Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-0161ATTOPN E Y S - A T - L A V,,: 225 Market Street Stlite 304 · P,O, Box i245 Harrisburg, PA 17108 1245 (71 7) 233 - 6633 Fax: (71 7) 233- 7003 e-moil: attys(ti)laveryla w,c om wwvv.iavery!aw ,COFTq January 22, 2004 Register of Wills Office ATTENTION: DAVID MCGEE Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 RE: Estate of Walton D Simvson Our File No: 345-001798 Date of Death - February 26, 1994 Date of Birth - May 3, 192'1 Social Security No. 258-16-6881 ,xi.-- ? / Dear Mr. McGee: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I am writing to request that your office perform a search on the above referenced estate from the date of Walton Simpson's death, 2/26/1994 to the present. Following that search, I would request that you provide our office with a certification of no estate. I have enclosed a check made payable to the Cumberland County Register of Wills in the amount of $10.00 representing your required fee. If you should have any questions with this request, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cathleen A. Kohr, Paralegal to Robert G. Hanna,. Jr, /cak Enclosure Cc: Yvonne Coit (Claim No. ECD80177476) Garry L. Esworthy (Confidential) Walt Simpson, Jr. (Confidential) LAVERY, FAHERTY, YOUNG & PATTERSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HSBG, PA 17108 CHECK DATE ~?~SCP~PTI~O~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ ........... ~' .......... I_~I~O~C~E # 01/21/04 Crawford: 345.1798 AMOUNT DEDUCTION 10.00 NET A~ C~C~T~ / 01 CONTRC~6~R Gross: TOTALS · 10.00 Ded: 0.00 Net: 0RC451 Case No Case Name Cumberland County - Orphans Court Orphans Court File Inquiry 2003 - 00161 SIMPSON WALTER Page 1 of 1 'Date .............. FIRST ENTRY ............. 2/24/03 PETITION FOR CITATION TO COMPEL APPLICATION FOR LETTERS PURSUANT TO 20 PA.C.S.A. 3155 3/04/03 DECREE DIRECTING CITATION - GEORGE E.HOFFER, P.J. CITATION 3/21/03 PETITION TO AMEND CITATION TO COMPEL APPLICATION FOR LETTERS PURSUANT TO 20 PA. C.S.A. 3155. 3/26/03 ORDER - GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. CITATION 4/01/03 RETURN OF SERVICE. More... F2=Done F12=Cancel F17=Top F18=Bottom AO8'8 (Rev. 1/~4) Subpoena in a Civil Case Issued by the United States District Court MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN D. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff ~ SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE V. ] COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants Case Number:' ![1 :CV-03-0693 YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified Ibelow to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. PLACEDEPOSiTioNOF -- ' ~IDATE AND TIME YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date and time specified below (list documents or objects): [IAny and all records/documents pertaining to the Estate of Walton D. Simpson and/or his wife. PLACE IDATE AND TIME April 23, 2004 Register of Wills Cumberland County Courthouse I i57OU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. IPREMISES {DATE AND TIME Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). ISSUING OFFICER'S SI-~'A~IR.E AND 'l TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR DATE: APRIL 22, 2004 PLAINTIFF OR DEFE~ANT) ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 233-6633 Atty for Defendant, Dauphin County (See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D on next page) {i If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number. AO88 (Rev. 1/94) Subpoena in a Civil Case PROOF OF SERVICE [ PLACE SERVED [ [--] SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) DECLARATION OF SERVER I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct. Executed on [ ~[--[ ADDRESS OF SERVER ATTO R N E YS~ AT- AW April 23, 2004 225 Market Street Suite 304 · P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108- 1245 (717) 233 - 6633 Fax: (71 7) 233 - 7003 e-mail: attys~laverylaw.com www,laverylaw.com VIA HAND-DELIVERY Cumberland County Register of Wills Office One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Crawford, S v. Coun _ty of Dauphin, et al Our File No: 345-001798 Court/Docket No: 1:CV-03-0693 Dear Glenda: As you are aware, our office represents the County of Dauphin and the Estate of Walton D. Simpson in the above referenced matter. I have enclosed a Subpoena that commands the production of any and all records/documents pertaining to the Estate of Walton D. Simpson and/or his wife. If you should have any questions with any of the aforementioned, please contact me. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. V~~ yours, Cathleen A.~o~, Paralegal to Robert G. Hanna, Jr. /cak Enclosure Cc: Kirk Sohanage, Solicitor GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. #17092) Jel~ J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. #55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney LD. David M. Steckel, Eaq. (Attorney I.D. ~82.~40) 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717} 234-4161 In Re: ESTATE OF WALTER SIMPSON, Deceased : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : No. PETITION FOR CITATION TO COMPEL APPLICATION FOR LETTERS PURSUANT TO 20 PA.C.S.A. §3155 TO THE JUDGE SITTING IN THE ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: AND NOW comes STEVEND. CRA WFORD (the "Petitioner"), by and through his counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., who avers, regarding the affairs of Walter Simpson, now deceased (the "Decedent"), and the Estate of Walter Simpson, deceased (the "Estate"), as follows: This Petition is filed by the Petitioner pursuant to the Probate, Estates & Fiduciaries Code (the "PEF Code"), 20 Pa. C.S.A. Section 101, et seq., and specifically pursuant to Section 3155 thereof, which generally provides for the grant by a register of letters testamentary or letters of administration. -1- It is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent, Walter Simpson, died intestate on or about February 26, 1994, a resident of Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent was survived by the following heirs, all of whom are adult individuals: his wife, Gladys Simpson, currently residing at 5, Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 4. Petitioner was imprisoned due to the improper actions of the Decedent. 5. Such actions were the direct cause of the Petitioner's wrongful imprisonment. Petitioner is a creditor of the Estate since he holds an unliquidated tort claim against the Decedent (and therefore, the Decedent's Estate), which could result in compensable damages. 7. The statute of limitations on such claim has not expired. To commence a lawsuit, Petitioner requires that an estate be opened and a personal representative appointed so that he may properly serve the claim upon the Estate. 9. The surviving spouse of the Decedent has not taken out letters of administration. 10. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that no administration has been opened for the Estate and that the heirs who are entitled to do so do not intend to open the Estate. -2- 11. The parties in interest in the Estate, being the heirs or intestate beneficiaries of the Estate, include the following individuals, all of whom are suijuris (each a "Beneficiary", and, collectively, the "Beneficiaries"): A. Gladys Simpson, 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 12. The Petitioner, as a creditor, is a party in interest entitled to apply for letters of administration, and is willing to do so in order to protect his claim. 13. To the extent that a conflict of interest may exist or would develop, Petitioner is willing for the Court to appoint an independent person or entity qualified to so act. 14. Failure to appoint a personal representative will irrevocably harm the Petitioner. -3- WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that a citation be awarded pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. {}3155 directed to Gladys Simpson to show cause why she should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walter Simpson, deceased. Date: ~L/2_ q/dY~ By: [91a99.1] Attorneys for Petitioner Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 17092) Jerry J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 58853) David M. Steckel, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 82340) Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 -4- In Re: ESTATE OF WALTER SIMPSON, Deceased : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : No. Verification I verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. {}4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Steven D. Crawf~ '--- In Re: ESTATE OF WALTER SIMPSON, Deceased : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : No. DECREE DIRECTING CITATION AND NOW, this ~ day of ~ ,2003, upon consideration of the petition of Steven D. Crawford, a citation is awarded pursuant to 20 Pa. C.S.A. §3155 directed to Gladys Simpson, to show cause why she should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walter Simpson, deceased. tw,, , BYTHECOURT: Court Division IN RE: ESTATE OF WALTER SIMPSON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 21-2003-0161 CITATION WE COMMAND, you that laying aside all business and excuses whatsoever, you be and appear in your proper person before the Honorable Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphans' Court Division at a session of the said Court there to be held, for the County of Cumberland to show cause why she should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walter Simpson, deceased. Returnable 20 days from service. Witness my hand an official seal of office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, this 4th day of March, 2003. Clerk, Orphans' Court Division ~ Cumberland County, Carlisle, PA My Commission Expires on the 1st Mondav January, 2006 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. #17092) Jerry J. Russ#, Esq. (Attorney I.D. 055717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. #58853) David M. Steckel, Esq. (Attorney I.D. 082340) 320 Market Street, P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg PA 17108-1268 ~717) 234-4161 In Re: ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, Deceased : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : No. 21-03-161 PETITION TO AMEND CITATION TO COMPEL APPLICATION FOR LETTERS PURSUANT TO 20 PA.C.S.A. §3155 TO THE JUDGE SITTING IN THE ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: AND NOW comes STEVEN D. CRA WFORD (the "Petitioner"), by and through his counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., who files this Petition to Amend the Citation regarding the affairs of Walton D. Simpson,~ now deceased (the "Decedent"), and the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased (the "Estate"), and in support thereof avers as follows: ~ Mr. Simpson's name was mistakenly presented as Walter Simpson in the Petition filed on or about February 24, 2003. -1- 1. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner pursuant to the Probate, Estates & Fiduciaries Code (the "PEF Code"), 20 Pa. C.S.A. Section 101, et seq., and specifically pursuant to Section 3155 thereof, which generally provides for the grant by a register of letters testamentary or letters of administration. 2. It is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent, Walton D. Simpson, died intestate on or about February 26, 1994, a resident of Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. It is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent is survived by the following heir, who is an adult individual: his wife, Gladys Simpson, who resided at 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055 until her death in December 2002, and his son, Walton D. Simpson, Jr., currently residing at 5232 Stuart Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 4. As of DATE, the date on which Petitioner filed the original Petition for Citation to Compel Application for Letters, Petitioner was of the belief that Gladys Simpson, the wife of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, was the surviving spouse and next of kin of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. However, shortly after said Petition was filed, counsel for Petitioner discovered that Gladys Simpson expired in December 2002. 5. Petitioner was imprisoned due to the improper actions of the Decedent. -2- 6. Such actions were the direct cause of the Petitioner's wrongful imprisonment. 7. Petitioner is a creditor of the Estate since he holds an unliquidated tort claim against the Decedent (and therefore, the Decedent's Estate), which could result in compensable damages. 8. The statute of limitations on such claim has not expired. 9. To commence a lawsuit, Petitioner requires that an estate be opened and a personal representative appointed so that he may properly serve the claim upon the Estate. 10. The surviving heir/son of the Decedent has not taken out letters of administration. 11. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that no administration has been opened for the Estate and that the heirs who are entitled to do so do not intend to open the Estate. 12. The parties in interest in the Estate, being the heirs or intestate beneficiaries of the Estate, include the following individuals, all of whom are suijuris (each a "Beneficiary", and, collectively, the "Beneficiaries"): A. Walton D. Simpson, Jr., 5232 Stuart Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. -3- 13. The Petitioner, as a creditor, is a party in interest entitled to apply for letters of administration, and is willing to do so in order to protect his claim. 14. To the extent that a conflict of interest may exist or would develop, Petitioner is willing for the Court to appoint an independent person or entity qualified to so act. 15. Failure to appoint a personal representative will irrevocably harm the Petitioner. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that a citation be awarded pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. §3155 directed to Walton D. Simpson, Jr., to show cause why he should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Date: 3/~ ,/~ ~ By: ~----~/' ~- Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. it 17092) Jerry J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. it 55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. it 58853) David M. Steckel, Esq. (Attorney I.D. it 82340) Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Petitioner 91699.2 -4- In Re: ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, Deceased : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DMSION : No. 21-03-161 DECREE DIRECTING CITATION AND NOW, this~,~_, day o 2003, upon consideration of the petition of Steven D. Crawford, a citation is awarded pursuant to 20 Pa. C.S.A. §3155 directed to Walton D. Simpson, Jr., to show cause why she should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. Division BY THE COURT: ~anS' Court IN RE: ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 21-2003-0161 CITATION WE COMMAND, you that laying aside all business and excuses whatsoever, you be and appear in your proper person before the Honorable Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphans' Court Division at a session of the said Court there to be held, for the County of Cumberland to show cause why she should not apply for or take out letters of administration of the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. Witness my hand an official seal of office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, this 26th day of March, 2003. Clerk, {Jrphans Court Division Cumberland County, Carlisle, PA My Commission Expires on the 1 st Monday January, 2006 C-OI, I) IIEI~,(;, KAqZNI.\N C-'~' SIIIPNIAN, P.C. In Re: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Deceased : No. 21-03-161 RETURN OF SERVICE COMMONWEATH OF PENNSYVANIA COUNTY OF Cumberland S.S.: On the 28th day of March , 2003, I, Robert A. Dash, served Walton D. Simpson, Jr., Respondent, with a true copy of the PETITION TO AMEND CITATION TO COMPEL APPLICATION FOR LETTERS PURSUANT TO 20 PA. C. S.A. §3155, which was filed with the Orphan's Court on March 26, 2003, by personally handing same to him at his residence :at 5232 Stuart Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Date: March 29, 2003 Robert A. Dash IN RE: WALTON D. SIMPSON AND GLADYS SIMPSON IN ORPHAN'S COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA AFFIDAVIT I GLENDA FARNER STRASBAUGH, CLERK OF ORPHAN'S COURT, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE CHECKED OUR PROBATE ESTATE RECORDS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA THE SEARCH OF RECORDS PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING: AS OF APRIL 23, 2004, I HAVE ISSUED NEITHER LETTERS TESTAMENTARY NOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION IN THE ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GLADYS M. SIMPSON FILE NO 2003-511, LETTERS TESTAMENTARY WERE GRANTED ON JUNE 24, 2003 TO WALTON D. SIMPSON, JR. CLERK OF ORPHANS' COURT SWORN & SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 23~ DAY OF APRIL, 2004 GOLDBERG ICt~TZMAN, P.C. Joshua D. Lock. Esq. (Atlomey I.D. #17092) Jerry J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. #55717) Thomas J. Weber. Esq (Attorney I.D. #58§53) David M. Steckel. Esq. (Ailomey 1.D. #82340) 320 Market Street, P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg PA 1710 §- 1268 (717) 234-4161 In Re: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Deceased : No. 21-03-161 ~ c~, MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DECREE The Motion of Steven D. Crawford respectfully represents: -'o ,; co ,; It is believed and therefore avert'ed that the Decedent, Walton D. Simpson, died intestate on or about Februmy 26, 1994, a resident of Mechanicsbm'g, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. It is believed and therefore avert'ed that the Decedent is survived by his son, Walton D. Simpson, Jr., who is the sole surviving heft' that cmTently resides at 5232 Stum-t Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. On or about Februm3, 24, 2003, the Petitioner, Steven D. Crawford, filed a Petition for Citation to Compel Application for Letters Pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3155 (the "Petition"). 4. Along with the Petition, Petitioner filed a draft Decree Directh~g Citation to show cause as to why such relief should not be granted. -1- 8. this matter. 9. its office. 10. 5. On March 25, 2003, this Honorable Corox issued the Decree Directing Citation to Walton D. Simpson, Jr., directing him to show cause as to why he should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. 6. On or about March 26, 2003, the Clerk of the Ol]3hans' Court Division of Cumberland County, Pem~sylvania issued a Citation consistent with tile Com't's Decree Directing Citation. Petitioner properly served all interested parties in this matter. Petitioner has received no objections from any of the interested parties in The Register has confirmed that no objections or response was received in A period of over I ½ years has elapsed ti'om the issuance of the Court's Decree Directing Citation and the Clerk's Citation, and Walton D. Simpson, Jr. has failed to apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. 11. needed on this Motion or the previously filed Petition. Since ilo objections have been registered, it is submitted that no hearing is -2- 12. Accordingly, the Petitioner wishes to have the Court issue the attached Decree directing Walton D. Simpson, Jr., to apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twenty (20) days. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue the attached Decree and direct Walton D. Simpson, Jr. to apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twenty (20) days. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. Date: ~-~- O~ By: Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 17092) Jen-y J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 58853) David M. Steckel, Esq: (Attorney I.D. # 82340) Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Han'isburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Atlorneys fi)r Petitione~; S/even D. Crawford 113751.1 -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a tree and correct copy of the foregoing documem upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Robert Hanna, Esquire Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorneys.for Defendants, County of Dauphin and Estate of Walton D. Simpson Jered L. Hock, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorneys for Defendant, City of Harrisburg Heather Faust, Esquire Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Attorneys for Defendant, dan/ce Roadcap Robert W. McAteer, Esquire Christopher J. Coyle, Esquire Henry & Beaver LLP 937 Willow Street P. O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 Attorneys for Defendant, John C Balshy Walter D. Simpson, Jr. 5232 Stuart Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. Date: September 8, 2004 David M. Steckel, Esq. 2004 In Re: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : Deceased : No. 21-03-161 DECREE ANDNOW, this~ ~dayof ~ ,2004, upon consideration ofthe annexed Motion, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Walton D. Simpson, Jr., must apply for or take out letters of adminisn'ation on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twenty (20) days hereof. BY THE COURT: t~n~ i~ the O~]~ans' Court Division Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Robert G. Harma, Jr,. Esquire (Arty I.D. #17890) 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 IN I~: ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21 - 03 - 161 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance as counsel for Walton D. Simpson, Jr. Respe~tfdlly Date: September 21, 2004 Robert G. Hanna, Jr.,~quire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Blanche A. Morrison, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this 21st day of September, 2004, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas Weber, Esquire David M. Steckel, Esquire Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, Strawberry Square P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Jered L. Hock, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Heather M. Faust, Esquire KiIlian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Robert W. McAteer, Esquire Christopher J. Coyle, Esquire Henry & Beaver, LLP 937 Willow Street P. O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 , Legal Secretary to Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Esquire Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Robert G. Hanna, Jr,. Esquire (Arty I.D. #17890) 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 IN RE: ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21 - 03 - 161 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance as counsel for Walton D. Simpson, Jr. Date: September 21, 2004 Respectfully submitted, Robert G. Hanna, ]~:.~ squ'm Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Robert G. Hanna, Jr,. Esquire (Arty I.D. #17890) 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 IN RE: ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21 - 03 - 161 EXCEPTIONS TO THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DECREE 1. Denied that Walton Simpson died intestate. Attached as Exhibit "A' is a true and correct copy of Walton D. Simpson's Will. The remaining averments are admitted. Denied that Walton D. Simpson, Jr. is the sole surviving heir. Jeffrey Mitchell Simpson identified in the Will also survives. Denied. The Petition was filed March 21, 2003. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. 4. 5. 6. Admitted. Admitted that no formal Objections were filed. Admitted. 10. Admitted. Walton D. Simpson, Jr. had no obligation to take out Letters of Administration. 11. It is a moot point as the unserved Order was signed September 9, 2004. 12. We learned quite by accident that the Order was signed but service of the Order has not been made to date. NEYV MATTER 13. Steven Crawford filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania to Docket No. 2003-CV-1452 C. A true and correct copy of said Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B'. 14. In the Complaint, one of the Defendants was identified as the Estate of Walton D. Simpson. 15. Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint provides as follows: 7. Defendant, Estate of Walton D. Simpson, is the legal entity named on behalf of Defendant Walton D. Simpson ("Sargeant Simpson"). Concurrently with the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel is in the process of petitioning the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, which upon information and belief is the county of residence of the sole surviving heir of Defendant Simpson, to open Defendant Simpson's Estate. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Sargeant Simpson was either a Sargeant for the City of Harrisburg Police or a Detective for the County of Dauphin, Pennsylvania and, thus, acted as an agent of both the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin. 16. The Estate of Walton D. Simpson was not and is not a legal entity. 17. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas action was removed to Federal Court, where it is docketed to No. 1:CV-03-0693, assigned to the Honorable Yvette Kane. 2 18. Petitioners admittedly made no effort to secure the Appointment of an Administrator prior to the running of the statute of limitations, which ran on or about July 16, 2004. 