises four (4) arguments. First, that the judgment was improperly entered against Steelton Capital Ltd. Specifically, Garcia argues (albeit erroneously) that the judgment was entered against "Steelton Capital, Ltd. a Pennsylvania corporation NOT against the maker of said Notes." (Emphasis in the original). Second, Garcia argues that the "corporate defendant" (the phrase used by Garcia to refer to "Steelton Capital, Ltd. a Pennsylvania corporation") never executed the Notes and thus Garcia cannot be liable as Guarantor. Third, Garcia argues that it is unclear which ofthe "exhibited Notes and Guaranties are confessed." Finally, Garcia argues that the Corporation was never served. Not only are these arguments disingenuous in light of the facts which appear in the record, they are improperly raised in the context of a Petition to Strike Off Judgment. 87679.12l1lf02 9 ~t ~, " - . I,~ "'.-' -.-'.';,.(., l_': ~ilifU;,:~if;~j i. The Judgment Against Steelton Capital, Ltd. On each ofthe three (3) notes that are attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Steelton Capital, Ltd. is identified as having an address located at 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-3514. See Complaint, Exhibits "A", "B" and "C". Based on this representation, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Confession of Judgment against the corporation that executed the Notes, i.e. "Steelton Capital, Ltd. , 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514," as evidenced by the caption ofthe Complaint filed in this matter. Contrary to Garcia's argument, Plaintiffs did not identifY Steelton Capital, Ltd. as "a Pennsylvania corporation," in the caption of the Complaint. In an desperate attempt to avoid liability on the judgment, Garcia has seized on an averment set forth in the Plaintiffs' Complaint. Specifically, Garcia points to the averment set forth in Paragraph in paragraph 2 of the Complaint which identifies Steelton as a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal place of business located at 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 to support his contention that the "corporate defendant" did not sign the Notes. Garcia's argument is flawed for several reasons. First, judgment was entered against the entity which signed the Note, in accordance with Pennsylvania law. See Scott v. Walnut Corp., 301 Pa. Super. 248, 447 A.2d. 951 (1982). The entity that signed the Note was Steelton Capital, Ltd, 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514. Second, questions as to the validity of the signature may be raised in a proceeding to open the judgment, but not in a proceeding to strike off the judgment. See Harr v. Bernheimer, 332 Pa. 412,185 A. 857 (1936). (Emphasis added). Third, according 87679.1VIl102 10 ~ ~.~ ,. .,~,. '.. I _ ~" .' i " ,'" -. ..'''''-'','.,.,--'-:'If'~,,_': to the Secretary of State for the state of Delaware, there are no records of an existing corporation known as Steelton Capital, Ltd. In fact, the records show that the only corporation known as "Steelton Capital, Ltd. "in the state of Delaware became void on March 1, 1996. two (2) years prior to the first Note being executed by Steelton Capital, Ltd. Finally, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State, Corporation Bureau, Steelton Capital, Ltd. is a Pennsylvania business corporation with its Chief Executive Officer identified as none other than Defendant, George J. Garcia. Assuming arguendo that the reference to Steelton Capital, Ltd. as a Pennsylvania corporation in the body of the Complaint is an error (which Plaintiffs dispute), the error is de minimis and does not constitute sufficient grounds to strike the judgment entered . against Steelton Capital, Ltd. ii. Defendant, Steelton Capital, Ltd. executed the Notes Garcia's arguments that the "corporate defendant did not execute the Notes," and that "Garcia never guaranteed any of the exhibited Notes" are nothing more than absurd. The corporate defendant who signed each of the three Notes is the same corporate defendant that has been named in the caption of the Complaint. Garcia has admitted in open Court that he is an officer of Steelton Capital, Ltd. and that his signature appears on the Notes. Moreover, as previously stated herein, there are no records of an existing corporation in the state of Delaware known as Steelton Capital, Ltd. Finally, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State, Corporation Bureau, Steelton Capital, Ltd. is a Pennsylvania business corporation with its Chief Executive Officer identified as none other than George J. Garcia. 87679.12111102 11 11!!1!~ ~" ~. '. '- .'-~ '-"~~iWilli~'~' Not only are Garcia's arguments void of any legal merit, but Garcia has intentionally misrepresented material facts to the court, notwithstanding the penalties and consequences associated with false sworn statements. Clearly, Garcia has hoisted himself on his own petard by virtue of his December 13, 2001 email to Plaintiffs in which he admits his obligation to pay Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms ofthe Note and Guaranty. See Plaintiffs' Reply to Petition to Strike Off Judgment, Exhibit "D". The arguments raised in the Petition to Strike are based on Garcia's dispute over the facts averred in the Complaint. If the facts in the Complaint are disputed, the remedy is a proceeding to open the judgment and not by motion to strike. Manor Bldg. Corp. v. Manor Complex Assocs., 435 Pa. Super. 246, 645 A.2d 843 (1994). (Emphasis added). Accordingly, the Petition to Strike should be denied. Hi. The Confessed Judgment The consolidation of proceedings permits multiple notes and confessions to be combined into the entry of one judgment. See Anthos v. Nu Aero Corp., 35 D&C2d 557 (C.C.P. Chester Cty. 1965). The defendants in this action gave Plaintiffs three (3) separate Notes and Guaranties all of which contained warrants of attorney. The Notes and Guaranties were given in succession of one another, after a default on the Note and corresponding Guaranty had occurred. The Second and Third Note and Guaranty reflect the indebtedness arising out of the previously issued Notes and Guaranties. Contrary to the position taken by Garcia, neither the Second nor the Third Notes and corresponding Guaranties satisfied the obligations arising out of the previously issued Note and Guaranty. Thus, although it was Defendants' default on the Third Note and Guaranty 87679.12111102 12 .~~ .1.... which prompted the Plaintiffs to confess judgment against the named Defendants, judgment was confessed against the Defendants based on the obligations arising out of all ofthe Notes and Guaranties and the warrants of attorney set forth therein. Garcia prepared a payoff statement which Plaintiffs have included in their Complaint as Exhibit "D". This payoff calculation demonstrates Garcia's clear understanding ofthe amounts due and owing pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Third Note and Guaranty, which was created after default occurred on the First and Second Notes and Guaranties, and serves to negate Garcia's disengenous claim that not only negates Garcia's claim that he did not Guaranty the Third Note because the Guaranty does not match the dollar value set forth in Note.4 Accordingly, Garcia's claims of "confusion" are little more than subterfuge. iv. The Defendants have been served with the Complaint In response to Garcia's claim that the Defendants have not been served, Plaintiffs respectfully refer the Court to the Sheriff's Retums filed with the Prothonotary. Garcia accepted service on behalf of Steelton Capital, Ltd. and consequently has waived lack of service as a defense to the judgment. · The Third Guaranty contains a nonsensical number, to wit: "16,17,494.16." 87679.12/11102 13 "-'""'.' _1",,,"; 'T~Ii8-' ~~- "_J. '" .,,- ,- " , ---.-: .,-.-- . -' >o_'~~~~!.jl C. THE COURT SHOULD DENY DEFENDANTS' AMENDED PETITION TO STRIKE WHICH CONTAINS A REQUEST TO OPEN THE JUDGMENT FOR THE SAME REASON THAT THE COURT SHOULD DENY THE ORIGINAL PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT On January 23, 2002, Garcia filed an Amended Petition to Strike Off/Open Judgment. In the Amended Petition, Garcia raises the same arguments which were raised previously in the Petition to Strike, to wit: the validity of the judgment entered against Steelton. As previously discussed herein, the law in Pennsylvania is clear- a corporation may appear in court only through an attorney at law admitted to practice before the court. See Walacavage v. Exce1l2000, Inc., 331 Pa. Super. 137,480 A.2d 281 (1984). Accordingly, since Garcia filed the Amended Petition as a pro se litigant on behalf ofthe corporation, the Amended Petition should be denied. Finally, as a general rule, matters which have been adjudicated, or which may have been adjudicated in another proceeding to which the applicant was a party, may not be later used as a basis for an application to open judgment, because the applicant for relief is not entitled to a second adjudication of the same matter. See Albert M Greenfield & Co. v. Roberts, 135 Pa. Super. 328, 5 A,2d 642 (1939). Defendants had an obligation to retain counsel who could have properly filed a Petition to Strike and/or Open Judgment in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendants failed to do so. Accordingly, the Amended Petition to Strike should be denied. 87679.12111/02 14 '." H-,_I'~ '-,",,"_,_,v""' , '-"--1X,_'~J{\; V. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss the Petition to Strike Off Judgment and the Amended Petition To Strike Off/Open Judgment with prejudice, and further award Plaintiffs all such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted, ~;~~~---W~ Paige acdonald-Matthes (Bar ill: 66266) Paula D. Shaffner, Esquire (Bar ill: 43542) SAUL EWINGLLP Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PAl 7I 0 1 (717) 257-7500 Dated: February 11,2002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 87679.12111/02 15 =~,~ ~ " -0,. 1-' ',- . J'. ,.,,0.-" ._.__. -- ,. . ,-".';,"~'i ;'"'1~~-:' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, hereby certifY that on this 11 th day of February, 2002, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief in Opposition to Petition to Strike Off Judgment via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: 87679.12111/02 Steelton Capital, Ltd. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road, Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055-3514 George J. Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 ~~~~~~ Paige Macdonald-Matthes . 16 ..; . , " I ,"'<'~ ~- ,- '. " .-, ~"",:~_ ""'''~Mi>~~-_- GEORGE E. CARRIGER AND DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. AND: NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendants IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ORDER DIRECTING ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION BEFORE GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19TH day of FEBRUARY, 2002, the underlying judgment having been stricken, Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Order Directing Attendance at Deposition in Aid of Execution is DENIED. Edward E. Guido, J. ~ge Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For the Plaintiff ~ l opie.s f\.Cl.i\ed. O.t.i(PO~ ik ~eorge J. Garcia Defendant /rFJ sa "~. - ""~~ ,. J-h'_ mIIR~.. ~'''''~, """"~'I~Z ,';;;"'h"'-' ""," "'~,., - " , D , r.. ( F'Ei'~J\!SYL1/! U: ? ~~ .~;~:_;;jj\!TY '.,i'!J\ U 'iI1ilUi"~ y - ~ "~ IT ,llFjIj$Ij~"M;f.'l!~l'W~"~:)~:;;'f1'~,'!l-",j~;m'"'f01PB!?~'~~~~~R!Jli~.!!II~,~~T;rtC~;. .'C'_ ~ ~~~ ~" 00 ..,- :'Jtn>;tiii--..i,JL, -. GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.) and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendants : NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT AND AMENDED PETITION TO STRIKE OFF/OPEN JUDGMENT BEFORE GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this /9tIJ day of FEBRUARY, 2002, it appearing to the Court that the documents underlying the confessed judgment were executed by Steelton Capital, Ltd. a Delaware Corporation and guaranteed by George J. Garcia, and it further appearing that the complaint for confession of judgment was brought against Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania Corporation, the petition to strike is GRANTED and the judgment entered by confession is STRICKEN. See Commonwealth Dept. of Commerce v. Carlow, 697 A.2d 22 (pa. Commonwealth 1996). It is further ordered that Petitioner's Motion for Sanctions are DENIED. Edward E. Guido, J. , ..... ~...-''''''' -. " 'I m_ " ",,',." """"';;_,,''',I''"r-, --,."~_ - -. n r. .'\ /v {xl,i; <'\. n. ? t~ q'-' C:uut\JTY PE:\,lNSYi~/A\l!i\ J,J~lm',~1V~'~:0'~~!f,"""f,_;,~O'~~;~I'F'<['~'f""?