Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout71-0112• • ~, Y .~- r ~^ OFFICE OF P R O T H O N O T A R Y COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY JOHN R. AANDT, Prothonotary CARLIN I. TANSY, IA. Chief Deputy READING, PENNSYLVANIA CERTIFICATE ANll TR_ANS'_~IITTAL OF RECORD UNDER PEN,vSYL`JAi`dIA KULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (c) N0. 11.2 DECEMBER TERM 1971 A. D. Dear Sir: The Unde;~si.~;ned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Eerks County, .:he said court bei_n^; a court of record, do hereby certify that anne;~ed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, inc)vdin~ an opinion of the court as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925, tl~e ori~i.nal papers and the docket entries in the following matter: MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS, ANASTASTA HOFFMASTER, h/w P, 0, Box 1.5, Monocacy Station, pa. 19542 vs BERKS COt1NTY CHILDRRNS SERVICE,, 12th Floor, BERKS COUNTY COURT HOUSE, 6th and COURT STS,, RFADTNG, PA, and Mr. JOHN L. STAMBAUGH, Agent in compliance ~•Iith Pa. P..A.P.1931 (c) . The documents comprisinn the record have been number from No. 1. to No.~~~ ,and attached hereto as Exhibit .<~ is a list of tl~e documents correspondingl~,~ numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, inc'•~dinC with respec~ to each dociunent, the number of pages comprisin" the doctunent. The date on ~•~hich the record has been transmitted to the appellate court is /~• ~ - .4~~ -~C-~ 1980 l ~~~ /~ John R. Arndt, Prothonotary ~ -. State of Pennsylvania • Becks County, ss: Among the Records and Proceedings o f the Court o f Common Pleas for the County o f Becks, State of Pennsylvania, inter alia, it is thus contained. APPEARANCE DOCKET ENTRY NO 1.12 DECF'MBER TERM, 19 71 Kenneth F , Hof f - master in his own behalf 1.12 David M. Kozloff fort Children's Service & Stambaugh November 15, 1971, Complaint in TRES- MR, KENNETH F, HO~MASTRR and MRS, PASS ($300,000.00) with notice to ANASTAS~ HOFFMASTER, h/w P,O, Box 15, plead to the within Complaint within Monocacy Station, Pa, 1.9542 20 days from date of service, hereof, or a default judp.~nent may be entered vs against you, endorsed, filed. EoDie; Copy certified by Prothonotary issued BFRKS COiTNTY CHIT.DRENS SERVICE, 1.2th to Sheriff. November 15, 1971 at 1.1: Floor, BERKS COUNTY COURT HOiJSE, 6th 35 A,M,, Served the within COMPLAINT and Court Streets, Reading, Pa. and IN TRESPASS unon Becks County Child- Ttr. JOHN T, STAMBAU(~H, Agent revs Service, defendant within named, by handing to John Stanbough, In-Take Case t~?orker Supervisor, person for the time being in charge of said de- fendant Service, a certified copy thereof, at the place of business at 12.th floor, Court House, Reading, Becks County, Pa., and making known to him the con tents thereof. So Answers, Harold A, Yetzer, Sheriff of Becks County, Pa., Nov- ember 18,.1971 Sheriff.'s return, filed: November 19, 1971 Preliminary Objection; 'with notice to plead to the within Plaintiffs' Complaint within 20 days from dal of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you, endorsed, filed. ;December 6, 197]., Amended Complaint in Trespass with notice to plead to the witl in P.mended Complaint within 20 days from date of Service or a default judgment ;may be entered against you, endorsed, filed. December 27, ?-971, Proof of Service of Mailing of Amended Complaint, attached filed. FoDie: Case placed on the Feb- ruary Term 1972, Argument List, as per praecipe, filed. EoDie: Preliminary Ob- jections to Amended Complaint, filed. December 29, 1977., Proof of Mailing of treliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, attached, filed. January 5, 1.972, • ~ 2. Proof of Mailing of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint attached filed. February 14, 1972, Petition to Open Records, filed. EoDie: Rule - AND Now, TO WIT, this 14th day of February, 1972, upon Motion of Mr. Kenneth F. Hoffmaster, in behalf of the Petitioners (in their own behalf) it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that a Rule be issued upon the within Defendants to show cause why the sought after Petition to Open Records shall not be issued. Rule Returnable riarch 3, 1972 at 9:30 ".M. All proceedings to stay meanwhile. BY THE COURT: /s/ warren K. Hess, P.J. Feb. 14, 1972, Continued. February 24, 1972, Defendant's Answer to Petition to O4en Records, filed. March 3, 1972 Case placed on Argument List for April, 1972, as per nraecipe, filed. March 15, 1.972, Proof of Mailing of Defendant's Answer to Pe- tition to Open Records attached, filed. April 3, 1972, Case placed on the May Term, 1972, Argument List, as per praecipe filed. April 3, 1972, Continued from April T. 1972, Argument Court. April 19. 1972 Plaintiffs' Brief of Argument filed. April 27, 1972 Defendant's Brief of Argument, filed. May 1, 1972 Argued before Hess P.J, and Bertolet, Eshelman & Edenharter, J.J. Petition discharged. May 15, 1972, Plaintiff's Request for Discovery filed. EoDie: Plaintiff's Request for Discovery, filed. May 15, 1972, Proof of Service of Request for Discovery, filed. May 17, 1972, Case placed on the June Term 1972, Argument List, as per praecipe, filed. May 22, 1972, Objections to Interrogatories under Pennsylvania R.C.P. No. 4005 (b), filed. EoDie: Rule: AND NOW, TO WIT, a Rule is hereby entered upon Kenneth F. Hoffmaster and Anastasia Hoff- master, Plaintiffs, to Show Cause why a Protective Order should not be entered as prayed for in the attached Motion. Rule returnable June 5, 1972, at 9:30 A.M. (E.D,T.) BY THE COURT: /s/ Bertolet, J. EoDie: Rule issued. June 5, 1972, Brief of Argument (of Plaintiff') to uphold request for discovery, filed. June 28, 1972, Brief of Argument in Support of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, filed. F,oDie: Defendant's Brief of Argument in Support of Objections to Plaintiffs' Interrog- atories, filed. July 5, 1972, Argued on Preliminary Objections to Original Complaint. Objections to insufficiency of Complaint sustained and 30 days allowed to amend. Ruling deferred on objections in nature of demurrer until adequate Complaint filed. August 2, 1972, Amended Complaint with notice to plead to the within Amended Complaint within 20 days from date of service, hereto, or a default judgment may be entered against you, endorsed filed. EoDie: Proof of Service of Amended Complaint, attached filed. August 4, 1972 Preliminary Objections of Berks County Childrens' Services, Defendant, to Plain- tiffs' Amended Complaint, filed. August 7, 1972 at 9:15 A,M., Served the within AMENDED COMPLAINT IN TRESPASS-INVASION OF FRIVACY NEGLIGENCE upon Mr. John L. Stambaugh, Agent, defendant within named, by handing to him personally, a certified copy thereof, at the 12th Floor, t3erks County Courthouse, Reading, Berks County, Pa., and making known to him the contents thereof. So Answers, /s/ Harold A. Yetzer, Sheriff of Berks County, Pa. August 8, 1972 Sheriff's return filed. August 10, 1972, Appearance of David M. Kozloff, Esq., for John L. Stambaugh, defendant, as per praecipe, filed. August 11, 1972, Prelim- inary Objections of John L. Stambaugh to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, filed, August 22, 1972 Proof of Service of Preliminary Objections of Berks County Children's Services, De- fendant, to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, attached, filed. EoDie: Proof of Service of Preliminary Objections of John L. Stambaugh to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, attached, filed. September 10, 1974 Amended Complaint in TRESPASS (Counts 1 to 4 $325,000.00) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED with notice to plead to the within amended complaint within 20 days from the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you filed. Sep- tember 25, 1!74, Preliminary Objections of Berks County Children's Services to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, filed. EoDie: Preliminary Objections of John L. Stambaugh to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, filed. • • 3. August 7, 1975 NOTICE. TO ATTORNEYS OR PARTIES OF RECORD RE: INACTIVE CASES FILED December 26, 1975 There having been no activity reflected upon the Docket within two years and in accordance with T,oca1 Rule 650, proper notice having been given to all parties by the Prothonotary and no appropriate action having been taken by any party of record, the within matter is termin- ated and no further proceeding may be had therein without further order of court upon proper cause shown. July 9, 1976, Motion for Protective Order, filed. EoDie: Rule - ANn NOW, TO WIT: this 9th day of July, A.D „ 1976, it is hereby Ordered that the defendants, Berks County Childress Services and John L, Stambaugh, Show Cause, Why, it any, they may have, why Petitioner's Motion for a Protective Order should not be granted, Rule returnable on <August 23, 1976 at 9:30 a.m, and a hearing to be held on the 23rd day of August, A.D. 1976 in Courtroom No. 1, Courthouse, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Written notice is to be given to the nefendants, Berks County Childress Services and John T.1. Stambaugh. BY THE COURT: /s/ Frederick Edenharter, J. August 23, 1976, Answer to Motion for Protective Order, filed. August 23, 1976 Order, filed. EoDie: AND NOW, to wit, this 23rd day of August, 1976, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that Petitioner's Motion for Protective Order is hereby granted and any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff, Kenneth Hoffmaster, Anastasia Hoffmaster and any other persons which may be relevant to the above captioned case should not be destroyed and such records shall be preserved until the termination of the above instant case notwithstanding s 15 of Senate Bill No. 25 Childs Protective Service Bill, without pre1udice in light of action taken by Protho- notary dismissing action under local rule 650 as of December 26, 1975. Said Order by agreement of the parties, G, E, Wesner, J. necember 23, 1976, Petition to Vacate Order Dismissing Action Under h,ocal Rule 650, filed. EoDie: RULE: -AND NOW, to wit this 23rd day of December, 1976, a Rule to Show Cause is hereby entered on Berks County Children's Services and John L, Stambaugh, Defendants in the above-captioned matter to Show Cause, why the Order of the Court of December 26, 1975 Dismissing the above-captioned action under Local Rule 650 should not be vacated. Rule returnable the 23rd day of January, 1977 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom ~~ Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Reading, Pennsylvania BY THE COURT: is/ Frederick Edenharter, J,EoDie: Rules certified. January 21, 1977, Proof of Service of Petition to Vacate Order dismissing action under Local Rule 650, filed. January 21, 1977, Answer to Petition to Vacate Order and New Matter, with notice to plead, filed, February 24, 1978, Proof of Service of Answer to Petition to Vacate Order, filed. September 1.2, 1978 Case placed on Argument List for October 30, 1978, as per praecipe, filed. October 30, 1978, Stricken from List, Eshelman, P.J. March 5, 1980 Case placed on Argument List for March 31, 1.980, as per praecipe, filed. March 18, 1980 Order, filed. 1~:onie: ANn NOW, TO WIT, this 18th day of March, 1980, upon motion of Alfred W. Crump, Jr., Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, in the above-captioned case, the above-captioned case being listed for Argument Court for March 31, 1980 is stricken from the List. BY THE COURT: /s/ Forrest G. Schaeffer, J. March 21, 1980, Case placed on Argument List for May 5, 1980 as per praecipe, filed. May 5, 1980 Continued to June 2, 1980. May 20, 1980, Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Petition to Vacate Order dismissing action under Local Rule 650,filed. • • May 28, )-980 Defendants Rrief, filed. June 3, 1980, Order, filed. EoDie: AND NOW, TO WIT: This 2nd day of June, 19$0, after oral argument, the Plaintiffs Petition to Vacate Order Dismissing Action Under Local Aule 650 is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Bertolet, J., /sl G, F, Wesner, J. June 19, 1980, Notice of Appeal to Superior Court with Proof of Service endorsed on original, filed. July 22, 1980 Case No. 1673 Philadelphia, 1980 Superior Court of Pennsylvania filed. August 19, 1980, Memorandum Opinion, Wesner, J., filed, EoDie: "Accordingly, having reconsidered our Order of June 2, 1980, in this matter, we find no reason to change our view and, therefore, reaffirm that Order. BY THE COURT: /s/ G, E. Wesner, J," F.onie: Certified copies issued to Arthur Gutkin, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff; and to Alfred W. Crump, Jr„ Esq., attorney for defendant. • ~ INDEX Iv1R, KENNETH F', HOFFTv1ASTER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS Ti1-~S . AIJr'-STAS IA HOFFMASTER h~t~,~ COUNTY, COMl`ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs No, 112 December Term 1971 BERKS CUUI~dTY CHILDRENS SERVICE CIVIL ACTION -TRESPASS - INVASION OF and I~iN,. JOHN L. STAMBAUGH, Agent PRIVACY 1. Complaint in Trespass-Invasion of Privacy with Sheriff's return.,,,,,,,,,, 3 Pages 2. Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint with Proof of service,,,,, 5 Pages 3, Amended Complaint with Proof of Service,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ~ Pages 4. Preliminar;;T Objections to Amended complaint with Proof of Service.,,,,,,,, 2 Pages 5. Defendant's Answer to Petition to Open Records with Proof of Service.,.,,, 3 Pages 6. Request for Discovery with Proof of Service ............................... 5 Pages 7, Ubjections to Interrogatories Under Pennsylvania F~,C,P, No, 4005(b) and Ruh.e ..................................................... 3 Pages f3. Argument to Uphold kequest for Discovex•y ............... 3 P ................... ages 9, Arriended Complaint with Proof of Service,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, q pages 10. Preliminary Objections of Berks County Children's Services Defendant , , to Plaintiffs' emended Complaint with Proof of Service,,,,,,,, 1~ Pages 11. Appearance of David N~. Kozloff, Esquire far John L. Stambaugh, Deft.....,. 1 Page 12. Preliminary Objections of John L, Stambaugh to Plaintiff's' Amended Complaint with Proof of Service,,,, 4 P ages 13. Amended Complaint in Trespass .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'~w,.s~. " w,w~.,.,,. ...,, Pages 9 lk. Preliminary Ubjections of Berks County Children's Services to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3 P ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ages 1.5, Preliminary Objections of John L, Stambaugh to Plain+„iffs' Amended Complaint ........................~..,,.....,....1,.,.. j Pages 16. Notice of Termination ., .................................................. l Page l7, P•:otion for Protective Crder and Rule,,,,,,,,,,,,,, P ,,,,,,,,,,,,~.s.,,,,,,, 5 ages lB. Answer to Motion for Protective Order ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2 Pages Page l Exhibit A • • Index contd. N:I~, KENNETH F, HOFFMASTER and Iv1RS . AIuASTASIA HOFFN1ASTER, h/w vs. No, 112 DECEhSBER TERN: 1971 BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN ~S SERVICES and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH 19. I~.otion for Protective Order and Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3 Pages 20. Petition to Vacate Order Dismissing Action Under Local Rules 650, Rule and Proof of Service,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,.,~.~~,,........, 21 pages 21. Answer to Petition to Vacate Order and Proof of Service,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4 Pages 22. Praecipe for Argument List for October 30, 1978,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 Page 23. Praecipe for Argument List for March 31, 1980 ............................... 1 Page 24. Order striking case from Aiarch 31, 1980 Argument List ....................... 1 Page 25. Praecipe for Argument List for hay 5, 1980,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 Page 26. Letter from Walter L. A'1cDonough, Esq, to Prothonotary,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 Page 27. Disposition of h4~y 5, 1980 Argument Court ................................... 1 Page 28. Plaintiff': Hrief in Support of Petition to Vacate Order Dismissing Action Under .Local Rule 650 ..................................... 7 Pages 29. Defendants Brief ............................................................ 2 Pages 30. Order ................................... ]_ Page 31. Disposition of June 2, 1980 Argument Court,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 Page 32. Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal to Superior Court with Proof of Service.,,,,,,, 2 Pages 33, ~%opy of Appeal with Superior Court No. 1.673 Philade?phia, 1.980,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 Page 34. l~.emorandum Opinion, Wesner, J,, August 19, 1980,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, E. Pages 35. Appearance Docket Entries ..............................~...............,~... 4 pages Page 2 Exhibit A • • Mid. :;KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and ; OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW h/w . vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES and JOHN L, STAMBAUGH _ -~ No. 112 December Term, 1971 ~4 ~ , ~; ARTHUR L, GUTJK.IN, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Plaintiff ALFRED W. GRUMP, JR. , ESQUIRE, Attorney for Defendant ARGUED BEFORE BERTOLET, R. L. J, and WESNER, J. MEMORANDUM OPINION, WESNER, J. , August ~ ~ 1980. This is an appeal from an Order of the Court, entered on June 2, 1980, denying Plaintiffs' petition to vacate a previous order dismissing this action pursuant to Berks County Rule of Civil Procedure 650.1 Plaintiffs contend that 1This rule provides in pertinent part: Termination of Inactive Civil Cases. - B. Actions 1960 to 1969 inclusive; The record of all civil actions at law or in equity docketed during the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive, shall be examined by the Prothonotary within six (6) months of the effective date of this rule. Where the docket reveals that an action has not been reduced to award, verdict, satis- 1 4~ ~'~'~ • the termination was improper since it was based upon an incorrect determination by the Prothonotary of Berks County that the matter had been inactive for more than two years. The facts may be briefly summarized. This litigation was initiated by Plaintiffs on November 15, 1971 by a complaint in trespass seeking to recover damages for invasion of privacy allegedly suffered at the hands of the defendants. Appropriate pleadings were filed by Defendants. In August, 1975, after a review of this Court's records, the Prothonotary determined that there had been no activity reflected upon the docket for a two year period, and pursuant to Rule 650, sent a notice of impending termination to Plaintiffs. 2 In this notice, Plaintiffs faction, termination and/or judgment, or final decree in equity, and that there has been no activity reflected upon the docket within the two (2) years prior to the effective date of this rule, the Prothonotary shall notify in writing counsel of record and unrepresented parties, at his, her or its last known address, by regular mail, that if no appropriate legal action is taken or no written objections to termination setting forth the reasons therefor are filed prior thereto, the action will be automatically terminated sixty (60) days after the mailing of such notice as of course and without further notice, and that thereafter no proceeding may be had on such matters except by order of the court upon proper cause shown. Said written objections to termination filed under this rule shall be served by the objecting party or parties upon all parties to the action in the same manner as pleadings are served under Pa. R. C. P. #1027, and shall be considered as being in the nature of a rule issued as of course against all opposing parties to show cause why the action should not remain active. Sixty (60) days after the filing of said written objections the Prothonotary shall place all such matters on the next civil argument list as of course and give notice thereof to counsel of record and unrepresented parties. C. Actions 1970 and 1972 inclusive: The record of all civil actions at law or in equity docketed during the years 1970 to 1972 inclusive, shall be examined by the Prothonotary within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this rule, and he shall proceed with such matters and disposition shall be made thereof exactly as set forth in Section B of this rule and with the same effect. -This Notice- stated: The Prothonotary of Berks County has examined the above captioned case and 2 • . were advised that the termination would be entered as of course and without further notice unless written objections were filed within sixty (60) days. No such objections appeared as of record and an order of dismissal was entered on December 26, 1975. On August 23, 1976, Plaintiffs appeared before this Court, over Defendant's objection that the matter had been terminated, and obtained a protective order prohibiting the destruction of any records pertaining to the instant action. At this hearing, Plaintiffs asserted that the termination was improper since they did, in fact, prepare and mail written objections to the Prothonotary, prior to the expiration of the sixty (60) day period, but, for reasons unknown, were never filed as of record. Consequently, this Court directed Plaintiffs to take immediate action to reinstate the claim. No action was taken to reinstate the claim until December 23, 1976, the Docket reveals that an action has not been reducted to award, verdict, satisfaction termination and/or judgment, or final decree in equity and that there has been no activity reflected upon the docket within the two (2) years prior to the effective date of this rule, the Prothonotary is notifying in writing counsel of record and unrepresented parties, at his, her or its last known address by regular mail, that if no appropriate legal action is taken or no written objections to termination setting forth the reasons therefore are filed prior thereto, the action will be automatically terminac~d sixty (60) days after the mailing of such notice as of course and without further notice, and that thereafter no proceeding may be had on such matters except by order of the court upon property cause shown. Said written objections to termination filed under this rule shall be served by the objecting party or parties upon all parties to the action in the same manner as pleadings are served under Pa. R. C. P. 1027, and shall be considered as being in the nature of a rule issued as of course against all opposing parties to show cause why the action should not remain active. Sixty (60) days after the filing of said written objections the Prothonotary shall place all such matters on the next civil argument list as of course and give notice thereof to counsel of record and unrepresented parties. 