Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-3809 tTI4 Cep CI Davit/D. 0u4- (o i ; .=.-f_ Q Renee R, Simpson 0 Prothonotary \ ,\\ ,.yi Deputy Prothonotary so 7(JrkS. Sohonage, ESQ Irene E. Morrow Solicitor 2"‘Deputy(Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, (Pennsylvania Shelby J. Unger-Bacz OL3927 July 2, 2013 Dear Ms. Unger-Bacz; According to PA Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 205.5, a Civil Cover Sheet is required for you to file along with your Petition for leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Writ of Summons. Since we did not receive a Civil Cover Sheet from you, we have enclosed one for you to fill out and return to our office. Sincerely, David D. Buell PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square• Suite 100•Carfule, TA 17013 • (717)240-6195• ''ax(717)240-6573 Supreme Courtof Pennsylvania Court,of Common Pleas For Prothonotary Use Only: Civil Cover Sheet . Docket No: ( umojd ,- `'� County 13- 3$©q U.lvtl 601 The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. Th,in l!t*s rati..� supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law ois ourfti,r_ Commencement of Action: cn r-- — --, S O Complaint Writ of Summons 0 Petition -<> N c? 0 Transfer from Another Jurisdiction 0 Declaration of Taking <C Er>r*- r)_1 CLead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: — :, T 51-461-1 -1 v NG ER- &Acz PAT E-kik L G UT'K 1 t ry Dollar Amount Requested: 0within arbitration limits I Are money damages requested? NI Yes 0 No (check one) 0 outside arbitration limits 0 N Is this a Class Action Suit? 0 Yes No Is this an MDJAppeal? 0 Yes 0 No A Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: NEL. UNGEk- EA G'2 CI Check here if you have no attorney(are a Self-Represented [Pro Se] Litigant) Nature of the Case: Place an"X"to the left of thartase category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim,check the one that you consider most important. TORT(do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS 0 Intentional 0 Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies O Malicious Prosecution 0 Debt Collection: Credit Card 0 Board of Assessment O Motor Vehicle 0 Debt Collection: Other 0 Board of Elections O Nuisance 0 Dept.of Transportation 0 Premises Liability 0 Statutory Appeal: Other S 0 Product Liability (does not include Emass tort) 0 Employment Dispute: 0 Slander/Libel/Defamation Discrimination C 0 Other: 0 Employment Dispute: Other 0 Zoning Board T, 0 Other: I • 0 Other: 0 MASS TORT M Asbestos N 0 Tobacco O Toxic Tort-DES O Toxic Tort Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS 0 Toxic Waste ® Other: 0 Ejectment 0 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration B 0 Eminent Domain/Condemnation 0 Declaratory Judgment O Ground Rent 0 Mandamus O Landlord/Tenant Dispute 0 Non-Domestic Relations O Mortgage Foreclosure:Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY 0 Mortgage Foreclosure:Commercial 0 Quo Warranto 0 Dental 0 Partition 0 Replevin Legal (EX `•'VE,c'E42 ). 0 Quiet Title 0 Other: Medical 0 Other: O Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA SHELBY J. UNGER—BACZ • CIVIL COURT Plaintiff • V. : Case No.: of 20 ARTHUR L. GUTKIN i3 380c/ �iVi lerni Defendant • PETITION FOR LEAVE TO r- PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPER'S t coC!) y-n L c � is 1. I am the plaintiff in the above matter and because of my financial condition am m -01-n unable to pay the fees and costs of prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding. : � 2. I am unable to obtain funds from anyone, including my family and associates, to pay �� tv the cost of litigation. 3. I represent that the information below relating to my inability to pay the fees and r E- costs is true and correct: (a) Name: Shelby J. Unger—Bacz ;. Address: DOC#OL3927SCI Cambridge Springs Social Security Number: 204-48-8110 (b) Employment: none If you are presently employed, state Employer: n/a Address: Salary of Wages per month: Type of Work: If you are presently unemployed, state Date of last employment: n/a Salary of Wages per month: Type of Work: (c) Other income within the past twelve months Business of Profession: . none Other self employment: prison wages .42/hr. Interest: none Dividends: none Pension and Annuities: none Social Security Benefits: none Support Payments: none Disability Payments: none Unemployment Compensation and Supplemental Benefits: none Workman's Compensation: none Public Assistance: none Other: none (d) Other contributions to household support (wife)(husband)Name: Bryan J. Bacz, DECEASED • If you (wife) (husband) is employed, state Employer: n/a Salary of Wages per month: Type of Work: Contributions from children: Contributions from parents: Other contributions: (e) Property Owned Cash: none Checking Account: none n Savings Account: none none Certificates of Deposit: e Real Estate (including home): none Motor Vehicle: Make: n/a Year: Cost: Amount Owed: Stocks; Bonds: none Other: none (f) Debts and Obligations Mortgage: none Rent: none Loans: nonP Other: costs/fines $80,000 + (g) Persons dependent upon you for support (Wife) (Husband) Name: deceased Children, if any: Name: Zachary A. Bacz Age: 14 Jacob T. Bacz Age: 12 Age: Other persons: Name: none Relationship: 4. I understand that I have a continuing obligation to inform the court of improvement in my financial circumstances which would permit me to pay the costs incurred herein. 5. I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. 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. DATE June 27, 2013 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5 day of C) .- c — , g (Op 0 n rri 01 c.... zm = z7" (I)I__ 1 denied leave to -<> c < CD proceed in Forma Pauperis and file instant petition without payment of court costs = cp consideration of the Petition before this Court, Petitioner fees. IN TI-IE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION SHELBY J. UNGER-BACZ Plaintiff • VS. •• No(s) ARTHUR L. GUTKIN Defendant •• • PROOF OF SERVICE 1, Shelby J. Unger—Bacz , defendant herein, do her�tswear that on the 27th day of June , 20 13 , served Ff's won the following persons and in the manner indicated, which satisfies the requirements of the Pa.R.A.P § 121: Cleric of C to t O ±erlard C)•ax:y Ocurthase 1 Cturthalse Square Girl isle, PA 17013 Submitted by: Shelby J. Unger-Bacz, #OL3927 SCI-Cambridge Springs 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403-1238 Cr") 1—.0 -r, WRIT OF SUMMONS ir�J r r^r-z -< N Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ' County of Cumberland _ r C Shelby J. Unger-Bacz, - Plaintiff Civil Action v. • n fo5o Senir Pl�u% • NO: 13- 3809 l�i vi I TXM Arthur L. Gutkin, r Defendant BI+ B il, PA IQ L61a To:Arthur L. Gutkin (Name of defendant) You are hereby notified that Shelby J. Li-par-Balm (name(s) of plaintiff(s)) has (have) commenced an action against you. (Name of Prothonotary or Clerk) B : (Deputy) (Date) 7/a//3 (Seal of the Court) ©2013 Matthew Bender&Company, Inc.,a member of the LexisNexis Group.All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement. SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny RAnderson iLL0°CFri E Sheriff " 1 HE P R0THONO T,rj Jody S Smith l_ � : Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart ` CUMBERLAND COW4TY Solicitor ""F 'A t PENNSYLVANIA Shelby Unger-Bacz Case Number vs. 2013-3809 Arthur L Gutkin SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 07/08/2013 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit:Arthur L Gutkin, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Montgomery, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. . 07/15/2013 10:45 AM -The requested Writ of Summons returned by the Sheriff of Montgomery County,the within named Defendant Arthur L Gutkin, not found. Eileen W. Behr, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. SO ANSWERS, July 22, 2013 RONW R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (c)CountySuite Sheriff,Teleosoft,Inc. 13co,2y;,,3 e�-11 F-/ SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson *'. a�tir��v of Ctttnbrp:{t��� Sheriff q Jody S Smith * Richard W Stewart Chief Deputy OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Solicitor Shelby Unger-Baez vs. Case Number Arthur L Gutkin 2013-3809 a SERVICE COVER SHEET N c Service Details: o Category: Civil Action-Writ of Summons Zone: ---- x Manner: IDeputize Expires: 08/01/2013 Warrant: W N Notes: a ua Serve To: Final,Service: ui m Name: Arthur L Gutkin Served: Person Ily-Adult In Charge Pasted Other m Primary., 650 Sentry Parkway Adult In Address: Suite 1 Charge: _ ----- \ tW_- Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: DOB: Relation: Alternate Date: Time: j0q Address: a Phone: Deputy= tt. Mileage: Attorrneyl0�nator: w Name: Phone: a us Service Attempts: Date: Time: ca c? Mileage: ry Q Deputy: 9 2 3 5 $ N Notes/Special Instructions: 2,0 IV 0 � / y t.. ................................................................................................................................ July�0 8,2013 I, Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery County to i2e ecute V"r vice of the documents herewith and make return thereof according to law. 1y` 1 7i-rlanfebunty Sheriffs Office t9 On ourthouse Square ('sZ Carlisle;PA 17013 Ronny R Anderson, Sheriff (e,Cc untySurle Sheri(t,Teteoso t,Inc, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ""AUG 13, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA^JU;1.1 E} a }� rEWis y yA p4 1,A Shelby Unger-Bacz, ) Case No. : No. 2013-3809 Plaintiff, ) Civil Term VS. ) Arthur L. Gutkin, ) Defendant ) COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL SUIT 1. The Plaintiff, Shelby Unger-Bacz, is currently residing at SCI- Cambridge Springs, 451 Fullerton Avenue, Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania until her pending release date of December 12, 2013 . 2. The Plaintiff seeks to file a civil suit against Defendant, Arthur L. Gutkin. 3 . The last known address of the Defendant is 650 Sentry Pkwy. Ste. One, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422. 4. The Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages in the amount of $ 35, 000 from Defendant for legal malpractice, charging excessive fees, and breach of contract. 5. Plaintiff paid her former attorney, Arthur L. Gutkin (Defendant) , a total amount exceeding $ 45-50, 000 for legal representation that included a criminal jury trial, domestic relations conferences, and a magistrate hearing. 6. The Plaintiff is seeking partial damages due to the failure of Defendant to satisfy contractual obligations per a "verbal" fee agreement made between the Plaintiff and Defendant. 7. Plaintiff avers that the "verbal" fee agreement included legal representation by Defendant for her criminal trial, any successive appeals up to and including county, state and federal appellate courts, and expert witness testimony at her jury trial. According to Defendant when the "verbal" fee agreement was reached, it would cost "$ 20-25, 00 for an expert witness to testify" at Plaintiff's trial, but Defendant never hired the expert to appear. 8. Plaintiff avers that Defendant only represented her at jury trial for three (3) days, offered up deficient representation, and only filed one appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania—not Supreme nor Federal Courts. 9. Plaintiff avers that Defendant was paid $ 45, 000 for her criminal trial, $ 5, 000 for representation at a magistrate hearing in Dauphin County, and $ 3, 000 for Domestic Relations hearing representation. 10. Plaintiff was never provided receipts of payment, but does have documentation that Defendant agrees that she paid him $ 45, 000. 11. Plaintiff has sought out actions by the Disciplinary Board and the Montgomery County Bar Association Fee Dispute Committee to remedy this breach and come to an amicable agreement to satisfy both parties, to no avail. 12. Plaintiff also filed a Post Conviction Relief Act Petition in this Court to bring to light the ineffective representation of the Defendant. Although this Court agreed that Defendant was ineffective, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the ineffectiveness did not rise to the level that would have changed the outcome of Plaintiff's trial. Although, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania did not render Defendant's representation as effective. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this court grant this complaint pursuant to PA R.C.P. 304. Respectfully Submitted, Shelby Unger-Bacz, Pro Se OL3927 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403-1238 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Shelby Unger-Bacz, ) Case No. : No. 2013-3809 Plaintiff, ) Civil Term VS. ) Arthur L. Gutkin, ) Defendant ) DECLARATION I, Shelby Unger-Bacz, Plaintiff herein, do hereby swear and verify that statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. 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. Date Shelby Unger-Bacz, Pro Se OL3927 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403-1238 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Shelby Unger-Bacz, ) Case No. : No. 2013-3809 Plaintiff, ) Civil Term VS. ) Arthur L. Gutkin, ) Defendant ) PROOF OF SERVICE I, Shelby Unger-Bacz, Plaintiff herein, do hereby swear that on the 11 44IN day of served Complaint for Civil Suit and Motion for Service by Publication on the following persons and in the manner indicated which satisfies the requirements of the PA R.A.P. § 121. David D. Buell Cumberland County Prothonotary t�3 2 cc jam) Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully Submitted, Date Shelby Unger-Bacz, Pro Se OL3927 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403-1238 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor Shelby Unger-Bacz vs. Case Number Arthur L Gutkin 2013-3809 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 07/08/2013 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: Arthur L Gutkin, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Montgomery, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 07/15/2013 10:45 AM-The requested Writ of Summons returned by the Sheriff of Montgomery County, the within named Defendant Arthur L Gutkin, not found. Eileen W. Behr, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. 1 SO ANSW ,_ERSS a-,2 July 22, 2013 RONW R ANDERSON, SHERIFF r-A . (c)CountySuite Sheriff,Teleosoft.Inc. SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson ��ti„4;, Sheriff y, Jody S Smith Richard W Stewart Chief Deputy 0;:RCE OF Tk -![ F:IFF Solicitor Shelby Unger-Bacz l Case Number vs. Arthur L Gutkin 2013-3809 r SERVICE COVER SHEET 0 N C1 Category: 'Civil Action.--writ-of Summons Zone: h w Manner: Deputize Expires: 08/01/2013 Warrant: .__,___ ....__.__..__.-' N Notes: C14 i t a W w Name: 'Arthur L Gutkin Served. Person Ily Adult In Charge Posted Other Primaty . ntry Parkway Adult In Address. ,Suite 1 Charge: Lu ;Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: DOB: Relation: Alternate Date: (`3 (� Time: Y Address: __._._.._---- l , aa. Phone: ' Deputy: t� �� Mileage: ...j i- ;Attorney/Orrgrnator ,uj Name: Phone: I 0 Lo to Service Aftempts Z .�.w ._ 77 - 4 Date: o Time: 0 ”' Mileage: M r N Deputy Notes/Specs!Instrucfions` J � - 7r 4!.... ................................................................................................................... V1 "M July 8, 2013 I, Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery County to "e ecute emice of the documents herewith and make return thereof according to law. zy ` `vio: nom+ 6grlandeounty Sheriffs Office C7 One'.