19. Since Petitioners made no timely effort to secure the Appointment of an Administrator, this Court should not compel Walton D. Simpson, Jr. to be named as Administrator. WHEREFORE, Walton D. Simpson, Jr. moves this Court to grant his ]Exceptions to his appointment as Administrator. Date: September 21, 2004 Respectfully submitted, By:~ Robert G. Ha~quire LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF WALTON DEWEY SIMPSON~,qR. I, WALTON DEWEY SIMPSON, SR. of 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, being of sound mind and body declare this to be my Last Will and Testament and revoke any and all Wills and Codicils previously made by me~ ITEM I: ii hereby direct that all my just debts, funeral expenses, attgrney fees, all administration expenses, in- cluding inheritance t4x shall be paid from the assets of my estate as soon as practicabl~ after my decease. ITEM II: !I hereby give, devise and bequeath all of the assets of my estaie' real and personal, wheresoever situate and in whatsoever name tolmy wife, Gladys Mitchell Simpson, provided she shall survive me bY thirty (30) days. ITEM III: i !In the event my wife, Gladys Mitchell Simpson, shall fail :td'!survive ~e by thirty (30) days or we die in a common disaster, I hereby di~ct my son, Walton Dewey Simpson, Jr. shall have first choice of alll of the household furnishings. What my son, Walton Dewey Simpson, iJr. does not desire out of the real estate, my son, Jeffrey Mitchell !Simpson, shall have his choice of the household furnishings. ITEM IV: ~ IIf either of my sons, Walton Dewey Simpson, Jr. or Jeffrey Mitchell SimPson, desire to retain and own the real estate and home at 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg Cumberland County, Penn- sylvania, that son sha~l pay for an appraisal of the real ~state and he shall pay to his brpther, fifty (50%) percent of the net value. ITEM V: If neither of my sons desire to retain the real estate and home i~ 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania that home shall be sold and all the remaining household furnishingslalong with it~ The proceeds from these sales shall be divided equally between my sons, ~alton Dewey Simpson, Jr. and Jeffrey Mitchell Simpson. ~TEM VI: If one of my sons fail to survive me, their share of my estate shall pass to their children, if there be any. If my deceased son does not have children of his own, my surviving son shall receive my 7~tire estate. is unable or unwillin constitute and appoint Executor of my estate ITEM VII: !I hereby nominate~ constitute and appoint my wife, Gladys MitchelllSi~pson, as Executrix of my estate. If she to serve in this capacity, I then nominate, my son, Walton Dewey Simpson, Jr. as Alternate ITEM VIII: direat that my Executor shall not be required to give bond for the faithful performance of his duties in any jurisdiction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 14th day of March, 1981. 7~ W~a 1 t~o n~-~ 2~ .~ (SEAL) The -recedin ~ g instrument consisting of this and one (1) other typewritten page was on the date hereof signed, published and de- clawed by Walton Dewed'Simpson, Sr. the Testator herein named to be his Last Will and Testament in the presence of ua, who at his request and in the presence o~ each other, have hereunto set our names as witnesses hereto. residing STE\ ~N- D 3 113 Union Deposit Road HarrisDur~, ?A i 7t 09~ Plaind~ C O/X~'4oNrc, rEALTH OF, PEN.~SY-LVANTA, Office of Attorney General Strawbe~ Square, I6~ Floor Hamsburg, PA 17120, and COL~'TY OF DAL~ 2 South 2"~ Street H~sburg, PA 17101 and CITY OF ~SBL~G 10 North 2"~ Street Ha~sburg, PA 17101 and J.~NTCE RO~C~ 3817-B Peters Mountain Road Halif~, PA 17032 and JO~ C. B~S~~ 20 South Lingle Avenue P~ms*k PA 17078 ESTA~ OF W~TON D. S~SON Defendants JL~,Y TP, I.a~L DE5L~N'DED COMPLAINT Plaintiff StevenD. Cra,~ ~ .... ' '~' " . ..... · '~ord (h~re~nar~er Ptmnr~ or 5@ Crawrorcr'), by and Through his counsel, GoNber~.~ .. Katzman & Sh/pman, P.C., and The Cochran Law Finch.. resp~ctfi~llv~ complains of the above-captioned Defendants as r%llows: 1[. PARTIES 1 Plaimi~ Sieven D. Cra~Sord, is an aduit individual who resides at 3 i 13 Union Deposit Road, Har~sburg, Pennsylvania 17109 2. Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, maintains a business address of: Office of Attorney General, Strawberry Square, 16~' Floor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvani~ 17 ! 20 3. Defendant, the Count}' of Dauphin, maintains a business address of 2 South 2"d Street, Ha~sburg, PennsyNasia 17101. Defendant, the CiD, of Harrisburg, maintains a business address of i 0 No~.h 2"a Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. 5. Defendant, Ja~5.--e Rcadcap ("Chem2st Roadcap"), is an adult individual with a residence address of 3817-B Peters Mountain Road, Halifax, Permsylvania 17032. At all rimes relevant to this Complaint, Chemist Roadcap was a chemist for the Pennsylvania State Police and, thus, acted as an agent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 6. Defendant, John Balshy ("Corporal Balshy"), is an adult individual with a residence address of 20 South Lingle Avenue, Palmyra, Pennsylvarda 17078..At ail times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant John Balshy (''Corporal Balshy") was a Corporal with the Pennsylvania State Police and, thus, acted a~ an agent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 7. Defendant, Estate of Walton D. Simpson, is the legal entity named on behalf of Defendant Walton D Simpson ("Sargeant Simpson"). Concurrently wkh the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel is in the process of petitioning the Court of Corm-non Pleas of Cumberland CounU', wh/ch upon ira"on"nation and belief is the county of residence of the soie sur-dving heir of Defendant Simpson, to open Defendant Simpson's Estate At all rimes relevant :9 this Compiaint, Sergeant Simpson was either a Sergeant for the City of Hamsburg Police or a Detective for the County of Dauphin, Pennsylvania and, thus, acted as an agent of both the City of Harrisburg and the County. of Dauphin. 8. Venue is proper in this County because the operative conduct alleged herein occurred in Dauphin County and Defendants reside and/or conducted business here. H. BACKGROUND_ 9. On September 13, 1970, a Harrisburg police o.ff~cer discovered the cora. se of John Eddie Mitchell, a 13-year old boy who had been reported missing the previous day, lying in a pool of blood in a detached garage owned by the faro/fy ofM_r. Cra'a4'ord. John Mitchell died of injuries sustained when he was beaten on his bead with a blunt instrument. ! 0. The Plaintiffwas I4 years old at the rime John, Eddie Niitchell was mur6ered. I 1 Parked inside the garage where the body was found were a 1952 Chevrolet and a 1957 Pontiac Station Wagon, both registered to ~*ir. Crawford's father. I2. .~ the detached garage and the vehicles therein were owned by and on the property of the Craw-~ord fam/ty, .Mr. Crawford frequently had occasion to be inside of the garage and to have come in contact w/th ihe veh/cles. 13. The lei rear door on the Pontiac automobile found inside the garage had been splattered and smeared w/th blood. i-!. Policeinvestigators processed the portion ofthe?ontiac automobile containing the blood and recovered seven latent finger and palm prints. i5 0£ these seven latent p,~nrs, ;hr~e pa~ial palm prr'nts were marched with known impressions obtained from Mr. Crav,~ord 16. Ofrhesethree pavia! palm ?tints, one (';Palm P~nt 1 ") contained brownish-red panicies later identified by Chemist Rcadzap as human blood. A.nother of the palm prints contained similar parr/c/es which, when subjected to a screening test, disclosed the presence of blood. The final print contained no such foreign material. 17 According to testimony presented at the hereinafter-described trial by gargeant Simpson, Corpora/John Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, ;he b!ood on Paim Print 1 was limited to the r/dge area of the pr/hr; it was not dispersed across the print and was not present in the valleys of the print. i 8. On February 14, 1974, rba'ee and a haffyears a~her the crime, _'5~. Crav,~ord, then 17 ),ears old, was arrested and charged with the murder of John Eddie ~tchelL 19. M;. Craudord ,:,,as initialiy tried and found g'uiky of murder on September 1 1974. 20. On October 8, I976, the Supreme Court of Pe.'msvlvania ordered a new trial for Mr. * ~ ' C.a,a~ord because a found that county Detecnve Walton D. Simpson testified outside the realm of his expertise when M'opined that .tvtr. Cra,~%rd's hand print was placed on the car at the rime of the murder. 21. Mr. Craw'~ord was tried and found gunty of murder a second trme on Februar,, 24, i977. :Vlr, Cra,~x-ord's comdczJon was ox'e,Turned and a ~astnai was ordered by the · .,,~.r~ ,.o, m. ~ed throu?, the tesumcn', ot the Commonw~zhh'_; -",'ir Cra':,,¢ord's thi:-d trial on the ar%resaid charge commenced on 13, I..,8 24 M'r' CrawS°rd'scase, CommonwealthofPennsvh.ania v. StevenD Crawford, No 40! C.D. 1974, was heard by ajuo, in a trial presided over by the Honorable John C. DoMing of the DaupbJn Caun~, Court or"Common Pleas. At the completion of the :rlal, ~. Crav,5ord was found gui/fy of first degree murder on Februa~. 17, 1978. 25. Thereafter, on May 14, 1982, four years later, i~-. Cra'~ford was sentenced by Judge Do,Ming to life impfisonment.~ 26. FollOwfng the imposition of the aforesaid sentence, ~@. Cra~,~ord fiJed an appeaI =o the PemnsyJvania Superior Court. Tkis appeal was denied on November 10, 1983 in Commonwealth v. Cr~ord 321 Pa. Super. 572, 468 A.2d 829 (i98.3).: 27. APetid°n f°r'adl°wance °fAppeai fr°m the November I0, 1983 decision of the Superior Court was filed with mad de.~ed by the Supreme Court of Permsyh.ania on March 26, 19847 ~ Mr. Cra~*ord was represented by Wi/Ibm C. Costopoulos, Esqu re, at all legal proceedings between arrest and sentencing. - ~ in that appeal Mr. Crawford was represented by Henr), W. ~tcheI1, Esquire : It is beiieved that .k'fl-. Cra,az~ord ','as represented in th.is nroceed ng by HemD, ",V. Mitchell Esouire. 5 A subsenuent ~ se Petition for ~!owance of Aspeal Nuns Pro Y~n,... =2 demed sy ~ne Suprsme Court on Festoon'27, i985 ~n APetitionz%rW~t : ' ~ . · --. o~ H~oeas Co~us filed in the United >taes D~stnct Cou~ ,o, [he X~ddle D~=~nc~ of Pennsv~vama. captioned 5reven Do ..... Cron%rd Petitioner, Pro S~ t, Roben M. Freeman and LeRov S Zimme~an. Attorney General ofPennsvh'ania. Respondents, was denied on M~ch 31 1987. 30. On November 7, i988 Psfitioner filed a sr~ s~ Petition under the Past Comqction Relief Act ~C~A).~ 3 !. Following the appointment of the On c~ of the Pubhc Defender as counsel for Mm Crav, ford, asusplementalPC~{Petitionwasfi!ed. ~'; ~ ;.' ~,, . · ,- .. - " · ms · ~t,do,, a as demon b~ ouage Dowtmg on Au~s/3, 1989. 32. The dena/of Mr. Crawisrd's &u~st t, i989 Petition was =m~ed by the Superior Cou~ on May 9, 1990, in a proceeding docketed at No 5v< ~ ..... G 1989. On October 9 19,0, ~. Crab,oral hied a second ~ s~ PC~ Petition. Francis M. Soch~ Esquire was appointed by the Court to represent 5ff Cra~iord in tNs proceeding and, on March 7, 1997, filed a second supplemental PC~ Petition. TNs Petition was de,ed by the Honorable Joseph H. ~eigel~r on March 16, 1998. 34. On September 29, 2000 5~. C:a~iord filed a Petition for WNt of Habeas 4It is believed and, rhere£ore, averred that all of-he under The Pest Conviction Relief.Act were filed m the same ca2rion and docket number as the original Information charging - - o, Jonn Mitchell. =..e,..~d ,. ~ N ..... ,u~, ~9, 2000 3 5. All litigation, save the federal habeas corpus proceeding, has been completed. 36 During Mr. Crav.-r'ord's aforesaid Febnaar-}, !978 trial, three Commonwealth !aw enforcement effJcia/s - - £argeant Simpson, Corpora/Ealshy and Chemist Roadcap - - testified that the blood on Palm Pr/hr 1 was limited to the ridge area cf the print. This was critical to :he Prosecution's case against M'r. Cra~,~ord because the testimony that the blood on Palm Print 1 limited :o :he rid_~e area of the prim and not dirT~sed across the pr/hr was used to arpze that Crav,'ford's prints were not on the Pontiac prior to the murder and sprayed with blood ~om the i~iur/es inflicted upon John Mitchell as suggested by the defense, but~ rather, was placed there by Cra'a~ord within a short time after his hand came into contact with human blood. 37. Further, this testimony enabled Commonwealth expem wimess Herbem L. MacDonell to testS .fy that the hand identified in Palm Print 1 had on it ?arriaily dried blood at the time it came in contact with the car. 38 Co. oral Balshy also testified that the blood on the hand which created Palm Print 1 had blood on it when it was made. 39. HoweVer, as was later discovered after having been ~audulenfly concealed for manyyears, :he factual basis underlying the aforementioned testimony was completely discredited and proven to be a compiete fabr/cafion. 40. The complete falsity of the aforesaid testimony was [mown to la':,, enforcement o.~cers, Sargeant Simpson, Corporal BaJshy and Chemist Roadcap, since, on November 29, i972, Print ] ~o oe,e~me' ...... ., ~ . ~z the ~ore;gn material locaied thereon ',=,'as human biood. To do so. ~ne p,acea a reagent on ,'he print to determine if it would pro'4uce a reaction indicating the presence Present when Chemist Roadcap did the testing and aisc viewing the print with her were Sargeant Simpson and Corporal Bals,Sy. 41. Labnotesdetailing, ' * " - · were p,e~,a,~d by Ch~m,~, Roadcap. In these notes, Chemist Roadcap wrote: "TNs ~.re~genLj reaction [indicating the presence of human blood] ','as greater along the ridges of the fingerprint. however, numerous panicles in the valleys also gave Ia positive] rea~ion." A true and correct copy of Chemis/Roadc~D'~ Dh nn*~,S ;~ ~.'w. =ch~,8 h~=r~r-~ .... h ..... -42. 13oth Chemist Roadcap and Corporal 13alshy signed these lab notes 4'~ Sargeant Simpson was present For and observed this testing. 44. At some point after the initial testing, the Dez%ndants altered the crt=trial lab notes by obliterating ;he reference to blood beina Found in the valleys, which would be consistent with blood being splattered over a pre-existing print. See the Obliterated Records attached her~o as Exhibit 13. 45. This obliteration was intentionally ca,~ed out to materially alter the record and conceal information which was exculpatory to Mr. Crav. Zord. 46. On ;November · 0, 19,2, &e nay following the exarmnanon of the print and the preparation of the aforesaid lab notes, Chemist Roadcap prepared a report which states' "This indicates :h= presence of blood deposited by the donor of the paimprint." A t:-ue and correct cop>' o? Chemis~ Raadcap:s lab repo,-t fs az~ashed hereto as Exhibit "C'. In this statement. Roadcap is e!ear~y sa).'in~ ~h~t biood ~;as on ~'fr Cra~fford:s hand before he toucheJ hfs father's Pontiac. 47. The testimony presented by Cemmon~ez]~h ~,/~nesses ~oadcap, BaJshy and Simpson ~,as patently false and kno~,n by them ~o be false. ~8. ~n response to a d~ense d~scove~ request, the Co~onw~a~th produced zhe akered November 30, 1972 lab r~pe~, but ~a~led ~ produce ~he o~1nal November 1972 lab notes. ~9. ~y orde~ dated ~arch I3, Z001, ~he O~ce of the Feder~ Public De~ender was appeinze~ to represent ~r. Cra~ord ~n th~ aforemen~oned federal habeas co~us 50. Follo~n~ z~s appointment, ~he O~ce o~zhe Federa~ 9ubi~c Defender an5 O~ce of the Dis~c~ A~o~e), of Dauphin County en~a~ed in a process ofvoiunta~ 5 L On October 17~ 2001, Fursuant to an appoinzmen~ w~ch had bee~ made ~'~h~n ~he pre~ous w-eek, Federal Public Defender Investigator ~chard S. Garvey appeared at ~he Disc~ct Attorney's O~ce Sot ~he pu~ose ofrev~ew~nB a group o~ Cra~ord-re]a~ed documents ~ch had come into the pessess~on o~the O~ce o~the District 52. These ~ocuments had been in the possession o~ Sargeam Simpson and had been discard~d by ~s Sa~ly fol]ow~n~ ~s death. 53. The discarded documents were d~scovered ~,hen a police o~cer ~rom a ne~hbohn~jussd~cc~on came upon ses'eral ~'ouzhs p~ayinB sv~h ~he b~e~case ~he Simpson fam~ly had d~sc~ded. 34 L',~on re~iewin~ these 4 .... -~ Mr ~- · ~ ..... Roadcap:s ofi~inaI No~'ember 20 lg72 ~b no,es. ~he ~ on which she ~rs~ viewed P~im ?Jrt: under a microscope m ~he presence o~ Dezenoan~s Ba)shy ano Simpso~ the hdges of the finge¢fint, however numerous panicles in the valleTs also gave [poskiveJ react oas." 56. Para~aph 7 of the lab notes, reflecting that there were numerous panicles ~n the v~lleys of Paim Print I, is consistent with the rheo~' advanced by ~. Cra~7ord% trial counse! that the phnt was already on ~. Cra~ord's hrher's car when it wxs splattered w/th blood during the mu, der, and tt contradmts the test~mony.m Common~.ealrh wlrnesses Roadcap, S~mpson, Balshy 57. The suppress on and concealmeat cf the ~ ' ~a¢ notes e~'idence enabled rSe Commonwealth to present hlse and darning testimony ~rom Sargeanr Simpson, Co~or~ Ba!shy Chemist Roadcap. 58 Fu~hemore, the d[spafi~, b~ e~n Chemst Roaac~p s exculpa~o~ lab notes and her inchminato~ repo~ not o~y sugge~s rhar her testimony was r~lse, but also that she, Co¢oraI Balshy, who co-signed her notes, and Sar~eant Simpson, who, wkh Roadcap and Balshv, viewed the latent p~nt on Nov'~mber 29, 1972, engaged in a conspiracy to suppress this exculpatory, exddence and ~de it from the defense. At the ~e of ~. Crawford's trial, the Commonwealth was under an obii~arion impose~ upon ir by the ~4~ .~endment :o :he United Stares Constitution and .~icle [. Section 9 of the Pannsyivania Consrit,,fion :o ~isciose ro :he de~ense evidence favorable ro the 477 P~. 222, 383 A.Pd 909(1978) Che~s~ Ro~dcap ~ original and true lab notes contain mrormanon which fivorable to the defense in that they suppo~ a theoU, of the defense pursued by ~. Crab,oral at thai, ~.e~. ,,,~[ :,~. C, a am, d s pnnts ~,ere on the car before the murder, were splattered with blood at the time of the murder and, thus, the blood was dispersed acrass both the ~dges and the valleys of the print. 6 I. The d~sctosure of these lab notes would have effectively precluded presentation of any ' ..... . lncnmznanng forensm e~ndence li~n~ ~. Cra~%rd to the ,~.ommssi~ of the 62. The h/lure to disclose the lab notes to the dez~nse was not ~nown to Cra~ord or any of ~s previous attorneys and could not have been asce~ained by them by the exer¢,se oz due d~hgence; the material was pu~osemlly suppressed by the Co~onwealth and hidden 63. ~e failure of the Co~onwealth to conz%rm zo irs obiigarions under the Constitution of the U~ted States and the Constitution and laws of Pe~sylva~a, 42 Pa.C.S.A. ~9545(b)(1)(ii), by disclosing Che~st Roadcap's lab notes undefined the tmth-dete~n~ process andjeop~dized the integ~ of the judJci~ system. 64. The Roadcap lab notes, which became available to the defense for the first time on O~,obe. ~ ,, ~Og I, ~xculpa~e ~. Cra~Yord from h s alleged mx olxemenr ~rn the murder of Mr. N.~rchelI. !1 process is apparent £~om a review of:he ~upreme Cou~ opinion re~'ers~n~ Mr, Crawford's firs: conviction in w~ch t,he Cou~ said: The prosecution's expe~ wimess testified :hat :~s blood was on the h~d when it le~ ~he print on the car. This Mmess also rest{fled that, in Ms opinion, the tkee pamal ~mpfinrs identified as belonaina ro appellant were placed on the car at the time of the ~51iina. N~ o~her exddence was orodnced to establish that aooeliant 'ar~ inside the aaraae at ~he time of :he ki!linw, suura at 354 A.2d 660, 662 (emphasis added). 66. Despite the obvious impo~ance ofrhe issue, the individu~ Defendants on ¢,vo addidon~ occasions prodded false testimony as pa~ of a conspiracy to wron¢lly convict ~-. Cra~¢erd. 67. The Commonweahh, County and City lacked sufficien~ safe~ards to prevent their agents 5'om concealing exculpatoD' evidence and Eom tesri~,ing falsely. 68. The Co~onwealth, County and Ci~ failed to adequately train their employees so as to prevent them Eom altering e~d ence, concealing exddence ancot testiS'lng hlsely. 69. The Co~onwealth, County and City, t~ough their lack of sufficient supem,ision, fostered ~ en;froment that encouraged their agents to conceal evidence, a}ter evidence and testiS' falsely. 70. The actions taken by the indixqduM Defendants in this c~e are pa~ ora pa~tem of improper conduct encouraged and condoned by the Commonweah~ County and City. 71. On or about December i0, 2001, undersigned counsel filed on behalFof~r Cra~7ord a Per/don ~or Post-Convic:ion Relief pursuant ;o the Post-C~nviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. 12 CS A. ~ 9541 ~t ~eq., seeking Mr. Crawford's uncondkiona! rsiease ~-om imprisonment or, fn the 72. The cou~ schedu/ed a hearing on March 7. 2002 to address ;he ~ssues set in the Pet/r/on for Post-Conviction Relief and the response thereto filed by the Co~monweahh. said heahng, the Commonweakh o~ered ro release ~. Crab'oral ~om imphsoment, and ~t ~reed to honor said offer up until the date on which Che~st Roadcap was ro be deposed by Mr Crau~ord's counsel. 73 At the March 7, 2002 hea~ng, the cou~ scheduled an evidenria~ nearing take place on June 24, 2002. 74. Chemist Roadcap w~s deposed by Joshua D. Lock, Esquire, counsel Sot CraxxTord, on June 13, 2002. 75. Following Chemist Roadcap's deposition, on June 24, 2002, the Dauphin County Disrhct A~omey's Office conceded tha~ Mr. Crau{ord was entitled to a new thai under the Post-Conviction Relief Act ~d that he should be released on no~n~ bail. 76. The District Attorney's O~ce's actions were mandate~ by the intentional suppression ofexculpato~ evidenc, ~d obvious hlsification of testimony. 77 On lul~ I6, 2002, the Disr~ct Attorney's Office filed an Application for Pe~ss/on ro Emer a Nolle Prosequi. 78. This action was prompted by a recognition that without the falsified testimony, conxSerion would be impossible. 7~. By order of the Dauphin County Coum of Co~on Pleas, the Disrhcr from impr:sonmem. g0. 5'~. Cr~5ord seem 2g - ' .... ~ ..... a e~me he did not co~t. g 1. ~. Cra~:Srd ~s Irmoc~n: or :he murder of~ohn Eddie N~tchell; ~nher, proceedings in wNch he was adjudged wailD- were d~stmg~y unfair and resulted in a gro~s and intolerable ~sc~age of justice. 82. ~ C;~5ord's aonviction ~esuited fi-am ~n egregious violition oF agorded Nm by ~he United States Constitution ~nd the P~m~'lva~a Constitution. COUNT I 42 U.S.C. ~ g3. The ave~ents se~ leah in Paragraphs ! tN-ough 82 are inco~orated h=rein as if se~ Forth in their entireu'. 84. .~ alleged herein, Sergeant Simpson, Co.oral Balshy ~nd Che~st Roadcap, doling under the color oFst~te law in iheir positions with ~he Co~onweakh o~PemsyivaN~, the CiD'or~sburg and the CounW O~aupNn, adulterated and concealed Che~st Roadoap's o~ginal November 29 1972 lab noteg-conce~n= tho testing and analysis oEPalm PNnt 1, wNoh results exculpated ~. Cm~ord Dom the murder charge he 85. Sargeam Simpson, Co~oral Bo!shy ~nd Ch=~st Rogdaap, acting under color oFstate law in their poskions ~Szh the Commonwezizh oFPomsyiva~a, the CiD, o~sburg and ~ne Counn'. of Daunmn.. . cause~ Chemast Roaocaa'~. - off=in=/=. ~ }=o no=es to oe doctored to indicate fsbficaed and false evidence substamiai~y pr~iudi:ed ~.~ Cra'~%rd and se~,:ed as ~he lynch pin to murder conv~cdon. 86. Sargeanl Simpson, Corpora~ Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, act{nc under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsyh'an~a, thc City and ibc County of Dauphin offered knowin~y false ~esfimoay at ~he tF:ee tNa!s of Plalnli~ based upon the improperly akered evidence -aiI wkh the specific intent of wron~ily convicting Mr CraA~ord. aT. This ~orementioned fraudulent and decek~I conduct pe~arated by Simpson, Co~or~ Balshy and Chemis~ ~oadcap, acting under ihe color ofs~ae law in their positions wkh :he Co~onweallh of Pe~sylvania, the Ci~, of Ha~sbur~ and :he Coun~ of Dauphin, is of a persistent and troubling pattern of manipulafing and falsi~dn~ evidence that e~s~s and condoned within the law enforcement units of the Commonwealth, the City of Hardsbur~ and DaupMn Count. ga. Fu~heg the Commonweakh failed to sa:is~ the obligaion imposed upon by th~ i 4a ,~endment to the LT~ted Staes Constitution and ~.~icle I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to disclose to t~ defense evidence favorable to the accused. ~e, e.~., Brady v. Me.land, ~73 U.S. 83, g3 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 21 $ (1963); United States v A~urs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Commonwealth v. Halloweil. 477 Pa. 232, 383 A.2d 909 (I~7S). i ns a~o, ementlonea ~raudulent and deceitmt connuct per'oetrated bv ~, araeant i5 Simpson. Corporal .Ca/shy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of st ate law-in their ?,'irh the Commonwealth cf Pennsyivan/a, :he City afHa~sburg and :he County of'Dauphin, cause~ M.r. Cra-e,~ord to unnecessahly and ':,'rongSaity spend 28 ;,'ears of his life, beginning when he was on!',' 17, confined in prison for a c:Sme he did not commit. 90. The aforementioned fraudulent and deceitful conduct perpetrated by Sergeant £impson, Corporal Poaishy and Cherr~st Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Corrumonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Ha~,"risburg and the County of Daup~n, caused .X@. Crawford to suffer e~areme emorionaI distress, emba~assment, humiliation and fear, and ir deprived him of any meaningful opporlunity to obtain an education, secure gainful employment, raise a family and become a productive member of socie~,' 91. This M'orementioned conduct of the Commonwealth of?ermsytvania, the City of Harrisbu~ and the CourtD, of Daupk~in, here committed by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal B alshy and Chemist Roadcap, caused 5~. Crax,,~ord to be deprived of his rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth .4anendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Sections 1 xnd 26 of the Permsylvarda Constitution. V~74EREFOR.E, Plaintiff, Sieven D. Cra'a~ord, respect~ily demandsjudgmenl in his favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interesI, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the ement permitted by law, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 16 COUNT ri 42 U.S.C. §~ 1985 and 1986 92. The a~ e.wnenrs set forth m Paragraphs 1 through 91 are inco~orated herein 93 As alleged herein. Sergeant Simpson, Corporal Be]shy and Chemist Roadcap ac:lng under the color o£state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Ci,:y of Harrisburg ,=nd th~ County ofDaupmn, manc~ously conspired for the purpose oz eepm.':ng, either directly or indirectly, .Mr. Cra'z~r%rd, an A,5-ican-.4.rnerican, of equal protection under the la,x:, and of equal pr/vileges and immunities under the !aw in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth _.~menumen[~ to the United States Constitution, as well as .-~,¢,~ . Sections i and 26 or the Pennsyivania Constitution. 94. As alleged herein, Sergeant Simpson Corporal Balshv and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law, conspired to adulterate and conceal Chemist Roadcap's or/ginal November 29, 1972 lab notes, which exculpated .k'[r. Crawz%rd, because he was Afi'/can-.