Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-0062F?/_t DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LYNN MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN, AND NINA VITIZEI a/k/a NINA HELLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL NO. Q$- (Da1 Civil Te?-M PRAECIPE FOR A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Writ of Summons in the captioned matter directed against the above-named Defendants. R ?pecmtfu'?W- lly submitted, 164 m. 4z J0 #n M. Kerr, Esquire A orney I.D.#26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 170SS (717) 766-4008 Dated: January 4, 2008 C' C=zo C7 L E? L? 000 rE I V J Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS Court of Common Pleas DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LYNN MULLINS, his wife Plaintiff Vs. No 08-62 in Civil Action-Law COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN, and NINA VITIZEI a/k/a NINA HELLER Defendant To COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN, and NINA VITIZEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, You are hereby notified that DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LYNN MULLINS, the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default jud?ment may betered against you. (SEAL) Cos R. Lo , othor Lary Date 1/04/08 By Deputy Attorney: John M. Kerr, Esquire Name: Address: Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: 717-766-4008 Supreme Court ID No. 26414 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-00062 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MULLINS DAVID SCOTT ET AL VS COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES STEPHEN BENDER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES the DEFENDANT , at 1515:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of January , 2008 at 49 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to KATIE IRWIN, CASE MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 9.60 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 00 , , 4611bF 9, v 37. 60 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of So Answers: ,c-- ,, ? R. Thomas Kline 01/30/2008 JOHN KERR By. day Deputy Sheriff A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-00062 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MULLINS DAVID SCOTT ET AL VS COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES STEPHEN BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon JONES MARTHA L the DEFENDANT at 1515:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of January 2008 at 49 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to KATIE IRWIN, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 r 16.00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 01/30/2008 JOHN KERR By: day Deputy Sheriff of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-00062 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MULLINS DAVID SCOTT ET AL VS COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES STEPHEN BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon CHICK ERIN R J the DEFENDANT , at 1515:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of January , 2008 at 49 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to KATIE IRWIN, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 6.00 00 .00 .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 01/30/2008 JOHN KERR Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of By: -7? day Deputy Sheriff A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY ,. CASE NO: 2008-00062 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MULLINS DAVID SCOTT ET AL VS COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LANCASTER serve the within WRIT OF STTMMONS County, Pennsylvania, to On January 30th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LANCASTER Sheriff's Costs: So answers • Docketing 6.00 - " Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Dep Lancaster Co 70.56 Sheriff of Cumberland County Postage 1.50 9 7. 0 6 V a/o x/07„ 00/00/0000 JOHN KERR Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of , A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-00062 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MULLINS DAVID SCOTT ET AL VS COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES R. Thomas Kline .00 16. 0 0 01/30/2008 JOHN KERR duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: VITIZEI NINA AKA NINA HELLER but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LANCASTER serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS County, Pennsylvania, to On January 30th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LANCASTER Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being So answe,?s?: r 6.00 .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 Sheriff of Cumb rland County A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-00062 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MULLINS DAVID SCOTT ET AL VS COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: MCCLENAGHAN ROBERT J but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LANCASTER County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On January 30th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LANCASTER Sheriff's Costs: > So answe --' Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 ?% . Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas line .00 Sheriff of Cumb rland County nn , 16.00 ? -2167107 n 01/30/2008 JOHN KERR Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. 325?2 1 OF3 SHERIFF'S OFFICE 50 NORTH DUKE STREET, P.O. BOX 83480, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17608-3480 • (717) 299-8200 SHERIFF SERVICE PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY. PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN DO NOT DETACH ANY COP". i. RLAiN I wf-/w 2. COURT NUMBER David Scott Mullins"et al 08-62 civil a. ucrervuAN i ibi 14. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT Camlon Sense Adoption Services et al Writ of Summons SERVE 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC., TO BE SERVED Main Street Adoption Service 6. ADDRFV (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp., State and ZIP Code) AT 65 RoseWille Road Lancaster, PA 17601 I. INDICATE UNUSUAL SERVIC EPUTIZE ? OTHER .,'Now, January 111- 20 Ut' , I, SHERIFF OF COUNTY, PA., do hereby deputize the Sherriff of Lanraat r County to execute this Wri ?ffiumeof a to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: SHERIFF Ctimberland Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN -Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction or removal of any such property before sherrif's sale thereof. 9. SIGNATURE of ATTORNEY or other ORIGINATOR 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE JOHN M. KERR, ESQ. 717-766-4008 1/4/08 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed) LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. KERR, ESQ. 5000 RITTER RD. STE. 202 MECHANICSBURG, PA. 17055 SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF SHERIFF ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ NAME of Authorized LCSO Deputy or Clerk 14. Date Received 15. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. } JA C KIE MICCICHE 71-7-390-2309 1/16/08 2/4/08 16. 1 hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that 10 have personally served, 1kiloa-ve legal evidence of service as shown in "Remarks:, ? have executed as shown in "Remarks", the writ or complaint described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual, company, cor- poration, etc., at the address inserted below by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereof. 17. ? 1 hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc., named above. (See remarks below) 18. Name [alnd title of individual served (if not shown above) (Relationship to Defendant) 19• ? No Service N N I T z I - 14EL Lpz_ CQ - OwA)enszl See Remarks Below (No. 30) 20. Address of where served (complete only if different than shown above) (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp. 21. Date of Service 22. Time State and Zip Code) #T 23. ATTEMPTS Rate Miles Dep. Int. I ate Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. 24. Advance Costs 25. ervice Costs 26. Notary Cert. 27. Milea /Postag N. F. 28. Total Costs jj 29. COST DU?jOR REFUND S.T.A.: 31. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this 34. day of C U SS, Cr- ,33332-,. I 9?' ` I-d?f 3 H n 3 H Z H ty 0 ro 132532 ? a . 3 OF 3 SHERIFF'S OFFICE 50 NORTH DUKE STREET, P.O. BOX 83480, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17608-3480 • (717) 299-8200 SHERIFF SERVICE PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY. PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES. 1. PLAINTIFF/S/ 2. COURT NUMBER David Scott Mullins et al 08-62 civil 3. DEFENDANT/S/ 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT Common Sense Adoption Services et al Writ of Summons SERVE $• NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC., TO BE SERVED Nina Vitizei a/k/a Nina Heller 6. ADDR_0 (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp., State and ZIP Code) AT 65+?RoseWille Road Lancaster, PA 17601 7. INDICATE UNUSUAL'SERVICEXN DEPUTIZE ? OTHER Now, f7camaxyl 14 20 , I, SHERIFF OF COUNTY, PA., do hereby de utize the Sherriff of Lancaster County to execute this Writ a _ rn thereof a to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIFF O OUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: Ct.anberland -* L,) i i( h •e a r 5/,-4 neet, Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. NOTE ONLY APPLICANLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN -Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave sarhe without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction or removal of any such property before sherrif's sale thereof. 9. SIGNATURE of ATTORNEY or other ORIGINATOR 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE JOHN M. K E R'R , ESQ, 717-766-4008 1/4/08 12. SEND NOTICE OIL SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice Is to be mailed) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KERR, ESQ 5000 RITTER RD. STE. 202 MECHANICSBU'RG, PA. 17055 SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF SHERIFF ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ NAME of Authorized LCSO Deputy or Clerk 14. Date Received 15. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. } JACK MICCICHE 717-390-2309 1/16/08 2/4/08 16. 1 hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that I ave personally served, ? have legal evidence of service as shown in "Remarks:, ? have executed as shown in "Remarks", the writ or complaint described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual, company, cor- poration, etc., at th e address inserted below by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereof. 17. ? 1 hereby certify O nd return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc., named above. (See remarks below) 18. Name and title of individual served (if not shown above) (Relationship to Defendant) 19. ? No Service See Remarks Below (No. 30) 20. Address of where served (complete only if different than shown above) (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp. 21. Date of Service 22. Time State and Zip Code) -a?-off 9 23. ATTEMPTS Pate Miles Dep. Int. Pate Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. Date Mlles Dep. Int. /n I 24. Advance Costs 25. Service Costs 26. Notary Cert. 27. Mileage/Postage/N.F. 28. Total Costs 29. COST DUE OR REFUND * O 30. REMARKS S.T.A.: 31. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this 34. day of Dep. 'iTd C [Ss A . e01L 3 H n 3 H Z H 0 0 ro 2 OF 3 SHERIFF'S OFFICE 50 NORTH DUKE STREET, P.O. BOX 83480, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17608-3480 • (717) 299-8200 132532 SHERIFF SERVICE PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY. PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES. 1. PLAINTIFF/S/ 2. C RTI1??UMB?R David Scott Mullins et al 8-bl civil 3. DEFENDANT/S/ 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT Colmon Sense Adoption Services et al Writ of Summons SERVE AT 7. INDICATE UNUSUAL 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC., TO BE SERVED Robert J. McClenaghan 6. ADDRESS (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp., State and ZIP Code) 65WroseVille Road Lancaster, PA 17601 !E ? OTHER Now, Janua 4 20 Uu , I, SHERIFF OF COUNTY, PA., do hereb?C d tize the She r' Lancaster County to execute this Writ an -Rq aef to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. ~ SHERIFF OF COUNN 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: Cumberland Ge,rtI 6< cam./^c5;d. ,;, j6% Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN -Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction or removal of any such property before sherrif's sale thereof. 9. SIGNATURE of ATTORNEY or other ORIGINATOR 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE JOHN M. KERB, ESQ, 717-766-4008 114108 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed If notice is to be mailed) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KERR ESQ. 5000 RITTER RD. STE_ 202 MECHANICSBURG, PA. 17055 SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF SHERIFF ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ NAME of Authorized LCSO Deputy or Clerk 14. Date Received 15. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. } JACKIE MICCICHE -390-2309 1/16/08 12/4/08 16. 1 hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that 10 have personally served, ve legal evidence of service as shown in "Remarks:, ? have executed as shown in "Remarks", the writ or complaint described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual, company, cor- poration, etc., at the address inserted below by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereof. 17. ? 1 hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc., named above. (See remarks below) 18. Name and title of individual served (if not shown above) (Relationship to ,Defendant) 19. ? No Service M F A V Ze' - U _ ?? q2 > See Remarks Below (No. 30) 20. Address of where served (complete only if different than shown above) (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp. 21. Date of Service 22. Time State and Zip Code) -Q I ?a? 8 L &DST ? E 23. ATTEMPTS ( pate / Miles Dep. nt I Date / h ' Miles DO p. Int. t Date Miles Dep. T ate Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. 24. Advance Costs 25. Service Co sstt s 26. Notary Cart. 27. Milea stage/N.F. 28. Total Costs 29. COST DUE OR REFUND 30. EMARKS: S.T.A.: 31. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this L Q _ . _9_ ,L.? ?? 3 I H n 3 I H l H d 0 ro 32. Signature of 33. Date 34. day of 20 Dep. She - ' ?a L4 S5 Cin L J' ec n..... loT 95/ A DAVID SCOTT MULLINS, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PlaintiffS CIVIL V. NO. 08-00062 COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERRVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI JURY TRIAL DEMANDED a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3308 (717) 249-3166 . a DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN, AND NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL NO. 08-00062 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Introductory Statement 1. This is an action for damages against two adoption agencies and their principals for fraudulent inducement, common law fraud, defamation, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress involving a failed international adoption of a Guatemalan child for which plaintiffs contracted and paid significant sums of money. Parties 2. Plaintiffs David Scott Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins are adult individuals, husband and wife, who reside at 5486 Devonshire Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112 (hereinafter, "the Mullins"). 3. Defendant Common Sense Adoption Services (hereinafter, "Common Sense") is a Pennsylvania-licensed adoption agency located at 49 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 4. Defendant Erin R.J. Chick (hereinafter, "Erin Chick") is an adult individual and Executive Director of Common Sense Adoption Services with a business address at 49 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 5. Defendant Martha Jones (hereinafter, "Jones") is an adult individual and Adoption Coordinator of Common Sense Adoption Services with a business address at 49 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 6. Defendant Main Street Adoption Service is a licensed adoption agency in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania facilitating international adoptions with an address at 65 West Roseville Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601-3928 (hereinafter, "Main Street") Defendant Robert McClenaghan (hereinafter, "McClenaghan") is an adult individual and Executive Director of Main Street Adoption Service with a business address at 65 West Roseville Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601-3928. 8. Defendant Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller (hereinafter, "Heller") is an adult individual and principal of Main Street Adoption Service with an address at 65 West Roseville Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601-3928. Venue 9. Venue is proper in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania as the material events giving rise to this cause of action occurred at the business address of Common Sense Adoption Services, 49 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. Factual Background 10. In the Fall of 2006, having exhausted their efforts to have their own children, the Mullins decided to pursue opportunities to adopt a child. 11. Both Scott and Tracey Mullins attended an orientation at Common Sense Adoption Services in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania in mid-October, 2006, where they met with the in-take person, Lori Teeter, and determined that they would adopt internationally. Common Sense referred them to Main Street Adoption Service, the international placement agency, located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania with whom they often worked. Common Sense was to prepare the home study. 12. On November 6, 2006, the Mullins received an e-mail message from Defendant Nina Heller of Main Street, representing that they had an excellent reputation, an attorney who was fast and responsive, and the fact that all families who started with them in Guatemala actually adopted. The fee for the adoption of one child from Guatemala was quoted as $25, 100.00. Heller further represented that a child newly born in Guatemala was available for their adoption. 13. Accompanying this November 6, 2006 e-mail message from Defendant Heller was a three page [unpaginated] list of services (see Exhibit "A" appended to this Complaint, copy of said listing of services). Specifically, the Mullins found appealing the Overview of the Adoption Service (page 1); the Home Study Services (page 1); Post Placement Services (page 1); and Receiving Referral (pages 2-3).Also accompanying this listing of services was another document, entitled, "Step-by-Step Guatemalan Adoption Process". Included in this latter document was the representation that among the information Main Street would provide was a birth certificate and initial medical exam for the child to be adopted. These promotions by Main Street were a material reason why the Mullins later entered into a contractual agreement with them. 14. After having been promised this child, the Mullins were abruptly told two days later by Heller that they did not move fast enough and the referral had gone to another family. As a result, the Mullins expressed reluctance to work further with Main Street, but Lori Teeter of Common Sense encouraged them to stay put. Teeter explained that Heller's practice was not to refer a child until a valid home study had been completed. 15. On or about November 13, 2006, the Mullins entered into a written contract with Common Sense to prepare a Family Profile (home study). They paid $500.00 for the Agency Application and $3,000.00 for a home study and post-placement. 16. On November 13, 2006, the Mullins made application for a visa, form 1-600A, with the United States Customs and Immigration Service ("USCIS") to adopt a foreign child and to bring an adopted foreign child into the country. Before a visa can be issued, an approved home study and application must be submitted. More important, without the visa, an international adoption cannot take place. 17. On November 17-18, 2006, Nina Heller referred another child which Main Street had dubbed, "Liam," to the Mullins, notwithstanding the fact that a home study and approval by the USCIS had not yet occurred. The Mullins were hesitant to accept the referral at this time because the home study had not yet been completed. 18. On November 21, 2006, the Mullins met with Erin Chick at her Mechanicsburg office and on December 5, 2006, she conducted a home study visit at their residence on Devonshire Drive in Dauphin County. This was followed by FBI fingerprints being taken on December 7, 2006. 19. During Chick's visit with the Mullins on December 5, 2006„ she met separately with Tracey and Scott. She never asked either Scott or Tracey Mullins whether an FBI criminal background check would reveal any prior arrests or convictions. 20. On December 7, 2006, both Scott and Tracey Mullins were formally fingerprinted for the FBI criminal records background check. 21. On December 13, 2006, Scott Mullins had a face-to-face meeting with Defendants McClenaghan and Heller of Main Street at the office of Common Sense Adoption Services in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 22. One day later, Scott Mullins informed Erin Chick about a DUI charge in 1998. Significantly, Erin Chick stated, "this will not be a showstopper." Mullins asked her if the home study should include this information, to which Chick responded, "if this becomes an issue, we'll deal with it then." 23. On this same day, Scott Mullins also spoke with Defendant McClenaghan about the 1998 DUI. McClenaghan's comment was "this will not matter in Guatemala." 24. On or about December 21, 2006, Defendant Erin Chick from Common Sense Adoption Services issued her approved Home Study (see Exhibit "B" appended to this Complaint, copy of said approved Home Study). Despite fully knowing that Scott Mullins had been arrested for a DUI in 1998, Defendant Chick wrote on page 6 of the Home Study: "Pennsylvania State Police Criminal background checks were completed on October 6, 2006 [sic] no criminal record is indicated in these reports.... When questioned, Scott indicated he has no prior criminal history and has never been arrested or convicted of a crime." 25. In fact, although the Report was dated December 11, 2006, it was not notarized until December 21, 2006, at a time after which Erin Chick had actual knowledge that her statements quoted above were not true. Moreover, as stated at paragraph 19 above, Chick had never inquired as to whether either of the prospective adoptive parents has a prior criminal history or were ever arrested. 26. On December 19, 2006, Nina Heller of Main Street Adoption Service transmitted an e- mail message to Plaintiff Scott Mullins, stating, in part, as follows: "I talked with Erin [Chick] yesterday, she told me about your concern with DUI. We have had other families with DUI in the past and it was not a problem in Guatemala. She told me that you want to move forward with adoption of Baby Liam..." 27. Later that day [December 191, Scott Mullins responded in an e-mail message to Defendant Heller, with the following words: "That's good to hear. We were extremely worried it would jeopardize what we were trying to do. We would like to go ahead with Liam although we are still working on our bank financing. Is it possible to hold him for us until we get the money? Our bank has informed us that it will probably go through in the next week or so..." 28. Within seven minutes of the Scott Mullins e-mail message quoted at paragraph 27 above, Defendant Nina Heller e-mailed back, attempting to induce the Mullins to move forward and stating, "it is not a problem with Guatemala, so do not worry ...Is it possible for you to deposit $2,000 so we can let them know in Guatemala? We will [wait] for the rest of the first payment next week. Let me know if you have adoption agreement or would like Bob to email it to you again." 29. Relying on such assurances„ the Mullins executed a contract with Main Street Adoption Services on December 22, 2006 (see Exhibit "C" to this Complaint, copy of said contractual agreement). This Agreement was written by and forwarded to the Mullins by Main Street Adoption Service. 30. On page three (unpaginated) of the Agreement is contained the following provision: "The Adoptive Family shall comply with the following:... Adoptive Family agrees to disclose to Main Street Adoption Service prior to the signing of this agreement any of the following: criminal charges (whether prosecuted or not), ... Failure to disclose any of these events is terms for immediate termination of the agreement and loss of any paid fees." 31. Nevertheless, Scott Mullins did disclose prior to the signing of the Agreement the fact of his 1998 DUI in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to both Erin Chick of Common Sense and Robert McClenaghan of Main Street. As the e-mail transmissions quoted at paragraphs 25-27 above clearly evince, Nina Heller of Main Street Adoption Service was also aware of this revelation. 32. In fact, Main Street never formally terminated this Agreement. 33. In the midst of informing Erin Chick about the 1998 DUI arrest, Scott Mullins overlooked a prior DUI arrest which occurred in 1993 while living in the State of Indiana and which he mistakenly thought had been expunged from his record. Encouraged by Erin Chick's admonition that "if this becomes an issue, we'll deal with it then," and believing that the 1993 Indiana DUI had been expunged from his record, Mullins mentally erased any remaining thoughts of it. His reasoned belief was that his only prior DUI was the 1998 Pennsylvania arrest, of which he clearly informed both adoption agencies. 34. On January 18, 2007, Tracey Mullins forwarded an e-mail transmission to Nina Heller, memorializing a conversation she had with Erin Chick two days earlier. In this e-mail message, she indicated that Chick had stated that they [Scott and Tracey Mullins] should hear from USCIS by the end of January and not to worry. Chick also told Tracey Mullins that she [Chick] would call USCIS if no response was forthcoming by that time. Heller's reply was that Chick had a good relationship with USCIS. 35. Despite having actual knowledge of the 1998 Pennsylvania DUI, on January 29, 2007, Main Street Adoption Service forwarded a dossier on the Mullins to Guatemala, along with some of the same documents included in the Home Study, together with documents relating to income, medical history, and employment. 36. In the meantime, the Mullins had purchased airline tickets and made hotel reservations for a visit to Guatemala, which was to occur between the dates of February 22-27, 2007. This was done in conjunction with and with the knowledge of Defendant McClenaghan. The purpose of the trip was to meet baby Liam. 37. On February 12, 2007, Main Street had forwarded a medical report on baby Liam, indicating that he was in all respects normal and, except for a cold, was in good health. This was consistent with what had been represented from the beginning -that the child was in good health.lt was not discovered until much later that this was inaccurate and that, in fact, the child was oxygen-deprived at birth; had been transferred to the neo-natal intensive care unit at the major hospital in Guatemala City; was, as a result of the oxygen-deprivation, developmentally delayed; and showed symptoms of cerebral palsy. 38. On February 20, 2007, the Mullins received a letter from the United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) (see Exhibit "D" appended to this Complaint", copy of said letter and attachment), stating that there was a discrepancy between the Home Study prepared by Erin Chick and the FBI fingerprint report. As noted by USCIS: This office has since received a report from the Federal Bureau of investigations which reveals that you were arrested on two separate occasions, on February 25, 1993, you were arrested, charged and convicted of OWL On June 13, 1998, you were again arrested, charged and convicted of Driving under the Influence. However, this information was not included [in] your home study report. In fact, according to your home study preparer, you were specifically asked if you were ever arrested and you responded, "no." ... You are hereby accorded a period of twelve weeks to present original court dispositions resulting from all charges brought against you. You must also provide evidence that all terms of your arrest were complied with. Furthermore, you must present complete a detailed statement describing all circumstances surrounding your criminal arrest(s), and an explanation as to why your arrest information was withheld from your home study preparer and withheld from Service attention. Lastly, you are required to provide a home study addendum containing an evaluation of the suitability of your home for adoptive placement of an orphan in light of your prior criminal history. Failure to comply or respond within the specified time period will result in the denial of your form 1-600A. 39. The document forwarded by USCIS made clear that a criminal background was not dispositive of the 1-600A application, but that an explanation had to be provided where erroneous information had been utilized, and further that the Director was empowered to attempt to resolve such issues by working with the prospective parents, the home study preparer, and the agency making recommendation. The underlying concern was the protection of any orphan being brought into the United States. 40. After reviewing the contents of the USCIS communication, Scott Mullins immediately telephoned Erin Chick at Common Sense Adoption Services. After reading to her the contents of the letter, Defendant Chick stated,"[ill's okay. I will tell Immigration that it was an oversight on my part." Scott Mullins thereupon asked if he should be worried, and Chick's response was, "no." 41. Based upon the communication from USCIS, Defendant McClenaghan instructed the Mullins not to travel to Guatemala as previously planned and scheduled for February 22-27, 2007. This was done on the evening before they were to leave from Baltimore. 42. On February 27, 2007, Erin Chick authored a letter to the Mullins ( see Exhibit "E" appended to Complaint, copy of said correspondence) , stating in pertinent part: ...Additionally, USCIS is requiring an addendum to your original home study to be completed by this office. In order for this agency to comply with this requirement, we are asking that you first provide this office with copies of all of the documentation being required of you by USCIS. Once this office receives this documentation and can review the records, we will schedule a meeting to discuss the steps to be taken in completing the required addendum and evaluation. Your prompt response to this letter will insure that the required investigation can be completed within the 12 week timeframe provided by USCIS. Pending the outcome of this investigation , your current approval for adoption has been suspended. 43. At this point, the Mullins' ability to adopt internationally was not lost, and they anticipated that the required information would be provided through Common Sense and that the USCIS questions would be appropriately satisfied. However, to do would require an admission by Erin Chick and Common Sense that they had completed a Home Study with material misstatements known to Chick in advance. 44. To rescue Common Sense from this dilemma, Defendant McClenaghan implored Scott Mullins to tell the USCIS that he had failed to disclose this information. By doing, so, McClenaghan said, the process would keep moving and the adoption would get back on track. In fact, the Mullins were relying on Common Sense to prepare an Amended Home Study and to submit it to the USCIS. 45. On Friday, March 2, 2007, Tracey Mullins hand-delivered the requested documents to Common Sense Adoption Service at their office in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 46. As part of those documents, Scott Mullins authored a three page explanation of the two alcohol-related arrests, which concluded by covering for Erin Chick and stating: "[m]y decision not to disclose these charges were driven mainly by feelings of embarrassment for my past behavior and were certainly not meant to deceive anyone although in hindsight I did and I apologize." In truth, Mullins had informed Erin Chick of the 1998 DUI; had asked her if it should be included in the Home Study; but, nevertheless, had been informed by her not to worry about it unless or until it showed up in a criminal records report. In other words, Chick's posture was "do not disclose unless you get caught." 47. Even if Scott Mullins had not believed his 1993 Indiana arrest had been expunged from his record, he would have been guided by Chick's admonition not to take any action unless it [criminal arrest] shows up. 48. On March 15, 2007, the Mullins met with Defendant Martha Jones, the "Adoption Coordinator" at Common Sense and, as they were to learn later, the mother of Erin Chick. Jones was hostile, defensive and unprofessional. She would not believe that Erin Chick had filed a Home Study which made material misrepresentations. She told the Mullins, "we have a reputation to uphold; you have embarrassed this agency." She also added sarcastically, "what are you going to do if I refuse to amend your home study" and "what are you going to do with all the baby things?" At the conclusion of the meeting, she informed them, "you can't be trusted and all of the information you provided to this agency is now in question." 49. From this point forward, Erin Chick was moved to the background and all subsequent dealings were with Martha Jones. 50. The Mullins furnished all information requested by Martha Jones, including reference letters concerning how Scott Mullins had turned his life around. Defendant Jones failed to contact any of these references, even failing to take telephone calls from those references who attempted to contact her. 51. On March 27, 2007, Scott Mullins e-mailed Main Street Adoption Service to express his concern regarding the delay in the case being occasioned by any lack of activity on the part of Common Sense and Martha Jones. He requested an opportunity to speak with them. 52. Two days later, Mullins did speak by telephone with Defendants McClenaghan and Heller of Main Street. He inquired as to the possibility of getting another home study performed by a different agency because of his concern that the Home Study would not be amended.. They said they would look into it and suggested that the Mullins release baby Liam. To encourage them to do, Defendants McClenaghan and Heller promised to refund the balance of fees or would refer another child to them when and if the Home Study was completed and the visa for the child was issued. 53. Consequently, on April 3, 2007, the Mullins forwarded a letter releasing their reservation of right of adoption as to baby Liam. 54. On April 11, 2007, concerned that the twelve week window to respond to USCIS was evaporating, Scott and Tracey Mullins wrote a lengthy letter to Martha Jones at Common Sense, which they sent by certified mail (see Exhibit "F" appended to this Complaint, copy of correspondence to Martha Jones). 55. In this letter, the Mullins stated in pertinent part, : I feel it is important that I document here the fact that on December 14, 20061 called your agency and informed Lori Teeter and Erin Chick of a DUI, a misdemeanor that I received in 1998, almost nine years ago. I was worried that this might be an issue. This was before the home study was completed and I was told at the time that, "it wouldn't be showstopper." I asked Erin specifically whether we should change the home study to reflect this incident. I was told not to worry that "if this becomes an issue, we'll deal with it then." I didn't go into any details of the incident, not because I was trying to hide them or trying to deceive her, but because she didn't seem interested. I know now that it should have been addressed then, that I should have insisted it be included in full detail, but we trusted your agency to guide us. 56. At the conclusion of this letter, the Mullins demanded a written decision within five days as to whether Common Sense was going to submit an amended home study to the USCIS so that they might find another agency if the answer was in the negative. 57. On April 19, 2007, the Mullins contacted Adoption Services (hereinafter, "AS") in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania to determine if they would prepare a home study. Their response was that they would investigate the circumstances of the Common Sense home study if and when it was eventually denied. 58. On April 25, 2007, the Mullins received a letter from Martha Jones, requesting additional information concerning two new.issues she was raising, e.g., a claim that Scott Mullins possessed a medical condition affecting his ability to metabolize alcohol and an accident involving Tracey Mullins' mother, who had been involved in a hit and run accident with Tracey's vehicle while living with the Mullins. 59. On April 30, 2007, the Mullins wrote a "final" three page letter to Martha Jones, in which they included all information regarding the two additional issues requested by Jones and demanding that she amend the home study. This was a mere eight (8) days before the expiration of the allotted twelve week period by the USCIS. 60. On May 2, 2007, Martha Jones of Common Sense responded to the Mullins (see Exhibit "G" appended to this Complaint, copy of said letter). Prefacing the letter with her claim of the Mullins' "unwillingness to provide the information we requested in order to complete a favorable finding for your adoptive home study," she denied approval to them as an adoptive applicant. She concluded with this paragraph: "[wje will be sending a copy of your home study amendment to USCIS and to Main Street Adoptions today. We are also registering you with the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange's Resource indicating that you have not been approved. Should you choose at some point in the future to work with another adoption agency you will need to disclose[ t)o them that you were the subject of an unfavorable home study and provide them with information as to your association with this agency so that they can see the information contained in your file with Common Sense." 61. On May 7, 2007, attorney Samuel L. Andes wrote to Marcia Eikerenkoetter, the reviewer assigned to the Mullins case at USCIS, enclosing the information which the Mullins had furnished to Common Sense responsive to the requests made by the USCIS in their February 20, 2007 correspondence to the Mullins, and adding some pointed comments on the scenario of events leading to the predicament facing the Mullins: It is vital for your office to understand that Scott Mullins reported the Dui arrest and prosecution to Erin R.J. Chick, the Common Sense representative who performed the adoptive family profile for them. When he did, he was advised that those incidents had not appeared on the criminal background check that Common Sense did and that, as a result, he should not worry about that unless your office raised an inquiry about it. Ms. Chick acknowledged that to Scott Mullins and other members of the family after the inquiry from your office in February. Mr. Mullins has never denied these incidents in his background and has never made any attempt to conceal them. In fact, he voluntarily disclosed them to Robert McClenaghan of Main Street Adoption Services ... It is obvious, from comments made by Martha Jones and the inaction of Common Sense up to now, that Common Sense is not going to submit to your office the information it has requested, and which has been supplied by my client, or take any other actions to amend or supplement its adoptive family profile. Quite honestly, I believe that is because Common Sense is more concerned about its reputation and its standing with your office than in seeking out and reporting the accurate facts in the case.... (see Exhibit "H" appended to this Complaint, copy of said correspondence). 