�ourthouse Square �\f/ Carlisf PA 17013 I< < Ronny R Anderson, Sheriff WEINRAUB & MILLER INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS-NOT A PARTNERSHIP SUITE 700 ONE MONTGOMERY PLAZA NORRISTOWN,PA 19401 LESTER G.WEINRAUB HAROLD E.VILETTO CHRISTOPHER B.SESSA+ TELEPHONE:(610)272-5585 STEPHEN E.MOORE FACSIMILE:(610)272-8512 FRED W.MILLER+ +ALSO ADMIMD IN N.J. July 15, 2011 Shelby Jane Unger-Bacz#OL3927 SCI—Cambridge Springs 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403-1238 Re: Fee Dispute Shelby Jane Unger-Bacz v. Arthur L. Gutkin, Esquire Dear Ms. Unger-Bacz: My letter to Attorney Gutkin was returned with a note, "Return, Not At This Address." As the address for Attorney Gutkin listed on the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania website (attached) lists the same address for Attorney Gutkin, I am unable to send the Client's Questionnaire and Agreement to Attorney Gutkin. In the absence of an agreement by the attorney to participate with the Montgomery Bar Association's Fee Dispute process, the Fee Dispute Committee can take no further action in this matter. I am sorry that we could not be of assistance to you in resolving this dispute. Very-truly yours, FreIA W. Miller, Chairman Fee Dispute Committee Montgomery Bar Association FVWmdk Enclosure Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 i 11-%Lell D� l cu of thi Supreme Court`of Penn Y lvanta, PA Attorney Information Arthur L. Gutkin PA Attorney ID: 12587 Current Status: Retired Date of 04/26/1971 Admission: Lawfirm:. Other Organization: District: 2 County: Montgomery Public Access 650 SENTRY PKWY STE ONE Address BLUE BELL,PA 19422 Tel: 610 828-5205. Fax: 215 701-4141 Comment: Discipline: 02007-2011 The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Disclaimer For questions or comments regarding the website,please contact us at comments(a,padisciplinaryboard.org. '7/1'2/1/111 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HE FP 1 L) 1I ( lj (i?ii CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 013 AUG 13 CUMWRLANDCO f'E !WS YLVAJ41U'! Shelby Unger-Bacz, ) Case No. : No. 2013-3809 Plaintiff, ) Civil Term VS. ) MOTION FOR SPECIAL ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO PA Arthur L. Gutkin, ) R.C.P. RULE 430 ) Defendant ) Plaintiff, Shelby Unger-Bacz, pursuant to PA R.C.P. 430, respectfully moves this Court for a Special Order of the complaint in this action by publication. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff avers the following: 1. The instant action concerns a breach of contract/legal malpractice action filed by Plaintiff in relation to a verbal agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant for legal services. 2. Plaintiff has tried to contact Defendant, Arthur L. Gutkin on numerous occasions to no avail as follows: a. Plaintiff tried to telephone Defendant at 610-828-5205 and the number is out of service. b. Letter was returned "Not at this address" when Fred w. Miller from the Montgomery County Bar Association Fee Dispute Committee tried to deliver an agreement letter per correspondence dated July 15, 2011. C. Plaintiff sought Defendant's address through the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, which stated the last known address was 650 Sentry Pkwy. , Ste. One, Blue Bell, PA 19422. d. Plaintiff filed a "Writ of Summons" and "Sheriffs Summons" on June 27, 2013 . The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office tried to locate Arthur L. Gutkin on July 8, 2013 and was "unable to locate the Defendant" . Deputized Montgomery County Sheriff's Office returned the summons as "not found" on July 15, 2013 . The summons was returned "NO SERVICE" on July 22, 2013 . e. Plaintiff has tried to locate Defendant by computer search numerous times over the past few years to no avail. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a Special Order authorizing Plaintiff to advertise a NOTICE in the Cumberland County Legal Journal and Sentinel Newspaper. Respectfully Submitted, Dated this 71h day of August, 2013 �. Shelby ger- cz, Pro Se OL3927 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403 SHELBY UNGER-BACZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • V. • • ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, DEFENDANT : 13-3809 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this .314 day of September, 2013, the Motion for Service by Publication Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 430 is DENIED. Although Plaintiff's efforts to locate Defendant may be limited by her current circumstances, the nature and extent of her investigation of the whereabouts of Defendant thus far do not constitute a good faith effort justifying service by publication. By the Court, / Albert H. Masland, J. / Shelby Unger-Bacz, OL3927, Pro se 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403 :sal Copt Q) c: rna of) jnc "13 r.� t" -n <CD Za r --n P'C? T' g -•. Shelby J.Unger-Bacz,Pro Se /r ff U F/i 4, 4/0 1048 Kunkle Drive of '4,110 Chambersburg,PA 17202-8518 r 2 717-809-6904 or 717-446-0736 CUpi�}E f�, c shelbyjub @hotmail.com $ LIN /4/A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA SHELBY UNGER-BACZ, Case No.: 2013-3809 Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL TERM (AvnencL ) ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, MOTION FOR SPECIAL ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO Defendant PA R.C.P.RULE 430 Plaintiff, Shelby Unger-Bacz,pursuant to PA R.C.P.430,respectfully moves this Court for a Special Order of the complaint in this action by publication. In support of this Motion,Plaintiff avers the following: 1. The instant action concerns a breach of contract/legal malpractice action filed by Plaintiff in relation to a verbal agreement between Plaintiff, Shelby Unger-Bacz and Defendant,Arthur L. Gutkin,(hereafter"Gutkin")for legal services. 2. Plaintiff has tried to contact"Gutkin"on numerous occasions to no avail as follows: a. Plaintiff tried to telephone"Gutkin"at 610-828-5205 (the telephone number he gave to plaintiff when he represented her)and the number is now"out of service"and has been for quite a while. b. Letter was returned"Not at this address"when Fred W.Miller from the Montgomery County Bar Association Fee Dispute Committee tried to deliver an agreement letter per correspondence dated July 15,2011. CIVIL TERM MOTION FOR SPECIAL ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. RULE 430- 1 c. Plaintiff sought"Gutkin's"address through the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, which stated the last known address was 650 Sentry Pkwy., Ste. One.,Blue Bell,PA 19422. d. Plaintiff filed a"Writ of Summons"and"Sheriffs Summons"on June 27,2013. The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office tried to locate"Gutkin"on July 8,2013 and was "Unable to locate the Defendant". Deputized Montgomery County Sheriff's Office returned the summons as"Not Found"on July 15,2013. The summons was returned"NO SERVICE"on July 22,2013. e. Plaintiff was formerly incarcerated and did everything possible to locate"Gutkin"by her limited means over a period of years. f. On September 5,2013 Honorable Judge Albert H.Masland denied petitioner's"Motion for Service by Publication"due to petitioner's limited circumstances while being incarcerated and the nature and extent of her investigation did not constitute a good faith effort to justify service by publication. g. On December 15,2013. petitioner was released from prison and now has extended the nature and scope of her investigation to include everything listed on PA R.C.P.430 as required to satisfy a good faith effort as follows: h. On October 12,2013,petitioner filed a Right To Know Request to the US Post Office in Blue Bell,PA. Nobody from the office ever responded,so on or about January 15,2014, petitioner called the Right to Know Officer at the Blue Bell Post Office. He informed petitioner that unless she had an attorney file the request,he emphatically stated he would not give petitioner any information whatsoever about the whereabouts of"Gutkin". Petitioner explained that she was filing a civil suit"pro se"but the gentleman would not converse any further about the request. i. On October 12,2013,petitioner filed another Right To Know Request with the Open Records Office of the PA Department of Transportation. After an appeal process,a final determination was made on December 5,2013 that dismissed petitioner's request due to driver information being protected under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC §2721-2725. j. On December 31,2013,petitioner sought background information on Arthur L. Gutkin on "Intelius"web search engine that specializes in finding people,background checks,and CIVIL TERM MOTION FOR SPECIAL ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. RULE 430-2 criminal records checks. Petitioner found(11)eleven previous addresses associated with "Gutkin". k. On January 16,2014,petitioner checked property records on the official Montgomery County website and found no matches to"Gutkin"for the above(11)eleven previous addresses. 1. On January 16,2014,petitioner checked on the official Montgomery County website to see if any property records were listed under the name Arthur L. Gutkin. There were none and no matches were found. m. On January 16,2014,petitioner checked voter registration records on the Commonwealth of PA website and no records for Arthur L. Gutkin were found in either Montgomery County or the surrounding Philadelphia County. n. On January 16, 2014,petitioner searched for possible relatives to"Gutkin"that were listed on the"Intelius"search and found that Elise and Barbara Gutkin had no property or address records. Petitioner did find that Ari D. Gutkin listed an address at 507 Lincoln Ave. Pottstown,PA 19464. Petitioner then tried"411"to call this possible relation but there was no telephone number listed to that name or address. 3. Petitioner has enumerated and lettered the attachments to correspond with the numbers and letters in this motion for your Honor's convenience. Please see attached exhibits. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a Special Order authorizing Plaintiff to advertise a NOTICE in the Cumberland County Journal and Sentinel Newspaper. Respectfully Submitted, Dated this 22nd day of January,2014.. ik. ' 4 . 1,L v- L Shelby J.Un ar-Bacz,Prey Se (Shelby J.Bacz) CIVIL TERM MOTION FOR SPECIAL ORDER DIRECTING L SERVICE BY PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. RULE 430-3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Shelby Unger-Bacz, ) Case No. : No. 2013-3809 Plaintiff, ) Civil Term vs. ) ) Arthur L. Gutkin, ) Defendant ) ) DECLARATION I, Shelby Unger-Bacz, Plaintiff herein, do hereby swear and verify that statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. 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. ..2_Z_' � -. . Z _mo - Date Shelby Unger-Bacz, Pro Se IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Shelby Unger-Bacz, ) Case No. : No. 2013-3809 Plaintiff, ) Civil Term vs. ) Arthur L. Gutkin, ) Defendant ) PROOF OF SERVICE I, Shelby Unger-Bacz, Plaintiff herein, do hereby swear that on the 3 1 tf �d day of , 1014 , served Complaint for Civil Suit and Motion for Service by Publication on the following persons and in the manner indicated which satisfies the requirements of the PA R.A.P. § 121. David D. Buell Cumberland County Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully Submitted, \\Ski-W-6 Date Shelby Unger-Bacz, Pro Se • Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 • Theas. 1m . Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. PA Attorney Information Arthur L. Gutkin PA Attorney ID: 12587 •Current-Status: Retired . . Date of 04/26/1971 Admission: Lawfirm: Other Organization: District: 2 County: Montgomery Public Access 650 SENTRY PKWY STE ONE Address BLUE BELL,PA 19422 Tel: 610 828-5205. Fax: 215 701-4141 Comment: Discipline: ©2007-2011 The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. I Disclaimer For questions or comments regarding the website,please contact us at commentsna,,padisciplinarvboard.org. EX . • et- 1 http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa attorney_info.php?id=12587&pdcount=O 7/1 3/701 1 WEINRAUB & MILLER INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS-NOT A PARTNERSHIP SUITE 700 ONE MONTGOMERY PLAZA NORRISTOWN,PA 19401 LESTER G.WEINRAUB HAROLD E.VILEITO CHRISTOPHER B.SESSA+ TELEPHONE:(610)272-5585 STEPHEN E.MOORS FRED W.MILLER+ FACSIMILE:(610)272-8512 +ALSO ADMITTED IN NJ. • July 15, 2011 Shelby Jane Unger-Bacz#0L3927 SCI—Cambridge Springs 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403-1238 Re: Fee Dispute Shelby Jane Unger-Bacz v. Arthur L. Gutkin, Esquire Dear Ms. Unger-Bacz: My letter to Attorney Gutkin was returned with a note, "Return, Not At This Address." As the address for Attorney Gutkin listed on the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania website (attached) lists the same address for Attorney Gutkin, I am unable to send the Client's Questionnaire and Agreement to Attorney Gutkin. In the absence of an agreement by the attorney to participate with the Montgomery Bar Association's Fee Dispute process, the Fee Dispute Committee can take no further action in this matter. I am sorry that we could not be of assistance to you in resolving this dispute. Very-truly yours, rr re W. Miller Chairman Fee Dispute Committee Montgomery Bar Association FWM/mdk . Enclosure EX • b SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff t,0 Cluo pet Jody S Smith Chief Deputy per„-,270-;,r4, r;e3;31,�- Richard W Stewart Solicitor o1 r.i �=” Shelby Unger-Bacz Case Number vs. Arthur L Gutkin 2013-3809 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 07/08/2013 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit:Arthur L Gutkin, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick.The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Montgomery, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 07/15/2013 10:45 AM-The requested Writ of Summons returned by the Sheriff of Montgomery County,the within named Defendant Arthur L Gutkin, not found. Eileen W. Behr, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. SO ANSWERS, July 22, 2013 RONNY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF I, 1E' • • {c)CaunhiSuite Sheriff,Teleosoft.Inc. /3c09773 6/, g-/ -./_- SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson C�tin w al et`anirrrttr Sheriff } Jody S Smith "-:,t _4 "°°` Richard W Stewart Chief Deputy opr.:C�OF THE Skt-RIFF Solicitor Shelby Unger-Baez �7 Case Number vs. l 1,2_, Arthur L Gutkin 2013-3809 co SERVICE COVER SHEET O ,m z f s arl -�, xtxa T roar arsr -!-,!..,,::-77,1 ..-R++- .,,.d:.v.,.. :y r.$?.,rs� ".,.r.°`'i..<,'a,ca..,ea.' a.-`s,.A, - .ten•: °.,�-3u1 o Category: ;Civil Action-Writ of Summons �� _ _ I Zone: I x Manner: ;Deputize 1� Expires: 1. 08/01/2013 1 Warrant: 1 w _- _ c� al Notes: ^ m.�.._____.w_ .... ' _.._" `_� ,T.�,. __ ... ___ Tr i �Serue To s-..- -�'. W` ,r...'T, r e � ",- :�' .........e4 ,t] } _ 't �`. .A*ug:i�'igimac' szi .a^rs s^ 1 w r� - �x 4 Final Seru�da � ' m .n. .. .,.,Fil' ,..Zs t�,e»iA'j ....: �''r^.-41.kr,of iA.i.• � ^if. 4,i*YZ.a n. a., .�s_r... -- _- ? ._ .:....L.: .. u�..a,d Name: ;Arthur L Gutkin �_� I Served: Person-Ily-Adult In Charge• Posted - Other °° Primary ;650 Sentry Parkway Adult In i i Address: ;Suite 1 1 Charge: I. i� `'_,V1 ..�_-..,.. ;-1 Ili I— Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: i DOB: i Relation: slAlternate Date: -(�-( '3 Time: 10t4 S Address: i , cc ! a Phone:I Yv _ Deputy: 6!'" '�' a Mileage: } t . F- 11 rrorneyl Orrgmator ,w A _ , ,„2 ._ . . ... ts>€ �...z. ,E"fr.._u..su: _ „:....:= _ s 3. _ r 3 .1'w=:rte 3,....e 5r_ _ . _ 1,,A .;:^ .. a..,c. N Name: Phone: 1 • Se Ce Attemp#S,_ ' ro —Wr . . t r s � a e so ,-. - r .4 d -,# xr pe ,, w m,,y,. .,, . ' . : Date: c Time: I c "? Mileage: co N Deputy: .-^r 1s7� OnwP t 74*P-7171,�7": � W 7-'.:'7` v 1�i- �'IOte5✓� J1QC 4 ' -' c ' ' ,4 � .� ice, Pr, July 8, 2013 I, Sheriff of Cumberland`County, Pennsylvania do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery County to *`•' " e ecute 6ewice of the documents herewith and make return thereof according to law. Sgt 7 /"I r1anLounty Sheriffs Office 9 O c ne ourthouse Square X., -:' Carlis ;PA 17013 et • Ronny R Anderson, Sheriff CntultyStIciv 5rr-rit,•'Te:e&lt.Inc SHELBY UNGER-BACZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, : DEFENDANT : 13-3809 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of September, 2013, the Motion for.3421 Service by Publication Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 430 is DENIED. Although Plaintiff's efforts to locate Defendant may be limited by her current circumstances, the nature and extent of her investigation of the whereabouts of Defendant thus far do not constitute a good faith effort justifying service by publication. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Shelby Unger-Bacz, OL3927, Pro se 451 Fullerton Avenue Cambridge Springs, PA 16403 :sal rnco rn r*z w - r 231 Pa. Code Rule 430. Service Pursuant to Special Order of Court. Publication. Page 1 of 2 Pennsylvania i.C. ' `.`` PREVIOUS . NEXT CI 'IT'I"T E • IIROEVSL! . SLARCh - HOME �"fi,.U_ L21dE, 'T'oe: TOC SERVICE PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER OF COURT Rule 430. Service Pursuant to Special Order of Court.Publication. (a) If service cannot be made under the applicable rule the plaintiff may move the court for a special order directing the method of service. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the investigation which has been made to determine the whereabouts of the defendant and the reasons why service cannot be made. Official Note A sheriff's return of"not found" or the fact that a defendant has moved without leaving a new forwarding address is insufficient evidence of concealment. Gonzales v. Polls,238 Pa. Super. 