3 • when Plaintiffs filed a petition to vacate the termination order. Defendants responded with an answer and new matter to which no responsive pleading was filed by Plaintiffs. After much protraction, the matter was heard by Bertolet, J. and Wesner, J. and the petition was denied. This appeal followed. In reviewing the circumstances of this case, we are mindful that the promulgation of local Rule 650 was mandated by Rule 1901 of the Supreme Court Rules of Judicial Administration which directs that "where a matter has been inactive for an unreasonable period of time, the tribunal, on its own motion, shall enter an appropriate order terminating the matter. Together, the local rule and the Supreme Court rule implement a judicial policy to resolve pending cases as promptly as possible. However, if a plaintiff's stale claim is dismissed, he may still petition the court to take of the non pros or bring a second action. Reinstatement of such claims is authorized under local Rule 650 "for proper cause shown. " "Proper cause shown" requires the establishment of the following three positions: (1) the petition must be timely filed; (2) the reason for the default reasonably explained or excused; and (3) the facts constituting grounds for cause of action be alleged. 3 See Interr~atior_al Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co. , 250 Pa. Super. 378, 378 A. 2d 986 (1977); Boyles v. Sullivan, 230 Pa. Super. 453, 3Although we do not reach this issue, it appears that establishment of the facts ' constituting this cause of action would be difficult. Defendant John L. Stambaugh has since left the employ of Defendant Berks County Children's Services which has had numerous staff turnovers since initiation of this suit. 4 • • 326 A. 2d 440 (1974). First, Plaintiffs offer no satisfactory explanation of its failure to timely take the appropriate legal action within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the notice of termination. While we agree with Plaintiffs that the Prothonotary incorrectly concluded that the case was inactive as defined in Rule 650, the rule specifically provides the proper procedures to contest proposed terminations, namely the filing of written objections. 4 The only explanation offered for the failure to file such objections is that the Prothonotary, after receiving them by mail, failed to properly file and index them. This assertion, standing alone, falls short of establishing an acceptable excuse. The Prothonotary is charged with the responsibility for entry, maintenance, and certification of the record of court matters and we must accept the present state of the record as conclusive. 5 In any event, no proceedings of any sort were doc'_~eted in the Prothonotary's Office between August, 1975, when the notice of termination was filed, and August, 1976, when Plaintiffs obtained the protective order. No explanation is offered for this further one year delay in objecting to the termination. Similarly, we conclude that Plaintiffs unexplained four (4) month delay in attempting to reinstate the claim following the issuance of the protective order 4The record discloses that Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 10, 1974. 542 Pa. C, S, A, 2704 provides: The prothonotary, clerk of the courts and clerk of the orphans' court division shall be responsible for the accurate and timely creation, maintenance and certification of the record of matters pending before or determined by the courts of common pleas and the Philadelphia Municipal Court, includi ng data and reports relating thereto. 1976, July 9, P, L, 586, No. 142, §2, eff. June 27, 1978 , 5 • ~ is indicative of the lack of action by the Plaintiffs in this case. In short, this is not a case where Plaintiffs were denied an apportunity to revive their stale claim for proper cause shown. Rather, the record reveals that the Plaintiffs were afforded the opportunity on a number of occasions, but failed to do so. Accordingly, having reconsidered our Order of June 2, 1980 in this matter, we find no reason to change our view and, therefore, reaffirm that Order. BY THE COURT: ~~fa%u.~ ~, ,. 6 - ~ • A ~~ i ~ ~'' ~~; ARTHUR L. GL'TKIV, ESC~'IRE 509 Ger~~an*_own Pike P. 0. BOX 251 afayette Hill, Pa. 1944 (210 828-3595 T. D. ;~ LL~H7 ~'7~. " ~ to~~ °;'~~1~~~~~i~~l~, 1~tSt~ KENNETI-I F. HOFF'_~!~1STER ANASTA~IA HOFFMAS^_'ER, h/w v . BERK' S CO?VTY C~iILDREti' S SERVICES and JOHN L. STA:?BATJGH . c r- :v INr 'j'uE rOT~RT OF CO.,tuO~~ ~-LE 0.~ BE KS C~'?\'~'~ , ?°ti'~, SYL v':i~'A ~"' `' ~ ~~ . 1 1_ 2 December Term,: ?.~? 4 `30TICE OF APP''r~,L AND NOW, to wit, this 1;th day of June, "_930, t c .-' _~- c _~ t"1 -_ .~ -:: - -- `.., the Co~~rt of Commor. Pleas of Ber'~s County is herebv notified an aopeal has been ta'_{en on t?-ie hehal_` or KpV~E^_'?? uOFr'.`~aSTER and AHaSTASI~~ HOFF`~AST_ER, Plaintiffs in the above Ta*_ter __n the Cour`_ of Common Pleas of Berks County, from the order e= .~:uze 2, ' 930 rn t`~e . e COUrt O. Common Pleas of Ber'~S CO'1P.rY t0 t[?e Supe;iOr l,0ur'" ~~^^^~ ~~~ ~n ~~~ q~r~r.,r~e n~~~~T AUG 2 7 1980 Phi1~. D~str~ct tract. from the record of said Coup rtified this day of r 19~_ JOHN R. ~R~VDT Prothonotary - -- - - `~ ~ Deputy Respectfully su'~m; ~*Ad, r~ ~ / i ~~ ~. _.:~, l -' T n a • • /. ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, ESQUIRE +c ~ ~~T CuPY C~ I;~E 509 Germantown Pike " "~'~t 6' ~~~ `'I ~-D P . 0 . Box 25 ? IN T ~ MATTER. Lafayette Hi~_1, Pa. '_9444 r ~ _ 215) 828-3595 - '~ ~C KEN'~?ETH F. HOFFNTASTER - T~ THE COURT OF CO^2MON PLEAS li:~'ASTASIA HOFF'_~?ASTE:t., h/w OF ^.'3KS C"?'ti"`~"?, ~r\'~TSYLVA?~A ~'T_V `_~ ACT'_"'`I - LAW V. BERK' S COUNTY CHILDRE'N' S ''x'90 . ? A 2 December Term, ? 97 .'_ SEP.UTCES and , 1O'--'~' L. STAMBAL'GH NO^'TC~' nF A°~EAL AND NOW, to wit, t`?is '.7t'Z c'.a.y off' rune, 1980, the Court of Commor+. Pleas of Berlcs County ~_s hereby r.ot_fied an appeal has been taken on the beh.al_f o~ KE?~TETH uOFr'`"A~TER and ANASTASIA LIOFFMAS'."FP., Plaintiffs i_n `_'~e above mat*_er '_n t'~e Court of Common Pleas nF nerks Cou~?ty, {rom the order o~ J;ur~e. ?_, '_980 ~_n the Cour . or Common yi_eas o{ ~ser'~s County 'o the 5~~.^er- or Court. Respectf_v'_'v submit*_ed, ~r ~~.~';~, / ;X ~ - r~ At`.o?-~ev Fir ~'' _~'_n* ~_`_ :"`s ARTHUR L. GUTKIN Attorney at Law P.U. Bux 251, Lafit~~~•tte //ill, ~'A 19444 Florida Bar Member (215) 82tf-3595 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, ARTHUR L. GiTTKIN, ESQi1IRE, served the named persons below a copy of Notice of Appeal by mail/ti delivery on June 26 1980• Judge Wesner Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Reading, Pa. 19601 Judge Bertolet Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Readin Pa. 19601 "' B Y_ ,,~/ AR HUR L. GUTKIN, ESQUZRF. Alfred W. Crump, Jr., Esquire Assistant County Solicitor 6th & Court Streets Reading, Pa. 19601 No steno present . ~ ,~ . ARTHUR L. GUTKIN Attorney at Lain P.U. Bux 251, LaJii)it'tte 1/ill, PA 19444 Florida Bar Member f215) 828-3595 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, ARTHUR L. GTiTKIN, ESQLTIRE, served the named persons below a copy of Notice of Appeal by mail/~~gxlxdelivery on June 17 19 80, Alfred W. Crump, Jr., Esquire Assistant County Solicitor 6th & Court Ste. Reading, Pa. 19601 ~ .-~ .~... _ . - B Y '" w ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, ESQUIRE 'id'; !P; /0~ n so 01 6~ Hn~ ~..# , • i ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, ESQUIRE 509 Germantown Pike P. 0. Box 251 Lafayette Hill, Pa. 19444 (215)828-3595 I . D . ~~ 1 2587 KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, h/w V. BERK'S COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH TNr THE COURT OF COMr10N PLEAS OF BERKS COUNITY, PENNSYLVt1NfIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW °ND. 112 December Term, 1971 NOTICE OF APPEAL ~' w AND NOW, to wit, this 17th day of June, 1980, the Court of. Common Pleas of Berks County is hereby notified an appeal has been taken on the behalf of KENIl~TETH HOFFMASTER and ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Plaintiffs in the above matter in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, from the order of June 2, 1980 in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County to the Superior Court. Respectfully submitted, ' '' f ~~ ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, ESQ IRE Attorney for Plaintiffs N 0 3 w D ~ SENDER: Complett items 1, 2, and 3. Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. ' 1. The following; service is requested (check one). Show to whom and date delivered.........._r; Show to whom, date, and address of delivery.._¢ RESTRICTED DELIVERY r Show to whom and date delivered .......... _~ RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom, date, and address of delivery. $-~ (CONSULT POSTMASTER FC~ ~EES) 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: J. Hamel Henry, Prothorro~ary Superior Court of Pa. 1428 Three ~~aCe~aer Plaza 1910? 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED~NO. INSURED NO. 982804 I (Always obtain signstun of eddrestes or apsnt) I have received the article described above. SIGNATURE ^ Addressee ^ Authorized agent `~, 4 . DA E ~'~ ~~ f+OS~`~IARK ~ ' { + 5. ADDRESS ( omplete only if coq~ues'Fed) ~ .i{ ~ /,. ` !!! "~J , \~ _ .~ 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S INITIALS GPO: 199-272-392 ~ ~~~ r ~ ~r _ '- ~- RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) SENT TO J. Hamel Henr Prath ~, S. BEET AND NO. rorCur of ~'~. P.O. , STATE AND ZIP CODE Ph ila. Pa. 19170 POSTAGE $ CERTIFIED FEE 4 to W SPECIAL DELIVERY Q ~ RESTRICTED DELIVERY Q ~ uyi ~ SHOW TO WHOM AND DATE Q F > > DELIVERED ~ N ~ OC H W rn SHOW TO WHOM, DATE, AND ¢ rn O ~ 6 i` d ADDRESS OF DELIVERY d O V SHOW TO WHOM AND DATE ~ a ~ DELIVERED WITH RESTRICTED 6 ~ N o Z DELIVERY O ~ ~ SHOW TO WHOM, DAZE AND ca W ADDRESS OF DELIVERY WITH 4 °C RESTRICTED DELIVERY TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES $ POSTMARK OR DATE 6/19/30 c E G~ U. L1. ~,•. d%- OT~i O! ~ ~0~ ® ~ ~~ CODS? OP CO~iftO21 Td.E1l! OT missy COtT~fT! E~ ~ Asx~t, swsa...a~ caz~st~t ~ s~wsr. m ~ nw.,r 1tZJ1A2l10, t=tt1f1?LYA1fiA Arthur L•, Gutkin, Esquire Res KENNETH F. HOFF~~IASTER AL Alfred W. Crump,' Jr., Esquire • V BERKS COUNTY CHILDFcEN+S SERVICES No. .112 DECEMBER TEF~i 19 71 A,D, Dear Madam~Sir: This is to advise you that the following order was entered by the Court as follows in the above captioned matter:. ' ORDER ~- 6/2/80 Argument assigned to Wesner and Bertolet, JJ. . 6/2/SO Argued before Bertolet and Wesner, JJ, Motion to reopen terminated case denied, ' Wesner, J. cc: Attorney for Plaintiff ' Attorney for Defendant File Copy John R. Arndt Prot~~onotary By s ., riYf ~ ~ ~~ .r ~~~~ • ~ rDeputy Prothonotary AWC:AI 6/2/80 MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, h/w : OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVA!, NIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW ~` vs. . a: BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES a.nd ° JOHN L. STAMBAUGH No. 112 December Term, 1971 ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT: This ~~ day of June, 1980, after oral argument, the P1a.intiffs Petition to Vacate Order Dismissing Action Under Local Rule 650 is DENIED. BY THE COURT: .-. ~, ~ _..._~=,.t .t, ~ t._ James W. Bertolet, J. i i G nt E. Wesner, J. ~Z~ ~~~~ l ~- - ,~.,~~ i ~^-~' ~. '. 4 AWC:AI .5/27/80 , MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER a.nd MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, h/w IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . CIVIL ACTION -LAW vs. . BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S No. 112 December Term, 1971 ':~ SERVICES a.nd . ~; JOHN L. STAMBAUGH . DEFENDANTS BRIEF Plaintiffs admit in their Brief that they received notice on August 7, 1975 that their Complaint wa.s about to be dismissed under Loca.1 Rule of Civil Procedure 650. The Prothonota,ry's records contain no notice of any action taken by the Plaintiffs to object to the termination. Yet, in their Brief they assert that they mailed copies of the Objection to the Prothonotary. Said exhibits a.tta.ched to the brief a.nd the facts contained '~ in the brief should not be given more weight than that of the Pronota.ry's f I records. It is the duty of the Prothonotar y of the several courts of Common s j Pleas to keep accurate records a.nd penalties a.re prescribed for Prothonota.ry'Is ~! ;! who fail to do so. See Act of April 19, 1856, P. L. 458 ~3, 17 P.S. Section t ~, 192t~,. We must, therefore, assume that the Prothonotary wa.s, in fact, r performing in a.ccorda.nce with the law a.nd that the objections were, in fact, I not filed, i On August 23, 1976, the P1a.intiff a.ppea.red in Court with a request far a. protective order which wa.s issued by agreement of the parties, • • ~~ however, the Defendants noted that the case ha.d been terminated a.nd the Cour. t used the following language in its Order "without prejudice in light of action taken by Prothonotary dismissing action under toca.l rule 650 as ' of December 26, 1975." The P1a.intiffs were informed to take immediate action if theyobjected to the termination. Four months passed until the Plaintiff filed a.n a.ction to va.ca.te Order Dismissing the Complaint. These facts a.re contained in the Answer a.nd New Matter filed by Defendants to Pta.i n tiffs Petition a.nd to which no responsive pleading wa.s filed by the Plaintiffs. Ru.1e 1901 of the Pennsylvania. Rules for Judicial Administration provides a.s a matter of policy that each pending matter should be brought to a. "final conclusion" a.s promptly as possible consistently with the character of the matter a.nd the resources of the system. This wa.s the rea.sor~ for the promulgation of Lot=a.1 Rule 650. The pa.ssa.ge of time ha.s greatly prejudiced the Defendants in ;. their ability to prepare defenses to events which occurred almost a. decade s ago. The Defendant, Berks County Chi.ldrens Services, ha.s had numerous staff turnovers within that period a1d it is doubtful whether any of the persons j who would have knowledge of this case are still in the employ of the Defendant; and, in fact, the Defendant, John L. Sta.mba.ugh, is no longer in the employ i of Berks County Childrens Services. Therefore, a.n Order reinstating a Plaintiffs Complaint would greatly prejudice the rights of the Defendants in ~' s this matter. _2~ Alfre `W, Crump, Jr.; Esq. Assis~ra.nt County Solicitor • • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTF.R and . MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, h/w v. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES; and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH DECEMBER TERM, 1971 N0. 112 PLAINTIFF`S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO CATS ORDER DISMISSING ACTION UNDER LOCAL RULE 650 Plaintiff's action in trespass was dismissed by this Court on December 26, 1975 under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 650. Prior to this dismissal, Plaintiffs received a notice from the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County stating that Plaintiff's Complaint in Trespass would be automatic- ally terminated for inactivity with a two year period unless appropriate legal action were taken or unless written objections were filed. This notice was forwarded to Plaintiffs on August 7, 1975. However, on September 10, 1974, Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint in Trespass. The filing of this amended Complaint eleven months prior to the notice from the Prothonotary clearly shows that there was activity within a two year period prior to August 7, 1975. Plaintiffs former attorney prepared Objections to Termination stating the above outlined argument. See attached Exhibit A. Two copies of the Objections and the original was mailed to the Prothonotary's Office, see attached Exhibit B, • ~ and copies were also mailed to both named Defendants. see Exhibits C and D. The Objections were not accepted by the Prothonotary and consequently were not filed of record. Thereafter, Plaintiffs' Complaint was dismissed for inactivity as hereinbefore described. Plaintiffs now request this Honorable Court to vacate its Order of December 26, 1975, d~_smissi.ng this case for inact- ivity. Because the docket entries clearly show that an amended Complaint was filed on September 10, 1974, less than one year prior to the Notice of Inactivity, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court find that the Order of December 26, 1975, was incorrect and vacate said Order. ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff I. D. ~~ 12587 i IN THE COURT O~OMMON PL EAS~ OF BERKS COY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs VS. BERK5 COUNTY CHILDREN'S SER 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c/o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant DECEMBER TERM, 1971 N0. 112 I.D. N0. 11916 OBJECTIONS TO TERMINATION TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT: The Petition of Kenneth Hoff master and Anastasia Hoffmaster, Husband and Wife, by their Attorney, Malcolm W. Berkowitz, J.D., respectfully represents as follows: 1. On the 7th day of August, 1975, the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Reading, Pennsylvania, forwarded notice to tl~e Plaintiff's in the above-captioned matter indicating that there has been no activity reflected upon the Docket of the above-captioned matter within the two years prior to the effective date of said notice. 2. By said notice, the Prothonotary of tl~e Court of Common Pleas of Berks County notified the Plaintiffs to the above-captioned action that if no appropriate legal action is taken or no written objections determination f filed, the action would be automatically terminated sixty days after the date of said notice. A copy of said notice is attached hereto and made part hereof . EXHIBIT A • 3. An Amended Complaint in Trespass was filed on helralF of f~~e Plaintiffs, Kenneth Hoffmaster artd Anastasia fioffma•~`er, husband and ~Nife, by their Attorney, Malcolr-r W. Berkowitz, J.D., with tl~e Prothonotary of the Corrrt of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania on the 10th day of September, 1974. /~ co,~y of ;aid a~nende~l Cor7r~~laint is attached frereto and rrrac! par. h~~r~of, 4. Tl~e filing of said amended Complaint with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of E3erks County, Pennsylvania clearly shows that there has been activity in the above-captioned case within the two years prior to Auyust 7, 1975 the effective date of the said notice. WHEREFORE, Petitioners object to Termination of the said action and pray that said action remain active upon the dockets of the office of tl~e Protho of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania. T . H FFMA R 'ANASTAS IA HOFF A~ • ~ R BERT<OWITZ and GUTI<IN Attorneys for Plaintiffs BY:, /~ l ,L, C- Vic: ~ /.: ~ 'v OLM . 6E ,. ~ OWITZ,,J.~D. s EXHIBIT A • ~ September 8, l a75 Pro+:f+onotary'~. n~f ire Berfcs County Courthouse Civil Division 2nd Floor 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pa. ].9641 Re: Kenneth H4ffmastar and ~ nastasia ktorfnaaater vs. Berke County Children's Services and John L. Stambaugh, Defendants Na. l 12, December T~m1 197. . ~ .,.. , Dear Sirs: i any er-cio~inq h*r~itlth Qbt#o~as to Tenainatfon in tha above- captic 6a~!!. ! I~gtaa ~l-~-~s~2~ t trvo Deflt~ta. Also enclosed i+ereJn Is ot+rflte c ~fh~' ~'.f~-~1~v Cate 1e signed and a heuinq !}~ h ~Ifhr~eel ~l1, k~~rr-.'CSpy t0 odr ohfici itt the ltiClOsed, ~:, +.. .. .. .~ ~~ c, ,; ~., ~:,r '~#ta~tt~ yoWi fer `ri~pr' +c~~~~t ~eia. ;,,~ ';~% Ve~1t~c-.arc, r ~lRl~b!fl'~.~ and GUTKIN ,.., ~~ ~~`~~ ` ,, ~~F ~;, Dy `~A1.CUlM W. BERK01~'ITZ, ,l.D. MWe:ad Enclasuras t.~~ EXHIBIT B • 5 eptemb~r 9, 19 75 Mr. ,lohn L. 5tarnba~ac~h e% f3erks (;aunty Chtidren's Services Y 2th Floor Barks County Courthouse 6th and Court Struts reading, Pa. 196D1 • Cde: Kenneth F. Hoffmastar and A'nastaa~ia Wo'fmaster vs. Barks Cour~~r Chiidr~'s Services, et at Na. 112, December Term, I971 --- . Dear Mr. Stambaugh: ~ttssa~.find i~,.eg Platatiff's Objections to Termination to the above-oapttd gaat-4 tF~~~~,1 ~ which }s be~q flied in the Prothonatary's ,~ ~~~• a +~; ~ - ® l~~~ and ~V 1 P~t~ y .j ...,8~ _ ~.#A W. BEi2KOWITZ, J.D. ~.: b{UhB:ad ~~ .A Enclawre~. ., ,, '~~ EXHIBIT C • ~ September 9 ~ 19 75 Berks County Children's Services . 12th Floor Berks Gounty Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Ra. ~ 9b0] Re: Kenneth F , Meffmaster anal ~naataeia Hoffmaster vs. 8e~~t Cc~w~ty ChM's Services, et a~i No. 112, D~°,,,' Teri 1971 , 'Dear S ka : ~, ~ac3a ~ f~Md s :~'f i<t~#;N!''s Qbj*ctions G~ Tarn+instion iea i#b~ al~awlN~!!~~r !> ` :' .. whl' i~ belr~q fl~d`~+t the Prothon©tary`s r Fd ~, a~ ~, Y~ "'~~~ .~~ ~~ ., ~.r~ .t.z ,~ y ~j~ ~ ., - h ~ ~ J""~"'~"•• ~ ~ 5 ~ , S~ :, '~ ~ ~ `~~'~ t~ a~ GUTKIN .- C: ` ~` r .. ~ ,~~ t _ ~.; _ ~u^ ~~ ff F p ~x~~ !!? ~!~ ~~~~o.~ w, i~~RKOwITZ, ~.o. C~n4losur! ~ ; ~~ j t 1~^ *$ ; i. ,~ '~~ a r f, ~. ~~~ .. - EXHIBIT D ~,{.:~'~Hi.~''' .~.:~ ~'~ ` ;~ •. ~' . . t ,, 3 ~~ .. . ~. ,.,~~ ._-. .,.~--w- _.~ - a- ~ i cove= or coa~~or pa.sAS or msa'c1t couv~r 70~~f R AA~1n'!. tw~...av CAilLlN Z. ?A~i't. D~. lCJ~M/ ~w 1tlJLDI1i0, ~tt111~'YirAIf3A Artl;ur L. Gutkin, Esquire Alfrecz W. Crump, Jr,, Esquire Re: KENNETH F. HGFFiASTER AL • V BERKS COU~dTY CHILDREP~I -S SERVICES No. .112 DECEi~1BEP T. 19 71 A,D, Dear Madam~Sir: This is to advise you that the following order was entered by the Court as follows in the above captioned matter:. ORDER 5~5~~0 Continued to 5~2~80 ccs Attorney for Plaintiff •' Attorney for Defendant File Copy Sohn R. Arndt Prot otary By: _~>•~ ,~ ~~~G~~C~ Deputy Prothonotary ARTHUR L . G UTKIN Attorney at Law P. O. Box 251, 509 Gernzantuwn Pike, Lafatiette Hill, YA 19444 Arthur L. Gtrtkin Walter Z.. ~L1cDunough (21S) 828-3595 *Plorida Bar Mes~zbe~• Administ~~ative Assistant Jeanne P, Rorera April 28, 1980 Office of the Prothonotary Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 RE: Haffmaster v. Berks County Children's Services C. A. ~~112, December Term 1971 To the Prothonotary: Because of scheduling conflict, I will not be able to attend the argument in the above-captioned case scheduled for Monday, May 5, 1980. I have discussed the matter with Alfred W. Crump, Jr., Esquire, attorney fcr the defendant and he has no objection to continuing the matter. Therefore, I respectfully request that the argument be continued until the next available argument date. Sincerely, ~!~ .