62. The Andes' letter offered to engage another adoption agency to prepare whatever supplementary information the USCIS might desire and requested additional time since the twelve week window originally provided was about to expire due to Common Sense "sandbagging" the Mullins. 63. The following day, attorney Andes wrote another letter, this time to Martha Jones of Common Sense Adoption Services (see Exhibit "I" appended to this Complaint, copy of said correspondence). In this letter, Andes set the record straight concerning Scott Mullins revelation to Erin Chick concerning the 1998 DUI, as well as in response to additional issues Jones had raised (see paragraph 58 above), relating to the alleged medical condition of Scott Mullins and the accident involving Tracey Mullins' automobile while being driven by her mother. Andes put the actions of Common Sense in perspective: ... You have taken small bits of inaccurate information and distorted and exaggerated them in an effort to put Mr. and Mrs. Mullins in a false and bad light. Your office has failed to acknowledge that it was aware of the DUI problem before its first home study was submitted to USCIS. Now you have compounded all of those errors by submitting incomplete, inaccurate, and perhaps downright false, reports to USCIS, to Main Street Adoptions, and the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange. Quite honestly, I believe the behavior of your office is outrageous. 64. On May 30, 2007, Martha Jones of Common Sense Adoption Services responded to Attorney Andes, standing by her version of the facts (see Exhibit "J" to this Complaint, copy of the Jones letter). 65. On June 21, 2007, the USCIS issued a "Notice Of Denial," citing the fact that on May 8, 2008, Common Sense submitted an Addendum which denied approval of the Mullins as adoptive parents. The USCIS letter characterized the Addendum submitted by Common Sense, in part, with the following language: "[t]he addendum indicates that you failed to fully disclose all elements of your history of alcohol abuse and your criminal history. CSAS concluded that you and your spouse exhibited a pattern of deception during the entire home study process that challenged your veracity" (see Exhibit "K" appended to this Complaint, copy of 6/21/07 USCIS correspondence). 66. The USCIS denial letter informed the Mullins of their appeal rights, which had to be exercised with thirty (30) days of service of the denial letter. 67. At this point, the Mullins began sending a-mails to Main Street Adoption Services, in an attempt to have them support their version of the facts that Scott Mullins revealed the circumstances of his 1998 DUI prior to the home study being forwarded to USCIS, so that they might properly appeal the June 21, 2007 denial by the USCIS. When no response was forthcoming, the Mullins sent a certified letter to Main Street on July 25, 2007. 68. By letter dated July 27, 2007, Main Street refused to confirm this fact. Whereupon, on August 9 and September 4, 2007, Scott Mullins forwarded requests for an accounting of their funds paid to Main Street and a refund of fees paid. On September 5, 2007, Main Street responded by letter and refused any request for a refund of fees. 69. On the following day, Scott Mullins was advised that the registry at the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange, relating to he and his wife, contained the words, "falsification, misrepresentation of info." COUNT I - SCOTT and TRACEY MULLINS v. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES and MARTHA JONES (IN DEFAMATION) 70. Paragraphs 10-69 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 71. Defendant Martha Jones communicated to the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange and attributed to the Mullins the words identified at paragraph 69 above. The information published to this third party was inaccurate, misleading, false and libelous. . 4 72. Defendant Jones also communicated information to the same effect to the USCIS and Main Street Adoption Services. 73. The words, set forth at paragraph 69 above and published to the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange, were capable of defamatory meaning, as were the communications to the USCIS and Main Street Adoption Services. 74. The communication from Defendant Jones was not subject to conditional privilege because its purpose was to conceal the fact that Erin Chick and Common Sense had intentionally furnished false and misleading information in the home study to the USCIS. As such and because it was false, it was not of public concern. 75. Special harm resulted to the Mullins from this publication, in that no other adoption agency will assist them in their goal of adopting a child while this derogatory information remains on this public registry. 76. The action of Defendant Jones was malicious and calculated to harm the Mullins. Jones was placed on notice numerous times that the information ultimately published to third parties was not accurate. 77. The action of Defendant Jones was outrageous and shocking, justifying the imposition of an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, it is requested that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Jones and Common Sense Adoption Services, jointly and severably, and award both compensatory, as well as punitive damages, together with costs as allowed by law, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit below which compulsory arbitration is required. f COUNT II -SCOTT and TRACEY MULLINS v. ERIN CHICK AND COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES (Common Law Fraud) 78. Paragraphs 10-69 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 79. Defendant Erin Chick included information in the Mullins' home study which she knew was not true and was calculated to deceive the USCIS. 80. Moreover, she furnished information to the Mullins which was not true, i.e., that a DUI conviction would not be a "showstopper" and that they should not worry because they would deal with any information on a criminal records check only if it surfaced. 81. Defendant Chick knew that the statements she made to Scott and Tracey Mullins were not true in that a failure to disclose a criminal conviction was treated more seriously by the USCIS than merely having a n underlying criminal conviction. Thus, it was the misrepresentation - not the criminal offense - which might trouble the USCIS. 82. Nevertheless, she knew that if she disclosed this to Scott Mullins, he would probably would not pay the fees to retain Main Street Adoption Services and might have requested a refund of the money paid for the home study. 83. It was only after the Mullins received such representations and assurances from Defendant Chick that they decided to move forward and execute the contract with Main Street Adoption Service. 84. Defendant Chick knew that the Mullins would rely on such representations to their detriment and, in fact, they did. 85. The Mullins were damaged as a result, in that not only was their application for a visa, Form 1-600A, denied, but the USCIS believed that the Mullins were guilty of failing to disclose material information to the Service as part of the home study. 86. Moreover, they were unable to adopt the child from Guatemala as a result, and a further consequence was that Common Sense and Martha Jones submitted derogatory information to both the USCIS and the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange, black-balling them from adoption in the future. 87. The action of Defendant Chick was outrageous and shocking, justifying an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, it is requested that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Erin Chick and Common Sense Adoption Services, jointly and severally, for both compensatory and punitive damages, together with costs as allowed under law, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit below which compulsory arbitration is required. COUNT III - SCOTT and TRACEY MULLINS v. ERIN CHICK and MARTHA JONES (Civil Conspiracy) 88. Paragraphs 10-69 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 89. Defendants Chick and Jones conspired with Defendants McClenaghan and Heller to fraudulently induce the Mullins in the belief that a) they would be able to adopt "Liam" from Guatemala; b) the authorities in Guatemala would not care if Scott Mullins had a DUI conviction; c) that USCIS approval would be forthcoming for the visa to bring "Liam" into the United States; and d) that if anything turned up on a criminal records check, it could be "dealt with", all in an effort to extract funds from the Mullins. 90. In pursuance of this common purpose, Defendant Heller promised that the child "Liam" could be adopted by the Mullins before an approved home study had been obtained; Defendant Chick misrepresented the criminal history of Scott Mullins to the USCIS, at the same time telling him that it would not be a "show-stopper"; Defendants Heller and Main Street Adoption Service made various representations, more particularly described at paragraphs 12- 13 above; and all Defendants extracted various fees from the Mullins which virtually represented all the money which they had. 91. The Mullins were damaged as a result, in that they lost the money which had been spent and failed to adopt the child which had been promised to them. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Chick and Jones, jointly and severally, in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limit, below which compulsory arbitration is required. COUNT IV - SCOTT and TRACEY MULLINS v. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, ERIN CHICK and MARTHA JONES (Breach of Contract) 92. Paragraphs 10 - 69 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 93. The Mullins entered into a written contract with Common Sense Adoption Services. While Common Sense retained the only copies of this writing which presumably remains in their sole possession, the contractual agreement required Common Sense to perform, among other duties, the home study necessary to obtain the visa permitting the Mullins to bring a child from Guatemala into the United States and to adopt him. 94. Common Sense breached this contract, in that a) the home study prepared by Erin Chick made misrepresentations to the USCIS, that i) Chick had inquired of Scott Mullins concerning any criminal history when, in fact, she had not; and ii) represented that there was no criminal history for Mullins when, in fact, there was - each of which Chick knew or should have known would be discovered as a result of the FBI fingerprint check and potentially doom any adoption; and b) Martha Jones breached the duty of Common Sense to perform its covenants in good faith by "sand-bagging" the Mullins in falsely representing that the Mullins had refused to submit the information requested by the USCIS in its communication of February 20, 2007 and disparaging the them in the course of refusing to provide an approved amended home study. 95. This breach of its duty under the contractual agreement was the proximate cause for the USCIS to issue its denial letter of June 21, 2007. 96. As a result of this breach of contract, the Mullins receive lost the benefit of the monies they had paid both Main Street and Common Sense and were unable to adopt baby "Liam." WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Common Sense Adoption Services, Erin Chick and Martha Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limit below which compulsory arbitration is required. COUNT V -TRACEY MULLINS v. MARTHA JONES (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 97. Paragraphs 10-69 are incorporated by reference, as if fully supported in their entirety. 98. The actions of Defendant Martha Jones, after the USCIS communication of February 20, 2007, as more particularly described at paragraphs 48-50 & 54-60 above, were intentionally and/or recklessly mean-spirited, outrageous, and intended to cause emotional distress. 99. As a result, Plaintiff Tracey Mullins suffered acute emotional distress; and was relegated to seek professional medical assistance. 100. The conduct of Defendant Jones was outrageous and shocking, justifying the imposition of both compensatory, as well as punitive damages. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff Tracey Mullins and against Defendant Martha Jones, for compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limit below which compulsory arbitration is required. COUNT VI - SCOTT and TRACEY MULLINS v. MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICES ROBERT MCCLENAGHAN AND NINA VIZITEI a/k/a/NINA HELLER (Fraudulent Inducement) 101. Paragraphs 10-69 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 102. Defendants Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller (hereinafter, collectively "the Main Street Defendants") engaged in a course of conduct designed to fraudulently induce the Mullins to enter into a contract and extract large fees from them. This course of conduct included, inter alia, a) representing that all families who began with them in Guatemala actually adopted; b) that they would supervise the agency performing the home study; c) that a clinical social worker familiar with the government in Guatemala would conduct the home study; d) that a birth certificate for any child referred would be furnished; and e) that the initial medical exam for any such referral would similarly be provided. In addition, Defendant McClenaghan represented that no one in Guatemala would care about the DUI conviction of Scott Mullins. 103. Each of these representations was material to the transaction and made prior to the Mullins executing the written contract with Main Street. Moreover, each of these representations proved to be false. 104. The Main Street Defendants knew these representations to be false, or recklessly made them without regard to their truth, knowing that the Mullins would rely on them to their detriment and enter into the contract with Main Street. Moreover, that is exactly what occurred. 105. The Mullins were damaged in that, a) they failed to receive any value for the monies they expended; b) they never adopted the child, "Liam," who was referred to them by Main Street; and c) as a consequence of Defendant McClenaghan's misrepresentation, their names are contained in the registry of the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange for "falsification, misrepresentation of info," perhaps forever excluding them from adopting a child. 106. The conduct of the Main Street Defendants was outrageous and shocking, justifying the imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against the Main Street Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limit below which compulsory arbitration is required. Plaintiffs further request the imposition of punitive damages against the Main Street Defendants. COUNT VII - SCOTT and TRACEY MULLINS v. ROBERT MCCLENAGHAN and NINA VIZITEI a/k./a NINA HELLER (Civil Conspiracy). 107. Paragraphs 10-69 are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 108. Defendants McClenaghan and Heller conspired with Defendants Chick and Jones to fraudulently induce the Mullins in the belief that they a) would be able to adopt "Liam" from Guatemala; b) the authorities in Guatemala would not care if Scott Mullins had a DUI conviction; c) that USCIS approval would be forthcoming for the visa to bring "Liam" into the United States; and d) that if anything turned up on a criminal records check, it could be "dealt with," all in an effort to extract funds from the Mullins. 109. In pursuance of this common purpose, Defendant Heller promised that the child "Liam" could be adopted by the Mullins - even before an approved home study had been obtained; Defendant Chick misrepresented the criminal history of Scott Mullins to the USCIS, at the same time telling him that it would not be a "show-stopper;" Defendants Heller and Main Street Adoption Service made various representations, more particularly described at paragraphs 12-13 above; and all Defendants extracted various fees from the Mullins which virtually represented all the money which they had. 110. The Mullins were damaged as a result, in that they lost the money which had been spent and failed to adopt the child which had been promised to them. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants McClenaghan and Heller, jointly and severally, in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limit, below which compulsory arbitration is required. Respectfully submitted, QC !? ?( J n M. Kerr, Esquire A torney I.D.#26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: April 28, 2008 VERIFICATION The undersigned, David Scott Mullins, hereby states that he is one of the Plaintiffs in the foregoing action and, as such, is authorized to execute this Verification, and that any factual statements in the "Complaint" are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that any false statements are subject to the penalties prescribed at 18 Pa. C.S.§ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ( 16 D Adoption Service Overview Main Street Adoption List of Services Main Street Adoption Service is licensed by the State of Pennsylvania as a professional child-placing agency. Services for families include assistance in the choice of the adoptive country that is the best for the family's circumstances, assistance in the preparation of a dossier and other paperwork necessary to adopt form the foreign country chosen, assistance in obtaining a home study, and post placement services after the adoption is completed. Each adopting family is assigned a case manager that will work directly with the family through each aspect of the adoption process, from the very beginning of the adoption through the post placement assessments. Main Street has successful adoption programs in Asia, Europe, Eastern Europe, Central America and partner for US domestic adoptions in Pennsylvania. We also work with foreign adopters interested in adopting US children. Home Study Services Main Street provides home study services for families who desire to adopt internationally or domestically. A professional Licensed Clinical Social Worker, who is familiar and knowledgeable with the home study requirements of U.S. Immigration now known as CIS, and the foreign countries in which Main Street works, will complete the home study assessment under the supervision of Main Street. We also provide these services to US military families stationed throughout the world. This requires an area of expertise in maintaining a network of licensed social workers recognized by US immigration and foreign adoption laws. Post Placement Services Main Street provides post placement assessments and follow-up for families who have adopted through Main Street. These post placements will follow the format required by the government of the country from which the family adopted. A professional Licensed Clinical Social Worker who has knowledge of the issues faced by both families and adopted children will complete the post placement assessments. All post placement reports will be sent to the government in a timely manner and on the scheduled time set forth by individual foreign and domestic officials. Dossier Preparation / Paperwork Every adoption requires families to prepare a series of documents known as the dossier. We provide the necessary authorized adoption forms with detailed instructions, education, coaching and one on one assistance. This includes authentication and presentation of each document in order for families to successfully adopt. We guarantee that the documents families complete under our EXHIBIT A supervision will meet or exceed the requirements of the countries laws necessary to adopt. We help with valuable tips and professional answers to all questions pertaining to the dossier preparation. We stay in direct contact with our families and our foreign representatives, maintaining the most up to date documents for each case. We are available to answer questions and maintain an average of response within 12 hours of question receipt. If the family has a special circumstance that needs further research, we immediately search for an answer by talking directly to the government agency or in concert with our foreign liaison. Families access us anywhere in the world by Internet or by calling us. We monitor our emails seven days a week. All documents and forms will be closely reviewed and approved by us before they will be sent to the authorities of another country. Authorization and recommendations are all part of our overall fee. Translation Services Translation is one of the important steps of the adoption. Often problems with an international adoption can be traced back to a communication breakdown. To reduce issues and the risk of a foreign government or judge rejecting a dossier, Main Street employs the services of certified translators. Most foreign courts and governments now require translators to register with their offices and receive special certifications. Once Main Street reviews and recommends the families dossier, the certified translator only then begins the translation process. They assure that every document is translated correctly and accurately. Professional accredited / authorized translation is a very important part of the adoption process and a legal requirement in most foreign courts. Another important part of translation is that of the child's information. Medical records, court decisions and adoption documentation given to Main Street's coordinators before and after the court decision are professionally translated. This important step is crucial in finalizing the immigration process for the child to enter the United States or foreign country. Monitoring the Process After the dossier is approved and translated, it will be sent to either a consulate of the foreign country here in the United States (Consulate or Embassy) or to the foreign country directly. Main Street will make sure that the family's dossier travels abroad expeditiously. Main Street will supervise the dossier movement and informs the family of crucial milestone achievement in their case. Our foreign attorney / experienced coordinator directly submits the dossier to the appropriate government official. We do not rely on government diplomatic pouches or mail to deliver such important documents. We maintain a chain of custody and never leave the dossier to chance or rely on unknown sources. Main Street and our foreign coordinators maintain strong diplomatic relations with foreign and US embassy officials in the countries we conduct adoptions. We avoid delays and potential problems for our adopting families by monitoring laws and policies that may impact the adoption process directly. Receiving referral Receiving a referral is dependent on the country from which the adopting family chooses to adopt. The two primary forms of adoption programs are open and closed adoptions. Countries with closed adoptions typically assign one child to the family after document submission and registration. The assignment is accompanied with the child's medical and pictures and in some cases a short video will be provided for your evaluation. These are countries that usually follow the Hague Treaty. If families would like to have a child independently evaluated we will assist in locating doctors and or any other resources needed to help families make a decision. If a family requests additional information, we will go back to the government and present the request. Once the initial acceptance is made, we then prepare the family for travel to complete the adoption process. If the adoption is an "open contract option" we will confirm that the Federal or Regional governmental Departments which oversees the adoption are ready to meet with family or that the dossier is approved for families to adopt. Again, we prepare the family for travel to meet the child and complete the adoption. Travel arrangement Main Street provides travel assistance by helping adopting parents traveling to a foreign country locate a travel agency specializing in foreign adoptions OR work with the travel agent the family chooses on their own. Main Street will work closely with travel agents to assure the most economically direct travel for families by providing all the necessary information and time lines and options. We communicate directly with our foreign representatives to establish the best timeline for a successful adoption. Main Street foreign representatives will arrange in country airline tickets, ground transportation and accommodations while in the foreign country. Overseas Assistance Our foreign representatives will make the adopting families adoption experience as smooth as possible. From the moment the family steps off the plane in the foreign country, our foreign representative, translators and drivers will guide the family through the adoption process and assist with all adoption related matters. He or she will take care of all adoption needs, such as official negotiations, legal and court assistance, ground transportation, lodging arrangements, help with appointments, translation and etc. Peace of mind and clear understanding where, why and for whom you are traveling abroad - is a valuable contribution from us to you. Post Adoption Services The help from Main Street doesn't stop with the successful adoption. Some countries require families to register their adopted child with the foreign countries consulate or embassy in the US. Main Street assists with the process. Some families will be required to re-adopt the child per the requirements of US immigration (only required in cases where families do not see the child prior to the court). Main Street has connections with attorneys and government referrals for this process. In the event upon return with the adopted child the family has additional questions or needs information from the foreign country, Main Street will do everything possible to accommodate the family. Most countries also require post adoption monitoring reports. Main Street will establish the timeline for these reports with the adopting family and remind the family when the due date is approaching for submission of the reports. We also arrange for the reports to be sent to our foreign representative so the adopting family can rest assures they stay in compliance. Step-by-Step Guatemalan adoption process • A single mother relinquishes a child. Often this decision is made during pregnancy, but it may happen later. She signs paperwork that enables her attorney to place the child in private foster care during the course of the adoption. She must remain accessible during the adoption process because her signature will be required at other times and she must cooperate for the DNA testing. • The child's birth certificate, a required document, has been issued by the Civil Registry. - The child has an initial medical exam and is tested for HIV, Syphilis and hepatitis • If the birth mother has not already had a recent blood test for HIV, this is done. • Main Street advises the adoptive family regarding the home study, filing for USCIS approval and in preparing their dossier of required documents, which is sent to Guatemala and translated. - When the family accepts a referral, the information includes the birth certificate, initial medical exam, and one or more photos. It may or may not include the blood test results and basic information such as the child's birth weight, because not all attorneys include this information. • The family signs a POA for the attorney to represent them. The same attorney represents the interests of both the birth mom and the adopting family. The POA is registered in Guatemala. • All adoption documents are submitted to the Family Court, and a social worker is then assigned to conduct a home study on the birth mother and to review the case. • The attorney requests US Embassy authorization for the mandated DNA testing on the birth mother and the child. Her identity is verified. When the mother and child appear together at the clinic for testing, a Polaroid photo is taken. • The Family Court social worker completes her work including reviewing your dossier, interviewing the birth mom, and visiting the child at the foster home. She prepares a long report approving the adoption. The birth mom signs consent for the adoption for the second time in the process. - Embassy DNA approval is obtained and a third signature by the birth mother. - DNA results are sent to the US Embassy along with other key documents for review and the Embassy issues a pre-approval for the case. • The attorney petitions the PGN for approval of the adoption process. This is also referred to as the 2nd court. • At this time, your dossier is gone over with a fine tooth comb and documents can be rejected for such simple errors as spelling mistakes or for expiration of a notary seal. Any rejected document must be corrected and resubmitted. PGN can investigate any aspect of the adoption, but this is rare. • Approval is granted and the attorney obtains the 4th and final signature of consent from the birth mom. • The adoption decree is issued. - The Civil Registry issues a new birth certificate. The child's first and middle name are those given at birth. The adoptive parents are listed and the child is given their surname. - The child's new passport is obtained using this new birth certificate. • All adoption documents that are required to be seen by the US Embassy are translated into English. - The attorney presents all the required paperwork to obtain an appointment for the family to visit the Embassy and obtain the child's immigrant visa. When this appointment is set, the family can make travel plans. - The child has his/her final medical visit, which is required as part of the paperwork submitted at the immigrant visa interview. - Main Street reviews with you all paperwork requirements for your immigrant visa interview and advises you on travel plans. - At least one parent travels for about 4 days. The baby is brought to you in the hotel and in most cases; you would meet the foster mother. - You are instructed on what you need to do while in country. When the Embassy grants the child's immigrant visa, you are also given a sealed packet of documents. You turn this packet in to the immigration officer at the port of entry when you return to the US. - Main Street advises you on all post-adoption topics such as re-adoption, citizenship, and social security card. - Main Street Requires copies of all post adoption documents to be sent for your adoption file. A Common Sense Adoption Services 000 A non profft ageng, ADOPTIVE FAMMY PROFILE NAME: Scott & Tracey Mullins ADDRESS: 5486 Devonshire Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 PHONE: (717) 6574934 CONTACTS: April 25, 2006 October 4, 2006 November 21, 2006 December 5, 2006 December 5, 2006 December 5, 2006 M Orientation Consultation with couple Interview with couple Interview with Tracey Home Visit Interview with Scott RODUCTION Scott & Tracey Mullins are a Caucasian couple who wish to add a child to their family by way of adoption. They are emotionally mature and have the financial stability necessary to raise an adopted child. The couple is seeking to adopt a child from Guatemala and will consider children up to two years of age with mild or correctable medical conditions. They have no gender preference. PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE MOTHER Tracey Lee Meyer was born April 30, 1971 in Fort Wayne, Indiana. She is the eldest of two children born to Richard and Sandra Meyer. Childhood and Family Background Tracey lived in an upper-middle class suburban area of Fort Wayne, Indiana with her parents. There Page 1 EXHIBIT B www.csas-swan.org 49 West Main Street ? Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6227 ? 800-445-2444 / 717-766-6449 ? Fax: 717-766-6701 An Egiwl 014whinity Organization were many other children her age that she could play with in her neighborhood She was the only child in her family for her first eleven years, until her brother Nick was born. Despite the substantial age difference, Tracey has always been very close to her brother. She helped to raise him and has remained very interested in his life to this day. He still lives in Indiana but the two see each other regularly. Tracey also maintains contact with her parents. They divorced when she was 13 years old and her father has since remarried. He lives with his wife in Indiana where he is a successful businessman. Her mother has never remarried and lived with Tracey and her husband for awhile until she returned to Indiana to be close to friends and relatives in that area. Educational Background Tracey always enjoyed school and was active in many sports activities. She swam competitively and enjoyed sailing. She was a good student and had many friends. She graduated from Homestead High School in 1989. From there she went on to attend nursing school and graduated from Indiana Vocational Technical College in 1992 as a licensed practical nurse. Tracey values education and believes that it is an important step to a successful career. She will encourage her children to take their studies seriously and to achieve their educational goals. Employment Tracey has worked as a nurse since she was 19 years old She loves her chosen caner and feels accomplished in her work. She has been employed as a StaffNurse with Medical Staffing Network for the past 11 years and earns an annual salary of $60,000. Tracey hopes to continue working as a nurse after the couple adopts but does anticipate reducing her hours so that she can spend more time with her child. Characteristics Tracey is a Caucasian woman in her 30's with light brown hair, brown eyes and fair skin. She has an average build and stands 5'8" tall. Scott describes his wife as having the `best heart' and as a very generous individual. He says that she is someone who deeply cares about people and is also a very hard worker. References have described her in similar terms and all comment on her easy ability to interact well with children and adults. Tracey is an avid gardener and states that by working in the dirt she finds comfort and satisfaction. She has worked hard to landscape the couple's new home and finds the effort very rewarding. She also likes to spend time outside playing with her dogs, Zeke and Buddy. Health Tamena Sullivan, WAS, PAC (license #MA-052310) provided a medical reference on November 8, 2006. She indicates that Tracey is in good health and has no physical, mental health or other health issues that would affect a child in her can. She is not in need of psychological or psychiatric Page 2 evaluation. Further she is free from any communicable or infectious diseases. PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE FATHER David Scott Mullins was born October 28,1967 in Fort Wayne, Indiana He is the youngest of two children born to David and Mary Mullins. Childhood and Family Background Scott, as he prefers to be called, lived in a quiet neighborhood in Indiana There were many children to play with and his childhood was very pleasant. His father was in the Air Force which meant he was often away from home. His parent's marriage did not last and they eventually divorced His mother remarried when Scott was 17 years old and Scott has developed a very close relationship with his step-father Phil. His mother and step-father live very close by and he sees theta regularly. He also maintains a close relationship with his sister and step-siblings which include a brother and three sisters. He is not as close to his father. Educational Background Scot always enjoyed school and feels that he had good study habits. He attended public school and graduated from Elmhurst High School in 1986. He went on to complete two years of college at The Art Institute of Pittsburgh and also completed a Culinary Apprenticeship. Scott hopes to pass on his love of learning to his children and will encourage them to work hard in school. He hopes that his children will complete a post-secondary degree, such as college. He believes that a strong educational background is helpful in attaining a successful career. Employment Scott is currently employed by Menlo Worldwide Logistics in Middletown, Pennsylvania He is the site manager for their Middletown facility and has been with the company since 2005. Her earns approximately $68,000 annually. He has worked in this field for the past 12 years and has been with three other companies in this time. He plans to stay with his current employer for the foreseeable future and feels that his current position affords him many opportunities to grow professionally. He does not anticipate any major changes in his work after the couple adopts. Characteristics Scott is a Caucasian man in his late 30's who stands 6'0" tall and weighs 210 lbs. He has brown hair, brown eyes and fair skin. Tracey describes him as very patient, grounded and as having the biggest heart of any man she knows.' References describe him similarly. Page 3 Scott loves to cook and would love to be a professional chef. He has had professional training in this field but prefers the hours he can keep in his current occupation. Instead, he indulges his family and friends in his culinary treats. He also loves being outdoors and working with electronics. Health Tamena Sullivan, MPAS, PAC (license #MA-052310) provided a medical reference on November 8, 2006. She indicates that Scott is in good health and has no physical, mental health or other health issues that would affect a child in his care. He is not in need of psychological or psychiatric evaluation. Further he is free from any communicable or infectious diseases. COUPLE Scott and Tracey (Meyer) Mullins were married on August 10, 1996 Hampden Township, Pennsylvania. This is the only marriage for each. Marital History Scott and Tracey have known each other for 15 years. They dated for a long time before deciding to marry. Both come from families of divorce and neither wanted to repeat this pattern in their own marriages. They waited to marry until they were sure that they would have a solid marriage together. They came to the Harrisburg area because of Scott's job and have been happy to settle here. They have close ties to extended family and feel fortunate to have Scott's mother and step-father living nearby. Scott and Tracey lead active lives together. They enjoy doing home improvements and have many projects planned in their new home. They look forward to decorating the nursery and also hope to finish their basement in the coning months. In warmer weather, they enjoy a variety of outside activities. They own a boat and enjoy boating on the Susquehanna River each summer. Here they have made many friends and look forward to jet skiing, watching fireworks and just relaxing on the water. They hope to share these interests with their children The couple has faced some challenges in their marriage but feel that these have made them stronger as individuals and as a couple. Struggling with infertility was perhaps the most difficult challenge they faced. After repeated efforts to conceive the couple finally decided to abandon these efforts. It took them nearly two years to decide to move forward with an adoption plan They now feel ready to bring an adopted child into their home and are excited to finally become parents. Parenting Style and Discipline Policy Page 4 The Mullins do not condone the use of corporal punishment or any other form of physical discipline, including hitting or spanking, to redirect a child. They do not feel that using harsh language or yelling at a child is an effective means of discipline either. They feel that using an approach like `time out' or the removal of privileges is more effective with most children. They feel that it is important to communicate effectively with children so that they understand limits and expectations. Praising good behavior and focusing on positive accomplishments is also vital to creating a positive environment for a child. Child Care Plan The couple is currently assessing options for childcare after they adopt. Tracey hopes reduce the number of hours that she is working after they adopt. Scott's mother has offered to watch their child as needed. Since Tracey typically leaves for work in the late afternoon, and Scott returns home a couple of hours later, they do not anticipate needing outside help more than a couple of hours each day. Home and Community The couple built their two-story, brick home in 2005. It is situated on a partially wooded acre of land in residential area on the outskirts of the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. There are fields behind their home and houses to either side. The home is located just minutes from area amenities such as schools, hospitals and shopping enters. It is also a short drive to both of their jobs and close to Scott's family. They live within a two hour drive of Philadelphia and Washington, DC and about four hours from New York City. The house consists of an oversized living room, den, kitchen, dining room, powder room and laundry area on the first floor of the home. There are three bedrooms and two full sized bathrooms on the second level. A large deck can be accessed from the dining area which looks out over their specious, fenced in back yard. A detached two car garage is adjacent to the home. The home is comfortably decorated and meets or exceeds housing standards in Pennsylvania The house is very suitable for young children. Financial Resources The Mullins report a combined household income of $8500 per month. Monthly expenses total $5000 per month with the balance committed to savings. The couple owns their home, which is valued at $266,000. They make monthly mortgage payments of $2000 and have a remaining mortgage balance of $235,000. The couple reports household savings totaling $4900. Scott has a retirement account with T. Rowe Price of $5000 and one with the Principal Financial Group of $15000. Both have life insurance policies through Scott's employer for $136,000 for Scott and $50,000 for Tracey. Financial data was verified through 2005 W-2 statements. Page 5 The family has medical insurance through Cygna. Health. Their medical insurance will cover an adopted child at the point of placement. The couple does not have a Will but have named Scott's mother, Mary New as legal guardian to their children. References Four references were provided on behalf of this family. All references were positive and strongly support the couple's plan to adopt a child. No concerns were raised regarding their ability to parent an adopted child Documentation Pennsylvania State Police Criminal background checks were completed for each applicant on October 6, 2006 no criminal record is indicated in these reports. ChildLine reports were completed for each applicant on October 22, 2006 and show no record for either applicant. When questioned, Tracey indicated that she has no prior criminal history and has never been arrested or convicted of a crime. Further she indicated that she has no history of substance abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse or domestic violence. She has never been rejected for adoption or received an unfavorable study. When questioned, Scott indicated that he has no prior criminal history and has never been arrested or convicted of a crime. Further he indicated that he has no history of substance abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse or domestic violence. He has never been rejected for adoption or received an unfavorable study. The case record also contains the following documents: medical references, 2005 W-2's, birth certificates and marriage license. Adoption Preparation The Mullin's have been considering adoption for many years. Amer much research and thought they feel that an adoption from Guatemala is best for their family. They understand the risks and costs associated with international adoptions. They also understand that difficulties and delays may arise in the adoption process. Despite these potential challenges, they are excited to welcome a Guatemalan born child into their home. Their family has also taken an active interest in their adoption plans. Scott's mother has been busy learning about the process right alongside them and is also leaming Spanish. They have also committed to receiving post-placement services and supports through this agency. They have contracted with Common Sense Adoption Services for post placement services. They intend to seek all necessary and available supports to-insure that their child experiences a smooth transition after the adoption occurs. Page 6 ASSESSMENT & RECOWdENDATIONS Scott and Tracey Mullins are assessed to have the skills necessary to successfully parent an adopted child. The couple is seeking to adopt a child of Guatemalan heritage and will consider children up to 2 years of age. They can accept mild or correctable medical conditions. It is with pleasure that this agency approves this family for the adoption of one to two children, up to 24 months of age from Guatemala. Common Sense Adoption Services is a Pennsylvania licensed adoption agency, license # 350980, located in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania U.S.A. The license is granted in accordance with the Public Welfare Coale of 1967, P.L. 31 and is renewed annually. In accordance with this license Common Sense Adoption Services and its agents are approved to conduct home studies, including home studies for international adoptions. This agency provides post placement services. Date approved.