362, 357 A.2d 580 (1976).Notice of intended adoption mailed to last known address requires a"good faith effort" to discover the correct address. Adoption of Walker, 468 Pa. 165, 360 A.2d 603 (1976). An illustration of a good faith effort to locate the defendant includes (1) inquiries of postal authorities including inquiries pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 39 CFR Part 265, (2)inquiries of relatives,neighbors,friends, and employers of the defendant, and(3) examinations of local telephone directories,voter registration records, local tax records,and motor vehicle records. (b)(1) If service of process by publication has been authorized by rule of civil procedure or order of court,the publication shall be by advertising a notice of the action once in the legal publication, if any,designated by the court for the publication of legal notices and in one newspaper of general circulation within the county. The publication shall contain the caption of the action and the names of the parties, state the nature of the action and conclude with a notice substantially in the following form: NOTICE If you wish to defend,you must enter a written appearance personally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the court. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against ..you without further notice for the relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money Or property or other rights important to you. EX • http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter400/s430. 1/16/2014 pennsytvania OFFICE OF OPEIi RECORDS STANDARD RIGHT-TO-KNOW REQUEST FORM DATE REQUESTED: r " REQUEST SUBMITTED BY: 11E-MAIL I U.S. MAIL 11 FAX DIN-PERSON REQUEST SUBMITTED TO(Agency name&address):U ;T CPPICe (c51 I: , iGuansvi, far P1 i942?.-5-115 NAME OF REQUESTER : S4 C-L(3-4 01\1660. - ,6ACZ. L31Z-7 STREET ADDRESS: t4 , CITY/STATE/COUNTY/ZlP(Required): CA 1/1,11 ne7e. (= 10013- I TELEPHONE(Optional): :s _ EMAIL(optional): ary . RECORDS REQUESTED: *Provide as much specific detail as possible so the agency can identify the information. Please use additional sheets if necessary fie-e E-kL 2'. L9 (;oTlet If1 .0 L poSIAN to C c_L ) t_ . " ipuLt e Can 't- i-` L . S ke—VVOWY-\ to50 an+e-,A Ste-. (ma-cis , DO YOU WANT COPIES? Qr NO DO YOU WANT TO INSPECT THE RECORDS. YE of-NO DO YOU WANT CERTIFIED COPIES OF RECORD ? ES or NO **PLEASE NOTE: RETAIN A COPY OF THIS REQUEST FOR YOUR FILES** **IT IS A REQUIRED DOCUMENT IF YOU WOULD NEED TO FILE AN APPEAL** FOR AGENCY USE ONLY RIGHT TO KNOW OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY: AGENCY FIVE(5)BUSINESS DAY RESPONSE DUE: **Public bodies may fill anonymous verbal or written requests_ If the requestor wishes to pursue the relief and remedies provided for in this Act, the request must be in writing. (Section 702) Written requests need not include an explanation why information is sought or the intended use of the information unless otherwise required by law. (Section 703.) ex . Eveler, Angela From: Eveler, Angela Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:44 AM To: Martin, Stephen (Legal) Cc: Krill, Kern Subject: RTKL Appeal; Unger-Bacz v. PennDOT-AP 2013-2105 Attachments: Unger-Bacz v DOT AP 2013-2105.pdf Dear Parties, Attached is the Final Determination issued today by the Office of Open Records concerning the above-referenced appeal. Thank you for your time and attention in this regard. Sincerely, Angela Eveler l Attorney Office of Open Records Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 4th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120-0225 Phone: 717-346-9903 1 aeveler@pa.cjov www.newPA.com I www.visitPA.com Confidentiality Notice:This electronic communication is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed.If received in error,please return to sender Sent to Shelby Unger-Bacz by regular mail • e . 1i ■IIIMIMINII ,..„ pennsylvania OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS STANDARD RIGHT-TO-KNOW REQUEST FORM DATE REQUESTED: I 0--12 REQUEST SUBMITTED BY: E-MAIL [Z U.S. MAIL ri FAX IN-PERSON REQUEST SUBMITTED TO(Agency name&address): ii OA _srvki-rt-+ , or'ef•-3 RE CC26c, cFF,'c OA 't, EP-C (P IVA1\131)Oi1ATi-6 IQ, IAA t2S.It SE,LIA.6 OA_ i i 1 0 NAME OF REQUESTER : C.L.--..1.2.94 et\J(.17 E.12 - (j L .N7-'i 277 STREET ADDRESS: i Fu'Luz:(z To Ni A V E i\J(.3e,--, CITYISTATE/COUNTY/ZIP(Required): CAvull3rZi 6(-A': SP(- „ P4 1( I-C3 -1 2.-381 TELEPHONE(Optional): il One, EMAIL(optional): V) RECORDS REQUESTED: *Provide as much specific detail as possible so the agency can identify the information. Please use additional sheets if necessary r. r Ofte_Ci CA.A.rUlki a,- CLCA...6-11._1-::`!--i , A KT-1-4 0 t_ 6 c IT K i it\-:.1 ...1_,. - rs oxy-N - ._.5-if-‘ c‘ :0._ a\i'4 k AA. .... .-i , . . _ . ___ , -, , ,-.1 -. - ci .-4_01..-‘,_, i" i ._› k_.: . A ce -\ 1 v N. _A _L-r) C\CIL.Cbti...,, S 0,,,L's0-1-.)- 1, ' ' I aL.L.i G IL2k7-1J __, CA i clq 2 DO YOU YOU WANT COPIES"( YES br NO DO YOU WANT TO INSPECT THE RECORDSr-NO DO YOU WANT CERTIFIED COPIES OF RECORDSbr NO 'PLEASE NOTE: RETAIN A COPY OF THIS REQUEST FOR YOUR FILES" "IT IS A REQUIRED DOCUMENT IF YOU WOULD NEED TO FILE AN APPEAL" FOR AGENCY USE ONLY RIGHT TO KNOW OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY: AGENCY FIVE(5) BUSINESS DAY RESPONSE DUE: **Public bodies may fill anonymous verbal or written requests. If the requestor wishes to pursue the relief and remedies provided for in this Act, the request must be in writing. (Section 702.) Written requests need not include an explanation why information is sought or the intended use of the information unless otherwise required bylaw. (Section 703.) IPT pennsytvania OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS FINAL DETERMINATION IN THE MATTER OF SHELBY UNGER-BACZ, Complainant v. Docket No.: AP 2013-2105 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent On October 18, 2013, Shelby Unger-Bacz ("Requester"), an inmate at SCI- Cambridge Springs, filed a request("Request")under the Right-to-Know Law, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq. ("RTKL") with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("Department") seeking a current address for Arthur L. Gutkin. On October 25,2013,the Department denied the Request, indicating that the information sought is located in a driver record, which is not available under the RTKL pursuant to the Commonwealth Court's decision in Advancement Project and Marian Schneider v. PA DOT, 60 A.3d 891 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). The Department stated that driver license information is _. _ _ available pursuant to the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa:C.S. § 6114 and 67 Pa. Code § 95.2(4 _ _ Further, the Department stated that, even if the information were subject to the RTKL, it would be exempt under 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(6), and subject to the limitations of the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §2721-2725. On November 6, 2013, the Requester filed an appeal with the Office of Open Records ("OOR") utilizing a standard appeal form. On November 12, 2013, the Department filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with 65 P.S. § 67.1101(a). A proper RTKL appeal must include the following: a copy of the Request; the agency's response, if any; a statement addressing why the record is a public record; and a statement addressing all grounds cited by the agency for denial of access. See OOR Interim Guidelines, Section III(B)(1); 65 P.S. § 67.1101(a). In the instant matter, the Requester failed to address the reasons given by the Department for denying her Request. See Department of Corrections v. OOR, 18 A.3d 429 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011); cf.Barnett v. Department of Public Welfare, 71 A.3d 399 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). On the appeal form, the Requester identifies the "grounds upon which she asserts the information requested is a public record" as "none." Under the section of the form that seeks for the Requester to "address any grounds relied upon by the agency for the denial of the request," the Requester merely lists the sections of law cited to by the Department in its denial letter. Nowhere in the appeal does the Requester address the reasons cited to by the Department for its denial or otherwise assert why disclosure of the information is proper. The appeal is therefore deficient and is dismissed as such. For the foregoing reasons, the appeari§— isiiiissed, and the Department is not required to take any further action. This Final Determination is binding on all parties. Within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Final Determination, any party may appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. 65 P.S. § 67.1301(a). All parties and the OOR must be served with notice of the appeal and have an opportunity to respond according to court rules as per Section 1303. This Final Determination shall be placed on the OOR website at:http://openrecords.state.pa.us. FINAL DETERMINATION ISSUED AND MAILED: December 5,2013 APPEALS OFFICER ANGELA EVELER,ESQ. Sent to: Shelby Unger-Bacz; Stephen F.J.Martin,Esq. (via e-mail only) 2 Run a Background Check or Criminal Background Checks with Intelius Page 1 of 2 •"' ' ! ! f LikO 'i9.3icI F ��_ T3�. [Jae in the know.- _— People Search Report for Arthur Gutkin is This.You?Claim Your Profile ( Click these individual sections to view your report 1 4 I Report Summary i People Search Report r People Search Report 1 What is a People Search Report? —�� View All 1 This section lists current and historical people search records that share the same name and state as your search subject. iThe People Search Summary can be helpful in providing a consolidated view of matching current and historical records for i your subjects name across multiple public sources. Available Addons: f i Nance/Aliases )Address 1 Phone __.___ Previous Cities __ n Phone And 1 1 Arthur L Gutkin I Address 1: 1 North Wales,PA Report s Peck+ 1 IE ArthurGS.4kin z .,.1 128 Stefan RD Conshohocken,PA ..__-__.... j I !Arthur L Est North Wales,PA 19454 Harleysville,PR Ka i ( Blue Bell,PA _.-Criminal Check 1 More info 1 j Address 2: Lansdale,PA Addon 1 l - --- • ..`}610 Conshohocken RD Lafayette Hill,PA DOB:Mar 29th,1945 !Conshohocken.PA 19428 Norristown,PA ......: 1 1(610)828-5205 Business People i AGE:68 years old Complete Background Check Search ) ' RELATIVES: 1 Address 3: j € / I' 2.1 918 Fayette ST } Barbara Gutkin(67) 1 Corrhohar ken PA 19428 Email Lookup Ad Gutkin(37) :"; .: S Elise Gut)dn(41) (610)828 5205• 4 3 Address 4: W 902 Continental DR I I Harleysville,PA 19438 j 1(215)855-8909 i 1 j i Address 5: ( k 1100 E Hector ST I '{' Conshohocken,PA 19428 (610)828-5205 I_ i g I Address 6: 1 / V)j ,. 17 Ramsgate CT Blue Bell,PA 19422 ii (610)828-5205 i I Address?: I 9 110W Hector ST ( 1 Conshohocken,PA 19428 i 1 j Address 8: 201 N Broad ST I i Lansdale,PA 19446 I , I Address 9: i -:_ti..f15RdgE 1 !Conshohocken,PA 19428 tt 1 ( 1 Address 10: 1 144 Red Rambler DR ; 1 t 1 1 Lafayette Hill,PA 19444 l . ij 1 ! f • • https://www.intelius.com/report.php.report ZGVOYW1sUmVwb3JOSU... 7 1/2013 .Run a Background Check or Criminal Background Checks with Intelius Page 2 of 2 s Address 11: } S 11 - r.'509WGermantovmPIKE t ` :I I Norristown,PA 19403 i I(304)742-3516 i t 1 I - ' I Related People Searches I ! I g • AR Gutkin . I I • Arther Gutkin 1 1 • Artie Gutkin I !I : • Artur Gutkin I I • Arturo Gutkin I I • Arty Gutkin• ( 1 s .. A Gutkin _ . I Thank you Your satisfaction is our number one priority.Your feedback helps us deliver i the best experience and customer satisfaction. 1 i i People Search - Updated Dailyy Accurate and Fast! People Search https://www.intelius;com/report.php?reportID ZGVOYW1sUmVwb3JOSU... 1 p =2013" • Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID: 560007222309 SPEIER WILLIAM F III&CONSTANCE 228 STEFAN RD Parcel I1/47 TaxMapID 56035E024 Parid 56-00-07222-30-9 Land Use Code 1101 Land Use Description R-SINGLE FAMILY Property Location 228 STEFAN RD Lot# 24 Lot Size 37187 SF Zoning R1 Front Feet 251 Municipality UPPER GWYNEDD School District NORTH PENN Utilities ALL PUBLIC// Owner Name(s) SPEIER WILLIAM F III&CONSTANCE Name(s) Mailing Address 228 STEFAN RD Care Of Mailing Address Mailing Address NORTH WALES PA 19454 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 281,640 281,640 Estimated Taxes County 888 Municipality 285 School District 6,395 Total 7,568 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 28-JAN-85 Sale Price $195,000 Tax Stamps 1950 Deed Book and Page - Grantor Grantee SPEIER WILLIAM F III &CONSTANCE Date Recorded Ex 0 K http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=5 600072223 09&gsp=... 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 I CONTACT US I HELP ��4ee + : MONTGOMERY COUNTY LA:J",_1- � 1 *g..;- P€NNSYt.VANIA • ',( Home Property Records Owner Name Address Parcel Advanced Map Search Sales Search by Direction Number Street* Suffix Unit# Property Address p v 1,610 t CONSHOHOCKEN RD v Filter By Municipality CONSHOHOCKEN V Options Sort by: Parcel ID V Ascending V Results/page: 15 V MEN * required Data Current as of 12/Jan/2014 Your search did not find any records. Suggestions: • check that you entered the number correctly • try using another search method If you continue to have problems locating a specific record,please contact us for further assistance. Data Copyright Montgomery County,PA[Disclaimer] [Privacy Policy] Last Updated: 12/Jan/2014 Site Design Copyright 1999-2012 Tyler Technologies.All rights reserved. http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/search/CommonSearch.aspx?mode=ADDRESS 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID:400057376004 MAIORINO MATTHEW&JILL 610 CONSHOHOCKEN STATE RD Parcel TaxMapID 40005G023 Parid 40-00-57376-00-4 Land Use Code 1101 Land Use Description R-SINGLE FAMILY Property Location 610 CONSHOHOCKEN STATE RD Lot# Lot Size 32100 SF Zoning R1 Front Feet 164 Municipality LOWER MERION School District LOWER MERION Utilities ALL PUBLIC// Owner Name(s) MAIORINO MATTHEW&JILL Name(s) Mailing Address 610 CONSHOHOCKEN STATE RD Care Of Mailing Address p Mailing Address PENN VALLEY PA 19072 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 402,260 402,260 Estimated Taxes County 1,268 Municipality 1,685 School District 9,808 Total 12,761 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 06-NOV-13 Sale Price $695,000 Tax Stamps 6950 Deed Book and Page 5895-00834 Grantor GLICKSTEIN MELVIN Grantee MAIORINO MATTHEW&JILL Date Recorded 07-NOV-13 • http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=400057376004&gsp=... 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID:050003008002 DIRENZO NICHOLAS&REGINA 918 FAYETTE ST Parcel TaxMapID 05044 022 Parid 05-00-03008-00-2 Land Use Code 1160 Land Use Description C-RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL NON-CONFORM Property Location 918 FAYETTE ST Lot# Lot Size 3623 SF Zoning R2 Front Feet 19 Municipality CONSHOHOCKEN School District COLONIAL Utilities ALL PUBLIC// Owner Name(s) DIRENZO NICHOLAS&REGINA Name(s) Mailing Address 122 KIRK ST Care Of Mailing Address Mailing Address CONSHOHOCKEN PA 19428 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 107,150 107,150 Estimated Taxes County 338 Municipality 375 School District 2,100 Total 2,813 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 28-MAR-08 Sale Price $245,000 Tax Stamps 2450 Deed Book and Page 5692-00143 Grantor MCDONALD ROBIN &DICKS KAREN Grantee DIRENZO NICHOLAS&REGINA Date Recorded 09-MAY-08 http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=050003008002&gsp=... 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID: 530002025307 BOCCHINFUSO REGINA 902 CONTINENTAL DR Parcel TaxMapID 53003A196 Parid 53-00-02025-30-7 Land Use Code 1188 Land Use Description R-CONDO TOWNHOUSE Property Location 902 CONTINENTAL DR BLDG 18 CONDO 227 Lot# Lot Size 1703 SF Zoning GA Front Feet Municipality TOWAMENCIN School District NORTH PENN Utilities ALL PUBLIC// Owner Name(s) BOCCHINFUSO REGINA Name(s) Mailing Address 902 CONTINENTAL DR Care Of Mailing Address Mailing Address HARLEYSVILLE PA 19438 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 75,010 75,010 Estimated Taxes County 236 Municipality 286 School District 1,703 Total 2,225 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 25-OCT-02 Sale Price $127,500 Tax Stamps 1275 Deed Book and Page 5433-01933 Grantor DICKS KAREN E&MCDONALD ROBIN Grantee BOCCHINFUSO REGINA Date Recorded 13-NOV-02 http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=530002025307&gsp=... 