Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-4914L COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF EX REL. DAVID J. FREED, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN IA DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY .. L . '9?r" rW ; ra ? GEORGE T. HICKS., JR . , ' BOROUGH OF CARLISLE TAX COLLECTOR CIVIL NO. NOTICE You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must appear in person in Courtroom # on August , 2012, at You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 (717) 249-3166 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, EX REL. DAVID J. FREED, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE T. HICKS., JR., BOROUGH OF CARLISLE TAX COLLECTOR CIVIL NO. COMPLAINT IN QUO WARRANTO AND SPECIAL RELIEF The Commonwealth, by the District Attorney of Cumberland County, David J. Freed, and through Matthew P. Smith, Chief Deputy District Attorney, respectfully aver as follows: 1. The Plaintiff is David J. Freed, the current duly elected District Attorney of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. An action in quo warranto may be brought in the name of the Commonwealth on the relation of the District Attorney against an officer of a political subdivision located in the county in which the action is brought. See Pa.R.Civ.P. §1112(b). 2. The Defendant is George T. Hicks, Jr., the current duly elected Tax Collector for the Borough of Carlisle. The Borough of Carlisle is a political subdivision of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The Courts of Common Pleas have jurisdiction of quo warranto actions, the basis of such jurisdiction being the recognition of former statutory provisions for the action of quo warranto as part of the common law of Pennsylvania. See Spykerman v. Levy, 421 A.2d 641 (Pa. 1980). 4. A quo warranto action is generally the exclusive remedy to determine the right or title to hold public office. Spykerman, 421 A2d. at 648; Commonwealth ex rel. Mangino v.Stafford, 58 Pa.D&C.4th 403 (Lawrence Cty. 2002)(District Attorney petitions in Quo Warranto to remove newly elected township supervisor); See also Comment, Quo Warranto in Pa., 80 Dick.L.Rev. 218, 221 (1976). 5. In Carrol Twp. Sch. Bd. Vacancy, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained the rationale for the exclusive nature of the quo warranto remedy: Quo warranto is the Gibraltar of stability in government tenure. once a person is duly elected or duly appointed to public office, the continuity of his services may not be interrupted and the uniform working of the governmental machinery disorganized or disturbed by any proceeding less than a formal challenge to the office by that action which is now venerable with age, reinforced by countless precedent, and proved to be protective of all parties involved a given controversy, namely quo warranto. Spykerman, 421 A.2d at 649 (quoting Carrol Twp. Sch. Bd. Vacancy, 180 A.2d 16, 17 (Pa. 1962). 6. Article II, Section 7, of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: No person hereinafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime, shall 2 be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth. 7. A quo warranto action based on Art. II, Section 7, of the Pennsylvania Constitution predisposes that one must be convicted before a quo warranto action may lie. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated in Mayer v. Hemphill, ... in recent years exceptions have been widely recognized by the Courts to the narrow circumscribed limited remedy of Quo Warranto for several reasons: (1) quo warranto does not always furnish an adequate and full remedy; (2) the wisdom of applying a remedy which will avoid the multiplicity of suits; (3) the paramount right of the public to have a surer and more adequate remedy to restrain wrongful acts by a public official, ... Mayer v. Hemphill, 190 A.2d 444, 447 (Pa. 1963). 8. Most recently in 2004, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania filed a complaint in quo warranto and petition for injunctive relief together, challenging an appointment of a public official. See Gerald J. Pappert, ex rel. v. Coy, 860 A.2d 1201, (Pa.Commw.Ct. 2004). The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania entertained both actions, stating Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure of 1532(a) for ordering special relief, which includes preliminary or special injunctions, is the same as that for the granting of preliminary injunctions under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Pappart, 860 A.2d at 1204 (citing Shenango Valley Osteopathic Hosp. v. Department of Health, 451 A.2d 434 (Pa. 1982). 3 9. The Commonwealth believes and therefore avers this Honorable Court has the authority to grant special relief pending resolution of the quo warranto action. SPECIAL RELIEF 10. Paragraphs one through nine are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 11. On August 2, 2012, at approximately 8:05 p.m., Officer Christopher S. Collare of the Carlisle Police Department, working in an undercover capacity, did purchase $100.00 worth of Marijuana, a Schedule I Controlled Substance, from George T. Hicks Jr., the duly elected Carlisle Borough Tax Collector. See Exhibit A, Sworn Affidavit of Probable Cause and Criminal Complaint. 