~Wi~4FJ'Jr,~~~!W!l~~J!"~II~~j~l!'I1'i~jjl~ --~ 4- ~ige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For the Plaintiff > ~rge J. Garcia Defendant/Petitioner :sld """ .c.., t"pies f1clILe.\ 02-:(0-02 ~3 "-I _.. :t'-~ .'C. ~~~""", - ,<f . .'~ -,,,,,,'J;,~"'~..h;; _ ~_" _. , _~" ,t/f,;, ~~~~j~i[-!~~I~__~~f.@.vfti*,'i.J;-~,;,';iM;"~"",,_.;U:;;ii.1ms~$i~_-1l1~ - ~'--'--}IlfHL' '. '.' .lL.L,.Uur~' 1 n 6 BII Ll .1,:"-._,lo.[LJ.J;tur~J'Lr"J';'.)'<w~;>,,,~IfY""'-"""'~'1'!,~, __","T,",F~,,~ . ,_ -,t, ~_" _~<',~, ". ",L"",-.~-_,,,,, , ~ ., " , _...~ .... ..-- ~ = ~-~" - -t/SJi!Mi "'-"-~-''''".Jrn~ _...I J ,~" ~liIi I -Jilii."";'=~- w!ti!- !LJ.~l-- " .Jli~jjj.lii~~liili~',; PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Inquiry .. - 2001-06408 CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL (vs) STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL Page 1 Reference No. . : Case Type.....: CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT Judgment...... 23938 40 Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Disposed Desc. : ------------ Case Comments ------------- Filed........ : Time......... : Execution Date Jury Trial. . . . Disposed Date. Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info CARRIGER GEORGE E 106 HEISEY AVE POBOX 167 RHEEMS PA 17570 0167 CARRIGER DOROTHY E 106 HEISEY AVE POBOX 167 RHEEMS PA 17570 0167 STEELTON CAPITAL LTD 5250 SIMPSON FERRY RD SUITE 330 MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 3514 GARCIA GEORGE J 5250 SIMPSON FERRY RD SUITE 330 MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 3514 Judgment Index STEELTON CAPITAL LTD GARCIA GEORGE J STEELTON CAPITAL LTD GARCIA GEORGE J 11/13/2001 10:07 1/03/2001 0/00/0000 PLAINITFF MACDONALD-MATTHES PAIGE PLAINITFF MACDONALD-MATTHES PAIGE DEFENDANT DEFENDANT Amount Date 11/13/2001 111.131.2001 11.031.2001 1/03/2001 Desc 23,938.40 23,938.40 23,938.40 23,938.40 CONFESSION OF JUDG CONFESSION OF JUDG WRIT OF EXECUTION WRIT OF EXECUTION ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries * ******************************************************************************** 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/21/2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT AND COMPLAINT ENTERED NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS AFFIDAVIT OF LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AFFIDAVIT OF LAST KNOWN ADDRESS SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. Case Type: CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN Litigant.: STEELTON CAPITAL LTD Address..: CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S Cty/St/Zp: CARLISLE, PA 17013-3514 Hna To: GEORGE GARCIA FOR STEELTON CAPITAL Shf/Dpty.: JODY SMITH Date/Time: 12/11/2001 1415:00 Costs....: $54.00 Pd By: SAUL EWING 12/11/2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. Case Type: CONFESSION OF JUDGEMEN Litigant.: GARCIA GEORGE J Address..: HECHTS DEPARTMENT STORE Cty/St/Zp: CAMP HILL, PA 17011-3514 Hna To: GEORGE GARCIA Shf/Dpty.: DAVID MCKINNEY Date/Time: 12/05/2001 1750:00 Costs.. ..: $16.00 Pd By: SAUL EWING 12/11/2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT - BY GEORGE J GARCIA PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND Ret Type.: Regular OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ Ret Type.: Regular CAPITAL CITY MALL III Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Inquiry 2001-06408 CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL (vs) STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL Reference No..: FlIed . Case Type.....: CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT . ......... Judgment...... 23938.40 ~~~~ution.Dat~ JVdge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E J T 1 D d D ury ria .... lspose esc. : D~sposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Hlgher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: SANCTIONS IMPOSED - DATED 12/21/01 - GRANTED - PLFFS COUNSEL TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ABOVE CASE SHOULD NOT BE STRUCK OFF AND SANCTIONS ENTERED RULE RETURNABLE 1/23/02 AT 2:00 PM IN CR 5 OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE PA - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 12/21/01 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/03/2001 PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION AND WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED $2.50 PD ATTY $1.00 DUE CO $.50 DUE LL $.50 DUE GARNISHEE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/03/2002 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR RULE TO SHOW CUASE WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED - BY GEORGE J GARCIA ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/09/2002 SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. C~s~ Type: WRIT OF EXECUTION Ret Type.: Garnishee Lltlgant.: STEELTON CAPITAL LTD Garnlshee: MID PENN BANK 4622 CARLISLE PIKE Address. . : CtY/'/St/zp: ~ECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 ShI Dpty.: GERALD WORTHINGTON Hnd To: KELLY KUNKLE (HEAD TELLER) Copies...: 3 Date/Time: 01/08/2002 0015:30 Costs....: $0.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/09/2002 SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. C~s~ Type: WRIT OF EXECUTION Ret Type.: Garnishee Lltlgant.: GARCIA GEORGE J Garnlshee: MID PENN BANK 4622 CARLISLE PIKE Address. . : Cty/'St/Zp: MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 ShI/Dpty.: GERALD WORTHINGTON Hnd To: KELLY KUNKLE (HEAD TELLER) Copies. ..: 3 Date/Time: 01/08/2002 0015:30 Costs. ...: $0.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/11/2002 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT - BY PAIGE MACDONALD-MATTHES ESQ FOR PLFFS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/15/2002 PETITION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED - BY GEORGE J GARCIA ....-- PYS510 1/18/2002 1/18/2002 1/22/2002 1/23/2002 1/23/2002 1/24/2002 2/06/2002 Oli!Sll!l!!liIl8If~.~"m-'-....-'-"'. ............~~,-~ ~ ~.JJ........., : .. I ~ :ll!iII~..i \ , ~~gr,' "',-.. =" Page 2 11/13/2001 10:07 1/03/2001 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' PETITION TO CONTINUE HEARING - BY PAIGE MACDONALD-MATTHES ESQ FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY GEORGE J GARCIA ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE - DATED 1/18/02 - AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE PETITION MOTION PLEADINGS AND ARGUMENTS OF GEORGE J GARCIA THIS COURT HAVING CONCLUDED THAT SAID PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 1/22/02 ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMENDED PETITION TO STRIKE OFF / OPEN JUDGMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDICAL/DISABILITY CERTIFICATION ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1/23/02 - IN RE BRIEF DUE - BOTH PARTIES HAVING AGREED THAT THE PETITION TO STRIKE JUDGMENT RISES OR FALLS BASED UPON THE COMPLAINT FOR CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT ADN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED THERETO THEY ARE DIRECTED TO FILE BRIEFS IN SPPORT OF THEIR RESPECITlVE POSITIONS - THE BRIEF OF THE MOVIN/ PARTY IS DUE ON 2/4/02 THE BRIEF OF RESPONDENT IS DUE ON 2/11 02 - PARTIES ARE DIRECTEb TO ALSO ADDRESS THE VALIDITY OF THE PETITION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CORP BY AN OFFICER AND/OR SHAREHOLDER - THE PARTIES ARE ALSO TO ADDRESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF AN AMENDED PETITION TO STRIKE THE JUDGMENT WHICH INCLUDES A REQUEST TO O/PEN/ THE JUDGMENT - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 1 24 02 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / STAY OF NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AID OF EXECUTION - BY GEORGE J GARCIA "'~"""""'"""'';''''';'''~~~-'''''''''''"=''''~-'''~ -, .~ "'"'~,'* 1aI-' 0_ ~~~._ " . ~ , ~. ~'., '"""L=~ .~ ". ~-!{;.'4i#,!:~~j!i-,i PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Inquiry CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL (vs) STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL Page 3 , " 2001-06408 Reference No. . : Case Type.. ...: CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT Judgment...... 23938.40 JVdge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E DJ.sposed Desc. : ------------ Case Comments ------~------ 2/11/2002 Filed........: Time......... : Execution Date Jury Trial. . . . Disposed Date. Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS' ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION -~----------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 2/19/02 - IN RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ORDER DIRECTING ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION - DENIED - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 2/20/02 -~----------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 2/19/02 - IN RE PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT AND AMENDED PETITON TO STRIKE OFF/OPEN JUDGMENT - THE PETITION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED AND THE JUDGMENT ENTERED BY CONFESSION IS STRICKEN - PETITIONER'S MOTION FQR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 2/20/02 -~----------------------------------------------------------------- PETITION TO RECONSIDERATION MOTION FOR SANCTIONS/NOTICE OF APPEAL -~----------------------------------------------------------------- VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BY GEORGE J GARCIA ATTY -~-----------------------------------------------------------~----- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 4/1/02 - IN RE VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SlPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP IS SCHEDULED FOR 4 8/02 AT 11:00 AM IN CR 5 CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE P - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 4/2/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/13/2001 10:07 1/03/2001 0/00/0000 2/20/2002 2/20/2002 ~/22/2002 3/27/2002 4/01/2002 ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * * Fees & Debits Beq Bal pvmts/Adl End Bal * ******************************************************************************** JDMT/CONFESSION 9.00 9.00 .00 TAX ON CONFESS .50 .50 .00 SATISFACTION 5.00 5.00 .00 WRIT OF EXEC 15.00 15.00 .00 ------------------------ ------------ 29.50 29.50 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information * ******************************************************************************** :s: ~., ". .~ " '0-..1,"', o,v:;' "."_ ""~S'" ','.1, ),' ',."" . o.ili;;l1!lci! , j,: GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.) and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendants ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2002, the Defendant having failed to appear for the hearing scheduled on his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, the application is DENIED. By the Court, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Saul Ewing, LLP Two North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiffs George J. Garcia 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendant/Petitioner, Pro se and George J. Garcia P.O. Box 394 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 ~~ '1..0'1 -O.v 9- srs m ~. 1I1,. ,-. ,0' _ ._*,~.'I_""'"''''''. _ ~ '" ~"'-~ _ .~ "1; Fn...("':I~I('E r-......_,.. V, Iv Or ,,, '"~ ,.~~.., 'F"N~ARY ... ) ,--1-.' ."".! ""~')I'\J ! ! I', - "'.,' 1:' .J-...,. OHPR - 9 AM II: 3 ! CUMl-lb'iLlI:',[j COUNTY PENNSYLVANiA 11,~,[f ,.,."."r7"Wlt~ ~_: fl,' . 11"~_'f~r;'F~'l'"'~I0\';(;}1~~'.~1[~'PPAA!~'!';,~_~;3.~J.U~'"-''''''1,~]!''''..'!'ns1!ij~-';~~~~_~~~~,<~;~;'" ,-,. '.---.. 0; .. GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs V. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.) and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendants .,- -'.<-' "~ : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9TH day of APRIL, 2002, it appearing to the Court that the defendant George J. Garcia has filed a Notice of Appeal, we no longer have jurisdiction to deal with his Petition to Reconsider Motions for Sanctions. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire th Two North Second Street, 7 Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 1710 1 For the Plaintiffs George J. Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055-8934 DefendantlPetitioner :sld Edward E. Guido, J. ~ ~ 'f4,.0;;)- ~ , -.'- .. ~ '.', .-"~ ---." " .'. '" " ~,- ~,<<< ,~, ~- '-., , ,,1\Jg; .. ,'"'~-~~. -'-"'-'1''' ~ ..~, ",. "".~.~, ..