• December 11, 2006 Respecifull submitte4 Erin R J Chick; MA Executive Director I NW O SYLW IA Notarial Q6 / Sara J. Ensinger, Aab Public Cadisle Boro, Cumberland County V Comm6-ion Expires Oct 17,2009 Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries Page 7 4 A! loyal. 1:1 f 1 i ' 3 ' i .j Is m& ?sr ?: A sad. S. ::d Tracey L Mullins Raaiding 5466 Devonsbia Road Hwd PA 17112 likdively known as "Adaptive rn?7y". Telephone: 717-6574934 Email Add ass: smWhn943@verb:onnd:".' Main Adoption Service is a 11 cxi1- adoption aomw in die Commonwealth of Penny" a A is artiona! ade clods Our okken is PQ Box 4691 Lam, A 17604 Robert 1VkClenagb4ti is to Facecutive Director of the firm. Thep of this agreement is to set 1o0 the obligations f Main Strout Adoption Samce the Adoptive Family to &mh necessary procedures by Main Street Service in the foreign aoonry? jnd by the Family in the United States of in Order to accomplish The NIO tion of c Msia Add So vice sball w@*Ay file fin ' g: • Coopon to with local and regional tbroitgh i ro rspr+esentatit?es in die foreign country atdat m Bos a the legei d op on of a cWhO . • Frovi Adaptive for* with all 4 lc ' on to Main Street Adoption on the ' additional irifocm 6n m4y6e le to ' Family during an visit to Orphanage and ddkL :f i • Carry all tamsiation work Mcdsa r for doptiam within the country. • Have meet petapediva pCerits}at the eaaitlry airport, Pr'4vide driving the cotitttry for -A-! pia Oae6, offer latioa foe Orphanage; courts; .. make mrangc:mems for ve pas+erits 'ors: while staying die country (lodg* *" doh incl • Refined of the received fees frwn d Fun aKaR t for the non- 1o fee indicated in the fee ar.ii ? tie wait - d ul e he the Adoptive Family is rcjcctod _ ? _ , the Regloaat Court in the eoumtzy or officials due to improper j. i EXHIBIT C Ir VC preW On of doautaoats by Mahn Shut 4doption Scr m amd thua unable to final' their Adoption. • Retain of the received fees fiam tic Ad4ptive F should the Adoptive Family decide to proceed with tlhe adoptiiio pt?beeaa at any dLw to w4' panwal ord not to Mend the schedalac covet having for personal rearCn or no to adhere specific guiddiaes outliner iu do • Keep all inf'oundion on the A#opd" fami received by Main Street Adapti service_ i i The Fummogy diall coo" ? wild his iar: Tan rho adoption procedure in the Uni)ed Stows du ough a licensed Koine Study noarize and autheadmift dmougb a taklgoverrn?ent ago.1a ft b terudiooal?l in do US. All foes asmcisoed with m the resposhsh'bility of smily. • Main Street Adoption Savvier all dom=e to far conducting it, the fortiBIL Fwahily se fists no. • ?Ge Farm to Btreot Service with aU lY P n covet . recxivod m cowry ' ronuoing to the US, to raosW sad pay all fees ;. with of the ddW waft 30 days o to the US with the Cotmtry's or consulate in the us if • The Farrdly agrees to comp* all of the foreign county's prior to sod attar the adooiion and all cats essociatad with this pUAnee foresem or not foresegn shall how lace main Stmt Swvim for any compliam mini. • all available information on *t well being of the child post PUCen>eat reports. Adop#w 1"? m follow cad abide by the of the foreign camgty deli?w for Rich reports, la the event requirements change steer tit; of ad"" Adoptive Family agrees follow these c6s. To awe 'on of post pINoeahcnt mwts' Street Adaption has the, ight contact Adoptive Family State authori es for child p atectiarc aerviot the foreign s Consulates office if the are not received with 43 digs at?or the due establWW by the forsir go Adoptive Faonily aho agrees 1i pay for all authaa?iaition and associated-with the post reports. • Family dao agrees to com* amy m4 " or changes inducting foes if foreign counk)'s s ' suds or requ . • The Family tiny will. A ' received from Main Street `on Service admit and foreign Failure to comply cave far iowaoediate tccnhistion f this aced foc6eiture of all paid few. • The Family filly uodeerrmc; all I%d under skm by Main Street Service are conducted, in the famign gavermoent and we by the Isms of dw forciae are to chmp without notim. Pe r1 Yi - ?I • The A ve: Facnity fully undtumuxia and yarns that Won Sava Adoption Service is not aad/ot finimciWlyy apauibie1 for tie abw we of any maw in and /or accuracy of supplied n$edW and stDdW inmWWWW1t given to Maio Adoption Service of Ada?tiveJF?tiy by amboage or govaumo aal and may not be able to obtOu aFull medical prior to Adoptive Famili v}slt to the wph@wV (,-VwWWu] f Cd 'td's ' )• • The ' e Family fully tmdexataods its jOeepnasibi ' tp peacmnally visit the dWd prior the oouet hauiog if the foeealg cowry Leave such visitation. The caotwWs law may require putnis do reply sit the drildrat during the court- erring period whgeln oouwy • The a Fancily fully uad s ace age!eao, m feet that main Street A Service is not kgaUy andMt; SnespCially AN my it aruptiorm delays, additions to or c*noin ptooess yow adoption is the US or in any eoanny ft the teadt of ae$•tarrat?dmeat of adoption lawn and barewmta is ni atakea at in the cmvwy or in the US or aw of the Dowd of Main Service. • Main 3 met Adoption Services is not ' for say hot y up to and ictoloduag death, j mu or un€orea m 8naadd lolb of due any part of the adoption procen within the US or any boreigt?;.atn?ry• • All " And acdtodula an jeod cud main Street is not ble for delays or oeats trssoci#od , th delays in adoption process. • in &MIp des may be ' there in United Stales and UWc dun Living cotidlt ud6 trt oea. food water mow not be to adapted as -normal in the ' + Family to dhwrlm nos Street 'oa Service pdwlatite r fthk apventeart any oftfie $? ccimmal (whether rtat urs to obtain a home study! adoptions r " for adorft6 law suits fileiid neat law suits awarded sgainst an ag?eoey..,eayMown futtu?e In reside nq or_mmheed. _ VBM p°Pk tine residence l?`s"o acq eves is teams for te: tearmhution of the t low of nag! f m • Family"agrees to noh'fy=_ ' Street Service within 34 days of or axpwiewe of aey lime event. ' but not litetitied to, birth of s exmial cLargas (whether Wuwwqw? err note chea?e in matititl mtw incl seapan kw%' cbsa®e of reswk$&7, *wgm in awnber of hmily members living thin the midence, amployo* Ebb= and a , m rips into a lrw suit, sate on agrexnnaat to adopt with agone y them Main Strut Adoption. >aihtre notify blown Street Adoption err mmmuma 5daifj+bog inibtmaRion is subjm immodiatc t ou of d aw? med and of ell paid mess. • Family rmdaaads tad lgr" to contact Strut Adoption Service foreip direaotly before, d?r"' after the wbbwA written conseaot Maus SUM Adoption b y will be grounds for on of this areae numt and f of all Bees 'd. • Adopti Fondly to nds and to &vWge, ftmd r, utilise, imnruct; Dopy, com" directly or for dx of ioitb? butte' g, Paan kdtfi J 1 W1 PCB Y eervioe or businm or provide such to MY Adcom 100" sbrviee, service or individuals Is ?p?B lair witomt written comear by Man, Street Sacvice. Alldoaa m e6tatiweb emWIs and wkphow we Considered propeielary a*d dan pro" tY of Main Street Adoption Fnwft are only W MM fortLe A t and raW not be trod for my other • Any trover:iy of claim arisift oath t agrobt f less dm or equal to S5,000 dwU resolved by am acemn in ao coat of mumic4w Court of the City of and of I.aacastQ PemnylvORM it claim fires dwW by as SS,000, it diall be resolved lij? in City of LAU=NW administered by dw Assocaaiion is accordance with ' Atbibabon Arch for Ad*idn 0i! oath be binding said A? the award rendered by the s) am be edaned is my odptt1?vittg In wing to arbitration, we . mickmawledge that, in the a+vsi?t of i dImpm fees alleged by us, each party ' giving up tho right to lance tm decided a coat of law befaro a judge or jwy ios wd we ere aeoepebg tea of for reaolndon of this meteor. It? mY &qKft, **dbw msolva4lby a wsnit, the prevaift pansy will be ito attotney's face and This t becomes valid upon moo" b? Main Street 'on Service with original by all mambas listeds F Main. S Adoption Service and by $1801m r does to "RISKS O II?TBRNATIONAL and Foe I) by the Adoptive Family. parties to this ? to adsaed docummits in order for cltmwo to be "did. 71c Orfi inert LL- be lops at Main Street Adoption and a dupUmm will be. "Copy" supplied to the Adoptive Ramily. ;; MOOT attdiy i Mawr I trod Adepoin Swvice i oat J J McC1 TIP) Date / < zaeG ;i 3 Dw? t Z ?Z ?? U(? i i . i Petrl?t lldt?ll?N/.yL-.'1 1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services 1600 Callowhill Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT /-PETITIONER DAVID SCOTT MULLINS 5486 DEVONSHIRE ROAD HARRISBURG, PA 17112 NAME OF BENEFICIARY DATE 2/13/07 FILE NO. PHI-06-070-011 I8 FORM I=600A I-600 PLEASE COMPLY WITH THE BELOW CHECKED ® INSTRUCTIONS ? 1. The above application/petition and its supporting documents are attached. - ? 2. The above application/petition and its supporting documents have been forwarded to your attorney or representative. ? 3. Please complete the blocks on your enclosed application/petition, which are checked ® in red. ? 4. Please follow the instructions on your enclosed application/petition, which are checked ® in red. ? 5. Furnish the required fee of S ? 6. Furnish proof of United States citizenship for : ? 7. Furnish the marriage certificate of ? 8. Furnish proof of death or legal termination of marriage of ? 9. A foreign document must be accompanied by a translation in English. The translator must certify that he/she is competent to translate and that the translation is accurate. ? 10. Furnish the date and port of each of your entries into the United States and the name of the ship, plane or other vehicle on which you traveled. ? 11. Except for aliens with occupations listed under Schedule A. 20 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 656.10, a certification from the Secretary of Labor must be obtained before your petition or application may be resubmitted to this Service. Further information and Department of Labor forms and instructions may be obtained from the local office of the state employment service agencies. ? 12. You have indicated that you do not intend to seek employment. You must furnish evidence that you have sufficient funds or other means of maintaining yourself in this country. ? 13. Furnish two (2) color photographs. These photos must have a white background; photos must be glossy, un- retouched and not mounted Dimension of the facial image should be about 1 inch from chin to top of hair or head, shown in full frontal view. Using soft pencil or pen, print name (and alien registration receipt number, if known) on the back of each photograph. You should show these instructions to the photographer who takes the pictures. ? 14. You may now apply for adjustment of status, on the attached forms, for yourself and the below listed persons. ? 15. Your proofs of status documents have been checked and are attached. Your application/petition is being processed and will be completed in the near future. ? 16. You are granted additional time until to submit a brief in support of your appeal or to present evidence in rebuttal to the proposed visa petition revocation or denial. ® 17. SEE ATTACHMENT. NoTE: ALL REQUESTED EVIDENCE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 12 WEEKS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE.- Form 1-n PLEASE RETURN THIS LETTER AND ALL ATTACHMENTS WITH YOUR RESPnxtF EXHIBIT D Attachment to Form I-72 MULLINS- I-600A PHI-06-070-01118 Reference is made to the Application for Advance Processing, Form I-600A, filed by you and your spouse, Tracey Mullins, on December 11, 2006 in accordance with Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 204.3. 8 CFR 204.3(ax2) explains in its initial paragraph that: ... Petitioning for an orphan involves two distinct determinations. The first determination concerns the advanced processing application, which focuses on the ability of the prospective adoptive parents to provide a proper home environment and their suitability as parents This determination, based primarily on home study and fingerprint checks, is essential for the protection of the orphan... 8 CFR 204.3(h)(2) further emphasizes that: - - ... No advanced processing application shall be approved unless the Director is satisfied that proper care will be provided for the orphan... In accordance with 8 CFR 204.3(e)(2)(iii)(D)(v), The prospective adoptive parents and the adult members of the prospective adoptive parents' household are expected to disclose to the home study preparer and the Service any history of arrest and/or conviction early in the advanced processing procedure Failure to do so may result in denial pursuant to paragraph (h)(4) of this section or in delays. This office has since received a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigations which reveals that you were arrested on two separate occasions, on February 25, 1993, you were arrested, charged and convicted of OWL On June 13, 1998, you were again arrested, charged and convicted of Driving under the Influence. However, this information was not included your home study report. In fact, according to your home study preparers you were specifically asked if you were ever arrested and you responded, "no". 8 CFR, 204.3(h)(2) further determines that: ... If the Director has reason to believe that a favorable home study, or update, or both are based on inadequate or erroneous evaluation of all facts, he or she shall attempt to resolve the issue with the home study preparer, the agency making recommendation ... if any, and the prospective parents... Based on the foregoing, the requirements of Title 8, CFR, Part 20433(e)(2)(iii)(B), must be applied. You are hereby accorded a period of twelve weeks to present original court dispositions resulting from all charges brought against you. You must also provide evidence that all terms of your arrest were complied with. Furthermore, you must present a complete detailed statement describing all circumstances surrounding your criminal arrest(s), and an explanation as to why your arrest information was withheld from your home study preparer and withheld from Service attention. Lastly, you are required to provide a home study addendum containing an evaluation of the suitability of your home for adoptive placement of an orphan in light of your prior criminal history. Failure to comply or respond within the specified time period will result in the denial of your form I-600A. 0 000 Common Sense Adoption Services A non profit agemcj, February 27, 2007 Scott & Tracey Mullins 5486 Devonshire Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Dear.Mr.. & Mrs. Mullins, I am in receipt of the notice you received from USCIS regarding the status of your I- 600A application and the results of Scott's FBI fingerprint report Your FBI background check revealed two prior arrests that were not disclosed in the home study. You have been instructed to provide USCIS with original court dispositions from all charges brought against you and to provide evidence that all terms of your arrests were complied with. You must also provide USCIS with a detailed statement regarding these two arrests. Additionally, USCIS is requiring an addendum to your original home study to be completed by this office. In order for this agency to comply with this requirement, we are asking that you first provide this office with copies of all of the documentation being required of you by USCIS. Once this office receives this documentation and can review the records, we will schedule a meeting to discuss the steps to be taken in completing the required addendum and evaluation. Your prompt response to this letter will insure that the required investigation can be completed within the 12 week timeframe provided by USCIS. Pending the outcome of this investigation, your current approval for adoption has been suspended. Sincerely, M.A. Erin R Yv Executi r CC: US CIS Main Street Adoption Service EXHIBIT E www.csas-swan.org 49 West Main Street ? Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6227 ? 800-445-2444 / 717-766-6449 ? Fax: 717-766-6701 An Equal Optxrrturity Organization Satb t: Letter to b[Wdw Date: 4110/2007 9:27:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time Ryas: Mullins.David jnetdowmidwide.com To: onew(aabf com mimimaree(aaol.com <<Martha.doc>> D. Scott Mullins I Logistics Manager - Ops I Menlo Worldwide 1717.930.0712 cell 717.943.5500 Leadership I Integrity I Commitment I Excellence EXHIBIT F Martha, As you know, our ultimate goal is to adopt a child, provide love for that child and do all that we can to be the best parents we can be, this has been a dream of ours for many years. To achieve that goal we chose Common Sense Adoption Services to represent us. We hired you to be our advisors and advocates in the adoption process in which we, at the time, knew little about. We put our faith and trust in your agency and staff to help us to interpret the many documents and to prepare those documents in a correct and timely fashion. These documents, along with our reference letters and personal interviews with your staff person, would ultimately become our home study. As was explained to us, the home study is the first step in any adoption process. Because we are seeking to adopt a child from Guatemala, it is the most important step in an International adoption. Without an approved home study, which generates an 1-71H form from our government, we cannot adopt internationally. I feel it is important that I document here the fact that on December 14, 2006 I called your agency and informed Lori Teeter and Erin Chick of a DUI, a misdemeanor that I received in 1998, almost nine years ago. I was worried that this might be an issue. This was before the home study was completed and I was told at the time that, "it wouldn't be showstopper". I asked Erin specifically whether we should change the home study to reflect this incident. I was told not to worry that "if this becomes an issue, we'll deal with it then." I didn't go into any details of the incident, not because I was trying to hide them or trying to deceive her, but because she didn't seem interested. I know now that it should have been addressed then, that I should have insisted it be included in full detail, but we trusted your agency to guide us. The home study was not changed, approved, signed, notarized and submitted by Erin in mid December. I know that you must feel that it is necessary to believe your own employee however, this conversation can be verified with Main Street Adoption Services because a conversation took place with Bob from Main Street as well on December 10 about the 1998 incident. On Tuesday February 20, 2007 we were notified by USCIS via a letter that there were discrepancies between the home study and the FBI background check. I immediately contacted your agency at which time I spoke with Erin Chick. I read to her the letter verbatim and she specifically stated, "It's OK I will tell Immigration it was an oversight on my part". I then asked if we should be worried and she said "No". She requested that I fax the letter from USCIS to her, which I did. She then stated she would be contacting us soon. It was several days before we heard anything. In hindsight I should have told her about an incident in 1993, fourteen years ago, of a DUI, a misdemeanor that I did not disclose. It resulted in a ticket. It was my understanding that this incident had been expunged and was no longer on my record. Every indication when any type of background check had been performed there had been no record of this incident. This lead me to believe the incident in 1993 was indeed satisfied, all commitments and requirements were fulfilled and that it had been expunged from my record. I am not in any way trying to minimize either of these incidents. They are true and correct, but they are in my past. I am not the same person I was when these occurred; I have matured and I lead a very different life today. I was not trying to be deceitful but without any guidance as to how important any of this would be or that it might appear on a FBI background check, it seems I have been and I have apologized to your agency and to USCIS. On Friday February 23'x, we received an email from Erin chastising us for calling the office too many times. We were instructed to "refrain from calling this office until you receive my letter"; a letter that would "detail the follow up actions to be taken in response to the USCIS notice." She also indicated that, "Scott's failure to provide this office with full disclosure of his complete criminal record history is now a matter under Federal Investigation." We were looking for an explanation and guidance at that point. We received neither and felt abandoned. The letter from USCIS indicated that they needed any and all documentation on these two incidents in question. I was able to provide that. The following week, we received the letter that Erin referred to, telling us to deliver to her the documentation and a letter from me explaining why I did not disclose my criminal history. As you can see, I took full responsibility for my part, but did not mention Erin's part in this. I did this because I thought that Erin would then explain to USCIS about "the oversight" on her part and that the documents would then be sent on to USCIS. Tracey delivered all of these documents to her office on Friday, March 2nd. The following week a meeting was scheduled with you to be held on Thursday, March 15. After the meeting in your office, Tracey and I were in shock. Instead of using that meeting to clear up any discrepancies or to resolve any remaining issues in order for us to move forward with an amended home study, you chose to belittle and berate us. We expected more from your agency and from you as a professional. The subject at hand, from your standpoint and in your words was the "missing information" in our home study. From our standpoint, the subject at hand is that there should not have been any "missing information" in our home study; that was what we hired your agency to do for us. From the beginning either by talking to us, or by the requirements of your reference letters or through your own survey, you should have had all of the information that you needed to complete our home study. If there was a need to have an explanation of or more details about any issue, or a different issue, you should have helped us to know how to furnish these details to you before the home study was submitted to USCIS. For reasons we still don't understand, you made several derogatory statements and remarks, which set the tone for our meeting on March 15''. Your statement saying, "you can't be trusted and all of the information you provided to this agency is now in question" has left us confused and angry. We are confident that all information provided to you is without question. When we asked you what additional information could be provided to you, your comment was, "it's your life and you need to figure out how you can make me believe you." Not only do we feel that this statement was unethical and unprofessional it was illogical. How could we have moved forward at that point if we didn't know what more was expected of us? Instead we are asking you why all of the information provided to you, was not in our home study in the first place. In addition, as our conversation with you progressed we were forced to justify whether we were "good people". My wife mentioned that she was a nurse and if there were ever any issues she would lose her license and it would be published in the Pennsylvania Nursing Journal. You responded "so in order for me to find out if you're a good person I should subscribe to the Pennsylvania Nursing Journal." That was completely and entirely inappropriate and we feel un-ethical. After that statement, we were sure that the meeting was an exercise on your agency's part to give the case the appearance of due diligence and that you and your agency had already come to a conclusion in regards to approving and amending our home study. You questioned me about my job history. Your comment was that "substance abusers tend to change jobs frequently." This has nothing to do with substance abuse and has everything to do with providing for my family. I indicated to you in my autobiography that I have had only four jobs in the last eighteen years. In our March 15's meeting I explained to you that I have had other jobs but none that defined my career today. I have consistently improved myself by changing jobs. You specifically wondered about my latest job. I tried to explain that my current position is the Site Manager of a major logistics company; a smart career move, which resulted in a tremendous increase in salary and is also much closer to my home. Where is the relevance and how does this pertain to the information that USCIS is requesting? We have wasted six weeks of the twelve that USCIS afforded us to get this resolved. We have sent several emails to you with suggestions as to what we could do to get this home study moving. Also, I understand that my father spoke with you in an effort to expedite this process in any way that he could and after discussing the details of your conversation with him, he advised me that you would like to have a number of items, most of which we have already given you and are in your possession. We feel that we have provided to you and your agency all of the documentation that USCIS has requested from us except for the addendum containing the suitability of our home for adoptive placement of an orphan. We have invited you to our home so that you can complete this portion of the amended home study and still according to your email dated March 26, 2007 you state "my decision will be based on your dealing with these issues and not by an arbitrary deadline". We run the risk of not only losing most of our life savings, but we will also incur more cost because of your lack of urgency to get this situation resolved. The issues you have raised over the last six weeks have nothing to do with USCIS requirements; they are issues you choose to raise to explain away Erin and your agency's irresponsibility in this matter. The issue that you raised in your last email dated March 26, 2007 regarding our alleged deceitfulness was "you each indicate that you 1) were concerned that if you disclosed your criminal history we would not approve you to adopt and 2) that it was so long ago you had forgotten about it. These can't both be true." I am going to take this opportunity to address this once and for all. I am confident that at no time did I say that I had forgotten about these issues; however I was and still am concerned about how it will be viewed in the adoption process. This was what I explained to Erin during our phone call, and again to you in our meeting and finally again in this letter. Common Sense Adoption Services is a business, we are the customers. We have paid for services that we have not received and now we are now being punished for being ignorant to the adoption process and because you, your agency and your staff failed to adequately represent us. We feel confident that we are being punished because in your words "I can't go to the people in Philadelphia with an I'm sorry. This is embarrassing and we have a reputation to keep". That is what this is about. You are embarrassed and you fear for your reputation! For us it is about swallowing our pride and about a chance to have a family. With that said, our thoughts of bringing in additional people to act as character witnesses on our behalf in order to satisfy you would be an exercise in futility. We initially provided four families that came forward to speak on our behalf which were classified in your agency's words as "excellent references." Additionally, over the past several weeks, in an attempt to clear any doubts of our character, we have provided additional letters from family members and friends along with, at your request, an opportunity to speak to these individuals as well as two separate invitations to our home to have additional conversations with us regarding this matter. So far we have not even received a phone call from you providing feedback as to the status of this case. What's even more discouraging from our standpoint is the negative feedback we have received from our friends and family members in regards to their contact with you. The consensus from these individuals is that you have no intention of resolving this case satisfactorily and you indeed intend to just merely go through the motions, stringing us along and ultimately denying the home study. One of the individuals, Tracey's Brother Nick Meyer, tried to make contact with you via a phone call and was turned away because in your words "you were not available." There was no attempt to make other arrangements to speak with him so Nick is now left wondering whether he should call again. Unfortunately this has been the pattern from your office to date, very cold and not willing to work with us to get this resolved in a timely manner. The individuals trying to make contact with you have known Tracey and me for many years and are good, responsible, and respected people in the community. If given the chance, they would describe to you the kind of people that we are today. Isn't that really what is relevant concerning this adoption? Perhaps this time, if you can make time for these individuals, you can request that these individuals comment on how we currently behave and whether or not there are any behavioral issues or substance abuse. It seems that these would be commonly asked questions when interviewing personal references in a matter as important as this. This adoption process has been a huge struggle for Tracey and me, both emotionally and financially. We did not enter in to this process without a tremendous amount of thought. We had been referred a little baby boy in Guatemala through Main Street Adoption Services, an agency that you referred us to. We named him Aaron; he is four months old. We love him and we haven't even met him. Because of the incompetence of your employee Erin, we have lost him. He was our son for four months and you have taken that away from us. You asked us in the meeting with you, " What are you going to do if I refuse to amend your home study" and "what are you going to do with all of the baby things"; these comments to us were hurtful and unnecessary. As of today, you have not approved our home study and we don't know what we will do with the baby things but we do know that you and your agency could have helped to prevent this situation, but you didn't. In conclusion, we feel that we have explained, furnished and offered to you and your agency all that is required for an amended home study set forth in the February 201, 2006 letter from USCIS. We feel the letters and conversations with additional references and the invitation to our home offered on two separate occasions should be more than sufficient evidence of our character. With that said, we would like a written decision in this matter sent to our home within five days of receipt of this letter. Additionally, if your agency chooses not to amend the home study favorably we request all original documents that Tracey and I provided during the process be turned over to us immediately so we can 1) move forward with our ultimate goal of adopting a child by having another home study completed containing all of the necessary facts by another agency and 2) exercise all options available to us to defend ourselves including full written complaints to the licensing boards of Common Sense, as well any necessary litigation to recuperate a full refund of the funds associated with this matter including fees to Common Sense as well as USCIS. Scott and Tracey Mullins 0 0V0 Common Sense Adoption Serrnces A non profit agettcy May 2, 2007 Scott and Tracey Mullins 486 Devonshire Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mullins, I received your e-mailed letter of 4/30/07 indicating your unwillingness to provide the information we requested in order to complete a favorable finding for your adoptive home study. I am truly sorry that you have elected not to provide the documentation that we need in order to approve you as an adoptive applicant. We are therefore not approving you as an adoptive applicant. There were two primary issues related to your situation that needed to be addressed as a result of your withholding information regarding Scott's two prior criminal convictions for alcohol related driving offenses. The fast had to do with confirming that Scott no longer abuses alcohol and the second had to do with concern about the veracity of information that you share with this agency. You asked a number of individuals to provide character references and you also provided verbal and written explanationO of your version of events. One of your references raised an issue about a medical condition that supposedly impacts Scott's ability to metabolize alcohol. We continue to believe that this is pertinent to the issues raised You now claim that he does not have any such condition which raises concern about the veracity of the reference. The fact that your vehicle was involved in a hit-and nm within the last 1 % years is our second concern. Your refusal to provide any external corroboration for your version of this event concerns us as well. Unfortunately, by failing to provide full and honest information to this agency during the home study process we are unable to now approve your application simply based on your word. We will be sending a copy of your home study amendment to USCIS and to Main Street Adoptions today. We are also registering you with the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange's Resource indicating that you have not been approved. Should you choose at some point in the fixture to work with another adoption agency you will need to disclose EXHIBIT G www.esas-swan.org 49 West Main Street ? Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6227 ? 