-Mnerican. 95. As alleged herein Sergeant Simpson. Corporal Ba shy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color o£s-ta'te law, conspired to cause Chemist Roadcap's or/anal lab notes to be doctored to indicate that theft'was blood on _Mr. Craw~ord s hand at [he t~rne his hand prim was placed on the ca.r; Sergeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap fabricated and falsified said evidence and testified based upon the falsified evidence, all o£which se~,'ed as the lynch pin to his murder conviction, because he was _-MS-ican-.-Mnerican. 96. TLis aforementioned decei:/:~l, conspirarofiai and racial y~morived conduct I7 aerpetrated 5x' Sar~eant £impson, Co,'-~oraJ ~;:sh5, ann Chemist Roadcap, actm~ unaer me coior ..... la ~. m ,~r pes~nons ,:v~;h the Commonwealth of Psnns~'k'anJa the City of Ha~bur~ and Coun:yofDaupMn,: ~ ' * ' '* ' ~s pan oz a pers~s~em ano ,roubhng pattern that exists and is condoned within ~aw enforcement units of the C~mo,,,vea/th. the C~x' ,~ namsour~ and Dauphin County. 97. Fu~h~r; the Commonweaith failed to satisfy the obligation impesed upon by the 14m ~mendment io the U~ted States Constitution and .~ic]e I. Se=tion 9 ofth~ Pennsyk'ania Constitution to d~s~]ose to the defense ~" '= ~ = " ~x]o_nc~ ~axor~a~e io the accused,be~.~ ~ e.~., Brady v Ma~.land. 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, I0 L Ed.2d 2i 5 (1963); United States v. A~rs. 427 U.S. 97, .6 S.Ct. ~=9_, 49 L.Ed.~d o .2 (t~ ~6), Commonwealth v. HaIlowell. 477 Pa. 232, ogo A.2d 909 (1978). 98. The azZrement~oned ~auduJent and deeeiz~ conduct penetrated by S argeant S~mpson, Co.oral B a'shy and Chemist Roadcap, acting unoer the ~o or ofsiate law in their positions with the Co~onwealth of Pe~sylvania, the City of Hamsbur~ and the CourtW of Dauphin, caused ~.fr. Cra~ford to unnecessarily and wron~ally spend z8 ),~ars ofh~s hfe, begging when he was o~y 17, comSned in prison for a cMme he did not co--it. 99. The aforementioned deceitS1, conspiratoMa] and ra~ially-motivated conduct penetrated by Sargeant Simp~on, Co~oraI Ealshy and Chemist Roadczp, acting under the color of staxe law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsy]v~nia, the CiD, of Ha~sburg and the County of Daup~ caused 5~. Cra~Yord to su~er exxreme emotional distress, emba~assment, humiliation and fear, mhd it dep~ved him of~y mean[n~al opportunity zc obtain an education, secure g~ml .mplo)merit, r~se a fa~Jy and Dezome a proeuc,~ve member or society. 18 I00 Yhis aforementioned conduct of the Commcnwsaith of Pennsyivania. the ofHar~sburg ~n~ thc County ot~auphJn, here commkts~ b> Sarg~ant Simpson, Co~orai B~shy anti Chemist Roadcap against B~. Crab,oral because he is an _~cmn-.~me~can, caused Mr. Cra~ord to be depNved of his Nghts, pNviieges and immunkles secur:d by ~he Pouch and Fou~eenth .a~mendmtn~s to the United States Constitution, as well as .~icle I, Sections I and ~6 of the Peansytvar~a Constkution. *~FO~, P!~nti~ Steven D. Cra~ord, respez:~zily demandsju dg~ent in kJs favor and against Defendants in an ~ount in excess of!3~,O00, w~ch exceeds the iimks ofarbkradon, with interest, costs ofsuk, exempla~ damages to the e>nent permitted by law, anomeys' Fees, ~d such other retiefas the Court deems just and proper. COUNT ~ 101. The ave~ents set fo~h in Paragraphs 1 t~ough i O0 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirew. !02. As set fo~h hereinabove, the Defendants commirte~ fi~aud by concealing the exsulpato~ results of the tests on Palm Print 1, whkh were contained in Chemist Roadcap's November 29, 1972 Iab notesf 103. Defendants Simpson and Roadcap committed a ~nher act of fraud by testi~dng at trial, contr~ to ~s. Roadcap's November 29, i972 Iab notes, that the blood on Palm P~m ! was Jim/ted to the ridge area of the phnt and nor dispersed across the print and present ~n the vaiieys of the print. [04 The above frauduient represent, orions were ,,~ade knowingly and false?< minimum, said ~auSu!ent representations were made with a re~kJess disregard as to who:her were tree or ~aJse. of misleading the cou~ and the jury into relying upon said franduient info~adon. The court and the juq~'ju2ifiabiy relied upon the aforememioned ~audulent I06. representations. 107. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent misrepresentations set forth above, Mr, Crav4%rd was convicted o£murdeffng John Eddie _,'xikchelI and spent 28 )'ears of his life imprisoned for not only a chine he did not commit, bur a crime the Defendants knew he did not conumit. t08 The deplorable conduct descr/bed above constitutes a fraud upon the cou.~, zhe members of the juO' who sat for the trial, and ~@. Cra,,~{ord. 109. The aforementioned deceitful, conspiratorial and racially-motivated conduct perpetraed by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Bo!shy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvarda, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused !X~r. Crab,oral to suffer ex'~reme emotional distress, emba,wassment, humiliation and fear, and it depr/ved Nm of any meaningful opportunity to obtain an education, secure gairaSll employment, raise a family and become a produotive member of society. V~Tq~EPdEFORE, ?lainri~ Steven D. Crax~Yord, respec~'aSAIy demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants in an amounl in excess 0f$35.000, 'a hich exceeds :he iimits of arbitration, along 20 CO UNT ~ i 10. The ave~ents set fo~h in ~aragraphs I through 109 are inco~orated herein as if set foah in their entireW. I11. Despite ~avlng knowledge as o~November 29, !972 that ~. Cra'a~ord's phnts were on the car before the murder and became splattered with blood at the time of the murder, on November 30, 1972, the day following.the exa~narion of the phnt and the preparation ofth~ aforesaid !ab notes, Che~st Roadcap, ~5rh ~II knowledge possessed by Sargent Simpson and Co.oral Balshy, prepared a repo~ which s~ares: "Thi~ indicaes the presence of blood deposited by the donor of the paimpfint." 1 I2. Che~st Roadcap, Sargeant Simpson ~d Co.oral B~shy testified pursuant to t~s f~se i~o~arion at ~. Cra~ord's trial. 113. Defendants intended iL-ouCh these aforementioned deceir~al actions ro cause the ~on~l comSnement and imprisonment of Mr. Craw~ord. 114. As a di~ct and pro.mate result of Defendams~ actions, ~. Cra~ord was wrong,ally conGcted of murder and spent 28 years of ~s Iife imphsoned for a chme he did not coat. 115. The aforementioned deceir~l, consplratofial and racially-motivated conduct pe~e:rared by Sargeant Simpson, Co.oral Ba!shy asd Chemist Roadcap, acting under :he color of s;a:e ia:,,, in their ?siricns with the Commonwea!th of P~nnsyivania, :he City ofHa~isburg znfi :he Counr. y of Dauphin, caused 5.{r C:au, ford to sufer extreme emotional distress, embarrassmenr~ humiliation and fear, and it ~/epHved k]rn of any rneaningfi~l opportunity ro obtain an education, secure gain~l em?loyment, raise a famiiy and become a productive member of society. Vv2~KEFORE, Plainti~ Steven D Crav,%rdl respect~Ily demands judgment in ~s favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35:000, which exceeds the limits of arbi?.rarion, along with interest, costs of suit, exempiac~' damages ro ~.he e×rent permitted by law, artorn%'s' fees, and such other reliefas :he Cou~ deems just and proper. CO UNT V CONSP~-RA CY 116. The ave~wnents set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 115 are incorporated herein as ifse~ forth in their entirety. J. t 7. As set forth hereinabove, Chemist Roadoap, Sargeant Simpson and Corporal Balshy engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the exculparo~ palm print evidence and conceal it ri-om the _~. Cr~wford and his counsel. 118. Defendants' unlav~l conspiracy agains~ Mr. Cra,~ford was successful in that caused 5~. Crawford to be '~rcngfully irnpr/soned for 28 years ofh/s life. 119. The aforementioned deceitful, conspirator/al and racially-motivated conduct penetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Penns.vivan/a, :he City of Harr'isburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Craw-r'ord ro surTer ex'rreme emotional fiisrress, embarrassment, gain~al emplcymem, raise a fzmiiy and become a productive member of society %~O~. Plainti~ Steven D Cra~x~ord, respecl~!ly demandsjud~ent in his favor and against De~endan~s in an amoun~ in excess of $3~,000, which exceeds ~he limits ofarbkrazion, alo~ ~,ith interest, cons ofsuk, exempia~ damages to ~he e~ent pe~kted by law, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Coua deems just and proper. COUNT VI ~'TENTION%4L ~'~ICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTP~SS 120. The ave~ents set foXh in Paragraphs I t~ou~h i 19 are inco~orated herein as if set foah in their entireQ,. 121. Defendants' conduct, as desc~bed herein, constitmes the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress upon ~. Crab,oral, which did in fact cause ~. Crab,oral severe emotional distress. 122. Defendants intended to inrli~ severe emotional distress upon ~. Cra~ford, or acted with wanton and rec~ess disregard for the likelihood that such severe emotion~ distress would be inflicted upon ~m. 123. .~ a result of Defendants' misconduct, as described herein, 5~. Crab, ford suffered exxreme emotion~ d~s~ress, emba~assmem, hu~liation and fear, and k deprived him of any meanin~I oppo~unky to obtain an educztion, secure Eain~l employmenL raise a family and become a productive member ofsodety. !24. Defendants' conduct ii withou~ pNvile~e or justification. V'C-~REEORPE. ?!ainzLff. £~e:'en D Cra':,ford. respectf, sI]y demandsju~gmem ~K~ins~ Defendants ~n ~n ~moum in excess o~S3~,000, which exceeds ~he limits wkh interest, cos[s ofsuk, exemplar- damages to the e~zent pe~itted by !aw. such other relief as the Cou~ deems i~s: and proper. CK)LDB'ERG; K.ATZ~L~N" & ~HZP.k£~N,q ' PC. Joshua D. Lock, Esquire Attorney I.D. ~: 17092 Jero' 3. Russo, Esquire '" A~orney I.D. # 55717 Thomas J. Weber, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 58853 David M. Steckel, Esquire Attorney LD # 82340 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Hardsburg, PA I7108-1268 (717) 234-4161 The Coc,~-an La,,,,, Firm lohnnie L. Cochran, .Tr., Esquire Aaorneys for Plainti~ Steven D. Cra~5ord Verification I verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of !8 Pa C~S.A. ~4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: ., Steven D. Crawford Dept. 5eadqumr ter s ?ENNSYLYAN!A STAT.z- POLICE H~rrisbur~, P~. 17103 30 i.Tove=ber i e~2,/ Harrisb~u-g, l:e. up.h~ C. ountT 13 £epte~oer ~0 Cpl. John C. B~-!shy~ R & i Z%w_'eion; P~: LDepar~nt&l He&d.~ojum_~tere ' 29 November 72 1. One ~-~tent 2,~ft (?lin pr2nt) ~en the p~m prf-ut impress£on ~'as tested w~th benzidine reagent a poeitlve reaction ~s obtained. ~e *~ieates the presence of blood deposited by'the donor of the p~ U m prd--~t. .,'¢, ' ./'CU--.' --,¢? .,.' . R.& I. Div. Cp!. B~ e_~y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Blanche A. Morrison, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this 21st day of September, 2004, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Exceptions to the Motion for Approval of Decree via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas Weber, Esquire David M. Steckel, Esquire Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, Strawberry Square P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Jered L. Hock, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Heather M. Faust· Esquire Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Robert W. McAteer, Esquire Christopher J. Coyle, Esquire Henry & Beaver, LLP 937 Willow Street P. O. Box 1140 Lebanon· PA 17042-1140 · Legal Secretary to Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Esquire Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patlerson, P.C. Robert G. Harma, Jr,. Esquire (Atty I.D. #17890) 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 IN RE: ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21 03-161 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EXCEPTIONS TO ]'HE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DECREE _Introduction On March 28, 2003, Steven Crawford ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint (Exhibit "A")I, in the Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, alleging that he had been wrongfully incarcerated for a period of 28 years as a result of actions taken by Defendants. In the Complaint, Plaintiff named, among others, "Estate of Walton D. Simpson" as a party defendant. (Exhibit A, PlaintifFs Complaint ~ 7). Defendants properly removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania where the matter has been pending since April 24, 2003. Currently, PlaintifFs case is set for trial in the Federal District Court, and the parties have nearly completed discovery. Although Plaintiffacknowledged in the Complaint that Walton D. Simpson had died, Plaintiffhas only made preliminary attempts to open an estate for Fried contemporaneously with this Memorandum is an Appendix which contains all of the evidentiary materials relied upon to support the relief requested herein. the deceased in order to name a party against which he can proceed. Plaintiffhas failed to properly perfect Mr. Simpson's estate, and for the reasons set forth below, should now be barred from doing so. Background After Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he filed a Petition for Citation to Presiding Judge George E. Holler specifically stating, "[t]o commence a lawsuit, petitioner requires that an estate be opened and a personal representative appointed so that he may properly serve the claim upon the Estate." (Exhibit B, Petition for Citation to Compel Application for Letters pursuant to 20 PA. C.S.A. &8). That Petition was signed by Plaintiff and dated February 24, 2003. (Exhibit C, Verification). On February 28, 2003, Plaintiff was granted a Decree Directing Citation requesting that Gladys Simpson, Walter Simpson's deceased wife, show cause as to why she could not be appointed as the administrator of the Estate of Walton Simpson. (Exhibit D, Decree Directing Citation). Prior to its filing, however, Mrs. Simpson had passed away December 2, 2002. On March 21, 2003, Plaintiff then filed a petition to have Walton Simpson, Jr. appointed as administrator of his father, Walton Simpson's, estate. (Exhibit E, Petition to Amend Citation to Compel Application for Letters Pursuant to 20 PA. C.S.A. § 3155). Mr. Walton Simpson, Jr. refused to serve as administrator for purpose of serving as the proper party to the lawsuit against his father's estate. As such, Mr. Simpson, Jr. was never appointed as administrator of his late father's estate. Further, Plaintiff never initiated the alternative process of having the formal appointment of a third party to serve as administrator until he filed "a Motion for Approval of Decree" on September 8, 2004. (Exhibit F, Motion for Approval of Decree). Pennsylvania law provides that the causes of action asserted by plaintiff must be filed within two years from accrual. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A § 5524, the statute of limitations governing Plaintiff's action accrued on July 16, 2002, the day the District Attorneys' Office filed an Application for Permission to Enter a Nolle Presequi, which resulted in Plaintiff's release from prison. (Exhibit A, Plaintiff's Complaint ~[ 77-79).2 Thus, the statute of limitations expired on July 16, 2004. After this date the opportunity to name another defendant expired. Plaintiff failed to name a proper party prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. In fact, Plaintiff did not take another affirmative step to perfect the estate of Walton D. Simpson, until September 8, 2004, nearly two months after the statute of limitations expired. (Exhibit G, affidavit of Glenda Farmer Strasbaugh, Clerk of Orphans' Court). Indeed, neither Letters Testamentary nor Letters of Administration have ever been issued in the Estate of Walton Simpson. Argument I. Plaintiff Has Failed to Properly Create an Estate for Mr. Simpson, and The Period of Time That Plaintiff Had to Create Mr. Simpson's Estate Has Expired. Pennsylvania law is well settled that actions against a deceased person must be brought against a personal representative. McGuire v. Erie Lackawanna Ry. Cb., 253 Pa. Super. 531,385 A.2d 466 (1978). "A decedent's estate cannot be a party to litigation unless a personal representative exists." DeSimone v. Bandarsky Estate, 46 Pa. D. & C 3d 393, 394, 786 WL 22258 (1986) Pa. Com. Pl.) quotingMarzella v. King, 256 Pa. Super 179, 181,389 A.2d 659 (1978). The Marzella court stated as follows: 2 The United States Supreme Court has concluded that the appropriate statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is the limitation period for personal-injury claims in the state where the alleged constitutional violation occurred. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261,269 (I985). "It is fundamental that an action at law requires a person or entity which has the right to bring the action, and a person or entity against which the action can be maintained. By its very terms, an action at law implies the existence of legal parties; they may be natural or artificial persons, but they must be entities which the law recognizes as competent. A dead man cannot be a party to an action (citations omitted), and any such attempted proceeding is completely void and of no effect. (Citation omitted). This disposes of the further argument that the defect was cured by the amendment. There can be no amendment where there is nothing to amend. In any event, an amendment the effect of which is to bring in new parties after the running of the statute of limitations will not be permitted .... "(Citations omitted). Id. at 182, 389 A.2d 661. The court summarized its position by noting "[t]he most important point.., is that a Plaintiff in an action against a decedent's estate must take affirmative steps to secure the appointment of an administrator prior to the running of the statute of limitations or his cause of action will be lost." Id. In the Proceedings leading up to the matter which is now before this Court, Steven Crawford filed a Complaint on or about March 28, 2003 which alleges Defendants wrongfully incarcerated him. Paragraph seven of Plaintiff's Complaint stated the follo~ving: 7. Defendant, Estate of Walton D. Simpson, is the legal entity named on behalf of Defendant Walton D. Simpson ("Sargeant [sic] Si~npson"). Concurrently with the filing of this Complaint, PlaintifFs counsel is in the process of petitioning the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, which upon information and belief is the county of residence of the sole surviving heir of Defendant Simpson, to open Defendant Simpson's Estate. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Sargeant [sic] Simpson was either a Sargeant [sic] for the City of Harrisburg Police or a Detective for the County of Dauphin, Pennsylvania and, thus, acted as an agent of both the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin. (Exhibit A, Plaintiff's Complaint ']17). The conclusory allegation contained in PlaintifFs 4 Complaint is completely incorrect. No such entity known as the "Estate of Simpson" existed at the time that Plaintiff filed his Complaint, and no such entity exists today. Plaintiff has done nothing beyond taking the most preliminary steps to create an estate for Mr. Simpson and appoint an administrator of that estate to serve as a party to the lawsuit. Since ?laintiffhas not taken the required steps necessary to appoint an administrator and properly perfect the estate, there is no party Defendant for Plaintiff to proceed against in his lawsuit and his opportunity to do so has lapsed with the expiration of the statute of limitations. As articulated above, Pennsylvania law is very clear that a plaintiff, such as Crawford, is required to secure the appointment of an administratortvrior to the expiration of the statute of limitations in order to proceed. The statute of limitations - which began to mn on July 16, 2002, when the District Attorney's Office filed an Application for Permission to Enter a Nolle Presequi--required Plaintiff'to appoint an administrator to Mr. Simpson's estate by July 16, 2004. Where, as here, a plaintiff fails to comply with the specific rules and procedures, the rules should not be relaxed to accommodate Plaintiff's lack of diligence, but rather should be enforced. Since Plaintiffhas made no effort to secure the appointment of an administrator prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations and lost his right to bring an action, he should be barred from now perfecting the estate. Simply put, there is no longer a right of action requiring an appointment of an administrator. Therefore, Walton D. Simpson, Jr. respectfully requests this Court grant his Exceptions to the Motion for Approval of Decree, deny Mr. Simpson, Jr.'s appointment as administrator of his Date: September 30, 2004 late father's estate and strike Plaintiff's pleadings. Respectfully submitted, By Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Escl"~ire 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cathleen A. Kohr, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this 30th day of September, 2004, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Exceptions to the Motion for Approval of Decree via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas Weber, Esquire David M. Steckel, Esquire Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, Strawberry Square P. O. Box 1268 Hardsburg, PA 17108-1268 Jered L. Hock, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Heather M. Faust, Esquire Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Robert W. McAteer, Esquire Christopher J. Coyle, Esquire Henry & Beaver, LLP 937 Willow Street P. O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 Cathleen A. Kohr, Parlaegal to -- Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Esquire STE'CEN D CFL~WFORD. 3 l I3 Union Deposit Road Harrisburg, PA Plaintiff,, COMMONVvTALTH OF, PENNS YLV!~N-iA, Office of Attorney General Strawberrs, Square, 16m Floor HarrSsburg, PA 17120, and COUNTY OF DAUPHIN' 2 South 2"d Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 and CITY OF H_ARKISBUT,.G 10 North 2"d Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 and J A~NICE ROADCAP 3817-B Peters Mountain Road Halifax, PA 17032 and JOHN C. BALSHY 20 South Lingle Avenue Palmyra, PA 17078 and ESTATE OF WALTON D SIMPSON THE COL~T OF CObE%fON PLEAS DAL?HTN COL~'TY, JURY TI~AL DEMA~NT)ED Defendants COMPLAINT Plaintiff.. Steven D. Crawford (hereinafter "Plaintiff' or "~'L,-. Crawford"), by and through his counsel, Goidberg, Katzman & Shipman, P C., and The Cochran Law Firm, respectfully complains of the above-captioned Defendants as £ollows: I, PXRTIES I P!ant~ S~e~enD Cra~ford ~anaduit , ' ' nd ~ dua~ eno res des at 3 Deposit Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Ill 09 Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsvh'ania. maintains a bus'ness addre~ o~: O~ce of A:tomey General, Strawbe~, Square, ~ ' 16 FIoor, Hamsburg, Pennsylvanm 7 20 3. Defendant, the County of Dauphb, maintains a business address o~2 South 2~ StreeL Ha~sburf, Pennsytvanla itl0! 4 DefendanL the Cky of Hamsburg, maintains a business address of I0 No~h 2n~ Street, Hamsburg, Pe~sylva~a 1Ti01 ~ Defendant Juice Roadca "Che ' .- ~ , p ( ~st Roadcap") is an adult individual wkh a residence address of 3817-B Peters Mountain Road. Halifax, Pe~sylva~a 17032 At ail times relevant to this Complaint Chemist Roadcap was a chemist For the Pennsylvania State Police and. thus, acted as an agent of the Co~onwealth of Pennsylvania. Defendant, John Batshy ("Co.oral Balshy"), is an adult individual with a residence address of 20 South Lingle Avenue, Palmyra, Pe~sylva~a 17078. At all times relevant to this Compl~nt, Defendant Jo~ Balshy ("Co.oral Balshy") was a Co.oral with the Pennsylvania State Police and, thus, acted a~ an agent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 7 Defendant, Estate ofWahon D. Simpson, is the legal entiw named on behalf of DeFendant Walton D Simpson ("Sargeant Simpson"). Concu~ently with the filing of this CompJaint, P!aint/~s counsel is in the process of petitio~ng the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, w~ch upon ~nfo~at/on and be!icl is the counw of residence of the suFdving heir of Defendant Simpson, to open Defendant Sim?son's Estate At ail times re!evanr to this Complaint, Sargeant Simpson was either a Sargeant for the City of Har~sburg Police or a Detective for the County of Dauphin Pennsylvania and, thus, acted as an agent of both the Cit~ of k/arrisburg and the County of Dauphin. $. Venue is proper in this County because the operative conduct alleged herein occurred in Dauphin County and Defendants reside and/or conducted business here H. BACKGROUND 9 On September 13~ ] 970, a Piamsburg poiice o~cer discovered the co.se of John Eddie Mitchell, a ]3-year old boy who had been reported missing the previous day, lying in a pooI of blood in a detached garage owned by the family of.N@ Crawford. John Mitchell died of i~iuries sustained when he was beaten on his head with a blunt instrument. 10. The PlaintirTwas ] 4 years cid at the time John Eddie MhcheII was murdered ] I. Parked inside the garage where the body was found were a 1952 Chevroiet and a ]957 Pontiac Station Wagon, both registered to .Mr. Crawford's father. 12. As the detached garage and the vehicles therein were owned by and on the property of the Crawford family, Mr. Crawford frequently had occasion to be inside of the garage and to have come in conlact with {~e vehicles. I3. The left rear door on the Pontiac automobile found inside the garage had been splattered and smeared with blood. i 4 Police investigators processed the portion of the Pontiac automobiie containing the bJood and recovered seven latent finger and palm pnnts i-~ Of these seven latent prin;s. :hree partial palm prints were subsequent,, ma:cF, ed 'Mrh k:no,.,.n impressions obtained from Mr Crav,~ord 16 Ofthesethreepa~ialpalmprints one('PalmPrint 1") containedbro~nish-red panicles later identified by Chemist Roadcap as human blood ,~o~her of the palm prints contained similar panicles which, when subjected to a screenin~ test, disclosed the presence of blood The final print contained no such foreign mate~al. 17 Accordin~to testimony presented at the hereina~er-descnbed trial by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal John Baishy and Chemist Roadcap, the blood on Palm Print 1 was limited to the ridge area of the print; it was not dispersed across the print and was nor present in the valleys of the print. I8. On Febmao, 14, 1974, tkee and a half?ars after the crime, ~ Crab,oral, then 17 years old, was aneaed and charged w/th the murder of John Eddie ~tchelI. 