~~~ WALT ~~,~"` ER McDONOUGH, QUIRE WLMcD:me cc: Alfred W. Crump, Jr., Esquire Mr. Kenneth Hoffmaster U~ d g~ f / ~Z ~d~ lOM-3-76 ECIPE FOR ARGUMENT L~ (Use full caption) KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and ------------------------------------------ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _ANA~~A$IA_HOFFMASTER,____ BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ------------ Husband and Wife, ------------------------------------------- Plaintiff(s) No. 112 December Term 19 71 V BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES Defendant(s) TO THE PROTHONOTARY Please place the above case on the Argument List for __May _5 ,__198C_____ __ 19 Objections to Termination MATTER TO BE ARGUED _____________ CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR PLAINTIFF BY Arthur _L . _ Gutkini_ Escuire CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR DEFENDANT BY __.Alf~ed_ hL~_Cr.umg, _,Lr ~,_~squ~,xe_______ CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR ADD'L DEFT. BY ----------- ---- - Alfr d W. Cru(mpnaJr ~ Attorney for _ _D e f e n d a n t ------------------- azb~x „ ~, I ~ ~;~ ~ ~xa~x z o z I-' (D N C, ~' ~ ~ x (1 ~ ~ i ~ ~~ I z ~ i i C I(p IZ a i Z ~ ~, ~ r t . O N N• ~ ~ ~ i I I ~ F -+ n i i 2i w H It i~ a iy ~ N ~ N A a ~ su "~ ' ~ "' ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ In I ~ ~ la ~n Ix ~ O O O a 5r a • ~ ~• ~ ~ d ~1 ~ I I I I I I I IZ I I I 1 I I~ a I~ I i• d c ~ b n a~~ ~ ~'' '"~ ` ~ I I I ly I I rQ I lax I I O I,'T ~ " ~ O ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~~ ~ ~ I~ Flo ~~• ~ ;~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ z ~ ~ •- I I C7 .x I IH I I~ ~ I~ t(D a I~ ~ ~ o ~ v C~ rt ~ ~-d ~ - ' ~ ~ m ~ 1 I I ~~ Ir I ~ ~ bl cnly ~ ~ ~ iy n Z H O ~ w n ~ ~ ~,.~ .-?~, i ~ i I ~ i ~ ~~ i ~ i ~~ r Z ~ , ~1 ~ ~ % r N I al 1 I I z I I 1 I < .o ~ s~ - = --~ (y ~ I ., I~ rt I ~• I I~, ~ a Z ~~ n~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ a .• ' O _ ~~.~ ~ N• ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ I -,ti ` ~ rj N • ~ . Mr.,..Kenn.~th.. ~.....Ho.~.fmas.t.ax..ax~d..i~x.s.,.. '~ri #I~P (~nur# of (~nmmntt ~Ir~n Anastasia Hoffmaster, II&W, Df ~Pr~,6 (IIuitttl~, ~ppr~~~pgn{g ..................................................Plaintiffs vs. No. ..............1.1.2.... D.~c emb.~x.... T.~xzn.......19 71 ~x.~s..C.o.urtty....Ch~~-.d.~en.'..S...SerVice~.,.... ................ . ........................Defendants GIVIL ACTION -LAW ~W ~ ~[ ..........................................1°?.. 0... T...I ..0.. ~ ....................................................................... ..................ANA...~OW.,...TQ..W.~.~,... ~h~,~.. J..$.C.h.. day... o.f...Max.ch,...1.9.$0.,.. up.on.. the..mo.~ i~qn.. of ............ A.~f.red..W....G_~,ump,,., Jr..,,...~$qure,,,A~~o~ne.y.. f.or.,Defenda~.ts., n.,~~}.~.,~,boy.~-~ag.~on,~d„. ca.se.,,..~,lie,.alb.qye-.~agpstoned...~a~e....~~,ng„/lis.t,ed., fo.r„Argumen.~,,.Co~,~,~.,~q.~..~~.x.Ckl..~,~.,. 198 1S C ~~ \ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ n . ~' n w . rn; '"~ Q'' n ~ : ~ r r x ~: a; c~ m : ~ w~ h ~ o r i-t rt :~: ~ n b ~ ~ ]. ~ w w x --.~' rt F-' H ri ;n fD !y'h ~t p ~ ~ ~ ' : ~: z d ~ Q + ~ ro ~n .o : ~.i cr. : ~ c N ~ r.. p, ~ rt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n , .i ~ r r, ~ ~ ~ urti cn fi J ~ ~ ~ o ~ / I _ ~~ z 0 N d m n o' m n y ~+ cfl V I-~ 1 OM-3-76 J ~ECIPE FOR ARGUMENT L T (Use full caption) Kenneth F. Hoffmaster and_ _ _ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Anastasia Hoffmaster h/w______ __ BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Plaintiff(s) No. 1 1 2 December Term 19 7 1 V Berks County Children's Services ------------------ 12th floor Berks County Courthouse --------------------------------------- 6th & Court Streets R e a d i n g, P a. Defendant(s) TO THE PROTHONOTARY John L. Stambaugh, Esquire c/o Berks County Children's Service 12th floor Berks County Courthouse Reading, Pa. Please place the above case on the Argument List for _ _ _ M a r c h_ 31 _ ;~ 9 8 0 MATTER TO BE ARGUED_Objection__to Termination -------------------------------------- CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR PLAINTIFF BY Walter L. McDonough Esquire CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR ADD'L DEFT. BY ------------------ DEFENDANT BY David N. Kozloff, Esquire -------------------------------------- i 'J~ ._______________ J_' ____ S/~'I'w~_-__-__ (Signature) Arthur L. Gutkin, Esquire, Atty, for e Attorney for _ _P l a i n t i f f s ------------------ u- m QZ w c t; ,,- fe 1 ~ T ~ I I ~-I I b7 ~.. ~ 2 ca _. ~ n I I O ~ ; I (D ;~ ~, o _ . n ~ ~ ~ ;~ - ~ v rn I Ir i i• I in I O i G Q ~ T ~ I I ~ ~ ~rt G I~ G- ~ ~ t IW Irt ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ --~---. \ ._ ~ (> i I I~ In ~.- C'~ ~~ ~ I I r I IQQ I I I ~ I w I • ~ Z ~ ' '~ I I F- a I . ~ ~ I I I ~ I I C=] I (D r ' ' ~' I I~ ' ~ I . I I I I IG I~ I I F'• I I I n ~° I Cn '~ i` - f I I I I I . ~ ; I N. ~ ~ rn { 19 1 I x Z o Z I ~ i ~ ~ ,m ,~ ~ ~n+ Irt I !~ ~ n' N A ~ ~ I N. N i I ~ d ~ A ~ C C I I 1 I n Z Ix ~ o I ~ x ~ ~ ' ~ ~ I rh I Fh I O I r'A a fD A I ~ I ~ I I-h ~ ~ rt ~ Z y0 h' i~ I ~o ~ I rr r~ ~ Z r I ~ I ~ I <~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ Za I . ,~, ~ a y o I I 1 OM-3-76 ~ ~ ,;~ ~ ~AECIPE FOR ARGUMENT -..Y I (Use full caption) M~•__Ksnnetl~~=_HQ~fm~ter_ a~~______-- Mr_s. _Anastasia_Hoffmaster,__Hu_sband_ and wif e Plaintiff(s) V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 112 December Term 1971 Berks County_ Children'~_Serv_ices___________John L. Stambaugh 12th Floor Berks Count Courthouse c/o Berks County Children's Services -----~-------------------12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets, Readin$LPA_________6th and Court Streets, Reading,PA Defendant(s) TO THE PROTHONOTARY Please place the above case on the Argument List for __ October _ 30 _____________ 1 Y "~ ~ J, 197$ MATTER TO BE ARGUED _ _(~e~t ~ ... '"~ m ~ _~~,~,~ ~,~;_ ,,,~,~_,,,% _;~_~~~ f~.~ _ ~,_2~~ ~~-`~'~ ~I,~ ~ ------------------ CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR PLAINTIFF BY __ Arthur ~. ~~-t-kiu~_.E .guire_____ CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR DEFENDANT BY __??av_id N. Kozloffi_F~squire_____ ------------ CASE WILL BE ARGUED FOR ADD'L DEFT. BY `~_~'~I_ nn"`~~ `~~ --------- -- -z----- -------- (Signature) Attorney for _ _ ~~~~~-~' t~ ~ ------------- ~~ ~ ) 1 ~~ !r ~-' L ~.~ C'~+ ~ T ~ - I I iw I I 1~ I I~ I~ I I Z O Z . . w~ a`z.. ~ a I I I~ I~ I I~ I• ao r- F- o p 7C ~ z r~ m i i~ I I i0 i I I i~ i i~ I N A 0 ~ 2 ~ "~ T Q i it" • i~ i rt iw ~ i~ I O A C c,r> cv ~ ` y ~ I , I I ~ I I I I I IN' I~ I'=1 r C Z~ ~_ c ~., t u ~ I I i i I i~ i ix ix ~ w -~ ..~^ v~ '~ ~ , ic7 i~ < i IM iff+ A O ~~ ~. ~ i I~ i~ i i~ i~ T rn Z , ~~' ~ i ~ in Z ~ ~ I I I I I I I~ i Irt ii Kt ~ y 0 ~ Z r I I I I I I~ I IfD I I I i W r ~ 'O N ~ I I ~ i iC i i O. ~ ~ m Z I I ~• I Ill I I I I I ~ V a S N i I I KD i ~ I I I I I ~ o I I I I ~ I ~ . `' • '~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER AND DECEMBER TERM, 1971 MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs VS BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES N0. 112 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th & Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania Defendant , and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH . c/o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th t; Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant PROOF OF SERVICE COr1MON1~JEALTH OF PENNSYLVAN I A) SS: COUNTY OF BERKS ) IIZENE STOUDT, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that she mailed a true and correct copy of ANSWER TO PETITION TO VACATE ORDER in the above-captioned case to the following named persons by mailing same to them from the United States Post Office, Fifth and Washington Streets, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania, via regular mail on Friday, February 17, 1978 BERKOWITZ and GUTKIN Suite 401 National Building 1321 Arch Street '' Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and BERNARD MENDELSOHiJ, ESQUIRE 221 North Sixth Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 ~_~ Sworn t:o and subscribed ~ jj ~V i • ~, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and DECEMBER TERM, 1971 MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs _' US BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse N0. 112 6th ~ Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania Defendant and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c/o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th & Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant . ANSWER TO PETITION TO VACATE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT: i 1. Admitted. ~ 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. ' i 4. Paragraph 4 sets forth a conclusion of law and no responsive pleading !, is required. 5. That after responsible investigation the Plaintiffs are unable to answer the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 in that the inform- I ation is solely within *_he possession of the Plaintiffs and there- fore strict proof thereof is demanded. 6. That after responsible investigation the Plaintiffs are unable to answer the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 in that the inform- ation is solely within the possession of the plaintiffs and there- . fore strict proof thereof is demanded, i 7. Admitted. ~I i 8. That after responsible investigation the Plaintiffs are unable to answer the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 in that the inform- at'ion is solely within the possession of the Plaintiffs and there- fore strict proof thereof is demanded. j ~~~ 1. On Auyust 23, 1976 at 9:30 A.M., a hearing was held on the Rule Returnable on Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order. 2. That at said hearing, Defendants raised the issue of the Dismissal of the action under Local Rule 650. 3. That this Honorable Court instructed Plaintiffs to take immediate action if they contested the Dismissal under Local Rule 650. 4. That no action was taken by the Plaintiffs for a period of four months. Respectful ly ~submi tted, 7 ~~ ~_ /l;l f r`~d W. Grump, Esquire ,/ • ~ ~ M STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF PERKS SS: i Alfred 4I, Crump, Jr., Solicitor for Berks County Children's Services, being duly sworn according to law says that he is the Defendant above-named and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to Petition to Vacate Order are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. ;' ~ % ~ ~~.. j ~ r -:~-- !.~- ~ Q1 ed Crump, Jr. , ~t~rney Sworn to and subscribed before me this 21st day of January, A.D. 1977, /~G"f.~,l~y.~ ~ Nota',~y Public b '.. ~ r.~..;ry ?ubiic t, .. ,_ _:~.r.,~ ,'aunty, Pa. ~';~i ;,cr.+;w~~.aion '~x,,ires J.re 15, 1977 ~!i I ii I~ i I i' ! + MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIS HOFFMASTER, H/W, VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c~o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania • r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAa I' December Term, 1971 No. 112 I.D. NO. 11916 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ~ SS. COUNTY OF BERKS , BERNARD MENDELSOHN, ESQUIRE, being dul y sworn according to law, deposes are.=J says that he served a certified copy of the Petition To Vacate Order Dismissing Action Under Local Rule 650 on Berks County Children's Services by personally handing the same ~ d to Dana Juliani, a secretary in the office on the 12th Floor of the Berks County Courthouse] 6th and Court Streets, Reading, Pennsylvania on December 27, 1976 at 9:35 a.m,; and also a certified co of the Petition To acct py V e Order Dismissing Action Under Local Rule 650 was mailed to the defendant, John L. Stambaugh, by mailing the same by certified I mail, return receipt requested, deliver to addressee only on January 12, 1977 at his place of employment, the Hamburg State School and Hospital, Hamburg, Pennsylvania, 'Bernard Mende so n, Esquire Sworn to an~ subscribed before me t thi§ ~' ~r day of January, 1977. i ~--~ ~--~ ~~ l a,~J z N 0 3 w m 3 ~I rn C 2 A _ m A _m m N m a m 0 2 y C A m 0 2 O A 1 m v a r RECEIPT FDR CER7'lFIED MAIL-30s~ (plus postage) SENT 70 Mr. John L . Stambaugh POR DATEK ~- Sc~o~amburg State School and Hospital Mailed P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE I"1a171h1 Irn D.....___ -~ -- _-- --..••••~.. gun wuu1110NAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and dat - r-ILA/~ • e delivered ......... RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ..... SERVICES Z• Shows to whom dat . 15¢ .. 65 , e and where delirered ---- -_ _- __ With delivery to addressee onl DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE O -- y °•° ~ .. 35¢ •~• 85¢ NLY SPECIAL-DELIVERY- -- -- "' "'--°° ~ - ~~ lextro fee required) ~• ....... _ 50Q ............... PS Form ......... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDE .. D NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (see orller side) ' G Pn :1974 O - 551-454 ~'; i ti7 GOP: 19)6-o-203-456 Anti, I.D. No. ~ ~~~~ i C~ti~~. KEi~J~JETI-f F= . F10~=Ef~~~1STER ant! P~~.~~ZS.~'ANAS-TASI~'1 ti0+=f=f~~ASTER, H%GN VS. • E>ER:S Ct~UNTY CHILDREfV'S SEP,V(CES 1 ~t!1 ~ IOOr L~erl~s COtrtlty CUitri(lOl4S° 6tft and Cortrt Streets Readit~~, Per?t4sylv:~nia - and J 01-I iV L. S TA f~~ ~ A U G !-I c/o Bc•r'<S -County Children's Services 1?_th F(oor Berks County Courtho~;se •6th~ana Cori; t Streots Read it~~, Pennsy! van ia~ - D~E~.~BER TEZ1A 1971• ,, N0. 112 I.D.•N0. 1191b i' - -. - PETITION TO VAC~iTE OP.DER DISMISSING A(~TION - ~ UNQER LOCAL RULE X50 NOTTC;: You have beezi sued in court. If you ~•ris'_n to defend acrainst the c?air.:s set forth i n ti:e follo~.;ing pares, you z:rust take action ti•rit'rzin twenty (2_J) c~.ys after this complint and notice are serreT, by entering a wAitten an,oarance personally, or by attorney ar_d filing in S~rritinr v~ith the. court your def~.r~se or objections to : ~^ chins set forth against you. Xota are warned that if you fail to do so the case nay procee:? ~aitl:out you and a judrrtent may be entered against you by thF, court :~ithout further no-lice for any money claimed in t'rze complaint or for any other chin or relief requester: by t~~e plaintiff. You m::y lose money or property or other tights ir.~t:~~rtant to yep... YOU SiIOULJ TAf:E T::iS PAPt.R TO A L_~,~~'ER F.?' ONCE _ IF YOli DO P.OT HAVE A LAL•.Yf.R OR CF~I:~~OT AcFOF.D ONE. GO TO On T ELEPI:O_•1E •iFE OFFICE SE.T F'ORTri Bi.LG:, TO ~IIr'1) O'J~1 ~'; ~lL,_~1_~'. ~{]lJ CEli~l C `. i LEGi~L ii~LP. La~~~yer Referral Service of Berks County 5~?~ Court Street f::.~~..rliny, P,;. 19601 ~ - (2~.5) 375-4591 - - A`JI50 Lo han cenandado a pasted en Ia cot Si desea deferczerse contra las luelias pr£'_Sentc.CGaS, f.5 aDSOI:Ii.a.":~iit°_ nE'~:'?~::',.r~.: que usted resp onaa dentro de ~ J dimes despises de set servido con ester de a^%~a y aviso. Para defenderse es recr~s~:rio qi:e usted, o su abogado, registre .cor_ I torte er_ fog esctira, el p;~nto de vis de usted y cualquier objeccicn c-ontra i quejas en ester derarda. Recuerde: Si usted no resro^de a ester denan~a, s:' puede pres-eg:;ir ccn e1. proceso sin su participacior.. Entonces la torte puele, sin notif_~carlo decicir favor del de:.:ancar.te y recnaerira que z;s Ci:ITl~la COn tCd~iS las q?'GV'_Sio .°S GC' eSt demander. Por razcn de esa uecisior., es possible que usted pueda perder din::ro, prcpiedad o ,otros derec:zos i., oor`zr_tes. LLEVE ES`?'A DE'~ c;~ ~ A >,1'` ABOG<~O _ Iris-IEDIA^:~"•.r:':.E. SI ISO CO_~GCE .? IT?: I~BOG.':CO. LL~~:E AL Lawyer Referrer( Service of Berks County 5~4 Court Strout Readinct, Pa. 19601 (?..15) 375-491 IN THE COURT OF COPr1MON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER ar~d DECEMBER TERM, 1971 MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs VS. BERK5 COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES I2th Floor Berks County Courthouse N0. 112 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, .Defendant and JOHN L. STAPJIBAUGI-I c/o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant I.D. N0. 11916 PETITION TO VACATE ORDER DISMISSING ACTION UNDER LOCAL RULE 650 TO THE HONORABLE, THE .IUDGES OF THE SAiD COURT: The Petition of Kenneth Hoffmaster and Anastasia Hoffmaster, Husband and Wife, by their Attorney, Malcolm W. Berkowitz, J.D., respectfully represents as follows: 1 . On tfle 7th day of August, 1975, the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Reading, Pennsylvania, forwarded notice to the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter indicating that there had been no activity reflected upon the docket of the above-captioned matter within two years prior to the effective date of said notice. 2. By said notice, the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Fleas of Berks County. notified the PlainfifF~ fn the ahnvp-cant-~nnar~ arl-inn ~-haf s 3. On September 10, 1974, an Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs by their Attorney, Malcolm W. Berkowitz, J.D. 4vith the Prothonotary with the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. A copy of said Amended Complaint certified by John Ro Arndt,. Deputy Prothonotary is attached hereto and made part hereof. Marked Exhibit "A ". 4. Filing of said Amended Complaint with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, clearly showed that there was in fact activity in the above-captioned case within the two years prior to August 7, 1975 the effective date of the said notice of termination. 5. In response to the said notice of termination the Plaintiffs Counsel prepared Objections to Termination the original and two copies of which tivere forwarded to the Office of the Prothonotary on September 9, 1975 and a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof. Copies of said Objections were also forwarded to the t~rro Defendants in the matter. Marked Exhibit "B". 6. Thereafter the said Objections to Termination were returned to the Attorney for the Plaintiff as not being acceptable since they were mailed to the Office of the Prothonotary. 7. Thereafter on December 26, 1975, the above-captioned action was dismissed under Local Rule 650. 8. Counsel for the Plaintiff never received a copy of the Court Order Dismissing the action as of December 26, 1975. 9. The said Court Order was wrongfully dismissed on December 26, 1975 as said Dismissal based under Local Rule 650 was for the reasons that there had been no activity reflQcted on the. dockets for two years prior to the said date. 10. As can be seen by the copy of the Amended Complaint in ~ ~ WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs moves this Honorable Court to Vacate the Order of December 26, 1975 Dismissing the action under Local Ruie 650 as said Order was incorrect in l fight of Docket activity. BERKOWITZ and GUTKIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs ~~~ BY: LCOLM W. BERKOWITZ, J. ! ~ ~, -. ~, .~ ... , ~ ~ .. r, _ _ . ~;~~ I KENNETH HOFFMASTER , k,~~ ,i~:i c,.;l~, ,.~, ,~; ~ },~ I ,, ,-. .,..,, C ~ ~ ;,:~ ,, ,z ~~ ~:, ; ~„ ' . ~ Plaintiff ;. ,_! ~. 5. ~ > ''lC. he I : Lit` i. },J f~ °l 'i. til;~l i. li, _. I~:e~,tj C<:~~ iU "~Il li~l (l` li_. "~U::i•_,~ PETITION TO VACATE ORDER DISMISSING ACTION UNDER LOCAL RULE X50 ar^ ~ -_,, ,a~?r, c ~„~~~c~ i;~ t.tl~: i~>>t ~f his !;~ ,~~•d1e l ?~~, Ils~ov~,> > ic,~; L ;;:, r ~,'!i~i . ' ._ l KENNETH HOF MASTER,' s i~;";iOY~; rl ~.iiCl ~~(i')>CPij"s2:!: C ~; ~~:., ~ L'3~ f)?'... ,. _ tills /~7 ~ti '; - I / ~ ~ l~ot~rf~'u;, ~ ..__ ,'rf . , ::~. + ,. C~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSY~VAV{A MR. KENNETH F. HOFFN}ASTER and LAIRS. ANASTAS{A HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES I2th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant D~CEN;6ER TERM, i 97I N0. II2 and - . JOHN L, STAMBAUGH '_ c/o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse , bth and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, ~ l3etendant I.D. N0. II9Ib ~~ o ~ .~~ U ~. pi ~ AMENDED COMPLAINT IN TRESPASS ~ ~ -~ ; ~I ,; , , AND NOW, Plaintiffs, Mr. Kenneth Hoffmaster and Mrs. Anastasia 7, ~ ~ ~ tj ~~~ HoFfmaster, husband and wife, bring this Amended Complaint in Trespass on a cause to , pr of action whereof the following is a statement: ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ I. Piaintiffs are husband and avife present{y~'residing at 333? North ~' ~'a i ~,~~o {{1 8th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; hereinafter Piaintiffs u~~ill be called Hoffmas! a-~ ,t I .: ~; o~ 1! 2. Defendant, Berks County Children's Services is anon-profit ~ ~ ;I ¢, v - corporation with its principal office located in the BerKS County Co~_trtr~ouse, 6tli and ~ `}' { }, -~ Court Streets, Reading, Pennsylvania. i~ x ~ r ,; 1f ~~ FIRSTCOUNT MR.iCENNETH F. HOFFPUTASTERand MRS.ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and UVife, ~VS. BERKS COUN T Y CHILDREN'S SERVICES and JOHN L. STAMB~ U ~Pfendants 4. On or about October 26, 1971 a Letter was sent to Plaintiffs herein by John L. Stambaugh, Defendant, then and there acting as Agent, Servant and/or Employee of De€eaclant, Berks County Children's Services,{~ereinafter referred as Children's Services, acting within the scope of such employment and/or service or agency,informing °laintiffs that Defendant Children's Services had~been informed that conditions within their home were affecting the welfare of their children and suggestin that the said agency would be able to provide them with service. 5. Subsequently, Plaintiffs were informed by Defendant,, John L. Stambaugh, hereinafter referred to as Stambaugh, that he had received inFormation from an undisclosed source that Plaintiffs were having problems with their children in their home and that he wanted to come to their home to discuss these problems with Plaintiffs. When Plaintiffs refused his offer, Stambaugh informed them that the problems involved were serious, criminal and chargeable, but refused to tell Plaintiffs what the charges were or ~vho was making them. Defendant Stambaugh also informed Plaintiffs that if they didn't meet with him, Defendant Children's Services. - would take them to Court. b. Plaintiffs repeatedly informed Defendant, Children's Services, and its Agent, Defendant, Stambaugh, that there tivas no problem in their home, that there was no reason for any meeting betti^reen them and Defendant, Stambaugh, nor did Defendant, Stambaugh or Defendant, Children's Services have any reason to call Plaintiffs in reference thereto; nevertheless, said Agent, Servant or Employee, Defendant, Stambaugh, acting on behalf of DeFendant, Chi(c(ren's S`rvices, inform`d Plaintiffis unless they met with him, Defendant, Chi(dren`s Services wo«lcl briny ~ i them into Court to face charges which were serious, criminal and chargeable and ?~ by such actions as stated hereinabove, Defendants have thereby maliciously and a unlav~rfully violated Plaintiffs' rights of privacy and continue so to do. ~~ ~~ ~. As a result of said invasion of Plaintiffs' ri hts of riva g p cy, :' Plaintiffs have been constrained in their conduct totivard their children and have ~` also been constrained in their conduct toward their neighbors since they Nrere unable to determine who among their neighbors had made the Complaint against them at the time. 8. At no time prior to Plaintiffs' bringing legal action, did either Defendant, Stambaugh or Defendant, Children's Services provide Plaintiffs with any information concerning the nature of the charges against them, avho their accuser were, or advise them that they would be given a hearing on said charges wherein they could confront their accusers and have an opportunity to present a defense to the charges. s 9. I`Jor did Defendant, Stambaugh, or Defendant, Children`s Serviced. make any investigation to determine the validity of the charges against Plaintiffs, or the background of their accusers in relationship to prior dealings with the Plaintiffs. 