800-445-2444 / 717-766-6449 ? Fax: 717-766-6701 An Equal Opportunity Organization To them that you were the subject of an unfavorable home study and provide them with information as to your association with this agency so that they can see the information contained in your file with Common Sense. Sincerely, Martha. L. Jones, L , Ph.D. Adoption Coordinator Cc: Main Street Adoptions USCIS PA DPW COPY SAMUEL L. ANDES ATTORNEY AT LAW 525 NORTH TWELFTH STREET LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0168 7 May 2007 Telephones (717) 761-361 Fax: (717) 761-1435 E-Ma&7 LawAndes 0 aoLcom U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services 1600 Callowhill Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 ATTN: Marcia Eikerenkoetter RE: David Scott Mullins 5486 Devonshire Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Dear Ms. Eikerenkoetter: I write on behalf of Scott Mullins who, with his wife, Tracey Mullins, has filed an application to obtain a visa to bring a child from Guatemala into the United States for purposes of adoption. Pursuant to the requirements of that process, Mr. and Mrs. Mullins obtained an Adoptive Family Profile from Common Sense Adoption Services in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and submitted that to your office. In mid-February of this year, your office responded with an inquiry regarding two incidents in which he was arrested or charged with driving while intoxicated or similar charges. Those incidents and prosecutions had not been reported in the Profile submitted by Common Sense Adoption Services and your office requested certain information regarding them, with a home study Addendum with an evaluation of the suitability of the Mullins's home for adoption. My clients promptly communicated with Common Sense Adoption Services in response to this inquiry and supplied to that office, within a week of the time they became aware of your office's inquiry, a letter explaining these incidents and documents confirming the disposition of the charges against Mr. Mullins. I enclose a copy of his letter to Common Sense and the documents attached (with one exception). The documents from the Allen Circuit and Superior Courts consisted of two pages. Although both pages were submitted to Common Sense, my client has not been able to retrieve the second page from Common Sense. He has requested a duplicate of that from the Allen Circuit and Superior Courts in Indiana and we will supply that as soon as he receives it from that court). Mr. and Mrs. Mullins communicated repeatedly with Common Sense EXHIBIT H U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security 2 7 May 2007 in an effort to have them supply this information and an Addendum to their home study to your office. To date, Common Sense has refused to do that. Recently, Common Sense, by its adoption coordinator, Martha L. Jones, has submitted a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Mullins requesting information about three other incidents or alleged incidents. As it turns out, none of those incidents are accurate or significant. Mr. and Mrs. Mullins responded, within a matter of days of Ms. Jones, letter to them, with a detailed explanation. I enclose a copy of that explanation as well. It is vital for your office to understand that Scott Mullins reported the DUI arrest and prosecution to Erin R.J. Chick, the Common Sense representative who performed the adoptive family profile for them. When he did, he was advised that those incidents had not appeared on the criminal background check that Common Sense did and that, as a result, he should not worry about that unless your office raised an inquiry about it. Ms. Chick acknowledged that to Scott Mullins and other members of the family after the inquiry from your office in February. Mr. Mullins has never denied these incidents in his background and never made any attempt to conceal them. In fact, he voluntarily disclosed them to Robert McCenaghan of Main Street Adoption Services as part of his work with that agency to arrange the adoption of a child from Guatemala. Shortly after that acknowledgment, she was removed from the case and Martha Jones assumed responsibility for it. It is obvious, from comments made by Martha Jones and the inaction of Common Sense up to now, that Common Sense is not going to submit to your office the information it has requested, and which has been supplied by my client, or take other actions to amend or supplement its adoptive family profile. Quite honestly, I believe that is because Common Sense is more concerned about its reputation and its standing with your office than in seeking out and reporting the accurate facts in the case. Apparently Ms. Chick made a mistake in preparing the report and her office is not now willing to acknowledge that or accept responsibility for it. I write to supply this information to your office in the hopes that it will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of your notice in February. If it is not, and if your office requires a supplemental or amended adoptive family profile, my clients are prepared to engage another adoption agency to do that. Unfortunately, because of the delay by Common Sense in responding to the information my clients provided, the 12- week deadline for my clients to supply this information, and a supplemental report if necessary, is just about past. For that reason, if you want a supplemental report or any further information, we request additional time to provide that. U.S. Dept of Homeland Security 3 7 May 2007 I believe that Mr. Mullins disclosed these background matters in good faith. He and his wife enjoy a good standing and reputation in their community and they are, in all ways, suitable and qualified to adopt a child and make a good home for that child. Unfortunately, because of the confusion at Common Sense Adoption Services, and perhaps because of the interest in that agency of protecting its own reputation more than providing accurate information to your office, the Mullins' adoption has been delayed and the process complicated. Hopefully this letter, and the documents enclosed, will be sufficient to get the process back on track so that they can proceed with the adoption that they have long sought. If you have questions or need further information, please contact my office directly. The Mullins are dedicated to provide whatever information you need, through me, directly to your office, or through another adoption agency. They only request an opportunity to make the truth thoroughly known to your office. Sincerely, Samuel L. Andes le Enclosures cc: Mr. and Mrs. Scott Mullins l[AILINO ADDRESS: P. 0. BOX 166 LEYOTNE, PA 17043-0168 E-MAIL: L r,4"4esOaol.aom SAMUEL L. ANDES ATTORNEY AT LAW 525 NORTH TWELFTH STREET P. O. BOX 168 I Ir OYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043 8 May 2007 Martha L. Jones, L.S.W., Ph.D. Adoption Coordinator Common Sense Adoption Services 49 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 RE. Scott & Tracey Mullins Dear Ms. Jones: Tffi.EPHONE (717) 761-3361 PAX (717) 761-1433 Your letter of 2 May 2007 has been directed to me. Quite honestly, I am shocked by the misrepresentation and inaccuracies in your letter and the damage that such misrepresentations and inaccuracies are likely to do to these people. Your statement in the letter that Mr. and Mrs. Mullin were unwilling to provide information that you requested is simply inaccurate. Mr. Mullin responded to your request for information and attempted to explain to you why the information you had was not accurate. For example, he explained to you that no one has ever diagnosed him as of having a medical condition which interfered with his ability to metabolize alcohol and that the information you had regarding that was simply incorrect. He also explained that neither he nor his wife was operating the vehicle involved in the alleged hit and run incident and explained to you who was operating it and what little information he had about how that came about. Probably the most damaging and inaccurate thing you say in your letter is the accusation that Mr. Mullins withheld information from your office regarding his prior involvement with the law. That is simply not true. He made that information known to your employee and was advised, since it apparently did not appear on the state record check that your office ran, not to worry about it unless it came up later. Now that it has come up, your office is apparently unwilling to tell the truth about that matter and are trying to ship the blame for this information not being provided to USCIS to my client. You were aware of the request by USCIS for updated information and explanations on these points several months ago. You delayed requesting that information from my client and raised yet more demands for more information from EXHIBIT I r ` Martha L. Jones, L.S.W., Ph.D. 2 8 May 2007 them only recently, near the deadline imposed by USCIS to obtain more information from your office. Quite honestly, all of the actions by your office since this matter became a problem indicate to me that your office is more interested in protecting your relationship with USCIS than in discovering the truth and accurately reporting that truth to USCIS. You have taken small bits of inaccurate information and distorted and exaggerated them in an effort to put Mr. and Mrs. Mullins in a false and bad light. Your office has failed to acknowledge that it was aware of the DUI problem before its first home study was submitted to USCIS. Now you have compounded all of those errors by submitting incomplete, inaccurate, and perhaps downright false, reports to USCIS, to Main Street Adoptions, and the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange. Quite honestly, I believe the behavior of your office is outrageous. All of this could have been handled far more professionally if your office had attempted to discover the facts and report them accurately to these agencies, rather than scurry about in an effort to cover up your own mistakes and maintain your relationship with these agencies. If you had not already submitted these amended reports, as inaccurate as they are, I urge you to give serious thought to the matter before you make that mistake. It is not too late for the truth to be fully disclosed and reported, if you will simply deal with the truth rather than trying to protect your own interests. Please let me hear your response to this letter within the next three (3) days. Sincerely, Samuel L. Andes amh cc: Mr. & Mrs. Scott Mullins A Common Sense Adoption Services 0?0 A non p%jit agency May 30, 2007 Samuel L. Andes Attorney at Law 525 N. Twelfth Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Re: Scott and Tracey Mullins Dear Mr. Andes, I am in receipt of your letter of May 8, 2007. l understand that Mr. and Mrs. Mullins are not happy with the decision of this agency to withdraw their approval as an adoptive resource. . Unfortunately, the version of circumstances that the Mullins shared with you is not supported by the facts of this case. We stand by our decision. Sincerely, Martha L. Jones, W, Ph.D. EXHIBIT J www.csas-swan.org 49 West Main Street ? Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6227 ? 800-445-2444 1717-766-6449 ? Fa)a 717-766-6701 An Equal Opportunity Organization i ? otet?ryt Y David Scott Mullins AKA: Scott Mullins 5486 Devonshire Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 NOTICE OF DENIAL Dear Mr. Mullins: Philadelphia District Office U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1600 Callowhill Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 U .S. Citizenship and Immigration Services June 21, 2007 A99 939 761 PHI-06-070-01118 Reference is made to the Application for Advance Processing, Form I-600A, jointly filed by you and your spouse Tracey Mullins, on December 7, 2006 in accordance with Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 204.3. As of yet, you have not filed the Form 1-600, petition to Classify Orphan as Immediate Relative. It is therefore understood that you have not yet located an orphan or orphans to be adopted, and the following decision will not include any discussion with regards to the compliance with the definition of "child" under Section 101(b)(1)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (except as noted). Section 101(bx 1) defines a "child" as: (F)(i) a child, under the age of sixteen at the time a petition is filed in his behalf to accord a classification as an immediate relative under section 201(b), who is an orphan because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents, or for whom the sole or surviving parent is incapable of providing the proper care and has in writing irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption; who has been adopted abroad by a United States citizen and spouse jointly, or by an unmarried United States citizen at least twenty-five years of age, who personally saw and observed the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings; or who is coming to the United States for adoption by a United States citizen and spouse jointly, or by an unmarried United States citizen at least twenty-five years of age, who have or has complied with the preadoption requirements, if any, of the child's proposed residence: Provided, that the Attorney General is satisfied that proper care will be furnished the child if admitted to the United States... 8 CFR 204.3(a)(2) states in pertinent part: ...Petitioning for an orphan involves two distinct determinations. The first determination concerns the advanced processing application which focuses on the ability of the prospective adoptive parents to provide a proper home environment and on their suitability as parents. This determination, based primarily on a home study and fingerprint checks, is essential for the protection of the orphan... 8 CFR 204.3(h)(2) states in pertinent part: ...No advanced processing application shall be approved unless the director is satisfied that proper care will be provided for the orphan... EXHIBIT K 8 CFR 204.3(e)(2)(iii)(D) states in pertinent part: (D) Failure to disclose or cooperate. Failure to disclose an arrest, conviction, or history of substance abuse, sexual or child abuse, and/or domestic violence by the prospective adoptive parents or an adult member of the prospective adoptive parents' household to the home study preparer and to the Service, may result in the denial of the advanced processing application or, if applicable, the application and orphan petition, pursuant to paragraph (h)(4) of this section. 8 CFR 204.3(h)(4) states in pertinent part: Advanced processing application denied for failure to disclose history of abuse and/or violence, or for failure to disclose a criminal history, or for failure to cooperate in checking child abuse registries. Failure to disclose an arrest, conviction, or history of substance abuse, sexual or child abuse, and/or domestic violence, or a criminal history to the home study preparer and to the Service in accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) and (e)(2)(v) of this section may result in the denial of the advanced processing application, or if applicable, the application and orphan petition filed concurrently. Failure by the prospective adoptive parents or an adult member of the prospective adoptive parents' household to cooperate in having available child abuse registries checked in accordance with paragraphs (ex2xiii)(A)01,? and (e)(2xiii)(A 1 i through (e)(2)(iiiXA 1 iii of this section will result in the denial of the advanced processing application or, if applicable, the application and orphan petition filed concurrently. Any new application and/or petition filed within a year of such denial will also be denied. On December 28, 2006 you submitted a home study prepared for you by Common Sense Adoption Services (CSAS). Your home study states in pertinent part: "When questioned, Scott indicated that he has no prior criminal history and has never been arrested or convicted of a crime. Further he indicated that he has no history of substance abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse or domestic violence. He has never been rejected for adoption or received an unfavorable study." A review of Service records reveals a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicating that you were arrested on February 25, 1993 and were charged and convicted of Operating While Intoxicated (OWI). You were also arrested on June 13, 1998 and charged and convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). On February 13, 2007 the Service issued you a Request for Evidence, Form I-72, affording you twelve weeks to present the following documents: Original court dispositions for your arrests, evidence that all terms of your arrests were complied with, a detailed statement describing the circumstances surrounding your arrests, an explanation as to why your arrests were withheld from your home study preparer, and an addendum from your home studypreparer contL--g `an evaluation of the suitability of your home for adoptive placement of an orphan in light of your prior criminal history. On May 8, 2007 an addendum was received from CSAS revealing that you and your spouse are not approved as adoptive applicants. The addendum indicates that you failed to fully disclose all elements of your history of alcohol abuse and your criminal history. CSAS concluded that you and your spouse exhibited a pattern of deception during the entire home study process that challenged your veracity. As such, CSAS did not approve you as adoptive applicants. You have failed to fully disclose your criminal history and history of alcohol abuse to the Service and your home study preparer. Your home study preparer has evaluated your household and concluded that you and your spouse are not suitable for adoptive placement. As such, the Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition, Form 1-600A, filed on December 7, 2006, is hereby denied. You may, if you wish, appeal this decision by filing Form I-290B. You must submit such an appeal to this office with the filing fee of $385.00. If you do not file an appeal within the time allowed, this decision is final. An Appeal in your case may be made to: The Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) in Washington, D.C. It must reach this office within 30 calendar days from the date this notice is served (33 days if this notice is mailed). Do not send an appeal directly to the AAU. Please direct any questions you may have to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Office nearest your residence. Sincerely, -54 - , t a Evangelia Klapalds Field Office Director L A DAVID SCOTT MULLINS, and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, PlaintiffS V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERRVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL NO. 08-00062 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that he has served a copy of the foregoing, "Complaint," on the below-named individuals in the manner indicated: Certified Mail. Return Receipt Requested Common Sense Adoption Services 49 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Martha Jones 49 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Robert McClenaghan 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire Saidis, Flower & Lindsay 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (courtesy copy) Dated: April 28, 2008 Erin R.J. Chick 49 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Main Street Adoption Services 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Nina Vizitei 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 - qdm x & Joh M. Kerr, Esquire I.D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 ?? ?' ?'.? --+ _ r } ? ?,t"' i !` ? - L -k '?-.., r Y ; 3r? .,'F _ •• [.??` --C .. (.,'? 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICES, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER Defendants. Civil Action Number 08-00062 ANSWER OF COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES AND ERIN R.J. CHICK TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF NOTICE TO PLEAD To the plaintiffs: You are hereby notified to plead to the attached New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Submitted by, Jo 4J.atzelll, Jr. 1. Denied. The corresponding allegation does not allege any relevant facts and therefore no response is needed. 2. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to parties other than the answering defendants in their responses made. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6-8. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than the answering defendants and no response is made. 9. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth conclusions of law requiring no response. However, answering defendants do not dispute the venue of the court. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the corresponding allegation. 11. Denied as stated. Upon information and belief, answering defendants state that Mr. and Mrs. Mullins attended an orientation in April 2006. Answering defendants deny the characterization that Common Sense referred the plaintiffs to Main Street Adoption Service for the international placement of an adoption. Answering defendants do not dispute that Main Street Adoption Service would be identified as a resource for international adoption. It is admitted that answering defendants were retained to prepare a home study. 12 - 14. Denied. The corresponding allegations refer to conduct of parties other than the answering defendants and no response is made. 15. Denied as stated. Answering defendants believe that the initial consultation with Mr. and Mrs. Mullins occurred on October 4, 2006. Answering defendants admit that the total fee for the home study was $3,500.00. 16. Denied as stated. The criteria for an international adoption are governed by specific regulations of the United States government as well as the government of the country from which the adoption is to be made. Answering defendants do not agree that the corresponding allegation adequately or fully states the criteria for an international adoption. 17. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a party other than the answering defendants and no response is made. 18. Denied as stated. Answering defendants did not perform any fingerprinting on behalf of the FBI. Further, the relevant time period for the adoptive family profile is set forth in Exhibit "B" to the complaint, which is a writing which speaks for itself. 19. Denied. The corresponding allegation is denied because it does not adequately and fully disclose the nature and extent of the home study conducted by defendant Chick. However, answering defendant Chick admits that she never asked the Mullins whether "an FBI criminal background check would reveal any prior arrests or convictions". However, answering defendant Chick requested all information concerning any criminal history, even an arrest, indictment, other criminal charge, or conviction that has been expunged, sealed, pardoned or ameliorated in any other way as required by the instructions by the I-600A, application for advanced processing of orphan petition issued by the Department of Homeland Security. 20. Admitted in part. Answering defendants admit that under normal circumstances it would expect that both Scott and Tracy Mullins would be fingerprinted for FBI criminal record background checks. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to whether or not Scott Mullins had a face to face meeting with defendants McClenaghan and Heller of Main Street at the office of Common Sense Adoption Services on December 13, 2006. 22. Denied. Answering defendants deny that Scott Mullins informed Erin Chick about a DUI charge in 1998 on December 14, 2006. It is also denied that Erin Chick stated that the prior conviction would not be a "show stopper". 23. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to communications between the plaintiff and co-defendant and no response is made. 24. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 25. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant Chick "never inquired as to whether either of the prospective adoptive parents had a prior criminal history or were ever arrested". Such an inquiry was made by defendant Chick and answering defendants received a negative response from the Mullins at the time the home study was originally completed. 26-29. Denied. The corresponding allegations refer to communications between the plaintiffs and co-defendant and no response is made. 30. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 31. Denied. The corresponding allegation is denied as stated because Scott Mullins failed to disclose all criminal convictions and arrests. 32. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to conduct of the co-defendant and no response is made. 33. Denied. At no time did Scott Mullins disclose either DUI arrest during the home study analysis. Further, he never disclosed at any time the 1993 arrest and conviction until after the FBI background check disclosed the '93 conviction. Further, at no time did Mr. Mullins fully disclose the nature and extent of the 1998 Pennsylvania arrest, conviction and penalty. 34. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. Further, it is specifically denied that Erin Chick ever stated that she would call USCIS if no response was forthcoming by the end of January 2007. 35. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to conduct of a party other than the answering defendants and no response is made. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the corresponding allegation. 37. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to conduct of parties other than the answering defendants and no response is made. 38. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 39. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 40. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Scott Mullins had a telephone conversation with Erin Chick concerning the USCIS communication. It is specifically denied that Ms. Chick stated "it is okay, I will tell immigration that it was an oversight on my part". It is also denied that Scott Mullins asked if he should be worried and Ms. Chick responded "no". 41. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to conduct of a party other than the answering defendants and no response is made. 42. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 43. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that if, in fact, Mr. Mullins had only failed to disclose an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol which resulted in no penalty or sanction and which was expunged from his record and he had no other criminal convictions, the Home Study would have been more favorable. However, it is denied that the material misstatements that came to light after the USCIS communication were known to Ms. Chick. Further, the fact that answering defendant, Common Sense Adoption Services, could not render a positive home study for the Mullins had nothing to do with the 1998 DUI conviction, but had to do with other factors which called into question the veracity of the Mullins in the context of the adoption process. 44. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to conduct of a party other than the answering defendant and no response is made. 45. Admitted in part. It is admitted that answering defendants received some of requested information from the Mullins. 46. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. It is specifically denied that at any time answering defendant Erin Chick advised the plaintiffs to not disclose information concerning arrests and convictions "unless you get caught". 47. Denied. The corresponding allegation does not include an allegation of fact but merely serves as an alternative explanation for Mr. Mullins' failure to disclose a 1993 Indiana arrest. 48. Denied. The corresponding allegation is denied as stated. Answering defendant Martha Jones admits that based on the information that was disclosed after the FBI background check that she had concerns about the truthfulness of the Mullins in the context of the home study. 49. Denied. It is denied that Erin Chick was "moved to the background and all subsequent dealings were with Martha Jones with respect to the home study in question". 50. Denied. It is denied that the Mullins furnished all information requested by Martha Jones. 51-53. Denied. The corresponding allegations refer to a transaction between the plaintiff and a co-defendant and no response is made. 54. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 55. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 56. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 57. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the corresponding allegations. 58. Admitted in part. It is admitted that answering defendant Martha Jones requested additional information concerning two new issues which were disclosed to her during her home study. 59. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 60. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 61-62. Denied. The corresponding allegations refer to a writing which speaks for itself. Answering defendants specifically deny the truth of the allegations set forth in the letter issued by Samuel L. Andes. 63. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 64. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. Answering defendant Martha Jones admits to authoring the letter attached to plaintiffs complaint as Exhibit "J". 65. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 66. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. 67-68. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to transactions between the plaintiffs and a party other than the answering defendants and no response is made. 69. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers to a writing which speaks for itself. Count I Scott and Tracy Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services and Martha Jones (defamation) 70. Paragraphs 10 through 69 are incorporated by reference. 71. Denied. It is specifically denied that Martha Jones communicated any information to the Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange which was inaccurate, misleading, false or libelous. 72. Denied. All communications of Martha Jones to either Main Street Adoption Services or USCIS were contained in writings which speak for themselves. Further, all communications by Dr. Jones were privileged. 73-77. Denied. The corresponding allegations set forth conclusions of law requiring no response. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Common Sense Adoption Services and Martha Jones, hereby request that the Court enter judgment in their favor. Count II Scott and Tracy Mullins v. Erin Chick and Common Sense Adoption Services (Common law fraud) 78. Paragraphs 10 through 69 are incorporated by reference. 79. Denied. It is specifically denied that Erin Chick included information in the Mullins home study which she knew was not true and could lead to deceive the USCIS. 80. Denied. Answering defendant denies the corresponding allegation and the characterization of her communications with the Mullins. 81. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. By way of further answer, at no time did Scott Mullins inform Ms. Chick of two DUI convictions which were disclosed during the FBI background check. 82. Denied. 83. Denied. The corresponding allegation refers only to alleged mental considerations of the plaintiffs. 84. Denied. It is specifically denied that any representations made by Ms. Chick inured to the detriment of the plaintiffs. 85. Denied. Based on the allegations of the complaint, it is clear that Mr. Mullins was guilty of failing to disclose material information concerning his DUI convictions during the course of the home study process. 86. Denied. It is specifically denied that any conduct of the answering defendants caused the plaintiffs to be unable to adopt a child from Guatemala. 87. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor. Count III Scott and Tracy Mullins v. Erin Chick and Martha Jones (Civil Conspiracy) 88. Paragraphs 10 through 69 are incorporated by reference. 89. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. 90. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. 91. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in their favor. Count IV Scott and Tracy Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services, Erin Chick and Martha Jones (Breach of contract) 92. Paragraphs 10 through 69 are incorporated by reference. 93. Admitted in part. It is admitted that answering defendants entered into an agreement with the Mullins. The writing speaks for itself. It is specifically denied that the contractual agreement required answering defendant Common Sense to perform a home study necessary to obtain the visa permitting the Mullins to bring a child from Guatemala to the United States and to adopt him. 94. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. 95. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. 96. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in their favor. Count V Tracy Mullins v. Martha Jones (Intentional infliction of emotional distress) 97. Paragraphs 10 through 69 are incorporated by reference. 98. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. 99. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the corresponding allegation. 100. Denied. The corresponding allegation sets forth a conclusion of law requiring no response. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in their favor. Count VI Scott and Tracy Mullins v. Main Street Adoption Services, Robert McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller 101-110. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to a party other than the answering defendant and no response is made. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor. New Matter Direct to Plaintiff At no time prior to the results of the FBI background check did Scott Mullins ever disclose the details of his 1998 Pennsylvania DUI arrest and conviction. 2. At no time prior to the results of the FBI background check did Scott Mullins disclose any information concerning a 1993 DUI arrest and conviction in the state of Indiana. 3. All communications made by Erin Chick, Martha Jones and Common Sense Adoption Services were privileged and not susceptible to a claim of defamation. 4. All communications made by Erin Chick, Martha Jones and Common Sense Adoptions concerning the Mullins were believed to be true and are, in fact, true. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the adoption service agreement between Scott and Tracy Mullins and Common Sense Adoption Services. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is an authorization for release of confidential information signed by Tracy and Scott Mullins. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of an autobiography prepared by David Scott Mullins. 8. The autobiography of David Scott Mullins does not disclose any arrests or convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. 9. Some or all of plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor. Submitted by, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney ID 38548 215 255 6400 Strh(h & Hatzell NI Suite 0 -1700 Market Street VERIFICATION Erin R.J. Chick hereby states that she is authorized to make this Veri fication on behalf of Common Sense Adoption Services as well as herself and that the facts set forth in the attached answer to complaint are true and con-ect to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. x+4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 2 Erin K. J. Chic; Fax from : 7177666791 85-28-88 17:59 Pg: 3 VERIFICATION Martha L. Jones hereby states that she is authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Common Sense Adoption Services as well as herself and that the facts set forth in the attached answer to complaint are true and correct to the hest of. her knowledge, intcrrmation, and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. §4904 relating to unsworn thisilication to authorities. Martha L. Jones EXHIBIT A A Lyz? Common Sense A non-profit agency ADOPTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (Comprehensive Services) CLIENT NAME: The above named individual(s), hereinafter referred to as `Client', enters into this comprehensive service agreement with Common Sense Adoption Services, hereinafter referred to as `Agency', under the terms and conditions identified herein. Services. Agency will provide the following professional services to Client: 1. review of submitted Application materials and complete written requests for references on behalf of Client; 2. Adoption Preparation in accordance with applicable program requirements and as deemed necessary by Agency so that Client has a fundamental understanding of the adoption process and the risks associated with adoption; 3. completion of an Adoptive Family Profile (Home Study) consistent with the requirements of all applicable laws, regulations and professional standards governing said document; and 4. Placement Preparation to aid in the placement of an eligible child for the purpose of adoption. Placement preparation services will vary depending on the type of adoption program being sought but may include international dossier assistance, family album development, and/or registry on applicable adoption exchanges. In all cases, Agency will serve as a liaison between Client and other parties involved in the selection and placement of a child for the purpose of adoption. Timeftame. Adoption paperwork and related documents, such as the Adoptive Family profile, are tinge-sensitive. Agency will work diligently to complete these services in a timely manner. Client agrees to provide agency with all required documents, be available for scheduled interviews and respond to inquiries in a timely and complete manner. Failure to comply could result in the termination of this agreement. Agency will provide Placement Preparation services for up to one year following completion of an approved Adoptive Family Profile for the adoption program and child criteria defined in the profile document. Ownership of Records. The materials provided by Client as part of the application process and subsequent adoption services become the property and permanent record of Agency. Release of these records is at the sole discretion of Agency and its agents. www.csas-swan.org 208 West Main Street ? Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6227 ? 