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID: 650005581006 IMD ELEVEN HUNDRED EAST HECTOR ST LP& 1100 E HECTOR ST s Parcel TaxMapID 65013 001 Parid 65-00-05581-00-6 Land Use Code 3348 Land Use Description I-INDUST CMPLX CONVERT TO MULTITENANT Property Location 1100 E HECTOR ST Lot# Lot Size 28.87 ACRES Zoning HVY 1 Front Feet 4119 Municipality WHITEMARSH School District COLONIAL Utilities ALL PUBLIC// Owner Name(s) IMD ELEVEN HUNDRED EAST HECTOR ST LP& Name(s) SPRING MILL CONSHOHOCKEN LP Mailing Address 101 RICHARDSON ST Care Of KALMON DOLGIN ASSOCIATES Mailing Address Mailing Address BROOKLYN NY 11211 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 27,566,093 27,566,093 Estimated Taxes County 86,888 Municipality 56,177 School District 540,315 Total 683,380 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 08-DEC-06 Sale Price $61,000,000 Tax Stamps 610000 Deed Book and Page 5631-00461 Grantor LEE PARK INVESTORS LP Grantee IMD ELEVEN HUNDRED EAST HECTOR ST LP& Date Recorded 12-JAN-07 http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=650005581006&gsp=... 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID: 660004611209 WRIGHT WAYNE R&ANDRIEN DIANE M 17 RAMSGATE CT 6 Parcel TaxMapID 66021A170 Parid 66-00-04611-20-9 Land Use Code 1188 Land Use Description R-CONDO TOWNHOUSE Property Location 17 RAMSGATE CT BLDG 208 U-17 Lot# Lot Size 1562 SF Zoning R3 Front Feet Municipality WHITPAIN School District WISSAHICKON Utilities ALL PUBLIC// Owner Name(s) WRIGHT WAYNE R&ANDRIEN DIANE M Name(s) Mailing Address 17 RAMSGATE CT Care Of Mailing Address Mailing Address BLUE BELL PA 19422 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 151,030 151,030 Estimated Taxes County 476 Municipality 483 School District 2,707 Total 3,666 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 12-SEP-07 Sale Price $326,900 Tax Stamps 3269 Deed Book and Page 5668-00673 Grantor OXFORD OF BLUE BELL LP Grantee WRIGHT WAYNE R&ANDRIEN DIANE M Date Recorded 11-OCT-07 http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=660004611209&gsp=... 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 I CONTACT US I HELP , � ft*, MONTGOMERY COUNTY " LPE.NNSYLVANIA , Home Property Records Owner Name Address Parcel Advanced Map Search Sales Search by Direction Number Street* Suffix Unit# Property Address W v 110 I ,HECTOR ST v Filter By Municipality -Any- V Options Sort by Parcel ID V Ascending V Results/page: 15 V * required Data Current as of 12/Jan/2014 Your search did not find any records. Suggestions: • check that you entered the number correctly • try using another search method If you continue to have problems locating a specific record,please contact us for further assistance. Data Copyright Montgomery County,PA[Disclaimer] [Privacy Policy] Last Updated: 12/Jan/2014 Site Design Copyright 1999-2012 Tyler Technologies.All rights reserved. http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/search/CommonSearch.aspx?mode=ADDRESS 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 I CONTACT US I HELP ittair .r4- a 11 �7vdV/11I�']a A y/ .', it • Home Property Records Owner Name Address Parcel Advanced Map Search Sales Q ' Search by Direction Number Street* Suffix Unit# Property Address _ N v 201 BROAD ST u Municipality Filter By LANSDALE V Options Sort by: Parcel ID V Ascending V Results/page: 15 V * required Data Current as of 12/Jan/2014 Your search did not find any records. Suggestions: • check that you entered the number correctly • try using another search method If you continue to have problems locating a specific record,please contact us for further assistance. Data Copyright Montgomery County,PA[Disclaimer] [Privacy Policy] Last Updated: 12/Jan/2014 Site Design Copyright 1999-2012 Tyler Technologies.All rights reserved. http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/search/CommonSearch.aspx?mode=ADDRESS 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 I CONTACT US I HELP . uf ._ • liJ 1,4 ,y d V r7 1 A ,. I✓ M j Home Property Records (,„) .1 Owner Name Address Parcel Advanced Map Search Sales \, 1 Search by Direction Number Street* Suffix Unit# Property Address N v ' BROAD ST V Filter By Municipality LANSDALE v Options Sort by: Parcel ID V Ascending v Results/page: 15 v =Ma * required Data Current as of 12/Jan/2014 Click rows to view property details Results 1-15 of 83 Parcel IDA Owner Name Property Address Sales Date Sales LUC Altid Amount 110000568006 LAMBROU JOHN 211 N BROAD ST 04/07/1998 570000 4232 11015 012 110000572002 LAMBROU JOHN N BROAD ST 04/07/1998 0 4275 11015 101 110000576007 HAUSNER CORP 213 N BROAD ST 06/08/2004 275000 4346 11015 011 110000576016 BRUNO JOHN J 211-213 N BROAD ST 06/08/2004 275000 4345 11015 110 110000576025 BRUNO JOHN J 211-213 N BROAD ST 06/08/2004 0 4345 11015 111 110000576034 GBA SUPPORT SERVICES LLC 211-213 N BROAD ST 04/18/2005 150000 4345 11015 112 110000576043 HAUSNER CORP 213 N BROAD ST N/A 4345 11015 113 110000576052 WAITE TIMOTHY 213 N BROAD ST 03/03/2008 4345 11015 114 110000576061 WAITE TIMOTHY 213 N BROAD ST 03/03/2008 319000 4345 11015 115 110000580003 GHOTRA ENTERPRISE LLC 291 N BROAD ST 02/13/2007 600000 4260 11015 010 110000588004 MARUWA LLC 331 N BROAD ST 05/15/2008 360000 4100 11015 107 110000592009 COMMUNITY HOUSING SERVICES 311 N BROAD ST 02/27/2003 650000 5900 11015 009 110000596005 COOPER WILLIAM RIDGE III 333 N BROAD ST 01/01/1968 0 4100 11015 008 110000600001 ITEXCELL LLC 335 N BROAD ST 02/21/2003 196000 4100 11015 007 110000604006 ETERNAL LIFE CHRISTIAN 337 N BROAD ST 10/31/2013 172000 5000 11015 006 CENTER... Results Page: [1]2 3 4 5 6 Next>> a Printable Version Data Copyright Montgomery County,PA[Disclaimer] [Privacy Policy] Last Updated: 12/Jan/2014 Site Design Copyright 1999-2012 Tyler Technologies.All rights reserved. http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/search/CommonSearch.aspx?mode=ADDRESS 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 I CONTACT US I HELP ,P - W0 LZ/4ailL3 / Home Property Records : Owner Name Address Parcel Advanced Map Search Sales Search by Direction Number Street* Suffix Unit# � ' v i;- Property Address E v5 RDG _ [ Filter By Municipality -Any- v Options Sort by: Parcel ID v Ascending v Results/page: 15 V SEARCH * required Data Current as of 12/Jan/2014 Your search did not find any records. Suggestions: • check that you entered the number correctly • try using another search method If you continue to have problems locating a specific record,please contact us for further assistance. Data Copyright Montgomery County, PA[Disclaimer] [Privacy Policy] Last Updated: 12/Jan/2014 Site Design Copyright 1999-2012 Tyler Technologies.All rights reserved. http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/search/CommonSearch.aspx?mode=ADDRESS 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID: 650009463003 ABELMAN ROBERT&BETH 144 RED RAMBLER DR Parcel U TaxMapID 65002A059 Parid 65-00-09463-00-3 Land Use Code 1101 Land Use Description R-SINGLE FAMILY Property Location 144 RED RAMBLER DR Lot# 41 Lot Size 12750 SF Zoning A Front Feet 85 Municipality WHITEMARSH School District COLONIAL Utilities ALL PUBLIC// Owner Name(s) ABELMAN ROBERT&BETH Name(s) Mailing Address 144 RED RAMBLER DR Care Of Mailing Address Mailing Address LAFAYETTE HILL PA 19444 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 221,400 221,400 Estimated Taxes County 698 Municipality 451 School District 4,340 Total 5,489 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 16-JUL-96 Sale Price $255,000 Tax Stamps 2550 Deed Book and Page 5155-0904 Grantor Grantee ABELMAN ROBERT&BETH Date Recorded 24-JUL-96 http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=650009463003&gsp=... 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID: 330003235008 KANG MEUNG S 509 W GERMANTOWN PIKE Parcel TaxMapID 33004C054 Parid 33-00-03235-00-8 Land Use Code 1101 Land Use Description R-SINGLE FAMILY Property Location 509 W GERMANTOWN PIKE Lot# Lot Size 20000 SF Zoning BR Front Feet 100 Municipality EAST NORRITON School District NORRISTOWN AREA ili i Ut t es PUBLIC SEWER/WELD Owner Name(s) KANG MEUNG S Name(s) Mailing Address 509 W GERMANTOWN PIKE Care Of Mailing Address Mailing Address EAST NORRITON PA 19403 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 124,060 124,060 Estimated Taxes County 391 Municipality 338 School District 3,938 Total 4,667 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 27-JUN-03 Sale Price $1 Tax Stamps Deed Book and Page 5423-01332 Grantor KANG SUNG S&MEUNG S Grantee KANG MEUNG S Date Recorded http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=330003235008&gsp=... 1/16/2014 ARTHUR L GUTKIN - Google Search Page 1 of 1 ARTHUR L GUTKIN Sign In Web Images Maps Shopping More- Search tools About 24,700 results(0.42 seconds) Gutkin Arthur L a wings Field https://plus.google.corn/105467029082235587254/about?gl=us&hl=en ��o. ° Advanced n Google+page Be the first to review CD e� 650 Sentry Pkwy,Blue Bell,PA 19422 (610)828-5205 Dr.Sannd P ye H.Desai,MD *to + r ‘>•-•- Arthur L Gutkin Attorney-Manta L / w www.manta.com/c/mmyk93w/arthur-I-gutkin-attomey- ` �.� ���t4 Arthur L Gutkin Attorney company _ ._-— .. _ y p y profle in Blue Bell,PA.Our free company profile Q report for Arthur L Gutkin Attorney includes ousmess information such as... Gutkin Arthur L Gutkin,Arthur L-Business-LehighValleyLive.com businessfinder.lehighvalleylive.com/gutkin-arthur-I-gutkin-arthur-l-cons...- Directions , Be the first to review Gutkin,Arthur L-Gutkin Arthur L at 918 Fayette St,Conshohodcen,.,PA 19428. -- _ - _ Gutkin,Arthur L-Local Businesses-PennLive.com Address:650 Sentry Pkwy,Blue Bell,PA 19422 businessfinder.pennlive.com/gutkin-arthur-I-gutkln-arthur-I-conshohodt...- Phone:(610)828-5205 Gutkin,Arthur L-Gutkin Arthur L at 918 Fayette St,Conshohocken PA 19428. Reviews Arthur L Gutkin,Conshohocken-Legal Services Conshohocken Be the first to review pa.yalwa.com>Legal>Legal Services Conshohocken C:=° Legal Services:Arthur L Gutkin in Conshohocken with/address/telephone/map and morel Are you the business owner? Feed! Arthur L Gutkin-Fayette St,Conshohocken-Yalwa pa.yaiwa.com>Legal>Legal Services Conshohocken 4:=, Legal Services:Arthur L Gutkin-Fayette St in Conshohocken with/address /telephone/map and morel 1 Arthur L Gutkin in Blue Bell,PA 19422 Directions.Location and Map... www.mapquest.com/maps?name=Arthur%20L%20Gutkin... Our interactive map lets you view,print,or send to your phone directions to and from Arthur L Gutkin,650 Sentry P Ste 1 Blue BeIl,,P„A 19422,and view the... Arthur L Gutkin Conshohocken I CorpFire corpfire.com>Professional Services>Conshohocken,Pa- c---) Everything about Arthur L Gutkin in C�..onsh,ohocken,.PA3Find phone numbers, directions,competitors,reviews,a descnptio i of Arthur L Gutkin and more for free. Gutkin,Arthur L-Lawyer Map www.lawyer-map.com/Gutkin_Arthur L_Gutkin_Arthur L_Lawyers_i...- 1::=-9 Learn more about Gutkin,Arthur L-Gutkin Arthur L in Blue Bell Pennsylvania(fees, qualifications,contact information and law firm overview'---' Gutkin Arthur L in Blue Bell,PA-Information and Directions www.citysearch.00m)Blue Bell>Attorneys&Legal Services>Attorneys- 1=75Gutkin Arthur L in Blue Bell,PA.Come to Citysearch®to get information,directions, and reviews on Gutkin Arthur L and other Attorneys in Blue Bell,PA. Gutkin,Arthur L-Facebook Cwww.facebook.com/search.php?...Gutkin%2C+Arthur+L+_+Gutkin+Arth... Search Results for Gutkin,Arthur L-Gutkin Arthur L.No results found for your query. Check your spelling or try another term. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Help Send feedback Privacy&Terms https://www.google.com/ 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 CONTACT US I HELP 4k• uisrhzirtwagiu Home Property Records \\ Owner Name Address Parcel Advanced Map Search Sales Search by Name* UTKIN ARTHUR L. Owner Name , (-7 Type in:LastName FirstName Filter By Options Sort b : Parcel ID v Ascending v P y 9 Results/page: 15 V IIIMEM * required Data Current as of 12/Jan/2014 Your search did not find any records. Suggestions: • check that you entered the number correctly • try using another search method If you continue to have problems locating a specific record,please contact us for further assistance. Data Copyright Montgomery County,PA[Disclaimer] [Privacy Policy] Last Updated: 12/Jan/2014 Site Design Copyright 1999-2012 Tyler Technologies.All rights reserved. Ex . L http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/search/CommonSearch.aspx?mode=OWNER (171:672014-' ''Voter Registration Status Page 1 of 1 SURE Portal HomeIND VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS Version en Espanol Login — —� Absentee Ballot Application Search for voter registration status (Active or Inactive), party affiliation, and the polling place gr Portal de address. SURE County Contact List (Please note that all fields with an(*)must be completed,and the first and last names must match Election Event Calendar those on the voter registration record.You can leave Middle Name and Suffix blank.) Tom Corbett Governor Carol Aichele Election Night Returns Secretary of the Commonwealth Find Voter Registration Status Select a County• MONTGOMERY Enter First Name* Arthur Find Voter Application Status Enter Middle Name L. Find Your Polling Place Enter Last Name* Gutkin Voter Registration Select a Suffix I 131; Provisional Ballot Search Enter Date of Birth(mm/dd/yyyy)* 03/29/1945 SURE Forum Continue Voter Hall of Fame VRMA Reporting and Ordering Report Election Complaints No Voter Registration information could be found for the data provided.Either search again using different data or contact your County Voter Registration Office. Co ad 10110 CopyrightO 2002 Pennsylvania Department of State.NI Rights Reserved. Commonwealth of PA Prtvary Statement • Ec . tY\ https://www.pavoterservices.state.pa.us/Pages/voterregistrationstatus.aspx 01716/2014 'Voter Registration Status Page 1 of 1 SURE Portal Home FIND VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS Version en Login Espanol Absentee Ballot Application Search for voter registration status(Active or Inactive), party affiliation, and the polling place r Portal de address. SURE County Contact List (Please note that all fields with an(*)must be completed,and the first and last names must match Election Event Calendar those on the voter registration record.You can leave Middle Name and Suffix blank.) Tom Corbett Governor Carol Aiehele Election Night Returns Secretary of the Commonwealth Select a County*;PHILADELPHIA Find Voter Registration Status Find Voter Application Status Enter First Name* Arthur Find Your Polling Place Enter Middle Name L. Enter Last Name* Gutkin Voter Registration .-- .. . —_ Select a Suffix, 1131; Provisional Ballot Search Enter Date of Birth(mm/dd/yyyy)"103/29/1945 SURE Forum Continue Voter Hall of Fame VRMA Reporting and Ordering Report Election Complaints No Voter Registration information could be found for the data provided.Either search again using different data or contact your County Voter Registration Office. Contact fA b. IfORw copyrighto2002 Pennsylvania Department of State.An Rights Reserved. Commonwealth of PA Pdvacv Statement https://www.pavoterservices.state.pa.us/Pages/voterregistrationstatus.aspx 1716/201-4 - Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 I CONTACT US I HELP Lja *``p, MONTGOMERY COUNTY P€NNSYLVAN4A Home Property Records Owner Name Address Parcel Advanced Map Search Sales Search by y Name* GUTKIN ELISE _ �,�Owner Name Type in:LastName FirstName Filter By Options Sort by: Parcel ID Ascending u Results/page: 15 * required Data Current as of 12/Jan/2014 Your search did not find any records. • Suggestions: • check that you entered the number correctly • try using another search method If you continue to have problems locating a specific record,please contact us for further assistance. Data Copyright Montgomery County,PA[Disclaimer] [Privacy Policy] Last Updated: 12/Jan/2014 Site Design Copyright 1999-2012 Tyler Technologies.All rights reserved. Ex . n http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/search/CommonSearch.aspx?mode=OWNER 1/16/2014 Montgomery, Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 I CONTACT US I HELP : [P,P ti �'W X311 T J� - V Home Property Records _----- — T Owner Name Address Parcel Advanced Map Search Sales Search by }� L U —� _ y / Name GUTKIN BARBARA �Owner Name ._ Type in:LastName FirstName -"Filter By Options Sort by: Parcel ID V Ascending V Results/page: 15 V inEen. * required Data Current as of 12/Jan/2014 Your search did not find any records. Suggestions: • check that you entered the number correctly • try using another search method If you continue to have problems locating a specific record,please contact us for further assistance. Data Copyright Montgomery County,PA[Disclaimer] [Privacy Policy] Last Updated: 12/Jan/2014 Site Design Copyright 1999-2012 Tyler Technologies.All rights reserved. http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/search/CommonSearch.aspx?mode=OWNER 1/16/2014 Montgomery,Pennsylvania Page 1 of 1 PARID: 160019112006 GUTKIN ARID 507 LINCOLN AVE Parcel TaxMapID 16086 012 Parid 16-00-19112-00-6 Land Use Code 1101 Land Use Description R-SINGLE FAMILY Property Location 507 LINCOLN AVE Lot# Lot Size 5875 SF Zoning RMHD Front Feet 30 Municipality POTTSTOWN School District POTTSTOWN Utilities ALL PUBLIC// • Owner Names) GUTKIN ARI D 2114 Name(s) nit) ��� � � Mailing Address 507 LINCOLN AVE Care Of Mailing Address C)r Mailing Address POTTSTOWN PA 19464 Current Assessment Appraised Value Assessed Value Restrict Code 54,910 54,910 Estimated Taxes County 173 Municipality 561 School District 2,095 Total 2,829 Tax Lien No Last Sale Sale Date 15-FEB-11 Sale Price $90,000 Tax Stamps 900 Deed Book and Page 5810-01480 Grantor NATIONAL RESIDENTIAL NOMINEE Grantee GUTKIN ARI D Date Recorded 17-AUG-11 http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=160019112006&gsp=... 