12. The illegal transaction took place in Suite 208, 8 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013, the office of Thornburgh, Ross & Associates Collection Agency of which George T. Hicks Jr., is an associate. Suite 208 is down the hall from Suite 212, the office of the Borough of Carlisle Tax Collector, of which George T. Hicks Jr., is the elected Carlisle Borough Tax Collector. See Exhibit A. 13. The office of Carlisle Borough Tax Collector is the same office where the citizens of Carlisle Borough remit their taxes, some of which is remitted in cash. 14. On August 6, 2012, Officer Christopher S. Collare of the Carlisle Police Department, again working in an undercover 4 capacity, purchased an additional $200.00 worth of Marijuana, a Schedule I Controlled Substance, from George T. Hicks Jr., the duly elected Carlisle Borough Tax Collector. This transaction again took place in the same location, Suite 208, 8 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA, 17013. 15. George T. Hicks, Jr., was subsequently charged for multiple violations of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act 35 P.S. § 780-101 et seq, for the unlawful distribution of Marijuana, a felony offense. See Exhibit A. 16. Criminal Complaints are public documents. 17. Since March 15 to June 28, 2012, the Borough of Carlisle has received 96 contacts (28 separate documented complaints) from dissatisfied taxpayers totaling approximately 14.95 man-hours spent in dealing with the complaints. 18. The public hue and cry of an elected Tax Collector whose function is to collect taxes, some of which is remitted in cash, who also accepts cash for illegal substances, namely Marijuana, in an office of which he is an associate, down the hall from the office to which he was elected, will be immediate and overwhelming. 19. Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1531(a) and (d), this Honorable Court may order special relief to include preliminary or special injunctions without notice to the defendant. 5 20. There are six prerequisites for a preliminary injunction. See Com. ex rel. Corbett v. Snyder, 977 A.2d 28 (Pa.Commw.Ct. 2009) . 1. Immediate and Irreparable Harm 21. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show it is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. Corbett, 977 A.2d at 41. In conjunction with previous complaints, the public will have a complete loss of confidence in the elected Tax Collector's ability to properly collect and distribute money when he is allegedly collecting money and distributing illegal substances. At a minimum, the public will be confused as to whom to send their taxes to or even whether or not to send them at all. Some will balk at being forced to remit money to a charged individual notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, while others will attempt to bypass the Office of Tax Collector and remit their taxes directly to the Borough of Carlisle as they have done in the past. Further, in order to sell illegal substances, one must purchase them beforehand. The public assumption will be that the elected Tax Collector is utilizing public funds to purchase a supply of illegal substances in order to sell it and recoup the money for a profit. The confusion and outcry would result in a dramatic loss of revenue and could affect Borough services. The Borough would have to then expend more resources in order to collect fewer resources, but 6 ultimately the Borough could not sue taxpayers for more than their fair share of taxes. In other words, money damages cannot adequately compensate for the loss of revenue and disruption of services. 2. Greater Harm 22. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show greater injury would result by refusing the injunction than by granting it. Corbett, 977 A.2d at 42. The Commonwealth is not seeking the removal of George T. Hicks Jr., as the elected Tax Collector prior to conviction. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and as such would still hold the office and collect income. However, if he were not enjoined from processing public funds, the public outcry would be such that there would be a severe interruption of processing and ultimately a disruption of services. In contrast, there would be no personal harm to George T. Hicks Jr. in the granting of this injunction. 3. Restoration of Status Quo 23. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show the injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed prior to the alleged wrongful conduct. Corbett, 977 A.2d at 43. From approximately 2005 to 2011, per title 72 of Pennsylvania Statutes, Section 5511.4b, Local Tax Collection Law, the Borough of Carlisle had been acting as the tax collection authority for the 7 three taxing districts, Cumberland County real estate tax, Carlisle School District, and Carlisle Borough, by agreement. The Borough of Carlisle is more than capable to once again assume such duties and has made contingency plans to do so in order to maintain the status quo. 4. Clear Right to Relief 24. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a clear right to relief. Corbett, 977 A.2d at 43. In order to maintain an action in quo warranto, the Commonwealth must establish three elements: (1) that the person sought to be ousted from office has been convicted of a crime; (2) that the crime committed constitutes an infamous crime; and (3) the person holds an office of public trust. Commonwealth ex rel. Baldwin v. Richard, 751 A.2d 647 (Pa. 2000). A violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), Possession with Intent to Deliver, is graded as a felony offense. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has unequivocally held in Commonwealth ex rel. Baldwin v. Richard that all felonies are infamous crimes. Baldwin, 751 A.2d at 653. In the present case, the facts include hand to hand drug sales to a law enforcement officer, recorded phone calls to George T. Hicks, Jr. arranging the drug sales, and video 8 surveillance. Therefore, although he is innocent until the Commonwealth proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should George T. Hicks Jr. be convicted he would be ineligible to hold office. 5. Abating the Offending Activity 25. A preliminary injunction must also be reasonably suited to abate the offending activity. Corbett, 977 A.2d at 48. It is alleged that George T. Hicks is receiving tax remittances, sometimes in cash, while handling cash in exchange for providing illegal substances at or near the office of the Carlisle Borough Tax Collector. See Exhibit A. Since the purchase and sale of illegal substances is a cash only business, the public perception is that George T. Hicks Jr., is using public funds either indirectly (the Office of the Tax Collector derives a its income from a percentage of the taxes it collects) or directly (utilizing cash remittances as front money). It is impossible and redundant for the Court to enjoin a person from committing a crime if the crimes code itself cannot, an order from this Court enjoining George T. Hicks Jr., from collecting and processing public money is reasonably suited to prevent the continuing offending activity. 6. Public Interest 26. A preliminary injunction cannot run counter to the public interest. Corbett, 977 A.2d at 49. Justice Larsen noted it best in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Spykerman, "It is highly 9 L unlikely that the citizens of this nation would place a greater premium on continued government function than on immediately restraining the wrongdoing officials." Spykerman, 421 A.2d at 652 (Larsen J., concurring and dissenting). In the instant case, a preliminary injunction would both restrain the wrongdoing official and ensure continued government function. Exceptional Circumstances 27. Although the Commonwealth believes and therefore avers that this Court has the authority to entertain special relief as part of a quo warranto action filed by the District Attorney of Cumberland County on behalf of the citizens of Cumberland County, the Commonwealth also avers that this Court has the authority to entertain a special injunction as part as a separate equity action in accordance with the exceptional circumstances doctrine as enunciated in Mayer v. Hemphill in paragraph seven, above. WHEREFORE, the Honorable David J. Freed, Esq., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to temporarily enjoin George T. Hicks, Jr. from collecting and processing tax remittances pending resolution of the quo warranto action and permit the Borough of Carlisle to perform the duties of Tax Collector in his stead. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Smith Chief Deputy District Attorney Pa Atty# 89552 10 VERIFICATION I, David J. Freed, District Attorney of Cumberland County, do hereby verify, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications, that the facts set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 1 U ? David J. Freed District Attorney COMMONWEALTH OF POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: Cumberland _ VS. Magisterial District Number: 09202 MDJ: Hon.Jessica E Brewbaker DEFENDANT: (NAME and ADDRESS): Address: 18 N Hanover, s t e 106 George Thomas Hicks JR Carlisle PA 17 013 First Name Middle Name Last Name Gel Telephone: 717 240 6565 114 N Pitt St Carlisle PA 17013 NCIC Ext?adMon Code Type ? 1-Felony Full ? 4-Felony No Ext. ? B-Misdemeanor Limited ? E-Misdemeanor Pending X 2-Felony Ltd. ? 5-Felony Pend. ? C-Misdemeanor Surrounding States ? Distance: ? 3-Felony Surrounding States ? A-Misdemeanor Full ? D-Misdemeanor No Extradition DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION 1 Docket Number -?__ Date Filed OTNILiveScan Number ComplainNncident Number SID Request Lab Services? 