800-445-2444 / 717-766-6449 ? Fax: 717-766-6701 An Equal Opportunity Organization The Adoptive Family Profile document is a professional evaluation of a Client's appropriateness for adoption in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and professional standards set forth for a licensed adoption agency. This document is proprietary and will P& be released at the sole discretion of this agency. Clients will be provided an opportunity to review and discuss the contents of this document upon its completion. Clients will not be provided copies of this document for their own use and distribution, unless specifically required by their adoption program. However, copies will be provided directly to licensed agencies, attorneys and specific professionals involved in an adoptive placement with Client, at the discretion of this Agency. Any misuse of this document by Client could result in legal action, including but not limited to, civil action and/or pursuit of criminal charges by this Agency. Fees. Client agrees to pay the following fees in a timely manner and in accordance with the established payment schedule of Agency: $ 500 due at submission of application materials $1,500 due prior to first family profile interview $1,500 due upon approval of family profile Non-Payment. Failure to comply with payment requirements of Agency as established herein will result in the immediate cessation of all services to Client Non-payment is a violation of this agreement and will result in collection proceedings. Client further understands that all fees are non-refundable. Client acknowledges that there may be other fees/costs incurred in the adoption process, including additional fees to Agency. Other costs may include, bxt are xat lied to, document preparation fees, placement fees, fees to other providers, supervisory services, legal services and travel costs. Client is solely responsible for any such costs. Other Duties of Client. Client agrees to work collaboratively with Agency in order to ensure a positive working relationship. Client acknowledges that adoption is a complex process and that there are many factors and relaxed risks beyond the control of Agency. Client agrees to provide Agency with complete, accurate, timely and appropriate personal information deemed necessary to complete the Adoptive Family Profile and provide ongoing adoption related services. Client will cooperate in keeping this information current and accurate, beyond completion of the family profile document, by providing timely updates to appropriate agency staff. Any substantive changes in the Client's home or personal life that impact the contents of the Adoptive Family Profile or program choice could render this agreement void. Failure of Client to cooperate as specified herein is grounds for termination of this Agreement by Agency. Termination of Agreement Either party to this agreement (i.e., Client or Agency) may terminate this agreement by written notification to the other party at any time. However, any fees paid prior to receipt of said letter of termination are non-refundable. No Guarantee. Client understands that Agency and its staff cannot guarantee that Client will be approved as an adoptive resource. Client further understands that approval as an adoptive applicant may later be revoked, based upon the professional determination of this agency, and that Client will be provided written notification of all such decisions. Client further understands that Agency makes no guarantee that a child will be placed with Client for the purpose of adoption. Client also acknowledges that there are many risks in adoption and that the placement of a child may disrupt prior to a final adoption hearing. Severability. If any provision of this contract is determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby and the unenforceable portion shall be construed as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of the parties. Jurisdiction and Venue. Client and Agency agree that the substantive laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without references to its principles of conflicts of laws, will be applied to govern, construe and enforce all of the rights and duties of the parties arising from or relating in any way to the subject matter of the Agreement Client and Agency consent to the exclusive personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, a court located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania for any suits or causes of action connected in any way, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the Agreement Client hereby acknowledges that he/she/they has/have read and understand(s) the terms of this Agreement By his/her/their signature(s) below, Client represents a commitment to enter into a contract with Agee order to receive professional adoption services as detailed in this Agreem Client Signature: izz, 2 Date: l do?i Client Signature: Date: Agency Representative: ?? Date: / 1 0 0 EXHIBIT B AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Authorization is granted to Common Sense Adoption Services by: (Name of indivWUWS) guff amhMW ion is entered hue). to release the Adoptive Family Profile, and related documents, regarding the above named individuals(s), to adoption agencies, governmental and private organizations, courts and representatives of these entities. The purpose of the release of this information is to facilitate adoption of a child or children. Through this document Common Sense Adoption Services is authorized to release the Adoptive Family Profile, and related documents, to any organization, as required by law, and Common Sense Adoption Services, its employees and agents are freed from any liability associated with the release of the information. witness of this authorization Uwe have signed and dated this Print complete name Ld Date o Signing U 114. Ssignatdie Print co plete name It-- i Date of Signing EXHIBIT C David Scott Mullins Autobiography Growing up for me was very memorable. We lived in a neighborhood that had a lot of children so there was always something fun going on. My family consisted of my mother and father and an older sister. I can remember my father being the disciplinarian in the family. , Often, if discipline was in order, it would come in the form of discussion revolving around what I had done wrong and then spending some time grounded which would mean that it was to school and home. There was hardly ever any spanking or a physical approach to discipline. My family lives in the Harrisburg area and we remain in close contact. Usually, see the entire family once or twice a week. My educational background consists of a High School Diploma, a certificate of completion from a Culinary Apprenticeship and approx 2 years of college. School for me was always very fun and fulfilling and I feel that I can offer a child good habits for studying and responsibility. My goals for my children in regards to schooling would certainly be for them to attend and complete college. I work for Menlo Worldwide Logistics where I am the site manager for the Middletown, PA location. Menlo specializes in third party logistics. I have a solid work history and have only held four jobs in the last 18 years. Adoption would certainly pose some challenges when it comes to work but nothing that can't be overcome. I have been married for 10 years this past August. We have a solid relationship that is a team effort. Tracey and 1 share our household responsibilities such as cleaning, yard work, grocery shopping and the monthly household finances. Typically we will perform many of these tasks together. My hobbies consist of Boating, Golfing and NASCAR Racing. I often relax by going out on our boat and soaking up the sun. I was raised a Christian all of my life, although I don't attend a church currently. My intentions are to start attending church once there is a child in my life. A typical day in the life is spent at work during the day throughout the week and evenings are spent working around the house, yard work etc. During the summer I like to go to my nephew's baseball games and often go golfing to pass the time. Available time for me, once the child comes along, will certainly diminish but I am not concerned about that because I would be sharing my time raising a child which has been a dream for of mine for quite some time. Cont.. I spend quite a bit of time with my niece and nephew and have several friends that have children. I enjoy spending time with children because they are so care free and like to have fun. They make me laugh from some of the things they say and do. I think discipline should be done in a constnxxive way and I don't feel that any type of physical discipline is appropriate. Children understand when they do something wrong and if you can let them know in a positive manner, I think they will be more receptive. Adopting a child would be the greatest gift. 1 have always wanted to be a father and if it were, to ever happen I would be so happy. Having the opportunity to share my life with a child that might not otherwise have the same opportunities that I have had in my life would be a dream come true. I have been considering adoption for a couple of years now. I have met several people over the last year or so that have adopted and there has been nothing but positive results. One of my best friends adopted from China and they could not be happier. I have asked myself, how do I prepare for adoption? It's a very hard question to answer. There are so many unknowns at this point. I am going to try to prepare myself financially. The biggest challenge so far in life has been the fact that my wife and I can't have children on our own. It has been a struggle and you often wonder why it would be you that this happens to but life moves on and you learn to accept it. Adopting a child and having a child to share my life with would help to heal some of those wounds that have occurred by not being blessed with a child of my own. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the attached document was mailed on June 2, 2008 to: Main Street Adoption Services 65 Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Robert McClenaghan Main Street Adoption Services 65 Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Nina Vizitei Main Street Adoption Services 65 Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 e? n I r 4i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICES, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER Civil Action Number 08-00062 Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter my appearance for defendants, Common Sense Adoption Services, Martha L. Jones and Erin R.J. Chick only. Submitted by, Jo J. atzell, Jr. Strac & Hatzell Suite 1620 -1700 Market Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney ID 38548 215 255 6400 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the attached document was mailed on June 2, 2008 to: Main Street Adoption Services 65 Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Robert McClenaghan Main Street Adoption Services 65 Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Nina Vizitei Main Street Adoption Services 65 Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ohn 4. Hatzell, Jr. N .. _ . DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, AND NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL NO. 08-00062 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO THE NEW MATTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE COMMON SENSE DEFENDANTS 1. DENIED. As properly pleaded in the Complaint, Scott Mullins informed Erin Chick of his 1998 DUI on December 14, 2006. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs do not know what Defendants mean by the word, "details" With reference to the 1998 DUI. Erin Chick did not ask for any details, nor did she want to know anything further concerning such details. 2. ADMITTED. Byway of further answer, Erin Chick made it clear that she would deal with any such issues when and if they appeared on the FBI report. 3. DENIED. The allegation contained at paragraph 3 of Defendants' New Matter represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer and as pleaded in the Complaint, the Common Sense Defendants are not entitled to any conditional privilege. 4. DENIED. Erin Chick was well aware of the fact of a prior DUI by virtue of the Mullins' December 14, 2006 communication. Martha Jones was repeatedly informed of the true facts prior to her defamatory publication. 5. DENIED. The document appended to Defendants" Answer is a writing which speaks for itself. .. . . 46 6. DENIED. The document appended to Defendants' Answer is a writing which speaks for itself. 7. DENIED. The document appended to Defendants' Answer is a writing which speaks for itself. 8. DENIED. The document appended to Defendants' Answer is a writing which speaks for itself and any attempt to characterize its contents is expressly denied. 9. DENIED. The allegation contained at paragraph 9 of Defendants' New Matter represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against the Common Sense Defendants. Respectfully submitted, J n M. Kerr, Esquire Attorney I.D.#26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: June 24, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that he has served a copy of the foregoing, "Plaintiffs' Answer To The New Matter File On Behalf of the Common Sense Defendants," on the below-identified individuals in the manner indicated: First-Class Mail. Postarte Prepaid John J. Hatzell, Esquire Robert C. Saidis, Esquire Strachan & Hatzell Saidis, Flower & Lindsay Suite 1620 26 West High Street 1700 Market Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Common Sense Counsel for Main Street Defendants Defendants (?4 Ig Joh M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: June 24, 2008 C ^C a co BARLEY SNYDER LLC James R. Adams, Esquire Court I.D. No. 02501 Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire Court I.D. No. 92123 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Attorneys for Defendants Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION--LAW : NO. 08-0062 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: p? BARLEY SNYDER By: J *es R. Ad `l Zshua sc urt I.D0?L 50 J. Knap , g(q Court I.D. 92 23 / 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 2357832.1 BARLEY SNYDER LLC James R. Adams, Esquire Court I.D. No. 02501 Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire Court I.D. No. 92123 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Attorneys for Defendants Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION--LAW : NO. 08-0062 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN AND NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER WITH NEW MATTER DIRECTED AT PLAINTIFF Admitted in part and denied in part. Main Street Adoption Service ("Main Street"), Robert J. McClenaghan ("McClenaghan") and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller ("Heller") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Answering Defendants"), hereby admit that Plaintiffs David Scott Mullins ("Scott Mullins") and Tracey Lee Mullins ("Tracey Mullins") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") are attempting to assert an action for damages based on a variety of theories, including fraudulent inducement, common law fraud, defamation, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is further admitted that said action relates to circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs' failed attempt to adopt a Guatemalan child. Said claims and the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 2357832.1 2. Admitted. 3-5. Denied. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants, and as such, no response is required. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments made in this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 11. Denied. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants, and as such, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments made in this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Heller at some point provided Plaintiffs with an informational e-mail. Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize said message are denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments made in this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibit A constitutes a three-page list of services and guide to Guatemalan adoptions routinely provided to prospective 2357832.1 2 adopting families. Plaintiffs' attempt to characterize the content of these documents is denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph imply that Answering Defendants "promised [a] child" to Plaintiffs, the same are denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 15. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2357832.1 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 21. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff Scott Mullins met with McClenaghan and Heller at an informational meeting hosted by Defendant Common Sense Adoption ("Common Sense") in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, on or about December 13, 2006. By way of further answer, McClenaghan and Heller were invited to the meeting by Common Sense to generally discuss international adoption. Scott Mullins was present as well as three other prospective adopting parents. It is further admitted that during the meeting Scott Mullins briefly mentioned one DUI, but stated that it had happened "a long time ago" and that it had been expunged. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 23. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Scott Mullins admitted to McClenaghan that he had one DUI conviction that happened "a long time ago" and that had moreover been expunged. By way of further answer, Scott Mullins admittedly failed to 2357832.1 inform McClenaghan that he had two DUI-related offenses, and further that as a consequence of the second DUI he was incarcerated for ninety (90) days and, upon information and belief, lost his job. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 26. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Heller sent an e-mail to Scott Mullins on or about December 19, 2006. Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the content of that message are denied. By way of further answer, the portion of the e-mail Plaintiffs conveniently omit references another child being considered by Plaintiffs and further conveys that Answering Defendants were waiting on a decision from Plaintiffs so that they could move forward with trying to place the child[ren] that Plaintiffs chose not to adopt. 27. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Scott Mullins sent an e- mail to Heller later in the day on or about December 19, 2006. Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the content of that message are denied. By way of further answer, the portion of the e-mail Plaintiffs conveniently omit includes a question posed by Scott Mullins (to wit: "Please let me know if this is a possibility, thanks Scott and Tracey"). It was to this question to which Heller was responding with the message referenced in Paragraph 28, below. 28. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Heller sent a second e-mail to Scott Mullins on or about December 19, 2006. Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the content 2357832.1 of that message are denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants note that the referenced message was at least in part in response to the message of Scott Mullins referenced in the preceding paragraph. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 29. Denied. It is denied that the Mullins entered into a contract with Main Street on December 22, 2006, or that the document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "C' is a true and accurate copy of the fully executed contract eventually entered into by the Parties. A true and accurate and complete copy of the Adoption Agreement entered into between Plaintiffs and Answering Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 30. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' attempt to characterize the content of the Contract eventually entered into by the Parties is denied. Nevertheless, it is admitted that the Contract required the Plaintiffs to disclose any criminal charges, and that the failure to do so could result in immediate termination of the Contract and loss of any paid fees. 31. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Scott Mullins admitted to McClenaghan that he had one DUI conviction that happened "a long time ago" and that had moreover been expunged. It is admitted that Heller was subsequently made aware of this admission. By way of further answer, Scott Mullins admittedly failed to inform 2357832.1 McClenaghan that he had two DUI-related offenses, and further that as a consequence of the second DUI he was incarcerated for ninety (90) days and, upon information and belief, lost his job. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 32. Admitted. 33. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Scott Mullins failed to disclose to Answering Defendants that he had two DUI-related offenses, and further that as a consequence of the second DUI he was incarcerated for ninety (90) days and, upon information and belief, lost his job. It is denied that Scott Mullins' failure to disclose both of his DUI convictions was inadvertent, and in any event that he was ever under the "reasoned belief' that he only had one prior DUI. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 34. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that e-mail messages were exchanged between or among Plaintiffs, Erin Chick and Heller on or about January 18, 2007. Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the content of those messages are denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 35. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendants forwarded a dossier on Plaintiffs to Guatemala on or about January 29, 2007. It is denied that at 2357832.1 the time said dossier was forwarded, Answering Defendants were aware that Scott Mullins had two DUI-related arrests or convictions in 1998. By way of further answer, due to Scott Mullins' admitted failure to disclose that he had two DUI-related offenses, at the time the dossier was forwarded Answering Defendants were only aware of one DUI-related offense from "a long time ago" that had reportedly been expunged. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 37. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that all medical reports received by Answering Defendants regarding "baby Liam" had been forwarded to Plaintiffs by February 12, 2007. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments of this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded. 38. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs received a letter from the United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) on or about February 20, 2007. Plaintiffs' attempt to characterize the contents of said letter is denied. 39. Denied. Plaintiffs' attempt to characterize the contents of the instant letter is denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without 2357832.1 knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 41. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that, when Scott Mullins contacted McClenaghan on February 20, 2007, and informed him of the letter Plaintiffs had received from USCIS, McClenaghan advised Scott Mullins not to travel to Guatemala until the issue with USCIS could be "cleared up." After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 42. Denied. Plaintiffs' attempt to characterize the contents of the instant letter is denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 44. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that McClenaghan advised Scott Mullins to explain what happened to USCIS and to cooperate with Common Sense so that the process could keep moving and the adoption could get back on track. Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize McClenaghan's motives or further communications are denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2357832.1 9 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 46. Denied. Plaintiffs' attempt to characterize the contents of Scott Mullins' three- page "explanation" is denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 47 - 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 51. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Scott Mullins sent Answering Defendants an e-mail on or about March 27, 2007, in which he requested to speak with a Main Street representative. Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the content of the remainder of that message are denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. 52. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that McClenaghan and Heller spoke by telephone with Scott Mullins on or about March 29, 2007. It is admitted that during this phone conversation Mullins asked about a second home study being conducted by another agency given his misgivings about Common Sense. It is admitted that, not knowing about Mullins' continued communications with Common Sense, Answering Defendants did not object to this possibility. It is further admitted that it was mutually agreed between the Mullins and Answering Defendants that it was in the best interests of baby Liam for the Mullins to release him to another perspective adopting parent. It is strongly denied that Answering Defendants at 2357832.1 10 any time and in any fashion promised or offered to refund the fees paid by the Mullins. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 53. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Mullins forwarded a letter on or about April 3, 2007, releasing their reservation of right of adoption as to baby Liam. Any implication, allegation or insinuation that said letter was improperly induced or encouraged is denied. 54. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 55. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 56. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 57. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 58. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2357832.1 59. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 60. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 61. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants specifically deny the veracity of the alleged statement by Attorney Samuel L. Andes to the effect that Scott Mullins claimed to have voluntarily disclosed both DUI-related offenses to McClenaghan. 62. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 63. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further response, Answering Defendants would note that in the quoted portions of the instant letter, Attorney Andes appears to claim, on behalf of Plaintiffs, that Common Sense worked to deceive Main Street as to the nature of disclosures made by the Mullins; this position is odd given that it appears to plainly contradict Plaintiffs claims of conspiracy between Common Sense and Main Street made elsewhere in the Complaint. 2357832.1 12 64. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 65. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 66. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 67. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs sent a-mails to Answering Defendants in an attempt to convince Answering Defendants to support Plaintiffs' version of the facts related to Scott Mullins' failure to disclose both of his DUI-related offenses. On July 25, 2007, Plaintiffs sent a certified letter to Robert McClenaghan, c/o Main Street Adoption Service, advising him of the USCIS notice of denial. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 68. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that, by letter dated July 27, 2007, Answering Defendants acknowledged that it could not in truth support Plaintiffs' urged version of factual events. It is admitted that Answering Defendants received correspondence from Scott Mullins dated July 27, 2007, and that Answering Defendants responded to the Mullins letter on September 5, 2007. It is further admitted that Answering Defendants refused Plaintiffs' requests for any refund. Any further attempt by Plaintiffs to characterize the contents of these communications is denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are 2357832.1 13 without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 69. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. COUNT I--DEFAMATION Scott and Tracey Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services and Martha Jones 70. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 69 above are incorporated herein by reference. 71-77. The averments of Paragraphs 71 through 77 are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants and no response is therefore required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, and request that this Honorable Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. COUNT II--FRAUD Scott and Tracey Mullins v. Erin Chick and Common Sense Adoption Services 78. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 77 above are incorporated herein by reference. 79-87. The averments of Paragraphs 79 through 87 are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants and no response is therefore required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, and request that this Honorable Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. COUNT III--CIVIL CONSPIRACY Scott and Tracey Mullins v. Erin Chick and Martha Jones 88. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 87 above are incorporated herein by reference. 2357832.1 14 89. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants and no response is therefore required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants conspired with anyone "in an effort to extract funds from the Mullins." The remaining averments are denied. 90. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants and no response is therefore required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. It is denied that any Answering Defendant promised Plaintiffs that they would adopt any particular child, and further that any Answering Defendant made any communications "[i]n pursuance of this common purpose." After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 91. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants and no response is therefore required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. It is denied that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any way by Answering Defendants. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2357832.1 15 COUNT IV--BREACH OF CONTRACT Scott and Tracey Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services, Erin Chick and Martha Jones 92. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 91 above are incorporated herein by reference. 93-96. The averments of Paragraphs 93 through 96 are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants and no response is therefore required. COUNT V INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Tracey Mullins v. Martha Jones 97. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 96 above are incorporated herein by reference. 98-100. The averments of Paragraphs 98 through 100 are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants and no response is therefore required. COUNT VI--FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT Scott and Tracey Mullins v. Main Street Adoption Services, Robert McClenaahan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller 101. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 100 above are incorporated herein by reference. 102. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. It is denied specifically that Answering Defendants "engaged in a course of conduct designed to fraudulently induce the Mullins to enter into a contract and extract large fees from them." To the contrary, Answering Defendants in good faith sought to assist Plaintiffs in their effort to adopt a child. It is denied that Answering Defendants made the representations set forth in sub-paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph. Even assuming, arguendo, that some or all of the alleged representations were in fact made by one or more 2357832.1 16 Answering Defendant, it is denied that such representations were false and, in whole or in part, constituted a course of conduct "designed to fraudulently induce the Mullins" to do anything. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 103. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. Answering Defendants' responses set forth in the preceding paragraph are incorporated herein by reference. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 104. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. Answering Defendants' responses set forth in the preceding two paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. Even assuming, arguendo, that Answering Defendants made some or all of the instant representations and that such representations are demonstrably false, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants "knew the representations to be false, or recklessly made them without regard to their truth, knowing that the Mullins would rely on them to their detriment and enter into the contract with [Answering Defendants]." The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 105. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any way by Answering Defendants. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 106. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient allegations to support a claim for punitive damages. 2357832.1 17 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, and request that this Honorable Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VI--CIVIL CONSPIRACY Scott and Tracey Mullins v. Robert McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller 107. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 106 above are incorporated herein by reference. 108. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants conspired with anyone "in an effort to extract funds from the Mullins." After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 109. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. It is denied that any Answering Defendant promised Plaintiffs that they would adopt any particular child, and further that any Answering Defendant made any communications "[i]n pursuance of this common purpose." After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 110. Denied. Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied as such. It is denied that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any way by Answering Defendants. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information necessary to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2357832.1 18 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, and request that this Honorable Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS 111. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 112. Plaintiffs have failed to establish a claim for fraudulent inducement. 113. Plaintiffs have failed to establish a claim for civil conspiracy. 114. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 115. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 116. Defendants reserve the right to amend their Answer and rely upon all affirmative defenses that may hereafter be disclosed through discovery. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, and request that this Honorable Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. BARLEY SNYDER LLC Date: By: Jat}'ies R. Adr?s? Cburt I.D. 015N iloshua J. Knaplf, re Court I.D. 92123 Attorneys for Answering Defendants 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 2357832.1 19 VERIFICATION I, Nina Heller, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are madeect to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to 0,-? 09 Date: 7-,,-?!;- By: Nina Heller 2357832.1 NECYCLED E7xti,4kf A Ut";-ee-euuo r K I 1 1- 43 til I OW II I IULL 111%) VJI JLJI I This agr most Is made betwoea Main$troo Adoption David S. Tracey L. Mullins Residing a 5466 Devonshire Road Harrlb?urg,'PA 17112 c "Adoptive amily". Telephone: 717-657-4934 Email Ad n: smulIins43(a3verizoa.nct-:- Main S Adoption Service is a licensed adoption agency Pennsyly a facilitating international addi pdomis. Our mailii Lancaster, A 17604 Robert McClenaghe is tl a Executive The purpo of this agreement is to set too the obligations Service the Adoptive Family to facilitate necessary I Street Ado on Service in the foreign country OW by the A States of erica in order to accomplish i? a adoption of ch Maia Stre Adoption Service shall coelply Ith the foal • Coo with local and regional autboritI4*8 through it country n order to complete the legal idopoon of a chil Provide the Adoptive Family with all ilvafl le informal on the 'ld, additional information n4ybevsiloble to. visit to a orphanage and child. 0 Carry o all translation work necessary foriadoption pn Have rdinators meet perspective pdrentont the adopt driving n the country for adoption pu*ses, offer t courts; tc., make arrangements for pepepee ve parents staying n the country (lodging fees not incl). • Refund 1 of the received fees from the Adoptive Famil refunds le fee indicated in the fee sch4dule `in the event rejected the Regional Court in the fbrelgi country or I 1 and: 6. V& known as in the Commonwealth of g address is PO Box 4691 Director of the firm. fain Street Adoption procedures by Main ive Family in the United representatives in the foreign to Main Street Adoption ptive Family during the lures within the country. country, airport, provide Ration for orphanage; Immodations while F except for the non- hat the Adoptive Family is ry officials due to improper Patent InitialDf1# ?r utV-ee-euuo rK r 1 1 •4J n11 JVV 1 1 11ULL 111%) UJ 1 JLJ I U? • Retain decide reason; adhere • Keep c Adopti The Adop Legality Agencl authori service • Provide legal PI • Tlu Ad court d promise days of US if n • The Ad goverm this cor Adoptie • Provide through rcquircr event 0 agrees t reports, authoril the re:pc govemr and pos A&nth fees if t The Ad Street 14 comply fens. The Ad Street /e are rettu ion of documents by Main Sheet 4doption Ser their adoption. dl of the received foes from tie Adoptive Famil got to proceed with the adopti.in process at any i or not to attend the scheduleck court hearing for o specific guidelines outlined in this agreement rhfidential all information on tlm Adoptive fami n Service. Iva Fsmlly shad comply with the yogowing: tho adoption procedure in thlb Unmet States ten notarize and authenticate dee0gnatW documgml es regulating international adptio• s in the us, are the responsibility of Adoptive Family. Main Street Adoption Servic l wits all ne cessar ecedurers in the foreign counu? it e"ing Adopt rd" Family agte:ea to proviOt " Street Ade murmentation received itr cotmtyumediaEely ul s to register and pay all fee a?cturning to the US with the aired. ptive Family agrees to comply wil ont prior to and after the adoption iliance foreseern or not foresetn ai Service for any complianeeissut dl available information on the de mot placement reports. Adoptive 1 ants of the foreign country Bi Well requirements change after tli? Col follow these changes. To endure 1 Sain Street Adoption has thetight a for child protection aervicei and s are not received with 45 days of :nt. Adoptive Family also aVku t ge associated with the post lilaeer Family also agrees to compo wit foreign country's govemmobt in ?tive Family agrees they willf'ollo option Service adlministradoa and cause for immediate termirn tion : Family fully undentar* d on Service are conducted in by the laws of the foreign ca and thus unable to should the Adoptive Family me due to any personal my personal reason or not to received by Main Street ugh a licensed Home Study through state/govemment I fees associated with these documents for conducting re Family registration. Won Service with all foreign m returning to the US, tration of the child within 30 nbassy or consulate in the all is of the foreign country's =chiding and all costs associated with shall hold less Main Street :lopm well being of the child e» ily follow and abide by the Ca for cnd ing such reports. In the pletio adoption, Adoptive Family j Dmpt i on of post placement con Adoptive Family State he fo untry's consulates office if r the established by the foreign pay f tarization, authentication aft reports. any require ents or changes including oses such ges or roquiremernte. all in one received from Main be foreign rdinators. Failure to r this ent and forfeiture of all paid all legal act na Undertaken by Main cordance wi the foreign government and try are subj t to change without notice. pamnt Inltlalj?al ' JUaI Ut_,U-eZ-eUUO r K I 1 1 •44 H11 DUV I I DULL 1110 UJ 1 JC J 1 VJ • e A ptive Family fully understands and agrees that is not 1 gaily and/or financially respoAsibles for the abse info tion and /or accuracy of supplied niedical and h Main at Adoption Service or AdojtiveEFamlly by th authori ' and may not be able to obtadn a Full medical Famili visit to the orphanage (protettion bf child's rij • The ptive Family fully understands its ksponsibilit prior the covet hearing if the foraip eoubtry lava req foreig country's law may require patents 6 regularly v court- Ting period while in country. • The ' e Family My understands an4 agrees to th Adopti n Service is not legally and/or flna#cWly res I suspen 'ens. delays, additions to or c*ngelin process a any fo ign cotmtry as the result of ati att> dment of cu regul ne. bureaucratic mistakes or the foreil unfo t or out of the control of INrn S Adoptia • Main S Adoption Services is not )isbt any both death, or unforeseen financial lolis or act due U process within the US or any foreign ?eun ry. • All tim and schedules are estimated and r of exact thel respo ble for delays or costs assoei*W vwth delays in • Condi ' in foreign countries may not be like those in undo that living conditions. tras?p4on. food a Stan accepted as normal in the Utpited taunts. • Adopti a Family agrees to disclose to: l Street Adol signing f this agreement any of the full • criminal or not), 'lure to obtain a home studyF existing pl agreem is for adoption. law suits filgid not awarder adoptio agency, any known future cljpnge:? in employn people wing in the residence. Failure;:to d' lose any of immedi to termination of the agmement loss of any • Adopti Family also agrees to notify Mai Street Adol knowl ge or experience of any life event, inc of a chi criminal charges (whether toed or not), inclu ' separation, change of resideJtcy, ga in th living thin the residence, employm* r so ' ontai into an agreement to adopt wbi F oth & Failure notify Main Street Adoptiorii or o Idi Ing X subject immediate termination of tlfOs agreement and • Adopti Family understands and agrees nqt to contact I foreign ors directly before, dtjringlor after the i COMM Main Street Adoption Sallee, l re to con termina, on of this agreemnent and =of all fees p • Adopti Family understands and agruNes to divulge, contract copy, consult directly or indiidectly?for the pure fain Street Adoption Service e of any medical orical information given to orphanage or govemmental port prior to Adoptive to personally visit the child lire such visitation. The sit the children during the fact that Main Street st'ble for any interruptions, your adoption in the US or in rent adoption laws and a country or in the US Service. y injury up to and including any part of the adoption ire, Main Street is not e adoption process. o United States and UWe water may not be to ion Service prior to the haw (whether prosecuted ding adoptions or law snits awarded against an at, reridency or number of here events is terms for laid fees. ion Service within 30 days of ding but not limited to, birth thane in marital status number of hmily members try. entering into a law suit. r than Main Street Adoption. falsifying information is wfeiture of all paid fees. lain Street Adoption Service option without written ?ly will be grounds for , transfer, utilize, instruct, of initiating. building, Parent Inidal yt Wfil 1)t(;-eZ-LUUb M I IA4 Hn ?W I I nULL I Nb 0 I V J I r. U4 I i I con urchasing an adoption -agenF:y service of suc on to any adoption agdocy sorvim relate incl #paspective adopting parents wi4mut notarize Stre t n Sorvicx. All web cafe con are considered proprieury a6d the props ser s are only intended for•the addressee and P? Any sy or claim arising out* th? Wconent shall resolved by an action in small claim court of i of and 'ounty of Lancaster Pennsylvilni& f a claim tq exceed S5,000, it shell be resolved to tration !nth Pennsy aria, administered by the Arbitratia wit rbitration Rules for Adoptitia Ag ne= and P arb l shall be bindietg and final: end j mw upc arbi smay be eraered in any cwt ?ving jurise we cknawlWp that, in the evert c dispute ova lm party i giving up the right to have the disoo decided i or jury instead we are accepting 16 use of arbitrates In any uch dispute, whether resolve4 byUs-UndOwn or ! will be 4 titled to attorney's fees and; This a ant becomes valid upon receipt b?Main Street original ' stores by all members listed s a Fwd Main S Adoption Service and b, suing #id rewming "RISKS O Family. INTERNATIONAL ADOF'f rO and Fee S parties to this agreement must is tW modi$a ord r for changes to be valid. The Or>i jiresl umnent w Ad opotion 'cc and a duplicate will be "Copy" e do I Adoptly ashy Main I :fated business or provide service or individuals written consent by Main t, emails and telephone of Main Street Adoption gay not be used for any other f lens than or equal to 35,000 C Municipal Court of the City riling fees chmwged by us City of Lancmaer Association in accordance dated Services Disputes, such i the award rendered by the lon. in nFeeing to arbitration. fees charged by u% each i a court of law before a judge 4 for resolution of this matter. 