19 ~. Cra~ord was initially tried and found guilty of murder on September 18, 1974. 20. On October 8, I976, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ordered a new trial for Mr. Crawford because it found that county Detective Walton D. Simpson testified outside the realm of his expertise when he-'opined that Mr. Craw~ord's hand print was placed on the car at the time of the murder 24, 1977. 2 I. Mr Crawford was tried and found auilr r ~ ) of murder a second time on FebruaQ, Ne. Cra~q'ord's convict/on was o'~ e~umed and a ,,mistrial was ordered by the trial ;ud~e flue to ?reiudicia] errors committed through the -~' - tz~t~monv of the Ccmmom~eaJth ~ wiine£$es ]~, I978 Mr Crawford's third trial on the ..or~sa,d charge commenced on Februa:-, 24 _'Mr. CrawTord's case, Commonweakh o~q?ennsvlvania '~t Steven D. Crax~,Tord, No 401 C.D. I974, was heard by aju~ in a triai presided over by the Honorable John C. Dowling o£the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. At the completion o£the trial, Mr. Craw~ord was £ound ~di]t) Of first degree murder on Februa~, 17, 1978 25. Thereafter, on May I4, 1952, four ),ears later, Mr. Crawford was sentenced by Judge Dowting to Ii£e imprisonment.I 26 Following the imposition of'the aforesaid sentence. Mr. CrawTord filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. This appeal was denied on November 10, 1982 m Commonweakh v. Crav, Tord. 321 Pa. Super. 572, 468 A. 2d 829 (1983).: 27. APetition £or A/lowance of Appeal from the November I0, 1983 decision o£ the Supe,dor Court was filed with and denied by the Supreme Court o£Pennsylvania on March 26, I984) ~ ."vfm CrawTord was represented by William C. Costopoulos, Esqu re, at all legal proceedings between arrest and sentencing. : In that appea Mr. Crav,'~%rd was represented by Henry.- W. L{itchell, Esquire -~ It is believed that Nfl- Crav,~ord was represented in this sroceedin~ bv Henr-v W _Mitchell, Esquire 28 A subsequent pro se Petition r%r ;~l]owance of AppeaI Nunc Pro Tunc ..~. as denied bvtheSupremeCou~onFebruaQ-~,,? 198~ A Petition for Writ of Habeas C~u_~, ~z-~le~:,n the Cn~ 'ted States Dist~c~ Court ~r the Middle District of Pennsylvania, captioned Stexen Doualas Crax~Tord. Petitioner, Pro SX Robe~ M Freeman and LeRov S ZJmme~an, Attorney Genera/ofPennsvk'an/a Respondents, was denied on March 31, 1987. 30 On November 7, 1988 Petitioner filed a ~ sX Petition under the Pea Conviction Relief Act 31. Following the appointment of the O~ce or ~he Pubhc Defender as counsel for ~. Crab,oral, a supplemental PC~ Petition was 5Ied. Tlgs Petition was denied by Judge Dowling on Au~st x 1989. 32 The de~al of Mr. Crawford s Au~st o, 1989 Petition was a~rmed by the Superior Cou~ on May 9, 1990, in a proceeding docaeted at No. 525 ~G 1989: 33 On October 9, 1993, ~. CrawTord filed a second aro s~ PC~ Petition Francis M. Socha, Esquire was appointed by the Cou~ to represent ~. Cra~ord in tNs proceeding and, on March 7, 1997, filed a second supplemental PCK4 Petition. This Petition was demed by the Honorable Joseph H. ~ei~eI~r on March 16, !998. 34. On September 29, 2000 Mr. Cra~5ord filed a Petition for ~rfit of Habeas ;It is believed and, therefore, averred that all of the hereina.her described proceedings under the Post Conviction RehefAct were 5 ed to the same caption and docket number as the original Information charging M: CrawT-ord with tile murder of John Mitchell ..... a~ Dist,ict Couc~ for the VfJdd]e D~stnc~ ct Pennsylvania. The Pet,t~on c~as amended on November 29. fi000 35 .Mi iitigarion, sa'~e the federal habeas co~us proceeding, has been completed 36 During ~ff Cra~ord's aforesaid Febmao, 19778 trial, three Commonweahh iow enforcement offidals - - Sargeant S~mpson, Corporal BSshy and Chemist Readcap - - testified that the blood on Palm P~nt i was Iimked to the ~dge area of the print. Th{s was c~t~ca~ to the Prosecut]o~'s case a2ainst Mr C~a~.~ord because ~he testimony that the blood on Palm P~nr I was limked to the rfdae area of the phn: and not di~sed across the p~nt was used to ar~e that Mr Cra;~ord's pNnts were not on the Pontiac prior to the murder and sprayed with blood from the inju~es i~icted upon lohn Mitchell as sufgested by the defense, buL rather, was placed there by L{r Crax~ord within a sho~ time after ' ' · h~s hand came m~o contact w~th human blood 37 Fu~her, this testimony enabIed Commonweakh expe~ witness Herbert L MacDonell to testi~ that the hand identified in Palm P~nt 1 had on it pamally dried blood at the time it came in contact with the car. ] 8. Co.oral Balshy also testified tho the blood on the hand w~ch created Palm P~nt 1 had blood on it when it was made. 39. However. as was later discovered a~er havin~ been fraudulently concealed for many ears, ~he ~actual bas s underlwna the a~oremen~oned testimony was completely discredked and proven to be a complete fabNca~on. 40 The comp~ele falsity of the aI~resaid ~estimony was ~own to iow e~orcemen~ o~cers, Sargeant Simpson, Co.oral Balshy and Che~st Roadcap, since, on Xovember 29, i 972. '7 more than two '.'ears afl, er ~he .murder, Chemist Roadcap was asked to microscopically examine Paim Print i to determine if the Soreign material located thereon was human biood To do so. she placed a reagent on ~he print to determine if it would produce a reaction indicating the presence ofblood Present when Chemist Roadcap did the testing and also viewing the print with her were Sar?ant Simpson and Corporal Balshy 41. Lab notes detailing, inter alia, the observations made during the testing process were prepared by Chemist Roadcap In these notes, Chemist Roadcap wrote: "This [reagent~ reaction [indicating the presence of human blood] was greater along the ridges of the finge~rint. however, numerous panicles in the valleys also gave Ia positiveJ reaction." A true and correct cop,, of Chemist Roadcap's lab notes is attached hereto as Exhibit 42. Both Chemist Roadcap and Corporal Balshy signed these lab notes 43. Sargeant Simpson was present for and observed this testing. 44. .At some point after the irdtia] testing, the Defendants altered the original lab holes by obliterating the reference to blood being found in the valleys, which would be consistent with blood being splattered over a pre-existing print. See the Obliterated Records attached hereto as Exhibit B. 45. Tk/s obliteration was intentionally carried out to materially alter the record and conceal information wh/ch was exculpatory to Mr Craw2'ord. 46. On November 30, 1972, the day following the examination of the print and the preparation of the aforesaid iab notes, Chemist Roadcap prepared a report which states: "This indicates the presence of blood deposited by the donor of the paimprint.' A tree and correct copy of Chem~s: Rcaacas's lab reset, iT attached hereto as Exhibit "C' In {his ............ ; Roadcap is ci~,~i-, savzno that biood was on Mr Cra,~s{ord's hand before he touched his ~-'=~- - Pontiac 47 The testimony pre<eared h ' ~ - ~y Commonweaita witnesses Roadcap, Balshv and Simpson was patently false and known by them to be false. 48. In response to a defense discovery request, the Commonwealth eventually produced the altered No,,ember 3 O, 1972 iab report, 1972 lab notes 49 but failed to produce the oNginaI November 29 By order dated March 13,2001, the Office of the Federal Public Defender ,.vas appointed to represent Mr Crawford in the aforementioned federal habeas corpus action 50 Following_ this appointment, :he Office of the Federal Public Defender and the O~ce of the District Attorney of Dauphin County engaged in a process ofvoluntaU, discoveu, 5I. On October 17, 2001, pursuant to an appointment which had been made within the pre¼ous week, Federal Public Defender Investigator Richard S Garvey appeared at the District Attorney's Office for the purpose of reviewing a group of CrawS'ord-related documents which had come into the possession of the Office of the District Attorney, 52. These ~ocuments had been in the possession of Sargeant Simpson and had been discarded by his family following his death 53 The discarded documents were discovered when a police officer from a nei~4hboringjurisdiction came upon several vouths playing with the brier%ase the Simpson family had discarded u pon rev~ewm~ these documents. Mr Gar, e>' discovered a co?? of Chem~s: Roadcap's o~_~inal November 29, i972 lab notes, the late cn ,,,hJch she first viewed Palm Print under a microscope in the presence c, fDefcndants Baishy and Simpson Paragraph 7 ofExhibit 'A" reads as ,o lows: , ,ns reaction was greater along the r dges of the fin=e~nnt, however numerous panic es m the va eys also gave [positive] reactions" 56 Paragraph 7 of the Iab notes, reflecting that there were numerous panicles the valleys of Palm P~nt 1, is consistent with the theo0, advanced by Mr Cra~Tord's trial counsel that the print was already on Mr. Cra~5ord's father's car when it was splattered with blood during the murder, and it contradicts the testimony of Commonwealth witnesses Roadcap, S~mpson, Balsny and MacDonetl. The suppression and ~ c~ncea~ment of the lab notes evidence enabled the Commonwealth to present Fa/se and damning testimony from Sargeant Simpson, Co~ora/ Chemist Roadcap. 58 Funhe~ore, the dispaNty between Chemist Roadcap's exculpato~ lab notes and her inc~mJnato~ repo~ not o~y suggests that her testimony was false, but also that she. Corporal Balshy, who co-signed her notes, and Sargeant Simpson, who, with Roadcap and Balshy, viewed the latent p~nt on November 29, 1972, engaged in a conspiracy to suppress this exculpatoU, evidence and hide it from the defense. 59 At the time of ~. Crawford's trial, the Commonwealth was under an obiigadon imposed upon it by the !4m .~endment to the Unffed States Constitution and -~icle L Section 9 of the Pennsyh, ania Constitution to a~s~:c, se to the .~efense evidence favorable to the ~0 ........ 4 ~'~ ~' Bra&,v \lan'land. ~ ,US 8q 83SCt 1194 i0 = ~'~I~ Sts~es" ~.~urs.~z U:S .,,%5 Ct ~'~LE~ ~ ' , ~x ~-u_~= ~9,o):Commonweahh~ Ha;]o~ek 477Pa ~o 383 A.2d 909 60. Che~s{ Roadcap's on2inal and t~e lab notes con{ain information · favorable to the defense in that they suppo~ a theoD, of the defense pursued by ~. Cra~%rd a~ ie~, that Nfl; CraR~ord~s pNnts were on {he car before the murder, were splat{ered with blood at the .me o} .he murder and. thus~ the blood was dispersed across both the ~dSes and the valleys of the print 61 The disclosure o£these lab notes would have etTectively precluded presentation of any incriminating Forensic evidence linking Mz Craw'ford to the commission of the crime 62 The failure to disclose the Jab notes to the defense was not kmown to 'qr CrsaTord or any of his previous attorneys and could not have been ascertained by them by the exercise of due diligence; the material was purposefully suppressed by the Commonwealth and hidden From the defense. 63. The failure of the Commonwealth to conform to its obligations under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of Pennsylvania, 42 Pa. CS.A. § 9 5 4 5(b )(1)(ii)~ by disc~~sing Chemist R~adcap~s ~ab n~tes undermined the truth~determir~na pr~cess and jeopardized the integrity of the judicial system. 64 The Roadcap lab notes, which became availaNe to the defense for the first time on October 17 200 I, exculpate N{r. CraxaCbrd from ms alleged involvement ~vith the murder of T~ Ir MJtcheJ]. Ii ~ The extent towhichthe suppressed -~' ' ' - e,luence unserm ned the truth determinis:< process is apnarent ~rom a rev~e~ offthe Supreme Cou~ opinion reversin~ Mr C, a~o~ ~ ~ ,n~ conv~ct~on in which the Cou~ said: The prosecufion's expert wimess testified that this blood was on the hand when it leh the print on the car Th~s witness also testified that. in Ns opinion, the three pan,al palmphnts dentified as belon~in~ to appellant were placed on the car at the time ofithe Ml~in~. N'o other evidence was produced to establish that avse~lant was inside the aaraae at the time of the k ina. suvra at 364 A.2d 660, 662 (emphas~s added) 66 Despite ~he obvious lmpo~ance oflthe ~ssue, the individual Defendants on two additional occasions provided false testimony as pan of a conspiracy to wrong~l~y convict N~ Cra~ord. 67. The Commonwealth, County and City lacked su~cient safe~ards to prex ent their agents from concealing exculpatoO, evidence and from testiS'lng faIsely 68. The Commonwealth, Counw and Cty failed to adequately train theft employees so as to prevent them from ahe~ng evfden;e, concealing e~dence an~or testi~ing faiseiy 69. The Co~onweaith, County and City, t~ough their lack of su~cient supe~ision, fostered an environment that encouraged their agents to conceal evidence, alter evidence and testi~ falsely. 70 The actions taken by the individual Defendants in this case are pan pga pattern of improper conduct encouraged and condoned by the Commonweaith, County and City. , ~. On or about December 10, 2001, undersigned counsel flied on behalfiOfMr Crab,oral a Petition for Post-Conviction Re~ie~pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa i2 CS_:k. ~ 9541 er sea~ ....~kin_' ~ _x,~- Cra~¥ord:s unconditional re]ease from imprisonment or, '~n ~he aJternative, a new ~nai ,z lnecou~schedmedahear]n~on~4arch7 ~)~* .. . · , ~ , in the Petition for Post-Conviction Rel[efand the response thereto t]Jed by the Commonwealth At said hea~ng, the Commonwealth o~ered to reIease ~ Crax~Tord from imp~so~ent, and it agreed to honor said oger up until the date on which Che~st Roadcap was to be deposed by Mr Cra~ord's counsel. /~. At the: 4arch /, ~0O~ hearing, the cou~ scheduled an evidentiaO, hearing to take place on June 24, 2002. 74. Chemist Roadcap was deposed bv Joshua D Lock, Esquire, counse~ For ~ Cra~ord, on June 13, 2002. 75. Following Chemist Roadcap s deposition, on June 24,_~00~_, the DauphSn CountyDist~ct Attorney's O~ce conceded that Mr Cra~5ord was entitled to a new t~al under the Post-Conviction Relief Act and that he should be released on nounal bail. 76 The Dist~ct Attorney's O~ce's actions were mandated by the intentional suppression ofexculpato~ evidence and obvious Falsification of testimony. 77 On Julyf 16, 2002, the Dist~ct Attorney's O~ce filed an Application For Per~ssion to Enter a Nolle Prosequi. 78 This action was prompted by a recognition that without the Falsified tes~ mony, conviction would be impossible. 79 By order of the Dauphin County Cou~ of Co--on Pleas, the District Attomev's .Appiication '.vas granted on lu]v 16, 2002 and Mr C~a'A{crd was immediately ;eie~.ec from mpr]sonment 80 5'k Cra~Yord spent iS years incarcerated in various correctional facd~ies a crime he did not co--iL 81 N~ Crab,oral is innocent of the murder oflohn Eddie ~chell; fiunher, proceedings in which he was a~[udged ~ilty were dis~stingly unfair and resulted in a gross and {n~olerable miscamage of justice 82 ~' Cra~ord's conv~cdon resuited ~-om an egregious violation of a~orded ~m by ~he United S~ales Constkution and ihe Pennsylva~a Constkudon. COUNT l 42 U.S.C. ~ The ave~ents set fo~h in Paragraphs I t~wough 82 are inco~orated herein as if set forth in their entirety 84. .~ alleged herein, Sargeant Simpson, Co.oral Balshy and Che~sl Roadcap, acting under the color of state Iaw in their positions wkh the Commonwealth of Pe~sylvaNa, the City of Ha~sburg and the County o~auphin, adulterated and concealed Che~st Roadcap's original November 29, 1972 lab notes'concerning the testing and analysis of Palm PNnt 1, wNch results exculpated ~. Cra~ord ~om the murder charge he faced. 85. Sargeant Simpson, Co~oraI Baishy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Penns?va~a, the City of Hamsburg and the County of DaupNn, caused Chemist Roadczp s oNginai lab notes to be doctored to indicate !4 that there :.',as blnod on Mr Cra,.~ord:s hand at the time his hand print w'as pieced on the car: fabricated and raise evidence substantialb/pr~udiced N~ CrawTord and sen'ed as the lynch pin to his murder conviction 86 Sar~eant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of stare law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harris~ur~ and the County of Dauphin, offered knowingly false testimony at the t~ee trials of Plaintiffbased upon the improperly altered evidence - ali w/th the specific intent of wrong~lly convicting Mr Crab'oral 87 This aforementioned fraudulent and deceit~I conduct perpetrated by S~geanr Simpson, Co.oral Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions whh the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Ha~sburg and the County of Dauphin, is of a persistent and troubling pattern of manipulating and falsi~qng evidence that e~sts and is condoned within the law enforcement units of the Commonwealth, the City of Harrisbur~ and Daup~n County 88 Fumher, the Commonwealth failed to saris~ the obligation imposed upon ir by the 14m .~endment to the United States Constitution and ~icle I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to disclose to th~ defense evidence hvorable to the accused. See, ~.~.. Brady v Mamqand. 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, I0 L.Ed.2d2I$ (1963); United States v Agurs, 427US. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Commonwealth v HallowelI, 477 Pa. 232, 383 A2d 909 (1978). The aforementioned fraudulent and deceitful conduct perpetrated by' Sargeant !5 Simpson. Corporai B alshy and Chemist Roadcap, ac:inS under the color of state ia~.v in their poskio:~s wkh the Common~eaith of PennsyivanJa, the City of Ha,,~isburg and the County of Dauphin. cau.e~ >~{r Cra~Yord to unnecessarily and wrong~iiy spend 28 Fears of his ]ire beg]nnin~ when he 'o, as o~iv 17, confined in prison for a c~me he did not commit. 90 The agorementioned ffauduient and decek~ conduct penetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Co.oral Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth ofPennsylvanJa, ~he City of Hamsburg and the County of Dauphin. caused ~r Cra~ord to suffer extreme emo:ionaI distress, emba~assment, humiliation and fear, and ~t depffved him of any mean~n6~l opponunky to obtain an educe:ion, secure gain~l employment, raise a family and become a productive member ofsocie~. 91 This aforementioned conduct of the Commonwealth ofPe~sylvania, ~he Ckv of Hamsburg and ~he County of Daup~n, here commkted by Sargeant Simpson, Co.oral Balshy and Che~st Roadcap, caused ~. Cra~ord to be dep~ved of his NKhts~ p~viieges and immu~ties secured by the Fou~h and Fou~eenth .~endments to the United Slates Constitution, as well as ~icle I. Sections 1 and 26 of the Pe~sylvania Constitution. ~FO~, Plaint~ Steven D. Cra~ord: respect~lly demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants Jn an amount in excess of$55,000, w~ch exceeds the limits ofarbkration, along wkh interest, costs of suit, exempla~ damages to the e~ent pe~itted by !aw: attorneys' fees: and such other relief as ~he Cou~ deems just and proper ~6 COUNT FI 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 92 The ave~wnents set forth in Paragraphs i through 91 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety 9.3 As alleged herein, Sargeant Simpson, Corpora/Balshy and Chemist Roadcap. acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the Count), of Dauphin, maliciously conspired for the purpose ofdepriv ag either directly or indirectly, Mr Crax~ord, an .~'rican-American, of equal protection under the law and of equal pr/v/leges and immunities under the law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth .Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article 1', Sections I and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 94. As alleged herein, Sargeant Simpson. Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap. acting under the color of state law,, conspired to adulterate and conceal Chemist Roadcap's original November 29, I972 lab notes, which exculpated Mr. CrawTord, because he was ,M°rican-American 95. As alleged herein, Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law, conspired to cause Chemist Roadcap's origina/lab notes to be doctored to indicate that there"was blood on Mr. CrawTord's hand at 'the time his hand print was placed on the car; Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap fabricated and falsified said evidence and testified based upon the falsified evidence, all ofw'hich sen, ed as the lynch pin to his murder conviction: because he was :~%can-ArnerJcan. This aforementioned '~o,~' ~,~ a~w~tI'~, conspiratorial and racially-mot veal conduct ~7 ?erpetra~ed by Sargeant Simpson_ Corpora! Ba!sh7 and Chemist Roadcap acting under the color of s~a~e iaw in their positions v, kh the Common~,veakh of Pennsylvania, '.he City o£ Harrisburg and the County ofDaupfJn: ~s pan ora persistent and troubling pattern that exists and is condoned within the Iaw enforcement units of the Co~onweakh, :he Cit7 of Harrfsburg and Dauphin Count7 97 Further, the CommonweaIth Sailed to sat]sFl the obiigation imposed upon it by the 14~ ~endment to the U~ted States Constkuti~n and .~]cle I, Section 9 ofthe Pennsylvania Constkutfon to disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the accused. See, e~ Brady v Ma~land, 373 US 83, 83 S Ct. 1194, I0 LEd2d 2 I$ (i963); Unked States v A~r~ 427 US 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); CommonweaIth v. H~i]oweI1, 477 Pa. 232, 383 A.2d 909 (t975). 98. The aforementioned fraudulent and deceitful conduct perpetrated by S argeam Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the CorrLmonweaith of Permsylvania, the City of Harrisbur~ and The County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Crawford to unnecessarily and wrongfully spend 28 years of his life, begirming when he was only 17~ confined in prison for a crime he did not commit. 99. The aforementioned deceitful, conspiratorial and racially-motivated conduct perpetrated by Sargeant SimpsOn, Corporal Balshy and Chemist l~.oadcap, acting under the color o£ state law in their positions with the Commonwealth o£Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisbur_a and The County of Dauphin, caused Air. Crawford to su~er exzreme emotional distress, embarrassmem, humiliation and fear, and it depr~ved him of any meaningful oppor~unky ;o obtain an education, secure gainful employment, raise a famiIy and become a productive member o£society. i8 !00 This aforementioned conduct of'the Commonwealth or'Pennsylvania. :he Ci~v of Harrisburg and the Coumy otT)auphin J~ere committed by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal BaJshv and Chemist Roadcap against _Mr. Crawford because he is an .4z'ncan-:A~nerican~ caused Vir Crav.~'crd to be deprived of his rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourth and Founeen:h :a-mendments to the United States Constitution, as well as .~icie I, Sections 1 and 26 o£ the Pennsylvania Constitution. ~,¥T~EREFORE, PIainti~ Steven D Crav, qord, respectfiully demandsjudgr~ent in his favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000 which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exempia~ damages to the ex'tent permitted by law, attorneys' fees. and such other relief'as the Cour~ deemsjust and proper COUNT l~ FRAUD 101 The averments set forth in Paragraphs I through 100 are incorporated herein as if'set forth in their entirety. 102 As set forth hereinabove, the Defendants committed Fraud by concealing the exculpatory resuIts of the tests on Palm Print 1, which were contained in Chemist Roadcap's November 29, 1972 lab notesf 103. Defendants Simpson and Roadcap committed a further act of fraud by testi~Sng at trial, contrary to Mrs. Roadcap's November 29, 1972 lab notes, that the blood on Palm Print 1 was limited to the ridge area of the print and not dispersed across the print and present in the vai/evs of the print ~9 said fraudulent represen~ariens ,.ve~ ma~ with a ,e~K,~ disregard as to ~he;her the', 105 9ali of the aforementioned ffauduiem representations were made with the intent o£misIeading the cou~ and theju~ ~nto rdy~ng upon sa~d fraudulent info~arion. I06. The court and thejuo, justifiabIy relied upon the aforementioned fraudulent representations 107 As a direct and proximate result of the ffauduIent misrepresentations se~ above~ ~. Cra~ord was convicted of murdering ~ohn Eddie ~rchell and spem 28 years of his Iife imprisoned for not onIy a c~me he did not commiL bur a crime the Defendants knew he d~d nor ~ommir. 108 The deplorable eonduor described above constitutes a fraud upon the ~he members of the ju~ who sat for the tfi~l, and ~. Cra~ord. I09 The ~oremenfioned deceit~l, conspiratorial and racially-motivated ~onducr penetrated by Sarge~nr Simpson, Co.oral ~atshy and Che~s~ Roadrap, aoting under the ~o~or of sta~e law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylva~a, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin~ caused ~. Crab.oral ro suffer e~reme emotional distress, emba~assmenr. humiIJafion and fear, and ~r deprived him ofany meaning~l opportunity to obtain an education, secure ~ain~I employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society. ~FO~, Plainti~ Steven D Crab,ord. respecrfially demandsjudgmen~ in his favor and agains~ Defendants in an amount in excess ofS35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of'suit, exempla(~, damages to the e×tenr permitted by [aw, attorneys' fees and such other reiiefas the Cour~ deems just and proper COUNT lTV FALSE INIPRISONMENT 110. The averments set £or~h in Paragraphs 1 through 109 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 111 Despite having knov,,ledge as of November 29, 1972 that Mr Cra'~X:ord's prints were on the car before the murder and became splattered with biood at the time of the murder, on November 30, 1972, the day following the examination of the print and the preparation of the aforesaid lab notes, Chemist Roadcap, with fuI1 knowledge possessed by Sargeant Simpson and Co~oraI Balshy, prepared a report which states: "This indicates the presence of blood deposited b_x the donor of the palmprint." 