- ~~l OF F"II r:[1"Yr,'cI0c '...c_ v t lVI... "I~! lr" "","\'^' ~-, Ir '. ~t. "...... f_,',..,) 1 '_F, <<.j" !1\RY ""_.. - 'i.c' i 1'~I1'.,W r 02 APR - 9 M'ill: 32 CUM8EFILA'~U COUNlY PHJNSYlYANLI\ - EJ 5~ , , ,"I,,~,JlTlfllr, T~_~'t\\""','''I'~},'r,.~<-r~)%.'0iij;~M~#i.<;I.~j1_\W'!~riW'~~R1i:~~f~\W.l?_Wlf\H"":{~~~tl@:W~;~: ,~ , - ~' - , '"'-~~~ . . , ,. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRlGER and DOROTHY E. CARRlGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, YTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE J. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 lRULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION FOR SANCTIONS SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED And now, this _ day of 2002, on consideration of the foregoing petition/motion, a rule is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel to show cause why George J. Garcia's petition for the Court to reconsider and rehear the denial of his request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel contained in the Order of Court, issued by the Honorable Judge Edward E. Guido, Jr., entitled "In Re: Petition to Strike Off Judgement and Amended Petition to Strike/Open Judgement" (the "Order"), dated 19 February 2002 and entered on 20 February 2002; stay or extend the deadline for appeal of said denial of sanctions contained in the Order; and grant Plaintiffs and Defendant GJG the right to brief the issues delineated at the rehearing. Meanwhile, any and all proceedings related to the note( s) and/or any guaranty or guaranties exhibited in Plaintiffs' Complaint for Confession of Judgment are stayed. Rule returnable April 2002, at In Courtroom #5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, P A. All proceedings to stay. . J. -- ;"~J,:'" ~'-_~ ,. ""''''''"<.,0;.,- ';!>i.'; " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER 106 Heisey Avenue P.O. Box 167 Rheems, PA 17570-0167 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 and GEORGE 1. GARCIA 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendants PETITION TO RECONSIDER MOTION FOR SANCTIONS / NOTICE OF APPEAL To the Honorable Court, the Judges of said Court: NOW COMES, George J. Garcia, the individual defendant in the above-entitled cause (hereinafter called "GJG" and/or the "Individual Defendant"), pro se, and petitions and moves that the Court reconsider the denial of GJG's request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel contained in the Order of Court, issued by the Honorable Judge Edward E. Guido, Jr., entitled "In Re: PETITION to Strike Off Judgement and Amended Petition to Strike/Open Judgement" (the "Order"), dated 19 February 2002, entered on the docket on 20 February 2002, for the following Page 1 of 12 -~~ -- " Ch." c d C -- - -~, '"-.,'",,, :",,",~M;l,,~~, reasons: 1. It is well settled that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure must be strictly followed if a valid confession of judgement is to be entered. (Scott Factors, Inc. v. Hartley (1967) 425 Pa 290), 228 A2d 887; Citizens National Bank v. Rose Hill Cemetery Assoc. (1971) 218 Super Ct 366, 281 A2d 73.) These Rules were and are written to give a debtor additional protection by prescribing requirements in the procedure for relief from confessed judgements. There is no reason in law or policy for permitting the abborgation by a court of these protections by waiving the mandatory provisions of the Rules. (Citizens National Bank v. Rose Hill Cemetary Asso. (1971) 218 Super Ct 366, 281 A2d 73.) 2. Pa R Civ P Rule 2952(a) requires that the Complaint must contain the names of the parties. 3. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the prothonotary must enter judgement by confession AGAINST THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED IT. (Pa P Civ Rule 295 l(a).) 4. When a proceeding to enter judgement by confession is commenced by the filing of a complaint, the complaint and the confession of judgement are to be read together in determining whether or not there are defects apparent on the fact of the record. (Parliament Industries, Inc. v. William H. Vaughn & Co., (1983) 501 Pa 1, 459 A2d 720.) Accordingly, the Court was asked to take Judicial Notice of the Complaint, Judgement, and exhibits to the Complaint that Plaintiffs have sued and taken judgement by confession against Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Corporate Defendant"), NOT against the maker of said note(s) and that all of said notes on their face say "Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation" (hereinafter called the "Borrower") and that the attached Page 2 of 12 J .- ~ , ~" ',,- "~'" ',,' "" - ". .olitJll!~, Guaranty is for and of "the attached... Note" (i.e., that of Borrower and NOT the Corporate Defendant); 5. A warrant of attomey to confess judgement is the very essence of the judgement, not a minor part of the clerical process, and without such warrant, a judgement is void. (Wells v. Cahan (1988) 1 D & C4th 394.) 6. Judgements by confession can and must be stricken for irregularity in the record (Pennwest Farm Credit, ACA v. Hare (1991) 410 Super Ct 422). Suing and taking judgement against the wrong party - NOT a maker of any of the notes in the Complaint and GJG as the guarantor of those notes NEVER signed or made by the Corporate Defendant and/or without its warrant ofattomey is/are "an irregularity." 7. ~EVEl{- THE - LESS. Plaintiffs simed Verifications. that the facts in the Comolaint were true and correct and that tbev were aware of the oenalties of unsworn fa~e ~tatements: vet thev oermitted (alone- with Plantiffs' Counsel) the Comolaint and Jude-ement to be filed and entered and attemoted to execute uoon the Coroorate Defendant's orooertv. 8. Plaintiffs Counsel are members of the Pennsylvania State Bar, assumed to know the applicable law, rule, and regulation, are Officers of this Honorable Court, and (unless grossly incompetent or "plain stupid") can read the notes attached to the Complaint, know that the Borrower was and is Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation, know that the Corporate Defendant did not execute any warrant of attomey, nor that GJG guaranteed the attached note(s) of Borrower and NOT the Corporate Defendant, and know who to sue -M well as thev mav NOT confess iude-ement ae-ainst.!! / Page 3 of 12 - J , ,~~,' 1~, , "-'0""-"",",<1 9. Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff's Counsel by taking judgement by confession against the Corporate Defendant AND attempting to execute upon its assets - without it ever signing any of the notes exhibited in the Complaint and without granting any warrant of attorney to confess judgement - was and is a deliberate and fraudelent act - of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel - made to deceive the Court into entering judgement against an entity other than the Borrower so as to defraud GJG and/or said Corporate Defendant and/or in an attempt to extort money from said Corporate Defendant and/or GJG by virtue of a judgement obtained by confession. A. The Corporate Defendant and/or GJG has, have, or may suffer irreparable harm, loss, cost, and expense because of the improper judgement and the actions and inactions of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel. B. While the Judgement taken by confession is a nullity and is of no more force and effect as if taken against "Mickey Mouse;" Judgement by Confession against the Corporate Defendant and GJG was by sneak attack and suprise and represents financial and legal terrorism and must and did not stand. 10. Judgement was grossly excessive, not authorized by the instruments exhibited, and ANY recovery unconscionable. 11. Plaintiffs "proceedings" totally deprive the Corporate Defendant and GJG of equal process and due process oflaw; the "Judgement" was a "Mickey Mouse Judgement" and holds this Court and the LAW up to possible scorn and redicule. The Honorable Court is NOT a "Mickey Mouse Court!" A. As Melvin Belli, Esq. said, " the Law is not an ass - but those who try to bend and Page 4 of 12 " - I.."" -. pervert it - ARE." B. By preverting the Rules and by fraud, deceit, and deception, Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel has/have for their own financial gain caused the Complaint to be file Judgement by Confession entered against the Corporate Defendant and GJG was by surprise and represents financial and legal terrorism and must and did not stand. 12. The Judgement was grossly excessive, not authorized by the instruments exhibited, and ANY recovery by Plaintiffs was and is unconscionable. 13. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in his pro se Petition to Strike Off Judgement and in the Amended Petition to Strike Off / Open Judgement Gointly and severally the "Petitions") - which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof), GJG prayed that this Honorable Court grant a rule on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel to show cause why the said judgement should not be struck off and sanctions imposed against Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel; all proceedings to stay - which was granted.. 14. At the (show cause) hearing on 23 January 2002, Plaintiffs Counsel and GJG stipulated that the Petition to Strike "rises or falls based upon the complaint for confession of judgement and the exhibits attached thereto" and the Brief Order was entered and the Court held that GJG was not to respond to Plaintiffs' Reply (and its new matter) - and accordingly no such response was made - HOWEVER, GJG was not permitted to be heard on the issue of sanctions nor instructed to brief the issue of sanctions; 15. Subsequently, in his BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO STRIKE OFF mDGEMENT AND AMENDED PETITION TO STRIKE OFF / OPEN mDGEMENT (which is also Page 5 of 12 ~ ~- ~ ~. .,> > I' ,["",~ '. "~. ~. "~~" incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof,) George J. Garcia, pro se, respectfully requested that: A. The Judgements entered be declared a nullity and stricken with prejudice so that Plaintiffs may never ever seek or enter, by confession or otherwise, any judgement against the Corporate Defendant and/or GJG under the note(s) and/or guarantees exhibited in the Complaint; B. That the Court impose severe sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel for their conduct and actions related to the Complaint and these proceedings - including, without limitation, fines and costs, referal of Plaintiffs' Counsel to the Disclipinary Review Board., and referal of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel for investigation to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to determine if state and/or federal criminal charges are warrented for, without limitation, false swearing, peIjury, conspiracy, mail and/or wire fraud, bank fraud, extortion, and any and all lesser included or related offenses. 16. On 19 February 2002, the Court answered GJG's prayers and in its Order granted the petition to strike and the judgement entered by confession was stricken! 17. However, the Order denied GJG's Motion for Sanctions. 18. By so doing, without granting GJG the opportunity to argue for sanctions at the show cause hearing and not directing the issue of sanctions to be argued in the required brief; GJG was and is denied procedural and substantive due process and equal protection oflaw. 19. Unless this Motion for Consideration is granted and GJG be allowed to be "reheard" on the Motion for Sanctions and to submit a brief thereon for the Court's reconsideration, Plaintiffs Page 6 of 12 .