1wsutit, the prevailing party ioption Service with accompanied deposit to e attached document WOWS) by the Adoptive eas to sipped documents in be kept at Main Street supplied to the Adoptive Adoption Service J McClenaghan IDate f I P•roM 1nitidL,,q/--2:- #) DK-22-20U6 F H 11145 RM SU(Y1 I' MULL I NS b51 b231 Main Street Adoption Service Guatemala Adoption Fees S Retainer ($3000 non-4 fintdable retaines S LM Child Acceptance Fee (Due Ott time of ch S 2M Court, Court Document Feed (Due one n S IM Final Payment Due pribr to {ravel Total S 09108 E'. Ub Fee Schedule acceptance) th from child acceptance) Foster C re Fees $400 per oath for foster childcare if tfie chil d is in foster care for longer than S months. Medical other than routine • an di i ld l i reapowi i Cli l 'city of the adopting parent. ib d h it l (routine are con ons as n co s u t n ca ) or prescr e osp a medical are not included in foster caorb 4 Parents have direct contact with the doctor in uch rare cases. i Additional Estin AW4 Adoption pwwo This is a urtesy list from Main Street Adop tion Service. 11 amounts are subject to change are based on previous adopter e> peaiences parents. Your attention to detail an submitting a complete dossieN will ?elp reduce essary expenses and make your ad on go faster. Pre Ad Stateside Expenses ` F fln?ar printing S 70 per parent Family Ragitradon sas object to change a zetion of bonier Documents at atut consulam S IO per document Pre Ado does Foroip Countries Exp": s o D A testing of child (birth mother an4':0010 g ild) 3 6$11 Post Ad Alan Foreign Cotustry Expmeos C Id's US immigration medial exams: S 100 U Vim fbr child (subject to chm?ge) 380 fv? I i Pwm Wool We unde; stand that all adoption fees self to ( hatemala f our adoption are at risk. We underst that through Main Street Adopti does not an spate any disruption in our adoption f he a disruption could occur. Ih the' evmtt a gov t stops or delays our adoption r the child or children are no long available fees paid may not be refunded recovered. We also agree W hot harmless M ' Street Adoption Service in the event 0 are unable to recover paid-fees. `I i Parente initials hG-2?-2UU6 HI 11:4b AM SCUFF MULLINS 65f 5131 By signing involve cc1 all 2. A 3. 4. 3. it 6. 7. 1/WE Rids of International Adoi (T. se dpa.d "bow.++.MU.e..M" Wo document, the Adoptive FarWly u Wrstands tt risks including, but not limitgd to,ithe followin fain medical records may be (bst orb never suppl corning your tature child's cohdit*L Main Sm documents on the child's condition that are pros those that am not. medical diagnosis may not be gonsioent with an liable which interpret some of the st commo )ption Service is neither reapgnsib for interpn any diagnosis or misdiagnosio iated with t en seen in person, your ehildjnay 4pear smalls on the video or photograph. majority of children in otphjpnager are placed i ndonment. It is entirely possible tl*t your child sical. mental, or emotional a* = 4 ithin his/her V be known only to the child. INai Street Adop r child did not experience abuse w thin his/her i also possible that your child I,%= to a mot gs and/or tobacco, and may of ma not exhibit i drome or other cornplicationis now?or in the fup f ditionally, the child may devejop n?ical or seen due to misdiagnosis and/or dove My environment. 1 rce is a risk that a citizen of the CO try where cted or assigned child. The lAws the country pt the child before any other *do on. Your i its of the citizens to adopt tho chill M) UNDERSTAND, ANI AG? KZ TO T N. U5 i' tow"Co international adoptions may to the American coordinator Adoption Service will supply ad to us, and is not responsible nx can diagnosis. Sources are medical diagnosis. Main Street ing medical diagnosis nor liable s child. thinner, paler and less nourished ere due to neglect, abuse, or may have experienced sexual, lifctinw and that this information ion Service cannot guarantee that who abused alcohol, illegal Atoms of fetal alcohol conditions that are not from genetics or adoptive child is located may adopt your :rmit their citizen's rights to Duntry court proceedings end the ABOVE INFORMATION. Date: 1..1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct Matter has been served this a -p4 day of postage prepaid, upon: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiffs John J. Hatzell, Jr. Strachan & Hatzell 1700 Market Street, Suite 1620 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Defendants Common Sense Adoption Services, Martha L. Jones and Erin R.J. Chick 2008, by first class mail, BARLEY SNYDER LLC By: J s R. Ad , sc C I.D. 02 01 J shua J. Kn , E Court I.D. Attorneys for Answer 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 of the foregoing Answer and New Defendants 2357832.1 c`? ?? ? s ? - ; -,-? :: ..? -? c? ..w ? ?? . ?.._-;? ?. } .,.. f .y {.j c---? t?J s 0 r DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN, AND NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL NO. 08-00062 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO THE NEW MATTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE COMMON SENSE DEFENDANTS 111. DENIED. The allegation contained at paragraph 111 of Defendants' New Matter represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 112. DENIED. The allegation contained at paragraph 112 of Defendants' New Matter represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 113. DENIED. The allegation contained at paragraph 113 of Defendants' New Matter represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 114. DENIED. The allegation contained at paragraph 114 of Defendants' New Matter represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 115. DENIED. The allegation contained at paragraph 115 of Defendants' New Matter represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 116. No Response Required. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against the Main Street Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Y/ I J n M. Kerr, Esquire torney I.D.#26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: September 10, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that he has served a copy of the foregoing, "Plaintiffs' Answer To The New Matter File On Behalf of the Main Street Defendants," on the below-identified individuals in the manner indicated: First-Class Mail, Postage Prepaid John J. Hatzell, Esquire James R. Adams, Esquire Strachan & Hatzell Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire Suite 1620 Barley Snyder LLC 1700 Market Street 126 E. King Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Lancaster, PA 17602 Counsel for Common Sense Counsel for Main Street Defendants Defendants ?? V_, 4 John .-K-err, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: September 10, 2008 .. r L ,? : -? -. CD BARLEY SNYDER LLC James R. Adams, Esquire Court I.D. No. 02501 Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire Court I.D. No. 92123 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Attorneys for Defendants Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION--LAW NO. 08-0062 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Pursuant to Rule 1012 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, James R. Adams, Esquire, Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire, and Barley Snyder LLC respectfully request to withdraw as counsel and allow Defendants Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller to proceed representing themselves hereafter in the above-captioned matter. In support thereof, Petitioners aver the following: 1. This is civil action commenced by Plaintiffs on January 4, 2008. 2. The undersigned commenced representation by filing an Answer with New Matter on July 28, 2008. 2408662-1 3. The instant Defendants have expressed concern over their ability to continue to satisfy the legal fees that they will incur in the defense of this action and now wish to represent themselves. 4. No parties to this action will be prejudiced by withdrawal of the undersigned. 5. No judge has previously been assigned or ruled on any issue in this matter. 6. Petitioners have consulted with Plaintiffs counsel and counsel for co-defendants, and each concurs in this request. WHEREFORE, it is hereby requested that this Honorable Court permit undersigned counsel to withdraw their appearance in this matter. BARLEY SNYDER LLC Date: C1G-??Z?-°r < yU By: J es R. Ad s`Eslquire C urt I.D. 0 501 J shua J. Knapp, Es Court I.D. 92123 - Attorneys for Defendants Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 2408662-1 2 VERIFICATION I, Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: DOS By: 2408662-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition has been served this day of Z?41-L161 , 2008, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiffs John J. Hatzell, Jr. Strachan & Hatzell 1700 Market Street, Suite 1620 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Defendants Common Sense Adoption Services, Martha L. Jones and Erin R.J. Chick Main Street Adoption Service Robert J. McClenaghan Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Defendants BARLEY SNYDER LLC By: 2408662-1 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 r: x rV C.. v Cr ; DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-00062 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiff certifies that: (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; (3) no objection to the subpoena has been received; and (4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. QLW')?'M/ John ?I. Kerr, Esquire I.D.#/6414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: September 30, 2008 DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-00062 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiffs, Scott and Tracey Mullins, intend to serve a subpoena identical to the one which is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Respectfully submitted, Q, ?" yff Y, John . Kerr, Esquire I.D. 6414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: September 10, 2008 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND David Scott Mullins and File No. 08-0062 Tracey Lee Mullins, his wife, ' Plaintiffs ' V. Comwn Sens4-Adoption Services, Martha 1. Jones, Erin R.J. Chick, Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J H an'Sand 80,4f WODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS a/k/a Nina a Heller eller UBP FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Office of Legal Counsel for the PA Department of Public Welfare (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any liability insurance policy on file with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare insuring Main Street Adoption Service in Lancaster, Pennsylvania at Law office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road, Ste 109, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: John M. Kerr, Esquire ADDRESS: 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 1 -7055 TELEPHONE: 717 766-4008 SUPREME COURT ID # 26414 ATTORNEY FOR. Scott & Tracey Mullins, Plaintiffs BY TH OURT: thonota ivis n Deputy rt r? CIO :s? DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. McCLENAGHAN and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, DEFENDANTS NO. 08-0062 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2008, upon consideration of the Petition to Withdraw as Counsel filed by the Petitioners, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Parties to show cause why the Petitioners should not be granted permission to withdraw as counsel of record; 2. The Parties will file an answer on or before October 27, 2008; 3. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Petitioner shall be granted upon the Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. If the Parties file an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, the Court will determine if further order or a hearing is needed. 4. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. James R. Adams, Esquire Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire Barley Snyder LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 ol 0 :6 N W, 6 - 130 8 0 0 Z -HI 10 ?John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ?John J. Hatzell, Jr., Esquire 1700 Market Street, Suite 1620 Philadelphia, PA 19103 ?Main Street Adoption Service Robert J. McClenaghan Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 bas eoPI'SS mItI LCCL /o?Q?08 `1- DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, OS-00062 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, David Scott Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins, Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter, by their counsel, John M. Kerr, Esquire, pursuant to Rule 4019(a)(1)(iv) & 4019(c)(5), and files the within Motion To Compel Deposition Testimony, representing as follows: 1. On June 3, 2009, undersigned counsel forwarded via electronic transmission, first class mail, and certified mail a cover letter with Deposition Notice and Document Request addressed to Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller, named parties in the above-captioned action (see Exhibit "A" appended to this Motion, copy of said documents). 9? LrO?° 2. Said deposition notices requested the parties' attendance at depositions ohn M 1; 01502 09 scheduled for Friday, June 12, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., respectively. It also. suft MedW*mblug, PA 17055 Proem: 717.766.4008 FAS: 717.766.4066 contained two (2) document requests. 3. On June 8, 2009, the deponents authored a letter (see Exhibit "B," appended' this Motion, copy of said letter), which indicated that these individuals were refusin attend the scheduled deposition and making a number of allegations based upon their unfamiliarity with the law. 4. Among the allegations were their contention s that, a) they were no longer law Ofm d ohn M.I<err no RMU Road SuHe 109 nWsbtng. PA 17055 717.766.4008 717.766.4066 defendants in the captioned action; and b) that their time and travel expenses had to be compensated. 5. Although they copied their correspondence to various attorneys and Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, it is apparent that they are proceeding rho se. The law firm of Saidis, Flower & Lindsay has never entered their appearance in the captioned matter, and the law firm of Barley Snyder filed a Motion To Withdraw. Although the Rule To Show Cause was never made absolute and there has never been an Order granting the Withdrawal, counsel has maintained that it no longer represents the deponents. 6. The deponents, beside being Defendants in the captioned action, were Respondents in an arbitration proceeding brought by Plaintiffs, in which an award was granted in favor of Plaintiffs. This award was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, at No. 08-3882 Civil Term, by way of a Petition To Set Aside an Award of an Arbitrator. 7. At the Hearing scheduled before Judge Bayley on October 9, 2008, the parties entered into a settlement of the arbitration appeal which was entered into the record via colloquy with the Court (see Exhibit "C," appended to this Motion, copy of the Court Transcript). 8. Counsel for the deponents (Petitioners To Set Aside an Arbitration Award) stated the terms of the Settlement Agreement: We [are] here on a petition to set aside an award of an arbitrator, and the agreement has been that Main Street Adoption Service will pay the sum of $10,000.00 together with its share of the costs as reflected in the arbitration order. That will release Main Street Adoption from the arbitration. That's payment in full. There's an accompanying civil suit filed in this court, and it's David Scott Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services, Martha L. Jones, Erin R.J. Chick, Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei, also known as Nina Heller. As to that case, counsel for the plaintiff agrees that they'll execute a release and file of record for Main Street Adoption Services and its two principals, Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller. (Exhibit "C," page 3) 9. The following colloquy occurred in addition to what was quoted: MR KERR: I would just like to add a couple words on the transcript. They also agree to fulfill all duties of a joint tortfeasor required under law because there's still three remaining defendants in the civil suit. THE COURT: Do you agree? MR. SAIDIS: What is required by law is required, Your Honor. THE COURT: I agree ... (Exhibit "C," pages 3-4). L-of" d ohn Merr 120 Ritter Road suite toe Ncsburg. PA 17055 717.766.4008 717.766.4066 10. On November 18, 2008, a Release of Claims was executed by David S. Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins in favor of Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller (see Exhibit "D," appended to this Motion). 11. After reciting the routine release language, the final sentence of the Release of Claims, stated as follows:... All obligations or duties at law relating to a settling joint tortfeasor, with regard to the existing lawsuit, shall remain the responsibility of Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller" (Exhibit "D," 115). 12. Under Pennsylvania law, a settling joint tortfeasor continues as a named defendant and is required to give testimony as a party in a deposition or at the trial of the matter. 13. Neither Robert McClenaghan, nor Nina Heller, acted to seek a Protective Order, as required pursuant to Rule 4012 or 4019(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 14. Despite proceeding pro se, both Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller are held to the requirements as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 15. Although not specifically joining in this Motion, counsel for Common Sense Adoption Services, Erin R.J. Chick and Martha Jones seeks the deposition testimony of Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller. When Robert McClenaghan telephoned opposing counsel, John Hatzell, Jr., to inform him that the deponents would not be appearing, Mr. Hatzell told him that he, too, sought their deposition testimony. 16. Both undersigned counsel and Mr. Hatzell would like this deposition testimony to occur on Friday, August 28, 2009. WHEREFORE, it is requested that the Court grant the Motion To Compel Deposition Testimony and order Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller to appear at a deposition scheduled for August 28, 2009. Respectfully submitted, 10 M.err 5020 weer Road state 109 Medlarlksburg, PA 17055 PHoNE: 717.766.4008 FAx: 717.766.4066 (?L ?,/, g, Joh M. Kerr, Esquire I.D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 170 55 (717) 766-4008 Dated: July 31, 2009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he has sent a copy of the foregoing, "Motion To Compel Deposition Testimony," on the below-named individuals in the manner indicated: First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid John J. Hatzell, Esquire Strachan & Hatzell One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robert McClenaghan Main Street Adoption Service 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Dated: July 31, 2009 Z Y M. err 5020 Ritter ROW Sutte log Medimk sblug, PA 17055 P)- ?: 717.788.4008 FAx: 717.788.4066 James R. Adams, Esquire Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire Barley Snyder LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Nina Heller Main Street Adoption Service 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Qft.. to. ?L JOT M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby states that he was the attorney representing the Claimants in the arbitration case which became the subject of a Petition To Set Aside the Award of the Arbitrator, as well as the attorney in the instant civil lawsuit and, as such, is intimately familiar with the facts which are set forth in the foregoing "Motion To Compel Deposition Testimony and, accordingly, is authorized to execute this Verification. The factual statements contained in the preceding Motion are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understand s that false statements are subject to the penalties prescribed at 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. John M. Kerr Law Office of onn M . err John M. Kerr, Esquire Heather S. Clouser, Paralegal June 3, 2009 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL Robert McClenaghan Main Street Adoption Service 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Dear Mr. McClenaghan and Ms. Heller: Nina Heller Main Street Adoption Service 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Enclosed please find your respective copies of a Deposition Notice and Document Request, requiring you to be present at a deposition scheduled for Friday, June 12, 2009 at my office in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. This is in connection with my clients' lawsuit against Common Sense Adoption Services. Erin Chick and Martha Jones. The focus will be on their actions and not against you. The McClenaghan deposition is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. and the Heller deposition for 1:00 p.m. Please note that you are also required to bring any a-mails or written documentation of telephone calls between either of you and any of the principals at Common Sense Adoption Services with regard to the Mullin case. Please telephone or e-mail me with any questions or concerns. As I stated in my e-mail response to the inquiry from Ms. Heller last November 17, even though Main Street Adoption Service and each of you have been given a joint tortfeasor release by the Mullins, you are required to testify at depositions or at trial, if requested by the remaining parties. I am assuming that you are no longer represented by counsel, although I have not seen an Order to that effect. If this is not true, please forward these materials to your attorney and ask that he or she contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Again, feel free to contact me for directions or any other question you may have. Respectfully yours, - ' w 1?4v John M. Kerr Enclosures cc: John Hatzell (w/encl.) Exhibit A 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 • Mechanicsburg, PA 1 70SS Pi urnt:: 717.766.4008 • FAx: 717.766.4066 • EMAIL: KerrLaw@comcast.net - ,vww.johnkerrIaw.com DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERTJ. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-00062 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION WITH DOCUMENT REQUEST Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the deposition of Robert McClenaghan will be taken on oral examination by Plaintiff at the Law Office of John M. Kerr, 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, commencing at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, June 12, 2009 and at all or any adjournments thereof before a Notary Public authorized by law to administer oaths. Testimony shall be recorded by stenographic means. Matters to be inquired into shall include interactions between Main Street Adoption Service and its principals on the one hand, and Common Sense Adoption Services and its principals, on the other, as it related to the Plaintiffs. In accordance with Rules 4007(d)(1) and 4009.1 & .11 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil ohn ). err 5020 Ritter Road suite 109 4har1i( sburg. PA 17oss ONE: 717.766.4008 'Ax: 717.766.4066 Procedure, you are to bring with you to the deposition copies of the following documents: 1. All e-mail messages both to and from any individual at Common Sense Adoption Services, during the period from October, 2006 through September, 2007, relating to the efforts by Plaintiffs to adopt internationally; 2. Any written memorialization or notes taken of any telephone conversations between either Robert McClenaghan or Nina Heller, on the one hand, and Martha Jones, Erin Chick or Lori Teeter, on the other, regarding the efforts by Plaintiffs to adopt internationally. 0. JohV M. Kerr, Esquire 1. D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 170 55 (717) 766-4008 Dated: June 3, 2009 ( L Offim m ohn M.)!?rr 020 FWter Road Suite 109 anm3bu g. PA 17056 717.766.4008 717.766.4066 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that he has served a copy of the foregoing Deposition Notice With Document Requeston the below-named individual in the manner indicated: First Class Mail. Postage Prepaid and by Fascimile John J. Hatzell, Esquire Strachan & Hatzell One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 )01 John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Date: June 3, 2009 4w Oasd 'ohn M.? rr A20 Ritter Road suite 109 arucebur$. PA 170ss E: 717.766.4008 : 717.766.4066 DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-00062 CIVIL : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION WITH DOCUMENT REQUEST Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the deposition of Nina Heller will be taken on oral examination by Plaintiff at the Law Office of John M. Kerr, 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, commencing at 1:00 p.m.. on Friday, June 12, 2009 and at all or any adjournments thereof before a Notary Public authorized by law to administer oaths. Testimony shall be recorded by stenographic means. Matters to be inquired into shall include interactions between Main Street Adoption Service and its principals on the one hand, and Common Sense Adoption Services and its principals, on the other, as it related to the Plaintiffs. in accordance with Rules 4007(d)(1) and 4009.1 & .11 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil ti,wo?a obit M.?err 3020 Ritter Road suite 109 iar9CSbuM PA 17055 ,a: 717.766.4008 c 717.766.4066 Procedure, you are to bring with you to the deposition copies of the following documents: 1. All e-mail messages both to and from any individual at Common Sense Adoption Services, during the period from October, 2006 through September, 2007, relating to the efforts by Plaintiffs to adopt internationally; 2. Any written memorialization or notes taken of any telephone conversations between either Robert McClenaghan or Nina Heller, on the one hand, and Martha Jones, Erin Chick or Lori Teeter, on the other, regarding the efforts by Plaintiffs to adopt internationally. - (is. W, 4, Joh M. Kerr, Esquire 1. D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 170 55 (717) 766-4008 Dated: June 3, 2009 ohn M.?ea 5020 Potter Road suite 109 =hwucsburg, PA i loss )NE: 717.766.4008 w 717.766.4066 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that he has served a copy of the foregoing Deposition Notice With Document Request on the below-named individual in the manner indicated: First Class Mail Postage Prepaid and by Fascimile John J. Hatzell, Esquire Strachan & Hatzell One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 W, John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Date: June 3, 2009 L.w ore,.f 1hn M./ err ?0 fun= Road suite 1 oo °csbw5. PA 17055 717.766.4008 717.766.4o66 June 8, 2009 Mr. John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dear Mr. Kerr, In response to your letter dated June 3, 2009, postmarked June 4, 2009 delivered on or about June 6, 2009 via first class mail, requesting Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller to appear for deposition scheduled by you for June 12, 2009 in your Mechanicsburg office. Your request has too short of a notification schedule and does not comply with the courts rules for deposing a third party as we understand the statue. Within your letter accompanying the Notice of Taking Deposition filed with the courts, you specifically point out a portion of the terms of settlement made in correspondence on or about November 17, 2008. Your correspondence and filing clearly shows that you have not fully complied with the terms of the settlement between parties in that we are still listed as party to the suit and no filing has been made to date with the court pertaining to case 08-00062 of the release and the removal of Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street Adoption as defendants as were the terms of the settlement set in Judge Bayley's court. Attorney John Hatzell counsel for Common Sense Adoption, the remaining defendants named in the law suit, Attorney James Adams of Barley Snyder, the attorney of record on October 9, 2008 as far as we know have never been notified of the release or the removal of Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street Adoption by your office. Robert Saidis of Saidis, Flower and Lindsay as far as we know has never been given a copy of the filing with the courts to remove Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street Adoption from the Civil matter 08-00062 with a cc directly to Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street. This is of grave concern to us and directly contradicts the terms of the agreement between Mullins and Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street Adoption personally devised between you and Robert Saidis of Saidis Flower and Lindsay on October 9th in Cumberland County Court. Furthermore it is clear from your correspondence to us and cc to Attorney Hatzell that you continue to intentionally mislead the tribunal and all parties involved by identifying Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street Adoption as "defendants" as represented in your request for deposition. We believe your action is in direct violation of the professional code of ethics and as a licensed attorney you are accountable to being forthcoming through your conduct. We are demanding immediate removal of Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street Adoption Service from the civil law suit 08-00062 as you swore under oath in court in front of the Honorable Judge Bayley in accordance with our agreement to settlement. We request conformation that you properly file the necessary documentation to completely remove Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Exhibit B Street Adoption from Civil Matter 08-00062 and file the signed release by your clients in the same matter be done in the Cumberland Country Courts within 5 business days of this letter. Finally, we expect to be notified to be deposed in accordance with procedure associated with third party deposition and compensated for paid fees for like services in the court of common pleas for our time and travel to be deposed. Respectfully submitted, Cc: John Hatzell Barley Snyder Saidis, Flower & Lindsay Judge Bayley Judge Ebert Robert McClenaghan MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICES, INC., Petitioner V. DAVID S. MULLINS AND TRACEY L. MULLINS, Respondents IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . CIVIL ACTION - LAW 08-3882 CIVIL TERM IN RE: SETTLEMENT Proceedings held before the HONORABLE EDGAR B. BAYLEY, J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on October 9, 2008, APPEARANCES: in Courtroom Number Two. ROBERT C. SAIDIS, Esquire For the Petitioners /JOHN M. KERR, Esquire For the Respondents Exhibit C 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 9, 2008, 1:48 p.m. Carlisle, Pennsylvania MR. SAIDIS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I'n happy to report that we have a settlement in this matter that we would like to put on the record. THE COURT: Do you want to read it into the record? MR. SAIDIS: Yes. I'm going to do the best can. Then Mr. Kerr and Mr. Foster can put in what they would like. THE COURT: Then we will produce the transcript. MR. SAIDIS: Correct. THE COURT: Do you need an order or do you just need the settlement read into the record and a transcript? MR. SAIDIS: I think we just need a transcript. Do you want more than that? MR. KERR: No, I don't think we need an order. THE COURT: We don't need an order, fine. So we will do it that way. If for any reason after you get the transcript you both feel you need an order, just get back to me. Go ahead. 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SAIDIS: We were here on a petition to set aside an award of an arbitrator, and the agreement has been that Main Street Adoption Service will pay the sum of $10,000.00 together with its share of the costs as reflected in the arbitration order. That will release Main Street Adoption from the arbitration. That's payment in full. There's an accompanying civil suit filed in this court, and it's David Scott Mullens and Tracey Lee Mullens v. Common Sense Adoption Services, Martha L. Jones, Erin R.J. Chick, Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei, also known as, Nina Heller. As to that case, counsel for the plaintiff agrees that they'll execute a release and file of record for Main Street Adoption Services and its two principals, Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller. THE COURT: That is the agreement? MR. KERR: That is the agreement, Your Honor. THE COURT: Fine. The transcript will be prepared, and it will be out to you shortly. i am glad you settled it. MR. KERR: I would just like to add a couple words on the transcript. They also agree to fulfill a__ duties of a joint tort feasor required under law because there's still three remaining defendants in that civil suit. THE COURT: Do you agree? 3 2 3 MR. SAIDIS required, Your Honor. What's required by law is 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 ,2 13 14 1 'S 16 17 ,8 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I agree. Court is adjourned. (The settlement was concluded at 1:50 p.m.) 4 1, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained sully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of same. Pamela R. Sheaffer Official Court Reporter The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing cf the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. _ Edgar B. Jayley, Ninth Judicial Di trict 5 RELEASE Of CLAIMS JA THIS INSTRUMENT, executed this ' 2? day of November, 2008, by David S. Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins, residing at 5486 Devonshire Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112 (hereinafter, "Releasors") WHEREAS, Releasors initiated a demand for arbitration against Main Street Adoption Service filed with the American Arbitration Association and docketed at 14 170 E 0022108; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, an arbitration hearing was held before Alan S. Burstein in Carlisle, Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2008, an award was entered in favor of Scott and Tracey Mullins and against Main Street Adoption Service in the amount of $11,600.00; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2008, Main Street Adoption Service filed a Petition To Set Aside The Award Of An Arbitrator, which was docketed at No. 2008-3882 in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2008, in proceedings held before the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley, President Judge, the parties memorialized their settlement of claims on the record, which transcript is attached to this instrument; and WHEREAS, as part of the proceedings on record, it was agreed that David S. Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins would execute a release and file of record, which Release is as follows: 1. In exchange for the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), which receipt is hereby acknowledged, David S. Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, hereby release Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller from all claims, rights, causes of action, lawsuits, demands, or request for monetary compensation of any kind in connection with the arbitration proceeding docketed at 14 170 E 0022108; the civil lawsuit docketed at No. 08 - Exhibit D 00062 in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; or any other claim emanating from their attempt to adopt a Guatemalan child through Main Street Adoption Service. 2. This Release is given to Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller ("Releasees"), solely, and does not extend to Common Sense Adoption Services; Martha Jones and/or Erin Chick, who remain as party defendants in the civil lawsuit filed at No. 08-00062 in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The consideration paid for this Release is as a result of the arbitration proceeding identified above and does not constitute a pro tanto release as to the civil action pursuant to the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act or the Comparative Negligence Act. 4. Releasors agree to notify the American Arbitration Association that all obligations, pursuant to the arbitration award identified above, have been fully satisfied. 5. Releasors agree to file a Praecipe with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, discontinuing the lawsuit at No. 08-00062 with prejudice against Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan , and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller, only. All obligations or duties at law relating to a settling joint tortfeasor, with regard to the existing lawsuit, shall remain the responsibility of Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller. David S. Mullins Tracey e Mu ins Fit. f' DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-00062 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly discontinue the above-captioned action, with prejudice, as to Defendants Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller only. The action continues as to all remaining Defendants. Jo M. Kerr, Esquire I.D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 170 55 (717) 766-4008 F. hn -d M. err Soto RMW Road su to 109 Madu"csbmg, PA 17OSS PraNP: 717.766.4008 FAx: 717.766.4066 Dated: July 31, 2009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he has sent a copy of the foregoing, "Praecipe To Discontinue," on the below-named individuals in the manner indicated: First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid John J. Hatzell, Esquire Strachan & Hatzell One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robert McClenaghan Main Street Adoption Service 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 Dated: July 31, 2009 0eff 5020 Ritter Road sutte 109 deduinWsburg. PA 17055 'HoNF: 717.768.4008 FAx: 717.766.4066 James R. Adams, Esquire Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire Barley Snyder LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Nina Heller Main Street Adoption Service 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601-3928 QO )0. 