1 I2. Chemist Roadcap, Sargeant Simpson and Corporal Balshy testified pursuant to this false information at Mr. Crawford's trial. 113. Defendants intended through these aforementioned deceitf-al actions to cause the wrongful confinement and imprisonment of Mr. Crawford. 114. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mr. Crav, ff'ord was wrongfully convicted of murder and spent 28 years of Ns life imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. I !5 The aforementioned deceitful, conspiratodai and racially-motivated conduct perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson. Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of 2! sta;e ',a¥¥ in ;heir ?csi[ions '~'~ith Ihe Commcnv. eakh ofPenns) ivania, the City of Harrisbur~ and the Gounty of Dauplnin caused }~ Cra'~ord ~o su~er ex:reme emotional disiress embarrsssmenl. humiiiation and fear, and it deprived him of any meanin~l oppcaunity to obtain an education, secure ~ain~l employmen:, raise a ~am~iy and become a productive member of society. ~PO~, Plainti~ Steven D. Crab'oral, respect~Iiy demands judgment in ~s favor and a~ainst Defendants in an amount in excess of~35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplac~, damages to the extent pemtkted by law, attorneys~ fees and such other reiiefas :he Coua deems just and proper COUNT V CONSP~Cy 116 The ave~ents set forth in Paragraphs I through 1 ! 5 are inco~orate~ herein as ifse~ forth in their entirety 117. As set forth hereinabove, CNe~st Roadcap, Sar~eant Simpson and Co~oraI Baishy en~a~ed in a conspiracy to suppress the exculpato~ palm print evidence and conceal it from the Mr. Cra~Tord and his counsel. 118. De~endants' unla~l conspiracy a~ainsl ~ Cra~ord was success~l in that it caused ~. Cra~ord to be ~rong~Ily impNsoned for 28 years offs life. i 19. The aforementioned deceit~l, conspiratofiaI and racially-motivated conduct penetrated by Sar~eant Simpson, Co.oral Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth ofPennsylva~a the City of Ha~sburg and the County of Dauphin, caused h~r Crab,oral to su~er extreme emotional distress, emba~assment. humiiiation and Fear. and iT de?ved him of any rneaning~l oppomunity to obtain an educa~.ion, secure gainful employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society. ~FO~ Plainti~ Steven D Cra~Tord, respectfuil7 demandsjud~ent in his ~vor and against Defendants in an amount in excess oSSa,,000, which exceeds the Iim~ts of arbitration, alcn~ with interest, costs ogsuit, exemplao, damages to the extent pe~itted by Iai-, attorneys' fees, and such other relie~as the Cou~ deems just and proper. COU~'T VI ~'TENTIONAL ~FLICTIO~- OF EBIOTIONA~ DISTAFF 120 The ave~ents set forth in Paragraphs i t~ough 1 I9 are inco~orated herein as if set forth in their entire~. 121 Defendants' conduct, as descffbed herein, constitutes the intentional infliction o~ severe emotional distress upon Mr Crab,oral, which did in fact cause ~ Cra~ord severe emotional distress. I22. Defendants intended to inflict severe emotional distress upon ~. Crab, oral, or acted with wanton and rec~ess disregard for the likelihood that such severe emotional distress would be inflicted upon ~m. 123. As a result of Defendants' misconduct, as described herein, ~. Cra~Word su~ered e~reme emofion~ distress~ emba~assment, hu~Iiation and fear, and it depffved him of any meaning~l oppo~unity to obtain an education, secure ~ain~l employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society 124 Defendants conduct is ~'ithout p~vile~e or justification ~,~?IREFOKE. ?:amtu,, ~- Le'~ en D C, =~ord, re:pecL~]]} 2emand~ luc~gment mhs ,=.~ o~ ant against Defendants in an amount in excess 0£$35,000, which exceeds the iimits offarbitration, alon~ with interest, costs of suit, exempiaC,,' damages to the e~ent permitted by. law, attorneys: ~s,~ and such other re!ie£as the Court deems just and proper RsspL=rt fglD-S u b mitt ed. GOLDBERG; F, LeYZMAN & SHZPMM'4, P C Joshua D. Lock, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 17092 Jerry J. Russo, Esquire -- A~:~omey ID. # 55717 Thomas J. Weber, Esquire Attorney I.D. '=.' 58853 David M. Steckel, Esquire Attorney ID ~82340 320 Market Street, P.O Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (7!7) 234-4161 The Cochran Law Finn Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plainti~ Steven D. CrawTord 87022. i z~ No ...... 72 1. C~s r~sent ', ~ (pm~m Verification ~ '~ er:r,' cna~ the statements made in the forgoing document are tr~e and correct to the ees: cr mv~ knowledae~ I understand that false statements herein are made subject to **he pen,dne~' ' - o.*~ '~ 8 Pa C S .4.. 34904 reIating to unswom falsification to authorities. Stev~m D. Crawford GOLDBERG, KAT ZM.4.N & SHIPMAn, P.C. Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. #17092) Jerry & Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D.//55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. #5~S55) Da,id M. Stecke~ Esq. (Attorney I.D. #82340) 320 Market StreeL P.O. Box 1265 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (..717) 234-4161 ESTATE OF WALTER SIMPSON, Deceased : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANqk4 : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : PETITION FOR CITATION TO COMPEL APPLICATION F~__.OR LETTERS PURSUANT TO 20 PA.C.S.A. {}3155 TO THE JUDGE SITTING IN THE ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYZ VANIA: AND NOW comes STEVEND. CRAWFORD (the "Petitioner"), by and through his counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., who avers, regarding the affairs of Walter Simpson, now deceased (the "Decedent"), and the Estate of Walter Simpson, deceased (the "Estate"), as follows: Tl6s Petition is filed by the Petitioner pursuant to the Probate, Estates & Fiduciaries Code (the "PEF Code"), 20 Pa. C.S.A. Section i01, etseq., and specifically pursuant to Section 3155 thereof,, which generally provides for the grant by a register o£1etters testamentary or letters of administration. -1- It is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent, Walter Simpson, died intestate on or ~ou~ · euma, y ~.6, .9~, a ,es~den, of~ha ....... ~, Cumberland C Pennsylvania. It is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent was survived by the following heirs, all of whom are adult individuals: his wife, Gladys Simpson, currently residing at 5, Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 4. Petitioner was imprisoned due to the improper actions of the Decedent. 5. Such ac'lions were the direct cause of the Petitioner's wrongful imprisonment. Petitioner is a creditor of the Estate since he holds an unliquidated tort claim against the Decedent (and therefore, the Decedent's Estate), which could result in compensable damages. 7. The statute of limitations on such claim has not expired. To commence a lawsuit, Petitioner requires that an estate be opened and a personal representative appointed so that he may properly serve the claim upon the Estate. 9. The surviving spouse of the Decedent has not taken out letters of adrninistration. 10. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that no administration has been opened for the Estate and that the heirs who are entitled to do so do not intend to open the Estate. -2- 11. The parties in interest in the Estate, being the heirs or intestate beneficiaries of the Estate, include the following individuals, all of whom are suijuris (each a "Beneficiary", and, A. Gladys Simpson, 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 12. The Petitioner, as a creditor, is a party in interest entitled to apply for letters of administration, and is willing to do so in order to protect his claim. 13. To the extent that a conflict of interest may exist or would develop, Petitioner is willing for the Court to appoint an independent person or entity qualified to so act. 14. Failure to appoint a personal representative will irrevocably harm the Petitioner. -3- V~rHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that a citation be awarded pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. §3155 directed *- F'.loA,,c q; .....*,~ ~h,,,~, .... ~ ,~,h,, ~h~ should ~'t ~,,,,I,, c,,r ~,r t~t-e ,,,~, left,~rs of administration on the Estate of Waiter Simpson, deceased. [91699.1] Attorneys for Petitioner Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 17092) Jerry J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 58853) David M. Steckel, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 82340) Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 -4- In Re: ES,~*~E ~,~ ~ ALTER SLMPSON, Deceased : iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, J?ENNSYLVANIA .... HANS ,.~ 0 LrR ~, No. Verification I verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CS.A. {}4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Steven D. Crawfo~d -"--~-~ -. -_ . In Re: ESTATE OF WALTER SIMPSON, Deceased : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : cUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV.~NEa- : ORPHANS' COURT DMSION _DECREE DIRECTING CITATION ~ day of 2003, upon consideration of the petition of Steven D. Crawford, a citation is awarded pursuant to 20 Pa. C.S.A. §3155 directed to Gladys Simpson, to show cause why she should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walter Simpson, deceased. BY TIlE COURT: , s~tt~ng~n the O~hans Court Division GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMA.N, P.C. Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Allomey I.D. #17092) Jerry J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. #55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Atlomey I D. #58853) David M. Sleckel, Esq. (Allomey I.D #82340) 320 Market SLre,~, P. O. Box 1268 HanSsburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 23~k4161 In Re: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, : ORPHANS' COURT D1WISION Deceased : No. 21-03-161 PETITION TO AMEND CITATION TO COMPEL APPLICATION FOR LETTERS PURSUANT TO 20 PA.C.S.A. §3155 TO THE JUDGE SITTING IN THE ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: AND NOW comes STEVEND. CRAWFORD (the "Petitioner"), by and through his counsel, Goldberg, Katanan & Shipman, P.C., who files this Petition to Amend the Citation regarding the affairs of Walton D. Simpson,~ now deceased (the "Decedent"), and the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased (the "Estate"), and in support thereof avers as follows: '* Mr. Simpson's name was mistakenly presented as Walter Simpson in the Petition filed on or about February 24, 2003. -1- 1. This Petition is fried by the Petitioner pursuant to the Probate, Estates & Fiduciaries Code (the "PEF Code"), 20 Pa. C.S.A. Section 101, et seq., and specifically pursuant to Section 3155 thereof, which generally provides for the grant by a register of letters testamentary or letters of administration. 2. It is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent, Walton D. Simpson, died intestate on or about February 26, 1994, a resident of Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. It is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent is survived by the following heir, who is an adult individual: his wife, Gladys Simpson, who resided at 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvan/a, 17055 until her death in December 2002, and his son, Walton D. Simpson, Jr., currently residing at 5232 Stuart Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 4. As of DATE, the date on which Petitioner filed the original Petition for Citation to Compel Application for Letters, Petitioner was of the belief that Gladys Simpson, the wife of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, was the surviving spouse and next of kin of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. However, shortly after said Petition was filed, counsel for Petitioner discovered that Gladys Simpson expired in December 2002. 5. Petitioner was imprisoned due to the improper actions of the Decedent. -2- 6. Such actions were the direct cause of the Petitioner's wrongful imprisonment. 7. Petitioner is a creditor of the Estate since he holds an unliquidated tort claim against the Decedent (and therefore, the Decedent's Estate), which could result in compensable damages. 8. The statute of limitations on such claim has not expired. 9. To commence a lawsuit, Petitioner requires that an estate be opened and a personal representative appointed so that he may properly serve the claim upon the Estate. 10. The sur~Sving heir/son of the Decedent has not taken out letters of administration. 11. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that no administration has been opened for the Estate and that the heirs who are entitled to do so do not intend to open the Estate. 12. of the Estate, The parties in interest in the Estate, being the heirs or intestate beneficiaries include the following individuals, all of whom are suijuris (each a ';Beneficiary", and, collectively, the "Beneficiaries"): A. Walton D. Simpson, Jr., 5232 Stuart Drive, Meehanicsburg, PA 17055. -3- 13. The Petitioner, as a creditor, is a party in interest entitled to apply for letters of administration, and is willing to do so in order to protect his claim. 14. To the extent that a conflict of interest may exist or would develop, Petitioner is willing for the Court to appoint an independent person or entity qualified to so act. Failure to appoint a personal representative will irrevocably harm the 15. Petitioner. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that a citation be awarded pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. §3155 directed to Walton D. Simpson, Jr., to show cause why he should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Date: /,, ......, By: Joshua D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 17092) Jerry J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 58853) David M. Steckel, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 82340) Goldberg, Katzrnan & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Petitioner 91699.2 -4- GOLDBERG tCa. TZMAN, P.C. Joshua D Lock. Esq (AllonJey iD ::17092) Jeru J Russo Esq (a. Ilome3 ID #~5717) Thomas J. Weber. Esq (AltoJ~le3 I D ~JgRqJ) David M Slez'ke[. Esq (Anodyne?. I D --,q2340) 320 Market Slreet. p O Box 12(,8 Hamsburg. PA 17108 J268 (717) 234-4161 In Re: E STATE OF ~kALTON D. SIMPSON, Deceased : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIYIS/ON No. 21-03-161 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DECREE The Motion of Steven D. Crawford respectfully represents: 1. It is believed and therefore avert'ed that the Decedent. Walton D. Simpson, died intestate on or about Februa~5; 26, 199~, a resident of Mechanicsbmg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. it is believed and therefore averred that the Decedent is survived by his son, Walton D. Simpson, Jr., who is the sole sma,iving heir that cmq-ently resides at 5232 Stuart Drive, Mechanicsbm-g, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. On or about February 24, 2003, the Petitioner, Steven D. Craw£ord, filed a Petition for Citation to Compel Application for Letters ?ursu~mt to 20 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 3155 (the "Petition"). 4. Along with the Petition, Petitioner ISled a dra£t Decree Directing Citation to show cause as to why s~ch relief should not be granted. -1- 5. On March 25, 2003. this Honorab]e Com1 issued the Decree Directing Citation to Walton D. Simpson, Jr., directing him to shox~ cause as to why Ixe should not apply for or take out ]etle~'s of administration o~ the Estate of \Vatton D. Simpson, deceased. 6. On o~' about March 26, 2003, the Clerk of tile Oi231~ans' Corn1 Division of Cumberland Counls,, Pem~sylvania issued a Citation consistent with the Com-i's Decree Directing Citation. Petitioner prope~'ly se:wed all interested parties in tl~is matter. Petitione~' has received no objections from any of the interested pa~ties in 8. this matter. 9. its office. Tile Register has confi~ned that no objections o~' response was received in A period of over i ~'L, years has elapsed fi'om tI~e issuance of the Corot's Decree Di~-ecting Citation and the Clerk's Citation, and Walton D. Simpson, Jr. has failed to apply for or take out letters of adminisn'ation on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. 11. Since no objections have been registered? it is submitted that no hearing is needed on this Motion or the previously filed Petition. 12. Accordingly, the Petitioner wishes to have the Comet issue the attached Decree directing Walton D. Simpson, Jr., to apply £or or take ou~ letters of adminisn'ation on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twem.~ (20) days. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Com~ issue the attached Decree and direct Walton D. Simpson, Jr. to apply for or take out letters of administt-ation on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twen~' (20) days. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. Date: ~ - ~- O/ By: Jost~ua D. Lock, Esq. (Atton~ey I.D. # 17092) Jen?' J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 58853) David M. Steckel, Esq. (Atlorney I.D. # 82340) Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street, P.O. Box I268 Han-isburg, PA 17108-i268 (717) 234-416] .41~or~©'x~;r ]>etirioner, 5'le~,en £). Cr~ford 113751.1 -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served atrue and correct copy of the for%oing document upon al/parties or counsel ofreco~ d by depositina a cop>' of~ame in the Uniled States Mai/at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Robert Hanna, Esquire Lave~, Faheny, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 PO. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Jered L Hock, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P C 321 ] No~h Front Street P.O Box 5300 Ha~ risburg, PA 17110-0300 .4Moz'l~ey&for Dc~fe.dcmt, CiO, of fdrc. 7.is.hu/.&,. Heather Faust, Esquire Killian & Gepha~t, LLP 218 Pine Street P O Box 886 Hariisburg, PA 17108-0886 .4rZorn©,x foz. Defendanf, ,/~,~ice J~oodc.a£ Robert \V. McAteer, Esquire Christopher J Coyle, Esquire Henry & Beaver LLP 937 Willow Street P O. Box 1140 Lebanon. PA 17042-1140 Vvalter D. Simpson, .k 5232 Stua~ Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBER G KA TZMAN, p.C. Date: September 8, 2004 'd·i Steckel, Esq Glenda Farner Strasbaugh Register of Wills & Clerk of the Orphans' Court Maqorie A Wevodau First Deputy KirkS Sohonage, Esquire Solicitor OFFICES OF One Cour[house Square Carlisle Pa. 17013 (717) 240 6345 FAX (717) 240-7797 IN RE: WALTON D. SIMPSON AND GLADYS SIMPSON EN ORPHAN'S COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA AFFIDAVIT 1 GLENDA FARNER STRASBAUGH, CLERK OF ORPHAN'S COURT, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE CHECKED OUR PROBATE ESTATE REcORDs FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA THE SEARCH OF RECORDS PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING: AS OF APRIL 23, 2004, l HAVE ISSUED NEITHER LETTERS TESTAMENTARY NOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION IN THE ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE Ob GLADYS M. SIMPSON FILE NO 2003-511, LETTERS TESTAMENTARY WERE GRANTED ON JUNE 24. 2003 TO WALTON D. SIMPSON, JR. CLERK OF ORPHANS' COURT S VORq'& SUB~'~qBED BEFORE ME THIS 23~u Da, Y OF APRIL. 2004 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.¢;. Joshua D. Lock. Esq. (Atlorney I.D -"17092) Jerry J. Russo. Esq. (Allomey I.D. ~a55717) Thotnas J. Weber. Esq. (.*tlomey I.D. #5'8853) David M, Stecket. Esq, (Attorney I.D #82340) 320 Market Slreet, P, O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 '04 GF;T 22 ~o In Re: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUM BE RLAN D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : Deceased : No. 21-03-161 BRIEF OF PETITIONER, STEVEN D. CRAWFORD, IN RESPONSE TO EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE ESTATE OF WALTON I). SIMPSON, DECEASED Petitioner, Steven D. Crawford ("Petitioner" or "Mi'. Crawford"), submits the following brief in response to the exceptions filed by the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased (the "Estate"). Petitioner Steven Crawford, after 28 years of incarceration in a state prison facility for a mm'der be did not commit, was released fi'om prison in June of 2002 and had the charges dropped on Jnly 16, 2002. Thc reason for his release was that his prison conviction was obtained only through the violation of his civil rights by various law enforcement officers, including the late Walton Simpson. Petitioner filed on or about March 2003 a civil rights lawsuit seeking redress for his 28 years of wrongful incarceration. Petitioner has attached hereto as Exhibit A, a copy of the Complaint he filed in Dauphin Cotmty, which was subsequently relnoved to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, so that the court is awarc of the detailed facts which underlie this litigation. At the time of the filing, Petitioner alst~ moved for the opening of an Estate on behalf of Walton Simpson. Now, after avoiding his court mandated obligation, Simpson's son, Walton Simpson, Jr., is attempting to object to the opening of the Estate in an obvious attempt to prevent the administration of justice th,'ough the underlying civil rights action. I. FACTUAL HISTORY The following facts, all of which are admitted by the Estate in its exceptions filed on September 21, 2004, are relevant to the issue before the Court. On March 21, 2003, Mr. Crawfi)rd filed a Petition fol' Citation to Compel Application fol' Letters Pursuant to 20 I'a.C.S.A. § 3155. Along with the Petition, Petitioner filed a draft Decree Directing Citation to show cause as to why such relief should not be granted. On March 25, 2003, this Honorable Cotlrt issued the Decree Directing Citation to Walton D. Simpson, Jr., directing him ~o show cause as to why he should not apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. On or about March 26, 2003, thc Clerk of the Orphans' Court Division of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania issued a Citation consistent with the Court's Decree Directing Citation. -2- Petitioner properly served all interested parties in this matter. Petitioner has confirmation that service of the Court's Decree Directing Citation and the Petition to Amend Citation to Compel Application for Letters Pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3155 was effected via process server on Mr. Simpson at his residence oa March 28, 2003. A copy of the Return of Service is attached hereto as Exhibit B. No formal objections were ever filed to the Decree or Citation. During the more than I ½ years that has elapsed since the issuance of the Court's Decree and the Clerk's Citation, Walton D. Simpson, Jr. has wholly failed to comply with the Court's directives and, in fact, has failed to take any steps in accordance thereof. Subsequent to the aforementioned attempts made by Petitioner to secure an Administrator of the Estate, which proved unsuccessful because Mr. Simpson failed to comply with the Court's directives, undersigned counsel became aware that Mr. Simpson hired Richard Wagner, Esquire, to ser~e as his counsel with respect to this matter. The details of the relationship and communications between undersigned counsel and Attorney Wagner m'e set fo~lh in an Affidavit which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In essence, Attorney Wagner represented to undersigned counsel that his client, Mr. Simpson, would agree to take out letters of administration to open the Estate after obtaining reassurances regarding the pm'suit of collection fi'om Estate assets. After -3- stating his client's intent to take out letters, Mr. Simpson reneged on his promise and, contrmy to the Court's mandate, refused to open the Estate. Recognizing the potential emotitmal difficulty presented by the proposal of opening an estate for the sole pm20ose of exploring his late father's culpability in the lawsuit initiated by the Petitioner, Petilioner's counsel again tried to work through Mr. Simpson's identified counsel. Undersigned counsel sent correspondence to Simpson's attorney reminding him of Simpson's previous promise and assisting him in the granting of letters. See Con'espondence of February 10, 2004 and May 28, 2004 attached as Exhibit D. At no time did Attorney Wagner uotify this office that lie was no longer representing the interest of the Estate of Simpson or Walton Simpson, Jr. Petitioner filed with this Court on or about September 8, 2004 a Motion for Approval of Decree seeking another Decree fi'om the Court directiug Mr. Simpson to apply for or take out letters of adminislration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twenty (20) days. In a Decree dated September 9, 2004 (filed September t0, 2004), this Com't directed Walton D. Simpson, Jr. to apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twenty (20) days. Although formal service of the Court's Decree was not effected uutil October 20, 2004,t, counsel for Mr. Simpson admits to having known of thc Decree at the time he filed the exceptions on ~ Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of thc letter that accompanied this Court's Decree dated September 9. 2004 (filed Septembcr 10. 