-, " ~~ .1 , ~ .,;~"'-- ~~i and Plaintiffs' Counsel "will get away scott free" and the denial of GJG's Motion for Sanctions will become final-leaving GJG with no way of obtaining judicial review or relief. Legal Ethics 20. Legal Ethics is NOT "a contradiction in tenus!" or a "joke!" 21. Rule II of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its Pennsylvania counterpart: A. Provides that all lawyers who sign their names to any pleading, motion, brief or other paper filed with a court, must certifY and believe that the paper is well grounded in fact, that it is supported by existing law or have a good faith arguement (AND MUST REQUEST) for a change in the law, and must not proceed for an improper purpose - such as harassment or extorton. B. Prior to signing the paper(s), the lawyer must conduct a "reasonable inquiry" into the facts and the law to determine if they support all assertions contained therein. C. Any violation of these rules requires the trial court to impose a sanction or sanctions against the lawyer and/or the client. D. Sanctions may include, without limitation, warnings, fines, assessment of fees and costs to the defendant(s); suspension from practice before the court, etc., etc. E. Courts have held that a lawyer must continue to reassess the valadity of the client's claims after they are filed and take the appropriate action if it becomes evident that a claim or claims (for example that the Corporate Defendant signed the note(s) and that the Plaintiffs "are people of reasonable modest means", that GJG guaranteed and is liable for a note or notes of the Corporate Defendant - who never executed or granted a writ of attorney to confess judgement) is/are not Page 7 of 12 ~ - ~~ ~' I " '~ - \-",u"ii1";~~j well grounded in fact and/or law. 22. Candor to a tribunal is required of lawyers. A lawyer shall not: A. Make a false statement offact or law to a tribunal (such as, without limitation, the statement - made as an Officer of the Court - in the Answer to the Petition to Strike that "Plaintiffs are people "of relatively modest means; that it doesn't matter who is sued (to confess judgement); that Steelton Capital, Ltd. (DEL) is really Steelton Capital, Ltd. (P A); etc., etc. B. Offer false evidence that the lawyer knows is false and/or if the lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity (as in the "Veracity Notice"), the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures (such as having Plaintiffs recant the absurd claim that they were or are personas of relatively modest means when they were in attendance at the show cause hearing.) 23. In the altemative, to malicious or intentional unethical acts, the Complaint was so poorly drafted and flawed so as to make it appear that Plaintiffs Counsel (one an associate and one a partner) was/were incompetent (and possibly unsupervised), A. Plaintiffs were not observant of statutes, Court Rules, or decisions that she/they know(s) or should have known apply to the Complaint and/or failed to research and discover and apply those rules and decisions by standarized legal research techniques, (as did GJG - pro se); B. Lawyers are not generally liable to third parties (like the Corporate Defendant and/or GJG) UNLESS fraud or other malicious or intentional acts are committed. 24. A lawyer must (until the conclusion of a proceeding) not fail to disclose or offer false Page 8 of 12 , -, ~ , - , . , I' " -".--~-_.- '",-'",.":,,,i'; "0" '"",,'~~'i evidence and must refuse to offer evidence known to be false. 25. A lawyer must be fair to the opposing party: A. Not seek sanctions and outrageous fees when the opposing party is sick or injured and unable to attend a deposition (and has medical certification therefor). B. Assert - before a tribunal - the lawyer's personal opinion about the opposing party - such as "his statements are disingenuous;" C. Offer confidential settlement negotations between Plaintiffs and GJG into the record; For the foregoing reasons, GJG hereby requests that: A. The denial of the Motion for Sanctions may and must be reheard and "in a proper case" (Markofski v. Ynks (1929) 297 Pa 74,146 A 569; Trescott v. Coperative Bldg. Bank (1906) 215 Pa 438, 64 A 630; Silberman v. ShukIansky (1895) 172 Pa 77, 33 A 272; Holland Furnace Co. V. Gabriel (1931) 102 Super Ct 578, 157 A 373) such a rehearing is within the discretion of the Court (Holland Furnace Co. V. Gabriel (1931) 102 Super Ct 578,157 A 373.) B. Stay the deadline for appeal of the denial ofthe Motion for Sanctions; C. Allow Plaintiffs and Defendants to brief the issues after the rehearing; D. Stay all proceedings related to the notes and guaranties which where exhibited in Plaintiffs' Complaint pending the final outcome ofthe rehearing. E. Grant such other relief or remedy to GJG as justice may require. In the alternative, should the Petition for Reconsideration be denied, GJG hereby gives: NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that GJG, the Individual Defendant, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Page 9 of 12 - , ~ "" ' r ' :ti ,~~~I Pennsylvania the denial of GJG's request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel contained in the Order of Court, issued by the Honorable Judge Edward E. Guido, Jr., entitled "In Re: PETITION to Strike Off Judgement and Amended Petition to Strike/Open Judgement" (the "Order"), dated 19 February 2002, entered on 20 February 2002. The Order has been entered in the docket as evidenced in the attached copy of the docket entry. The Individual Defendant hereby requests leave of the Court to proceed in forma pauperis G .Box9 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-8934 717.737.2682 Page 10 of 12 .... - - - ~I ',~;.;;;;.~~4 ~~ GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.) and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendants : NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO STRIKE OFF JUDGMENT AND AMENDED PETITION TO STRIKE OFF/OPEN JUDGMENT BEFORE GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this /9tIJ day of FEBRUARY, 2002, it appearing to the Court that the documents underlying the confessed judgment were executed by Steelton Capital, Ltd. a Delaware Corporation and guaranteed by George 1. Garcia, and it further appearing that the complaint for confession of judgment was brought against Steelton Capital, Ltd., a Pennsylvania Corporation, the petition to strike is GRANTED and the judgment entered by confession is STRICKEN. See Commonwealth Dept. of Commerce v. Carlow, 697 A.2d 22 (Pa. Commonwealth 1996). It is further ordered that Petitioner's Motion for Sanctions are DENIED. TRUE COpy FROM RECORD III Testimony Wi'!efOO1,lllllre Ullto ~et my hano 'nil the seal 01 said COlJrt at Carlisle. ~~.:L (his. f) MAl... day o~' - () ",,-, l~. ..( 14' ~ ~_. ~ " Prothllnomry Edward E. Guido, J. .... . ^ ,- - . 4aige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For the Plaintiff > ~rgeJ. Garcia DefendantlPetitioner :sld o .~ - topi.. I1cl'Le.l 02-20-02 ~.9 I" -' '. " '~.' -. ""k,.' _ ~""~lf~r~)i ['\\1i -. ~ ",'. , ~ -,. -- - ,.' - ,~-, ti; ih'''~~~' , . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2002, I hereby verifY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be placed in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: . Paige MacDonald-Matthes and/or Paula D. Shaffuer and/or Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street, 7th floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Page 11 of 12 ,;~~"'~~lmr~_'~~ilif!IW::'~~~'i.:g~~r;BiU;'H:i'",r"",:"p,:r;j:,,/d.rB;!-2~f~;il-on,,"I"';"ci.l&~j::'Mti{W '..c,o ''-'~.:i:i ~""""","j&'{j~I<tJ!j~~o%~_' _,_ ~ ^ ,'~~ I""""""",. ,.' ',~ . "," ,~_'."Q'''"~,',,_~,,,., .,.~ "=." A. '" ,,,,",'F.' -",..,.",~^ _..J., ,~ , ,= - '~"-"""",~.- 'j!-' 1"0 i:.{~-~ ~~ -( ',." _,,~,,~...=-<; """,,",~~,'~N,','. '~oW o c t1 ",If '. .) j" J' ;J .,- :<'0"" .......,.~- "'l.~'""-- - "f . -. I ,"" ",' . -Il_~~wwd" GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.) and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendants ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2002, the Defendant having failed to appear for the hearing scheduled on his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, the application is DENIED. By the Court, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Saul Ewing, LLP Two North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiffs I~orge J. Garcia 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendant/Petitioner, Pro se and George J. Garcia P.O. Box 394 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 srs TRUE In TG!t1Im: and tho s This q OC-__iJJj wI. st ': ,-" -:;; .2.- (~'Jr Q : /,,' .' < . . .. '.' . .. . Prothonotarf t~.r2r"nn''!.\ ~ f,t_",V,,,,,,j~"U '^ ""I'and ,;/_'t ~'" . -""'C'J' ,. ~~sl~~~ Fa. ~~_ I .......,.~ - rIl' '~"T il~ c::J .; I~ III :i mD~" ffi~ ~l, ~". j:; '.~\l o...~ )~ ~ ~.~) ~ <C-~ o o :J CllU 'CJ We 0::. cr;-, ~ o W ... <Xl C'l C'l lU" a:~ <0 ::.:: 0< w_ lUZ w< ::J~ 0)- :tw f-z a:z ::JlU 0.. o .. lUlU z-' 0!!1 -' a: < o .', ~ '"~ o ll: .. i!: c:> [J c:> .. '" ~ ti~ Ct);;~~C11 Ct)__1- a:: ~Otn:f< O~CCW~ Ol-W~o CO=cu.. ....z:ECCQ ZC:::)WI- LUwZ> Ul-:C::i~ it~g~= =w~I-Z Ct)~oo:::) !:c:z::z. ~oo Cl <( o 0::: >- 0::: <(0::: -UJ ~LL <(z ...... (90 C/J . C/J () '0.0_ UJ:2C"'lZ (9C/J:Z:2 0:::01--() OIt):JUJ ~~C/J:2 .,-- ......- ".-0::: ..-.:; '-.:: .".~ ..,- :=f ...... "-.:: ...... ..-.. ". ..'- .....- :~ ::::: '-~0 ~ ~ ....'S ~":1 ;~:~:~ :....VJ (1:1{') .....1+ ,::)& ~""f(.l ~....l~ ,... .. '.,L {-, t, f; &; 1" [;:. .\, ~:: fL ~" !j ~(. " , ~' ~i~ , " t t j;: ff f i. ,-i,,-","'~"""''''.-c_-<_.~''''~'c.'' g;;;P:'J'";;zr(~"'"~;"";-S,""""'F>:("'>'"'' ff;%,?ii'qi];%0~:g~1?W~J~11j;&1~;RfJ;~~~if13:f;QI~t'"\t13. - ~- I. ~'i.J ",I~" !.l " ){ (') I" I' l> 'i :0 ~l Co !j ooz :;;m I, m \! . (') 0 , "0 ~ :r mc Th Z:o Z-i <-:0 J OOJ: Co ~l -<0 Om \ic Gl, 1 l>oo mG) zm C J >00 ! ~o 0 "c 0 ol> ~:o Olm W Ol Ol " , , ~. f ~I ! 1;\ (11 q. ~ :s;:"tJG) mom a. 0 ~ ICJ;;tJ )>OG) gxm \ i;.l awe.... ~ c.o . "'"G) - ~ 55 . lil lil ~ l> l> :;) a :0 :0 Ie )> " 0 0 H .0 ~ l> ill ;' .I: ... "" ::.. :oc :0 :::> ::- m2 m :n - -il> -i'" en - cmm C'-l , : :oro :00 ~ ;;::: 2mx 2U1 '" UI I>- ::- -i-iO -iUl oar 00 0 ... - 10'"1110 tnUl - mom m - z:otl 2'" - tl~ tl.l: - ml> mo - - :0:0 :OIU - lJ :::... ... - .I: ::... f' III F.- 0 In c:::l -. .I: ... "- 0 LN ... In IU ... .,.. "- .. 0 '" III IU m .***:+**ltJt*..,~, :)ji!;:.~t{;&i~:~qK\1';~::t';'1;,'f0}?i,;L;;t):~1Y$:\0grJP;:~\!J:1\1\Ft~~*'W),~; ,""'~~- "~ ~~ L~ .' ~-j w"","~"."""",,;;-,;~,) GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.) and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendants ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2002, the Defendant having failed to appear for the hearing scheduled on his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, the application is DENIED. By the Court, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Saul Ewing, LLP Two North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiffs George J. Garcia 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 Defendant/Petitioner, Pro se and ~~rge J. Garcia lY.O. Box 394 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 srs fe" ,~. 11""""--" [i"tlt..,~?,: vt)~"J: 1/ ! n 1" nr:St~'F;~my ~Ni',f.H'f;m~ I I ~-~;j,OO (~"-,..: :.1t.:J~ ,~\1~ (~ -~.J :\ Pa. nll" (;,/;:''1 n~t~~{~, {~~V1J;LJ Prothonotari - -. ., -..",-~",,- .." , , -~ "-. ---'~ "-', ,,_;,__~',k"'" "",-j'-', '",-",,, <',-;,;.,: _.;.~_ -~--~i1IiiN,' +~. PAIGE MACDONALD-MATTHES Phone: (717) 238-7675 Fax: (717) 257-7583 ATTORNEYS AT LAw pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com www.saul.com June 4, 2002 Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3387 Re: George E. Carriger and Dorothy E. Carriger vs. Steelton Capital, Ltd. and George J. Garcia; CCP, Cumberland County, Docket No. 01-6408 Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed is Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule Absolute in regard to the above referenced matter. Please file the original of record and forward the same onto the Court Administrator for submission and execution by Judge Oler. Kindly return a time-stamped copy to our office in the envelope provided for your convenience. I have included extra copies of the Order and postage-paid envelopes to the Defendants, as well as our office, for mailing of the executed Order. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. '~f).' t~JrJours, . r7"D'--'\',j :--:J1" /1 :, ~': }:: ="./ \v( ,',.. . ' ---::-. 'U LJ Paige Macdonald-Matthes PMM/kIs Enclosures cc w/enc.: Steelton Capital, Ltd. George J. Garcia T3tyn N. Dixon, Court Administrator LAhe Honorable Wesley J. Oler JlJN '5 2002 2 North Second Street, 71h Floor. Harrisburg, PA 17101-1604 . Phone: (717) 257-7500. Fax: (717) 238-4622 87136.46/4/02 BALTIMORE CHESTERBROOK HARRISBURG NEW YQ~K PHILADELPHIA PRINCETON WILMINGTON A DELAWARE UMlTED UABIUTY PARTNERSHIP ~ '-tIiRllliilif<l 1- ~~;;_~\-: GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. and Civil Action GEORGE J. GARCIA, Individually Defendants. Docket No. 02-1245 Civil ORDER AND NOW, this day of June 2002, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Attendance of Defendants Steelton Capital, Ltd. and George J. Garcia at Deposition, as well as Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule Absolute, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Defendant Garcia is directed to pay the sum of $ to Plaintiffs'.~o]msel.within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant Garcia is directed to appear for deposition on June 17, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. at the Harrisburg, P A office of Saul Ewing LLP, 2 North Second Street, Penn National Insurance Tower, 7m Floor, Harrisburg, PA, and remain until the deposition is completed. BY THE COURT: J. 89930.1614/02 '~ - ~^ .. 