4„ John. Kerr, Esquire Law ffice of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 FILES ; ::,.1C- OF THE ?. ' "`,) Y 2009 JU 31 Fi4i 1: 43 a*- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID SCOTT MULLINS, et al. ) No. 08-00062 V. CIVIL COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, ) et al. ) MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE James R. Adams, Joshua J. Knapp, and Barley Snyder, LLC request that the Court direct that their appearance be withdrawn regarding the above matter and, in support thereof, aver the following. 1. October 2, 2008, counsel filed a Petition to Withdraw As Counsel. 2. The Court entered a Rule to Show Cause returnable October 27, 2008. 3. To the present date, no answer or objection has been filed in response to the Rule to Show Cause. WHEREFORE, Petitioner request that the Court direct withdrawal of appearance in accordance with the attached Order. August, 2009 BA YDER, LLC LB : Adams, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 02501 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 717.299.5201 2669161-1 VERIFICATION I, James R. Adams, Esquire, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. August'; 2009 Adams, Esquire 2669161-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served this 411- day of August, 2009, by first class mail, postage pre-paid on: John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 2002 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 John J. Hatzell, Esquire Stachan & Hatzell One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robert McClenaghan &Nina Heller 65 W. Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601 Main Street Adoption Service 65 W. Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601 August ?, 2009 BARLEY SNYDER, LLC Y C?_ ' s, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 02501 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 717.299.5201 2669161-1 T F"IiLq .ir r ?v1. ,yRU 2009 AUG -5 FM 1' 0 0 DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-00062 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this 3P day of AM4uSr , 2009, upon consideration of V the Motion To Compel Deposition Testimony, filed by Plaintiffs, and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller shall appear at the Law Office of John M. Kerr, 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 on Friday, August 28, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of giving deposition testimony FLED ? , Af?Y OF THE ?t ""t!\x 2009 AUG -4 AID 8: 14 IgIA4109 - oopi-es rvQI?CL A+ly J . Ki" t. ? p4y J. Aw47A ptc ct"?Jo N. 1Ie.llex- R+? J . Acli.+,s DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRACEY MULLINS, his wife : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : NO. 08-00062 COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVIVES : CIVIL MARTHA JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK Defendants MOTION FOR PROTECTION ORDER By this motion we are objecting to the request by Mr. Kerr for Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller to attend depositions related to Civil 08-00062 in his office on August 28, 2009 and hereby request this court issue an Order of Protection. Subsequent to the settlement and release of claim by Mullins in Civil Case 08-00062 of Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller, on or about October 22, 2008 a new matter was filed in Michigan Federal Court unrelated to any of the Plaintiffs in Civil 08-00062. We later learned that the lead Plaintiff in the Michigan Filing, Turi was and still is in direct communication with Attorney Kerr. We uncovered earlier this year (2009) that Kerr's relationship with Turi started months before the settlement / release was made between Attorney Robert Saidis and Attorney John Kerr on October 9, 2008. As part of the agreement, Mullins (Kerr's client) agreed to completely release Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller as defendants in Civil 08-00062 while Saidis Flower and Lindsay's would directly compensate the Plaintiffs Mullins $10,000 due to errors in representing Main Street in the arbitration case Mullins v. Main Street Adoption Service. In addition, SFL would pay the remaining arbitration fees to satisfy the arbitration matter with Main Street Adoption Service. Where as Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller not admitting any guilt or to be named in Civil 08-00062 and not withstanding mandatory testimony or deposition, and the terms of settlement were to remain confidential as conditions of the terms. We later learned that these terms were not adhered to and we contend that the attorneys associated with these cases worked in collusion to settle the matter in their own terms to protect themselves and not the parties named in the suit. In light of recently uncovered evidence linking Attorney Kerr to the ongoing Michigan case and to preserve our rights as defendants in the Michigan civil case, we respectfully request that the Court immediately enter a Protective Order and shows cause that the Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller filed by Mr. Kerr on or about August 3, 2009, served on August 7, 2009 be denied. We have compelling evidence that Attorney Kerr provided subpoenaed documentation / information to third parties unrelated to Civil 08-00062 which was used as the basis for the subpoena. The subpoenaed documentation Kerr obtained was then subsequently used in the filing of a new unrelated matter in Michigan Federal Court. It is our belief that Mr. Kerr posses a threat of continued abuse as an officer of the court to provide confidential information through testimony and / or deposition related to Civil Matter 08-00062 to plaintiffs and their counsel in the ongoing Michigan civil matter. Mr. Kerr's propensity to disseminate information to unrelated third parties is demonstrated in his actions and his statements to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's government officials. Our rights as defendants in the Michigan case and its integrity can only be preserved by the entry of a protective order and the sealing of the records related to Civil 08-00062. It has been held that "under the law of procedure, parties and related persons often have no choice but to divulge information they would not otherwise freely share. To allow a party to use that information for purposes unrelated to the litigation and in a manner which harms the giver of that information is abusive, and courts have a significant interest in preventing such usage." Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church v. Morales, 143 F. R. D. 109,113 (W. D. Tex. 1992) (citing Rhinehart). We learned under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Right to Know Act as a result of communication to our Michigan counsel from Turi's Michigan counsel that Attorney Kerr communicated with Turi regarding Main Street insurance declaration policy information obtained through subpoena of DPW records based on Civil 08-00062 rules of discovery. Turi's Michigan counsel filed a lawsuit in Michigan unrelated to Civil 08-00062 based on the subpoenaed information Mr. Kerr obtained and provided to Turi and their counsel. Kerr mislead the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Works (DPW) in order to obtain confidential insurance information. It's clearly evident by reading correspondence between Attorney Kerr and DPW (Cc: Turi), the subpoena and accompanying documentation and email from DPW to Main Street (see details with exhibits below) that Mr. Kerr purposely abused the subpoena process to aid a third party in filing suit unrelated to his civil case 08-00062. On (05-29-08) Turi emails Main Street asking for a copy of private insurance information based on her conversation with DPW. Following agency policy, DPW acknowledged compliance but denied access to information covered under the Information Act and right to privacy. (Turf was gathering data for her Michigan counsel to file suit, relying on insurance to settle the claim) (exhibit 1) 2. On (06-01-08) Kerr contacts DPW on behalf of Turi stating that Turi needs assistance to make sure Main Street is in compliance with certain regulatory requirements," mainly do they have liability insurance" In Kerr's letter / Facsimile of 06-01-08 to DPW (exhibit 2), Kerr states he successfully litigated an arbitration case against Main Street (award was announced 05-29-09, details of the award and payment schedule were not known at the time of this letter, Turi was not party to the arbitration). Kerr makes allegation that DPW's verbal confirmation of Main Street's licensing compliance was ,inaccurate". Kerr demands a written response from DPW to confirm Main Street licensing compliance and threatens DPW with legal action. (It should be noted: Main Street was in the process of the annual licensing renewal at the time of Mr. Kerr's allegations and DPW was in possession of compliance documents as a result of the annual renewal process and was accurate in their statements.) Kerr leads DPW to believed that Turi is his client and is associated with Civil 08-00062 and that he could obtain a subpoena through this case. (Turi is a resident of Illinois). 3. In his letter dated 06-09-2008 (exhibit 3), Mr. Kerr thanks DPW Officer Gold for providing a letter confirming Main Street is in compliance and asks for additional specific information regarding insurance. Kerr further writes " No one -including Main Street's lawyer-believed that their insurance was current. In fact, he asked me if I might obtain a copy of the policy for him" Mr. Kerr fabricated this request, our legal counsel did not request a copy of the insurance policy from DPW through Kerr. Additionally Kerr informs Gold that he has an existing civil action under which he can issue a subpoena. This time Kerr claims his "clients would like to make a claim under the policy inasmuch as Main Street refuses to report a claim themselves" We can only conclude based on the above statements made by Mr. Kerr that he intentionally mislead DPW. Kerr knew that as of June 1, 2008 Civil Mater 08-00062 was not vet answered by defendants and an extension to file was agreed upon Additionally, the arbitration award was announced 2 days prior with details pending delivery by AAA It is evident by Kerr's letter dated 07-02-08 to Saidis who was representing us at the time when Kerr states that he provided Saidis I Flower with an extension of time once before and that he will file a default notice if they do not answer on time, proving there wasn't a claim pending. Mr. Kerr openly admits that his intentions were to falsely use Civil 08-00062 in order to obtain a subpoena to gain access to private information which was denied to Turi, a third party days before. Mr. Kerr knew in his correspondence to DPW that Civil 08-00062 had no claim, was not in discovery and openly telegraphed his intentions to use the legal system to obtain documentation through subpoena not intended for it's use. 4. On 09-30-2008, Almost 4 months after Kerr's initial contact with DPW and his claim to officer Gold that Main Street refused to report a claim, in the midst of a pending hearing to Set A Side the award of the arbitrator to be heard in Judge Bayley's court on10-09-2008, Kerr submits a letter to DPW accompanied by Subpoena dated 09-10-08 (exhibit 4). Kerr states that his subpoena to produce documents were filed under Rule 4009.22 to produce documents. Kerr refers to Gold in this letter stating Gold confirmed Main Street has liability insurance and Gold advised Kerr that he should obtain a subpoena, that the documents were urgently needed. At this point Kerr had yet to respond to the filing of Adams with Main Street's response to Civil 08-00062 and the arbitration award was pending the Set A Side hearing. The statement "urgently needed" for either of Mullins cases Kerr represented was disingenuous in that there was no urgency due to either of the cases he represented for his client in the Cumberland County courts. We did not learned about Kerr's subpoena of DPW or correspondence between Kerr and DPW and his involvement with Michigan Plaintiff Turi until months after we had agreed to settle in Judge Bailey's court October 9, 2008 when Turi's counsel testified in judges chambers that she had policy information for Main Street. Jim Adams who was our attorney of record in Civil 08-00062 later admitted to us that he did receive a copy of notice of subpoena in his office but failed to respond to it or notify us of the fact. 5. On October 8, 2008 (exhibit 5) DPW complied with Kerr's subpoena, forwarded a letter with a copy of Robert McClenaghan's personal property liability insurance rider for office liability insurance, including policy limits to Kerr. Mr. Kerr received the documents after the settlement on October 9, 2008. Kerr immediately forwarded Robert McClenaghan's confidential insurance information across state lines to Turi / Michigan attorney Fixel. Within two weeks of the subpoenaed documents, on or about October 22, 2008, Turi's Michigan counsel Fixel filed a lawsuit in Michigan Federal court with the insurance policy as a basis for filing. Turi stated on record that the reason "they" filed the lawsuit as soon as possible was because Main Street's insurance policy was about to expire (exhibit 6). Michigan's Plaintiff Turi not only stated the policy limits but had the expiration date which only Mr. Kerr, Main Street and DPW had in their possession when the Michigan suit was filed. Turi's and her attorney Fixel could only have obtained detailed private insurance information from Kerr and his use of the subpoena served on DPW using Kerr's civil case in Cumberland county 08-00062 under discovery. Kerr established that Turi was denied access from DPW to Main Street's insurance information in his letter to DPW. DPW was the only party Main Street ever issued a copy of the insurance policy to, as part of compliance for licensure. Turi's Michigan Counsel presented documentation between Kerr, DPW and Turi and repeated policy limits only known to Mr. Kerr, DPW and Main Street in an email to our Michigan counsel where she states DPW issued the information to "her client". (exhibit 7) 6. In an email of 04-13-2009, DPW's lead counsel Attorney Sacks verified that DPW Officer Gold understood Kerr & Turi to have an attorney-client relationship based on his letter / statements (exhibit 8). 7. In direct response to Mr. Kerr's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony served August 7, 2009 number 12, Under Pennsylvania Law a settling Joint Tortfeasor continuous is a named defendant and is required to give testimony as a party in a deposition or at the trial of the matter is vastly different then Mr. Kerr's explanation of terms in his email of November 17, 2008 (exhibit 9) when we specifically asked what the legal term, Joint Tortfeasor meant. In the last line of his email, he states, "you MAY have to testify at a deposition or trial". He didn't state it was mandatory or compensatory as his motion contends. Mr. Kerr used deception because the release and terms of release were not filed and he knew through collusion with Robert Saidis what our position and terms were to settle. The attorneys took advantage of our lack of knowledge of the legal system and language used in the court and release. Again Mr. Kerr word smiths to intentionally mislead when in fact the legal terms Robert Saidis and John M. Kerr presented to the courts had a completely different meaning than what Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller agreed to prior to the hearing. We specifically asked Robert Saidis for clarification of the terms after the settlement hearing with all of our requests being ignored and unanswered. Mr. Kerr conspired with Robert Saidis to put their interests and hide their malpractice behavior before the client, lied to Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller then presented to Judge Bayley legal terms to be read into the record as our intent to settle. We are stating on record that we never agreed to, signed or approved the final terms of the agreement made between John M. Kerr and Robert Saidis with regard to the terms and legal language associated with the release by Scott and Tracey Mullins of Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street Adoption Service from Civil 08-00062. Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller therefore request that the court exercise it's authority and grant the protection order, file appropriate sanctions and take any steps to impose disciplinary action against Attorney John M. Kerr and Robert Saidis as of a direct result of their actions individually and collectively as coconspirators to settle a claim, by purposely ling to the courts under oath, knowingly committing fraud, representing another attorneys clients in a civil action, making false statements of material fact and misusing their power as members of the court. We also ask the court to file sanctions and take steps to impose disciplinary action against any and all attorneys associated with the illegal and reckless use of subpoena / dissemination of subpoenaed documentation covered under the Privacy Act and Disciplinary Rules associated with the 09-10-2009 subpoena of DPW in conjunction with Civil 08-00062 "rules of discovery" as the basis for securing such documentation. We rely on the court to take the necessary steps to stop the egregious behavior demonstrated by members of the court as exhibited in this motion. WHEREFORE, it is requested that the court grant the Motion for Protection Order and exercise the courts judicial power to take appropriate action against Attorney John M. Kerr, Robert Saidis, James Flower of Saidis Flower and Lindsay and James Adams of Barley Snyder as deemed necessary in association with the settlement proceedings and subpoena associated with Civil 08-00062. Robert McClenaghan 65 W. Roseville Rd Lancaster, PA 17601 August 23, 2009 Respectfully submitted, 6--)0H4317" From: Melissa Turi [mailto:missturi@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:30 AM To: Nina @ Main Street Adoption; Bob @ Main Street Adoption Subject: Insurance Dear Main Street, In order for you to be licensed in the state of Pennsylvania, according to the Deputy Secretary, Richard J. Gold, you must hold a current, liability insurance policy. They did not verify with you that you have an active policy. If your policy is not active, they are suppose to suspend your license. Can you send me the name of your insurance company along with the policy number so I can verify that it is active? This will avoid another investigation. Thank you. Melissa & Guy Turi 06 '01.':000 14:04 FA-1 717 790 601(4 EITECUTI`'E OFFICES Zi UO? ?°?4 IT Z LAV7 OFFICE OF JOHN A1. RRj ESQUIRE ,5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 1705.5 OFFICL: (7 l 7) 766-4008 Fn>:: 1 i j 790-6019 G l?tA1L: KerrLa-wC0comcast.net June 1, 2008 VIA REGULAR MAIL AND FASCIMILE: (717) 787-0414 Richard J_ Gold, Deputy Secretary Office of Children, Youth & Families Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Room 131, Health and Welfare Bldg. Commonwealth Ave. & Forster Street Harrisburg, PA 17105-2675 Re: Main Street Adoption Service Dear Deputy Secretary Gold. I have been contacted by Melissa Turi for assistance in ascertaining whether Main Street Adoption Service is in compliance with certain regulatory requirements in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; namely, whether they have 2 liability insurance policy covering their operations. By way of background, I just litigated an arbitration case against Main Street in which the arbitrator characterized their conduct as "egregious" and awarded the fees my clients had paid returned to them. I also have fled a comprehensive complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County against both Main Street and Common Sense Adoption Services. for fraud, civil conspiracy, and a variety of other causes of action. I am aware that Common Sense has an AIG $1 million liability policy. However, a comment Main Street's attorney made at the arbitration indicates that Main Street possesses no such insurance policy. This is a matter of grave concern because their actions are harming both residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and citizens outside the state, like Melissa Turi. I recognize that I can file a Freedom of Information Act Request, but I prefer to have you confirm the simple fact as to whether or not they have an insurance policy on file, I am prepared to go to Commonwealth Court, if necessary. I will even give you a subpoena from the civil action in Cumberland County, if that is your desire. I do not believe that your Department's representations that they have met this requirement is accurate. I would like to give you an opportunity to retract this statement and to confirm the real fact before further legal proceedings become necessary, DPW should be protecting citizens - not covering for regulatory deficiencies of unscrupulous entities like Main Street. 06,01'30=i5 1'4.05 F,?! 71 '90 6019 EIECI'TII OFFICES Richard J. Gold, Deputy Secretary June 1, 2008 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to telephone me to discuss this matter in more depth. Respectfully yours, YY? I?'/ ohn M, Kerr 2001 cc_ Melissa Turi COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES P.O. BOX 2675 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105-2675 Richard J. Gold Deputy Secretary for Children, Youth and Families JUN - 3 2008 Phone: (717) 787-4756 Fax: (717) 787-0414 John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Dear Mr. Kerr: Re: Main Street Adoption Service This will-confirm my telephone conversation with you on June 2, 2008, in response to your facsimile dated June 1, 2008, in which I confirmed that the above- referenced agency has its current liability insurance. Very truly yours, Richard Gold c: Ms. Melissa Turi bc: OCYF File If 3 LAIC' OFFICE OF JOIN M. RR, EsouiIE 5000 Ritter R03C1, Suite 202 Aiechanicsburc, Pa. 17055 Orrice: (717) 766-4008 • FAX: (71 i 1 790-6019 E-wtr?ii_: I?errLa?.v(Rcomcast.ne? June 9, 2008 Jcna)-c u01u, LJ Nuy bCCretaii y Office of Children, Youth & Families Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare P.O. Box 2675 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2675 Re: Main Street Adoption Service Dear Deputy Secretary Gold Thank you for your recent correspondence confirming that Main Street Adoption Service maintains current liability insurance. I would like to take this occasion to express my sincere regret over our unpleasant telephone conversation of last week. Obviously. 1 was wrong, and I appreciate the fact that you set me straight. No one- including Main Street's own lawyer- believed that their insurance was current. In fact, he asked me if I might obtain a copy of the policy for him. Reflecting over what you said, I can understand your perspective that you do not regulate international adoption agencies. By the same token, perhaps you might understand my perspective, which is responding to families all over the country who have telephoned me with trieir experiences with this agency -lost money and broken hearts over children they were never able to bring home. I would like a copy of this policy. I have an existing civil action in Cumberland County from which I can issue a subpoena. Should I direct it to yourself or some other Commonwealth official? I recognize that you cannot just give it to me. My clients would like to make a claim under the policy inasmuch as Main Street refuses to report a claim themselves. fuu JUN S O 206Y Richard J. Gold June 9, 2008 Page 2 I appreciate your assistance. Respectfully yours, John M. Kerr COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES P.O. BOX 2675 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105-2675 Richard J. Gold Deputy Secretary for Children, Youth and Families JUN 11 2008 Phone: (717) 787-4756 Fax: (717) 787-0414 John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter road, suite 202 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Dear Mr. Kerr: Re: Main Street Adoption Service Thank you very much for your letter dated June 9, 2008. 1 understand the pain and sorrow that your clients are going through and I do empathize with them. Regarding access to the insurance policy, please forward a subpoena to the Office of Legal Counsel for the Department of Public Welfare. Many thanks for your consideration. Very truly yours, Richard J. Gold bc: OCYF File Law Office of ohn M. err John M. Kerr, Esquire Heather S. Clouser, Paralegal September 30, 2008 HAND-DELIVERED Office of Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare 3`d Floor West Health and Welfare Building . Forester Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Re: Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services et al No. 08-00062 (Cumberland Co.) Dear Sir or Madame: Enclosed please find a Subpoena To Produce Documents or Things For Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.22 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. I am interested in the liability insurance policy on file with the Department of Public Welfare for Main Street Adoption Service located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Richard Gold, Deputy Secretary for Children, Youth and Families, has confirmed the existence of the policy and advised that I subpoena your office (see attached letter). Because it expires on October 24, 2008, 1 am most anxious to receive a copy. I have also enclosed a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to Rule 4009.23 to be completed by your office. Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be willing to send someone to pick it up in person. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully yours, l<? ohn M. Kerr Enclosures 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 • Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 PHONE: 717.766.4008 • FAx: 717.766.4066 • EMAIL: KerrLaw@comcast.net • v\7ww.jol-inkerrlaw.com COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND David Scott Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins, his wife, Plaintiffs c File No. 08-0062 V. Common Sens-Adoption Services, Martha 1. Jones, Erin R.J. Chick, Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J McClenaghan,S 8?Ai, 6 ODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS a/k/a Nina Heller FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Office of Legal Counsel for the PA Department of Public Welfare (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any liability insurance policy on file with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare insuring Main Street Adoption Service in Lancaster, Pennsylvania at Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road, Ste 109, Mechanicsburq, PA 17055 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: John M. Kerr, Esquire ADDRESS: 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA -I/Ubb TELEPHONE: 717 766-4008 SUPREME COURT ID # 26414 ATTORNEY FOR: Sco & Tracey Mu ins, •r Date:- Seal of the Court, r = Plaintiffs BY OURT: othonota nvisn n Deputy lk. , COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL October 8, 2008 John M. Kerr Law Offices of Jolin M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 Re: Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services, et al. No. 08-0062 (Cumberland County) Dear Attorney Kerr: Enclosed please find a copy of the liability insurance policy on file with the Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families for Main Street Adoptions Services of Lancaster, Pa. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, 'h w? CkG_L"?. Sallie A. Rodgers Senior Counsel Department of Public Welfare OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE FL_ E.. T, ;-ZEAL T N E1_1_,r?. =T ETS I H?... !oBUP' 17_'ia w':!vw.dpv.--. state. ria.us 11-15-08 on Guat adopt website Posted by Melissa 11-16-08 "MSAS supposed to have insurance that expires on 10-24-2008 that is what the DPW of PA told us so we filed it on 10-22-2008) ?$ ?1r 7 >>> "Joni Fixel" <jfixel@fixellawoffices.com> 3/13/2009 12:43 PM >>> • • • my clients have provided me with several things for Bob & Nina and MSAS. To be licensed by the DPW in Pennsylvania - MSAS had to have liability insurance. The DPW advised mx cli n that MSAS indeed had insurance of $500,000 that was not due to expire until October 24, 2008AXXXXXXXX OCXXXXXXXXX C] /Ak Nj?-T-o 1r6 Bob @ Main Street Adoption From: Sacks, Myra W. [msacks@state.pa.us] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:26 AM To: 'Bob @ Main Street Adoption' Subject: Follow up to our Correspondence of April 6, 2009 Dear Mr. McClenaghan: 1. The response to your question needs to be directed to the individual who sought the subpoena and court that issued it. We provide legal advice to our clients, agents of Commonwealth government. Since your question involves litigation in a matter pending before a Common Pleas Court, we have no response to your question. 2. Mr. Gold provided the documents he received and sent. After checking with him, I find that he lacks further details of the conversation with Mr. Kerr. However as to 2(c) Mr. Gold. copied Ms. Turi on his letter of June 3, 2008 because Kerr copied her when he wrote to Mr. Gold on June 1, 2008. Attorney Kerr's correspondence of June 1, 2008 began, "I have been contacted by Melissa Turi for assistance in ascertaining whether Main Street Adoption Service is in compliance with certain regulatory requirements...." The correspondence was self explanatory to Mr. Gold as to an attorney-client relationship. Myra Werrin Sacks I Senior Counsel for DPW Governor's Office of General Counsel 7th & Forster Sts., 3rd Fl. H&W Bldg. I Hbg. PA 17120 Phone: 717.783.2800 1 Fax: 717.772.0717 www.dpw.state.pa.us ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any use of this information other than by the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please send a reply e-mail to the sender and delete the material from any and all computers. Unintended transmissions shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. -----Original Message----- From: Bob @ Main Street Adoption [mailto:bob@mainstreetadoption.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:24 PM To: Sacks, Myra W. Subject: RE: follow up to your April 7 email request Dear Ms. Sacks, Thank you for your follow up. The documents mailed arrived this afternoon. The information was extremely helpful and raised more concerns about Mr. Kerr. If you are able to answer two additional questions as clarification to the documents, it would be most helpful. 1. When DPW issues information/ documentation based on a subpoena to an attorney, is it permissible for that attorney to provide a copy of that document to a third party not related to the case the subpoena was based? e_)6 47 /s?7 ? • From: John Kerr [mailto:kerriaw@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:27 PM To: 'Nina @ Main Street Adoption' Cc: rsaidis@sfl-law.com Subject: RE: Ms. Heller: I received your e-mail this evening at home on my Blackberry. I have come into my office in order to give you a comprehensive response. First, under the Rules of Professional Conduct, I am not permitted to communicate with someone represented by counsel. I only do so in this instance for several reasons. One, when I saw Mr. Saidis at a Bar function last Thursday evening, he told me that he had given you until today to review this Release. Since it is highly unlikely that you will reach him this evening - and because it is unclear to me whether you are still represented by Mr. Adams in the Civil Action, 2008- 00062, and you may be representing yourselves - I am taking the liberty of responding to your concerns. However, I am copying Mr. Saidis so he will be able to correct anything I say. At the outset, it is important for you to understand that you are not being asked to agree to anything. That occurred on October 9, and that agreement was placed on the record before Judge Bayley. The instrument which was forwarded to you - and which I drafted - is a Release of Claims to effectuate what the Mullins agreed to on October 9. It is to protect you from the Mullins ever being able to assert any claim against you as a result of using your agency for adoption services. Pursuant to this Release, we will inform the American Arbitration Association that the award has been satisfied and everything is over. It also requires the Mullins to file a Praecipe To Discontinue the civil action against Main Street, yourself and Mr. McClenaghan with prejudice, meaning that you can never be brought back into this lawsuit. Much of the language which you probably do not understand has to do with Common Sense not being able to take credit for the $10,000 which has been paid in the event a judgment is ever entered against them. Your only responsibility is what you agreed to do on October 9 and was stated on the record, which is to fulfill all legal duties of a settling joint tortfeasor. This means that you may have to testify at a deposition or at trial in the Mullins' case against Common Sense. I hope this clarifies the situation for you. The Mullins have executed this Release, and I will be sending a copy to Mr. Saidis tomorrow.... John Kerr Aak i f",??Y CF F. CE- -, 20 C? G 2V P ?1 05 CVi _I ,T DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRACEY MULLINS, his wife : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : NO. 08-00062 COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVIVES : CIVIL MARTHA JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK Defendants M N7 MOTION FOR PROTECTION ORDER By this motion we are objecting to the request by Mr. Kerr for Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller to attend depositions related to Civil 08-00062 in his office on August 28, 2009 and hereby request this court issue an Order of Protection. Subsequent to the settlement and release of claim by Mullins in Civil Case 08-00062 of Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller, on or about October 22, 2008 a new matter was filed in Michigan Federal Court unrelated to any of the Plaintiffs in Civil 08-00062. We later learned that the lead Plaintiff in the Michigan Filing, Turi was and still is in direct communication with Attorney Kerr. We uncovered earlier this year (2009) that Kerr's relationship with Turi started months before the settlement / release was made between Attorney Robert Saidis and Attorney John Kerr on October 9, 2008. As part of the agreement, Mullins (Kerr's client) agreed to completely release Main Street Adoption Service, Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller as defendants in Civil 08-00062 while Saidis Flower and Lindsay's would directly compensate the Plaintiffs Mullins $10,000 due to errors in representing Main Street in the arbitration case Mullins v. Main Street Adoption Service. In addition, SFL would pay the remaining arbitration fees to satisfy the arbitration matter with Main Street Adoption Service. Where as Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller not admitting any guilt or to be named in Civil 08-00062 and not withstanding mandatory testimony or deposition, and the terms of settlement were to remain confidential as conditions of the terms. We later learned that these terms were not adhered to and we contend that the attorneys associated with these cases worked in collusion to settle the matter in their own terms to protect themselves and not the parties named in the suit. In light of recently uncovered evidence linking Attorney Kerr to the ongoing Michigan case and to preserve our rights as defendants in the Michigan civil case, we respectfully request that the Court immediately enter a Protective Order and shows cause that the Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller filed by Mr. Kerr on or about August 3, 2009, served on August 7, 2009 be denied. We have compelling evidence that Attorney Kerr provided subpoenaed documentation / information to third parties unrelated to Civil 08-00062 which was used as the basis for the subpoena. The subpoenaed documentation Kerr obtained was then subsequently used in the filing of a new unrelated matter in Michigan Federal Court. It is our belief that Mr. Kerr posses a threat of continued abuse as an officer of the court to provide confidential information through testimony and / or deposition related to Civil Matter 08-00062 to plaintiffs and their counsel in the ongoing Michigan civil matter. Mr. Kerr's propensity to disseminate information to unrelated third parties is demonstrated in his actions and his statements to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's government officials. Our rights as defendants in the Michigan case and its integrity can only be preserved by the entry of a protective order and the sealing of the records related to Civil 08-00062. It has been held that "under the law of procedure, parties and related persons often have no choice but to divulge information they would not otherwise freely share. To allow a party to use that information for purposes unrelated to the litigation and in a manner which harms the giver of that information is abusive, and courts have a significant interest in preventing such usage." Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church v. Morales, 143 F. R. D. 109,113 (W. D. Tex. 1992) (citing Rhinehart). We learned under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Right to Know Act as a result of communication to our Michigan counsel from Turi's Michigan counsel that Attorney Kerr communicated with Turi regarding Main Street insurance declaration policy information obtained through subpoena of DPW records based on Civil 08-00062 rules of discovery. Turi's Michigan counsel filed a lawsuit in Michigan unrelated to Civil 08-00062 based on the subpoenaed information Mr. Kerr obtained and provided to Turi and their counsel. Kerr mislead the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Works (DPW) in order to obtain confidential insurance information. It's clearly evident by reading correspondence between Attorney Kerr and DPW (Cc: Turi), the subpoena and accompanying documentation and email from DPW to Main Street (see details with exhibits below) that Mr. Kerr purposely abused the subpoena process to aid a third party in filing suit unrelated to his civil case 08-00062. 1. On (05-29-08) Turi emails Main Street asking for a copy of private insurance information based on her conversation with DPW. Following agency policy, DPW acknowledged compliance but denied access to information covered under the Information Act and right to privacy. (Turi was gathering data for her Michigan counsel to file suit, relying on insurance to settle the claim) (exhibit 1) 2. On (06-01-08) Kerr contacts DPW on behalf of Turi stating that Turi needs assistance to make sure Main Street is in compliance with certain regulatory requirements," mainly do they have liability insurance" In Kerr's letter/ Facsimile of 06-01-08 to DPW (exhibit 2), Kerr states he successfully litigated an arbitration case against Main Street (award was announced 05-29-09, details of the award and payment schedule were not known at the time of this letter, Turi was not party to the arbitration). Kerr makes allegation that DPW's verbal confirmation of Main Street's licensing compliance was "inaccurate". Kerr demands a written response from DPW to confirm Main Street licensing compliance and threatens DPW with legal action. (It should be noted: Main Street was in the process of the annual licensing renewal at the time of Mr. Kerr's allegations and DPW was in possession of compliance documents as a result of the annual renewal process and was accurate in their statements.) Kerr leads DPW to believed that Turi is his client and is associated with Civil 08-00062 and that he could obtain a subpoena through this case. (Turf is a resident of Illinois). 