2004). both of which were hand-delivered to counsel for the Estate. -4- behalf of the Estate on September 21, 2004. See exceptions filed by Estate of Walton D. Simpson, Jr., ¶ 12. To date, and consistent with his history of obstructiveness with respect to this litigation, Mr. Simpson has failed to comply with the Court's most recent Decree, in addition to failing to comply with the CouWs March 25, 2003 Decree, and has refused to take any steps to open the Estate. On September 2 1, 2004, eleven ( I 1) days after this Cou,'t issued the aforementioned Decree, the Estate filed exceptions to Petitioner's Motion for Approval of Decree. The Estate rhea filed its brief in support thereof on September 30, 2004. II. LEGAl. ARGUMENT A. WALTON D. SIMPSON, JR. SitOULD BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR WILLFULLY DISREGARDING TWO DECREES ISSUEI) BY THIS COliRT DIRECTING HIM TO TAKE ACTION TO OPEN AN ESTATE FOR WALTON D. SIMPSON, DECEASED. As previously set forth herein, Mr. Simpson bas blatantly disregarded two Decrees issued by this Court. This Court's Ma~ch 25, 2003 Decree ordered Mr. Simpson to show cause as to why he should not apply fo.' or take out letters of adminisn'ation on the Estate of Walton D. Signpson, deceased. Mr. Simpson took the Decree to an attorney. That attorney then informed Petitioner's counsel that the letters would be taken out. Simpson did not file an objection or any response to the Citation. Petitioner's counsel repeatedly reminded Simpson, through his identified counsel, of the need to take out letters. Mr. Simpson failed to take any steps to comply with or respond to that Decree. -5- Then, through a Decree dated September 9, 2004 (filed September 10, 2004), this Court directed Mr. Simpson to apply fi~r or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twenty (20) days. Again, Mr. Simpson failed to comply with that Decree. In lieu of compliance, and being fully aware of this Cot. Ws most recent Decree, Mr. Simpson filed exceptions to Petitioner's Motion for Approval of Decree. In his exceptions, and in the face of having disregarded two Decrees issued by the Court, Mr. Simpson boldly claims to not have an obligation to open the Estate. See Exceptions to the Motion for Approval of Decree, ¶ 18. Mr. Simpson attempts to justify his disregard for this Court's Decrees by claiming that the statute of limitations for Petitioner to name an Administrator of the Estate expired in July 2004. Even if Mr. Simpson's statute of limitations argument had merit, which as Petitioner will explain below it does not, it is wholly improper to use such an argument as an excuse or justification for ignoring two Decrees issued by the Court. As a consequence of the above-described actions of Mr. Simpson, Petitioner respectfully requests that Mr. Simpson be found in contempt of this Court's Decrees; and that Mr. Simpson be ordered to appear before the Register of Wills Office in the Cumberland County Courthouse, where Mr. Simpson shall immediately apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. -6- B. PETITIONER ACTED REASONABLY AND WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN ATTEMPTING TO NAME AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, DECEASED, AND IF NOT FOR THE OBSTRUCTION AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF MR. SIMPSON HE WOULD HAVE BEEN NAMED THE ADMINISTRATOR NO LATER THAN THE SPRING OF 2004. Petitioner acted timely and reasonably in filing the proper documents with the Court in March 2003 to open an estate on behalf of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. As previously explained herein, the Com't issued a Decree ordering Mr. Simpson to show cause why he should not apply for or t~ke out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased. Mt'. Simpson, through bis counsel, represented he would comply with the Citation and take out letters. Petitioner's counsel acted properly and promptly in laying to have Simpson comply with bis obligation. At no point prior to the Exceptions did Simpson, or anyone acting on bis behalf, contradict the previous representation that Simpson would take oot the letters. Then, after becoming aware that Mr. Simpson had reneged on his agreement to open the Estate and se~we as the Adminisla'ator, Petitioner filed with this Court a Motion for Approval of Decree in September 2004. -7- Despite these facts, the Estate now inexplicably claims to not have an obligation to open the Estate because "Petitioners admittedly made no effort to secure the Appointment of an Adminis'a'ator prior to the running of the statute of limitations, which ran on or about July 16, 2004." See Exceptions to tile Motion for Approval of Decree, ¶ 18. This statement by the Estate has no basis in fact and, indeed, constitutes a willful misrepresentation to this Court. The underlying litigatiou was filed in a timely rammer. The interests of the late Walton Simpson were adequately represented throughout the litigation by the same law firm now nTing to prevent the proper opening of the Estate. This firm has failed to cite any limitation to tile opening of the Eslate at this time. The steps taken by Petitioner's counsel include: 1. The initial filing v,:itb this Court on March 21, 2003; 2. Service of the Citation on March 25, 2003; 3. Discussion with Attorney Wagner, who stated be was representing Walton Simpson, Jr. in April 2003; Con'espondence ~itb Attorney Wagner on February 10, 2004; Correspondence x~itb Attonley Wagner on May 28, 2004; and Filing a Motion for Approval with this Cotlrt on September 9, 2004. -8- Petitioner respectfully submits that the Estate's baseless exceptions were not filed in good faith and constitute yet another' example of the obstructionist behavior that has been exhibited by Mr. Simpson throughout this ordeal. Further, Petitioner submits that this subversive tactic by Mr. Simpson is intended to disrupt Petitioner's aforementioned underlying litigation in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Through his disregard for tile authority of this Coart, and through his dishonesty in failing to honor an agreement he made with counsel, Mr. Simpson has demonstrated time and time again that he cannot be entrusted with tile responsibility of taking the appropriate steps to open the Estate. Consequently, Petitioner respectfully submits that this Com't should compel Mr. Simpson to appear at the Register of Wills Office in the Cumberland County Comthouse to open the Estate, or, alternatively, appoint a third pm'ty to serve as the Administrator. -9- IlL CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, Pelitiooer respectfully requests that this Court deny the exceptions filed by the Estate; and issue tbe attached Decree directing Walton D. Simpson, Jr. to apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within teo (10) days. Alternatively, Petitioaer requests a prompt hem'ing to address the Estate's delinquent and baseless exceptions so that an Administrator of the Estate can be appointed expeditiously and Petitioner's underlying litigation not further delayed. Respectfully submitted, GOI,DBERG KATZMAN, P.C, Josh'~a D. Lock, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 17092) Jeny J. Russo, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 55717) Thomas J. Weber, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 58853) David M. Steckel, Esq. (Attorney I.D. # 82340) 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 HalTisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Allorn~O~.¥.fi~r ]~eliliol?er, Sleven D. Crawford 114274.1 -10- STEVEN D CRAWFORD, 3113 Union Deposit Road Harrisburg, PA 17109, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLV.&NIA No. Ac:rgb £x/ COIvllVlONWEALTH OF, PENNSYLVANIA, Office of Attorney General Strawberry Square, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120, and COUNTY OF DAUPHIN 2 South 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 and CITY OF HARRISBURG 10 North 2na Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 and JANICE ROADCAP 3817-B Peters Mountain Road Halifax, PA 17032 and JOHN C. BALSHY 20 South Lingle Avenue Palmyra, PA 17078 and ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED To~ NOTICE TO DEFEND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Office of Attorney General Strawberry Square, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 COLrNTY OF DAUPHIN 2 South 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 CITY OF HARRISBURG 10 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 JANICE ROADCAP 3817-B Peters Mountain Road Halifax, PA 17032 JOHN C. BALSHY 20 South Lingle Avenue Palmyra, PA 17078 ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON of receipt hereo£ You are hereby notified to plead to the within Complaint within twenty (20) days Respectfully Submitted, By: * / Joshu/~ D. l~ock, Esquire AttOrney I.~g 17092 Je~ J. Russ6, Esquire Atto~.Di ~ 55717 Thomas J. Weber, Esquire Attorney I.D. ~ 58853 David M. Steckel, Esquire Attorney I.D. g 82340 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Hagisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 The Cochran Law Firm Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire Date: ~,~kc\C ~ Attorneys for Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford STEVEN D CRAWFORD, 3 113 Union Deposit Road Harrisburg, PA 17109, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. C'Xl COIVl/VlONWEALTH OF, PENNSYLVANIA, Office of Attorney General Strawberry Square, 16m Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120, and COUNTY OF DAUPHIN 2 South 2"a Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 and CITY OF HARRISBURG 10 North 2"a Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 and JANICE ROADCAP 3817-B Peters Mountain Road Halifax, PA 17032 and JOHN C. BALSHY 20 South Lingle Avenue Palmyra, PA 17078 and ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford (hereinafter "Plaintiff" or "Mr. Crawford"), by and through his counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., and The Cochran Law Firm, respectfully complains of the above-captioned Defendants as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford, is an adult individual who resides at 3113 Union Deposit Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109. 2. Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, maintains a business address of: Office of Attorney General, Strawberry Square, 16~' Floor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120. 3. Defendant, the County of Dauphin, maintains a business address of 2 South 2na Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. 4. Defendant, the City of Harrisburg, maintains a business address of 10 North 2nd Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. 5. Defendant, Janice Roadcap ("Chemist Roadcap"), is an adult individual with a residence address of 3817-B Peters Mountain Road, Halifax, Pennsylvania 17032. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Chemist Roadcap was a chemist for the Pennsylvania State Police and, thus, acted as an agent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 6. Defendant, John Balshy ("Corporal Balshy"), is an adult individual with a residence address of 20 South Lingle Avenue, Palmyra, Pennsylvania 17078. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant John Balshy ("Corporal Balshy") was a Corporal with the Pennsylvania State Police and, thus, acted as an agent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 7. Defendant, Estate of Walton D. Simpson, is the legal entity named on behalf of Defendant Walton D. Simpson ("Sargeant Simpson"). Concurrently with the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel is in the process of petitioning the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, which upon information and belief is the county of residence of the sole 2 surviving heir of Defendant Simpson, to open Defendant Simpson's Estate. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Sargeant Simpson was either a Sargeant for the City of Harrisburg Police or a Detective for the County of Dauphin, Pennsylvania and, thus, acted as an agent of both the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin. 8. Venue is proper in this County because the operative conduct alleged herein occurred in Dauphin County and Defendants reside and/or conducted business here. II. BACKGROUND 9. On September 13, 1970, a Harrisburg police officer discovered the corpse of John Eddie Mitchell, a 13-year old boy who had been reported missing the previous day, lying in a pool of blood in a detached garage owned by the family of Mr. Crawford. John Mitchell died of injuries sustained when he was beaten on his head with a blunt instrument. 10. The Plaintiffwas 14 years old at the time John Eddie Mitchell was murdered. 11. Parked inside the garage where the body was found were a 1952 Chevrolet and a 1957 Pontiac Station Wagon, both registered to Mr. Crawford% father. 12. As the detached garage and the vehicles therein were owned by and on the property of the Crawford family, Mr. Crawford frequently had occasion to be inside of the garage and to have come in contact with the vehicles. 13. The lef~ rear door on the Pontiac automobile found inside the garage had been splattered and smeared with blood. 14. Police investigators processed the portion ofthe Pontiac automobile containing the blood and recovered seven latent finger and palm prints. 3 15 Of these seven latent prints, three partial palm prints were subsequently matched with known impressions obtained from Mr. Crawford. 16. Of these three partial palm prints, one ("Palm Print I ") contained brownish-red particles later identified by Chemist Roadcap as human blood. Another of the palm prints contained similar particles which, when subjected to a screening test, disclosed the presence of blood. The final print contained no such foreign material. 17. According to testimony presented at the hereinafter-described trial by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal John Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, the blood on Palm Print 1 was limited to the ridge area of the print; it was not dispersed across the print and was not present in the valleys of the print. 18. On February 14, 1974, three and a half years aider the crime, Mr. Crawford, then 17 years old, was arrested and charged with the murder of John Eddie Mitchell. 19. Mr. Crawford was initially tried and found guilty of murder on September 18, 1974. 20. On October 8, 1976, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ordered a new trial for Mr. Crawford because it found that county Detective Walton D. Simpson testified outside the realm of his expertise when he opined that Mr. Crawford's hand print was placed on the car at the time of the murder. 21. 24, 1977. 22. Mr. Crawford was tried and found guilty of murder a second time on February Mr. Crawford's conviction was overturned and a mistrial was ordered by the 4 trial judge due to prejudicial errors committed through the testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses. 23. Mr. Crawford's third trial on the aforesaid charge commenced on February. 13, 1978. 24. Mr. Crawford's case, Commonwealth of Penns¥1vania v. Steven D. Crawford, No. 401 C.D. 1974, was heard by a jury in a trial presided over by the Honorable John C. Dowling of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. At the completion of the trial, Mr. Crawford was found guilty of first degree murder on February 17, 1978. 25. Thereafter, on May 14, 1982, four years later, Mr. Crawford was sentenced by Judge Dowling to life imprisonment, t 26. Following the imposition of the aforesaid sentence, Mr. Crawford filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. This appeal was denied on November 10, 1983 in Commonwealth v. Crawford, 321 Pa. Super. 572, 468 A.2d 829 (1983).2 27. A Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the November 10, 1983 decision of the Superior Court was filed with and denied by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on March 26, 1984.3 ~ Mr. Crawf'ord was represented by William C. Costopoulos, Esquire, at all legal proceedings between arrest and sentencing. 2 In that appeal Mr. Crawford was represented by Henry W. Mitchell, Esquire. 3 It is believed that Mr. Crawford was represented in this proceeding by Henry W. Mitchell, Esquire. 5 28 A subsequent p_.r9_ se Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc was denied by the Supreme Court on February 27, 1985. 29. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, captioned Steven Douglas Crawford, Petitioner, Pro Se v Robert M. Freeman and LeRo¥ S. Zimmerman, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Respondents, was denied on March 31, 1987. 30. On November 7, 1988 Petitioner filed a P_Lq se Petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCP, A).n 31. Following the appointment of the Office of the Public Defender as counsel for Mr. Crawford, a supplemental PCRAPetition was filed. This Petition was denied by Judge DoMing on August 3, 1989. 32. The denial of Mr. Crawford's August 3, 1989 Petition was affirmed by the Superior Court on May 9, 1990, in a proceeding docketed at No. 525 1-13G 1989. 33. On October 9, 1993, Mr. Crawford filed a second pro se PCRA Petition. Francis M. Socha, Esquire was appointed by the Court to represent Mr. Crawford in this proceeding and, on March 7, 1997, filed a second supplemental PCRA Petition. This Petition was denied by the Honorable Joseph H. Kleinfelter on March 16, 1998. 34. On September 29, 2000 Mr. Crawford filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas nit is believed and, therefore, averred that all of the hereinafter described proceedings under the Post Conviction Relief Act were filed to the same caption and docket number as the original Information charging Mr. Crawford with the murder of John Mitchell. Corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Petition was amended on November 29, 2000. 35. All litigation, save the federal habeas corpus proceeding, has been completed. 36. During Mr. Crawford's aforesaid February 1978 trial, three Commonwealth law enforcement officials - - Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap - - testified that the blood on Palm Print 1 was limited to the ridge area of the print. This was critical to the Prosecution's case against Mr. Crawford because the testimony that the blood on Palm Print 1 was limited to the ridge area of the print and not diffused across the print was used to argue that Mr. Crawford's prints were not on the Pontiac prior to the murder and sprayed with blood from the injuries inflicted upon John Mitchell as suggested by the defense, but, rather, was placed there by Mr. Crawford within a short time after his hand came into contact with human blood. 37. Further, this testimony enabled Commonwealth expert witness Herbert L. MacDonell to testify that the hand identified in Palm Print 1 had on it partially dried blood at the time it came in contact with the car. 38. Corporal Balshy also testified that the blood on the hand which created Palm Print 1 had blood on it when it was made. 39. However, as was later discovered after having been fraudulently concealed for many years, the factual basis underlying the aforementioned testimony was completely discredited and proven to be a complete fabrication. 40. The complete falsity of the aforesaid testimony was known to law enforcement officers, Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, since, on November 29, 1972, 7 more than two years after the murder, Chemist Roadcap was asked to microscopically examine Palm Print 1 to determine if the foreign material located thereon was human blood. To do so, she placed a reagent on the print to determine if it would produce a reaction indicating the presence of blood. Present when Chemist Roadcap did the testing and also viewing the print with her were Sargeant Simpson and Corporal Balshy. 41. Lab notes detailing, inter alia, the observations made during the testing process were prepared by Chemist Roadcap. In these notes, Chemist Roadcap wrote: "This [reagent] reaction [indicating the presence of human blood] was greater along the ridges of the fingerprint, however, numerous particles in the valleys also gave [a positive] reaction." A true and correct copy of Chemist Roadcap's lab notes is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 42. Both Chemist Roadcap and Corporal Balshy signed these lab notes. 43. Sargeant Simpson was present for and observed this testing. 44. At some point after the initial testing, the Defendants altered the original lab notes by obliterating the reference to blood being found in the valleys, which would be consistent with blood being splattered over a pre-existing print. See the Obliterated Records attached hereto as Exhibit B. 45. This obliteration was intentionally carried out to materially alter the record and conceal information which was exculpatory to Mr. Crawford. 46. On November 30, 1972, the day following the examination of the print and the preparation of the aforesaid lab notes, Chemist Roadcap prepared a report which states: "This indicates the presence of blood deposited by the donor of the palmprint.' A true and correct copy of Chemist P-.oadcap's lab report is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". In this statement, Chemist Roadcap is clearly saying that blood was on Mr. Crawford's hand before he touched his father's Pontiac. 47. The testimony presented by Commonwealth witnesses Roadcap, Balshy and Simpson was patently false and known by them to be false. 48. In response to a defense discovery request, the Commonwealth eventually produced the altered November 30, 1972 lab report, but failed to produce the original November 29, 1972 lab notes. 49. By order dated March 13, 2001, the Office of the Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent Mr. Crawford in the aforementioned federal habeas corpus action. 50. Following this appointment, the Office of'the Federal Public Defender and the Office of the District Attorney of Dauphin County engaged in a process of voluntary discovery. $1. On October 17, 2001, pursuant to an appointment which had been made within the previous week, Federal Public Defender Investigator Richard S. Garvey appeared at the District Attorney's Office for the purpose of reviewing a group of Crawford-related documents which had come into the possession of the Office of the District Attorney. 52. These documents had been in the possession of Sargeant Simpson and had been discarded by his family following his death. 53. The discarded documents were discovered when a police officer from a neighboring jurisdiction came upon several youths playing with the briefcase the Simpson family had discarded. 9 54 Upon reviewing these documents, Mr. Gamey discovered a copy of Chemist Roadcap's original November 29, 1972 lab notes, the date on which she first viewed Palm Print 1 under a microscope in the presence of Defendants Balshy and Simpson. 55. Paragraph 7 of Exhibit "A" reads as follows: "This reaction was greater along the ridges of the fingerprint, however numerous particles in the valleys also gave [positive] reactions." 56. Paragraph 7 of the lab notes, reflecting that there were numerous particles in the valleys of Palm Print 1, is consistent with the theory advanced by Mr. Crawford's trial counsel that the print was already on Mr. Crawford's father's car when it was splattered with blood during the murder, and it contradicts the testimony of Commonwealth witnesses Koadcap, Simpson, Balshy and MacDonell. 57. The suppression and concealment of the lab notes evidence enabled the Commonwealth to present false and damning testimony from Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy Chemist Roadcap. 58. Furthermore, the disparity between Chemist Roadcap's exculpatory lab notes and her incriminatory report not only suggests that her testimony was false, but also that she, Corporal Balshy, who co-signed her notes, and Sargeant Simpson, who, with Roadcap and Balshy, viewed the latent print on November 29, 1972, engaged in a conspiracy to suppress this exculpatory evidence and hide it from the defense. 59. At the time of Mr. Crawford's trial, the Commonwealth was under an obligation imposed upon it by the 14t~ Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the 10 accused. See, e.g., Brad,/v. Mar/land, 373 US. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); United States v. A~urs, 427 U.S 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Commonwealth v. Hallowell, 477 Pa. 232, 383 A.2d 909 (1978). 60. Chemist Roadcap's original and true lab notes contain information which is favorable to the defense in that they support a theory of the defense pursued by Mr. Crawford at trial, i.e., that Mr. Crawford's prints were on the car before the murder, were splattered with blood at the time of the murder and, thus, the blood was dispersed across both the ridges and the valleys of the print. 61. The disclosure of these lab notes would have effectively precluded presentation of any incriminating forensic evidence linking Mr. Crawford to the commission of the crime. 62. The failure to disclose the lab notes to the defense was not known to Mr. Crawford or any of his previous attorneys ~nd could not have been ascertained by them by the exercise of due diligence; the material was purposefully suppressed by the Commonwealth and hidden from the defense. 63. The failure of the Commonwealth to conform to its obligations under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of Pennsylvania, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545 (b)( 1 )(ii), by disclosing Chemist Roadcap's lab notes undermined the truth-determining process and jeopardized the integrity of the judicial system. 64. The Roadcap lab notes, which became available to the defense for the first time on October 17, 2001, exculpate Mr. Crawford from his alleged involvement with the murder of Mr. Mitchell. 11 65. The extent to which the suppressed evidence undermined the truth determining process is apparent from a review of the Supreme Court opinion reversing Mr. Crawford's first conviction in which the Court said: The prosecution's expert witness testified that this blood was on the hand when it left the print on the car. This witness also testified that, in his opinion, the three partial palmprints identified as belonging to appellant were placed on the car at the time of the killing. No other evidence was produced to establish that appellant was inside the garage at the time of the killing, supra at 364 A.2d 660, 662 (emphasis added). 66. Despite the obvious importance of the issue, the individual Defendants on two additional occasions provided false testimony as part of a conspiracy to wrongfully convict Mr. Crawford. 67. The Commonwealth, County and City lacked sufficient safeguards to prevent their agents from concealing exculpatory evidence and from testifying falsely. 68. The Commonwealth, County and City failed to adequately train their employees so as to prevent them from altering evidence, concealing evidence and/or testifying falsely. 69. The Commonwealth, County and City, through their lack of sufficient supervision, fostered an environment that encouraged their agents to conceal evidence, alter evidence and testify falsely. 