11 0Ii1IJ..di- """..,,*,?~",,,,~A::~ GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. and Civil Action GEORGE J. GARCIA, Individually Defendants. Docket No. 02-1245 Civil MOTION FOR RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy Carriger (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs ") by and through their counsel, Saul Ewing LLP, and file their Motion For Rule Absolute, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On May 9, 2002, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery. A true and correct time-stamped copy of Plaintiffs' Motion is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit" A". 2. On May 14,2002, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause was issued against the Defendants directing the Defendants to reply to the Rule within 20 days. Said Rule was served on Defendants by the Court. Service of the Rule on Defendants was also attempted by Plaintiffs by serving Defendants at the addresses that Defendant Garcia provided to Plaintiffs' counsel in his email dated May 8, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "B". 3. Plaintiffs counsel has received all correspondence back from the post office with the notation that either the "Addressee was Unknown," or that the mail was "unclaimed." True and correct copies of the envelopes that Plaintiffs' counsel has received are attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "C". Curiously, Defendant Garcia received 89930.1 614/02 - - ._,"~ . . "" . ~~~"""r~;W:l,J~,'; the copy of the Motion and Rule from the Court at the same address, as evidenced by Defendant Garcia's e-mail dated June 3, 2002, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 4. Shortly after Plaintiffs' fIled their Motion for Sanctions, Defendant Garcia contacted Plaintiffs' counsel via e-mail to reschedule his deposition. At Defendant Garcia's request, Plaintiffs counsel agreed to reschedule the deposition for June 6, 2002. Copies of emails exchanged between Defendant Garcia and Plaintiffs' counsel confirming the June 6, 2002 deposition are attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "E". 5. On Monday, June 3, 2002 at 10:38 p.m., Defendant Garcia sent Plaintiffs counsel an email stating that he would not attend the June 6, 2002 deposition. See, Defendant Garcia's June 3, 2002, as Exhibit "D". 6. Neither Defendant has appealed the entry of judgment against them in this matter. 7. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendant Garcia will continue to avoid responding to discovery otherwise permitted by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in this matter unless and until an Order is issued by the Court directing Defendant Garcia's attendance at deposition and further ordering Garcia to pay counsel fees and costs. 8. Plaintiffs have already been and will contiJ,1Ue to be prejudiced by Defendant Garcia's willful and deceitful conduct. 9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Garcia's conduct, Plaintiffs have had to schedule and reschedule court reports on at least three separate occasions and have had to incur the additional cost of preparing and filing their Motion to Compel and the Motion for Rule Absolute for which Plaintiffs should be reimbursed. 89930.16/4/02 -2- 1IIIl8ll!IiI~- ~I ....,'-Ilr"',:~-_: 10. Counsel fees and costs associated with the filing of the Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery and the present Motion for Rule Absolute are $572.00. In the event that further prosecution of the within Motion is required additional counsel fees will be incurred. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy Carriger, respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Sanctions and award Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs incurred to date with regard to the filing of this Motion in the sum of $572.00, plus additional attorneys fees and costs associated with further proceedings concerning this motion. Plaintiffs further request that this Honorable Court issue and Order directing Defendant Garcia's Appearance at the Deposition in Aid of Execution to be scheduled at the office of Plaintiffs counsel, and further award Plaintiffs all such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted, Date: June!L, 2002 SAUL EWING LLP ~~ ~"~d"""O~~ Paige Macdonald-Matthes Attorney ID No. 66266 Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 89930.16/4/02 -3- iff ~ ,~~ =" -- "' "'- "'" c'"' "_ ",' - nli!l'~w-l- GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. and Civil Action GEORGE J. GARCIA, Individually Defendants. Docket No. 02-1245 Civil RULE AND NOW, this day of May 2002, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Attendance of Defendants Steelton Capital, Ltd. and George J. Garcia at Deposition, a copy of which is attached hereto, a Rule is issued upon Defendants, to show cause, if any they have, why Plaintiffs' Motion should not be granted. Rule returnable days from the date of service. BY THE COURT: J. 87680.2518102 , ,,~ - ~',- - -- ".~ "--:, GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs g ~ >1, g. -;.r --l -oCG ., :Con STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. and Civil Action '::2g:i -<: '~~Fn GEORGE J. GARCIA, Individually 0~~ -'0 :3'6 Defendants. Docket No. 02-1245 Civil i';:E' -u ..2::;': ~ -~ ''J- ",-0 - :z:(") MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING D~OOS,g;-;'1 ATTEl\'DANCE AT DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION =z \0 ~. v. .' =,- AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy Carriger (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, Saul Ewing, LLP, and file their Motion For Sanctions and For Court Order Directing Defendants Attendance at Deposition in Aid of Execution, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On March 13, 2002, Plaintiffs confessed judgment against Steelton Capital, Ltd., and George J. Garcia (hereinafter collectively "Defendants"). 2. On March 22,2002, the Cumberland County Sheriff served George J. Garcia, individually and on behalf of Steelton Capital, Ltd. with a copy of the Complaint and Notice of Deposition in Aid of Execution. A true and correct copy of the Sheriff s return is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "A". 3. Defendant Garcia had previously accepted service of legal process from the Cumberland County Sheriff on behalf of DefendantSteelto:o. in other proceedings before this Court and was so advised by the Sheriff on March 22, 2002 when he refused to take Defendant Steelton's copy of the Complaint after the Sheriff handed him the same. 4. On April 8, 2002, Plaintiffs' counsel also served Defendant SteeIton Capital, Ltd. via the Delaware Secretary of State through the Kent County, Delaware Sheriff's office, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs' counsel has received formal notification that Steelton i76.S0.2,...S.'Ol Capital, Ltd. is not registered in the State of Delaware. A true and correct copy of the Sheriff's return from Kent County, Delaware is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "B". True and correct copies of the Re- Void Certificates issued by the Secretary of State for the State of Delaware are attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "C". 5. Pursuant to the Notice of Deposition, Defendants were to appear at Harrisburg office of Saul Ewing, LLP on Thursday, May 4, 2002 for a deposition in aid of execution. Defendants were further directed to produce at the deposition certain documents pertaining to the judgment entered and the identification of the Defendants' assets. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "D". 6. On Monday, April 1, 2002, Defendant Garcia notified Plaintiffs' counsel via emall that he would be unable to attend the deposition scheduled for April 4, 2002. 7. After a series of attempts to coordinate a mutually convenient time and date for the deposition, May 7,2002 was the date selected at Defendant Garcia's request. True and correct copies of the emai1s regarding the re-scheduling of the deposition are collectively attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "E". 8. On Wednesday, May 1,2002, at 8:22 p.m. Defendant Garcia sent an email to. Plaintiffs' counsel advising that he would not be attending the deposition and offered a myriad of reasons including the fact that he had scheduled a doctor's appointment for May 7, 2002 notwithstanding the fact that he has known since April 4, 2002 of the deposition in aid of execution. A true and correct copy of Defendant Garcia's email is attached hereto as Exhibit ffFff. 9. Neither Defendant has appealed the entry of judgment against them in this matter. 87680.2 S/S/02 -2- 10. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendant Garcia will continue to avoid responding to discovery otherwise permitted by the Court in this matter unless and until an Order is issued by the Court directing Defendant Garcia's attendance at deposition. 11. Plaintiffs have already been and will continue to be prejudiced by Defendant Garcia's willful and deceitful conduct. - 12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Garcia's conduct, Plaintiffs have had to incur the additional cost of preparing and filing a Motion to Compel for which Plaintiffs should be reimbursed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, George E. Carriger and Dorothy Carriger, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant their Motion to For Sanctions and award Plaintiffs- attorneys fees and costs incurred to date with regard to the filing of this Motion in the sum of $396.00, plus additional attorneys fees and costs associated with further proceedings concerning this motion. Plaintiffs further request that this Honorable Court issue and, Order directing Defendant's Appearance at the Deposition in Aid of Execution.to be scheduled at the office of Plaintiffs counsel, and further award Plaintiffs all such other relief as is proper and just. Date: May {, 2002 Respectfully submitted, SAUL EWING, LLP ~o..qe-..llI.~-~ Paige Macdonald-Mattlies . Attorney ID No. 66266 Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 87680.25J8JfJ2 -3- -- ~~: - ~'--, ~ I - - , ,-~ .w.-,w,"!i4<<wi' SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-0124~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL VS STEELTON CAPITALLTD ET AL SGT. DAVID ZEIGLER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within CONFESSION OF JUDGE, NOTI was served upon GARCIA GEORGE J the DEFENDANT , at 1300:00 HOURS, on the 22nd day of March 2002 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ CARLISLE, PA 17013 GEORGE J GARCIA by handing to a true and attested copy of CONFESSION OF JUDGE, NOTI together with JUDGEMENT, COMPLAINT FOR CONFES.SION OF JUDGEMENT, AND NOTICE OF DISPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: r~/~ R. Thomas Kline me this day of 03/26/2002 SAUL EWING By: .D~ (1. r ~ Deputy sre~ Sworn and Subscribed to before A.D. Prothonotary ='"~''"''''''''' , ~ 0' ~.~~, . . - , ~ ~ .~'~ ,-. ><;, ""'f'''''';j;:J!1ii~:';'!f'k"I' SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-01245,_ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CARRIGER GEORGE E ET AL , VS STEELTON CAPITAL LTD ET AL SGT. DAVID ZEIGLER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within CONFESSION OF JUDGE, COMP was served upon STEELTON CAPITAL LTD the DEFENDANT , at 1300:00 HOURS, on the 22nd day of March , 2002 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to GEORGE J GARCIA' a true and attested copy of CONFESSION OF JUDGE, COMP together with FOR CONFESSION OF JUDGEMENT AND NOTICE OF JUDGEMENT and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Additional Comments . ALL PAPERS WERE ACTUALLY HANDED TO GARCIA, BUT HE SAID HE WAS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THAT COMPANY AND LEFT THE ONE SET LAY ON THE COUNTER IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 28.00 ~~~~~ R. Thomas Kline 03/26/2002 SAUL EWING day of Sworn and Subscribed to before By: me this f A.D. Prothonotary 1kent <!tountp JIM HIGDoN SHERIFF ~beriff's ll&ffice COURTHOUSE 38 THE GREEN DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 302/736-2161 STATE OF DELAWARE COUNTY _OF KENT AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, David Henderson, Deputy Sheriff of the County of Kent, Delaware, being duly sworn, do certify that I. served the within Writ of Confession Of Judgement this S~ day of April, A.D. 2002 at 11:15 a.m. personally upon HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, by leaving with her a true and correct copy of the said Summons for the defendant: STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. and a copy of the Complaint For Confession Of Judgement, Notice Of Judgement and Affidavit Of Last Known Address for the said defendant, together with the sum of Fifty Dollars, as prescribed by Title 8, Section 321(b) of the Delaware Code of 1953. So Returns, O~p~ Deputy Sheriff of Kent County Sworn to and Subscribed before me this 16" day of April, A.D. 2002. :lo1\11U-.u""ftll ; ,\" :1'HAL II." Lm t I ~ ~:"'~'i;~"""''':.f;% Vvt:t1? Ii ) ?J). './1./0 ,:0 ~ .