3. In his letter dated 06-09-2008 (exhibit 3), Mr. Kerr thanks DPW Officer Gold for providing a letter confirming Main Street is in compliance and asks for additional specific information regarding insurance. Kerr further writes " No one -including Main Street's lawyer-believed that their insurance was current. In fact, he asked me if I might obtain a copy of the policy for him" Mr. Kerr fabricated this request, our legal counsel did not request a copy of the insurance policy from DPW through Kerr. Additionally Kerr informs Gold that he has an existing civil action under which he can issue a subpoena. This time Kerr claims his "clients would like to make a claim under the policy inasmuch as Main Street refuses to report a claim themselves" We can only conclude based on the above statements made by Mr. Kerr that he intentionally mislead DPW. Kerr knew that as of June 1, 2008 Civil Mater 08-00062 was not vet answered by defendants and an extension to file was agreed upon. Additionally, the arbitration award was announced 2 days prior with details pending delivery by AAA. It is evident by Kerr's letter dated 07-02-08 to Saidis who was representing us at the time when Kerr states that he provided Saidis / Flower with an extension of time once before and that he will file a default notice if they do not answer on time, proving there wasn't a claim pending. Mr. Kerr openly admits that his intentions were to falsely use Civil 08-00062 in order to obtain a subpoena to gain access to private information which was denied to Turi, a third party days before. Mr. Kerr knew in his correspondence to DPW that Civil 08-00062 had no claim, was not in discovery and openly telegraphed his intentions to use the legal system to obtain documentation through subpoena not intended for it's use. 4. On 09-30-2008, Almost 4 months after Kerr's initial contact with DPW and his claim to officer Gold that Main Street refused to report a claim, in the midst of a pending hearing to Set A Side the award of the arbitrator to be heard in Judge Bayley's court on 10-09-2008, Kerr submits a letter to DPW accompanied by Subpoena dated 09-10-08 (exhibit 4). Kerr states that his subpoena to produce documents were filed under Rule 4009.22 to produce documents. Kerr refers to Gold in this letter stating Gold confirmed Main Street has liability insurance and Gold advised Kerr that he should obtain a subpoena, that the documents were urgently needed. At this point Kerr had yet to respond to the filing of Adams with Main Street's response to Civil 08-00062 and the arbitration award was pending the Set A Side hearing. The statement "urgently needed" for either of Mullins cases Kerr represented was disingenuous in that there was no urgency due to either of the cases he represented for his client in the Cumberland County courts. We did not learned about Kerr's subpoena of DPW or correspondence between Kerr and DPW and his involvement with Michigan Plaintiff Turi until months after we had agreed to settle in Judge Bailey's court October 9, 2008 when Turi's counsel testified in judges chambers that she had policy information for Main Street. Jim Adams who was our attorney of record in Civil 08-00062 later admitted to us that he did receive a copy of notice of subpoena in his office but failed to respond to it or notify us of the fact. 5. On October 8, 2008 (exhibit 5) DPW complied with Kerr's subpoena, forwarded a letter with a copy of Robert McClenaghan's personal property liability insurance rider for office liability insurance, including policy limits to Kerr. Mr. Kerr received the documents after the settlement on October 9, 2008. Kerr immediately forwarded Robert McClenaghan's confidential insurance information across state lines to Turi / Michigan attorney Fixel. Within two weeks of the subpoenaed documents, on or about October 22, 2008, Turi's Michigan counsel Fixel filed a lawsuit in Michigan Federal court with the insurance policy as a basis for filing. Turi stated on record that the reason "they" filed the lawsuit as soon as possible was because Main Street's insurance policy was about to expire (exhibit 6). Michigan's Plaintiff Turi not only stated the policy limits but had the expiration date which only Mr. Kerr, Main Street and DPW had in their possession when the Michigan suit was filed. Turi's and her attorney Fixel could only have obtained detailed private insurance information from Kerr and his use of the subpoena served on DPW using Kerr's civil case in Cumberland county 08-00062 under discovery. Kerr established that Turi was denied access from DPW to Main Street's insurance information in his letter to DPW. DPW was the only party Main Street ever issued a copy of the insurance policy to, as part of compliance for licensure. Turi's Michigan Counsel presented documentation between Kerr, DPW and Turi and repeated policy limits only known to Mr. Kerr, DPW and Main Street in an email to our Michigan counsel where she states DPW issued the information to "her client". (exhibit 7) 6. In an email of 04-13-2009, DPW's lead counsel Attorney Sacks verified that DPW Officer Gold understood Kerr & Turi to have an attorney-client relationship based on his letter / statements (exhibit 8). 7. In direct response to Mr. Kerr's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony served August 7, 2009 number 12, Under Pennsylvania Law a settling Joint Tortfeasor continuous is a named defendant and is required to give testimony as a party in a deposition or at the trial of the matter is vastly different then Mr. Kerr's explanation of terms in his email of November 17, 2008 (exhibit 9) when we specifically asked what the legal term, Joint Tortfeasor meant. In the last line of his email, he states, "you MAY have to testify at a deposition or trial". He didn't state it was mandatory or compensatory as his motion contends. Mr. Kerr used deception because the release and terms of release were not filed and he knew through collusion with Robert Saidis what our position and terms were to settle. Proof of this is in the letter (exhibit 10) sent from Mr. Saidis to Mr. Kerr in regard to cashing of the check / payment SFL directly made and statement that Mr. Saidis had not yet approved the Joint Tortfeasor Release. All the while, Mr. Saidis ignores our request to clarify the legal terms (exhibit 11). We also asked our attorney of record for Civil 08-00062 what the terms were, which he never fully explained, basically brushed it off as "too late". Mr. Adams never communicated with either Mr. Saidis or Mr. Kerr with regard to the terms of settlement. The attorneys took advantage of our lack of knowledge of the legal system and language used in the court and release. Again Mr. Kerr wordsmiths to intentionally mislead when in fact the legal terms Robert Saidis and John M. Kerr presented to the courts had a completely different meaning than what Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller agreed to prior to the hearing. We specifically asked Robert Saidis for clarification of the terms after the settlement hearing. Mr. Kerr conspired with Robert Saidis to put their interests first, concocted a plan to "get them off the hook" due to their misconduct in both the Civil and arbitration cases, lied to Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller then presented to Judge Bayley legal terms to be read into the record as our intent to settle. We are stating on record that we never agreed to, signed or approved the final terms of the agreement made between John M. Kerr and Robert Saidis because we did not fully understand the terms and legal language associated with the release by Scott and Tracey Mullins of Robert McClenaghan, Nina Heller and Main Street Adoption Service from Civil 08-00062. Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller therefore request that the court exercise it's authority and grant the Order of Protection. Second we ask the court to file sanctions and take steps to impose disciplinary action against any and all attorneys associated with the misconduct in Judge Bayley's court surrounding the settlement and release by Scott and Tracey Mullins of Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller from Civil 08-00062 as of a direct result of their actions individually and collectively as coconspirators to settle a claim, by purposely ling to the courts under oath, knowingly committing fraud, made false statements of material fact and misused their power as representatives of the court. Third, we ask the court to file sanctions and take steps to impose disciplinary action against any and all attorneys associated with the illegal and reckless use of subpoena / dissemination of subpoenaed documentation covered under our right to privacy and Disciplinary Rules associated with the 09-10-2009 subpoena of DPW in conjunction with Civil 08-00062 "rules of discovery" as the basis for securing such documentation. We rely on the court to take the necessary steps to stop the egregious behavior demonstrated by members of the court as exhibited in this motion. WHEREFORE, it is requested that the court grant the Motion for Protection Order and exercise the courts judicial power to take appropriate action against Attorney John M. Kerr, Robert Saidis, James Flower of Saidis Flower and Lindsay and James Adams of Barley Snyder as deemed necessary in association with the settlement proceedings and subpoena for Civil 08- 00062. Robert McClenaghan 65 W. Roseville Rd Lancaster, PA 17601 August 23, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Certificate of Service The undersigned hereby certifies that we have sent a copy of the foregoing, "Motion for Protection Order" on the below-named individuals in the manner indicated. First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid John J. Hatzell, Esquire Strachan & Hatzell One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Robert Saidis, Esquire James Flower, Esquire Law Offices of Saidis, Flower & Lindsay 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 James R. Adams, Esquire Joshua J. Knapp, Esquire ?1? Barley Snyder LLC e'` 126 East King St. Lancaster, PA 17602 Robert McClenaghan 65 W. Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601 VERIFICATION The factual statements contained in the preceding Motion are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. Robert McClenaghan NirY`a Heller e-Y#-1617 l From: Melissa Turi [mailto:missturi@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:30 AM To: Nina @ Main Street Adoption; Bob @ Main Street Adoption Subject: Insurance Dear Main Street, In order for you to be licensed in the state of Pennsylvania, according to the Deputy Secretary, Richard J. Gold, you must hold a current, liability insurance policy. They did not verify with you that you have an active policy. If your policy is not active, they are suppose to suspend your license. Can you send me the name of your insurance company along with the policy number so I can verify that it is active? This will avoid another investigation. Thank you. Melissa & Guy Turi UG '01-'2008 14:04 FAT 717 760 6019 E ECIITIVE OFFICES ?QUU2 LAVd OFFICE OF JOHN M. KERRY EsouIRE ,000 Ritter Road Suite 20? Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 Orrica: (7171) 766-4008 . FAQ.: ?90-6019 lintialL; KerrLaw@jcomcast.net June 1, 2008 VIA REGULAR MAIL AND FASCIMILE: (717) 787-0414 Richard J. Gold, Deputy Secretary Office of Children, Youth & Families Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Room 131, Health and Welfare Bldg. Commonwealth Ave. & Forster Street Harrisburg, PA 1 7 1 05-2675 Re: Main Street Adoption Service Dear Deputy Secretary Gold: I have been contacted by Melissa Turi for assistance in ascertaining whether Main Street Adoption Service is incompliance with certain regulatory requirements in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, namely, whether they have a liability insurance policy covering their operations. By way of.background, I just litigated an arbitration case against Main Street in which the arbitrator characterized their, conduct as "egregious" and awarded the fees my clients had paid returned to them. I also have filed a comprehensive complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County against both Main Street and Common Sense-Adoption Services. for fraud, civil conspiracy, and a variety of other causes of action. I am aware that Common Sense has an AIG $1 million liability policy. However, a comment Main Street's attorney made at the arbitration indicates that Main Street possesses no such insurance policy. This is a matter of grave concern because their actions are harming both residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and citizens outside the state,. like Melissa Turi. I recognize that I can file a.Freedom of Information Act Request, but I prefer to have you confirm the simple fact as to whether or not they have an insurance policy on file. I am prepared to go to Commonwealth Court, if necessary. I will even give you a subpoena from the civil action in Cumberland County, if that is your desire. I do not believe that your Department's representations that they have met this requirement is accurate. I would like to give you an opportunity to retract this statement and to confirm the real fact before further legal proceedings become necessary. DPW should be protecting citizens- not covering for regulatory deficiencies of unscrupulous entities like Main Street. 0G , U1 _2(108 14: U FA-1 i 1 T 790 6019 EIECUTIVE OFFICES Richard J. Gold, Deputy Secretary June 1, 2008 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to telephone me to discuss this matter in more depth. Respectfully yours, ohn M. Kerr 16003 cc: Melissa Turi COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES P.O. BOX 2675 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105-2675 Richard J. Gold Deputy Secretary for Children, Youth and Families JUN - 3 2008 Phone: (717) 787-4756 Fax: (717) 787-0414 John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Dear Mr. Kerr: Re: Main Street Adoption Service This will-confirm my telephone conversation with you on June 2, 2008, in response to your facsimile dated June 1, 2008, in which I confirmed that the above- referenced agency has its current liability instarance. Very truly yours, Richard Gold c: Ms. Melissa Turi bc: OCYF File E?CG-?'1 /? ?7 3 LA«' OFFICE OF JOHN M. KERR., EsouiRE 5000 Ritter Goad, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17 055 Or•r•ici_: (717) 766-4008 • FAX: (717) 790-1-019 E-n•t,uL: Kerr Laiv@,comceist.neI June 9, 2008 Richard Gold, 318p?i`iy r3eaetai y Office of Children, Youth & Families Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare P.O. Box 2675 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2675 Re: Main Street Adoption Service Dear Deputy Secretary Gold: Thank you for your recent correspondence confirming that Main Street Adoption Service maintains current liability insurance. I would like to take this occasion to express my sincere regret over our unpleasant telephone conversation of last week. Obviously. I was wrong, and I appreciate the fact that you set me straight. No one- including Main Street's own lawyer- believed that their insurance was current. In fact, he asked me if I might obtain a copy of the policy for him. Reflecting over what you said, I can understand your perspective that you do not regulate international adoption agencies. By the same token, perhaps you might understand my perspective, which ,is responding to families all over the country who have telephoned me with their experiences with this agency - lost money and broken hearts over children they were never able to bring home. I would like a copy of this policy. I have an existing civil action in Cumberland County from which l can issue a subpoena. Should I direct it to yourself or some other Commonwealth official? I recognize that you cannot just give it to me. My clients would like to make a claim under the policy inasmuch as Main Street refuses to report a claim themselves. 0?6 ?D Vu? JUN 102004 Richard J. Gold June 9, 2008 Page 2 I appreciate your assistance. Respectfully yours, John M. Kerr COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES P.O. BOX 2675 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105-2675 Richard J. Gold JUN 20QU Deputy Secretary for Children, Youth and Families John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter road, suite 202 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Phone: (717) 787.4756 Fax: (717) 787.0414 Re: Main Street Adoption Service Dear Mr. Kerr: Thank you very much for your letter dated June .9, 2008. 1 understand the pain and sorrow that your clients are going through and I do empathize with them. Regarding access to the insurance policy, please forward a subpoena to the Office of Legal Counsel for the Department of Public Welfare. Many thanks for your consideration. Very truly yours, Richard J. Gold bc: OCYF File Law Office of ohn M . err ,John M. Kerr, Esquire Heather S. Clouser, Paralegal September 30, 2008 HAND-DELIVERED Office of Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare 3rd Floor West Health and Welfare Building. Forester Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Re: Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services, et al. No. 08-00062 (Cumberland Co.) Dear Sir or Madame: Enclosed please find a Subpoena To Produce Documents or Things For Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.22 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. I am interested in the liability insurance policy on file with the Department of Public Welfare for Main Street Adoption Service located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Richard Gold, Deputy Secretary for Children, Youth and Families, has confirmed the existence of the policy and advised that I subpoena your office (see attached letter). Because it expires on October 24, 2008, 1 am most anxious to receive a copy. I have also enclosed a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to Rule 4009.23 to be completed by your office. Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be willing to send someone to pick it up in person. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully yours, ' ;0- / ``,z'' ohn M. Kerr Enclosures 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 • Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND David Scott Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins, his wife, Plaintiffs File No. 08-0062 V. Coamn Sense-Adoption Services, Martha 1. Jones, Erin R.J. Chick, ' Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J H an,S and MAyf a/k/a Nina a Heller eller 6FRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Office of Legal counsel for the PA Department of Public Welfare (Name of Person or Entity). Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any liability insurance policy on file with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare insuring Main Street Adoption Service in Lancaster, Pennsylvania at Law Office Of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road, Ste 109, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with. the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena' within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THLS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: John M. Kerr, Esquire ADDRESS: 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 1,7055 TELEPHONE: 717 6-4008 SUPREME COURT ID # 26414 ATTORNEY FOR: Sco & Tracey ins, Plaintiffs r r ,Seal of the Court., BY 7 OURT: Date: ?lZtI4 ` othono ? Deputy 6>?c 617-5IT S COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL October 8, 2008 John M. Kerr Law Offices of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 Re: Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services, et al. No. 08-006.2 (Cwnberland County) Dear Attorney Kerr: Enclosed please find a copy of the liability insurance policy on file with the Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families for Main Street Adoptions Services of Lancaster, Pa. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Sallie A. Rodgers Senior Counsel Department of Public Welfare OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE 3 FL.. v.;EST, HEALTH '. WELFARE BLOB;, 1 7 & FORSTEP STREETS I HAPF%1S8UPi3, P.. 17!2)) Ph: 717-783-2800 I Fr.: 717-772-0717 1 '`a+avd dnw statE Da -us 11-15-08 on Guat adopt website Posted by Melissa 11-16-08 "MSAS supposed to have insurance that expires on 10-24-2008 that is what the DPW of PA told us so we filed it on 10-22-2008) >>> "Joni Fixel" <jfixel@fixellawoffices.com> 3/13/2009 12:43 PM >>> .., my clients have provided me with several things for Bob & Nina and MSAS. To be licensed by the DPW in Pennsylvania - MSAS had to have liability insurance. The DPW advised 0y clients that MSAS indeed had insurance of $500,000 that was not due to expire until October 24, 2008. (10 c?h43tT S Bob _ Main Street Adoption From: Sacks, Myra W. [msacks@state.pa.us] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:26 AM To: 'Bob @ Main Street Adoption' Subject: Follow up to our Correspondence of April 6, 2009 Dear Mr. McClenaghan: 1. The response to your question needs to be directed to the individual who sought the subpoena and court that issued it. We provide legal advice to our clients, agents of Commonwealth government. Since your question involves litigation in a matter pending before a Common Pleas Court, we have no response to your question. 2. Mr. Gold provided the documents he received and sent. After checking with him, I find that he lacks further details of the conversation with Mr. Kerr. However as to 2(c) Mr. Gold. copied Ms. Turi on his letter of June 3, 2008 because Kerr copied her when he wrote to Mr. Gold on June 1, 2008. Attorney Kerr's correspondence of June 1, 2008 began, "I have been contacted by Melissa Turi for assistance in ascertaining whether Main Street Adoption Service is in compliance with certain regulatory requirements...." The correspondence was self explanatory to Mr. Gold as to an attorney-client relationship. Myra Werrin Sacks I Senior Counsel for DPW Governor's Office of General Counsel 7th & Forster Sts., 3rd Fl. H&W Bldg. I Hbg. PA 17120 Phone: 717.783.2800 1 Fax: 717.772.0717 www.dpw.state.pa.us ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any use of this information other than by the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please send a reply e-mail to the sender and delete the material from any and all computers. Unintended transmissions shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. -----Original Message----- From: Bob @ Main Street Adoption [mailto:bob@mainstreetadoption.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:24 PM To: Sacks, Myra W. Subject: RE: follow up to your April 7 email request Dear Ms. Sacks, Thank you for your follow up. The documents mailed arrived this afternoon. The information was extremely helpful and raised more concerns about Mr. Kerr. If you are able to answer two additional questions as clarification to the documents, it would be most helpful. 1. When DPW issues information/ documentation based on a subpoena to an attorney, is it permissible for that attorney to provide a copy of that document to a third party not related to the case the subpoena was based? From: John Kerr [mailto:kerrlaw@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:27 PM To: 'Nina @ Main Street Adoption' Cc: rsaidis@sfl-law.com Subject: RE: Ms. Heller: I received your e-mail this evening at home on my BlacjDerry. I have come into my office in order to give you a comprehensive response. First, under the Rules of Professional Conduct, I am not permitted to communicate with someone represented by counsel. I only do so in this instance for several reasons. One, when I saw Mr. Saidis at a Bar function last Thursday evening, he told me that he had given you until today to review this Release. Since it is highly unlikely that you will reach him this evening - and because it is unclear to me whether you are still represented by Mr. Adams in the Civil Action, 2008- 00062, and you may be representing yourselves - I am taking the liberty of responding to your concerns. However, I am copying Mr. Saidis so he will be able to correct anything I say. At the outset, it is important for you to understand that you are not being asked to agree to anything. That occurred on October 9, and that agreement was placed on the record before Judge Bayley. The instrument which was forwarded to you - and which I drafted - is a Release of Claims to effectuate what the Mullins agreed to on October 9. It is to protect you from the Mullins ever being able to assert any claim against you as a result of using your agency for adoption services. Pursuant to this Release, we will inform the American Arbitration Association that the award has been satisfied and everything is over. It also requires the Mullins to file a Praecipe To Discontinue the civil action against Main Street, yourself and Mr. McClenaghan with prejudice, meaning that you can never be brought back into this lawsuit. Much of the language which you probably do not understand has to do with Common Sense not being able to take credit for the $10,000 which has been paid in the event a judgment is ever entered against them. Your only responsibility is what you agreed to do on October 9 and was stated on the record, which is to fulfill all legal duties of a settling joint tortfeasor. This means that you may have to testify at a deposition or at trial in the Mullins' case against Common Sense. I hope this clarifies the situation for you. The Mullins have executed this Release, and I will be sending a copy to Mr. Saidis tomorrow.... John Kerr & ?/M 17- t o LAW OFFICES SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 26 WEST HIGH STREET JOHN E. SLIKE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 CAMP HILL OFFICE ROBERT C. SAIDIS TELEPHONE: (717) 243-6222 - FACSIMILE: (717) 243-6486 2109 MARKET STREET JAMES D. FLOWER, JR. EMAIL: attorney®sfl-law.com TELEPHONE: (717)737-3405 CAROL J. LINDSAY www. s11-law.com FACSIMILE: (717)737-3407 JOHN B. LAMPI MICHAEL L. SOLOMON DANIEL L. SULLIVAN GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, III DEAN E. REYNOSA THOMAS E. FLOWER MARYLOU MATAS REPLY TO CARLISLE October 31, 2008 John M. Kerr, Esq. 5000 Ritter Road,' Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Re: Main Street Adoption Services v. David S. Mullins and Tracey L. Mullins No. 2008-3882 Civil Term Dear John: I have still not approved.the joint tortfeasor release. You will recall you have no authority to release our check until I approve -the release. Please confirm that you are still holding tle_ check in escrow. Vey truly /yours, & LINDSAY RCS/pm Robert C. Saidis CC: Main Street Adoption Services James R. Adams Esq. &-X H, f.I 17- 1 1 4. From: Bob @ Main Street Adoption [mailto:bob(c)mainstreetadoption.coml Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:17 PM To: 'ymccoy(ccDsfl-law.com' Subject: response to release Bob, This is the first time we received this document. The last communication was a copy of the letter sent to Kerr about the cashing of the check. We need your clarification of the language of this release. What exactly does Pro Tonto and Joint Tortfeasor mean in this release and how are we impacted by this language. In simple English, are we or are we not completely severed from the Civil suit We agreed that we would make ourselves available for testimony in the Civil case, that the family would remove us completely from the Civil suit and release from any further litigation. I'm not sure what I'm reading here but it doesn't appear that this is the case. Also, Common Sense is yet tied to us, NO. Perhaps Kerr needs to remove the suit and submit another suit if he can't amend the suit to the terms we agreed. Additionally, not addressed is the fact the check was issued by SFL not Main Street, this needs to be acknowledged and we are not admitting guilt or fault. Also the issue of fees we paid to other council as a result of SFL's communication with attorney James Adams (who was not party to either the arbitration or Civil matter), that we had to hire Mr. Adams on short notice to satisfy the response to the Civil matter when SFL was our council as noted in fees paid and documents served. We sent an email stating our position for SFL to offset remaining fees owed to James Adams from Main Street, Nina and I. We paid out thousands to cover the errors. Lastly, there are comments already on the internet which states that the judge in the arbitration stated that Main Street ruined the Mullins life. Where do you suppose those comments originated. If it wasn't us, it had to be Mullins or Kerr. In addition to the release, libel and slander terms need to be entered so that the Mullins and family cannot continue to prosecute us in public. Mr. Kerr needs to control his clients. We already have enough evidence to file suit for deformation of character and libel if that is the route they wish to travel. Sincerely, Bob C= this >T / 1 b From: Bob @ Main Street Adoption [mailto:bob(M-mainstreetadoation.coml Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:33 PM To: 'Phyllis McCoy' Subject: RE: Attorney Saidis letter Bob, This is all well and good but the question on the table was what does all of the language mean. We are not attorneys and as our counsel we are asking you to explain what was written and make sure what you told us the deal was to be totally released from both matters is indeed covered in the release. We do not understand the language "does not constitute a Pro tanto release." Sounds like they are not releasing us when it says it doesn't do something. I have no idea what Pro tanto means at all. We agreed to settlement if we were totally released from the civil matter and the arbitration, nothing short of that. If something else was agreed to in the court we were not aware of the terminology and therefore did not agree to a partial release. You told us verbally what took place and that we were totally released from all actions pertaining to Mullins. That all we were required to do was to possibly testify as if we were any other party to testify. We need clarification immediately on this. Bob McClenaghan Main Street Adoption OF THEE ; cL??f _ Ty f DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF TRACEY MULLINS, his wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, DEFENDANTS NO. 08-0062 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2009, upon consideration of the Pro Se Motion for Protection Order filed by Robert McClenaghan and Nina Heller, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Motion is DENIED. By the Court, '*?' ?' S-X? M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. ,dohn J. Hatzell, Esquire One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 ? ohn M. Kerr, Esquire 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Robert Saidis, Esquire James Flower, Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 V - mes Adams, Esquire Joshua Knapp, Esquire 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 VIR-obert McClenaghan Nina Heller 65 West Roseville Road Lancaster, PA 17601 bas OF THE TI:",, 2H9 AUG 28 PM : 33 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: ?X for JURY trial at the next term of civi 1 court. ? for trial without a jury. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE Q Civil Action - Law MULLINS, his wife ? Appeal from arbitration (other) COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, (Plaintiff) STREET ADOPTION SERVICES, MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZTEI, a/k/a NIRA HELLER ROBERT J. (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on 1/13/09 (Briefs are due S days before pretrials *, 08-00062 CIVIL Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: JOHN M. KERR, ESQUIRE Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: JOHN J. HATZELL, JR., ESQUIRE (COMMON SENSE DEFENDANTS) This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print Name. JOHN M. KERR Date: 12/09/09 Attorney for: PLAINTIFFS The trial list will be called on and MAIN 2/1/09 Trials commence on 1/05/09 e 417?- w OF Tf ETA" 2009 DEC -9 AM 9: 35 PENNSYLVANIA d 3 ?/ 7S? DAVID SCOTT MULLINS AND TRACEY LEE MULLINS, HIS WIFE, Plaintiffs v COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES,: ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICES ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN AND NINA VIZTEI, AKA NINA HELLER, Defendants #16 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW o s C- M MM `. , MIN m O ?D 08-0062 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2010, upon consideration of the call of the civil trial list, and Defendant's counsel, John J. Hatzell, Jr., Esquire, having made an oral motion to strike the case from the trial list to facilitate his filing of a dispositive motion or motions and to conduct further discovery, and Defendant's counsel having also indicated that one of his clients has a planned vacation during the forthcoming trial term, and following a conference in chambers in which Plaintiffs were represented by John M. Kerr, Esquire, and Defendants were represented by John J. Hatzell, Jr., Esquire, and it appearing to the Court that the said dispositive motions would substantially delay the trial in this case and that the said discovery could have been conducted prior to the listing of the case for trial, the Defendant's motion to strike the case from the trial list is denied. By the Court, ) ?P, Zri - J. esley Ole Jr., . John M. Kerr, Esquire 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Plaintiffs ,,,-<ohn J. Hatzell, Jr., Esquire One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 For Defendants Court Administrator - C.4ry IC :mae C0rl ES rne5 c l? 111.l o ? IE.- DAVID SCOTT MULLINS AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF TRACEY LEE MULLINS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA His wife, PLAINTIFFS V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK N-IM , MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE `± ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, F AND NINA VIZITEI . }. K `::' A/K/A NINA HELLER, =2 rv w DEFENDANTS NO. 08-0062 CIVIL IN RE: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2010, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Continuance made during the Pre-Trial Conference, and the Court noting the objection of the Plaintiffs, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Request for a Continuance is DENIED. -1- John Kerr, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs John Hatzell, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Defendants Court Administrator - ('SAS 1119)10 bas C.o ;ES mgt, 3 to By the Court, ??, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES; MARTHA L. JONES; ERIN R.J. CHICK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-0062 CIVIL TERM VERDICT [In this case, counsel have agreed that, as to the tort claims of Plaintiffs (defamation and fraud), the verdict as to the individual Defendant on the claim will apply to Defendant Common Sense Adoption Services as well; therefore, as to those two claims you do not need to concern yourselves with Defendant Common Sense's liability or non-liability. Counsel have also agreed that Plaintiffs' punitive damage claims against the individual Defendants do not apply to Defendant Common Sense Adoption Services; therefore, as to the claims for punitive damages you do not need to concern yourselves with any issue of liability for punitive damages on the part of Common Sense.] Question 1: Do you find that Defendant Martha L. Jones committed the tort of defamation against Plaintiffs: Yes No Question 2: Do you find that Defendant Erin R.J. Chick committed the tort of fraud against Plaintiffs? X_ Yes No Question 3: Do you find that Defendant Common Sense Adoption Services breached a contract with Plaintiffs? Yes No ", bo4k brc OTC,} 01 . Question 4: a. Compensatory damages: (1) State the total amount of damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiffs in the form of actual harm to the Plaintiffs' reputations, emotional distress, mental anguish, and humiliation, and any other special injuries as a result of defamation by Defendant Martha L. Jones: David Scott Mullins $ 4 -000. au Tracey lee Mullins $ 4-"(), 0 (2) State the total amount of economic damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of fraud by Erin R.J. Chick: (3) State the total amount of economic damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of a breach of contract by Defendant Common Sense Adoption Services: b. Punitive Damages (1) State the total amount of punitive damages, if any, you find against Defendant Martha L. Jones: $ ! 15 0 P (2) State the total amount of punitive damages, if any, you find against Defendant Erin R.J. Chick: c??a6 &Olp (Date) (F reperson) In the Court of Commons Pleas ' of Cumberland County, PA., DAVID AND TRACEY MULLINS Docket No. 2008-62 CIVIL Judge: OLER -VS- COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES I lurf k -err Lrr 7yhh l? , JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, 1" AttorneY: S Attorney: 7' 1, h A + Se Tr. - U l U Date: 0-5-6) JURORS No. Juror # NAMES OF JURORS CALLED CAUSE P D 1 INNNNNNINNN FEB01-239 DORN, JAMES R 2 INNNNNNNNNN FEB01-51 JOHNSON,, JR HAROLD F 3 ININNNmomis FEB01-136 CAMPBELL, LISA ANNETTE 4 ININNNNNNNNN FEB01-121 WARNER, HEIDI M 5 INNNNNNNINNN FEB01-248 REINARD, JOHN H 6 ININNNHNNINN FEB01-23 BILOUS, ROBERTA I 7 INNNNNINNNNNN FEB01-146 FRYE, DORIS D 8 ININNNNNNNN FEB01-137 MITCHELL, CAROL K 9 INNNNNNNNINN FEB01-8 MCKENRICK, CHARLES R 10 IINNNOMMIN FEB01-182 NEIDIGH, LESTER S 11 INNN¦NN EIN FEB01-90 CIRILLO, JOSEPH J 12 IININNNNNNNN FEB01-67 COLEMAN, LORI A 13 INNINNINNNNIN FEB01-221 ANTHONY, MARK W 14 INNNNNNNNNeNN FEBOI-111 KIRK„ JR ANTONIO C 15 INNNNINNNNNNNNN FEBOI-240 WOODWORTH-SOREM, JEAN M 16 INNNNNmmon FEBOI-291 WITWER, MARK A 17 INNINNNNNNIN n FEB01-35 LONG, DAVID A 18 INNNNNNNNN FEB01-222 JONES, TRUDY L 19 INIINOMENNNE FEB01-254 FRANCE,, JR OLIN K 20 INNINNNNNNNNIN FEB01-88 HOVERTER, DENNIS E 21 INIINNNNNNNNNNN FEB01-256 PERRY, DEBRA K 22 1mmumommu FEBOI-238 HOLLINGER, LES'S'ER G DAVID AND TRACEY MULLINS -VS_-- COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES M A d ik I-# JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, ?---4 In the Court of Commons Pleas of Cumberland County, PA., Docket No. 2008-62 CIVIL Judge: OLER -t- Attorney: l 0 l 4 Ke rr- / Attorney: j r Date: - D ((? JUR ORS No. Juror # NAMES OF JURORS CALLED CAUSE P D 23 iwmmsmu mn FEB01-289 SCHWARTZ, NANCY K 24 imams mmin 25 Iwuemmuummun FEB01-26 FEBOI-140 FURJANIC, CAROL A VINCENT, LINDA L 26 imio IInamne FEB01-217 STRAYER, THOMAS R 27 luuuemonnum FEBOI-58 ISENBERG, HERBERT 28 iiinisomimmumi FEB01-312 LEMANSKI, ROBERT D 29 InwNl111M ove FEBOI-155 HARPER,JR GEORGE A 30 i mmommin FEB01-141 SISTI, GINO A 31 inimINmImn FEBOI-232 TASSEV, ELENA G 32 imimmimmome FEB01-42 MCCOY, SKYLAR P 33 iniusuuimnu san FEB01-133 DAISE, SHEILA 34 immovio vin FEB01-166 ALCOSER, BEVERLY J 35 imainummon FEB01-107 FAIR, REBECCA L 36 ipniiMuninnum FEB01-230 BRYNER, DAYNA 37 iinimmemmon FEB01-7 BRANDENBURG, LARRY T 38 IIIIaninammin FEB01-189 SCHLODER, PAUL M 39 iminnummen FEBOI-277 CREAGER, JONATHAN U 40 ImIIBenl ass FEBO1-142 COLLIER, LARRY G 41 42 43 44 r 60 _ . __?L.S _ o _?s s-?- _- _ - - ---------- --- - .._--........ s DAVID SCOTT MULLINS and TRACEY LEE MULLINS, his wife, Plaintiffs V. COMMON SENSE ADOPTION SERVICES, MARTHA L. JONES, ERIN R.J. CHICK, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, ROBERT J. MCCLENAGHAN, and NINA VIZITEI a/k/a NINA HELLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-00062 : CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C cam'', - ^ J : C-1.11 .1 1 , rn Q1 : PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly discontinue the above-captioned action, with prejudice, as to Common Sense Adoption Services, Inc., Martha L. Jones, and Erin R.J. Chick. The action was previously discontinued as to Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei a/k/a Nina Heller. Respectfully submitted, Y LM OT? a 0hn M. err 5020 flitter Road Suite 109 MedlanMSburg, PA 17055 PHoNF: 717.766.4008 FAx: 717.766.4066 Dated: April 6, 2010 QOL &. gl" Johy.M. Kerr, Esquire I. D. #26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 . i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he has served a copy of the foregoing, "Praecipe To Discontinue," on the below-named individual in the manner indicated: First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid John J. Hatzell, Jr., Esquire Strachan & Hatzell One Liberty Place Suite 4100 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 - Q4 P#. A, Jo M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: April 6, 2010 Y Lw OIBa of ohn M. err 5020 Potter Road suite 109 MechaNCSbtzg, PA 17o5s Ptah: 717.766.4008 Fnx: 717.766.4066