70. The actions taken by the individual Defendants in this case are part ora pattern of improper conduct encouraged and condoned by the Commonwealth, County and City. 71. On or about December 10, 2001, undersigned counsel flied on behalf of Mr. Crawford a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. 12 C.S.A. § 954l et seq., seeking Mr. Crawford's unconditional release from imprisonment or, in the alternative, a new trial. 72. The court scheduled a hearing on March 7, 2002 to address the issues set forth in the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and the response thereto filed by the Commonwealth At said hearing, the Commonwealth offered to release Mr. Crawford from imprisonment, and it agreed to honor said offer up until the date on which Chemist Roadcap was to be deposed by Mr. Crawford's counsel. 73. At the March 7, 2002 hearing, the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to take place on June 24, 2002. 74. Chemist Roadcap was deposed by Joshua D. Lock, Esquire, counsel for Mr. Crawford, on June 13, 2002. 75. Following Chemist Roadcap's deposition, on June 24, 2002, the Dauphin County District Attorney's Office conceded that Mr. Crawford was entitled to a new trial under the Post-Conviction Relief Act and that he should be released on nominal bail. 76. The District Attorney's Office's actions were mandated by the intentional suppression of exculpatory evidence and obvious falsification of testimony. 77. On July 16, 2002, the District Attorney's Office filed an Application for Permission to Enter a Nolle Prosequi. 78. This action was prompted by a recognition that without the falsified testimony, conviction would be impossible. 79. By order of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, the District 13 Attorney's Application was granted on July 16, 2002 and Mr. Crawford was immediately released from imprisonment. 80. Mr. Crawford spent 28 years incarcerated in various correctional facilities for a crime he did not commit. 8 I. Mr. Crawford is innocent of the murder of John Eddie Mitchell; further, the proceedings in which he was adjudged guilty were disgustingly unfair and resulted in a gross and intolerable miscarriage of justice. 82. Mr. Crawford's conviction resulted from an egregious violation of rights afforded him by the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. COUNT I 42 U.S.C. § 1983 83. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 82 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 84. As alleged herein, Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, adulterated and concealed Chemist Roadcap's original November 29, 1972 lab notes concerning the testing and analysis of Palm Print 1, which results exculpated Mr. Crawford from the murder charge he faced. 85. Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Chemist Roadcap's original lab notes to be doctored to indicate 14 that there ,*-as blood on Mr. Crawford's hand at the time his hand print was placed on the car; this fabricated and false evidence substantially prejudiced Mr. Crawford and served as the lynch pin to his murder conviction. 86. Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, offered knowingly false testimony at the three trials of Plaintiff based upon the improperly altered evidence - all with the specific intent of wrongfully convicting Mr. Crawford. 87. This aforementioned fraudulent and deceitful conduct perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, is part of a persistent and troubling pattern of manipulating and falsifying evidence that exists and is condoned within the law enforcement units of the Commonwealth, the City of Harrisburg and Dauphin County. 88. Further, the Commonwealth failed to satisfy the obligation imposed upon it by the 14~ Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the accused. See, e.g., Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d :21 $ (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Commonwealth v. Hallowel!, 477 Pa. 232, 383 A.2d 909 (197S). 89. The aforementioned fraudulent and deceitful conduct perpetrated by Sargeant 15 Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Crawford to unnecessarily and wrongfully spend 28 years of his life, beginning when he was only 17, confined in prison for a crime he did not commit. 90. The aforementioned fraudulent and deceitful conduct perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Crawford to suffer extreme emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and fear, and it deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to obtain an education, secure gainful employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society. 91. This aforementioned conduct of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, here committed by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, caused Mr. Crawford to be deprived of his rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Sections 1 and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford, respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 16 COUNT II 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 92. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 91 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 93. As alleged herein, Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, maliciously conspired for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, Mr. Crawf'ord, an African-American, of equal protection under the law, and of equal privileges and immunities under the law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Sections 1 and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 94. As alleged herein, Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law, conspired to adulterate and conceal Chemist Roadcap's original November 29, 1972 lab notes, which exculpated Mr. Crawfbrd, because he was African-American. 95. As alleged herein, Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law, conspired to cause Chemist Roadcap's original lab notes to be doctored to indicate that there was blood on Mr. Crawford's hand at the time his hand print was placed on the car; Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap fabricated and falsified said evidence and testified based upon the falsified evidence, all of which served as the lynch pin to his murder conviction, because he was African-American. 96. This aforementioned deceitful, conspiratorial and racially-motived conduct 17 perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, is part ora persistent and troubling pattern that exists and is condoned within the law enforcement units of the Commonwealth, the City of Harrisburg and Dauphin County. 97. Further, the Commonwealth failed to satisfy the obligation imposed upon it by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the accused. See, e.g., Brady v. Marftand, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Commonwealth v. Hallowell, 477 Pa. 232, 383 A.2d 909 (1978). 98. The aforementioned fraudulent and deceitful conduct perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Crawford to unnecessarily and wrongfully spend 28 years of his life, beginning when he was only 17, confined in prison for a crime he did not commit. 99. The aforementioned deceitful, conspiratorial and racially-motivated conduct perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Crawford to suffer extreme emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and fear, and it deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to obtain an education, secure gainful employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society. 18 100. This aforementioned conduct of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, here committed by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap against Mr. Crawford because he is an African-American, caused Mr. Crawford to be deprived of his rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Sections I and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford, respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT HI FRAUD 101. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 100 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 102. As set forth hereinabove, the Defendants committed fraud by concealing the exculpatory results of the tests on Palm Print 1, which were contained in Chemist Roadcap's November 29, 1972 lab notes. 103. Defendants Simpson and Roadcap committed a further act of fraud by testifying at trial, contrary to Mrs. Roadcap's November 29, 1972 lab notes, that the blood on Palm Print 1 was limited to the ridge area of the print and not dispersed across the print and present in the valleys of the print. 19 104. The above fraudulent representations were made knowingly and falsely; at a minimum, said fraudulent representations were made with a reckless disregard as to whether they were true or false. 105. All of the aforementioned fraudulent representations were made with the intent of misleading the court and the jury into relying upon said fraudulent information. The court and the jury justifiably relied upon the aforementioned fraudulent 106. representations. 107. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent misrepresentations set forth above, Mr. Crawford was convicted of murdering John Eddie Mitchell and spent 28 years of his life imprisoned for not only a crime he did not commit, but a crime the Defendants knew he did not commit. 108. The deplorable conduct described above constitutes a fraud upon the court, the members of the jury who sat for the trial, and Mr. Crawford. 109. The aforementioned deceitful, conspiratorial and racially-motivated conduct perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Crawford to suffer extreme emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and fear, and it deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to obtain an education, secure gainful employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford, respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along 2O with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV FALSE IMPRISONMENT 110. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 109 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 111. Despite having knowledge as of November 29, 1972 that Mr. Crawford's prints were on the car before the murder and became splattered with blood at the time of the murder, on November 30, 1972, the day following the examination of the print and the preparation of the aforesaid lab notes, Chemist Roadcap, with full knowledge possessed by Sargeant Simpson and Corporal Balshy, prepared a report which states: "This indicates the presence of blood deposited by the donor of the palmprint." 112. Chemist Roadcap, Sargeant Simpson and Corporal Balshy testified pursuant to this false information at Mr. Crawford's trial. I 13. Defendants intended through these aforementioned deceitful actions to cause the wrongful confinement and imprisonment of Mr. Crawford. 114. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mr. Crawford was wrongfully convicted of murder and spent 28 years of his life imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. 115. The aforementioned deceitful, conspiratorial and racially-motivated conduct perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of 21 state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Crawford to suffer extreme emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and fear, and it deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to obtain an education, secure gainful employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford, respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT V CONSPIRACY 116. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 115 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 117. As set forth hereinabove, Chemist Roadcap, Sargeant Simpson and Corporal Balshy engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the exculpatory palm print evidence and conceal it from the Mr. Crawford and his counsel. 118. Defendants' unlawful conspiracy against Mr. Crawford was successful in that it caused Mr. Crawford to be wrongfully imprisoned for 28 years of his life. 119. The aforementioned deceitful, conspiratorial and racially-motivated conduct perpetrated by Sargeant Simpson, Corporal Balshy and Chemist Roadcap, acting under the color of state law in their positions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Harrisburg and the County of Dauphin, caused Mr. Crawford to suffer extreme emotional distress, embarrassment, 22 humiliation and fear, and it deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to obtain an education, secure gainful employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford, respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT VI INTENTION.4.L INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL IDISTI1ES$ 120. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 119 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 121. Defendants' conduct, as described herein, constitutes the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress upon Mr. Crawford, which did in fact cause Mr. Crawford severe emotional distress. 122. Defendants intended to inflict severe emotional distress upon Mr. Crawford, or acted with wanton and recldess disregard for the likelihood that such severe emotional distress would be inflicted upon him. 123. As a result of Defendants' misconduct, as described herein, Mr. Crawford suffered extreme emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and fear, and it deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to obtain an education, secure gainful employment, raise a family and become a productive member of society. 124. Defendants' conduct is without privilege or justification. 23 WI-LEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford, respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. By: ReSp'eet~pbmitt ed GOLDBE~Kc~,/KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C /.5/ Joshua D. Lock, Esquire ~ Attorney I.D. # 17092 (, I,erry J,: Russo, Esquire "'-- A~forney I.D. # 55717 Thomas J. Weber, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 58853 David M. Steckel, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 82340 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 The Cochran Law Firm Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire Date: Attorneys for Plaintiff, Steven D. Crawford 87022.1 Cpi. John C. [~aishV bopt. [{ea filuur te:,s PSP Harris urg One Latent life (uo.].m print) Dept. ~;eadqua_.~ter s ZSP ~a~en~ I~% (palm print) CRIHE LA~ORATOR¥ PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE 21st and Herr Streets Harrisburg, Pa, 17103 70-0-250 Suppl. 30 November 1972 ET_TE~E~ Jo.bn i',JlTUHI~;~ ,L Harrisburg, Daupb~ County 13 September 70 Cpl. John C. Ba!shy~ R & I Division~ PSP~ Departmental Headquarters 29 November 72 1. One 2atent lift (p~lm print) RESULTS: When the p~]~ print impression was tested with b~nzmd~_~e reagent a positive reaction was obtained. This ~dicates the presence of blood deposited by the donor of the p~ ] m print. ~/J~ce i. Roadcap~ Cr~m~l~St ii ~ OOP~S: R.& I.Div. Cpl. BaZshy F~es PENNSYLV.~IA STATE P0hICE CRIME LABORATORY HAk~.~vSBURG, PA. ~GOP OR POLICE D~T~__Jl Verification I verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 8tevon D. Crawford APR O ~ 2003 In Re: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, : ORPHANS' COURT DMSION : Deceased : No. 21-03-161 RETURN OF SERVICE COMMONWEATH OF PENNSYVANIA : COUNTY OF Cumberland : S.S.: On the 28th day of March , 2003, I, Robert A. Dash, served Walton D. Simpson, Jr., Respondent, with a true copy of the PETITION TO AMEND ~CITATION TO COMPEL APPLICATION FOR LETTERS PURSUANT TO 20 PA. C.S.A. §3155, which was filed with the Orphan's Court on March 26, 2003, by personally handing same tohim athis residence :at 5232 Stuart Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Date: March 29, 2003 Robert A. Dash AFFIDAVIT 1. I am Jerry J. Russo, a sbareholder in the law firm of Goldberg Katzman, P.C., and dually licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, first obtaining my license in 1989. 2. 1 was one of the attorneys instrumental in obtaining the release of Steven Crawford based upon the improper activities of certain law enforcement officers. 3. On or about April 1, 2003, I received a telephone call from Attorney Richard Wagner of the law firm ofMancke & Wagner. 4. I have known Mr. Wagner for approximately I,~ years and have always known him to be an honest and ethical member of the Bar. 5. During our conversation, Mr. Wagner informed me tbat he had been contacted by Walton Simpson, Jr. regarding Goldberg Katzman's efforts to have an Estate formally opened for the late Walton Simpson, St., who had previously worked as a police officer for the City of Harrisburg and a detective with Dauphin County and who was named as a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit filed by our office on behalf of Steven Crawford. 6. Mr. Wagner was interested in learning what our intentions were in relation to seeking recovery directly fi-om any Estate assets. 7. After our discussion on this issue, Mr. Wagner informed me that Walton Simpson, Jr. would in fact be taking the letters so as to appropriately open the Estate. 8. I bad no reason to question Mr. Wagner's autl~ority to speak on behalf of Mr. Simpson or Mr. Wagner's veracity in relation to his client's intention to open the Estate. .':ODMA~PCDOCSkDOCSI 11 ] 25811 9. Recognizing the potential emotional strain to Walton Simpson, Jr. in opening an Estate for his late father for the sole purpose of pursuing a civil rights litigation, I allowed Mr. Simpson and Mr. Wagner some leeway in obtaining the letters. 10. AtSer the passage of time, and the failure of any activity by Mr. Wagner or Mr. Simpson, I issued additional correspondence to Mr. Wagner reminding him of his obligation and intent to open the Estate. This correspondence also provided assistance in how the task could be completed. 11. At no time did Mr. Wagner ever contact me to inform i-ne that my understanding of the nature of our conversation in April of 2003 was inaccurate or that he no longer represented Walton Simpson, Jr. Sworn to and subscribed before me this,ff, J~l~_ day of o/t2t(~"-~g-/4~., 2004. Notary Pubfl'c My Commission Expires: No~fi~l ~ One~ A. R~h~, ~ Putt~ P.O. Box 1268 · H^RR~SBUBC, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1268 717.234.416! · 7~7.234.6808 (FAX) GOLDBERG, KATZMAN ~ SHIPMAN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February l0,2004 JOSHUA D. LOCK ARTHUR L. GOLDBERO (1951-2000) HARRY B, GOLDBERO (1961-1998) RONALD M. KATZMAN PAUL J. ESPOSITO NEIL HENDERSHOT J. JAY COOPER THOMAS E. BRENNER JOHN A. STATLER APRIL L. STRANC-KUTAY GuY H. BROORS JEPPERSON J. SHIPMAN JERRY J. Russo MICHAEL J. CROCENZI THOMAS J. WEBER STEVEN E. GRUBS JOHN D£LORRNZO JOHN R. NINOSRY ROYCE L. MORRIS DAVID M. STECKEL HEATHER L. PATERNO BENJAMIN D. ANDREOZZI P. Richard Wagner, Esquire Mancke, Wagner & Spreha 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Re: Dear Rick: Estate of Walter D. Simpson You will recall we had previously discussed the need to open an Estate so that we could proceed with the litigation. Counsel for the County and Simpson are now pressuring for the proper opening. As a result, could you contact Mr. Simpson's son to provide the necessary information. I trust this will be his last involvement. Enclosed is a Petition for Grant of Letters for your completion and filing with the Register of Wills of Cumberland County. I draw to your attention the following information you will need to provide on the Petition and Estate Information Sheet: Petition for Grant of Letters 2. 3. 4. 5. Provide the social security number for decedent. Provide the surviving spouse's name and date of death. Provide the address for the decedent's principal residence. Provide the age of decedent, date of death, and where death occurred. Provide figure for value of property in decedent's name alone. If decedent owned real estate in his name alone, then provide the value and location. Provide your name, identification number, address, and telephone number. P. Richard Wagner, Esquire February 10, 2004 Page Two Estate Information Sheet Provide the decedent's social security number, date of death, and date of birth. Provide your name, identification numbers, address, and telephone number. Provide Walton Simpson, Jr.'s social security number and telephone number. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Vet truly yours, JJR/clb Enclosure 104957.1 Register of Wills ot Cumberland Cou ',,j, Pennsylvania PETITION FOR GRANT OF LETTERS Estate ~ Walter D. Simpson abo known as , Deceased Walton D. Simpson, Jr. Pe,,'~.~,m,(s), who is/are 18 years of age or older, apply(les) for: NO. (COMPLETE 'A' or 'B' BELOW:) ] A. Probate and Grant of Letters Testamentary and aver that Petitioner(s) is/are the execut the Decedent, dated and codicil(s) dated __named in the last Will of State relevant cimumstances, e.g., renunciation, death of executor, etc. Except as follows, Decedent did not merry, was not divorced, and did not have a child born or adopted after execution of the documents offered for probate; was not the victim of a killing and was never adjudicated incompetent: ] B. Grant of Letters of Administration (c.t.a.; d.b.n.c. La; pendente lite; durante absentia; durante rninoritate) Petitioner(s) after a proper search has/have ascertained that Decedent left no Will and was survived by the following spouse (if any) and heirs: Name Walton D. Sim so__Jr. . Reiationshi Residence ]  art Drive, ~eechanlcsbur ,~_~_ (COMPLETE IN ALL CASES:) Attach additional sheets if necessary. Decedent was domiciled at dean Cumberland or principal residence at ~ County, Pennsylvania with his/her last family _~f.~ (list street, number, and municipelity) Decedent, then y of age, died at (Location) Decedent at death owned property with estimated values as follows: (If domiciled in PA) (if not domiciled in PA) (if not domiciled in PA) Value of real estate in Pennsylvania situated as follows: All personal property Personal property in Pennsylvania Personal property in County Wherefore, Petitionar(s) respectfully request(s) the probate of the last Will and Codicil(s) presented with this Petition and the grant of nata form to the undersigned: .._~nature ~rinted name and residence Walton D. Simpson, Jr. 5232 Stuart Drive, Mechantcsbur~ PA 17050 Form RW-1 (1991) Oa,,, of Personal Representativ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberl and The Petitioner(s) above-named swear(s) or affirm(s) that the statements in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of the knowledge and belief of Petitioner(s) and that, as personal represental~ve(s) of the Decedent, Petitioner(s) will well and truly administer the estate according to law. Sworn to or affirmed and subscribed Walton D. Simpson, Jr. before me this_ day of For the Register No. Estateof Walter D. Simpson Deceased Social Security No: Date of Death: AND NOW, __, in consideration of the Petition on the reverse side hereon, satisfactory proof having been presented before me, IT IS DECREED that Letters [] Testamentary [] Of Administration (c.ta; d.b.n.c.t.a.; gendente lite; durante absentia; durante m~noritate) are hereby granted to Walton D. Simpson, Jr. in the above estate and that the instrument(s) dated described in the PetJlion be admitted to probate and filed of record as the last Will of Decedent. FEES Letters ........... $ Short Certit"lcate(s) ..... Renunciation ........ $ Attorney: Affidavits ( ) .... $ LD. No: Extra Pages ( ) .... $ Address: Codicil ........... JCP Fee .......... $ Telephons: Inventory. ......... $ Other ........... $ TOTAL ......... Prepared by the Pennsylvania Bar Association Copyright (c) 1~96 form software oniy CPSysterns, inc. Register of Wills Form RW-1 (t~t) REV-346 ID((8-92) FOR R~. ' PA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ~.. - .,STER $ OFFICE USE ONLY ESTATE INFORMATION SHEET DECEDENT INFORMATION. ~. Enter data as it will appear ce all documents submitted to the department, S ~m~Walt er D. TYPE FILING: Enter mark (X) to indicate the nature of the return to be filed with the department. -~bate Return [] Joint Assets Only [] Estate Tax Only ]Litigation Purposes (No Other Assets) LETTERS GRAN-'~-~'~',',' Enter mark (X) to indicate the nature of the procendings at the Regiater of Wills Off'me. (Attach additional sheets it explanation is necessary.) [] Testamentary ~ Administration [] No LeEers [] Other (Pisase Explein) ] ATtORNEY/CO--ruer all data concerning the attorney or ~thor individual to receive all tax information and INFORMATION: correxpondence. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE Enter al data concerning the personal representative(e) of INFORMATION: of Wills. authorized by the Rarjiater Executor/Administrator Walton D. Simpson, Jr. 5232 Stuart Drive Mechanicsbur§, PA 17050 Co-Executor/Ad~ator Co-Executor/A~rator · Telephone Number Copyright (c) 1996 form software onb/Center Piece Software, Inc. Form 346 (Rev. S-SZ) .... a.4!6I , 717.234.6808 (F^x) GOLDBERG, KATZMAN ~ SHIPMAN, P.C. A'rTORNSyR ^'r LAW May 28, 2004 OF COUNSEL F. LEE SHIPMAN COUNSEL JOSHUA D. LOCE ARNOLD B, KOGAN ARTHUR L, GOLDBERO (1951-2000) HARRy B. GOLDBERG (I961-1998) RONALD ?VI. KATZMAN PAUL J. ESPOSiTO NElL HENDERSHOT J.J^¥ COOFEE THOMAS E. BRENNER JOHN A. STATLER APRIL L, STRANG-KUTAY GuY H. BROORS JEFFERSON J. SHIPMAN JERRY J. RUSSO MICHAEL, J. CROCENZl THOMAS J, WEBER STRVEN E, GRUB8 JOHN DRLORENZO JOHN R. NINOSKY RO?CE L. MORRIR DAVIDM. STECREL HEATHER L. PATERNO BENJAMIN D, zLNDREOZZI Richard Wagner, Esquire Mancke, Wagner & Spreha 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Re: Walter Simpson, Jr. Dear Rich: As you know, you have not followed up on your representation regarding Walter Simpson, Jr. serving as the executor of his father's estate. There is an outstanding Order to Show Cause against your client which he has failed to respond to. Our office would rather not proceed with formal appointment ora third party as the adrnin/strator. Kindly provide me with the professional courtesy of informing me whether you will follow through with your previous representation or if it will be necessary for us to proceed with Cumberland County Court. 