10. PlaintiFfs aver that investigation 4vould have revealed a prior background of dispute between the accusers and the Plaintiffs and that the action ? +- j of Complaint against the Plaintiffs involved a malicious intent on the part of neighbor • ~ ~ 13. As a direct result of this conduct er.~ the pat of both Defendants, Plaintiffs were caused great mental pain and anguish, they ~°rere exposed to public ridicule and humiliation, and their good name was injuriously affectec!. i 12. As a direct result of this exposure to public ridicule and humiliation directly caused by the Defendants' said acts, PlaintifFs have been rendered ill and unable to v~rork because of extreme nervousness and severe headaches. SirTCe the time; of the Complaint they've been physically and emotionally unable to perform their ti~rork and carry on their usual occupation and duties. 13. As a direct result of such conduct on Defendants' part, including exposure to public humi(iat'ron and ridicule, and having their name placed on a fist of parents who were listed as child abusers, both Plaintiffs have been re~idered ill, and have been unable to perform their usual duties and occupation. I4. The failure of either Defendant, Stambaugh or Defendant, Children's Services to conduct any investigation of the charges against Plaintiffs, before filing the Complaint against them and listing them as possible child abusers, the refusal of said Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with a statement of the nature of the c'narges without intervention by the Court, and the failure of Defendants to offer Plaintiffs a public hearing wherein they could face their accusers and cross-examine them, have damaged-them greatly in their private life, and have invaded their privacy. 15. As a proximate result of the charges brough against Plaintiffs, coupled with their listing as possible child abusers by Defendant, Children's Services and the accusations brought by Defendant, Stambaugh on behalf of Defendant, Children"s Services against Plaintiffs, acting within the actual scope and course of i~ . ~• s sECON.D couNT P~1R.KENNETH F, t-{OFFMASTERand'MRS.ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SE°VICES ANDJCHNL. STAMBAUGH 16. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contain in Paragraph 1 through 15 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth a length. I7. The Defendant, Children's Services, through its authorized Agent, Defendant, John L. Stambaugh, acting with the authority of and at the express direction and request of the said Defendant, Children's Services, did on or about October 26, 1971 imp}icitly charge Plaintiffs with some form of child abuse, and verbally informed Plaintiffs that the charges against them tivere serious, criminal and chargeable. 18. Plaintiffs responded to this accusation by demanding to know what the charges tivere against them, who their accusers were, the nature of the charges and as to whether they uvere civil or criminal actions, and demanded a _ hearing in connection thereUVith. 19. Subsequent to this statement by Plaintiffs, Defendants t~/ithdre~~v 20. Plaintiffs aver that they wrere nod responsi}ale for any action involving child abuse, and as a result of said charges th~ir reputation and character were greatly damaged in their Community. 21. Plaintiffs aver that said charges were made at the instance of parties .unknown to Plaintiffs, and that the Defendants, Defendant, Stambaugh and Defendant, Children's Services, their Agents, Servants and/or Employees, used said process improperly, maliciously and v+~ithout reasonable and probable cause, and in a manner and for a purpose in which it was not intended. 22. Plaintiffs aver that they have been put to great expense and ' hardship in connection with their removal from the Community in which they were residing, all as a result of the unjust charges brought 6y said DefendanFS against them; and that they have beencausedgreat humiliation, pain and suffering incident to said charges; Plaintiffs further aver that their reputation and good character have been damaged by reason thereof, and that they have suffered great personal hardship and financial damage by reason of their removal from the Community in which they were residing, caused by the said charges. 23. Plaintiffs aver that by reason of the willful and malicious acts of the Defendants as aforementioned, they, the Plaintiffs, are entitled to punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, both of which they hereby claim of the Defendants. ~~ H1RD COUNT MR.KENNETH F. HOFFMASTE(~andMRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMA TER, Husband and Wife, VS. BERKS COUNTY CH1rDP,EN`S SERVICES and MR. JOHN L. 5TAMBAUGH, DEFENDANTS 25. Defendants, avell knowing the facts set forth in the above- stated Paragraphs, ~~vith ti~rillful and malicious intent to injure Plaintiffs and bring ~~. them into public scandal and disgrace, did on October 26, 1971, and on dates i~ subsequent thereto, falsely, wickedly and maliciously compose, and publish and ~, '~ cause to become composed, published and circulated in the community the followring ,, i~ it false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libels , or' and concerning Plaintiffs. a) In a letter dated October 26, 1971, Defendants published and circulated a statement concerning certain conditions within Plaintiffs home that might be affecting the welfare of their children, which contained among other things the following false, malicious and defamatory sta±ements: "Berks County Children's Services has been informed of certain conditions within your home that may be affecting the welfare of your children. You may contact me at 375-6121, extension 311, so that we may set up a convenient appointment to discuss this matter. It is possible that, if a problem exists, this Agency may be able to provide you with an appropriate service. "Berks County Children`s Services is deeply concerned 4vith the welfare of children and wants to be of assistance iF help is needed. 1 hope that you will contact me as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, John L. S¢ambaugh, Intake Caseworker. " b) i hese statements were meant to convey to Plaintiffs ' 1 and to other members of the community that Plaintiffs ti>>ere responsible far conditions v~rithin their home that trrere adversely effecting the wrelfare of their children and ~i suggested that they had a problem that the Defendant, Children's Services had to • correct, whic'n allegations were false and malicious. 26. By reason of the aforesaid actions of the Defendants, StarT~baugh and Children's Services, Plaintiffs have been and are greatly injured in t4ieir goof i name, credit and reputation and have been brought into public scandal, arrd disgrace and have been and are greatly injured in their credit and reputation as parents and ',~ members of the community, a1i of tivhich has been to their great financial darnag° i and loss. 1,"JNEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim damages from Defendant , Stambaugh , and Defendant Children`s Services, on each account, individually and severally, compensatory damages in ,the amount of $75,-000.00, and punitive damages in the amount of $250,000.00. BERKOWITZ and GUTKIN Attorneys for Plaintiff !~ I~ ~t i BY: ~ COLM W. BER ...~. COf~.`1Pvi0NV1~'EA~-fH 0 PENNSI'LL'ANIA: SS: COUi~TY OF PHI~AD'`LPHIA: ,~ and that the facts set forth in the ; 1 KE~4NETH HOFFMASTER being d~!}y s~::~or~~ according to la~1v deposes and says that he is one of the above narr,ed Plaintiff duty authcrizecl to ta!:e t}pis AfFidavit for foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT 1N TRESPASS are true and correct to to the best ^{ '-'- and be}ieF. Sworn to and S~:bscribecl: i , "Before me this '~ ~ Day: OF `~ ~r%-~=~~'~A.D., ? 974. t ~~~ .~ i!cary Puhiic, P ~i17:r:'!phi3, rn~ia:.a!pnia Co. 1 b:° COrl:TirS510~S Ex I. es ,~,a~~;~i 2. 1977 a 7 a _ ~; . I` LnrnnrlArlnp infnrmaFinn ATTY. I . D. N0. ~ 11916 + ~ ~ •,• s . _ Tv1R KtNNETH F: HOFFMASTER and DECE~l~BER-TEtZit~R 1~7I• . , - PJ1RS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, HEN ' _- V S . - - . BERf~S COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES - 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse - bth and Court S greets _ P,ead iny, Pennsylvania ~ - - _ and - N0. 112 - - JOHN L. STAMBAUGf-1 - c/c Berks -County Children`s Services - - 12th Floor Berks County Ccurthouse - - - - -bth-.and Court Streets - - - Reading, Pennsylvania- - - - . - i - ~ - OBJECTIONS. - - TO TERMINATION NOTIC - ~_ A`JISO- You rave been sued in court. If you Le han demandada a ass}ed en la co: wish to defen3 against the claims set - Si desea defendersL contra las que~ias forth in the follof;ing p ges, you must presentGdas, es ~bsol:itdL:2nt° : eC_Sa r? -take action crithin twentg (2J) days -que usted respanda dentro de 20 3ias- after this coriplaint and notice are despues de ser servido con esta de.:,s.rd~ served, by entering a swritten apcearance y a~~iso. Para defenderse es recesaria personally. or by attorney ar_d filing in -que usted, o su abogado, registre.cor_: writing with-the court your defense or Corte er_ farina esctira, el panto de vii objections to :ne clams set forth de usted y cuaiquier objeccicz contra •. against you. quejas en esta der.,arda_ ' You are warned that if you fail Recuer3e. Si usted no respor_3e z to do so the case may proceed without esta demanda, se pue3e p_cse;~:ir ccn e you arm' a ~ judc,-ment may be entere3 - proceso sin su participacior.. En to^ce: against you by -the court :without further la Corte p~.~e;Ie, sin notificarlo decidi: - notice for any rnor_e1 clairr,ed in the favor del demarcarte y ree~aerira que t. COmplal.nt Or for any Of'(1er C1aiP Or Cumpla COn tCdas laS prGV'iS1Cn°_S Qe eS relief requested by the plaintiff. de.-aanda. Por razon de esa ciecisior., e Yo~.z may Lose money or propeYty or other possible que usted pueda perder dinsro rights it„GOrtznt to yeL _ propiedact o ,otres ciorec:~os i ^ortar_tes XOJ SH^vULD TAKE ^tHIS PtiPF.R i0 A I~~1'ri'YER A^ ONCE _ IF YO:i DO P;OT HAVE A LA;'lY,:=.R OR CFiI:i10T P.r FOF.D O:;E. GO TO OR `;' :LAP: O:~:E i F.E O ~ ICE SST FORTri 3c.L0:, TO ~'IZvU OvT t;"tILR=. 'IOiJ CFi'_~1 GEi S~EG~L HiLP. LLEVE ES^A DE:~~:`:D~ A t3ti ApvGr .t;0 Irii~IEDIFi'~' ~ ~r.'d . E . S I I~ O COtiGCE A U:~ ABOG~DO. LL~~.E AL Lawyer Referral Service of Berks County 544 Court Street Reading, Pa. I9b01 12.15) 375-4591 La~r~yer Refers! Service of Berks County 544 Court Streit R:' ;ding, P~ . 19601 - (~15) 375-4591 • • IN Tti CGUn~i Oi= COi~~~P.i01`.1 PLEAS OF GERI<S CCUNTY, PCP~f~.iSYLVA"~iA N1R. KEf~1~~Jt T H F. i-iOFFfv1ASTER and fvi2S. AfJASTASiA }-IOFFi~1AST ER, husban:~ ar~d G~li`e, Plair~tiffs v.J, BERI:S COUi~iT~r C~iILD;:EN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court S~reets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant Gnd JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c/o Berks County Children's Services 12th Flaor Berks County Courthouse . 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant RULE TO SHOW CADS E DECE~JIBER TERf~~, 7.9 71 1 N0, lI2 I.D. N0. 11916 AfJD NOW, this day of 1975, a Rule to S}~o~v ' i Cause is hereby entered on Berl<s County Children's Services and John L. SiambaragF 1 Defendants in the above-captioned matter, to Show Cause, why the above-caption~c{ matter should not remain active. I Rule returnab}e the day of 1975 at A.M. in Courtroom i Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Reading, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT: • !-v THE COURT OF CO~~I!N10N PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PEFd~!SYLVA.iJ1A fu1R. KENNETH F. HOFFF~~ASTER and MRS. ARIASTASIA HOFFMAS T EP,, Husband ar,d b^life, Plaintiffs DECEl~r~BER TERI~~~, 1971 VS. BERi~S COUN T Y CHlLDREiJ'S SE.R 12th Floor Becks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant and ~~ ~~ ~~ N0. 112 JOHN L. STAMQAUGH c/o Becks County Children's Services 12th Floor Becks County Cou•rthause 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant 1. D. N0. 11916 OBJECTIONS TO TERM{NATION TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT: The Petition of Kenneth Hoff master and Anastasia Hoffmaster, Husband and 1Nife, by their Attorney, N9alcolm V'J. Berkowitz, J.D., respectfully represents as follows: 1. On the 7th clay of August, 1975, the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Becks County, Reading, Pennsylvania, forr,varded notice to the Plaintiff's in the above-captioned matter indicating that there has been no activity reflected upon the Docket of the above-captioned rnatter within the t4vo years prior to the effective date of said notice. 2. By said notice, the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Becks County notified the PlaintifFs to the above-captioned action that if no appropriate legal action is taken or no avritten objections determination filed, the . +. ~ • 3. An Amended Cotrolaint in Tresaass vas filed on bvhalA of t}~e Plaintiffs, Kenneth Hoffmaster ar;d Anastasia Hoffmas`.er; Husband and 1~^Jife, by their Attorney, ;1.lalcolm VV. Berkowitz, J.D., ~~Jith tS~e Protho~iotary of tf~e Court of Common Pleas of Berl<s County, Pennsylvania on the 10th day of September, 1974,.. r ~ a c!e~! )laint is ~ttach~ci ~~~rer ~: ~ ~ ' cf. r~ l,U;)Jj Gf ~ui'~ ~1ifl n COii~j _0 c nd I~;i%lu~ ~'~ { tl'_~'~ 4. The filing of said amended Complaint ~rvith the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks. County, Pennsylvania clearly shows that there has been activity in the above-captioned case within the ttivo years prior to August 7, `. i 1975 the effective date of the said notice. i WHEREFORE, Petitioners object to Termination of the said action and pray that said action remain active upon the dockets of the office of the Prothonotary] i of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania. I ~_ NET . HOFFM ~ R ,... , ~ i ~ ~ . ...~~~-~ .~! ~z~ ? A ASTASIA HOFF A~~i€R ! BERT<OVVlTZ and GUTI<iN Attorneys for Plaintiffs i 1 i n BY: , MALCOLM W. BERKOWITZ,.J!D. { CO+;,%i0till'E;=;LTH Gt= P;/i'J+~S'~(LVri`i1,~: SS: C~~U~!TY' GF Pi-i11_AUi=.t_°1-11A: KENNETH HOFFMASTER bein~~ ci!i1y s~:~~,~~~an accordi:~~ to Ia~;>> ~; ~3 deposes and says tha` he is o~;e of thti a`.aove na;ned ~; ;~ ~; Plaintiffs duly aiw`h~~rized to take this Affidavit for 1 ~, himself- a,d t~,at the facts set forth in the foreyciny OBJECTION TO TERMINATION i ~~ a;e t;c~e and correct to to the best of his 1;no:^~;1ed~e, information ~{ 1' 3+ and bet ief . .; ., S~~~orn to and S!.~ascribecl: J ~ ~ f;efore me this ~~-~- Day: f :, - 0/~ye~- f A . D . , 19 7~ ' ~ ~ ;AARY at,ICF FRANKLIN f ~ ph;ladziphia, thihdelphia C~. i~ot~ry PuLl:c. ~ ~ ~ 191x3, ~,y Commission Expires Oct=4~r 24. i` KENNETH HOFFMA • !N TI;E COURT OF COMI~'10N PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. l~:ENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and DECEMBER TER~Jl, 1971 MRS. AP~ASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and W ife, . Plaintiffs VS. . BEP,KS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse N0. 112 6th and Court Streets ~~ Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c/o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant I.D. NO. I1916 RULE AND NOW, to wit, this ~-~3 day of ~ ~= ~-- , 1976, a Rule to Show Cause. is hereby entered on Berks County Children's Services and John L. Stambaugh, Defendants in the above-captioned matter to Show Cause, why the Order of the Court of December 26, 1975 Dismissing the above-captioned action under Local Rule 650 should not be vacated. Rule returnable the ~3 day of S,~ ~ 197~at Q 3G~ A .M , in Courtroom ,Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Reading, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT: . • . `. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and DECEMBER TERM, 19Z]i MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs VS. k BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES _ 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse `~ 6th and Court'Streets Reading, Pa. Defendant ,i and N0. 112 ~ 1 JOHN L. STAMBAUGH I 5 c/o Berks County Courthouse _ 'bth and Court Streets 12th Roor Berks County Courthouse '' Reading, Pa., Defendant ~a 9 ORDER dj ~ AND NOW, to wit, this ~`~rd day of ~~.:..~}~" , 197, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that Petitioner's Motion fora Protective Order is hereby granted and any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff, Kenneth Hoffmaster, Anastasia Hoffmaster and any other persons which may be relevant to the above captioned case k should not destroyed and such records shall be preserved until the termination of the. above instant case notwithstanding ~ 15 of Senate Bill No. 25 `. Childs Protective Service Billy ~ f,~~;~k-t ,~~~ f!} ~~ t;~G`f/G-i1 i~ ~Cfl 1.~' /v~~f./4.~7Gi'~`~r`~ ~/.j/~ :- i ~-, t£C~f~`C>/J Lt X r__ ,, -. -., ..~- BY THE CD~J'R T : _ ~/ i _1 I i w i • . IN THE COURT OFCOMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs VS. . BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pa. Defendant and . JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c,fo Berks County Courthouse 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Street Reading , Pa . ,Defendant DECEMBER TERM,1971 N0.112 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT: The Petition of Kenneth Hoffmaster, by his attorneys, Berkowitz and Gutkin, Esquires, respectfully represents the following: 1 . Kenneth Hoffmaster is Plaintiff herein. 2. That Plaintiff presently has litigation pending before this Honorable Court against the above named Defendants arising out of an allegation that Plaintiff has abused his children. 3. That Plaintiff filed suit requesting the information concerning such allec and sued for damages arising out of not complancewith his request and the unlawful withholding of information by the Defendants herein. 4. That Plaintiff's action is dependent upon testimony involving the rPCOrds of the Defendants herein and such records are material and essential to the tic - '' ~ + ~ t litigation of the instant case. 5. That Senate Bill Number 25, Children's Protective Service Bill which was passed on November 27, 1975 has § 15 contained within it and said section orders the destruction of all existing children's services reports within six months from the date of the passage. 6. That the destruction of these records within six months from the date of November 27, 1975 would effectively prohibit the litigation of this case for either Plaintiff or Defenda~ is in that essential records and evidence necessary for the litigation of this case would no longer exist by virtue of the aforementioned section of Senate Bill Number 25. 7. That Plaintiff requests a Protective Order from the Court ordering the Berks County Children's Services~to maintain said records until termination of the litigation so that essential records which are necessary to the IitiQation would not be destroyed under Senate Bill Number 25. 8. That such Protective Order is necessary since - :through an 'act of law, essential information would not be able to be delivered into the Courts hands during the course of litigation and cause a void in the evidence which would be detrimental to all parties involved. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court grant the aforementioned Protective Order as prayed for. BERKOI~JITZ and GUTKIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs By: ARTHUR L. GUTKIN,,1 D. ~~ ~`•~ t'~~: ,.~.~. ~. 0 4 ~ ~v ~ ~ ~~ ~p - " y \~ . \`~a. `pq~ i ~~ np`~ T~ \ - .4 ` J y_ ~... ~ ~., f`, • iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Kenneth F. Hoffmaster and December Term, 1971 Mrs. Anastasia Hoffmaster, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs V` S . . BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Court House 6th s Court Streets . Reading, Pa., Defendant and No. ll2 John L. Stambaugh c/o Berks County Children's Services: 12th Floor Berks County Court House 6th ~ Court Streets . Reading, Pa., Defendant ANSWER TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. It is expressly denied that any litigation is pending before this Honorable Court in that said litigation was dismissed on 12.26.75 by order of court pursuant to Local Rule 650. 3. Expressly denied that the Defendant has alleged that the Plaintiff abused his children. The only contact of the Defendant with the Plaintiff was a request to attend an interview pursuant to a complaint received. 4. It: is denied that there is any action currently pending for the reasons set forth above, that being that the litigation has been dismissed. 5. It: is denied that Senate Bill 25, Children's Protective Service Bill, which was passed on 11.27.75, Section 15 requires that any e~;fisting children's services reports within 6 months of the passage of the act be destroyed. On the contrary, only unfounded reports must be destroyed. 6. It: is denied that destruction of these records would prohibit the litigation of the case in that the case can no longer be litigated in that it has been dismissed. 7. It: requires no answer in that is is in the form of a request rather than an assertion of fact. $. It is denied that a Protective Order is necessary in that the ', Plaintiff's Complaint has been dismissed. • STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF BERKS SS: C~ Mary Y. Springer, Executive Director, Berks County Children's Services, being duly sworn according to law says that she is the Defendant above named and that the facts set forth in the fore- going petiticn are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. ,_,~: /_, ;' ~' ~' , _ ` Mari Y Sprin~er, EM~c.Uir. B~erks~~~o. Children's Ser. ~. Sworn to and subscribed before me this- ,a %~ ~` d a y o f , ~ ~'~~,~..c~-r~--~'" 1976 ,,,.= ' N1ADO~YN ~. ~. ~ , k~,iv+. ~;, ..., _ _ f~ i V a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and DECEMBER TER+1A,1971 MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wite, Plaintiffs . VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 1?th Floor Beaks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pa: ,Defendant . ~, and N0. 11 ?_ JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c/o BArks County Children's Services . 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pa. Defendant RULE AND NOW, to wit, this ~ day of .~~,g~.-~ , 197,x, it is hereby Ordered that the Defendants,6erks County Children's Services and John L. Stambaugh, Show Cause why, if any, they may have, why Petitioner's Motion for a Protective Order should not be granted. ~°,~~~ ~,~.~~~,~ ~,~, `~~,~ ~°~~ ~y~~ it,ti. A hearing to be held on the l~v''~day of ~ ~~ c~; ~ , 1975 in Courtroom ~~ ,Courthouse, Reading,Berks County, Pennsylvania. Written notice is to be g iven to the Defendants, `perks County Ch i Idren's Services and John L. Stambaugh . BY THE COURT: • IN THE COURT OF COMN10N PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and . MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs . VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES . 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court'Streets Reading, Pa. Defendant _ and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c/o Berks County Courthouse 'bth and Court Streets 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse Reading, Pa., Defendant . DECEMBER TERM, 197 N0. 