20120800054 CA YES GENDER DOg 04 03 1991 POB Add'I DOB Co-Defendant(s) ? First Name Middle Name Last Name Gen. Male AKA George Hicks RACE aC ETHNICITY Non-Hispanic - HAIR COLOR XXX - Unknown. EYE COLOR XXX - Unknown - Driver License State I License Number 29363161 Expires: WEIGHT (Ibs.) DNA No DNA Location - 150 FBI Number MNU Number r fit. HEIGHT In. Defendant Fingerprinted Y N 5 6 Fingerprint Classification: - - [3EFENL)ANT ORIdATION Plate # State Hazmat Registration Comm'I Veh. ? School ? Oth. NCIC Veh. Code Reg. ? Sticker (MMIYY) Ind. Veh. same VIN Year Make Model Style Color as Def. 1 000 1 ? Office of the attorney for the Commonwealth.f54pro_ved ? to filing, See Pa.R.Crim.P. 507). may or Name o the attorney or the Commonwealth) (ignalure o the attorney or the ommonwea ) (Dale) I,DET Christopher S Collare _ BADGE 28 (Name of the Affiant) (PSPIMPOETC -Assigned Affiant ID Number & Badge # of Carlisle Pd PA0210200 (Identify Department or Agency Represented and Political Subdivision) (Police Agency ORI Number) do hereby state: (check appropriate box) 1. (Z I accuse the above named defendant who lives at the address set forth above ? 1 accuse the defendant whose name is unknown to me but who is described as ? I accuse the defendant whose name and popular designation or nickname are unknown to me and whom I have therefore designated as John Doe or Jane Doe with violating the penal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at[ 402 ] Carlisle >-S-Hanover St Carlisle u ivmsion o e (Place-Political u ivisan in Cumberland County [ PA021 I onorabout 08 02 2012 1755 HRS 20120806 212609 CSCI 03 Page 1 of 3 POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Docket Number: Date Filed: OTN1LiveScan Number Complaintlincident Number 1 20120800054 CAR First: Middle: Last: Defendant Name Geor e Thomas Hicks The acts committed by the accused are described below with each Act of Assembly or statute violated, if appropriate. When there is more than one offense, each offense should be numbered chronologically. (Set forth a brief summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offense(s) charged. A citation to the statute(s) violated, without more, is not sufficient. In a summary case, you must cite the specific section(s) and subsection(s) of the statute(s) or ordinance (s) allegedly violated. The age of the victim at the time of the offense may be included i f known. In addition, social security numbers and financial information (e.g. PINs) should not be listed. If the identity of an account must be established, list only the last four digits. 204 PA.Code §§ 213.1 - 213.7.) Inchoate ? Attempt ? Solicitation I El Conspiracy Offense 18 901 A 18 902 A 18 903 J F 3599 35A 1 © 001 780-113 30 tiPMI, 35 2 Lead? Offense# Section Subsection PA Statute Title Counts Grade NCIC Offense Code LICRMIBRS Code PennVOT Data Accident ? Safety Zone ? Work Zone _ (if applic."). Number ---- - Statute Description (include the name of statute or ordinance): Manufact/Del/Pons W Int To Man/Del Contrlld Su Acts of the accused associated with this Offense: DID INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY AND UNLAWFULLY MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSES WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER, A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY A PERSON NOT REGISTERED UNDER THIS ACT, OR DID KNOWINGLY CREATE, DELIVER OR POSSESS WITH INTENT TO DELIVER, A COUNTERFEIT CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. 11fCltoet6 ? Attempt ? Solicitation ? Gans Aracy Off@Ctt!@ 18 901 A 18 902 A 18903 Lead? I ro.x?wvi :aT I r?cnauexu I I ? Safety Zone I ? Work Zone Statute Description (include the name of statute or ordinance): Acts of the accused associated with this Offense: inchoate ? Attempt ? Solicitation ? Conspiracy 18 901 A 18 902 A 18 903 -- - 1-1 Lead? Statute ?, .+? °?`? I ?"' 1 I ? Safety Zone I ? Work Zone Statute Description (include the name of statute or ordinance): Acts of the accused associated with this Offense: ;A . r. C 20120806 212609 Page 2 of 3 ?? POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Docket Number: Date Filed: OTN/LiveScan Number Complaint/incident Number 20120800054 CAR First: Middle: Last: Defendant Name George Thomas Hicks 2. 1 ask that a warrant of arres be issued and that the defendant be required to answer the charges I have made. 3. 1 verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904) relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 4. This complaint consists of the preceding page(s) numbered ___1 through ___2 . The acts committed by the accused, as listed and hereafter, were against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and were contrary to the Act(s) of the Assembly, or in violation of the statutes cited. (Before a warrant of arrest can be issued, an affidavit of probable cause must be c let d, sworn ore the issuing authority, and attached.) ,4,. K, ot??