~~ - . ;; /' ~~POIlVh .... '" '!o Notary Publl.c I'2! Ocr ~".:(j1~ Commission Expires: 10/3/05 ; <:>: r;"a'~OOI; S -..... "'AM .- - %~\ <lYE'4AS /~! \. '.J.. .... ........v:r $:: ~..ou........,.. ~S' ~"'" 8ire U'E.\.. ':'0........... IIJI{IIII1IlUl\\\\\"" . IN THE COURT OF COlVThION PLEAS CUMBERLA..i'/D COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, . Plaintiffs vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. {},:}. !;;1.!./.( c:Y CO]\''FESSION OF JUDGMENT ~ "'" -o~ ~e:', ~C_ tf.'~ ':4.,,:. <2.'-- "7>',-- ~/j...:!l ~'-::~ .7c.- -;::.. :2. ~)-: ~ :":.~~, ~, ~~1 ~ .~ ~ :q. .-;> STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Individually, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to the authority contained in the warrant of attorney, a true and correct copy of which is attached to the Complaint filed in this action, I, appear for the Defendants and confess judgment in favor ofthe Plaintiffs and against the Defendants as follows: Principal and Interest Due $21,575.07 FILED Attorneys' Conunission (5%) $887.84 ADO 0 Z ')MiJ t\1 ~ /['.16 ~...~zr-~ ~s:eCreta1"'j of State Subtotal: $22,462.91 Additional Costs of Suit 5114.50 Post Judgment Statutory Interest (6% per annum) from Date: 3/13/02 Amount: Total: .;JOJ.577.fFl Respec~ful1Y subinittec1, Dated: March I).. , 2002 -. ~ ld.~ \;\ i'~...J.>~ dn.~ - Paige acdonald-Matthes, Esquire PaulaD. Shaffner, Esquire Pa. LD. No. 66266, 43542 Saul Ewing LLP Two North Second Street,ih Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 152~JJ/t!lO~ .- "~ ~',_J~ - .~ c>> '__'.'c.._ - ~ -~ '\ ' _ -*M;~~l$,t' PAGE 1 'Tfi.e :first State I, HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF "ABRAXES, INC. ", WAS RECEIVED AND FILED IN THIS OFFICE THE FOURTH DAY OF ~UNE, A.D. 1985. AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THE SAID "ABRAXES, INC." FILED A CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION, CHANGING ITS NAME TO "ABRAXES, LTD.", ON THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, A.D. 1985, AT 12 O'CLOCK P.M. AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THE SAID "ABRAXES, LTD." FILED A CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT, CHANGING ITS NAME TO "STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD.", ON THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH, A.D. 1987, AT 9 O'CLOCK A.M. AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE AFORESAID CORPORATION IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE AND GOOD STANDING UNDER . THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF. DELAWARE HAVING BECOME INOPERll.TlVE MID VOID THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH, A.D. 1988 FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES. AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFYT~T THE AFORESAID CORPORATION WAS SO PROCLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF GENERAL CORPORATION LAW OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ON THE TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF JUNE, A.D. 1988, THE SAME HAVING BEEN _...t-~~~ /~.. " /~..~. / ;;:( -~.]~~\,..' ~-~ :_i({!t.!;fj~'P..<{'rf"'i, '~"" ~ '11(f'L; ;R'q.,~\' \\~~~~}j~~}; ~ @:.~.-,~..:~,:9} 1J ':. ~"~~lJ?~\4' ~ -"_~~::~'! ...it~ ~<Jf-~ Harriet Smith Windsor, Secretary of State 2063432 8400 AUTHENTICATION: 1723423 020227033 DATE: 04-15-02 "-~~- '" ~ ' - .. - ,I , ".,- -', .; ii'~WcliJ&'4_'-: PAGE 2 The :first State REPORTED TO THE GOVERNOR AS HAVING NEGLECTED OR REFUSED TO PAY THEIR ANNUAL TAXES. .j;~ ~9f-~ Harriet Smith Windsor, Secretary of State 2063432 .8400 AUTHENTICATION: 1723423 O?Il??70"'l'l '1.....?,J1''t'. nlf_i t::_n., ~ - ---.< , '"~I- ~,,; -"-' ~,--, -~ - -<- -o;.;".~itr..io'~f- we PAGE 1 'I'ne :first State I, HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION' OF "STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD.", WAS RECEIVED AND FILED IN THIS OFFICE THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, A.D. 1994. AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE AFORESAID CORPORATION IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE AND GOOD STANDING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HAVING BECOME INOPERATIVE AND VOID THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH, A.D. 1996 FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES. AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE AFORESAID CORPORATION WAS SO PROCLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF GENERAL CORPORATION LAW OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ON THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MAY, A.D. 1996, THE SAME HAVING BEEN REPORTED TO THE GOVERNOR AS HAVING NEGLECTED OR REFUSED TO PAY THEIR ANNUAL TAXES. 2432064 8400 ~.k~ .>-. -- -." I~~~)~~' 'j!?~~ ::~-~~r.j...~~:~:~~~. <If" - - ----~1 r-',. ;\~~~J&~l: ,'~..'~~., , "~"'-~~:/ ~;::..,-<' ,j;~ ~9f-~ Harriet Smith Windsor. Secretary 01 State AUTHENTICATION: 1723424 020227033 DATE: 04-15-02 , -.. . - ~ ."'~= _ (:IF -~'~.- , ~ 'I:'u-' ,',I --;;"""'-'~oO:M1.~~Bi; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLA1'1o'D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, CML ACTION Plaintiffs . . NO. 01-6408 vs. STEELTONCAPITAL, LTD. and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Individually, Defendants NOTICE OF DEPOSITION IN AID OF EXECUTION TO: GEORGE J. GARCIA c/o P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the deposition of GEORGE J. GARCIA will be taken at the Law Offices of Saul Ewing LLP, 2 North Second Street, 7m Floor, Penn National Insurance Tower, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on May 7,2002 commencing at 10:00 a.m. until excused before a Court Reporter duly authorized to administer the oath, pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In accordance with Rule 4009.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Deponent is requested to bring with him to the deposition the items and/or documents listed in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Dated: April 4, 2002 Respectfully submitted, ~"'/ ,>,,,,,,,,,;),^",,",Q;.:) ..J..~ . Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Saul, Ewing LLP Penn National Insurance Tower 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17108-1291 (717) 238-7675 Attorney for Plaintiffs 87168.J4I4102 - IIIi''''''" ~" "."-' ',--, I"--~; -' '" ""'" ~<M;;-~",",",'''{~;, CERTDnCATEOFSER~CE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, hereby certifY that on this 4"'1 day of April, 2002, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition of George J. Garcia, via First Class U.S. Mail upon the following: George J. Garcia c/o P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 ~ -Y'J..",,,"~C)r.l~H''l+1'-0 Paige Macdonald-Matthes 11263.l4l.u02 ~ "'" u , .-1". '" ""-'." '~.~;i$;[4:!i;,'; EXIllBIT "A" 1. Copies of the Articles of Incorporation and the Corporate Minute Book for Steelton Capital, Ltd. 2. Copies of any Articles of Dissolution for Steelton Capital, Ltd. 3. Copies of Corporate tax returns for Steelton Capital, Ltd. for the past five (5) years. 4. Copies of all fmancial statement prepared on behalf of Steelton Capital, Ltd. or submitted by Steelton Capital, Ltd. to any lender or lending institution during the past five (5) years. 5. Copies of all certificates of title to any property owned by Steelton Capital, Ltd., including any copies of any UCC filings. 6. Copies of all loan documents prepared at the request of or on behalf of Steelton Capital, Ltd. during the past five (5) years. 7. J. Garcia. Copies of all loan documents prepared at the request of or on behalf of George 8. Copies of all bank statements for Steelton Capital, Ltd. generated during the past five (5) years. 9. Copies of all bank statements for George J. Garcia, individually, generated during the past five (5) years. 10. Copies of all titles for vehicles owned by Steelton Capital, Ltd. or vehicles in which Steelton Capital has or may have had an ownership interest. 11. Copies of fill titles for vehicles owned by George J. Garcia, individually, or in which George J.Garciahas or may have bad an ownership interest. . . 12. Copies of all deeds to real property, wherever situate, in the name of Steelton Capital, Ltd., or in the name of Steelton Capital, Ltd. and another party. 13. Copies of all deeds to real property, wherever situate, in the name of George J. Garcia, or in the name of George J. Garcia and another party. . m68.3414,'02 -3- ~ -. ',- - "",., "'> "-'""~;;jl~RL~;i,- From: Sent: To: Subject: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:37 AM 'G J GARCIA' RE: Deposition We will schedule your deposition for May 7, 2002. Please bring with you the documents referenced in Exhibit "A" which attached to the notice of depositon. Thank you. -----Oriqinal Message----- From: G J GARCIA [mailto:gjgarciajd@yahoo.coml Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:30 AM To: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Subject: RE: Deposition Ms. Macdonald-Matthes: If the 30th doesn't work, how about 2 May 02 or 7 May 2002 at 10:00 AM. All the Best! --- "Macdonald-Matthes, Paige" <PMacdonald-Matthes@saul.com> wrote: > Mr. Garcia: > > > > > > > Paige Macdonald-Matthes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I received an email from you with no message. Please confirm your availability for deposition on April 30, 2002 at 1:30 pm. -----Original Message----- From: G J GA.~CIA [mailto:gjgarciajd@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:44 PM To: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Subject: RE: Deposition "Macdonald-Matthes, Paige" <PMacdonald-Matthes@saul.com> wrote: > Mr Garcia: > > I am in receipt of your email. While I am available > on April 30, ' > 2002, I am not available at 10:00 am. I would > suggest that we schedule your > deposition for 1:30 pm on April 30, 2002 instead. > Please confirm your > availability. > > > > > > > Paiqe'Macdonald-Matthes -----Original Message----- From: G J GARCIA [mailto:gjgarciajd@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:39 PM To: PMacdonald-Matthes@saul.com 1 ~ ~, --~~"' ",,",,--, .,-. > > Subject: RE: Deposition > > Ms. Macdonald-Mattes: > >If > 02 > at > > > > > > > > > > > .> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >' > > > > > > > > > > the 30th doesn't work, how about 2 Mayor? May 10:00 AM? Please let me know. All the Best! > > Ms. Macdonald-Matthes: > > > > > > > > I expect to conclude most of the tests and > consultations the week of 21 April 2002 and suggest > the following dates (at 10: 00 AM) - either 30 April > 2002 or 2 May 2002. > > By so doing, I have not waived any right, remedy, > action, or cause of action. > > Let me knO\; (bye-mail) which date "works" or if you > > need to suggast subsequent alternate dates. > > All the Best! > --- G J G~~CIA <gjgarciajd@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Ms. Macdonald-Matthes: > > > > > > > > > > > > All the Best! > > > > > > --- "Macdonald-Matthes, Paige" > > <PMacdonald-Matthes@saul.com> wrote: > > > Mr. G~=cia: > > > > > > > > that > > > you will not be > > > present at our office for deposition. on the date > > set > > > forth in the Notice. I > > > would point out that you raised as an issue your > > > > > > > > > > > > eve > > > > > > > > > > the Thanks for your concern about my health. I have recovered from my back injury and am really trying NOT to become or be "infirm. If There will not be any surgery in the immediate future. available dates, and Got your e-mail, will check send you an e-mail tomorrow. I ~~ in receipt of your email and acknowledge alleged infirm condition to the court in February 2002. Moreover, in your previous email to me (dated February 6, 2002 and sent at 11:08 pm on the of > the last scheduled > deposition), you suggested that you were > incapacitated due to problems with > your back and that you were taking "150% of 2 , "" - ~_ ,1-,,',- r;;' -,', -" -.4,:&MR"'~-j,,- ~; ~-.'"-- '" ~., " -. .' =,',_' --. . c_ -v .. 0'"' V'M><j,<Ii:5j'J>!