112 ORDER AND NOW, to wit, this day of , 1975, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that Petitioner's Motion fora Protective Order is hereby granted and any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff, Kenneth Hoffmaster, Anastasia Hoffmaster and any other Qersons which may be relevant to the above captioned case i should not destroyed and such records shall be prQserved until the termination of the above instant case notwithstanding ~ 15 of Senate Bill No. 25 r Childs Protective Service Bill. BY THE COURT: • • IN THE COURT OFCOM,VION PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and DECEMBER TERM,1971 MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading , Pa . Defendant and N0.112 JOHN L. STAMBAUGH . c,lo Berks County Courthouse 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Street Reading, Pa. ,Defendant MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT: The Petition of Kenneth Hoffmaster, by his attorneys, Berkowitz and Gutkin, Esquires, respectfully represents the following: 1 . Kenneth Hoffmaster is Plaintiff herein. 2. That Plaintiff presently has litigation pending before this Honorable Court against the above named Defendants arising out of an allegation that Plaintiff has abused his children. 3. That Plaintiff filed suit requesting the information concerning such allegetic and sued for damages arising out of not complancewith his request and the unlawful withholding of information by the Defendants herein. 4. That Plaintiff's action is dependent upon testimony involving the records of the Defendants herein and such records are material and essential to the • litigation of the instant case. u 5. That Senate Bill Number 25, Children's Protective Service Bill which was passed on November 27, 1975 has § 15 contained within it and said section orders the destruction of all existing children's services reports within six months from the date of the passage. 6. That the destruction of these records within six months from the date of November 27, 1975 would effectively prohibit the litigation of this case for either Plaintiff or Defenda~ is in that essential records and evidence necessary for the litigation of this case would no longer exist by virtue of the aforementioned section of Senate Biil Number 25. 7. That Plaintiff requests a Protective Order from the Court ordering the Berks County Children's Services~to maintain said records until termination of the litigation so that essential records which are necessary to the litigation would not be destroyed under Senate BiII Number 25. 8. That such Protective Order is necessary since through an' act of law, essential information would not be able to be delivered into the Courts hands during the course of litigation and cause a void in the evidence which would be detrimental to all parties involved. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court grant the aforementioned Protective Order as prayed for. BERKOWITZ and GUTKIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs • By: ARTHUR L. GUT ,,f . CO1/IMOiVWEALTii OF PENIISYLVANIA: SS: COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA: KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that he is the above named Plaintiff and that the facts set. forth in the foregoing MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER are true and correct to the best of f~ s knowledge, information and belief. ENNETH F. HO`t`'FMAST, Sworn to and Subscribed: Before me this ~~ 4~Day: of _ <.y;-, , 1976. ,; ~,~-- SHARON (., STEt Notary Public, Phil NGAkJ ~yCo ssio adelphia, Philadelphia Co. mmi n F,xpires November ~~, 1979 • ..u?. ?, 197 OFFICE OF PROT'.IO30T1aRY COURT OF COi~i-IO? PIEAS OF BF;RK5 COUTv"TY READI'tIG, PEI~I~;SYLZIAPdIA II.IACTIVE CA5ES 1951 to 1973 I;1CLi~NE To: KennQth '_~. ioffrraster ~ :~nastasia ~ioffraa,st~r i .0. Sox 1~, i~ono~~acy station ~7avid ''^:o2loff, sq. V. perks County Childress ,.erv9..ce ,_ John ~. ,tambaugh, agent l~io.112 'sec • Term 19 71 AD ~~ '~be Prothonotary of Berks County ras examined the above captioned case 1 and the Docket reveals that an action has not been reducted to award, verdict, `f satisfaction termination and/or judgment, or final decree in equity and that there ~" has been no activity reflected upon the docket within the two (2) years prior to the effective date of this rule, the Prothonotary is notifying in writing counsel of record and unrepresented parties, at his, her or its last knot~n address by regular mail, that if no appropriate legal action is taken or no written objections to termination setting forth the reasons therefore are filed prior thereto, the action will be automatically terminated sixty (60) days after the mailing of usch notice as of course and without further notice, and that thereafter no proceeding may be had on such matters except by order of the court upon property cause shown. Said written objections to termination filed under this rule shall be served by the objecting party or parties upon all parties to tl-~ action in the same manner as pleadings are served under Pa. R.C.P. 1027, and shall be considered as being in the nature of a rule issued as of course against all opposing parties to show cause why the action should not remain active. Sixty (60) days after the filing of said written objections the Prothonotary shall place all such matters on t:-:3 next civil argme=nt list as of course and give notice thereof to counsel of record and unrepresented parties. JOHT1 R. ARiIDT, PRO~7i0T;OT.'~RY By: Deputy Prothonotary ~~ AuTC: ai 9/25/74 • ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFNTASTER DECEMBER TERM, 1971 and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDRENS SERVICES : 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, No. 112 Defendant and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c/o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant I. D. NO. 11916 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF JOHN L. STAMBAUGH TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh, by and through his solicitor, ALFRED W. CRUMP, JR. , ESQUIRE, files these Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the nature of which is as follows: DEMURRER 1. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a cause of a~~ion in trespass which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover against the Defendant.: 2. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover p„n;+;t,o ,a.,,..,..._.._ r. i ~ i 3. The Plaintiff did not receive permission of Court to file an Amended Complaint. 4. An Amended Complaint was not filed in a timely manner. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of the Defendant. MOTION TO STRIKE OFF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 5. The Plaintiffs' Complaint contains scurrilous, impertinent and unnecessary allegations of fact which are unbecoming to the dignity of the Court. 6. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in that the alleged compensatory damages are not itemized. 7. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is in violation of the Pennsylania Rules of Civil Procedure in that it demands damages in the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250, 000. 00), this being an unnecessary, improper and inflammatory demand for judgment, which is offensive to the letter and spirit of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. The Plaintiff did not receive permission of Court to file an Amended Complaint. 9. An Amended Complaint was not filed in a timely manner. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiff's Complaint be stricken off. ., ~. in particularity and it fails to set forth how the Plaintiffs were subject to great mental pain and anguish, public ridicule and humiliation and how their good name was injuriously affected as set forth in Paragraph 11. 11. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity in that it fails to set forth what was published and circulated in the community in Paragraph 25. 12. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity in that it fails to attach a copy of the letter referred to in Paragraph 25 (a). This being a letter upon which a portion of Plaintiffs' Complaint is apparently based. 13. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity in that the items of compensatory damages are not enumerated specifically. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays your Honorable Court to direct the Plaintiffs to file a more specific complaint. ~~~ ~~~ ,; ~ ~ ~ lfred W. Crump, Jr. , Esqu' Atto ney for John L. Stambaugh, Defendant A~WC: ai 9/25/74 r • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, ~ DECEMBER TERM, 1971 Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, No. 112 Defendant and JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c /o Berks County Children's Services 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant I, D. NO. 11916 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, the Defendant, Berks County Children's Services, by and through its solicitor, ALFRED W. GRUMP, JR. , ESQUIRE, files these Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the nature of which` is as follows. DEMURRER 1. The plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action in trespass which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover against the Defendant. `a. The Plaintiffs' Comnla; n+ fa it a +„ ~~~ r_ __. , • • 3. The Plaintiff did not receive permission of Court to file an Amended Complaint. 4. An amended Complaint was not filed in a timely manner. WHEft EFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of the Defendant. MOTION TO STRIKE OFF PLAINTFFS' COMPLAINT 5. The Plaintiffs' Complaint contains scurrilous, impertinent and unnecessary allegations of fact which are unbecoming to the dignity of the Court. 6. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in that the alleged compensatory damages are not itemized. 7. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in that it demands damages in the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250, 000. 00), this being an unnecessary, impx•oper and inflammatory demand for judgment, which is offensive to the letter and spirit of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. The Plaintiff did not receive permission of Court to file an Amended Complaint. 9. An Amended Complaint was not filed in a timely manner. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs' Complaint '_ be stricken off. i • ~ - . in particularity and it fails to set forth how the Plaintiffs were subject to great mental pain and anguish, public ridicule and humiliation and how their good name was injuriously affected as set forth in Paragraph 11. 11. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity in that it fails to set f~trth what was published and circulated in the community in Paragraph 2 5. 12. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity in that it fails to attach a copy of the letter referred to in Paragraph 25 (a). This being a letter upon which a portion of Plaintiffs' Complaint is apparently based. 13. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacing in particularity in that the items of compensatory damages are not enumerated p specifically. WHEREFORE , the Defendant prays your Honorable Court to direct the Plaintiffs to file a more specific complaint. A~.f~ ed"W. Crump, Jr., ~3'squi~ S icitor for Berks Cou{ity ildren's Services, Defendant f! • • iN THE COURT OF COMMON Pl__EAS OF BERT<S COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MR. KEN~~JET}~ F. HOFFMASTER and fJIRS. ANASTA5iA HOFFMASTER, Husband and 1A~ife, Plaintiffs VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Reading, Pennsylvania, DECE PJiBER TEP,i1;9, 1971 N0. 112 and` JOHN L. STAMBAUGH c/o Berks County Children's Services . 12th Floor Berks County Courthouse 6th and Court Streets Readinc!; P°;~:aS~%ivania, Defendant I . D . N0. 11916 AMENDED COMPLAINT IN TRESPASS AND NOW, Plaintiffs, Mr, I<enneth HoFfmaster and Mrs. Anastasia Hoffmaster, husband and wife, briny this Amended Complaint in Trespass on a cause of action whereof the following is a statement: 1. Plaintiffs are husband and wife presently residing at 3131 North i 8th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; hereinafter Plaintiffs tivill be called >-ioffmastier. 2. Defendant, Berks County Children's Services is anon-profit corporation ~vith its prinripa) office located in the Berks Ca~rnty Courthor.sse, 6th and F Court Streets, Reading, Pennsylvania. • • FIRSTCOUNT MR.i<ENNETH F. HOFFMASTERand MRS.ANASTA5IA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES and JOHN L. STAMBF UGH, Defendants 4. On or about October 26, 1971 a letter was sent to Plaintiffs ~; herein by John L. Stambaugh, Defendant, then and there acting as Agent, Servant ~~ ~! ' and/or Employee of De€e~ant, Berks County Children's Services hereinafter referred too °~ as Children's Services, acting within the scope of such employment and/or service or agency informing °laintiffs that Defendant Children's Services had been informed that conditions within their home were affecting the welfare of their children and srrggestingj that the said agency would be able to provide them with service. 5. Subsequently, Plaintiffs were informed by Defendant, John L. Stambaugh, hereinafter referred to as Stambaugh, that he had received information ~I from an undisclosed source that Plaintiffs were having problems with their children '1 in their home and that he wanted to come to their home to discuss these problems with Plaintiffs. When Plaintiffs refused his offer, Stambaugh informed them that the problems involved were serious, criminal and chargeable, but refused to tell `? Plaintiffs what the charges were or who was making them. Defendant Stambaugh also informed Plaintiffs that if they didn't meet with him, Defendant Children's Services,_ - would take them to Court. 6. Plaintiffs repeatedly informed Defendant, Children's Services, and its Agent, Defendant, Stambaugh, that there was no problem in their home, that there a ~' was no reason for any meeting between them and Defendant, Stambaugh, nor did Defendant, Stambaugh or Defendant, Children's Services have any reason to call f • • Plaintiffs in reference thereto; nevertheless, said Agent, Servant or Employee, Defendant, Stambaugh, acting on behalf of Defendant, C{~ildren's Services, informecl Plaintiffs unless they met with him, Defendant, Children's Services would bring them into Court to face charges which were serious, criminal and chargeable and by such actions as stated hereinabove, Defendants have thereby maliciously and unlawfully violated Plaintiffs' rights of privacy and continue so to do. ~. As a result of said invasion of Plaintiffs' rights of privacy, Plaintiffs have been constrained in their conduct toward their children and have also been constrained in their conduct toward their neighbors since they were unable to determine who among their neighbors had made the Complaint against them at the time. 8. At no time prior to Plaintiffs' bringing legal action, did either Defendant, Stambaugh or Defendant, Children's Services provide Plaintiffs with any information concerning the nature of the charges against them, who their accusers: were, or advise them that they would be given a hearing on said charges wherein they could confront their accusers and have an opportunity to present a defense to the charges. 9. Nor did Defendant, Stambaugh, or Defendant, Children's Services, make any investigation to determine the validity of the charges against Plaintiffs, or the background of their accusers in relationship to prior dealings with the Plaintiffs. 10. Plaintiffs aver that investigation would have revealed a prior background of dispute between the accusers and the Plaintiffs and that the action of Complaint against the Plaintiffs involved a malicious intent on the part of neighbors; rn Fiiamiliaha 7nrJ h-,~..-,,.,. ~?.._ ni_•_~ •rr • • 11. As a direct result of this conduct on the part of both Defendants, Plaintiffs were caused great mental pain and anguish, they were exposed to public ridicule and humiliation, and their good name was ir~juriorrsly affected. 17_. As a direct result of this exposure to public ridicule and humiliation, directly caused by the Defendants' said acts, Plaintiffs have been rendered ill and unable to work because of extreme nervor.rsness and severe headaches. Since the time of the Complaint they've been physically and emotionally unable to perform their work and carry on their usr.ral occupation and duties. 13. As a direct result of such conduct on Defendants' part, including exposure to public humiliation and ridicule, and having their name placed on a list of parents who were listed as child abusers, both Plaintiffs have been rendered ill, and have been unable to perform their usual duties and occupation. 14. Tyre failure of either Defendant, Stambaugh or Defendant, Children's Services to conduct any investigation of the charges against Plaintiffs , before filing the Complaint against them and listing them as possible child abusers, the refusal of said Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with a statement of the nature of the charges without intervention by the Court, and the failure of Defendants to offer Plaintiffs a public hearing wherein they could face their accusers and cross-examine them, have damaged them greatly in their private life, and have invaded their privacy. 15. As a proximate result of the charges brough against Plaintiffs, coupled with their listing as possible child abusers by Defendant, Children's Services and the accusations brought by Defendant, Stambaugh on behalf of Defendant, Children's Services against Plaintiffs, acting within the actual scope and course of ~ ~ SECOND COUNT MR.'<ENNETH F. HOFFMASTERand'MRS.ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, Husband and Wife, VS. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SE°VICES ANDJOI-INL. STAMBAUgH 16. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contai f in Paragraph 1 through 15 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth a~. ength . 17. The Defendant, Children's Services, through its authorized Agent, Defendant, John L. Stambaugh, acting with the authority of and at the express direction and request of the said Defendant, Children's Services, did on or about October 26, 1971 implicitly charge Plaintiffs with some form of child abuse, and verbally informed Plaintiffs that the charges against them ~^rere serious, criminal and chargeable. 18. Plaintiffs responded to this accusation by demanding to knotiv what the charges v~rere against them, vvho their accusers were, the nature of the charges and as to whether they were civil or criminal actions, and demanded a hearing in connection therewith. 19. Subsequent to this statement by Plaintiffs, Defendants Urithdrew ~!! i ~~ 20. Plaintiffs aver that they were not responsible for any action involving child abuse, and as a result of said charges their reputation and character were greatly damaged in their Community. 21. Plaintiffs aver that said charges were made at the instar.~c o`r parties unknown to Plaintiffs, and that the Defendants, Defendant, Stambaugh and Defendant, Children's Services, their Agents, Servants and/or Employees, used said process improperly, maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, and in a manner and for a purpose in which it was not intended. 22. Plaintiffs aver that they have been put to great expense and hardship in connection with their removal from the Community in which they were residing, ail as a result of the unjust charges brought by said Defendants against them; and that they have beencausedgreat humiliation, pain and suffering incident to said charges; Plaintiffs further aver that their reputation and good character have been damaged by reason thereof, and that they have suffered great persona( hardship and financial damage by reason of their removal from the Community in which they were residing, caused by the said charges. 23. Plaintiffs aver that by reason of the willful and malicious acts of '` the Defendants as aforementioned, they, the Plaintiffs, are entitled to punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, both of which they hereby claim of the Defendants. _~HiRD COUNT MR.KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER~andMRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMA TER, Husband and Wife, VS. BERKS COUNTY CHI':_tJREN'S SERVICES and P~r'R. JOHN i_. ST~,MBAUGI-i, DEFENDANTS i _~ i 25. Defendants, well knowing the facts set forth in the above- stated Paragraphs, with willful and malicious intent to injure Plaintiffs and bring them into public scandal and disgrace, did on October 26, 1971, and on dates subsequent thereto, falsely, wickedly ar-td maliciously compose, and publish and cause to become composed, published and circ!rlated in the community the following false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libels , of and concerning Plaintiffs. a) In a letter dated October 26, 1971, Defendants published and circt.rlated a statement concerning certain conditions within Plaintiffs home that might b~ affecting the welfare of their children, which contained among other things the following false, malicious and deFamatory statements: "Berks County Children's Services has been informed of certain conditions within yor.rr home that may be affecting the welfare of your children. Yor.r may contact me at 3?5-121, extension 311, so that ~,ve may set r.rp a convenient appointment to discuss this matter. It is possible that, if a problem exists, this Agency may be able to provide you with an appropriate service. "Berks County Children's Services is deeply concerned with the welfare or children and wants to be of assistance if help is needed. 1 hope that you will contact me as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, John L. Stambaugh, Intake Caseworker. " b) These statements were meant to convey to Plaintiffs and to other members of the community that Plaintiffs vvere responsible for conditions within their home that were adversely effecting the welfare of their children and i i, correct, which allegations were false and malicious. 26. By reason of the aforesaid actions of the Defendants, Stambaugh and Children's Services, Plaintiffs have been and are greatly injured in their good name, credit aiid reputation and have been brought into public scandal, and disgrace r and have been and are greatly injured in their credit and reputation as parents and members of the community, all of which has been to their great financial damagQ and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim damages from Defendant , Stambaugh , "; i and Defendant Children's Services, on each account, individually and severally, compensatory damages in the amount of $75,000.00, and punitive damages in the ' amount of $250,000.00. BERKOWITZ and GUTKlN Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: • COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: SS: COUNTY OF FHILADELPH!A: ;{ 3 '` KENNETH HOFFMASTER being duly sa^rorn according to taw f deposes and says that he is ore of the above named Plaintiff duly authorized to take this Affidavit for and that the facts set forth in the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT IN TRESPASS are true and correct to to the best of his and belief. Sworn to and Subscribed: Before me this ~ ~ Day: Of -~~~ ~~ nr.