1/16/2014 January 23, 2014 Mr. David Buell,Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle,PA 17013 • RE: Unger-Bacz v. Gutkin Case No. 2013-3809 Civil Term Dear Prothonotary Buell: Enclosed please find an amended Motion for Service by Publication. I originally submitted this motion on August 7, 2013 and Judge Masland denied the motion because I had not been able to investigate Mr. Gutkin's whereabouts extensively enough due to my incarceration. I am happy to say I am home now and have done extensive inquiries into his whereabouts but have come up with nothing. So, I am submitting another motion to see if this is enough to justify a good faith effort according to PA RCP 430. Please forward the motion to Judge Masland as he is the one handling this case. Thank you once again for your assistance in this matter. Have a great day. Sincerely, 4 Shelby J. Unger-Bacz • (Shelby J. Baez) 11 r■kpe Chi-,bbd , Pa gi 8 1(1-- 'Oct-(4)90'4 S.ei �b e IAG� -c .cevAi SHELBY UNGER-BACZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, DEFENDANT 13-3809 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Zday of February, 2014, upon consideration of the Motion for Service by Publication filed by Plaintiff, Shelby Unger-Bacz, and the documentation attached thereto, that Motion is DENIED as Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a sufficiently diligent effort to personally serve the Defendant, Arthur L. Gutkin. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, /Shelby Unger-Bacz, 01-3927, Pro se 1048 Kunkle Drive Chambersburg, PA 17202-8518 �,I :sal � � � � � r•- � � ,� Cz a -gym --: -'O r-C..s, •.t O C Shelby Unger-Bacz Plaintiff vs Arthur L. Gutkin Defendant In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. 1 3-3809 PRAECIPE Civil Term -pm - • cr) ---k Kindly reinstate the above captioned Complaint for Civil Suit that was originally time-stamped as August 13, 2013. Shelby Unger cz, David D. Buell, Prothonotary Attorney Info: Shelby Unger-Bacz, Pro Se 1031 Kunkle Drive 20 , 2014 Chambersburg, PA 17202 717-809-6904 ey for aintiff 11.75 pa -PT ik .)11S91L002fs, P--k ?OLIN) SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff 01 COM Jody S Smith r41,0 Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart CUfIS� =�3� tRLAND COUNTY Solicitor PENNSYLVANIA Shelby Unger-Bacz vs. Case Number Arthur L Gutkin 2013-3809 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 04/08/2014 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit:Arthur L Gutkin, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Montgomery, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 04/24/2014 09:15 AM -The requested Writ of Summons served by the Sheriff of Montgomery County upon Jen Pantano, who accepted for Arthur L Gutkin, at 309 N. Sunnytown Pike, North Wales, PA 19454. Russell Bono, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. SO ANSWERS, April 28, 2014 RONNY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF OM& ,LITLILAKIS Craig E. Kauzlarich, Esquire Attorney I.D. #:208858 2 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 SHELBY J. UNGER-BACZ Plaintiff v. ARTHUR L. GUTKIN Defendant 7THEPip tiON TA 2014 Pfd y 12 PM 2: 4 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO.: 13-3809 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION — LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Shelbyville Unger-Bacz 1048 Kunkle Drive Chambersburg, PA 17202-8518 Pro Se Plaintiff YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. THE WITHIN PLEADING IS HEREBY CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE. Dated: BY: Respectfully submitted, ABO j/I & KUT LAKIS, L.L.P. C aaig E. Kauzlarich, Esquire Attorney ID #208858 2 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 Attorney for Defendant OM& ,LITLILAKIS Craig E. Kauzlarich, Esquire Attorney I.D. #: 208858 2 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 SHELBY J. UNGER-BACZ Plaintiff v. ARTHUR L. GUTKIN Defendant : IN THE COURT : CUMBERLAND : DOCKET NO.: CD zw `x};- ^�' -.< Uzi =tt. OF COMMON PLEAS :ca.' ry C-. COUNTY, PENNSYLVAI -o; (.7-.)-v-; Z cD 13-3809 CIVIL TERM;> al : CIVIL ACTION — LAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ;v AND NOW, this 12th day of May, 2014, comes the Defendant, Arthur Gutkin, by and through his counsel, Craig E. Kauzlarich, Esquire, of Abom & Kutulakis, LLP and brings the following Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, and in support thereof, respectfully avers as follows: 1. On or about August 13, 2013, Plaintiff, Shelbyville Unger-Bacz,pro se, brought this cause of action against Defendant by filing a Complaint. 2. Defendant was served with process on April 26, 2014. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore, Defendant brings the within Preliminary Objections. LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO PA.R.CIV.P. 1042.3 — LACK OF CERTIFICATE OF MERIT 4. The preceding averments are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. 5. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Defendant for Malpractice. 6. Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1042.3, (a) In any action based upon an allegation that a licensed professional deviated from an acceptable professional standard, the attorney for the plaintiff, of the plaintiff if not represented, shall file with the complaint or within sixty days after the filing of the complaint, a certificate of merit signed by the attorney or party that either (1) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standard and that such conduct was a cause in bringing the harm, or (2) the claim that the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard, or (3) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim. 7. Plaintiff's complaint fails to satisfy any of the subsections. WHEREFORE, due to Plaintiff's failure to establish a legally sufficient claim, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be stricken. LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO PA.R.CIV.P. 1028(a)(7) Failure to Exercise or Exhaust Statutory Remedies 8. The preceding averments are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. 9. "[A] plaintiff will not prevail in an action in criminal malpractice unless and until he has pursued post -trial remedies and obtained relief which was dependent upon attorney error." Bailey v. Tucker, 621 A.2d 108, 115, 533 Pa. 237, 251 (1993). 10. Bailey further holds that successfully obtaining post -trial relief is necessary but not sufficient to make out a case for malpractice. 11. Plaintiff's Complaint concedes that her Post -Conviction Relief Act Petition ("PCRA") was unsuccessful. (P. 12). 12. Although the Honorable Judge Masland denied a new trial and granted a sentencing hearing, the Superior Court reversed the later decision. See Commonwealth v. Unger- Bacz, 1048 MDA 2011 (Pa. Super. 2011), attached. 13. Counsel is presumed effective unless and until found to be ineffective. Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012). WHEREFORE, due to Plaintiff's failure to establish a legally sufficient claim, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be stricken. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 14. In Pennsylvania, an action in tort for legal malpractice must be brought within two (2) years of the time the malpractice occurred. Moore v. McComsey, 313 Pa. Super. 264, 459 A.2d 841 (1983) 15. In a malpractice action following representation in a criminal case, the statute of limitations is tolled until termination of the attorney-client relationship. Robbins & Seventko Orthopedic Surgeons, Inc. v. Geisenberger, 674 A.2d 244, 248 (Pa. Super. 1996) citing Bailey v. Tucker, 621 A.2d 108, 116, 533 Pa. 237, 253 (1993). 16. On October 16, 2008, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley appointed Plaintiff new counsel in the criminal case. 17. Petition for Allowance of Appeal was filed with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by court-appointed counsel on December 15, 2008 and denied May 13, 2009, at docket 386 MAL 2008. 18. Under the framework provided by Robbins and Bailey, Plaintiff was required to file this action no later than two (2) years from October 16, 2008. 19. Under Bailey, even though a criminal defendant asserting malpractice is required to first seek PCRA and other post -trial relief, malpractice plaintiff is not exempt "from filing the action within the prescribed statute of limitations period." Bailey, 533 Pa. at 251 n. 13, 621 A.2d at 115 n. 13. Plaintiffs must file their malpractice action within the statute in order to put the attorney -defendants on notice. However, the pendency of PCRA and other post -trial relief may require malpractice proceedings be stayed. 20. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 5525(a)(3), insomuch as Plaintiff avers breach of verbal contract, such action is subject to a four (4) year limitation period. Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Pa. 2004). 21. A cause of action based on negligent breach of contract runs from when the negligence occurred, or at least when the plaintiff could have known of the attorney's breach, even if that is before any harm actually occurred. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Ferretti, 2007 Pa. Super. 320 (2007); Garcia v. Community Legal Services Corp., 362 Pa. Super. 484, 524 A.2d 980 (1987). 22. Appeal of the underlying action upon which the claim of malpractice is based does not operate to toll the statute of limitations. Robbins; Garcia. Nor does continuous representation by the attorney toll the statute of limitations. Glenbrook Leasing Co. v. Beausang. 839 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. 2003), aif'd per curiam, 564 Pa. 129, 881 A.2d 1266 (2005). 23. As stated herein, Plaintiffs complaint lacks specificity regarding counts, alleged misconduct and damages. However, if Plaintiff is claiming wrongful conviction based upon Defendant's alleged negligent breach of contract, the four (4) year limitation period began when Plaintiff was sentenced on December 16, 2006 because, under her theory, breach occurred during trial and Plaintiff could have known of this purported breach upon being sentenced. 24. If, on the other hand, Plaintiff is claiming contractual breach for failure or refusal to seek review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and/or Federal Courts, such breach would have occurred no later than December 15, 2008, when court-appointed counsel filed Petition for Allowance of Appeal. Accordingly, under this theory, the absolute latest day to file civil complaint was December 15, 2012. 25. Under either construction, Plaintiffs Complaint is time bared. WHEREFORE, due to Plaintiffs failure to establish a legally sufficient claim, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be stricken. LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY PURSUANT TO PA.R.CIV.P. 1090(f) 26. The preceding averments are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. 27. Averments of time, place and items of special damage shall be specifically stated. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(f). 28. Plaintiffs complaint avers Defendant represented her as counsel in several matters but fails to state dates of any kind. In fact, the only date appearing in the Complaint is the Prothonotary's timestamp. WHEREFORE, due to Plaintiffs failure to establish a legally sufficient claim, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be stricken. LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SEPARATE COUNTS AND SEPARATE DEMANDS FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO PA.R.CIV.P. 1020 29. The preceding averments are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. 30. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1020 requires each cause of action and any special damages related thereto be stated in a separate counts containing a demand for relief. 31. Plaintiffs "Complaint of Civil Suit" contains a single, undivided list of averments and single request for relief, but seeks relief for malpractice, "excessive fees", and breach of verbal contract. 32. Plaintiffs Complaint is therefore not in conformance with Pa.R.Civ.P. 1020. WHEREFORE, due to Plaintiffs failure to establish a legally sufficient claim, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be stricken. LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT IN REGARDS TO MONETARY DAMAGES AND AMOUNT 33. The preceding averments are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. 34. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Defendant for damages. 35. To recover monetary damages due to malpractice by a criminal defense attorney, a plaintiff must show she is indeed innocent of the crime and that wrongful conviction occurred due to counsel's gross dereliction in his duty to represent defendant. If a defendant is convicted of a crime because of counsel's inadequate representation, but cannot establish actual innocence by preponderance, justice is satisfied by grant of a new trial. Bailey v. Tucker, 621 A.2d 108, 113, 533 Pa. 237, 247 (1993). 36. Plaintiff's Complaint does not aver her actual innocence'. 37. The Complaint also fails to state any facts upon which the amount of damages sought ($35,000) may be calculated, in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a), which requires that "the material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." 38. Plaintiff acknowledges Defendant represented her at "criminal jury trial, domestic relations conferences, and,a magistrate hearing." (P. 5). However, Plaintiff does not plead a theory of malpractice regarding the domestic relations nor magistrate cases. WHEREFORE, due to Plaintiff's failure to establish a legally sufficient claim in Damages, Defendant respectfully request that Plaintiff's $35,000 in damages claim be stricken or amended. Dated: VP -y BY: Respectfully submitted, ABO & KUTU . ,. S, LLP Craig Kauzlaric ,squire Attorney ID # 208858 2 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 Attorney for Defendant ' In fact, as cited by the Superior Court, Plaintiff testified at trial that she and a co-defendant transported about fourteen (14) ounces of cocaine from New York to Pennsylvania approximately ten (10) times, but asserted a defense of duress, which the Jury rejected. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE And now this 12th day of May, 2014, I, Sally J. Evans, of Abom & Kutulakis, LLP, hereby certify that I did serve PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED ORDER OF COURT were served via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Shelbyville Unger-Bacz 1048 Kunkle Drive Chambersburg, PA 17202-8518 A12035-12 NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHELBY UNGER-BACZ, Appellant Appellee No. 1048 MDA 2011 Appeal from the Order Dated May 13, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP -21 -CR -0002-2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, . IN THE SUPERIOROURT OF PENNSYLV1,4 Appellee t-� . i v -n N o .