- {D (Signature of Affiant) AND NOW, on this date 11 1 t' Z I certify that the complaint has been properly completed and verified. An affidavit of probable cause musAe completed before a warrant can be issued. (Magisterial District Court Number) (Is uing Authority) w ....,_ 20120806 212609 Page 3 of 3 POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Docket Number: Date Filed: OTNILiveScan Number ComplaintAncident Number 20120800054 CAR First: Middle: Last: Defendant Name: GEORGE THOMAS HICKS JR AFFIDAVIT of PROBABLE CAUSE 35 780-113 A30 MANUFACT/DEL/POSS W INT TO MAN/DEL CONTRLLD SU F COMMONWEALTH VS GEORGE THOMAS HICKS JR INFORMATION: ON AUGUST 2, 2012 YOUR AFFIANT DID CONDUCT A CONTROLLED PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM GEORGE THOMAS HICKS JR. AT 8 SOUTH HANOVER STREET, SUITE 208, IN THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, CUMBERALND COUNTY. DURING THIS CONTROLLED PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA YOUR AFFIANT DID GIVE $100 OF OFFICIAL FUNDS (U.S. CURRENCY) TO GEORGE HICKS JR. IN EXCHANGE FOR MARIJUANA. THIS EXCHANGE TOOK PLACE INSIDE 8 SOUTH HANOVER STREET, SUITE 208, IN THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE. A RECORDED PHONE CALL WAS PLACED TO GEORGE HICKS JR. PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA IN WHICH HICKS DID AGREE TO A SALE OF MARIJUANA FOR THE $100. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS CONDUCTED AND RECORDED YOUR AFFIANT ENTERING 8 SOUTH HANOVER STREET. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ALSO RECORDED GEORGE HICKS JR. ENTERING 8 SOUTH HANOVER STREET SEVERAL MINUTES AFTER YOUR AFFIANT HAD ENTERED THE BUILDING. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ALSO RECORDED YOUR AFFIANT AND GEORGE HICKS JR. EXITING 8 SOUTH HANOVER STREET TOGETHER AND AFTER A BRIEF CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOUR AFFIANT AND GEORGE HICKS JR. YOUR AFFIANT WALKS SOUTH ALONG HANOVER STREET AND GEORGE HICKS JR. WALKS NORTH ALONG HANOVER STREET. ON AUGUST 6, 2012 YOUR AFFIANT DID CONDUCT A CONTROLLED PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM GEORGE HICKS JR. AT 8 S. HANOVER 14%?EING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO THE LAW, DEPOSE AND S AT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE FOREGOING AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST r0I NOWLE I O MATION AND BELIEF. j 07 (Signature of Affiant) Sworn to me and subscrib d be re me this day of ? - ( Z -- Date My commission expires first L/day of January, ['t 20120806 213136 1 c, I z- 2 Magisterial District Judge Page 1 of 1 POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT eFFineVIT mNTINHATION PAGE Docket Number: Date Filed: OTNILiveScan Number 2 fl 12 n f n 0 nt Number CAR Defendant Name: ---S First: Middle: Last: GEORGE THOMAS HICKS JR AFFIDAVIT of PROBABLE CAUSE CONTINUATION STREET, SUITE 208, IN THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY. YOUR AFFIANT MET WITH GEORGE HICKS JR. INSIDE OF 8 S. HANOVER STREET, SUITE 208, AND DID EXCHANGE $200 OF OFFICIAL FUNDS, U.S. CURRENCY FOR MARIJUANA. THE CONVERSATION WITH GEORGE HICKS JR. DURING THE CONTROLLED PURCHASE OF THE MARIJUANA WAS RECORDED. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE DID RECORD YOUR AFFIANT ENTERING 8 S. HANOVER STREET AS WELL AS GEORGE HICKS JR. ENTERING 8 S. HANOVER STREET. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ALSO RECORDED YOUR AFFIANT AND GEORGE HICKS JR. LEAVING 8 S. HANOVER STREET AT THE SAME TIME AND WAKLKING SOUTH ALONG HANOVER STREET TOGETHER FOR A SHORT DISTANCE. (Signature of Affiant) 20120806 213136 Page 2 of 1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA County of: CUMBRImAM Mn., fm' No 09-2-02 MC 1 W- JESSICA BREWBAKER 18 p H!ll91C)VBR ST STE 106 CA LISLE,PA 17013 (717) 240-6564 WARRANT OF ARREST Commonwealth of Pennsylvania VS. T NAME wn ADDRESS 7- LC_ c v1?S? ?':?' lRl a 3 Complaint No: Docket No: Charging Officer: NCIC OFF: Date Filed: OOC: OTN: WARRANT ID: Warrant Control No: Issued Far: Reason for Warrant: V 011 -. Charge(s): Offense Date TO POLICE OFFICER: In toe name of th Commonw It hof Pennsylvania. you are commanded to take the defendant, z . into custody. When the defendant is taken into custody. bring th defendant before me at the court address snown above to answer the complaint of C 1SIX BORO _ charging the defendant with the offense(s) set forth above and further to be dealt with according to law. Witness the hand and official sea! of the issuing author SEAL' u: . r 1 131 this day of • F r ?r (Signature) J MAG _ DIST _ JUDGE Page 1 of 2 AOPC 417E-0± WARRANT OF ARREST RETURN WHERE DEFENDANT FOUND By authority of this warrant, on I took into custody the within named ? before you for disposition. El in the RETURN WHERE DEFENDANT IS NOT FOUND 0 After careful search. 