~~~Z-A. D. , 1974. Notary Public. Phladelphia. Philadelphia ~,a. My Commission Expires Nu~dst 2, 1977 knotivledge, information %KENN H H FFMAB ER ;~ ' ~ • t MR, KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w, Plaintiffs vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES and MR. JOHN L. STAMBAUGH, Agent, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW No. 112 December Term, 1971 Trespass-Invasion of Privacy- : Negligence PROOF OF MAILING COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: ss. COUNTY OF BERK5 . SUSAN MACE, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that she mailed a true and correct copy of the Preliminary Objections of John L. Stambaugh to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the above captioned matter by certified mail, return receipt requested to Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth F. Hoffmaster at P.O. Box 15, Monocacy Station, Pennsylvania 19542 on Friday, August 11, 1972 at 5:00 P.M. in the United States mail box located at Sixth and Walnut Streets in the City of Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. c.~.,.~ /72.~.c.~...- Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~(~"~` day of August, 1972. Notary Public My Commission Expires: J~ ~'~~'~~ $1.00 SEMO~R: k afrt t+~ ht/rw ia~rtruti~t ~ ~t6cr sidr -• --...• .......•...,. ~re.nrwe~ ~w~rnreTCn Rv ebtrr_uFn RI nCKfSI RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30c4 (plus postage) !-SENT TO _ ~ POSTMARK L~ MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w, Plaintiffs vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES and MR. JOHN L. STAMBAUGH, Agent, Defendants • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW No. 112 December Term, 1971 Trespass-Invasion of Privacy- : Negligence PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF JOHN L. STAMBAUGH TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINfi AND NOW COMES the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh, by and through his attorney, David M. Kozloff, Esquire, and files these Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, the nature of which is as follows: Tl'F`MTT1?l?F!A 1. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action in Trespass for invasion of privacy against the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh. 2. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action in trespass for negligence against the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh. 3. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to set forth any cause of action in trespass which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover against the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh prays your Honorable Court to enter an Order dismissing the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and to enter a Judgment in favor of the said Defendant and against the Plaintiffs. MOTION TO STRIKE OFF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT 4. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is in blatant violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1044 (b) in that i • of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00). 4. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in that it adds a party Defendant, namely Mr. John L. Stambaugh, without the Plaintiffs first having secured leave of Court to add a party or agreement of counsel to do so. 5. Paragraph 7 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint contains irresponsible and scurrilous material. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh prays your Honorable Court to enter an Order striking off the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and entering judgment in favor of the said Defendant and against the Plaintiffs. MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC COMPLAINT 6. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity in that if fails to set forth sufficient facts to support the allegation that the Plaintiffs' privacy was invaded by the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh. 7. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is vague, indefi- nite, and lacking in particularity in that it fails to specifically allege the facts upon which the Plaintiffs claim there was negli- Bence on the part of the Defendant, John L, Stambaugh. 8. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is vague, indefi- nite and lacking in particularity in that it fails to set forth sufficient facts to justify the award of compensatory damages. 9. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity in that it fails to set forth sufficient facts which would allow the award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, John L. Stambaugh prays your Honorable Court to enter an Order directing the pia;n~;ff~ ~~ ~;,~ ~ ~ a more specific Complaint. Attorney augh 5 M_1-71 ~ • '------_ MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and ~ri t~P ~t~urt t1f ~~~~~~ IpM,S .MRS... A„NASTASIA _,HOFFMAS.TER, hew •~ V~ Plaintiffs ,af ~erh~ C~nunt ~, ~rnna~luuniu .................................................................... vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVIC S No.,....... ax~d..l`'ZR. _JO.HN_ L.. STAMBAUGH., . _ _ TrespassDInvas~ionTof~Privacy-Negli ence Defendants g TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Enter. ~' yy ...........-ems....Appearance .............................. , for ............................................. ....._...._ MR......JOHN...L.......S.TAMBAUGH... ...... ............................................. ........................................................... ....... efendant.....__, ~ox~lai~.~ , in above case and.....,,,,_., designate No....5.1,9,.. Walnut,•. Street sa..t •~•••~•••••~~~~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~~ •~ - ~~~~~~ ~ • ~• ................., Reading, Pa., as the lace within the County of Berks, where Nemo of Bulldiaq p papers, process and notices may be served. __ ... ...................................... ....... .............................. . ........ David M. Kozloff E~~ ated....Aug.us.t.../SQ ............. 19 72 ~ quire Attorney for...,MY...,.....~oh•n L... S.tamlaaugh , Defendant ............................................................. ............................................... ................... ~~d~ N•~', ~ ~ ~ N ~ ` ~ n ~ "'"S ~ H m Fd ~ x ~ .+, j `,~ O O ~ [11 N d r M I ~ ~ H ' ' ~ ~ ~ :. ~ ~ i _ b~ t t ~n_ ~, o N ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~. ~ ; \ M ~' I-i \' p •• : O : (D ~ O + ~yy ~. m ~ R~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' y ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 'fJ 'Zi ~N ~ y ~ x ~~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ a `~' f H ~ p p n ~ ~ ~ a ro~~ ~ ~ w ~ z (D C [n c't' F 3 H ~ ~ N ' h '."d `.~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H \ ~ ~ r~ rn • MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER a.nd MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w Plaintiffs vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES and MR. JOHN L. STAMBAUGH, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW No. 112 December Term, 1971 A.D. Trespass-Invasion of Privacy- : Negligence PROOF OF MAILING COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF BERKS ss. SUSAN MACE, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that she mailed a true and correct copy of the Preliminary Objections of Berks County Children's Services, Defendant, to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the above captioned matter by certified mail, return receipt requested to Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth F. Hoffmaster at their address, P.O. Box #15, Monocacy Station, Pennsylvania 19542 on Friday, August 4, 1972 at 5:00 P.M. in the United States mail box located at Sixth and Walnut Streets in the City of Reading, Berks County, Pennsyrlvania. Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~/day l of ~G~A ~~~ , 1972. r i. Nc~tar•~ Public nIy Commission Expires : ~' fiI.00 • '~ 3~M~#Ri ~~!r fe fetfew /asfroc}lens en'ef~ier side ... rwnr ~r.w....... ...-... n..r .... ....~.~.-~.~ ___ -_.-___-_ ._- - - RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30c4 (plus postage) SENT TO I+' , POSTMARK OR DATE }~„r arLd Mrs KPnn _th/Hoffmast r STREET AND N0. ,: ~~'Y ~~~~~~ ~ ~ MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION-LAW vs. No. 112 December Term, 1971 A.D. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES AND MR. JOHN L. STAMBAUGH, Agent Trespass-Invasion of Privacy- Defendants Negligence PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES, DEFENDANT, TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Defendant, Berks County Children`s Services, by and through its Solicitor, David M. Kozloff, Esquire, and files these preliminary objections to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, the nature of which is as follows: n~tvrrrn~~~ 1. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action in Trespass for invasion of privacy against the Defendant, Berks County Children's Services. 2. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action in trespass for negligence against the Defendant, Berks County Children's Services. 3. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to set forth any cause of action in trespass which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover against the Defendant, Berks County Children's Services. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Berks County Children's Services prays your Honorable Court to enter an Order dismissing the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and to enter an judgment in favor of the said Defendant and against the Plaintiffs. MOTION TO STRIKE OFF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT 4. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is in blatant violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Ci a ~ -~ WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Berks County Children's Services prays your Honorable Court to enter an Order directing the Plaintiffs to file a more specific Complaint. i 4 ~ ~ .f David M. Kozloff~, Esquire~~ Solicitor for Berks County Children's Services, Defendant .. ~ _ia\Q.,~ w°} .a./d ~ ~/ V • •• D~."'_~~' a ~ll~t~Rt l~'~2 ~~~ ~ ~.......,,....... A •''~• - F.P. I~ Tom. K~nn~th F. Haffl*~.strr, did on this d~t~ ~m9 ~.t th.~ tir^~ ahcnm, de~l3v~r ~:~tc thy: office: cf, Pfi^. David pr. Ka~zldff, ~s~~., located at ~` 519 .~~alnut ~tr~et ?-fir a R~~cijnry, PT,., an~~ into the hanc?s mf one ~''ns.:, /' ~?+~`ag• L- f ~ / ~ ,£"~" i a ~, ~` c `ate ,.:...r.....t~ ._ .. c,=h.r~ w~.11. ~ec~pt the withi~^ ~~TF~"*~:~D CC~h1t'LA?N?'' and ba rc~spc~nsibl~s far ~-.h~ r~~l3v:~r~T cif s~.me to one ATr. Dc.vi~3 r~. r:a~loff ~.~a., attcjrnc~y for B~rk~ C©untp Chtl;~rPn'~ "`fgxvic~~. a~ssss.~ .~yy ~!. A{\Y Q. .r. Yy ~~rl:.ln ~ypy {;omr, ~s;~ra L-;s ir~3 fg.4e rte r 9.7, 1~7~ r~BAF~ifd}:y'n fat>f%5 CLUttiSla.~"d!a ?"~' • nn~s t o a s tc r ~ f j' !ti -~'I,G d • `.. R . KENNETH F . HC~'FMA,~'TER and Rc. ANA5TAS7A H~fA~TL h/w PLAL~ITIi'F ~~' vs BERKS CO[TNTY CHILDRENrS SERVICES a A?ONPRC&'IT ORGANTLATIt~i, and MR. JOHN L. STAI~A.UGH, AGENT DEFENDANTS •• IN THE DO6RT ~ COA'~iON PLEl~~ ~' B!~ S CQ?NTY, CG'"~1t~tONGPEALTH QF PENNSYLVANIA. DECEMBER TEFL[ ~ 112 197- A}D. s • TREsPA.SS' -INVASION CF' PRIVACY - t NEGLIGENCE AM.ENI7ED COMp'LAiNT The Plaintiff's Mr. Kenneth F. Hofflna.ster and ?!frs. ,~,nastasia Heff~naster, while residing in Menocacy Sta,tien~ Amity Township, Barks Ceunty~ and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grid did en3ey their. privacy e.nd were fps ~'rena all attachment, to any agencies that would invade said freedom, for any yeasens and did enjoy their respectability and g®~ names did en the 27th day mf October 1971 recsive fry the Defendants office..• Barks County Children~s cervices, a nonprofit organization, whose efficos are located in the Berke Ce-unty Court H®use, en the 12th F7.oor, bth and I~ Court Streets, in the City of Roading~ Co~omaealth of Pennsylvania, a letter 'I (;ice plaintiffs exhibit " A " ~ 1/ The lottar stated that informati®n was received by them of such eenditiens ®xisting in the home that wars of sane substance t® the Plaintiff's Children and their welfare. 2/ The letter requosted the Plaintiffs to contact thsm (the Defends ' office ) for canvsrsatien en the matter 3/ The letter was sent with knowledge ®f the Defendant+s office that at a later date this inf®rmatien roeeivsd would then be sint en to another office and the Plaintiff ~ s nameG would bo placed on a list of etJGPECTED CHILD i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. l ~` 5/ The_Defindant's Berk G®unty Children's ~erviees, are an entity and must stand responsible for it's actions should they be contrary to the " Rules and Regulations of Agencies in General". 6/ The Defendant's, Berks-County Children's Cervices, did in fact and in all ways vial-ate rules prr~mulgated by, Federal Rules of Agencies in General, which are rules set dawn as a guide line for all agencies, regardless as to their level. 7/ The Defendant's, Berks County Children's Services, did net give the Plaintiff's a full disclosure of the charges se an adequate defens® could hays been given at the requested hearing. 8/ The Defendant's, Berks County Children's Cervices, are also responsible for the aetiens of their agents while said agent is in their behalf 9/ The acti®ns of the agency as shown in the letter of November 9th 1971, and as shown ac (Plaintiff's exhibit "C") printed, spews that there is still an intent, and could and would rogult in the Plaintiff's los4 of "PARENT RIGHTS ". 10/ Ldith such actions pending and because mf the stated NEGLIGENCE en the PART CF THE DEE'ENDANT'G, the Plaintif~''s have sufflered great mental $nd physical stress. 11/ Said actions, as stated and, have taken place could and would bo irreversible, and such actions as has been done are new irreparable upon the Plaintiff'm and their children» 12/ The Defendant's, Berks County Children's Cervices, did not held an investigation on said cesnplaint against the Plaintiff's ner~did they meet with the Plaintiff's, Near eeme t® the hatne of the Plaintiff's to investigate said cemglaint, that had been declared to the Plaintiff's as CERIOJS, CR~INAL and CHARGABLE, or to ascertain the validity oaf the complaint. i~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ARA.SSMENT and too, that said complaint was DEROGATORY, and was MALICIOUSZY placed for VINDICTIVE rea@ens, and that PERJ[?RY and CRIMINAL INTENT was p~..rt and parcel of the a®mplaint filed and he did scespt same. 2/ Mr. John L. Gtambaugh did with knowledge that the action that he was i involved in would and could cause the Plaintiff ~s, LC1~8' ~' P;ARF.NTAL RIGHTr. 3/ Mr. John L. Stambaugh did refuse t® divulge the extant of the eharge~ placed against the Plaintiffts. 4/ Mr. John L. S"Pambaugh did only state the charges wars ~'RICi1S, CRIMINAL, and CFARGABLL', and refused ax~y other information on the charges. ~ 5/ Mr. John L. Stambaugh did refuse the Plaintiffs the right to a hearing becaus® ®f such lmowledge that the charges wars false., 6/ Mr. John L. Stambaugh did refuse all such as stated within tha abws complaint in a phone cemrersation to him frcnn the Plaintiff's on the. ?7th day of ~ctebor 1971*, and in a letter dated Navember 8th {exhibit " B") 7/ ~„ J®hn L. Stambaugh was accused of accepting a br~.be from the person er parsons who did with his help Pilo said ca~nplaint with him while he was in the p®sition ®f, INTAKE CAS'E'WORKER, for the Barks 6munty Children's Services. 8/ Ths accusation was made by a person who knew the Defendant , by name and had a, pars®nal contact with him and was aware of all court actions up t® th+~ 14th day of February 1972. _ 9/ Through the NEGLIGENCE, and INVA,SICiV ~' PRIVACa'~, by the Defendants Barks County Children~s Services, and Air. Jmhn L. Stambaugh, they did place one of the Plaintiffs in JEOPARDY because of his health, Nr. Kenneth F. Heffmastsr, whm suffers frcxn Bronchial Asthma, and Pulmonary Ehiphysema, the mental and physical stress placed upon him emuld very well cause his demise. ZO/ The above complaint is based upon the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Prae•durs, Rule # 1041.1, page 393 A) "... Trespass is the proper remed~r to recover dama~eG iniury to the parson ar property of the plaintiff. due to the nersliwnrw e.t` +t,. .a. fl.,,a.,,~~. ~L_ __ _„ _ i° . .. ~ ~ - ~• 1 11/ Through slzch actions both by the., Barks Cmunt;5r Children~s Service and, Tex, John L. Stambaugh their agents the Plaintiffs a are new placed on a list aan®ng these typos of persons who would NEGLECT and ABUS'F their children and this nena places th® Plaintiff's in the category of their names being plr~cesd ®n a bad credit list. '' ANTS NQ~F tra Plaintiffs seek damages both PITNITIVE and. CC"~~'NSATORY in the amounts listed below. D A I'd ~. G E S S 0?? G H T PUNITPTE DAMAGED 25.U00.00~_ CCR?PrPJS RTORY DA~TAGE,S 275.000.00 TOTAL DATA,AGES SOUGHT ~ 300.000.00 THEPFFORE, the Plaintiffrs n~ra ask the Hemorablas Court to uphold the within c~Rlaint and suit, and said complaint and suit be placed before a Jury for such amounts as w®uld caenponsate the Plaintiff's f®r the damages that have boon inflicted up®n them by the Defendants in the am®unts asked. YOU ARE ~Rr~BY N OT 1F IED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCL QSED A'~1ENDED CCMPLA INT ~IITHIlV (20) twent~r Says FRO"? THE SERVICE '.?'HBREG~', OR A nE~'ATJLT JUDGEMENT WILL Bu ENTEF,ED AGAINST YOiT. PLAINT IE:E~~' ~; ,~ ~~ ~~~L? ( T'~r. onneth F . Ho star PLAINTIFF ~/~'L:~- ~~~r~.,~,-~~E~ . .~nastasia Hofft*~C~ter 3131 3~, gth Stree t i~. COMMCiV~~LTH CF PENI~YLVANIg . ss COUNTY CF BERKS = Mr. Kenneth F. Heff4~aaster and Mrs. Anastasia Hefflmaster, being dul sworn according to law dsp~es and says that they are the PL~INTIFFrg~ in the enclosed J~I~NDED COMPLAINT, and, that the said facts set forth in the f®reg®ing AMENDED C02~~ are true and c®z-t-ect t® the best ®f their knowledge, information and belief. / ~/ .~.,~.~' PLC INT IFF ~ ~ ~ ~,"~3F -._...d r'`"f' rte, Krniieth ~`; Fi~ffl in their own behalf M'rs. Jknastasia He sty 3131 N. 8th Street Philadelphia Pa., (19133) S'6dORN to and Subscribed befars me this ~` day r cf ~~~ ~ :~~'` , 1972 ~~ . r~ cenmiissien expires a ~, r .. ~x .~,~r r~~~y AGr is~~ <NCJN ;~ SNAFFEil ~~ ~ r tvser~ '~ `~ t 1 ~ ,~~l -tom !DIRECTOR DAVID M. KO'LLOFF. ESq. SOLICITOR TELEPHONE 375-6121 BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES COURTHOUSE READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19601 Octo}~c~r ~'i 1'+71 ~ 9 Mr. and sirs. Kenneth lioi'fmaster L'ionGCaCy St~i `L1i~i1 Pennsylvania I?ear Mr, and ~Irs. liv~frrlaster.: / I;eila County Chil~r.r~n's Servicl~~s has ix~c~n :ini'o1'mF~°d of certain ti w'r~ n'i; RE ~ _ ,;z corciitions within your llome that rn~+~r i~c.~ ~~i~iecti_n~ the ~~~eliare rOR ~ of your children. You may contact me at 375-6121, Extension II~~Niir r~~7TuV `><~ -~.~1, so that sae r,~y set up a convenient Appointment to discuss ~ LI115 llidLlei.`, 1L 1S pU~~lUll' th~lt, 1~ u tJliblelll eX1StS, ~1L:S ~ agency play be able to provide you with an appropriate service, J I3C'ri~~i l.Cl!tilt.`yr ~,h )_1dYei~~.~ ~CrV1CP_S 1S dcep7_y C017CernLll ~V~tll b the caelt'are vi children and ;ants to be o:E assistance if help ~ is needed, 1, hope th~lt yotl ~:~i11 contact e as soon as possible, I~ ~, >c l~ ~~ ~y ~ 'T~ ~ .. Z ~:. JLS : r~~~ S ircerc ly yours , John L, Star,.ba u ;h Intake Casei;.=orker •• , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~,. ~w~l t -_ yam, `y'#. ~. ~ 1 _ ~ ~: ~~~ GF~'/IC7 t.t. i' ...., _ TELEPiiv~E ::+7~ ., 3ERKS COUf~ITY CHILDRE(~I'S SERVICES COURTF-iOUSE READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19601 November 9, l)il i~ir, and i~1rs. Kennet;i t. Iioffmaster i'. C. 8ux .~5 Monocacy Station, Penna, 19542 jji_'a~C' ~',i.'. iil•.~,`tiJ. iiL~li'mc-Z`i.~.O.r~ '' - ~~ ~ Eerks Comity Chil~lx~en's Serv ices has dec i~~2d ~o take no '~,'~~>1~-/~f~D ~~,~ ~ further action on your case at this time. This agency is eeply concerned with the welfare of children and ~~ ~ ;T;;~l;j~r)Cr7r~tn% stands ready to offer its services to you, Please feel ~~ ~ ;~ free to contact us at any time, c: 'the agency follows a policy of confidentiality, so it / ' l'. :-'iii.}, 'l':S' pOSS ible t{J d1SCl05e the 1421t1ty Of t~le yI complaina:nts. Pe assured that you are also protected by ~~-this same policy, ~~ k ~yl .,^, ~~. ;\ \v r ,~, JLS:rw Sincerely you.'^s , ~~ John L. Sta;nbau~ll Intake Caseworker n U MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h~w PLAINT IFF tS vs. HHRKS COUNTY CHILDR~TtS SERVICES DEPENDANT"S IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF s COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 112 DECEMBER TERM, 1871 A.D. s s s s s TRESPASS .ARGUMENT TO UPHOLD REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND NOW, comes the PLAIN'PIFFtS, Mr. Kenneth F. Hoffmaster and l[rs. Anastasia Hoffmaster his wife, in their own behalf, with argument to suppo~ their REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY filed on the 15th. day of May, 1972, for the follow: reasons, and as per the ORDER issued on the 22nd. day of May, 1972 and returnab7 on or by the 5th day of June, 1972, by 9s30 A.M. . 1~ The material inquired into by the REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY filec by the Plaintiffts in the form of (2~ two written interrogatories which ~~~,~l,~t£ ~ of (15~ questions in ones and (17~ seveenteen questions in the other, are so issued and constructed as under. the Pennsylvania Rules Of Civil Prcedure 4001.73 and ~ 4001.74, C 2~ The material sought or rather the information sought is not found to be of a confidential nature in either the P.R.C.P. or under the U.S.Cod 3A Under the P.R.C.P. ~ 4005, the inquiry may cover matter not (privileged i[hich is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending actin 4~ This is to say that the Defendant*s have stated that they met with. the Plaintiffts and discussed the case with them, and as the Defendantts state that such an action took place then they should be able to give this in- ~ formation to the Plaintiffts as to ( date, place, time,who met with theme what was discussed what statements were made, or how was it made, what was said to show the Plaintiffts to be innocent of the charges, who conducted the investigat 5~ The Defendantts stated that a letter was sent to the Plaintif that is not within the records and should be so entered in order to dispute the Plaintiffts argument, the letter was to state that( the case has been closed, that there was no basis for involvment,~ the Plaintiffts now ask only the in- formation as to ( who sent the letter, on what date, can such a letter be produc if so produce it, if not, why not.) 6~ The positions of the decision makers within the agency are not stated as confidential in a.qy of the Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the U.S. Code, 'Therefoae it has been shown that the Plaintiffts have not acted in bad faith by asking such questions as listed in their interrogatorie to the ~ Defendantts unless the Defendantts can not prodace such information and that the have lied in all of theib answers to the Plaintiffts and to the Court. RECAP WHEREAS, the Flaintiffts ask only questions that are in direct relation with actions between the Defendantts and the Plaintiffts, and it is got of a confidential nature, is not sought in bad faith by ar~p RULE, CODE, or tEGULATION within any kind of LAWS. on, ss 1~ ~, • I; INTERROGATORIE # 2 1~ The information sought within the second interrogatorie deals only with such information that can not be classified confidential since it is stated under P.R.C.P. ~ 4011.17, '}..