5S0 ~ J/R/ldf 110339.1 Goldberg Katzman A full-service law firm. % % Arthur L. Goldberg ( 195 ] -2000) Harry B. Goldberg (1961-1998) Ronald M. I(atzman Paul J. Esposito Neil Hendershot J. Jay Cooper Thomas E. Brenner April L. Strang-Kutay Gu), H. Brooks Jerry J. Russo Michael J. Cmcenzi Thomas I. Weber &even E. Grubb John DeLorenzo Royce L. Morris David M. Steckel Heather L. Paterno Benjamin D. Andreozzi COUNSEL Joshua D. Lock Arnolc113. Kogan October 20, 2004 _VIA HAND DELIVERY Robert G. Hanna, Esq. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Re: In re: Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased No. 21-03-161 (Cumberland County - Orphans' Court Division) Dear Mr. Hanna: We are hereby serving upon you a copy of the Decree dated September 9, 2004 (filed September 10, 2004) directing your client to apply for or take out letters of administration on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, within twenty (20) days. We are taking this action in accordance with the Rules despite the fact that you and your client have been aware of this Decree for approximately one (1) month (as indicated in '~ 12 of the Exceptions filed by the Estate). DMS/klf 106722.5 Very truly yours2.~..--~ David M. Steckel 320 Market Street, Strawberry Square I EO. Box 1268 [ Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 I 717-2344161 I 7I 7~234-6808 (fax) In Re: : IN THE COURT OF COM3VION PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : Deceased : No. 21-03-161 DECREE AND NOW, fllJs day of . _, 2004, upon consideratLon of the annexed Motion, it is hereby ORDERED and DECR. EED that Walton D. Shnpson, Jr., must apply for or take out letters of administ~,afion on the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deoeased, within twenty (20) days hereof. BY THE COURT: Court Division CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid addressed to the following: Robe~: Hanna, Esquire Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Allor~ey.v.for Dq/bllclattl.~., Com~0~ attd l~'lole qf ~cdlo. D Jered L. Hock, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attor. eys for Dqfemta. t, CiO~ qf Harrixbm'g Heather Faust, Esquire Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Allot'~t~ys,fi.. Dq/bmk.tl, .Jr, rice Roadca[) Robert W. McAteer, Esquire Christopher J. Coyle, Esquire Henl.-y & Beaver LLP 937 Willow Street P. O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 Alloritey,~..J?.. D~Jkttctattl, ,]ohtl C. tJcdshy Date: October 21, 2004 GOLDBE OCT 2 2 2I;I~z~ In Re: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF WALTON D. SIMPSON, : ORPttANS' COURT DIVISION : Deceased : No. 21-03-161 DECREE ANDNOW, this .~'day of ~ ,2004, upon consideration of the exceptions filed by the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, and tile response thereto filed by Petitioner, Steven D. Crawford, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED as follows: 1. Walton D. Si~npson, Jr. is found to be in CONTEMPT of this Court's Decrees dated March 25, 2003 and September 9, 2004; 2. Within 10 days of tbis Decree, Walton D. Simpson, Jr. shall appem' before the Register of Wills in ('umberland County where M~?Simpson shall immediately apply for or take out letters of administration on;l!~e Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased; and L The exceptions filed by the Estate of Walton D. Simpson, deceased, are DENIED. BY THE COURT: t'Ju~,~i[l~n~ [~ the O~hans' Court Division PETITION FOR PROBATE and GRANT OF LETTERS Estate of WAt.-r~ ~ 5't,'d?ft'A/~'~' No. 0Q.j - OS--I(.t~[ also known as To: Register of Wills for the , Deceased. County of ~c,,qlr~.t..~tv--$ in the Social Security No. "1.. ~ ft -/~; --6 ~: I Commonwealth of Pennsylvania The petition of the undersigned respectfully represents that: Your petitioner(s), who is/are 18 years of age or older an the execu~''~/'~' named in the last will of the above decedent, dated ~ ~-/- t' ti , 19 ~'{ and codicil(s) dated (state relevant circumstances, e.g. renunciation, death of executor, etc.) Decendent was domiciled at death in h I s last family or principal residence at (list street, number and muncipality) County, Pennsylvania, with Decendent, then '~ a.- years of age, died ?gg~'~'+'~' '~- ,19 ~ ~ at I9a~'~'~t~'c- ~t~ tea t. c~,~/r1~_ /-//b/t_n~/~c~. ~ . Except as follows, decedent did not marry, was not divorced and did not have a child born or adopted after execution of the will offered for probate; was not the victim of a killing and was never adjudicated incompetent: Decendent at death owned property with estimated values as follows: (If domiciled in Pa.) All personal property $ (If not domiciled in Pa.) Personal property in Pennsylvania $ (If not domiciled in Pa.) Personal property in County $ Value of real estate in Pennsylvania $. situated as follows: WHEREFORE, petitioner(s) respectfully request(s) the probate of the last will and codicil(s) presented herewith and the grant of letters ~ ~ e~ t5 r-~_~-~ ~' (testamentary; administration c.t.a.; administration d.b.n.c.t.a.) theron. OATH OF' PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA '~ COUNTY OF ~..~,rxx~,3,~,,.c~ __ ss The petitioner(s) above-named swe~(s) or affirm(s) that the statements in the foregoing petition are true and correct ~0 the best of the knowledge and belief of petitioner(s) ~d that ~ personal represen- tative(s) of the above decedent petitioner(s) will well and truly administer the estate according to law. Sworn to or affixed subscribed ~ ~ ~~ ~' b~ore me this ~ day of ] -- ~ DECREE OF PROBATE AND GRANT OF LETTERS , Deceased AND NOW the reverse side hereof, satisfactory proof having been presented before me, IT IS DECREED that the instrument(s) dated described therein be admitted to probate and filed of record as the last will of and Letters '"~ ,r'~.~e~t-xac-o.~',.~ _ are hereby granted to ~.).-~o'-~ \ ~x.~x~ ~ ~ , in consideration of the petition on FEES Probate, Letters, Etc .......... Short Certificates( ) .......... k~u~W~i~ ................ s TOTAL __ $ ~- Filed . .~.~.'~ .\.~..-..~.c>.?.~'..: .............. AI'FORNEY (Sup. Ct. I.D. No.) ADDRESS PHONE OATH OF SUBSCRIBING WITNESS Also known as .,Deceased (each) a subscribing witness to the will/codicil presented herewith, (each) being duly qualified according to law, depose(s) and say(s)~ present and saw //{//.,~/7/~/tfl /.~/~¢ ~7)~f~f~9/~, ~'"~/~, ,thetestatoT~,signthesameand that ~ signed as a witness at the request of the testat otz-_ in h t~y presence and (in the presence of each other) (in the presence of the other subscribing wimess(es). Swom to or~fffrmed and subscribed Before me this \(J~" day of his is to certify that this is a true copy of the record which is on file in the Pennsylvania Division of Vital Records in accordance with Act 66, P,L. 304, approved by the General Assembly, June 29, 1953. WARNING: It is illegal to duplicate this copy by photostat or photograph. 1007366 No. Charles Hardester State Registrar FEB 0 Date COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL~NIA · DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. VITAL RE~R~$CERTiFiCATE OF DEATH ,.WALTON D. SI~SON, SR. ~Male , 258 -- 16 -- 6~81 ,~ g . ~ C~ty Govevnme t ' ~ch~ics~g PA 17055 [~ ~ ~i~on [~5 S~set ~., ~c~icsb~, PA 17055 LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF WALTON DEWEY SIMPSON,SR. I, WALTON DEWEY SIMPSON, SR. of 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, being of sound mind and body declare this to be my Last Will and Testament and revoke any and all Wills and Codicils previously made by me. ITEM I: I hereby direct that all my just debts, funeral expenses, attorney fees, all administration expenses, in- cluding inheritance tax shall be paid from the assets of my estate as soon as practicable after my decease. ITEM II: I hereby give, devise and bequeath ~1 of the assets of my estate, real and personal, wheresoever situate and in whatsoever name to my wife, Gladys Mitchell Simpson, pr~zide~ she shall survive me by thirty (30) days. ~ ITEM III: In the event my wife, Gladys Mitchell Simpson, shall fail td ,survive me by thirty (30) days or we die in a common disaster, I hereby direct my son, Walton Dewey Simpson, Jr. shall have first choice of all of the household furnishings. What my son, Walton Dewey Simpson, Jr. does not desire out of the real estate, my son, Jeffrey Mitchell Simpson, shall have his choice of the household furnishings. ITEM IV: If either of my sons, Walton Dewey Simpson, Jr. or Jeffrey Mitchell Simpson, desire to retain and own the real estate and home at 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Penn- sylvania, that son shall pay for an appraisal of the real estate and he shall pay to his brother, fifty (50%) percent of the net value. ITEM V: If neither of my sons desire to retain the real estate and home at 5 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania that home shall be sold and all the remaining household furnishings along with it. The proceeds from these sales shall be divided equally between my sons, Malton Dewey Simpson, Jr. and Jeffrey Mitchell Simpson. and in the presence of each gther, witnesses~reto . have hereunto set our names 'as residing residing JRD/June 30, 1992/17858 Date: January 10, 2005 SIMPSON, WALTON D, JR. ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA RE: Estate of SIMPSON WALTON D File Number: 2003-00161 Dear Sir/Madam: It has come to my attention that you have not filed the Status Report by Personal Representative (Rule 6.12) in the above captioned estate. As per the AMENDMENTS TO SUPREME COURT ORPHANS' COURT RULES, NO. 103 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET NO. 1, for decedents dying on or after July 1, 1992, the personal representative or his counsel, within two (2) years of the decedent's death, shall file with the Register of Wills a Status Report of completed or uncompleted administration. This filing will become delinquent on: 02/26/2005 Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, GLENDA FARNER STRASBAUGH REGISTER OF WILLS CC: File Personal Representative Judge Estate of SIMPSON WALTON D Late of NASSAU COUNTY NEW YORK ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Estate No.: 21-03-00161 Date: 3/09/2005 NO.: 21-03-00161 SIMPSON WALTON DEWEY JR 5232 STUART DRIVE MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO FILE STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST TO CONDUCT A HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 6.12, SUPREME COURT ORPHANS' COURT RULE Personal Representative: SIMPSON WALTON DEWEY JR Personal Representative Counsel: ** NO INFORMATION FOUND ** Date of Decedent's Death: 2/09/2001 Date of Delinquency Notice: 2/26/2005 The undersigned, Glenda Farner Strasbaugh, Clerk of Orhans' Court, in accordance with rule 6.12, Supreme Court Orphans' Court Rules, hereby notifies the Orphans' Court Division, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, that neither the above named personal representative nor their counsel, have filed with the Register of Wills or Clerk of Orphans' Court, his/her Status Report required by Rule 6.12, Supreme Court Orphans' Court Rule, and that the requisite notice, pursuant to Rule 6.12, Supreme Court Orhans' Court Rules, was given by the Clerk of Orphans' Court on 2/03/2005 and that the ten (10) day notice to file the status report has expired. Accordingly, in accordance with Rule 6.12 the Court is hereby notified of such delinquency and the undersigned requests that a Court conduct a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed upon the delinquent personal representative or their counsel. cc: File Personal Representative Counsel ~~ Glenda Farner Strasbau Clerk of Orhans' Court A hearing is scheduled for May 06, 2005 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom No. ~.3 If the Status Report is filed prior to the hearing date, the hearing will automatically be cancelled. ; Geo ,~ . Register of Wills of Cumberland County STATUS REPORT UNDER RULE 6.12 Name of Decedent: WALTON D. SIMPSON Date of Death; 2/9/2001 21-03-00161 Estate No.; Pursuant to Rule 6.12 of the Supreme Court Orphans' Court Rules, I report the following with respect to completion of the administration of the above-captioned estate: t. State whether administration of the estate is complete: - Yes 0 No JiD<: 2. If the answer is No, state when the personal representative ~nably believes that the administration will be complete; UnslJre; -pend1ng outcome of 1awsuittfi1-ed in U1S. District Court fo, the Middle Drr1thS1:r1C Nor lI?e_l)nsy. vtlian1il to Docket No.1: CV-03-0693. 3. _.e answer tc> o. Is Yes, srate e follOWIng; a. Did the personal representative file a fmal account with the Court? Yes 0 No 0 b. The separate Orphans' Court No. (if any) for the personal representative's account is: c. Did the personal representative state an account informally to the parties in interest? Yes 0 No 0 Date; c. Copies of receipts, rele.ses, joinders and approval offonnal or infomJ.I accounts m.y be filed with the Clerk of the Orphans' Court and may be attached to this report F h t a er Yt. I P.c April 14, 2005 B ". Robert G. quire c' ~ Name 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Address HarriSburg, PA 17108-1245 717-/'''-hh'' Telephone No. Capacity: o Personal Representative OCounseI for personal representative Walton Dewey Simpson, Jr. vf Cumberland County - Register Of Wills One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 phone: (717)240-6345 Date: 05/16/2005 SIMPSON WALTON DEWEY JR 5232 STUART DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 RE: Estate of SIMPSON WALTON D File Number: 2003-00161 Dear Sir/Madam: It has come to my attention that you have not filed the Certification of Notice Under Rule 5.6 (a) in the above captioned estate. As per the AMENDMENTS TO SUPREME COURT ORPHANS' COURT RULES, NO. 103 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET NO.1, for decedents dying on or after July 1, 1992, the personal representative or his counsel, within ten (10) days after giving proper notice to the beneficiaries and intestate heirs as required by subdivision (a) of Rule 5.6, shall file with the Register of Wills or Clerk of the Orphans' Court his/her Certification of Notice. This filing is due by: 02/20/2005 Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Thank You. Sincerely, G~R~~ Clerk of the Orphans' Court cc: File Counsel Judge COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BUREAU OF INDIVIDUAL TAXES DEPARTMENT 280601 HARRISBURG, PA 17128-0601 Telephone June 1, 2005 717-787-6670 Walton D. Simpson 5232 Stuart Dr. Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 Re: Estate of Walton D. Simpson, Sr. File Number 2103-0161 Dear Mr. Simpson: The Department has been advised that the above-referenced estate is presently involved in litigation. The Department will suspend further activity on this estate until June 1, 2006. You are required to notify the Department when the status changes or the extension date expires. If you have any questions, please contact me at (717-787-6670). C) ~-;.o , ';i~@() : ':; r- ~.;,.",m "'-: ::::r:1 " r/):;.,:: _: (;(--" ":1:=n s ~.- ! o--~ --::-) ::0 i',) --j r-,) 0-" "s,'<- CERTIFICATION OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 5.6(a) Name of Decedent: Walton D. Simpson Date of Death: 2/26/1994 Will No.: Admin. No.: 21-03-0161 To the Register: I certify that notice of (beneficial interest) estate administration required by Rule 5.6(a) of the Orphans' Court Rules was served on or mailed to the following beneficiaries of the above-captioned estate on Friday, Tune 15, 2005 Name Address Steven D. Crawford c/o Thomas T. Weber, Esq., 320 Market St., P.O. Box 1268, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Notice has now been given to all persons entitled thereto under Rule 5.6(a) except Date: Tune 17, 2005 ~.~o. Signature Robert G. Hanna, Tr., Esquire Address 225 Market Street, Suite 304 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone (717) 233-6633 Capacity: Personal Representative x Counsel for Personal Representative v Ql '" '6 c: '" .r;:; ~ e <ll " 0 ~ ~ U") ~ Q. Cl = '0; J } ~-1 ~ &l cr . ~~ ITl ",CJ: ,g '" '" c: . E \ '" e ~ 0 ITl C ~ !tEa ~~ <ll -0 <ll . l'- ~ -0 UJCJ:O <ll '" l'- ]l i ;r: ~ 000 U") -0 Ql c: - '" > ct'" ~ ~ :::r ~~ '- :g~ 'S >.~ .., . '" <ll ~ ~ ~5i > . =(/) i~ ~1 III UJ -0>- Ja:= <i. >< co' d a) ~ 0 (\) (\) .'11 a. > a. Eul!?:j'@ o@<DoE ~ .~ .s )-. J! cn"Oc.s.... . ~.!!l~"Eo!1 M~gjrl13E -o~-O<D<Il8. tij :an~ .s ~ <D N'O-oE.sg ,..:~1ij~.sg. 00Q)1o-"O:!::: E:E E fa (ij.... 4!gj~OU~ Q)cr::....Q).~- Q):t::5~.s1? 0.....,- ~1U.c"'" EEc:.saJa 8~itg~15 r , . d- r if) ~ ~ '-T ~ c~~~ 9' -t,- ~ ..., ,..., J ~ -, ".;{ S j} E{~ J\ Vl * (,\; .~ f .f-') S-' ~lJc6 ~ .9l -) I"\)..$..., .!:a ~) to "-> ~ ~ ~J ~ r' '_ S-- (J) ~ 0- ~ "9- ~ ~ "9- ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ % ~ 9.- ~ iJl ~ 0- ~ -0 ~. ~ "5 ~. u, '6 ')(. . '\j \ ~. ~~~\ ~\~\% .1)i~at ; ~ <6-\ ~ ~'% \ ~ 0 ~~~~~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -0 <0 ::.\. '? ~ ?i ~ ~ ~ ~ Cumberland County - Register Of Wills One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 240-6345 Date: 1/13/2006 SIMPSON WALTON DEWEY JR 5232 STUART DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 RE: Estate of SIMPSON WALTON D File Number: 2003-00161 Dear Sir/Madam: It has come to my attention that you have not filed the Status Report by Personal Representative (Rule 6.12) in the above captioned estate. As per the AMENDMENTS TO SUPREME COURT ORPHANS' COURT RULES, NO. 103 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET NO.1, for decedents dying on or after July I, 1992, the personal representative or his counsel, within two (2) years of the decedent's death, shall file with the Register of Wills a Status Report of completed or uncompleted administration. This filing is due by: 2/26/2006 Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Thank You. Sincerely, ~~~ GLENDA FARNER STRASBAUGH REGISTER OF WILLS cc: File Counsel Judge o CD 0) ~ 8!. U) "0 o 0) Q.. :e CD o ~ Qj CD ~Gi oX Q.. ~ ~ CD- CD "0 U.e :g.g. g&! ccc: eQ) ~i 0:0 "0 e !:!:!. CD- Q)"O U.e ~"S Q)C' >0) =l:c ~c: i~ ts~ i~ o:@. - ~ --- A o fI} f/) Q) ~ ~ Q) i ~ (ij ~ ..' ~ ~= ~i ~ ~_I \:" le!l L1 W ('.'> .' I ..~ ,~... ~~ .~ .- .- .... ... . :~ : lCi . let a;:- :~~:N ~ ~ ~ ls . : ~ CI) lb3 m- :l~:~ .' !<ii a lu ~ ~l "vjl 9l ~l , \ 29Lh S19h 2000 02~1 SOOL --------------- ---- --- L - f' - . \ ,-~, ,AA" R i (; ~ . ~ l\ -.. ',J ::.. I ~ C. U IV\ I ~ :.. Estate of SIMPSON WALTON D Late of SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Estate No.: 21-03-00161 Date: 3/14/2006 NO.: 21-03-00161 SIMPSON WALTON DEWEY JR 5232 STUART DRIVE MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO FILE STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST TO CONDUCT A HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 6. 12, SUPREME COURT ORPHANS I COURT RULE Personal Representative: SIMPSON WALTON DEWEY JR Personal Representative Counsel: ** NO INFORMATION FOUND ** Date of Decedent's Death: 2/26/1994 Date of Delinquency Notice: 2/26/2006 The undersigned, Glenda Farner Strasbaugh, Clerk of Orphans' Court, in accordance with rule 6.12, Supreme Court Orphans' Court Rules, hereby notifies the Orphans' Court Division, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, that neither the above named personal representative nor their counsel, have filed with the Register of Wills or Clerk of Orphans' Court, his/her Status Report required by Rule 6.12, Supreme Court Orphans' Court Rule, and that the requisite notice, pursuant to Rule 6.12, Supreme Court Orphans' Court Rules, was given by the Clerk of Orphans' Court on 1/17/2006 and that the ten (10) day notice to file the status report has expired. Accordingly, in accordance with Rule 6.12 the Court is hereby notified of such delinquency and the undersigned requests that a Court conduct a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed upon the delinquent personal representative or their counsel. cc: File Personal Representative Counsel Gl~r=~ Clerk of Orphans' Court A hearing is scheduled for May 01, 2006 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom No.2. If the Status Report is filed prior to the hearing date, the hearing will automatiC~~'1~ Edgar B. Bayley PJ ' - . (JJ (D -~ a. rr CD , "r'" 1""," ._:1 (") O!j 'd" -J~I :'.'::21 ~ _ 0' 10 C1 9' CD ~ ~ ~........ ~) m ~ ~ ~ (JQ !(U ._ _ ,.' ,,' _, - en (/) 1'"""\::1 _.\G1 ", ',- CD ........ \,.J. .-+,...~ ~ ""'--' JD 0 '< 1,,(1) ~ ,', --~ _~O~~ ~ !:r '\oJ ~ ~, 0 ~ ~' > 5 n Hj ~ --, ,'< ::::; ~ s ~ (;) g (/) ~ _. ~ ' OCilcT:::::(/) ......(/)(1)(/).- W.o ~.. e: P3 ~~~& @ ~ n ~ ........ (JQ (1) p- * o -. ~ ::T Po' ::1 (/)- n o ~ ::.t ~ cp o ~ c z =i m o en ~ ~ ~ I I G:l ~ J..~ ~ 'rJ ...J,. ~~ ~ ;Q fJ 8 Q'l ~ ~ ~ M~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ :a "'0) 'Z ~ ~ i E 0. ~ o.~o. ~ ~tt:o ~ 000 ~ :a :a ~ ~'Z"%.'Z 8 o."'i (1) "0 'i ~;;;1n e ~ 8~"~~ .0 ._~ct:.s \ i.~o 0 ct:. .. <t (!) '- ~ -- ....... r -~ '- \. ~~ ~ ~ ..........L.... ~ ~ ~ ~.2- 0\ '-I) ~--l..... <- ~~ ~ .::t: ce-) 'Y -n) ~ ~\.n ~ .,..: ,,/\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.l o U1 0) lO C\l ~ f\.l o o 0\ o\~ f\.l\& cO \ ~\'fi , '::l \J1\ ~ \, DO) 0\ ou.. r-~ cJ:) ~ E ,0 ,u.. c-i -\<6: (I) Register of Wills of Cumberland County ~ ATUS RJiPQR"l' UNDER :RULE 61012 Name of'Decedent: Walton D. Simpson Date of Death: 2/26/1994 Es1ate N'o.: 21-03-0161 'Pursuoot to Rule 6.12 of the Supreme Court Orphans t Court Rules, t report the following with're~ect 10 completion of the administration of the above-ca'ptioncd e9UItc; 1. State whether administmtion of the estate is oon'lP.\ete~ Yes 0 No m 2. If the answE..1' is No, state when the personal tep,r:esentative reasonably believes that the administration will ~ complete: ..~! 15/2006 ,,'_' 3. If the answer to No.1 is Yes, state tbe following: a. Did the personal rel'fesentative file 4 final account with the Court? Yes 0 No 0 .. '. . - .. . . h. The. separate Orphans' Court No. {if any) for the personal repre~erltative)s account is: c. Did the personal representn;ti ve ~tate an account infOt'mn.Uy to the parties in interest? Yes 0 No 0 c. Copies of reccl,pls, releases, joinders and apl'tova J of formal or infOrmal acoounts may be filed with the Clerk of the Orphans" ;ourt and may be attached to this report. ~ . /) "\ 4/28/2006 '~, ~ Signature Date: Dale F. Weigand, Esquire Name 100 w. ..Monr~..e St., 18th Floor Address Chi cago, IL 60603 ~~~~22-9~Q.L..._.._ Telephone No. Capacity: 0 Personal R.epre~cnbati "I'e BJ Counsel for personal representative o '7 : 2 f U. f 1''-1 I-.! , . Cumberland County - Register Of Wills One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 240-6345 Date: 2/07/2007 SIMPSON WALTON DEWEY JR 5232 STUART DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 RE: Estate of SIMPSON WALTON D File Number: 2003-00161 Dear Sir/Madam: This notice is to serve as a reminder that the Status Report by Personal Representative under Rule 6.12 is due on the below listed date. As per the AMENDMENTS TO SUPREME COURT ORPHANS' COURT RULES, NO. 103 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET NO.1, for decedents dying on or after July 1, 1992, the personal representative or his counsel, within two (2) years of the decedent's death, shall file with the Register of Wills a Status Report of completed or uncompleted administration. This filing is due by: 2/26/2007 Please feel free to contact this office with any questions you may have. If you have already filed your Status Report, please disregard this notice. Sincerely, ~~~ (. : Glenda Farner Strasbaugh Clerk of the Orphans' Court cc: File Counsel Pa. O.C. Rule 6.12 STATUS REPORT REGISTER OF WilLS OF C U 1"\ f)7 1.2/ f~ I\jO cOtJ:\lY, PENNSYLVANIA Name of Decedent lGRllOf.-..) b '";;1 \'v\p5DtJ Date of Death: ,9-/ ;:Jtt I {C?Cf t.(. File Number: ~ 1- Cj- C ( ([; I Pursuant to Pa. O.C. Rule 6.12, J report the folloVving with respect to completion of the administration of the above-captioned estate: . 1. State whether admillistration ofthe estate is complete: . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . .. ~Yes [] No 2. lfthe answer-is No, state when the personal representative r~asonabJy believes that the administration will be compkte: 3. If the alls~'cr to No. I is YES. state tbe following: a. Did the pers~nal representative file a [mal account ~rith the Court?'. ..... DY es ~o b. TIle separate Orp1lans' Court No. (if any) for the personal repre~entative's account is: c. DId the personal representative state an account infonnal1y to the parties in interest? . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., DYes ~No d. Copies of receipts, releases, joinders and approvals offonnal or infom1al accounts may be filed with the Clerk of me OrphaJls' Court lll1d may be attached to this report. Capacity: 0 Personal Represemati\.e ,QS Counsel tx l\ e.. (: Ll'C: lC~\XI (: l \ f -:; ( I Lt I Ct- Nmn. of [''','SDn Filing 1/;;' Form ( i 00 CU, ('IIDI\((>'(:.. :--itrr'et / rsih H(;(' r 4dd'....r l:,JiCL1~C . .S~ 6:Dl.J,C3 31J.3;2~ '- (1Cf DO Daze ;)-/1:,-01 , , "',,) Lr'. ./l! 1) ! 7 (, -\.i1 ~"lU ~ v FOJ'IIlRW..'1! 1'1"\'.10.13.06 ,...:--...;-- ~. .....-- w rl Ii - :cn ~ ~. - Q. ::) ..... .....s '<:) :..J ~<t - 0 0 0- .,. €R- 'LL t ~ ~! 1- co u.~ CD 0 3? LL , 15." j!;o'S ~ '~l ~l all CD :0 CD a:i 2lE f 0 E CD ~~ II ~ 0 ~ 0,-- ! a:~ ~ <:. ~,[9h 2000 02~,[ lJ': ~ t! ~;$ ;:,a 1-:.1{ l# I I I I I I I ~ ,lJ1 ~ :51 ~ w t~ I ..... ;~:;t -I~ I I~ ':LU :Li: :i:: :Bi It.) I I I I I I ru ...lI ('- ::r a: LLI ~ 1-= LL1C ZLLlC :~a:cc LL1cl-U)a: a:zU)cc C:OO:CCLLl~ CI-LL1....a: Ccl:l:Il:l:IC I-z::ECu.. zc:::Jffic !::!::!LL1z>1- (.)1-::I::::iLLl U::~(.)LL1a:: u.."",:::JCc :::JLLlU)I-Z ~l=cc:::J -czz. DODD LJ1 r"I ...lI ::r ru Cl Cl Cl Cl ru I:(l r"I (5 LJ1 Cl Cl ('- .... .. = Q ';;) '" ;:: '" ~e g~~~~ ~ ~ '" ~ t""') )R ,z:;.. ~ cr<rrl Ej'.' ii ~.~~ l t.--~=gS: o 1... ... ';;).r: ~ .0 ='g"St;~ ~J~no' ~ ~ <3 ~ .. Sd)~ Q = ~ ~ 0 u i:.. Q .. ... 'lii '6: ~ III 1.0 () r- .... I I jl ~ 'C :$ fij Ii ~ ~~ i ~ i DO ~ DO ~ 0 .. c .e - I d C'< e. .,.... i ~ ~1 I ~i I ~ q l il !ig! I ~DD ~ Ii '01 - ~ '- :!t~)~ ;! ~ ru e! J .tn ~~ i 1 .J] ~ ~~l~ l"- e. ~~ ::r ] ~ .!!'= ~'S DOlI: -< >< ai C Ltl (') ~ ..... E .J] i ::r i ; .; ~ l!) t-:J Lf) ld ~.f 0 :>; r- riI rl I a"05S~. ;3: ~riI I l ~.!!I~~~ P:> ~. ij"O~!! 1-1 P-I' I t Z~ ~i Gl i 000 - E$i E--' p:: ~~ il 0 .. HE--':::> I }I Ijhij i ,:::CP::1n LJ, ;3:,:::C(f) :::>CJ ZE--'H l:t: l;~: ~ O(J)~ ~ 1iijc:: III (f), Bii~< ~ i P.N ':8(")CJ HNriI . . . ~ (f)l!):8 I I I r- \ , , I, \ U "