1 cannot find the within named defendant. (signature o Police Officer - Name and Title) Officer's Costs: --- Warrant Miles @ C _ i Commitments Miles @ C Conveying to hearing Miles @ c _ 1 Total DEFENDANT CONTACT INFORMATION and he/she is Prison. ADDRESS TELEPHONE: C _ t DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION: LiveScan Tracking Number Social Security Number D(State Identification Number) Driver's License License State Expiration Date Information Il Number Plate um r - I tale az nat eglstration Sticker omm e n coo eh. e . DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION AGE I RACE ETHNICITY GENDER EYE COLOR HAIR COLOR DATE OF RTH WEIGHTI Ibs> HEIGHT Int NCIC Extradition Code Description Distance ALIAS Mag. Dist. No: 09 - 2 - Q2 NAG. DIST. JUDGE AOPC 417FA-07 Docket Number: Warrant ID: 20 Page 2 of 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF EX REL. DAVID J. FREED, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN4A DISTRICT ATTORNEY C- ;,- OF M _• v ;rJ (7) CUMBERLAND COUNTY V .rr GEORGE T. HICKS., JR., - BOROUGH OF CARLISLE -' TAX COLLECTOR -` - CIVIL NO. 12-4914 Civil Term SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, this 8th day of August,2012,upon motion of Commonwealth for special relief in accordance with the provisions f Pa.R.Civ.P. § 1531(a)and(d),IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DIRECTED that George T. Hicks, Jr. is enjoined from performing the duties f Carlisle Borough Tax Collector pending the resolution of the complai t filed in quo warranto by the Commonwealth Ex Rel. David J. Free , Esq., District Attorney of Cumberland County. FURTHER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DIRECTED that Carlisle Borough, in the person of Owen A. Snyder, Financial Director, may perform t le duties of Tax Collector for the Borough of Carlisle, and up n agreement, for the taxing districts of Cumberland County and Carlisle School District, with all the rights and privileges associated with said office, specifically to include, but not limited to: access to the physical location of the Office of Carlisle Borough Tax Collector, Suite 212, 8 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013; collection of all Carlisle Borough tax related records, including Cumberland Coun y and Carlisle Area School District, wherever they may be found o include but not limited electronic media with associated software aid passwords, cash disbursement journal, cash collection journal, any cash on hand to include checks and other remittance not yet deposited, record of unremitted taxes, exoneration records, tax bills, interim tax bills, tax certification requests, taxpayer refund file E, outstanding tax certifications, paid tax records, tax duplicat s documents, address change reports, payover records for 1) Carlisle Borough, 2) Cumberland County, 3) Carlisle Area School District, etc.; access to all bank accounts associated with the Office of Carlisle Borough Tax Collector to include but not limited to bank account, banking agreements, banking signature documents, bank statements, bark reconciliations, signature authority to endorse checks made payable to George T. Hicks, Jr., Tax Collector and authority to disperse said funds in an appropriate manner; and the authority to forward Unit d States mail addressed to George T. Hicks, Jr., Tax Collector, Suite 212, 8 South Hannover Street, Carlisle PA 17013 to the Borough Carlisle and collect/open said mail. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531, a hearing is scheduled for Monday, August 13, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. SERVICE OF THIS Preliminary Order and Notice of the time and place of the aforementioned hearing shall be effectuated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on the relation of the District Attorney. PROOF OF SERVICE shall be filed at the above-captioned docket number prior to the hearing. BY THE COURT, _ A/c Christyl L. Peck, J. Office of the District Attorney rej George T. Hicks, Jr. > ?a 8 South Hanover Street 1 Suite 212 Carlisle, PA 17013 George T. Hicks, Jr. 114 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 y COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, EX REL. DAVID J. FREED, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. GEORGE T. HICKS., JR., BOROUGH OF CARLISLE TAX COLLECTOR Cl) na IN THE COURT OF COMMON PI- (' rlj : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY x I$r. z:zj z?'Z < ?. r CIVIL NO. ORDER OF COURT C;.. AND NOW, this day of August, 2012, upon consideration of the within Complaint in Quo Warranto and prayer for Special Relief, an Rule is issued upon George T. Hicks, Jr., Carlisle Borough Tax Collector to show cause, if any he may have, why the prayer of the said Complaint should not be granted entering special relief against George T. Hicks, Jr. Rule is returnable and to be heard on the ? day of 2012, at /G'.3 6 o'clock fg.M., in Courtroom No. Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, Christylj?b Peck J. Matthew P. Smith Chief Deputy District Attorney IeliveCe- 1 ha?? /7 George T. Hicks, Jr., Respondent / $' Ija Office of the Carlisle Borough Tax Collector D 8 South Hannover Street, Suite 212 Carlisle, PA 17013 Office of the Court Administrator COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, EX REL. DAVID J. FREED, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. GEORGE T. HICKS., JR., BOROUGH OF CARLISLE TAX COLLECTOR CIVIL NO. 12-4914 CIVIL TERM AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE rn Xb- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) C= ' = SS: t ?s COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Cam' ;?- Before me, the undersigned officer° personally apmatreZ Matthew P. Smith, Chief Deputy District Attorney of CumbL!