~T~ is authority that the fact that there has been prior discovery by either the same or a different method of discovery or inspection does not necessarily determine that the discovery there of ter sought is sought in bad faith..." and to again, the Plaintiffts are entitled to the information sought under such discovery because of the fact that the Defendantts were not going to let the fact of the second complaint,(or what wool i.n their records be the ORIGINAL complaint ~ be known to the Plaintiffts or to the Court. 2~ The information sought ixi the second interrogatorie are rela and relevant to the fact that the inital complaint was kept secret, both from the Plaintiffts and the Court and was let known only after the prior discovery and did with that if new discovery should come aboat the Defendantts would try ~to claim that the new discovery was brought or sought in bad faith. 3~ The Defendantts state that the Plaintiffts have reason to know or do know the answers to the questions or to some of the questions or to all of the questions, this is supposition on the part of the Defendantts and as so, they can not have any way of knowing what the Plaintiffts are in possession of ixt the way of information, this is why discovery is part of the Judicial System, and if the answers that the Plaintiffts are in possession asad that the Defendantts refer to, then this would mean that the Defendantts DO NOT HAVE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE OF ANy g~ AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF t5, AND THEY NEVER MET WITH THE PLAINT7FFt5, AND THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS A FALSE COMPLAINT, AND THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED AS SO STATED BY THE PLAINTIFFtS, AND THAT THERE WAS DIRTY WORK BEING DONE IN THE DEFIIVDANTtS OFFICE AGAINST TAE PLAINTIFFtS, AND THAT T WAS ONE OF TAE PERSONS WITHIN THE DEFEAiDANTtS OFFICE HELPING THE UNKNOWN PERSON TO CARRY OUT THE ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFtS. 4~ The Defendantts by wad of such refusal to divulge the sought ~~ after information have proven only one fact and that is, that they have somethi to hide or to cover up some sort of illegal act, such as unethical conduct, an or conspiracy and can not produce the sought after information. 5~ The Plaintiffts and the Court do know of the complaint filed on or about the 26th of October 1971, and in the briefs filed prior to the argument of May 1st 1972, there appears the words COMPLAINT only (3~ three time in reference to the Plaintiffts and the word REPORT only (1~ o.ne time in ref ere cE to the Plaintiffts and these words are used in the singular form, and there is no reference to more then one complaint at a,qy time, 6~ With all as is shown within the Plaintiffts argument at this time, Discovery should be allowed under the circumstances now more then ever because of the new evidence from the prior discovery and to so as the complaint and suit will be able to pass the NON-SUIT STAGES. 2~ ~ ~ TH~ORE, the Defendantts Objections filed on the 22nd. day of May, 1972, themselves are so filed in bad faith, and they are in violation of the LT.S.Code because the Plaintiffts need not show just cause to obtain such i.nfoxmation sought, but the Defendantls are trying to violate the Plai.ntiffts Constitutional Rights to information concerning themselves. IN AS MUCH, as the Defendantts did in the same respect disregar~ h the same Rules laid down by the Honorable Court as found in RzTLE # 89 of the Court of COmmon Pleas of Berks County "...In every brief of argument in ° which there is a discussion con- ; cerning interrogatories, objections '9 thereto or answers thereto, the brief shall set forth specifically each of said interrogatories, the objections thereto or the answers thereto immediately following each other..." the Plaintiffts now ask that the Objections to the Interrogatories bgge , and the same be dismissed, and the Defendantts did in the same way disregard S # 4004.20 paragraph # 2 of the P.R.C.P. "... The objections should be addressed to each question individually and state the basis for the objection. ~VHEREA,S, the PlaintiffRS now ask the Honorable Court to ISSUE ac ORDER that the Defendantts answer the interrogatories of (15) fifteen questions in one and (17) seventeen questions in the other respectively, by the Defendant so a proper pleading may be prepared not on supposition but on facts. .AND T0, if snch REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY is DENIID by the Honorably Court, said Denial will be APPF~ALi~ to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court witk~in (10) ten days from the date of snch DENIAL to the Plai.ntiffts. Mr. Kenneth F. Hoffter) 3131 N. 8th., Street Philadelphia Fa., 19133 (In their own behalf) • MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w Plaintiffs vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW No. 112 December Term, 1971 Trespass OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES UNDER PENNSYLVANIA R.C.P. NO. 4005 (b) AND NOW comes the Defendant, Berks County Children's Services by and through its Solicitor, David M. Kozloff, Esquire, and objects to the requests for discovery, in the nature of written interrogatories, served upon the said Defendant on May 15, 1972 by the Plaintiffs for the following reasons: 1. The material inquired into in the requests for dis- covery filed by the Plaintiffs, said requests being in the form of written interrogatories, consists of information in the possession of the Defendant which is confidential in nature and which was the subject of proceedings before your Honorable Court on the Petition of the Plaintiffs to inspect the records of the Defendant, said matter being brought before your Honorable Court for argument on May 1, 1972 whereupon the Petition for discovery was dismissed upon the condition that the Defendant's counsel would read to the Plaintiffs the Complaints received by the Defendant relating to the Plaintiffs. 2. The discovery is sought in bad faith because counsel for the Defendant has already advised the Plaintiffs of the nature of the Complaint against them in accordance with the instructions of your Honorable Court. 3. The discovery is sought in bad faith because the Plaintiffs either know or have reason to know the answers to some or all of the written interrogatories addressed to the Defendant. 4. The Discovery is sought in bad faith because the Plaintiffs know or have reason to know that the Defendant has taken no action against the Plaintiffs after receiving the initial complaints since it was determined that the complaints did not provide a basis for such action. 5. The discovery is sought in bad faith because the interrogatories addressed to the contents of the Defendant's Brief of Argument relate to matters outside the record and not to the pleadings in this case. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays your Honorable Court enter a protective order directing that none of the written inter- rogatories comprising two sets of interrogatories of fifteen questions and seventeen questions respectively, be answered by the. Defendant. RHODA, STOUDT & BRADLEY Attorneys for Defen -2- . • MR. KENNETH HOFFMASTER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION-LAW vs. No. 112 December Term, 1971 BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Defendant Trespass R U L E AND NOW, TO WIT, a Rule is hereby entered upon Kenneth F. Hoffmaster and Anastasia Hoffmaster, Plaintiffs, to show cause why a Protective Order should not be entered as prayed for in the attached Motion. Rule retornable ,/ C.-..-~.~__ , ~ 1972 at 9:30 A.M. (E.D.T.) . ~'' BY THE COURT: J. • Monday May 15th 1972 I, Mr. Kenneth F. Hoffmaster did on this date deliver into the office of one Mr. David M. Kozloff Esq., located at 519 Walnut Street, Reading Pennsylvania two copies of "REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY ", the one copy was under the P.R.C.P. Statute # 4001.73, "PLEADING ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF "(AND> "STATUTE # 4001. 74, ED`CLUSIVE POSSESSION OF KNOWLEDGE BY ADVERSE PARTY." The second copy was under P.R.C.P. Statute # 4001.74 EXCLiJSIVE EOSSESSION OF KNOWLEDGE BY ADVERSE PARTY ", ~: , . The above stated copies were delivered to one C ~ =~ f; ~- ~~' -~'~~'`"-~-~~~"~ and into the hands of said person who will as the agent for Mr. David M. Kozloff Esq., accept same and will be responsable far delivery of said copies to Mr. David 11i. Kozloff Esq., attorney for the Berks County Children's 5er~rices. ~.. ,. i_.~. ;i.r k,L'i ~i 114 ~~~<-~!~ ,- AGENT ~ i_r~t"f~ '~ :~ ~ ~c_t>,. ~,, _ ;' ~ ~ _ f~ ~ ~f; `~ ,_ ,, , - f _ / ~ L _ -,~~ r ~~,~. ~~ ( .Kenneth F. Hof fmaste 3131 N. 8th Street, P~riladelphia Pa., (19133 t J • ~ ~ • 1 t I MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF H6~S MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h~w COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA s PLAINTIFFeS s No. 112 DECEMBER. TERM 1971 ~ ; v ~ BE,RKS COUNTY C HILDREN s S SFItV ICES s DEE'En1DANT s S s TRESPASS gEpj,~'ST FOR DISCOVERY Upon the BRDER of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Reading Pennsylvania, on May 1st 1972, that the Defendantsa would read to the Plaintiffs an alleged complaint that had been filed with them against the Plaintiffss, they did together with one Mr. David M. Kozloff ~sq., attorney for the Defendantss proceed to the Defendantss office on the 12th floor of the Berks County Court Hance and to the office of the Berks County Childrenss Services where there was a statement made by Mr. Kozloff Esq., when he started to read said c®mplaint "... THE FIRST COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED ON JUNE 30th..." The Plaintiffs then asked the Defendantss attorney to so repeat this again, he then repeated "... I SAID THE FIRST COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVID ON JUNE 30 .: th.: And now the Plaintiffs request that such information as was so stated by Mr. Kozloff be released to the Plaintiffs to so help prepare such arguments~~ that will necessary, and to for trial preparation, as Per Andersons PennsylvaniE Rules of Civil Procedure, STATUTE # 4001.74, IICCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF KNOWLIDGE BY ADVERSE PARTY. 1~ On what date was the first oral report or complaint received 2~ On what date was the first written complaint received ? 3~ Who received the oral report ? ~ 1 4~ Who received the written Complaint ? 5~ What were the charges in the oral report ? 6~ What were the charges in the written complaint ? 7~ Was there an investigati®n on the oral report ? 8~ Was there an investigation on the written complaint ? 9~ Who conducted the investigation on the written complaint ? 10~ Did the investigation include talking to the Plaintiffss ? 11~ On what date were such talks held with the Plaintiffs ? 12~ At what time of day were these talks held with the Plaintif 13~ Where did these meetings take place ? 14~ The names of the persons who condacted the investigation ? 15~ What were the findings of the first investigation ? • • ., 16~ Who were the decision makers as to the findings of the first investigation ? i 17~ What positions do these people hold within the agency ? j The above questions and answers are expected to be returned to the ~Plaintiffts within 10 (ten days as per Andersons Penn., Rules Of Civil Proce Aso indicate. ` _' 1i' `' ~-- Mr.K eth Hoffmast in their own behalfr' 3131 N. 8th Street, Philadelphia Pa., (19133 • • • .. MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and M&S. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h~w PLAINTIFFtS v BERKS COUNTY CHILDRENtS SERVICES DEFENDANT t S : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BE~,S COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA N®. 112 DECEMBER TERM, 1971 A.D. s s s :TRESPASS REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY The " REQUES~,T FOR DISCOVERY " enclosed herein is formulated as Per 4 Andersons P.R.C.P. S~~TUTE # 4001.73, " PLEADING ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF' " aad to, STATUTE # 4001.74 " EgCLUSIVE POSSESION OF KNOWLEDGE BY ADVERSE PARTY " The questions enclosed are t® be answered so that a prsper argument may be prepared and to as it will be a substantual aid in determining such information, that is net readily :~w~~; /~ ~,~,~. other then through such procedure as is requested at this time. These questi®ns are asked only to determine a statement issued in the " DEFENDANT t S BRIEF OF ARGUbO~JT IlJ OPPOSITION T O PETITION T 0 OPEN RECORDS " filed by the DEFENDANTt5 and used by them ®n May 1st 1972, In the Court of C®mmon Pleas •f Berks County, Readi.:tg Pa., The statement issued and used was on page # 1, paragraph # 5, or as stated on lines # 12,13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, the statement was "...Thereafter, representatives of Berks County Childrents Services met with the Plaintiffts and determined that there was no basis for involvment by Berks C®unty Childrents Services in the situation and the agency then wrote a letter to the Plaintiffts advising them that the case was being closed with no further action to be taken..." 1~ On what date did the Defendantts meet with the Plaintiffts ? 2~ At what time did such a meeting take place ? 3~ Where did such a meeting take place ? 4~ Who were the representatives that were at this meeting ? 5~ What was discussed at this meeting ? 6~ What was said to derive such a determination by the Defend 7~ Who conducted such an investigation ? 8~ On what date was stated letter sent to the Plaintiffts ? 9~ Who sent stated letter ? 10~ Can stated letter be produced ? li~ Does stated letter specifically state that stated ease was closed? ii 12~ If so, can. you reproduce stated letter with specific state-I ~~s ~~ + + 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . meat made 4 13~ If so, could you enclose such reproduction in your answer 4 14~ If not, why can-t such a letter be produced ? 15~tYhat position do these decision makers hold within the a~enc~ The above questions and their answers are expected to be returned to the Plaintif~ts within 10 (ten days as per An.dersons Penn. Rules Of Civil Procedure si indicate. ,.,. ( Mr. knneth F. Hoffmas~ter) in their own behalf 31311 N. 8th St. Phila., Pa., ( 19133 ` ~ • MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFM;~STER, his wife, PLAINTIFFS vs . BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICE, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW No. 112 December Term, 1971 Trespass PROOF OF MAILING COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF BERKS ss. SUSAN MACE, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that she served a certified copy of Defendant's .rnswer to Petition to Open Records in the above-captioned matter, upon Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth F. Hoffmaster, the Plaintiffs named in the above-captioned matter, by mailing the same by certified mail, return receipt requested, to them at the following address: P.O. Box #15, Monocacy Station, Pennsylvania 19542 on February 24, 1972 at 5:00 P.M. by mailing said certified copy :in the United States M~+il Box located at Fifth and Walnut Streets, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. -. jp ~pp ~ Sworn to and subscribed =y. before me this ""day of ~ ~ ~ ~' tsr '_ „w.:d.= .,~' 1972. ~„ ~r_ f ~rsJl a 5^' .. F --1 ~- .~ ~. :l] ' ~ Public Notary ~"' ~. ~"' ~, --.y rv rn My Commission Expires : ~ ~ ~' ~ ~'rµ' ci _nn,0 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30{• (plus postage) SENT 70 POSTMARK nd Mrs. Kenneth F. Mr. a Hoffm st~1~.DATE ~ _ STREET AND N0. ---__._ -- ------ - 2-24-72 ~ p _ n _ Box x#15 - - - - -------- ~ ~ P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE c3~ 1~iox~cac _-Sta__t_on, Pa_. 19542_ _ __ ~ NAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES __ _ ___ OPT ow o who ira de ed ~ 1. Sh s t m and te liver RETURN 15y RECEIPT Wlth delivery to addressee only ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where deli ........... 65~ vered .. 35¢ ~ SERVICES With delivery to addressee only -- ............ 85~ - DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .-. _. - .... .... _ _ 50e SPECIAL DELIVERY (2 pounds or less) 45¢ j POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) mly lsss NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL C GPO 1969 0-358-312 i • MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER an d MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER, his wife, PLAINTIFFS vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW No. 112 December Term, 1971 Trespass DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PETITION TO OPEN RECORDS 1. The Respondent is advised that no responsive pleading is required to the averments contained in Paragraph 1 inasmuch as the same are conclusions of law. 2. Defendant is advised that no responsive pleading is required to the averments of Paragraph 2 of the Petition because the same are conclusions of law. WHEREFORE, the Respondent, Berks County Children's Services prays that the Rule i sued February 14, 1972 be discharged. ~---~ David M. Kozloff, So 'c' for Berks County Children`s Services, Defendant ~ ~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: ss. COUNTY OF BERKS MARY Y. SPRINGER, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief . ~.~.>. r, Sworn to and subscribed r ~~-''~ f 4 before me this ~~~~ day o f k~ r'f,-r,.~.,, ~., ~, 19 7 2 . Notary p~lic My Commission Expires: f4iiai~(~[_•• ., r+.,+.9ry FubliC $1.~0 a • MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMA5TER and MRS. rsNASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w P.O. BOX #15, MONOCACY STATION, PA. 19542 (Plaintiffs} vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDRENS SERVICE 12th FLOOR, BERKS COUNTY COURT HOUSE, 6th & COURT STREETS, READING, PA - (Defendants) PROOF OF MAILING COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: ss. COUNTY OF BERKS SUSAN MACE, being duly sworn according to law deposes r-~ _9 ...? ~Z/ and says that she served a certified copy of the Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter up~7n Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Hoffmaster, the Plaintiffs, by mailing the same by certified mail, return receipt requested, to them at the following address: Box #k15, Monocacy Station, Pennsylvania, on December 27, 1971 at 5:00 P.M. by mailing said certified copy in the United States Mail Box located at Fifth and Walnut Streets, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTX, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW Trespass-Invasion of Privacy December Term #112 1971 A.D. Sworn to and subscr;a.bed before me this .,;~n',~'~"day o f ~.~~r~ c~ << - _ f ~. ~~ ~e , 19 71. ~~ ~~~ ,~ - - ---" RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30 Notary Public sENr ro ~ Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth F. Hoffm t `~~~ My Commission ~M f Expires : ~ STREET AND N0. CD •O.Box_ 1~._ ___ 1 -__ ~ P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE ~ Monocac Station, Pa. 19542 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1 Shows to whom and date delivered ........ 15¢ RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 65¢ 2. Shows to whom, tlate and where delivered .. 35¢ SERVICES _ _ _With delivery to addressee only ............ 85¢ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY SOd _ -- SPECIAL DELIVERY (2 pounds or less) 45¢ ~ POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (5 ~~lY lsss NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ~ GPO -~ ~~~~~ 8 ~o • ~ 4 i MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w OF BERKS COUNTY,. COMMONWEALTH P.O• BOX #15 MONOCACY STATION OF PENNSYLVANIA PA. 19542 (Plaintiffs . vs. CIVIL ACTION-TRESPASS-INVASION : OF PRIVACX BERKS COUNTY CHILDRENS SERVICE - 12th FLOOR, BERKS COUNTY COURT . HOUSE 6th and COURT STS., READING PA., (Defendants December Term #$112 1971 A.D. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT MOTION TO STRIKE 1. The "Motion to Uphold Plaintiffs Complaint" contained in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Plaintiffs' "Amended Complaint" is a pleading not recognized by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. DEMURRER 2. The Plaintiffs' "Amended Complaint" fails to set forth a cause of action in trespass against the Defendant. ---. David M. Kozloff, s e Solicitor for Ber s County Children's Services t ~^• ,/ if '~ lI r.j r ~ ~vvYL~~f/ '~ '~µ~~LG~~, i/G~ GLiiGliR-I~GGI. .~ ~t/,.t,f.~L. i1~~i.L /S, ~~- -~- ,~ ou.~ y .~~~ i.l ~( /n - 1 i~- 1~.E-/t-1Y~~~`Zt~f2~{ 1. J /'ti'ts //off ~~s~z~-et--tar.- / ~/ ~l I~~ J ~~'Z~~~n ~~~~7cC~ '~ / r. „ . //J//~~)/ C /i ,(/Jyf/ J 1 / I/// .~-- .. U ~`5 .. // ~ , - ~~~ i ~ -_ ~~' n~ i ~ it ` r ,, Y~~c " ~ I,` ' 7 L'G ~~G6~"AFL ~' ~~"//~~ ~ .ham'"~i / L(.-f.L~in."t ~~~ .~~ ~ ~. - ~ T q ~~~~ ~! iG' 6 ~ ~ .i _: _ ~~~,~ ~~z ~,~ ~~ ~~~ f~ i~~ ~ ,- . icy. RACE T FAR GE~~~IFI~r~~ ~` SENT Q .._.._.._..e-.L'~~~ STREE' N0. ~ ~ ~ ~-~ P.O., A AND IIP~ Q /1 - (J /s /V i ~ ~ .r // !~.-30~~ (plus post~lg~) _ _/ _`-~ DP710NAL SERVICES OR ADIIITIONAL FEES _ RETURN t. Shows to h m and date delivered ........... Wit de ver to addressee onl 1 65~ y y ..._.._.. RECEIPT 2. Shows t om, date and where delivered .. 3 SERVICES Wit elivery to addressee only ............ --._ g DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... _... ..... 5 PErIAI_ DELIVERY (extra fee req~i red) ~.~- ........... ._.... PS Form NQ INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED 380 A - .pr.19?1 NOT FpR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acPO: tt rT'..k ~ ,. ~ , , y °}11 7 !, '~ ~ ``~ ~~, yry ,/fa I ~F i J ~f~ ~ t 1 i ~e } !j - --- ~: t. ~ -. '~ ~._ ~~ ,~, l f r i Mlyl~ t.. ~y ~f``f 1~ V • ~ K r,'' T Tu r ,_„ ~ ,~,~ - NOFH ~ n car ,~ ~nl ti. A rTA c•^, ~ "TA t' C-~,- A ~ ,~ ~ -r ~, CC.?'1 ^' ,~, ~, . f _ y/ n ~ r[Y' ~ l.l' 7~ J~7/G .t~-i~;/,:' V` 1~ ~G1vl~l~ti.U1 rr ~T r~. Cfl, ~ ~ 7 .i~.1 ~P".'J_'A1_T!° .~~ T-.f*. ~jCr.1.LSfA 'T I i L ~i I ` V~' (r7a .ti ~.f fa 1 f ~ I 4 ~.,~,K. CG'~~~. VhILJ~ '`.,~,' [` '~t ~t ~ ~li~ x'~CC~~ r ~'~1.1r 7!~ ~~TpT~j,'v VCTr~R, t ~q, t.-. ~ TZ.L AC-'rl;m? ,~. ~. f ,~ ~ }. : AYl!~ C~;F~r.7m t,m ~. ~ ,- P~1'T n (~\~ ., ~. .. ~ i. i~ lii ~: ` • ~ :LAD ~.., ~, T7A i Jtiv1 ~~ ~ ~efC.