~';'M",j, /"". From: Sent: To: Subject: Macdonald-Matthes. Paige Monday, May 06, 200210:40 AM Albright, Aimee J. ' FW: Notice of Deposition - reply Paige Macdonald-Matthes Saul Ewing, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 (717) 257-7583 (Fax) Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com <mailto:Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com> -----Original Mess~ge----- From: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:59 AM To: 'GEORGE J GARCIA' Subject: RE: Notice of Deposition - reply Mr. Garcia: Please be advised that Steel ton Capital was served by the Delaware Secretary of State on April . The Secretary of State was served with the Complaint via the Sheriff in Kent County, Delaware on April 8, 2002. The Secretary of State has reported that Steelton Capital was served at its last known address on April 10, 2002. Please be further advised that we also have an affidavit "frQm the Secretary of State that Steel ton Capital, Ltd. is defunct. The Cumberland County sheriff's office has served you and Steelton Capital with the Complaint. Despite your protestations that you could not accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Steelton, the Sheriff advised you that have waived this claim by virtue of the fact that you previously accepted service on behalf of Steelton. Along with the complaint, the Cumberland County Sheriff served you with the notice of deposition together with the document request. You have acknowledged that you received the same. It is also worthy of note that you failed to pick up the certified letter that was sent to your "P.O. Box". Moreover, you waited 26 days AFTER you knew that the deposition was scheduled (per our exchange of emails) to "inform me that you 'had not been served.'" Obviously you were aware of the deposition otherwise you would not have known to contact me. Furthermore, per your request in your .email, we emailed a copy to you and mailed a copy to you on April 4, 2002. When I recently asked you fora street address you refused to provide the same., Instead'you provided us with the same P.O. box that we previously sent the notice to. Another copy of the notice will be emailed to you contemporaneously with this email. Quite frankly, I am tired of you antics and view the same as vexatious and obdurate conduct. You requested that the deposition be scheduled ~n May 7 because it suited your ~chedule. This is the second time you have attempted to play the system. Please be advised that if you fail to appear at my office on May 7, 2002, as previously scheduled per your request, we will file for sanctions against you. Please be guided accordingly. Paige Macdonald-Matthes Saul Ewing, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor 1 - - , Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 (717) 257-7583 (Fax) Pmacdona1d-matthes@sau1.com <mai1to:Pmacdonald-matthes@sau1.com> -----Original ~essage----- From: GEORGE J GARCIA [mailto:gjgarciajd@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:22 PM To: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Subject: RE: Notice of Deposition - reply Paige: It would appear that you have failed to serve Steel ton Capital, Ltd., a Delaware corporation, within the applicable time limits after issuance of the complaint as required by PA.R.C.P. 401(a) and/or 42 Pa. C.S.A., Sections 5323 and 5329 and Pa. R.C.P. 404,401. (Also see Lamp v. Heyman, 469 Pa. 465, 366 A.2d 882 (1976).) Therefore, any deposition is not only "optional" but improper. Accordingly, I intend to ask the prothonotary to enter a judgment of non pros and will and can not (for the reasons hereafter stated) be in your offices "with the requested papers" (WHATEVER THEY ARE) next week. I believe the case must be at issue before depositions can proceed. Fundamental due process and equal protection require no less. In the alternative, you. have ,failed to provide me with either written notice of the date of the deposition or a "list" of items requested to be produced - AS ALSO REQUIRED BY Pa R.C.P. Not being omniscient, I can not divine the date or what items, documents, or whatever you want to be produced. Also, with today being the first, the proposed deposition is only six days away and I still have absolutely no clue what items are requested. Further, on 7 May 2002, I am undergoing medical tests in an effort to improve my problems with vertigo, tinnitis, and hearing loss - WITHOUT undergoing surgery. This has been scheduled, authorized by the HMO, and I have arranged transportation. From these tests, a drug, therapy will be developed which MAY improve or eliminate some of all of the aforementioned problems. If not, then surgery may be indicated. If I have "an option" of "semiretirement" and disabilitylillness vs. being able to work and being well (and able to hear); I "opt" for the latter. So even if the schedule deposition were proper - and I believe it is not; I could not attend on the seventh. please so inform the reporter and Plaintiffs so as not to inconvenience them. When and if a complaint is filed and served - as required; I intend to respond, vigioursly defend, and counterclaim. Until that time, my efforts are maximized on improving my health. Meanwhile, strict proof of service on Steelton Cpital, 2 I~. ,~, .'. " "'1)1''';' . ~""<.",,=~,,,,~~,d, Ltd. (Del) is demanded and. _:/ be forwardered by U.S. mail to me at P.O. Box 934, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 - as may any other paper(s) you may chose to draft. This e-mail address is being phased out; therefore, please send further conununications by "snail mail" to Box 934. All the Best! GJG "Macdonald-Matthes, Paige" <PMacdonald-Matthes@saul.com> wrote: > George: > > This date and time was scheduled at your request. > We have copies of > the several emails we exchanged with you concerning > the scheduling of this > matter. Your attendance at the deposition is not > optional. I expect to see > you on May 7, 2002.as you indicated that this was > the date that best suited > your schedule. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paige > > am in the library "exercising", Le. reading really > fast, and checked my e-mail > > > > > > > > ;> > > > > > > all the best > > GJG > > > Paige Macdonald-Matthes Saul Ewing, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 (717) 257-7583 (Fax) Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com <mailto:Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com> -----Original Message----- From: GEORGE J GARCIA [mailto:gjgarciajd@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:51 PM To: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Subject: RE: Notice of Deposition not gotten any notice 'and do not know or did have not know the proposed date - address is P.O. Box 934, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 - send notice there calender along and am uncertain if do not have my the proposed date "works" - especially since my work schedule recently changed and I am still undergoing medical tests and consultations will check and e-mail you tomorrow "Macdonald-Matthes, Paige" <PMacdonald-Matthes@saul.com> wrote: > I will try and resend the notice. Please provide 3 I~~'" "" " ~~ '-".E~4hI:4l,;,~_ -.--.... '" - I' 1-<0'" - ~ ,- ~" ;-- - '" '-~"".wMJ:!-\;;jh\ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Sanctions And For Court Order Directing Defendants' Attendance At Deposition In Aid Of Execution, was served on the following by first class mail on May ~, 2002 at the following address: George Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 Steelton Capital, Ltd. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 ~~ .~v~~ Paige Macdonald-Matthes 81680.25/8102 ~... ~,""~ . C..__. I, ._c i:fe:!l,;~~~i\,' Macdonald-Matthes, Paige From: Sent: To: Subject: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Thursday, May 09,20023:34 PM 'GEORGE J GARCIA' RE: deposition dates Mr. Garcia: Please be advised that we will schedule your deposition for June 6, 2002 at 10 am per your request set forth in your email dated May 8, 2002. We will email your notice as well as mail your notice of deposition, together with the list of exhibits you are to bring. Please be advised that further dilatory tactics on your part will not be countenanced. Paige Macdonald-Matthes Saul Ewing, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 (717) 257-7583 (Fax) Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com <mailto:Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com> -----original Message----- From: GEORGE J GARCIA [mailto:gjgarciajd@yahoo.com] Sent: wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:45 PM To: pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com Subject: deposition dates paige i was not able to get my June work schedule since it is "in edits" - however, based upon what i understand it will be i suggest the following dates - Thursday, 6 June 02, Friday, 7 June 02, or Friday, 14 June 02 I still have to work out transportation - but i should be able to do so e-mail me your preference A SAP so i may confirm it and you may snail mail the notice - to P.O. Box 934, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 All the Best! GJG George J. Garcia TEL: 717.737.2682 FAX: 717.737.2587 gjgarciajd@yahoo.com Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com 1 "~~ 'e/___~ '''''''~'''''---_. '1 J ~'" . ~- '.-,-,-;. ---~~J.,,""',_"_.O_~_it, > CONFIDENTIAL, AND OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM > DISCLOSURE TO > ANYONE OTHER THAN ITS INTENDED RECIPIENT(S), ANY > DISSEMINATION > OR USE OF THIS ELECTRONIC EMAIL OR ITS CONTENTS BY > PERSONS > OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) IS STRICTLY > PROHIBITED. IF > YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE > NOTIFY US > IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY EMAIL SO THAT WE MAY CORRECT > OUR INTERNAL > RECORDS. PLEASE THEN DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. > THANK YOU. > > FOR INFORMATION ABOUT SAUL EWING, PLEASE VISIT OUR > WEBSITE AT > www.saul.com > *********************************************************************************** > > ============================================================================== > Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com 3 ;:r: I ~ I'.t. o,,{ .... o ,..,. ..... !-,:. ih :..~ '-. ,f:' = = = = = '7"tlCl "",. <> <> 00 ('l. ... 0' ...... O<l OJ ..... '" S. ~ Cl ('l OJ ~\O1"1 v W ('l E; ~ S' O<l ~ .... -.J o Ul '.1> , 00 \0 W .j:>. DODD 'ZZ~Z C:QQ-tCl' z-tcnmc =~~~:a r-r-:c....n .~ m_ m_ .....~~c~ iO __ 2' C);::l:II:s:z-t ~ t.r) C\oJo "'>=0>:1.""'" :::i c=m-tCl -:v ~ ::a1;::a,.c::C::lo _.~~ {.:J :!;,., -..zo",,' !-:"I -Cf.l m. .... ~>ihe= i' L~ cmz ) '0. . i~ :M.~t~ ~ g; ~.tU_' :z: m '" o cnC">J> ~'l ~j -, E: ~ ~'. f;S,~" -y.,." ;~li::"'zri'~ ..t! " :V" o;:s -. ... . . Co Z '".;;; ... ~ "~~ CI) a-. ' ~... oa ~ 0 )> t:r:t/) .....l,... (") =' ." 0 "'o~"'-. '(\-~==' -9.. ~ > 0. :r! ~ - ~fg~t::::t -'''''1''''1GiL., o~ El 0 -:-- n -..J" 5o::g , '7:1~ :-", '," .,J c c c ~ LM Ul C C C C LM ..n MJ C>o MJ ~,' ~ '"' " ::;; '>' <, '- i';'~ r:.r: ".' ,-., ',~. ',. --'. " ..,-, --- . :-:-.;-:;, ~ . .: . ~ .. it"., - .d!.'-' - ,,, c >. 1>.;' 'i,.,. roo, ~*"~h"'i l<' 'rtl l!il .!il' .!il' ~,. "' ..' "" ... 11II .iI.< ~ '" 8- 0> ::l n' '" cT c: .., O<l Q ~ Q )> )> ...... :D :D -l 0 0 0 VI H J) VI )> lJj , .l: 00 \D w :DC :D ./:>. I1IZ 111 oj)> -i" cmm C" :Dro :DO ZI1IX Z'.lI UI -i-iO -iliJ oor 00 0 .. (Jl"1l(Jl O,lJj 1110111 111 Z:Dtl Z.. tl~ tl.l: Ill)> 1110 :D:D :D1tJ tl .. .l: 0 .l: "- .. ru "- 0 ItJ ...- Q.O o tIl "CO . :;>j 90 ttltIl o ~ ~ . \DO w:> ./:>.:;>j (') ,.... :> ; '-. ~~g~ :!. 0 =' rg.~z <:: - ., <i:l go~=.~ . r; -oOe:;;: >- is. -l: ~ - u: ~- ~ ~::;-~t:::l og~1JL.. --" 0 . " ...," :::'''''0 ~~ . ., ..---'7~...... . :..~ /.) .:: . ~, ~ r.', ::.:..' c(.;.. ~. "'.' \.J .: '. ~ . . .-..- . ,_h .._____'.. .':' ~.::-: f---: :: ' ,-':" ';:" :--,' ; ~ I. ~. ~ i. % ~'~:;'~.l~' --- O:i DODD IZZ:>- ~~Q::l~ ~~g3:~ m!:::t:~i; -f~:zm-- Q::Dc'CI~ ,.~~. ~>5Z-i - -. cacaO>' ~(;~;:c ;;>-ZCl :aC'IJ~O~ ..; i c>:a:Ecn -' ;< g~zcn C^t :a.... (\;: " ~ ,~\'l':": co ""'''-'0' :; C> :2. ! ;!~! O~:~ en C'J)> ;::;; "\ s. g -- , :I: '" "" a.~g~ rg,S.Z " '" .::! CI)- ,. ~ o' _ 0 ~>)-r-If"" -;" ~l"'.JV.J _C.slI~~ ~~UJi, ~ _ '"'" t: \......i 8 R ~~ ~ . "0 ;:iIrp c-;:g, :!1~ . '" ~ 0 ,0 0 ~~~ !,-' Ln lJ.J g.'"dO 0 ",' :>;I i:l 0 0 _.. 0 '0 &It:Otrl '0 go~ Ln .... ;>< . Otl \0 0 0 . W> !,-' '"d+>-:>;I lJ.J > n ru ~ ...... ..Il -..l > 0 0 VI II"' VI 0 , 00 \0 W +>- .,~; ./ i^!'~.,,; '; -i) -.( - \Y ~ :--1 ? C;;i: \ N \:...". , ,", /. :___i..:-u.:....:.. Iii $'=-=!< ::-'1:. (.,,'<! .~;-::: ~_. . (/, .~>~,.. ,:! t.=-, -, ' ,,";liT;~Il.;;~ ~ .. ' .,.1- , <-- . "~~'''J ~ 'i '..'.>:_~"'~~<oj,? 1'.1'. u!j...l. C::.'~l (.'il...l. ~~;:;~ fd ". I:iir-t: ,:.:.(h .;::,{..:. iJ:' '.," --;?>? ~ ~~ \ :I;N'tl ~ Z" ~.og~ ~ ... cr-"'" Coa~ 03 W:t. :0 8 ~i >"~ _~si ~~ -J ..... CfJ;;! _@ Cr- 8 ~ ~rc - "0 -.J" S'-'tl, :!l~ . ., . .. 