-rrld County, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he served a true and correct copy of the Order of Special Relief, Order of Court and Complaint in Quo Warranto and Special Relief in the above-captioned matter on George T. Hicks, Jr., Respondent, by handing said document to George T. Hicks, Jr., at approximately 1219 hours on Tuesday, August 07, 2012. Matthew P. Smith Subscribed and sworn to before me this __X..:_'day of August, 2012. Notary Public Sonia B. WW, *0000 MOO Carlisle Boo, C=bwWW Co=tY ^. I f'. ,, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA EX REL. DAVID J. FREED, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION-LAW V. S'AY' NO. 12-4914 CIVIL TERM GEORGE T. HICKS, JR., rrr, 4= BOROUGH OF CARLISLE r` TAX COLLECTOR c RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT IN QUO WARRANTO AND SPECIAL LIfy AND NOW comes respondent George T. Hicks, JR by and through his counsel Karl Rominger, Esq. and answers as follows: 1. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the duly elected district attorney. To the assertions are made about a rule of civil procedure the rules speak for themselves. 2. It is admitted. 3. It is a legal conclusion and no answer is required. To the extent answer required it is being denied and strict proof of same is demanded at trial. 4. It is a legal conclusion and no answer is required. To the extent answer required it is being denied and strict proof of same is demanded at trial. 5. It is a legal conclusion and no answer is required. To the extent answer required it is being denied and strict proof of same is demanded at trial. 6. It is a legal conclusion and no answer is required. To the extent answer required it is being denied and strict proof of same is demanded at trial. By way of furth answer the Constitution mentions "convicted" not charged. 7. It is a legal conclusion and no answer is required. To the extent answer required it is being denied and strict proof of same is demanded at trial. -r_ is is is is is 8. It is a legal conclusion and no answer is required. To the extent answer is required it is being denied and strict proof of same is demanded at trial. By way of furter answer this is not a matter of blocking the appointment of someone's office, but rather the removal of somebody duly seated and vested in the cloak of office. Therefore case law relied upon is distinguishable, as it did not remove anyone from office nor enjoin them from acting, but rather found their appointment a nullity. "For the reasons expressed in this opinion, the Court grants special and summary relief to the Attorney General in the nature of a declaratory judgment that the September 3, 20D4 appointment by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, H. William DeWeese, of Respondent Coy to the Gaming Control Board was null and void ab initio" Commonwealth rel. Pappert v. Coy, 860 A.2d 1201, 1209 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004) (emphasis added) 9. It is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required strict proof of same is demanded at trial. 10. No answer required. 11. Denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 12. Denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 13. Is admitted. 14. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 18. Denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of fury answer most of the public is acquainted with marijuana, and most if not all of the last modern Presidents of the United States has imbibed or ingested at least marijuana if cocaine, and the use of marijuana does not per se render one unfit for office. 19. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required same is denied and strict proof is demanded. 20. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required same is denied and strict proof is demanded. 21. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deer required same is denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer there is allegation public funds were procured for the purchase or sale of marijuana, besides v speculation by the government itself. 22. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is d required same is denied and strict proof is demanded. The only public hue and cry likely be a result of this filing by the government, nothing else. One cannot whip up the circurr for ones own ends, and come to the Court of Equity with clean hands. 23. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required same is denied and strict proof is demanded. The condition before the unlawful conduct was that respondent held an office and acted in that office. To that would be to not restore the status quo, but create a new quo. 24. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is de( required same is denied and strict proof is demanded. 25. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is dee required same is denied and strict proof is demanded. Respondent is already subject to a piece requiring no further criminal conduct. 26. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is de( required same is denied and strict proof is demanded. Further it is ironic that Commonwealth would rely upon Justice Larsen for his words in the SSpykerman deci as it was Justice Larsen himself who had the full protections of due process in his rem from the Supreme Court. Perhaps his irony was intentional. 27. Conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent answer is required proof is demanded. WHEREFORE Respondent requests the relief requested be DENIED. Date: August 10, 2012 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA EX REL. DAVID J. FREED, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. GEORGE T. HICKS, JR., BOROUGH OF CARLISLE TAX COLLECTOR : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 12-4914 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, attorney for Petitioner, do hereby certify that I this served a copy of the Response to Complaint in Quo Warranto and Special Relief on following by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at C Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Matthew P. Smith Chief Deputy District Attorney 1 Courthouse Square Room 202 Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: August 10, 2012 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendant y COMMONWEALTH OF PA EX REL. DAVID J. FREED, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. ~' GEORGE T. HICKS, JR., BOROUGH OF CARLISLE TAX COLLECTOR IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2012-4914 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF '~, ORDER OF COURT ~' AND NOW, this 13th day of August, 2012, upon motion of the Commonwealth for special relief in accordance with the provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531, and after this matter having been scheduled for the five day hearing required under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531(d), and the parties having now come to an agreement and the Defendant not contesting the continuation ', of the special relief ex parte injunction previously issued ', and further pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil ProcedL 1531 that this Court issue an order resolving, continuing, or modifying the injunction, it is hereby ordered and directed that the Respondent, George T. Hicks, Jr., is enjoined from performing the duties of Carlisle Borough Tax Collector pending resolution of the complaint filed in quo warranto by the Commonwealth Ex Rel. David J. Freed, Esquire, District Attorney of Cumberland County. During th pendency of the quo warranto action to determine the right or title of George T. Hicks to hold public office and pursuant to a further agreement of the parties, the Respondent shall continue to receive all associated fees, certification fees, commissions, and salaries of said offic from Cumberland County, Carlisle School District, and Carlisle Borough taxing districts. Further, it is hereby ordered and directed that Carlisle Borough in the person of Owen A. Snyder, financial director, may perform the duties of tax collector for the Borough of Carlisle and upon agreement for the taxing district of Cumberland County and Carlisle School District with all the rights and privileges associated with that office specifically to include, but not be limited to: access to the physical location of the office of Carlisle I~ Borough Tax Collector, Suite 212, 8 South Hanover Street, I~! Carlisle, PA, 17013; collection of all Carlisle Borough ', tax-related records including Cumberland County and Carlis School District wherever they may be found to include, but not limited to, electronic media with associated software and passwords, cash disbursement journal, cash collection journal, any cash on hand to include checks and other remittances not yet deposited, record of unremitted taxes, exoneration records, tax bills, interim tax bills, tax certification requests, taxpayer refund files, outstanding tax certifications, paid tax records, tax duplicate documents, address change reports, pay over records for: (1) Carlisle Borough, (2) Cumberland County, (3) Carlisle Area School District; access to all bank accounts associated witr the office of Carlisle Borough Tax Collector to include but not limited to bank accounts, banking agreements, banking signature documents, bank statements, bank reconciliations, signature authority to endorse the checks made payable to George T. Hicks, Jr., tax collector, and authority to disperse said funds in an appropriate manner; and the authority to forward United States mail addressed to George T. Hicks, Jr., tax collector, Suite 212, 8 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA, 17013, to the Borough of Carlisle and to collect and open said mail. By the Court, ~, / ....~ -~ to r" ~. Christyl L . Peck, J . --:,~ cn ~TM rj r ' Matthew P. Smith, Esquire - h~~.Uv£~c~ =--+ ~ Chief Deputy District Attorney ./Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Private Counsel mimes D. Flower, Jr., Esquire Solicitor for Carlisle Area School District lfh ~p t~~S ff'1 aZ ~ ~~-~ 8 ~s~i ~ ~r~ ~..,, ~~' r=.. ~~ ~~` _3.. ~:.; =.~x --, f-- .,