~~lf~ii. `_I l~~: J ~ ~ ~. .... ~~. Z. 11. ii .L. 9 ~A~•:.f~117.J_'.'~ CQ;_.r.LK liar, ~~ 'ifa~ T~• 11F~~,~::,~~' r• it Ll'1'}fA ~.r'NTi ^~1(; r~~. `~s .i~~dl~~~A.`-`T~i ~"i Vl'S~'~r ~?'I'.i1 P~i ~i 'r./.Zf~ ~~'~za reGi.~c in '~`CB1~~~AC~' "TAiTC?`~, Ar.n-,~.T r„ ,.~.r,-r r s ~_ : ~ c. _:..F, i~LR.F:~` ;`0(`~,Tmv COT.,fT t: ~„ T ¢p pTT,7~~ rrtj( h7r a'YJ l: ~, the Fl,s..,.r_. t.3_f f~ , _,, , a,a _ec , a th ~7 ~r~'~ r~C,rr,,I,s; CC ,,-, T ~ ~ .i + '' ~~ " , ,, a an3 ~C n' ir_ t'~~ ~• .. 1. .~~ ari ~, i'~. ..'. ~ .L <.'tl'T n 1T1G t~-,%'.~J!'[! C~? ~ _ _ , ~__~ C C'~'~.-~, t ~ pars T'iiT m ? ' T ~~ ~, r- F~'~ ~ xLVAi, !A, ~~ereafter k ~ ~ ~ 1 .. _. (; ~,r.~r.?OP ~ A?, ' no~. n a~ thin ~~efe ~ ~. n.iarit.., in th ^~ f;~r .. of r T ,,, :~~1D.~ ~;~, ,_ ~ 3/ ?'~ T~ ~'tr T.n ~:rdersans Fet±r,st-l~r. ~:ta~ ~- ~.~_~~. Fr,TZe~ cf c_avi]. 3~racer?1r~ . ,,_ ,~ ecti.on 20L,..1.1. ~? A / ~t . ~ . 'ra ~ t,a ~s i.~ the r~r~rF-, reme ];. to rec i`or ir; ttry ,r a~*~:r c3.~i~a:e^ J t• t..e °?e-„~c~n or ^ro~~ert~,~ .f t~:e Pi.«it~ti.f'{' ;' ,sue ±~, t~:.e lie ~ -; ' ----_----_-___ .~....=fierce of. the_7ef,~ncia_n~s~ tre ne£•,?.,F-ent hr-°act: of a ?uty ba<-e,~ onw3. co;°,tr~ ~~ ?.~'fin..tiona.?..~.r•F.tac:_IL`',a. ~-at with t?~,e r-1a.i:~ ~fl t~ 1.1. ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ n rF n~ ? nterference w=ith ~"fin,-~.~~ conic ro.ct,~,~~'[i~~il; f~nr~~sT<<rd~ r~ Y: ra~tc3.r „ ~ r... (c.r.-:er7.3 r s-n F' ~ a?.ie;.3 j ..~ ~rll,~T~T~T Tlx~l'.li.jC ,,, .J a~In ^.F?~~ are, S oL1,_•ht onl ~ ~'r're, ;, r~ A; C~nera?. ~arr;3~e~ t<-, tote Fls."'nti~fif~ ,~af~K n~rnr: any rcr~~t.~.~.,an. ' ~' ~,,~ ~hd where ! . .~'-.ice or inte~,t Lo F,~,~,,, ti~~ F'laxr. ~'^,,~ , ,~ ~.,rte,~t tc, rar*~ `aar ip_ th.:. car_,~~ar^atio '.t'~ c ~ '~r T, n try 7 ~~ ~ta^tf,:~~~.:~"1, a"r° hip affic~'? cac~s.city A~ ~- t,'tle i ~- V . Ci: i l ...~ . { . ~ ratL c , tr~ :,p:e; Ca~et~c~t•f.e,,A ..nit i n t'~c k .rre cr ~,,,~itt~ .. ^ati c:rl, :~a.ted i`;o~,~er^b~~r ~, c} t: : 1 ~? ;2 f . . ~ rog t~~e ~ ~._, , bs r .,a ;< .. to :~e ' n n=~"r~.~ ~ , 1 ~t ', ~irenr ~crt~ ~ a 1 ~ , 311~i . ? ~ ,3 . ',a'" ecic i~~cf i~ '- ~ ~r%1G time li ' < . E _,. T ~ . --/ 1~'i.'+~ ~,hal,rc t~"'a"~ FRTt 1nt611t 1 ^ St71 ~ • . nen-f ir,E-R a.,~_L1C tl.e L: ,, ~~ :tiff's prx•a,r that tr.~~ir C ,~ ., ' o ~ "C~'_'e~°nt ate ant~~re~3 zr f _,~,or of t h ~ r; ~~ ' ?hel.c~ an;? : e ? 1_s?r, tiff s ~r • - • •r • , '~rC!`!'IC!TT TC` Z FHOL7 P~iIT~~T?it~~_.,%~ ";•r,A--„'?'_ ', E h ` ~' ~ rre jul>e.r ar. ~ !+/ r.'he P1.<;.? rltiffc Go~?pla' nt ~ho.a'-n,Q ~Aach ,.1)r:y' a: , Go^_. , ~ Cu~'iVe also^ations. ~~ Tt showy tha+, the ~,efenc?,•:.rit~ ~'d .;ct u.~~;r~ ~,ch a Go*n~~l,~.i2:t, h3.t ?~~ ~ ?'~-c.,CC~ W1tY' t}'ign, t'~ " CCT"SOn C)r ~BrzC~2"z~, t~;.t a~ + ~ c .U tYl_,. "~ r ~ t_. ,e ~._ 6 st~.l.. 'un4iriC`4;2'. t0 t4"t° P~.ai1"lti.ff;"• >3 r ; ~~n~' that ^A.eh a Gomnl.aint esa~ so filed grit?;. the ~erendant ~~for iiararr*~!er..t ~rr,o2; tl,~ Plainti.ff'~s. s 5/ The Co^Ir,er^~,' f,,r~y c,ar`,~2- .;s are as= teach, s~ . !s ,.~~,r `i~11E ~?.8.'Lr•+ti~i'fi ?rr 21U1•; ur2;?'t]1..E tC? 4o f07_7.Ola t'"i.8 pr8~il:i^,E' ci F'ea.cE~ of ''ir,; , t?~a.t such a co?:,nl~~,i.nt crwr1 be f~i.l.e~? ttti t~h. the ;1efe~zc;a2~.ts , Bi "'he Plaint,' ^f:^ no~,r are A)r_~::1:~1 ~o ~c foll.c~-r th.e r.,ren-.i~e of j"eec~~ of. ~'~_nri~ that other such co?»?~!.s.i-r~t° w-~~.l nct be filed, ~+.:o caus:: *nore di^tr.: ~s, ~ ~~ `!'i1e Pla,i.nviffs T'~U4F ?.rP. un&;Dle tC `^C1 fC7_lUw thE3 ?~2'E'.II'iL^~% Ui' { ~Feace o' ','~_n,Y' that othar rersons t~,.th ;'alice, ~I.7_will, ;atE9 5.ai1I raot file othe2~ { ~G ~rf: cor.-:rl~~.rt Ldith the T~efen~?ants. ~,.•.. ~,~ Th ~ Pi.<ai nti'',~ were it a ~' c,ter ^ara F7•os~~T•ar'~ '_n Fti~'_edel ~i7 i 1,,, s_;~'f"., a.re nor u~ir:.blvs to foJ_lc,,; alon:~ there 7_irvG '~C<?Ll~e cf Su Ch <_ GO„.~:,7r,°1`;~• ?.nC'~ al.LB~'ati_^':~ ;'.l?CE'^ °v!~.t~?.t2"~ tt'@ ~efe'_`l~'sarltS ~"~~'~~.C~e C)j '',ylv `,iU7.3tiOr1 Uf ~[ACti? ru7_" t':?}'' be Fit.',Ck'_ ^~~'' t7n'.'IeCe~"??'~, -~'""%?"C1;+'sr9 en:?l ~~^fl.a.r.~?~1.torY ~:~a~ar,ri:~, anti ra~r he offer_ri.ve, but, A~ The 7efen~3arctr ?~..r'~ an:3 still r?o ref~_Ar:.° t:o ,aa.v,al~s: the nar.~P -~~E;s of the ~~er^or or r?e r^c,r,s ~;~ho cc fil~;d sLro~ a ca'^L~lairxt ~s~e Pl.a;rtiff~; ~xh~bi. B~ The 7)efenc.±arts ~~id inVB.t~e tY:.e rrr•iva.c;;' of tt-~: Plair:tiff^ , f :a;thou•t fir^t ch:c~._n~ the 'r~.I.'~~ity of the r?Erso.~ ox• perscrs w'c~o so filo:? tYio corr•,,,,1^ ins anc? al' e~rat or.~. C/ `r'he ~efend.a.ntr do r~rot.ec~~ such 2 ~)r^on or ~~rs~ris frarr, 7_e€~ rEiC'.Oli'1"^8 thrClUf?Y" tt?.e f~(?LlI""O ~ 3~C`i..I.n BeE'i ,~s l~?~_t Yi1.~tt ~2-,,U'.€sl~`.".}l ~'` ~, 7_J_r;E3s' U`yI .".T~` Y~ ~~ lhr' ~efErn~.arAt~ '3.0 ti?.E?r~ 2_Cf'• a^ ttlE' a~CIIt~'_OT• t,.ie,'e uti;Cril~U~w~ per ~ ons ~ o^ „er.^ on s '.~ ~ J . • ~' , • E/ The Defendants, dt^ t'lan .stanza respon^abLe for [,n~~ such actzc +~ that TM,ay derive from such a filed co?rplai nt and -n11^ _'ati on.^, bar the ;verso?z or per. ron~~ sti11 unknocax? to the Plaintiffs, because oi' t:.e orotecti on by the ~Jefendants ( ~ ¢ain see exhib_t ~'~ C'r T??~RurOR~, thu Plaintiff's pra'~ that their complaintt ~~~~ unhelci A ~fOR~ ^P:,CIFIC CG?'FLAI?'T 7/ The Defendants rei'i:se to -a:i_~~ul•e the name o~ names of the per=,on or per;~ons who, so fi1e;~ th:: cor~plaint.,anca allegations. A/ And the Plaintiffs can nat undeNstand the r~Anons fcr the ,filing of such a complaint and alle~ati.on^, except, i B/ That such a person or persons did file the said complaint a:1d ~: ,~~a1le~ations, bocause they wer~a actin' a.s an ^.~*ent cr a.7ents far the DefendantG 'a° a saUrce aF' infOrmati aYl, and ara ~?~ ven '~rOteCt2.Cn fram DrO~eCUtiCti, j I 8/ Tn as •~uch as the P1.a.intiff~ do enjoy their ~oai na*~e an`a rernztati n I~the complaint anti allefation~; Ao filed. with the Defendants can and do sho;r (see y~exhibit " A & C " ) f A,/ Thai such a complaint T-Tas filed as states in z~.ragraph ~`" 'j1,2,3 anc? 1~, anca as nuc':~ wa.^ state:? by a telephone conaersation with the office 'of the ~efendant~, with a 2~r. John L. `"tambau?h, only as :r;eria,:s, crimi?ia.I, land chargable B/ And to ,b~ca~-ne of the co:~ple.int and a11e?ati ons that we„e filed, it could only be a^ .^o indicated in the original complaint. 9/closed within the Amended Com?~7.aint now is filed, A/ Defendants left-.r of October 2.~th 171 ( _:~hibit '~ A " ) B/ Plaint; ffc letter of rtiTOt~ember 8th 171 ( Exhibit rr B rr ~ C/ Defendants letter of ~aov~~mber ~;th 197:! ( :xhibit '~ C " le~;~ The Plaintiffs cam~laint states *?la.i??ly an,~u~h t?,at A/ ':With such a complaint a~ wa.s so filed w~.tr~ the Defendants, and if suc^ a ca^~olaint were acted u~~en, as wa,s sho,~?~ 'v7i th the cor.~tacts thus far, B/ Gr. eat h<~rr,: could. have and wauld have befallen the ane Plaintiff, because of hia; health problems. 3/ li r ,,~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ • ,, B/ And the co~?r~laint ^o `_'iled w:i':.hi n thc: ~efend~:nts o_'fice was one of a seri~~ of such eomPlaint~ ::^nd harassments, to no c„.~~.se such distress D/ 'i o }u~otF~ Plaint~_~"fs and their children which wouL? have and could ?lave been irreverGi.ble. 1 TH~T?.~'CR::, the P.laintiff^ no~~ oray t}~a.t yo=zr HOT'C.~.1'L._1 CC~.~,T drill so ~u~~hold the comP.7.aint an~~ si,-?t, and list its heariT~~; before YTour I.CA?Ct'~ABL~ C??:~T ,era ~.F,rc . `F'o the within nam :ca Defendants YCU AR~ $ ,R:~:B~' P'G!"IFI~ `~'0 PLAD TO TH' ~,'~?CLC"ED A~fi~_`~~LD CCU^'PLAI~dT '''ITHI7'? {20} TrJ 'r,"1'Y DAYS I"rt0,,* iHLJATs' (~' ~'RVICE ~~R~CF CR A CEFA?"I,T J??DG ~i `_Si~?T ' 1~Y BE E"'?TER ~ ACAII`5 ^ i' YCLT ( Plaintiffs ,1 J` ~, '~-s. Anastasia Fioi'f ^ter ?gain ?t. "~onocact• `"~ati on Pa. P,O.Box 'lC lQ~.'_~' rworr to anj subscribed: before me this ~% day: °~' f'3;< <.- , X1971 2°~ commies ion exz~ir~.~ ._ ~ /~ `7 ,:~~>, -:~~„ . , -- ,t~ !. / 'r ~ • . ^s. i 'Rr. 'r'ennetr '. _'~ff-naster and 'TrG. Anastasia. Hof:fnact.r~ bein~* .,,11~ gar ~.ccor~~ln~ '~o lsw ;~epo~;es and says that they are the PLAI"?'?'1T'" " , ir_ thu ancloce~a ~ ,A'~~?`T~-') COTPLAIF~?'1, a.nd thlt Fhe said facts ^et fcr~th i.n the fore~o:'_n~* : T~~`T`1J?;D ~~0'~'E'LAIT~?T aye true: anc~i correct to the beat of the~.r knoNrled~e, i.zformstion an~a belief . `' y~' r~~ ~ ~ Ke neth T ?° ~' ~ r zn _h ~ ~ be. , if r.. .of ~~na~ a i p•r•?ov ~',' 15 '~onocacy station Pe.- 195/~2 t'worn to and subs crib -,f~ ,before me this:: ' ~ day S of ~:. , 1971. 91 ~ .. ,, T:~Vj Cp~rn-i ~cl(~i1 eXt~Il'e~: -.. ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~ N ~-, t_ F~ t ... ,_ ..~,,~ h ~;I FtECTUp vL~tvCa-v 't: ~a~i„~ ,=ER ~ ,, .,~- Kt.:•ZL_c>i=F. E5q ~, ~ - '~.CUL3C ITOR f'AUt_ E EcSER 4 I~ -f ~I:_E PHONE: 37:5-612! t CC MM~SSIiJNEfiS > _ ~" ~ A , BERK:: t :AUNTY iL. ~i C:. ~ .... `. :: ~'''~I/It:~:: COi_ j~. H~:)U.iE::. READING. PC. °, .~ S`r' I_\/ N I I'~ 'I'~:~ Ei .- Mr. and Ctrs. I;e ~iieth aofftiGstc~. Clanocacy Static i Pennsylvania Dear CIr, a~~d Clrr~ . lioll~;naster. ' heLks County i;:- ;1c;rf~,1's Sc:rvi: i .,a c~ r ~ i~., , i ' ~ , I~f ~ art=a~n I he ~ ~L'are ti~ hB~R~/} a on,.?it ions wit} '.n your home tl i r ~ ~ m:-r~ ' c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~G~ ~ _ ~ COr L of :)'our c~:-~ i ic;t ~ ~ , Yc >.~ ;~«~}, 'i lE. ~.t ~ rt ~ ,'=~ I ~c~l i nn ~~1_ to discuss 1DrN7/f1CBrvM `f 311, so that ceF rxzy ~~ t up a c ~ ° t, i re~ f ~a ~ ~ ~ _;i~] , t):zis st~ i ~ ~~ this ;~attc~r, 7.I. is pc,ssibl.e ~e r l~l~~ to provir,e ; ma ~ =, ~ ~ ~F , ~ lr ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ . ,3;.,1 ,~ _ , ~; ~ i.,~te e_rwice. . ~, y , y a~.;c~nc 7 13er„5 County C}i i 11~~~ren s Servi~~ ] ' :a~ ~ f ielp ce : i the t:~elfare of I~hildren and t+' rr x. _~ to " s ~ , f , , ~ . ,r ,~n as possible, ;~ ~ i needed. I L:~p~~e that you ~;~~._! t cclntsc i F ~ ~~ ~~ 1 M; k ~l~ V1 ,1 ~~~ ~ .--+ ~~ A -., :i.nc~e e:~ ~ 1.5~ your,., ~ ~ ~z I,f ~~,,_.. !~.. - ~,,.. I ., ,;1+,}gin I_.~ . .`: t aml:a ~_r~h JLS : r~:~ { • . , - .- ~ tk r ~.. ., ~ ~',.sst:.r . r, . .. - ilt~;da ,i rl`rERING E~~~PLOYEE 1 _'~. ,-~~,~ ~~ ~~f~ow address where r .. - ^c" Jeli~'cred / ~ r C ~. oral u~:n ~< r. ,, /~,r these {errrie.r) ~_.~ r .,. ' 1 ~=r~-- •-e~-s+,' it ~ numbered arts.' ce~crihed on other side. r ___. _-- E ~1 - ;~F ADDRESSEE ~~un ~ - - p be Filled in) ,. ti , I _ ; L ~~~~\ .t ~.-~ qtr; :.r. ,?tdr-:~ :,, .. ;:; "~Itn;~.~~ -h ,. ", rt ~ ~ $.i;N ,i FE ~`'~: e') ~ i . •<. iEE'S AGENT, IP A'.~. tiCll ~i~ vefs~.L'R`L1'i1: i.Yl .tlt~ j s . , LATE DELr ~: ,tDDRESS WHERi:~tUs? iED (only if requested in item ;t 1! _'--~~• ~ C55-I6-71649.4' r, p() .. ~ ,= r ,~z; ~ cir~. c ,y a: .r 1~u ! m I' cn ~ ::r .•!i ~ =718 _ty .;i^Q-.-jY T .,~.,_.._ (;:r ~, r i•;.°s. ,r'v~:r~s;!.l .. ..a.'... .~•rj'dfwa,,.,a li:a i.e ~c--:-~w ~otlr' 'i.r.ten:.iens er. ~`..F.+r ~:c; ti t;,r.i~, ye~_;,~ ~,13 ,r G~ t•v !k.t FO I' ~' s 7 s 9 tv 1~ J2 1S Jy /S iC. ~"7 x 1~ `~ ly ~~ r ~la ~~tata~~d ir. ,,r~ Wx.rrear, r :l ~n c~ 1' c ;_7:t-, of Cct4br~r I~71,b~r p},gne, ~:r~ ~~,il.l r,~a~t t..~l`„ ':~~~~~„ ;gar 'r:ol~,i r~~ ;~ cor.vlr~~:~sot:isr ~•rith ,3~i ~~r .~.ny~ne area youa° attics;, a.r,l ;,. ,f" y.~rru se ur~; ~I: to fe:l.lsrf th:rc~urh ~+iti: s.Er~jr le ;al action pro ~u~leull be orrr'y ol};~~.~~~f j:~ ~tllf ~, v;:~..!',~ i t is nta't fir ~~ :r~ '~e rr9~ur I ~xr ir.n~rlc:cr.ee, t .,,t ter ;;r~;A 'to prev• our ui:I. t. !11 se statel i.r~ tine aannr ar3rvors~-tizr: s« again a~'-r_,, that year rrsautr~s bey {a,;sreZ to ~.:s, ~w. r ~ ;flay kae~;r xh.a spur accuses ,atrc, ant the sovclrity of these rrt~aa~,;c~a,K:n L~rl such, if ttay are CIVIL •r CRID".II;AL a. ta.ens, il' ne , r].~c!r.sar :`aol ~ -~r 1~ t~ :,^:c~a i roi t': a.11 Ic„a:1, ac tier. t• tree COUnI'„ that y~u~a sat' rlesiarr ~ nnl t• bring firth •ur acct.trers. Undo:r she lar~r :ill these a ~;t;:Lens are to the psint f`~ inflict beta en ear repu'tatien gar 31~rrm .i::i;.] ~r,.~e.~ t+; t.ht* runt •i rcec•.zrai:r:~ tr~zo nau~es, and }:ne>air.;; ear aceue~~i ~-al h IV ` 0 r / C ~,~ ~9 F S r Ii"t;:' !:' .t,/" A ~S' 'Td ,R'V" w'~ ~ ot/,q 5 6 i li"E/L Sincerely years, .:.;7. c:a/ to fYles __~ i ., r/ ~ ..j~~i1~1- w If~!vr4?emu- '/ t.~ck~,~~'L• :'r. ,:cnneth c'. ::efflaasts'k' i'•'r• 5r:astaaia :-ft~ast+gr x ~_ f'e_i`t2 `is;?PVFAViCK VERNl7N K. :iNAFFI.R PAUL E. REESF_R COMMISSIONERS (~ i BERKS Cou r,,i.... ~ : ~ «r.. l:.'';:;I .iF~'THC;~', READII~ (a, ~:' ~,NNSYL.', I '. I . . .:"IRECTOR . i!I) ~t ~=F ESQ- ':JLICITOR TE,.. E 375-6121 1Rf ,~.~ ~l~ ~:.:;1.. Mr, and Mrs. Kenneth F. I~ca~~! r.a:: ter P. 0. Box 15 Monocacy Station, Penna. , _:~ ~: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hof1'ma;~i;~l_~a~ Berks County Children's tai ~ r' I i ~c ;:~s has ~ I I ~ E: r~lc1 ~' ~'Md~RF_D f0l~ ~ further action on your ca ,~~ i. this ~ I I I'I ~ t~ c~}r J is deeply concerned with "Ll~u ~:~lfare ~ i:L.~ L u lE. ipr~1T/r~GA~rtt-f ;~ stands ready to offer itl,~ s~ c ~~.::ces tcl I ~ : ~ :f'E~e~7... ~r free to contact us at an:}+ t nlfi° „ L. The agency follows a pol i~hy cl:E' conf. ic.'1~ ~ Fill.', I L C. r ~ ~ ~ '" will not be possible to disc ] I:~::,e the I'~; ~ I.I., lu~ ~ complainants. Be assured t ~ t' you al I ~ ~ I ;; .: "C 1.tl;l l,ly ~ this same policy. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~'u?.~,,,.~.~,~1..~~••--~.~.~- ., (a , .,, ., . ~ i ~ .k ~3 II~ ~I;? ~., i:ll !'li e1v l::q'}CE:!!2:` JGS;rw I~~,~~.,"r ,~ s ~, IwsE.~r ~_y~.i~Y i E MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and , MRS. ANASTASIA HOFFMASTER h/w P.O. BOX 15, MONOCACY STATION, PA., 19542, , Plaintiff vs. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN's SERVICES, , 12th FLOOR, BERKS COUNTY COURT HOUSE, 6th and COURT STS., READING, : PA., Defendant , • + ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 112 December Term, 1971, A.D. TRESPASS INVASION OF PRIVACY PROOF OF MAILING COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: ss. COUNTY OF BERKS , Nancy G. Himmelberger, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that she mailed a certified copy of the above Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint at the United States Post Office at Fifth and Washington Streets, r Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania, on November 24, 1971, at `. 3:45 P.M. (E.S.T.) by Certified Mail to the above Plaintiffs at P.O. Box 15, Monocacy Station, Pa., 19542, the return receipt and the mailing receipt No. 866038 being attached hereto and made a part hereof. ` ; • Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26th day of November, 1971. ~- .~- NOTARY PUBLIC (1.00) My comm. exp.:l/7/75 -._ ..~ ,.PLEASE FURNISH SE REQU RED FEE(S) PAID. CHECKED BLOCK(S). Deliver ONLY Show to whom, date and address ~ to addressee I I where delivered RECEIPT Received the numbered article described below. SIGNATllRE OR NAME OF ADDRESSEE (~Jr alwe REGISTERED N0. ~~ ~ ~® a CERTIFIED N0. ~~ $ 6 G O 3 H ATURE OF ADDRESSEE'S 6EN A -NSUREo- N0. 'DATE DELIVERED -SHOW WHERE DELIYERED (only if rcgnt.ctrel) W~~~~ ~ 3 ~i~W-71W i1 ifT•iYY •~• RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-3U~`~ (plus postage) POSTMARK i- OR DATE ~ ~YT TO xPnneth _E . ~~~~ma~fer STREET AND N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE l g 5 4 2 Mon_oc_acy_ 5tation,_pa_ ----- -- _ _. --- O_PTI_ONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES- - ---- - -- RETURN 1 • Shows to whom and date delivered ........ With delivery to addressee only . .. 65¢ RECEIPT ' p, Shows to whom, date and where delivered ~ S5~ SERVICES -With delivery to addressee only •_°"'=50_Q_ ~ DELIVER- TO ADDRESSEE ONLY- _ _- - ___- -__---- ~ SPECIAL DELIVERY (2 pounds or less) .................................. 45Q Zj POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) July 1969 NOT FOR INTERNP~-pNAI MAIL j'GPO 19]00-391-4E9 • • MR. KENNETH F. HOFFMASTER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MRS. ANA5TA5IA HOFFMASTER h/w OF BERKS COUNTY, P.O. BOX 15, MONOCACY STATION, PENNSYLVANIA PA., 19542, Plaintiff No. 112 December Term, 1971 A.D. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES, TRESPASS 12th FLOOR, BERKS COUNTY COURT HOUSE, 6th and COURT STS., READING, INVASION OF PRIVACY PA., - Defendant PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, the Defendant, Berks County Children's Services, by and through its solicitor, DAVID M. KOZLOFF, ESQUIRE, files these Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the nature of which is as follows. DEMURRER 1. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action in trespass which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover against the Defendant. 2. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages from the Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of the Defendant. MOTION TO STRIKE OFF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 3. The Plaintiffs' Complaint contains scurrilous, impertinent and unnecessary allegations of fact which are unbecoming to the dignity of the Court. 4. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in that the alleged compensatory damages are not itemized. 5. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in that it demands damages in the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.0), this being an unnecessary, improper and inflammatory demand for judgment, which is offensive to the letter and spirit of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be stricken off. MOTION FOR A MORE SPECIFIC COMPLAINT 6. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity and it fails to identify the person or persons referred to in Paragraph 1 and whether or not such person or persons were acting for or on behalf of the Defendant. 7. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite and lacking in particularity in that it fails to set forth the allegations referred to in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4. 8. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite, and lacking in particularity in that it fails to attach a copy of the letter referred to in Paragraph 2, this being a letter upon which the Plaintiffs' Complaint is apparently based. 9. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite, and lacking in particularity in that it fails to set forth specifically the kind, nature and character of the complaints referred to in Paragraph 5. 10. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is vague, indefinite, and lacking in particularity in that the items of compensatory -2- • ~ _, damages are not enumerated specifically. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays your Honorable Court to direct the Plaintiffs to file a more specific complaint. David M. Kozloff, u' Solicitor for Be s my Children's Services, Defendant -3- • • • r COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: ss. COUNTY OF BERK5 MARY Y. SPRINGER, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that she is the acting Executive Director of Berks County Childrenb Serviced Defendant, and that as such she is authorized to execute this affidavit on behalf of. the said Berks County Children's Services, and further, that the said facts set forth in the foregoing Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. ;: f ~:~ ~ _ A ~~ ~~ Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~S" day hFa~t-ry R~,7.i.c My commission expires: • Tye. KETuTdE'1H ~. rIOFFIr1AS'I'~~.R and T~-L"tS. ANASTASIA HO~FMASTEA h/x P.C. BOX 15 ~~IJDCACY STA'T'ION PA.., ~ 195+2 ~~ vs. ~~ BF~RX:~ COUTv'TY CrLILDRFNS SERVICE ~ 12 th $,,OOR, BEFL'CS CGUT'I'Y COURT DOUSE ~~ 6th and COURT STS. I3EallING PA:. • s I N TrIE COURT 01~ COMNDN PLF AS, O ~' BERMS s COUNTY, GOM,bDN~EAL2`i 0~ ~NNSYLVAIS[A.. ~ C'l ~~2 ..~~--max.,-~~~- /~~O t CIVIL ACTZOPT " 'I~ESPASS -~ INVASTOIt Or PxzvACY. COR~'LAI P]T' Y~ 'IHE Pi-AINTI.~'S, MR KENNB'L~i F. HO~pMAS'I'Fsa and ~S AIt?ASTASIA KO xhe reffiide Ira D~I~pCACY STATION, AMITY 10"v~N~iIP, B~Rxs COUN`T7, COMI~I`]WEAL'IFI O.~' F~;1~NSYIV~~A, F.Or BOX ~; 15 19542,. being first duly swern, depose and sAr that xe are the PLATA]TIFRS in the above antitled case. That the pEFE1~ANTS knexn as the BERKS COUIvTTY CriILDRENS SERVICE, LOCATE at 6th and Ceazrt Sts., and in the BERICS GOUICTY COUP.T HOUSE, on th® 12th FIAOR, i the Ci t~ of READI1Ix, BERKS COUN`1T, grad in the COP9bI?iti"IV~SAL`IH s:~' P;ENNS~'LVAP]iA, did ~n !~ or about the 26th ®f OCTOBER, 1971 receirre and accept a, 1/ COI~~ZAINT and al®n~, Kith certain ALLEGATIONS from a persmn er Worsen ;~ ,~/ That were DEROGATORY ini nature a~ainat thm PLAwT2TI:'~."'S z' '~ B/ Zhat were MALICIOUSLY Wade and presented in the farm ssf sue ~i CO&~'LAIT~T and ALLEGATIONS. ii #~ C/ VI~:DICTIVE in nature 4 j~ 17/ That wer® wade with CFtIR'~NAL ID:`I~NT i !a t? ~/ Arad with PER,TURY in mind when the COMPLAINT and ALLEGATIONS $~ were filed with the DEb~ET~~DANTS, within the office listed in thi8 COMPLAINT y t 2/ The I7E:~1t7~ATd'I'S did en the 26 th ®f OCTOBER 1971 di ssahar~e a 1 e t to r to iR the PLAINTIT~'FS, at thsir address listed in this COMBi+AINT, ©~ mach a C02SPLATI~T and ALLEGATIONS raithin its FOSSESSIOI~• 3/ Tree I~I~T~IDANTS did state in a gho~te eeraversatien with the PLAINTI that the COMPLAINT and .ALLEGATIONS war® ~,/ SitRIOU 5 in na taare B/ 0 ~' a CRIbiII~TL notate C/ And CrIARGEABLE 4/ Thm PLAII~TI:~S hate :fufferid, ~ARAS~MF:NT,HUMILIATTON~~ EMBARRESSMENT, N~IVTAL STRES, and new,alora~ xith all the above , a STIGMA placed xpen their non ii • r ~ by the person er persons who did. make the COB9PLAT,NT snd t1LLEt1AT20NS, xith soeh ~~ I~1dI.TC$, 3LI--~WILLe ~IAT~, uzd th® D~I~ND~IVTS oft'sr sxeh persons. pr®teetifln f'renc !~ these chs.r~es. ~j t ~~ 5/ 4nd to, the HEALTH Ant ~~ti~LFARE ®f ono Off' THE PLAIPJ'S'I.~FS, Mr Yenneth 1~ ~ offsaster, has been enlan,~er •~t, en sereral +~c.h h.t~RASSM~NT COI~ff' LAINTS, ~ A/ Mr Kenneth F. F3effmiastor has and does swffer free BFiiDI;~,HI~ i ~~ dDT~~ei and PULklONAkY EMFfiYSEh1A, which is tortif,nal ~; ~~ H/ An~i e~orgenc~ trea.taeent hail to be a~einistere~i i C/ Anil te, if s~eh xore net adaini ste rest, i t eewl d ro sr~l t in 1 his DEAD The PLAIhTI1~FS new seek da~a~os fr®st the ~I~NDAATS, in stiaQh asleAnts as listel below '' DAA~i~}~S SOUGH T PtT~s2 TIME DAMAGES I~u EXCESS OF 25,000.00 CONIFEpSA2U,Ry DAMAGES IN EXCESS Ot~ ,~ 25,000.00 INVASION OP Pa2v:~cY ~ 25t~,o0o.00 YOU ARC I~Ek~~SY NO TIrTED I~0 PL~~~D ~ TxE ENCLOSED CONPI-AIP:`T IN TRESPASS ~iND INVASIOTv" OF PRIVACY ~'I'i~IIN 20 (trlent~ days} DAYS ~iOP~i THE SERPICE .?ERSf}F, 0 A D~St~AiJLT JUDC3EMEAT MILL BE ENTERED AG AIP7ST YOU . f - - ~ ~- ~ PL~,INTI;aP$'~~~ `~` ~d ( tr Ken th ..ef~ as .~ ~r (i~ s. Anastasia lieff~raster €~ P.O.BOX , 15 Menecacy Stati n Pa 19542 ~~ ~~ a: ~, r !~ ~'• 7~enneth M r { • hoi'1'~as ter and Airs ~~ ax®rn ace Anastasia i`io~'t~easter •rdi,~ to law de , being d~ely poses a,nd sags that the ~~ that the ~' are the PLAI~y~7~FFS herein, an ~ Pae;ts sot #'orth in the ' ®rs~;oing pleadings are tree ariei csrreet to the ~~ best ®t' their knoxlodge and belief l "f ,{ ~~. Id d? f ;:, Sxorn tel and Subseribed _ F ~!~ Bef ore ne this rS r ~a~ s Gi' /t, ~ r t m h t;, A.D. 2971 s d ~ ~~L~L `+:.1 ij 8irdsC~rU. kicr?<s C<;t.~t,Y, r'a. €i ~~ u'nrtt~t~it4sir,r; Fx~zsrex ~~,z+,, ?p 297 PL AI PSTI I~'PS / ~~ r~<: z ~ ~, qtrs. Anastasia u' ,~=~_ ~:~" P.O.Box e:~ 'ter a~ 15 Aienocae~r Statimn s 19;11+2