� O (--) D e cn Appellant No. 1124 EM 201'1 V. SHELBY UNGER-BACZ, Appeal from the Order Dated May 13, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP -21 -CR -0002382-2005; CP -21 -CR -0002383-2005 BEFORE: GANTMAN, LAZARUS, AND MUNDY, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, 3.: FILED JULY 12, 2012 The Commonwealth appeals from the portion of the May 13, 2011 order granting, Appellee, Shelby Unger-Bacz, relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Appellee, in turn, cross-appeals from the portion of the May 13, 2011 order denying her 1-A12035-12 remaining claims for relief under the PCRA.1 After careful review, we reverse the portion of the PCRA court's order granting Appellee a new sentencing hearing. In all other aspects, we affirm. The relevant facts of this case are as follows. Appellee and her then - boyfriend, George Santiago (Santiago), were part of a large-scale cocaine delivery operation. Appellee accompanied Santiago on trips to New York to procure cocaine for sale. N.T. 9/25/06, at 294. Appellee also assisted Santiago in the cooking, weighing, and packaging of the cocaine. Id. at 289-290. Appellee sold the cocaine to customers who came to their house, but on occasion ventured out of the home to sell as well. Id. at 290. As a result of her involvement, Appellee was arrested and charged with two counts each of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (PWID) and criminal conspiracy to commit PWID.2 The first PWID and conspiracy counts, docketed at No. CP -21 -CR -2383-2005, arose from a search of Appellee's residence by police on September 13, 2005 ("the search warrant counts"). The second set, docketed at CP -21 -CR -2382-2005, were from Appellee's involvement in the cocaine enterprise from January 2003 to August 2005 ("the historical counts"). 1 Although Appellee is the Cross -Appellant for the purposes of her remaining PCRA claims, we elect to refer to her as Appellee throughout this memoradum for ease of reference. 2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a) (to commit 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30)), respectively. 2 } A12035-12 On September 25, 2006, a two-day jury trial commenced, at which Appellee acknowledged her involvement in the cocaine distribution ring, but claimed a defense of duress. Appellee was represented at trial and on direct appeal by Arthur L. Gutkin, Esquire (Attorney Gutkin). At the conclusion of the trial, Appellee was found guilty of the aforementioned charges. On December 12, 2006, the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum sentences on the PWID counts; specifically, seven to 14 years' imprisonment for the historical counts, and five to 10 years' imprisonment on the search warrant counts. Both sentences were to run concurrently. The trial court did not impose any additional time for the conspiracy convictions, resulting in an aggregate judgment of sentence of seven to 14 years' imprisonment. On December 18, 2006, Appellee filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court. We affirmed Appellee's judgment of sentence on April 9, 2008. Commonwealth v. Unger-Bacz, 953 A.2d 841 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 971 A.2d 493 (Pa. 2009). On May 13, 2009, our Supreme Court denied Appellee's petition for allowance of appeal. Id. Appellee did not seek review from the United States Supreme Court. On July 28, 2009, Appellee filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition on Appellee's behalf on October 26, 2009. The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing on September 3, 2010. On May 13, 2011, the PCRA court filed an J'A12035-12 order and opinion granting Appellee relief solely on the ground that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for failing to litigate whether the mandatory minimum sentences applied to the historical counts.3 PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 20. Following the hearing, the PCRA court vacated Appellee's sentence and ordered a new sentencing hearing. Id. at 25. Appellee's PCRA petition for relief was denied in all other respects. On June 13, 2011, the Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal.4 Appellee filed a timely cross-appeal on June 24, 2011.5 On appeal, the Commonwealth raises one issue for our review. 1. Whether the [PCRA) court's determination that [Attorney Gutkin]'s failure to litigate the applicability of a mandatory minimum sentence constituted ineffective assistance is contradicted by the record and legally erroneous given that the record developed at the guilt phase of trial established by a 3 The PCRA court noted that Attorney Gutkin was not ineffective for pursuing a duress defense at trial. PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 19-20. 4 We note that the deadline for the Commonwealth to file its notice of appeal fell on Sunday, June 12, 2011. When computing the 30 -day filing period "[if] the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday ... such day shall be omitted from the computation." 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. Therefore, the Commonwealth had until Monday, June 13, 2011 to file its notice of appeal, and said notice of appeal was timely. 5 Although the general rule is notices of appeal must be filed within 30 days pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 903(a), cross-appeals generally must be filed within 14 days from the date the first notice of appeal is served on the appellee. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(b). We also note that the Commonwealth, Appellee, and the PCRA court have all complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 4 3-A12035-12 preponderance of the evidence the [Appellee's] delivery of cocaine in excess of 100 grams and possession with intent to deliver cocaine in excess of 100 grams? Commonwealth's Brief at 4. On her cross-appeal, Appellee raises the following ten issues for our review. I. Whether the Commonwealth's appeal in this matter should be quashed because the PCRA court's order in this matter is not a final, appealable order? II. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to raise Appellee's competency to stand trial? III. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to raise issues in a pretrial motion regarding a cavity search of Appellee? IV. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to keep Appellee informed and apprised of the charges against her? V. Whether the .PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to adequately conduct any form of pretrial investigation and by failing to interview or investigate any potential witnesses that Appellee had provided to Attorney Gutkin? VI. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to call Thomas Mack as a witness? 5 .}-A12035-12 VII. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to obtain [an] expert witness testimony that was critical to Appellee's case? VIII. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to have Appellee examined by an expert prior to trial? IX. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to present Appellee's prior mental health records to the court and jury during trial? X. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellee relief . based upon Appellee's claim that [Attorney Gutkin] was ineffective by failing to object to the Commonwealth's amendment of the guideline sentence forms from less than 2.5 grams to 101 grams after the jury's verdict of guilty? Appellee's Brief at 20-21. Prior to addressing the merits of the Commonwealth's appeal, we must first address Appellee's motion to quash the Commonwealth's appeal, which Appellee restates as the first issue in her brief. Appellee avers that the Commonwealth's appeal should be quashed because the PCRA court's May 13, 2011 order is not a final appealable order. Id. at 25-26. Specifically, Appellee argues the PCRA court's order is not final because she has not been re -sentenced. Id. at 26. The Commonwealth counters that it may appeal the PCRA court's order pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 -A 2035-12 910. Commonwealth's Cross -Appellee Brief at 4. Rule 910 governs PCRA appeals and provides as follows. An order granting, denying, dismissing, or otherwise finally disposing of a petition for post -conviction collateral relief shall constitute a final order for purposes of appeal. Pa.R.Crim.P. 910; see also Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 9 A.3d 206, 210 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating "[a]n order granting or denying a petition under the [PCRA], and thus disposing of all issues therein, is a final order[]"). Furthermore, in Commonwealth v. Bryant, 780 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2001), our Supreme Court held that when a PCRA court denies all claims of relief with respect to the guilt phase, but orders a new sentencing hearing, its order is a final one. Id. at 648. Appellee acknowledges Bryant, but attempts to distinguish it on the grounds that the Instant case is not a death penalty case. Appellee's Brief at 27. Appellee avers that "[t]he unique concerns in a death penalty case relied upon by [our Supreme] Court in [Bryant] are not present in [this] case." Id. We disagree. In Bryant, as in the instant case, the PCRA court denied the appellant's petition for relief in all respects as to the guilt phase of his trial, but did order a new sentencing hearing. Bryant, supra at 647. Our Supreme Court reviewed whether this Court properly quashed the appellant's appeal from the PCRA court's denial of relief as to his guilt -phase issues because he had not been re -sentenced. Id. at 648. In explaining why the appellant's appeal should not have been quashed, our Supreme 7 )-A12035-12 Court highlighted factors that explained the inefficiency of such fragmented appellate review. Re -sentencing the defendant before engaging in appellate review of the denial of PCRA relief ... results in piecemeal litigation, delay in the determination of guilt phase issues, and potential misuse of judicial resources if the new sentence is rendered moot by subsequent disposition of the guilt phase issues. For these reasons, the orderly administration of justice requires that review of the PCRA court's decision denying guilt phase relief should precede the imposition of a new sentence by the trial court. Id. Applying these factors, our Supreme Court vacated this Court's order quashing the appellant's appeal. We conclude the same considerations should control here. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the PCRA court's order disposing of all of Appellee's issues raised in her PCRA petition was final. As a result, the Commonwealth's appeal is properly before us. We therefore deny Appellee's motion to quash the Commonwealth's appeal and proceed to the merits. When reviewing an order granting or denying post -conviction relief, our standard of review is well settled. "Our review of a PCRA court's decision is limited to examining whether the PCRA court's findings of fact are supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal error." Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). "[Our] scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to 8 J -A12035-12 the prevailing party at the PCRA court level." Id. "The PCRA court's credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court." Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 259 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). "However, this Court applies a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court's legal conclusions." Id. We observe that all of the remaining issues in this appeal involve ineffective assistance of counsel claims. "It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him." Koehler, supra, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-691 (1984). In adopting Strickland, our Supreme Court articulated a three-part test to determine when a petitioner has received ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner "must demonstrate that: (1) the underlying legal issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel's actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) [the petitioner] was prejudiced by counsel's act or omission." Id., citing Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987). "Prejudice in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel means demonstrating there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different." Commonwealth v. Keaton, --- A.3d ---, 2012 WL 1940319, 3 (Pa. 2012). 9 J -A12035-12 In its sole issue on appeal, the Commonwealth avers that the PCRA court erred in determining that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for failing to litigate the applicability of the mandatory minimum sentence for PWID. Commonwealth's Brief at 11. The Commonwealth claims that Attorney Gutkin was not ineffective for not requesting a bill of particulars and the purpose of such a bill was fulfilled in this case. Id. at 24-25. The Commonwealth further argues that the evidence presented at trial established by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellee possessed over 100 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver between January 2003 and August 2005. Id. at 13. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 572 allows a defendant to request a bill of particulars from the Commonwealth within seven days of arraignment. Pa.R.Crim.P. 572(a). As this Court has explained, a bill of particulars "give[s] notice to the defendant of the nature of offenses charged so that he may prepare a proper defense and avoid surprise." Commonwealth v. Judd, 897 A.2d 1224, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 912 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 2006). However, our Supreme Court has cautioned that a bill of particulars "is not a substitute for discovery and the Commonwealth's evidence is not a proper subject to which a bill of particulars may be directed." Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 451 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted), cert. denied, Champney v. Pennsylvania, 542 U.S. 939 (2004). 10 3-A12035-12 Furthermore, Pennsylvania law provides for enhanced penalties for those who are convicted of drug-related offenses, and who also have prior drug trafficking convictions.6 (a) General rule. --Notwithstanding any other provisions of this or any other act to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply: (2) A person who is convicted of violating section 13(a)(14), (30) or (37) of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act where the controlled substance or a mixture containing it is classified in Schedule I or Schedule II under section 4 of that act and is a narcotic drug shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and a fine as set forth in this subsection: (iii) when the aggregate weight of the compound or mixture containing the substance involved is at least 100 grams; five years in prison and a fine of $25,000 or such larger amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the proceeds from the illegal activity; however, if at the time of sentencing the defendant has been convicted of another drug trafficking offense: seven years in prison and $50,000 or such larger amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the proceeds from the illegal activity. (b) Proof of sentencing. --Provisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime. Notice of the applicability of this section to the defendant shall not be required prior to conviction, but reasonable notice 6 It is not in dispute that Appellee has a prior drug trafficking conviction. 11 ' 13-A12035-12 of the Commonwealth's intention to proceed under this section shall be provided after conviction and before sentencing. The applicability of this section shall be determined at sentencing. The court shall consider evidence presented at trial, shall afford the Commonwealth and the defendant an opportunity to present necessary additional evidence and shall determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, if this section is applicable. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508. Herein, the PCRA court granted Appellee relief because it concluded that Attorney Gutkin failed to litigate the applicability of the mandatory minimum sentence and concluded that if he had, the sentence would have been five to 10 years' imprisonment instead of seven to 14 years. PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 24. Specifically, the PCRA court noted the following. Here, Counsel did not take the opportunity to present additional evidence and conceded the applicability of the Commonwealth's mandatory minimum sentence. However, a review of the Commonwealth's presentence investigation (PSI) indicates that the basis for [Appellee]'s mandatory sentence for the historical count was her possession of 101 grams of cocaine. By possessing over 100 grams, [Appellee] became eligible for a seven to fourteen year mandatory sentence. As previously stated, there was ample evidence at trial of [Appellee]'s involvement in a drug distribution ring. However, the trial testimony also established and Counsel was well -aware, that [Appellee] was heavily addicted to cocaine throughout her involvement in the drug ring. As such, it is virtually certain that at least some of the cocaine [Appellee] possessed at any given time was for her personal use. 12 3-A12035-12 Id. at 22-23 (emphasis in original). Based on these observations, the PCRA court concluded that Attorney Gutkin should have requested a bill of particulars and a Carroll' hearing at sentencing in order to determine what amounts of cocaine were for delivery and what amounts were for Appellee's personal use. Id. at 21-22. The Commonwealth avers that the PCRA court's conclusions were erroneous. We agree. As noted above, the amount and weight of the cocaine necessary for the mandatory minimum sentence to apply is not considered an element of the crime. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(b). Rather, the amount and weight of the cocaine become relevant after conviction. Id. The criminal information put Appellee on notice that she was accused of possessing cocaine with the intent to deliver between January 2003 and August 2005. Appellee also acknowledged at the PCRA hearing that she received the Commonwealth's discovery packet from Attorney Gutkin. N.T., 9/3/10, at 75-76. As Attorney Gutkin noted at the PCRA hearing, this discovery packet contained information detailing all of the transactions and buyers that were a part of the historical counts. Id. at 186. In addition, as the PCRA court noted, Appellee's trial strategy was a duress defense, which involved conceding the ' In Commonwealth v. Carroll, 651 A.2d 171, 174 (Pa. Super. 1994), appeal denied, 664 A.2d 539 (Pa. 1995) this Court held that "it was appropriate for the trial court to determine at sentencing whether the amount of narcotics which appellee intended for delivery equaled or exceeded that which made applicable the mandatory sentence provision of the statute." 13 3-A12035-12 Commonwealth's case at least for the purposes of the guilt phase. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 20. We agree with the Commonwealth that any purpose that would have been served by a bill of particulars was satisfied both through the criminal information and the Commonwealth's discovery packet for the purpose of preparing Appellee's defense. See Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 641 A.2d 1176, 1183-1184 (Pa. Super. 1998) (holding that the Commonwealth's failure to comply with a defendant's request for a bill of particulars is not reversible error "where there is no indication that the Commonwealth deliberately withheld either exculpatory evidence or evidence otherwise favorable to the defense, where the defendant did receive information from the Commonwealth's compliance with other rules of procedure, and where the accused possessed adequate information on which to prepare a proper defense[]") (citation omitted). With regard to Attorney Gutkin's failure to request a Carroll hearing, the Commonwealth points out that the PSI in this case reveals that the basis for the mandatory minimum sentence for PWID was "greater than 100 grams of cocaine" not a flat amount of 101 grams of cocaine as stated by the PCRA court. Commonwealth's Brief at 19-20. In addition, several witnesses testified as to how much cocaine Appellee was delivering. First, Valerie Kesseman testified that she spent several hundred dollars a week on cocaine throughout the period of time she knew Appellee. 14 3-A12035-12 ... From the time that you met [Appellee] until the time of your arrest was a period of about two years? You're not really sure, right? Correct, somewhere in that area. At the high point that you were involved in drugs during the period of time that you knew [Appellee], what was the most amount of money that you believe accurately you spent per week to support your [cocaine] habit? A: That I spent per week? Q: Or you and your husband, whatever. A: Probably close to, I would say, $700.00. Q: A week? A: A week. N.T., 9/25/06, at 160-161, 165-166. Kesseman also testified as to the weight of the cocaine she received from Appellee. Q: ... For the time period -- about the two month time period that [Appellee] was coming to your house, can you tell us -- I know you've described the sizes of the cocaine you obtained from her. But are you familiar with what grams -- how many grams were you getting? That would vary. I mean, every day is a different day. I was mainly worried about, you know, just getting high. So it could range from a half a gram to as much as, like, 200, to an eight -ball, somewhere in that area. J -A12035-12 Id. at 145.8 The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of Officer Jeffery D. Kurtz who detailed the amounts given to the Kesseman's over that two-year period. Q: Specifically ... with reference to the Kessemans, do you recall what [Appellee's] statements were? A: Yes, I do. Q: Can you tell us? A: She had originally stated that she had been dealing with the Kessemans for a period of time. It started off at very low quantities of either cocaine or crack cocaine that would be delivered to Bryan or Valerie Kesseman, and eventually we worked up to an area that we were dealing with probably close to a half ounce or an ounce of cocaine or crack cocaine that was being transferred between the three of them during the course of a week. Id. at 215.9 Finally, Appellee testified as to the amount of cocaine that Santiago would bring into the home. Q: Well, are you aware of where George was getting drugs? 8 Appellee urges us to read the number 200 in Kesseman's response to mean $200.00 worth of cocaine. Appellee's Brief at 10-11. However, we decline to read the response as a dollar amount since the question unequivocally asked for the amount of grams Kesseman received from Appellee. 9 As the Commonwealth notes, one-half of an ounce of cocaine is equal to approximately 14 grams and a full ounce is equal to approximately 28 grams. Commonwealth's Brief at 15 n.13. 16 J -A12035-12 A: Yes. Q: From where? A: New. York City. Q: Did you ever go with him? A: Yes. Q: How many times? A: I don't know, ten times. Q' How many times -- how frequently would he go to New York? A: Like every -- maybe every ten days. And when he would come back, would you see the quantity of cocaine that he would bring into the house? A: Sometimes, sometimes not. What is the most that you've seen him bring into the home? A: I would say, like, maybe 14 ounces. And every ten days he would go get more approximately? A: Yes. Q: You would use again -- A: Yes. 17 JJA12035-12 Q: -- and continue to sell? And that occurred for the time period that you knew him? A: Yes. Id. at 294-295 (emphasis added). Appellee argues that the 14 ounces of cocaine, which equates to approximately 392 grams, "may not be automatically imputed to [her] for the purpose of imposing a mandatory minimum sentence, simply because of a conspiracy conviction." Appellee's Brief at 11. In Appellee's view, "the Commonwealth needed to prove at trial that Appellee was either culpable as a conspirator in regard to the 14 ounces of cocaine or that she constructively possessed the 14 ounces of cocaine." Id. As previously noted, Appellee has never denied her involvement in the cocaine distribution ring, nor did she deny the amounts of cocaine others testified to at her trial. N.T., 9/25/06, at 285. By her own testimony, Appellee frequently accompanied Santiago on his trips to New York City every ten days to pick up another supply of cocaine. Id. at 294. Appellee also admitted that whenever Santiago brought cocaine into the house, she would participate in the cooking, weighing, and packaging of the cocaine before it was sold. Id. at 289-290. She also knew some of Santiago's hiding places for the cocaine within the house. Id. at 292. Appellee would most often sell the cocaine to people when they came to the house, but occasionally would venture outside of the house to deliver the drugs as well. 18 JE -A12035-12 Id. at 290. In our view, the evidence at trial overwhelmingly established that Appellee was culpable as a co-conspirator regarding the cocaine brought into the home by Santiago for delivery to others.10 Given the testimony and evidence produced at trial, we conclude that the Commonwealth did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellee possessed with intent to deliver more than 100 grams of cocaine between January 2003 and August 2005. As a result, Appellee's claim as to the inapplicability of the mandatory minimum sentence lacks merit. Accordingly, we conclude the PCRA court erred in finding that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for not contesting the applicability of the mandatory minimum sentence under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(2)(iii). See Koehler, supra. 10 The Commonwealth also points out that had there been a Carrot! hearing, Appellee would have had "no probability of success" in establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that of the 392 grams of cocaine in question, 293 grams were for her personal use. Commonwealth's Brief at 23. See also Commonwealth v. Sherrell, 607 A.2d 767, 782 (Pa. Super. 1992) (stating, "(u]nder Pennsylvania law, intent to deliver may be inferred from possession of a large quantity of controlled substances. Similarly, the absence of intent to deliver may be inferred where only a small amount of the controlled substance was discovered[]") (citations omitted), appeal denied, 618 A.2d 400 (Pa. 1993); Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024, 1028 (Pa. Super. 2008) (holding that the trial court properly denied the appellant's motion for a Carroll hearing by rejecting the appellant's purported expert's testimony that 12 of the 49 packets of crack cocaine possessed by the appellant were for personal use), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 894 (Pa. 2009). 19 t. .1-A12035-12 Turning now to the remaining `nine issues raised by Appellee on cross- appeal, we begin with issue two wherein Appellee avers that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for not raising the issue of her competency to stand trial. Appellee's Brief at 29. Appellee further argues that because Attorney Gutkin knew that she was on drugs prior to and during the trial, he should have requested a competency hearing. Id. Our Supreme Court has recently explained the relevant guideposts regarding a defendant's competency to stand trial. A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial. Thus, the burden is on the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was incompetent to stand trial. In order to prove that he was incompetent, the defendant must establish that he was either unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or unable to participate in his own defense. Stated otherwise, the relevant question in a competency determination is whether the defendant has sufficient ability at the pertinent time to consult with counselwith a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and to have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings. Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606, 617 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Flor v. Pennsylvania, 131 S.Ct. 2102 (2011); see also 50 P.S. § 7402(a) (defining incompetency as being "substantially unable to understand the nature or object of the proceedings against him or to participate and assist in his defense ..."). 20 3-A12035-12 In this case, the PCRA court noted the following testimony from Attorney Gutkin when he was asked about Appellee's competency. Q: How about competency to stand trial? What's your reaction to the claim that she may not have been competent to stand trial? A: She was scared, as anybody should be scared that can go to jail for a long time. She was nervous and upset, as everybody would be, to stand trial. I'm not really pleasantly happy to be sitting up here right now. I may look like I'm not nervous or anything but I am. I'm being truthful about it. But that doesn't make you incompetent to be on the witness stand. When she testified on the witness stand, she did rather well. I asked her about her background. She mentioned her background. She told all the terrible things that happened in her life. She mentioned how Santiago threatened her. She sat there at the counsel table and told me at the counsel table things to ask. She told me pretrial. She said she gave me witness lists, what people to ask. She sat down with me. She came to my office. She drove two and a half hours each way sometimes to come to my office and be interviewed. Those things are things of a competent person. I mean, being nervous and being scared is not incompetent. Incompetency is the inability to cooperate with your attorney and to be able to communicate with your attorney. She had all the mental acuities to be able to communicate with me. She was able to stand trial. 21 J -A12035-12 Now were you aware that she was using drugs prior to the trial? A: Yes. Were you aware that she was using drugs during the trial? A: Yes. A: Were you in any way concerned that the drug use affected her competency to stand trial? Absolutely not because she cooperated. She was complaining to me about, you know, this witness, that witness. They were liars. Heather was, you know, betraying her. Heather was going to make a deal with her. She was able to communicate with me. She was able to talk with me. She was coming in on time. She was able to get here on her own. She was having fights with her boyfriend, Mr. Dick, whatever he was to her. She was able to communicate. I would have looked for any way to have gotten her out of that trial, and if I could have claimed that she was incompetent to get her out of that trial, I would have. But one thing I was as an attorney is being truthful to the Court, and I did not BS the Court and file frivolous motions. Like, I wouldn't file a motion to suppress that I knew I would lose, and I wouldn't say to the Court my client was incompetent just to delay a trial when I knew my client was competent. If I thought she was on drugs and that she couldn't communicate with me, I would have stopped that trial. 22 3=A12035-12 N.T., 9/3/10, 192-193, 225-227. The PCRA court found Attorney Gutkin's testimony in this regard to be "forceful and credible." PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 5. "A PCRA court's credibility determinations are to be given great deference." Commonwealth v. Dennis, 17 A.3d 297, 305 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). Whether or not Appellee wished to cooperate with Attorney Gutkin does not go to her competency to stand trial. See Commonwealth v. Logan, 549 A.2d 531, 540 (Pa. 1988) (stating that when analyzing a defendant's competency to stand trial "[t]he issue is the defendant's ability to cooperate and not whether he is actually cooperating[]) (emphasis and citation omitted). We therefore agree with the PCRA court that this issue lacks merit. See Koehler, supra. As a result, we agree Attorney Gutkin was not ineffective for not raising Appellee's competency to stand trial. In her third issue, Appellee argues that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress a bag of cocaine obtained during a body cavity search of Appellee during the execution of the September 13, 2005 search warrant on Santiago and Appellee's residence. Appellee's Brief at 30. The Commonwealth counters that any motion to suppress would have been frivolous. Commonwealth's Cross -Appellee Brief at 11-12. We note that the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect individuals from 23 1-A12035-12 unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, police officers executing a search warrant may briefly detain a person found on the premises to be searched and to conduct a pat -down search of that person if they have reasonable suspicion to suspect that person is armed and dangerous. Commonwealth v. Stackfleld, 651 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. Super. 