0: en c;") ::I>~ DD~: 'zz> ) ~=:=::fz, >C1C1')rn~1 =rnC:i:"'ft~ I;a:::g~:!:! ~;:gzrn~ c:ac:Qrn ' O-",.a:z!i ~ "",,0 :a....rn-f>" " =ern:a:;lllll;c::J .. >>-zo :aCl')ChC:D c>;:I:e~ ~. grnztn .'/X ",!::l - "":::::=--:> "- m ~ :: /.... 2l 0 ? ~ ~J m '" 1'" .' :::.~';;.z;~':~.~~/;, 1 . .' ~~ f, ':~ \ ~::\:}\ :... ~l'ff P91:111 J "'\' I ~I ." ~ >:~ \ \ \' \ li j \, \ f ii l! I'. I: t f (' , \ ; \ n'" ~- 1......-'-. A < ~ =d""' . - ~'''''"'''''''''''''''''''"i\jfu''i.~ :z .. ,I ","~' ~,,,-, '." , -~".;""liir,,,"..dJ..j~t~,j Macdonald-Matthes, Paige From: Sent: To: Subject: George J Garcia [gjgarcia@lycos.com] Monday, June 03, 2002 10:38 PM pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com Fwd: Undeliverable: update ~ ATT341131.txt see 'attachment George J. Garcia 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-3514 TEL: 717.737.2682 FAX: 717.737.2587 E-MAIL: gjgarcia@lycos.com --------- Forwarded Message --------- DATE: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:38:24 From: IISystem Administrator" <postmaster@saul.com> To: gjgarcia@mailcity.com Your message To: Subject: Sent: pmacdonald-mattes@saul.com update Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:31:06 -0400 did not reach the following recipient(s): pmacdonald-mattes@saul.com on Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:27:47 -0400 The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=SAUL EWING REMIC;1=SERS_EXCHANGE0206040227KJ5KOW4A MSEXCH:IMS:SAUL EWING REMICK AND SAUL:SERSPHILA:SERS EXCHANGE 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient - "Saul Ewing LLP <saul.com>" made the following annotations on 06/03/02 22:31:09 -----~--~--------------------------------------------------------------------- [INFO] -- Access Manager: ****************************IMPORTANT NOTICE**************************** THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN ITS INTENDED RECIPIENT(S), ANY DISSEMINATION OR USE OF THIS ELECTRONIC EMAIL OR ITS CONTENTS BY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US 1 '"~ _ '-d ' ,,'< '. 'j', -,:-,-1', "" ".,.-, '-. '.'",~_~ __ _:, '<~'~"'4._*!f'lll'<i:ii:' ATT341131.txt paige now that the e-mail system is back up i wanted to update you on my availability to be deposed the tests consultations and various opinions about the foregoing have been concluded and i am to have surgery in addition to the drug therapy the or coordinator has set the surgery for this thursday and i am furn ishing the required ekg and whatever blood work and x-rays as may be needed tomorrow because of my cad i am completing a living will in case of problems or complications i do not yet know how long it will take to recover from the surgery an d the post op procedure(s) - but assume one or two weeks after the surgery and the post op i will e-mail you to set possible new dates we must workout an accommodation for my disabilities as to handicapped parking hearing loss etc. and any new date must be when i have transportation as it turned out i would not have been able to be deposed this week be cause i do not have transportation i will file an interim reply to your motion for sanctions - which to be kind is absolutely without merit - and after the surgery supplement it with the appropriate medical certification(s) please tell the reporter that there will be no depo so as not to inconvenience anyone while i want to have this surgery to finally determine if the mri indi cated a cyst, polups, mass, or tumor AND in the hope it will improve my othe r associated medical problems and disabilities - i would rather visit wi th dot, george, and you Page 1 - 1-,-0 . 'v ,I; "I~ '1'.-"" - '.b=- ""-~'--!!iIl}""~"-,J,,~. ATT341131.txt atb gjg George J. Garcia 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-3514 TEL: 717.737.2682 FAX: 717.737.2587 E-MAIL: gjgarcia@lycos.com Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbdx, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageld=plus Page 2 ~ ~ ~ - ?"d: -- " . ..> I ~ ~ . -~-- ,. . ' ~,,"o.l"""''''''.i~.f'i_h,_1 Macdonald-Matthes, Paige From: Sent: To: Subject: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Wednesday, May 15, 20021:27 PM 'GEORGE J GARCIA' RE: deposition dates Mr. Garcia: I have reviewed your email. I have no idea what you are referring to, however, please be advised that you are expected to be in our office for deposition on June 6, 2002 at 10:00 am. Paige Macdonald-Matthes Saul Ewing, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 (717) 257-7583 (Fax) Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com <mailto:Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com> -----original Message----- From: GEORGE J GARCIA [mailto:gjgarciajd@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:27 PM To: Macdonald-Matthes, Paige Subject: RE: deposition dates paige i'mback and got your e-mail never got the e-mail with the notice as your e-mail stated will get up to the p 0 later this week and look for the notice again you seem to be assuming facts not in evidence guess dilatory is a cousin to des ingenious the Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise - or a court intervene, we will quickly conclude your latest litigation - an demonstrate, as foretold, that if and when plaintiff's and the firm reaches the end of the tunnel - each will clearly see that the light is out all the best gjg "Macdonald-Matthes, Paige" <PMacdonald-Matthes@saul.com> wrote: > Mr. Garcia: > > Please be advised that we will schedule your > deposition for June 6, > 2002 at 10 am per your request set forth in your > email dated May 8, 2002. We > will email your notice as well as mail your notice > of deposition, together > with the list of exhibits you are to bring. Please > be advised that further > dilatory tactics on your part will not be > countenanced. > > Paige Macdonald-Matthes 1 .~ ~r.~ -- "~ ."~~ - ~"",.' WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) NO 01-6408 CIVIL 190{ TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW -- , TO THE SHERIFF OF __ Cumberla.n<:'L.._____ _'__' _COUNTY To satisfy the debt, inlerest and cosls due_GeQrge ..E:.'nCarriqer aId Dorothv E. Ca=iqer ____'___n._ _~___________.____, PLAINTIFF(S) IromS.!eelt,on CaEita1, LTD. 5250 Sirnpson_F'e~ Road, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 , n___~or_g~_ J '_9~I"Cja" 5250 Sirnpson.!'e:D}'_~c>ad, Suite 330, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 DEFENDANT(S) (1) You are directed 10 levy upon the property of the defendant(s) and to sell {2} You are also directed 10 attach the property of Ihe defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession 01 Mid Perm Bank, 4622 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, any all bank accounts titled in the name of George J. Garcia, Individually and Steelton, Capital, Ltd., and account no. 00]094-011108807 Q50204 8 titled in ~arne of SteP.lton C4PitaJ. Ltd. GARNISHEE(S) as follows and to not~y the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued: (b) the garnishee(s) is/are enjoined from paying any debt to or tor the account of the defendant(s) and from delivering any property of the defendant(s) or otherwise disposing thereof; , (3) If property of the delendant(s) not levied upon an subject 10 attachment is found inthe po$ession 01 anyone olher thana named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above stated, Amount Due $23,938.40 LL $.50 ~1 QQ Interest 11(13/01. 6% per annum Atty's Comm ~e64 50 % Atty Paid $107..00 Plaintiff Paid Due Prothy Olher Costs $ SO nl1P ~rni~hpp Date ,1i'lnllAry 1. 7.001 Curtis R. Long Prothonotary, Civil Division \l.:L ~D P.~ Deputy REOUESTlNG PARTY Name __------.P.i'liqe Macdonald-Matthes, Esg,._ Penn National Insurance Tower Address '--Z-lIlUL Lh Sec;ul1u SLLe-=t--'tth--Ploor _!i1;l=~gLrA. 1710L_____n _' ANorney lor -PJajn+i-F-F Telephone 717-257-7500 Supreme Court 10 No, 66266 if r-, !i~..ll;;i,U. IlmI]ij-.~iJl'<i,;.j~.;,g,g;I~&\r4<-i>0.i!,JJ~,i.li!t.,{i4iaF,'1i!,i}:r."-in.-i,i'),}'"''oL-' '''''''\''filr$"Wl:I!~~IWJliiUlll.m.dl.iIJtoll;i;sill@><;l~*",~'''''''''''~ r ~ _-~- ., l!dhI] ~ ""'-= 'l!db >!1::!b, 'CS-~ ~,w" ~--'lt 5' R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states this Writ is returned ABANDONED, no action taken in six months. Sheriff s Costs: Docketing Poundage Advertising Law Library Prothonotary Mileage Misc. Surcharge Levy Post Pone Sale Garnishee 18.00 1.86 .50 LBO 9.10 30.00 20.00 9.00 ~.11-1i Sworn and Subscribed to before me this .1/.-u-dayof (.l'r~J- 2002 AD. gt'& 0 n"ji'fJ,. j AfJpr pr th notary \tIN,\i1\1\SIJN3d ',f:: ZIJ. I.!d IS Z r HUr '1'" , :J:J^":'.!;iv".. ", :, lli"no O~r S 9,'11 iO 3~1:J:JO - ~'"'~ ~, Advance Costs: Sheriffs Costs: 150.00 8~h)8.6 u &8:f~ Refunded to Arty on 7/15/02 I:> ..... , " '<. <> ""- So Answers; ~~~~~~ R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff B .b~41 ,(LjLfJ '---.-..- (c ~ \""....=::f~ C;-_~ . [!,",!",. rr.~~~.;;, -r=~, '"'''''' 1,~O s'O Cle... 37~H Ru.. /) 8 117 .I = ~'"'"~" o.""'~liliI!litli: !-i_I"", 'M' ~'-'-. , - > Saul Ewing, LLP > 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor > Harrisburg, PA 17101 > (717) 238-7675 > (717) 257-7583 (Fax) > pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com > <mailto:Pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: GEORGE J GARCIA [mailto:gjgarciajd@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:45 PM > To: pmacdonald-matthes@saul.com > Subject: deposition dates > > > paige > > i was not able to get my June work schedule since it > is lIin edits" - however, based upon what i > understand > it will be i suggest the following dates - Thursday, > 6 > June 02, Friday, 7 June 02, or Friday, 14 June 02 > > I still nave to work out transportation - but i > should > be able to do so > > e-mail m~ your preference A SAP so i may confirm > it > and you may snail mail the notice - to P.O. Box 934, > MechanicGburg, PA 17055-8934 > > All the Sest! > > GJG > > ----- > George J. Garcia > TEL: 717.737.2682 > FAX: 717.737.2587 > gjgarciajd@yahoo.com > > > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > "Saul Ewing LLP <saul.com>" made the following > annotations on 05/09/02 15:36:54 > > > [INFO] -" Access Manager: > > > > > > > > > ****************************IMPORTANT > NOTICE**************************** > THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS > PRIVILEGED, 2 ~ " -', -',~ ' "2'''M";,,ii:f~-_'''''''nl:'''_i }!$; ~= , ,~ ~ -, . -..- .-.-~-, ,-,---,~->'- ~~"-, l\b$~M~;- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Rule Absolute, was served on the following by ftrst class mail on June -E-, 2002 at the following address: George Garcia P.O. Box 934 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-8934 Steelton Capital, Ltd. 5250 Simpson Ferry Road Suite 330 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3514 -s.::.";';"'1. ,.1\" ",..A~ JSlj\I\-wl~:;)' Paige Macdonald-Matthes 89930.16/4/02 ~~~ fit;c~1if;$J~~~~0%t\'~}~i'li{i11'f%$;'i:WN!1,1t?;"J;;~?a~tiIJj~i*1wr~ . .liliII:l~_ ~ ~~. - ~~ () t l> Jl Co ~ (1)Z [;;m 1, m " .. () 0 ~: "0 ~ me ZJl Z-l <-JJ (1)0: Co -<0 8m re <(1) m' ~m (i) -(1) S l>o 0 ~e 0 C:l> ~Jl 'f m 0> 0> <Xl .... .. -"\ :\) "- ~,. '-. :::-::. 0,1 :t i ..." \ Of. , i ~ ". " .", :;:"'OC'J ,~, .. J'lJ) . i'j , ..., ~, !"lOe " ~. t'lt,,:>:J <- ~oC'J "- .., z~"" (;~~ ~,. "''''C') . .\ Il:I . ~ ~ '-. .~ IV' ... ... . > ):> ):> ... . ,. :II :II :> ... 0 0 ~ ~. H .(I - ):> 1IJ .., ~ ~ .l: .. " :IlC :II - mz m -I):> -I" ClDlD c... :Dro :DO - zmx ZUl - Ul -1-10 -IUl oor 00 - 0 .. ... (l\l1tn tnUl mom 111 Z:Dtl Z.. - tl~ tl.l: -- m):> mo .. :II:D :DIU tl .. .. .. .l: c .. - 0 .. .. .l: ." "- 0 - .. .. _. IU ... """ "- ,. 0 '" III IU m ..,*ltlt~Jt'l.~l\',..*Jt'-""" - ~~_, 1~~~,;',:;~',:'0.'ll"f}~~if,;~:,"',!i'iW,iN\"""7cJtJA<r~@~w~ - - ,-" """ I'" - ,. --.- - 'lllIiJlIIf'-"t'=-"c "" "'"""",o.."",,?!'!"'J: GEORGE E. CARRIGER and DOROTHY E. CARRIGER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. STEELTON CAPITAL, LTD. (A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.) and GEORGE J. GARCIA, Defendants : NO. 2001-6408 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1 ST day of APRIL, 2002, a hearing on Defendant's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is scheduled for MONDAY. APRIL 8. 2002. at 11:00 .!!.:!!!!: in Courtroom # 5 ofthe Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pa. Edward E. Guido, J. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For the Plaintiff George J. Garcia Defendant/Petitioner :sld ) ~. ,<' TRUE COpy FROM In 'f~sUrmJnY_W,h1-]r~)!}ff :-.,-,-i :'~,~~~\d . amt Ute St~] of CCUtt ;1~ L,I,-:J;~~:':'~_l fa. fhls 2""t ,day III 0 Jl u~. .l.tXJh ~f'-'- (J. ~1'Rt.z{ Protllonlltarf