1994); see also Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 704-705 (1981) (stating "a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted"[]). Appellee is correct that Pennsylvania courts have not directly addressed body cavity searches. The record reveals that after the residence was secured, Probation Officer Tiffany Ryan entered the residence and searched Appellee's person. N.T., 9/25/06, at 127-128. Officer Ryan conducted a pat -down search, searching Appellee's pockets, waistband, hair, and bra area. Id. at 128. Officer Ryan did not discover any contraband from this search. Id. at 129. Thereafter, Officer Ryan removed Appellee from the home and sat her down on the front porch. Id. It was then that one of the Attorney General's agents came up to Officer Ryan and requested that she conduct a more thorough search of Appellee. Id. The record reveals that upon entering the home to execute the search warrant, Agent Carlson observed Appellee pushing an object into the crotch area of her clothing. PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 7; Commonwealth's PCRA Exhibit 3, at 1. After receiving this 24 ) A12035-12 request, Officer Ryan took Appellee into the residence's bathroom and conducted a more thorough search. N.T., 9/25/06, at 129. After removing Appellee's shorts, Officer Ryan had Appellee bend over and put one leg onto the bathtub while handcuffed. Id. at 130. It was from this perspective that Officer Ryan noticed something sticking out of Appellee's vaginal area. Id. Officer Ryan removed the object and discovered it to be a bag of crack cocaine. Id. Even assuming, arguendo, that this search was unreasonable, we conclude this claim fails because Appellee has not demonstrated prejudice.'1 Appellee claims that she was prejudiced by the admission of this extra bag of cocaine because "that evidence was used to show Appellee's voluntary cooperation with her codefendant in the distribution of cocaine." Appellee's Brief at 31. As noted previously, Appellee testified that she would accompany Santiago on trips to New York to obtain cocaine, would assist in cooking, weighing, and packaging the cocaine for sale, and sell the cocaine in the 11 We note that the PCRA court concluded that this claim lacked merit because upon entry of the home to execute the search warrant, officers noticed Appellee "placing something in the crotch area of her clothing." PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 7. Therefore, the PCRA court concluded that this gave the officers "a reasonable articulable suspicion that [Appellee] was hiding contraband or a weapon, which justified the search of her person." Id. However, we may affirm the PCRA court on any basis that is supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Wiley, 966 A.2d 1153, 1157 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). 25 • 3-A12035-12 house and occasionally outside the home. N.T., 9/25/06, 289-290, 292, 294-295. Additionally, Officer Kurtz testified that Appellee told her that she was the "intelligence" or the "watchdog" of the group. N.T., 9/25/06, at 218, 220. Officer Kurtz further explained on cross-examination what he meant. She had a certain level of savvy or smarts as it would relate to the interview of a lot of people who were involved in drug activity. She seemed to have a better grasp or understanding of what would be happening, how we operated than most people. Id. at 221. Appellee also gave Officer Kurtz information regarding 27 people that she was acquainted with through the cocaine ring. Id. at 229. Kesseman testified that Appellee gave her husband a phone number where he could reach her "anytime he needed to purchase anything." Id. at 142. Kesseman also testified that she and her husband received crack cocaine from Appellee on almost a daily basis. Id. at 143. Kesseman also entered into an arrangement only with Appellee so that Kesseman would receive cocaine from Appellee to sell to others, and after selling so much of it, she would get free additional cocaine from Appellee for her own use. Id. at 149. Upon being asked by Attorney Gutkin, Kesseman also noted that Santiago never threatened Appellee into selling drugs, only if Appellee took them for herself. Id. at 176. Given the overwhelming amount of evidence of Appellee's voluntary participation in the drug trafficking operation independent of the cocaine 26 J -A12035-12 recovered from Appellee's person, we cannot say that the outcome of the trial would have been different had this one bag of cocaine been suppressed. See Keaton, supra. We therefore conclude that Appellee has failed to show how she was prejudiced by Attorney Gutkin's failure to file a suppression motion and, is accordingly not entitled to relief on this issue. In her fourth issue, Appellee avers Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for failing to keep her informed of the charges against her. Appellee's Brief at 31-32. Specifically, Appellee claims that she never understood what the Commonwealth was charging her with vis-a-vis the historical counts. Appellee's Brief at 6, 31. More specifically, Appellee argues that she never understood the quantity of drugs she was alleged to have possessed with the intent to deliver. Id. In this section of her brief, Appellee reproduces verbatim, parts of her argument already stated in her response to the Commonwealth's appeal. See id. The only authority Appellee provides to this Court is Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4, which requires an attorney to keep a client informed about the status of her case. See Pa.R.P.C. 1.4(a)(3). However, Appellee's reliance upon the Rules of Professional Conduct in the PCRA context is misplaced. As this 'Court has previously held "the Rules of Professional Conduct do not have the effect of substantive law but, instead, are to be employed in disciplinary proceedings." In re Adoption of M.M.H., 981 A.2d 261, 272 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also Commonwealth 27 11-A12035-12 v. Chmiel, 738 A.2d 406, 415 (Pa. 1999) (stating "[t]he rules that govern the ethical obligations of the legal profession (presently, the Rules of Professional Conduct) do not constitute substantive .law[]") (citation omitted), cert. denied, Pennsylvania v. Chmiel, 528 U.S. 1131 (2000). In addition, the preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct makes clear that "nothing in the Rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duty of lawyers or the extra disciplinary consequences of violating such a duty." Pa.R.P.C. Preamble (19). Furthermore, to the extent that Appellee "never fully understood the charges against her[,]" Attorney Gutkin attempted to explain the nature of the historical counts to Appellee. Appellee's Brief at 32. If you add up all the transactions that took place, you come up to the number which caused the amount to be over the hundred grams, and I was saying to [Appellee] that an historical aspect of a criminal indictment for drugs is all the sales and that she can see the number of transactions, and the totality of the sales would be in the discovery packet that she had. So that's the number she had. She kept insisting that she couldn't understand. It was just hard getting through to her at times because [Appellee] would get her head on a particular subject and you couldn't get her head off that subject. It was just really, really hard dealing with her at times. N.T., 9/3/10, at 186. In addition, as previously noted, the Commonwealth did not have to provide Appellee with notice of the specific weight for the purposes of sentencing until after conviction. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(b). 28 3-A12035-12 Based on the foregoing, Appellee has failed to show that this claim has arguable merit. See Koehler, supra. We therefore conclude Attorney Gutkin was not ineffective with regard to this issue. In her next two issues, Appellee argues that she should be entitled to PCRA relief because Attorney Gutkin failed to conduct any pretrial investigation, failed to investigate or interview any of the potential witnesses she provided to him, and failed to call her cousin, Thomas Mack (Mack) as a witness.12 Appellee's Brief at 32-33. Attorney Gutkin acknowledged that Appellee wished for him to subpoena witnesses, but he could not recall who they were specifically. N.T., 9/3/10, at 232. Although Appellee states that she gave Attorney Gutkin a list of witnesses to subpoena for trial, the only witness Appellee specifies that Attorney Gutkin should have called was Mack.13 Appellee avers that Mack would have testified that he lived with Appellee and Santiago off and on for two years. Appellee's Brief at 33. In that time, Appellee claims that Mack observed Santiago physically and mentally abuse Appellee, prevent her from leaving the house, and force her to go with Santiago to sell drugs. Id. As this Court recently noted, a PCRA 12 While Appellee presents these alleged errors as two separate questions in her brief, she has consolidated them into one argument section. Appellee's Brief at 32 n.1. 13 It appears from the record that Appellee argued at the PCRA hearing that Attorney Gutkin should have called John Baum (Baum) to the stand. However, the Commonwealth called Baum at trial, and Attorney Gutkin cross-examined him. See N.T., 9/25/06, at 76-94. 29 3-A12035-12 petitioner has a heavy burden when alleging that counsel failed to call a certain witness at trial. [I]n the particular context of the alleged failure to call witnesses, counsel will not be deemed ineffective unless the PCRA petitioner demonstrates: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony was so prejudicial to petitioner to have denied him or her a fair trial. Commonwealth v. Miner, --- A.3d ---, 2012 WL 1383058, 3 (Pa. Super. 2012). With regard to Mack, we agree with Appellee that Mack existed, was available, was willing to testify for the defense, and that Attorney Gutkin at least should have known that he existed. However, we also agree with the PCRA court that Appellee has failed to show how she was prejudiced by Mack's absence at trial. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 8. Attorney Gutkin elicited testimony from several witnesses indicating that Santiago was emotionally and physically abusive towards Appellee. Baum testified that he had seen Santiago hit Appellee in the face so hard that it knocked her back into Baum with enough force to knock him down as well. N.T., 9/25/06, at 85-86. Keeseman testified that Santiago intimidated Appellee at least a dozen times, yelling and cursing at her. Id. at 162. Keeseman noticed marks on Appellees face, neck, and arms also at least a dozen times. Id. at 163. Keeseman also testified that Santiago threatened to kill 30 }-A12035-12 Appellee at least six times. Id. at 178. Tower Swartz (Swartz) testified that he witnessed Santiago try to pull Appellee out of the window of a car and that Santiago once threw Appellee against a trailer. Id. at 191, 192-193. Lisa Mullet, Appellee's sister and Martha Unger, Appellee's mother testified that they saw Appellee with a black eye, purple marks around her neck, and bruises on her breasts, arms, and back. Id. at 235, 240. Lisa Peters, Swartz's ex-girlfriend, testified that she had seen Appellee with both a black eye and a "grate mark across her side and her back[.]" Id. at 246. Finally, Appellee herself testified as to numerous verbal and physical altercations she had with Santiago, as well as the various injuries he inflicted on her. Id. at 265, 266-267, 269, 271, 274. At the PCRA hearing, Mack testified that he would have told the jury about instances of Santiago being physically abusive towards Appellee. N.T., 9/3/10, at 141. Mack witnessed an incident where Santiago had Appellee pinned against the wall by her throat. Id. After Appellee broke free and ran into the living room, Santiago picked up a metal chair and threw it at her. Id. Mack also would have testified that on "different occasions [Santiago] forced [Appellee] to go along with him to purchase drugs." Id.14 Given the extensive testimony noted above as to Santiago's 14 Appellee mischaracterizes this testimony as `Santiago forc[ing] Appellee to go with him to sell drugs." Appellee's Brief at 33 (emphasis added). Appellee also claims that she' provided Attorney Gutkin with the names of (Footnote Continued Next Page) 31 J -A12035-12 mentally and physically abusive behavior, we agree with the PCRA court that Mack's testimony would have been cumulative. We therefore conclude that Appellee has failed to show that "but for [Attorney Gutkin's failure to subpoena Mack,1 the outcome of the proceeding would have been different."15 See Keaton, supra. Since Appellee has failed to meet the third prong of the Pierce test, she is not entitled to relief on this issue. Appellee next argues that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for failing to obtain an expert witness and not having her examined by. that expert in preparation for trial.16 At the PCRA hearing, Appellee offered the testimony of Dr. William Russell (Dr. Russell), a forensic psychologist. Dr. Russell testified that Appellee suffered from "a long-standing addiction problem, with a history of domestic violence and inappropriate relationships, and probably a significant personality disorder." N.T., 9/3/10, at 25. Dr. Russell also noted that previous doctors diagnosed Appellee with post-traumatic (Footnote Continued) several people who witnessed Santiago coerce and force Appellee into selling drugs, but she does not provide any of their names. See id. is We also observe that Mack testified at the PCRA hearing that he had witnessed Appellee refuse to cooperate with Santiago concerning drugs. See N.T., 9/3/10, at 142. As the PCRA court observed, this would have cast doubt on the validity of her duress defense. PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 8. 16 As previously noted, while Appellee presents these alleged errors as separate questions in her brief, she has consolidated them into one argument section. Appellee's Brief at 35 n.2. 32 J -A12035-12 stress disorder.17 Id. Appellee avers that an expert witness was necessary to "put the pieces together for a jury ... [and] give the jury a chance to consider the totality of the circumstances regarding Appellee's duress defense." Appellee's Brief at 40 (emphasis in original). We observe that when ineffective assistance is alleged based on a failure to call an expert witness, the test is the same as for failure to call a witness generally. Miner, supra. In addition, "[o]ur Supreme Court has also made clear that: '[w]hen a defendant claims that some sort of expert testimony should have been introduced at trial, the defendant must articulate what evidence was available and identify the witness who was willing to offer such evidence." Commonwealth v. Lowery, 784 A.2d 795, 800-801 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 796 A.2d 980 (Pa. 2002), citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 640 A.2d 1251, 1265 (Pa. 1994). We agree with the PCRA court that Appellee has shown that Dr. Russell existed, was available and willing to testify for the defense, and Attorney Gutkin at a minimum should have known that an expert existed. Nevertheless, we conclude that Appellee has failed to show how she was prejudiced by the absence of an expert witness. As the PCRA court noted, 17 We note that Dr. Russell also testified that he did not meet with Appellee, but was basing his opinion on a review of "medical records, the PCRA petition, a letter that was written to Judges by [Appellee], a life chronology, if you will, written by [Appellee as well as] ... the trial transcript and the sentencing transcript." N.T., 9/3/10, at 23. 33 • 1-A12035-12 duress and Appellee's abusive relationship with Santiago "was the theme that played throughout the trial and echoed into the jury deliberation room." PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 16 (emphasis in original). In addition, Attorney Gutkin elicited testimony to this effect from several Commonwealth and defense witnesses. See N.T., 9/25/06, at 85-86, 162, 163, 178, 191, 192-193, 235, 240, 246, 265, 266-267, 269, 271, 274. We agree with Appellee that an expert's testimony might have bolstered her duress claim. However, given the extensive testimony that went to Appellee's abusive relationship, her mental distress from that relationship, and her injuries, we cannot say that the jury's verdict would have been different had an expert testified. See Keaton, supra. Therefore, Appellee has not shown Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for not calling an expert witness and having her examined by one. We therefore agree with the PCRA court that Appellee is not entitled to relief on this issue. On a similar note, in her ninth issue, Appellee avers that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for not putting her mental health records before the jury. Appellee's Brief at 40-41. At the PCRA hearing, Appellee referenced some medical records she alleged that she asked Attorney Gutkin to acquire. Q: Now, you testified that you thought Attorney Gutkin was going to present medical records? A: Yes. Q: What medical records are those? 34 • 3 '.A12035-12 I had a psychiatrist in Allentown I gave him the name of. You know, I can't remember the guy's name right now. Back before my husband died, I had asked him the name -- to find out his name. I have it written down somewhere. But anyway, I asked him -- I did give him that name at that time. My family doctor that I was seeing when I moved back to Carlisle over the couple years that I was back here, Dr. Kovacs. I asked for him to get Dr. Stolz'[s] medical records, which he did get, the Carlisle Hospital medical records, the Chambersburg Hospital records. There was quite a lot of -- quite a lot of records that I had asked him to get. N.T., 9/3/10, at 90. However, as the PCRA court noted, Appellee has not specified what any of these records would have shown, how they would have been relevant at trial, or how they would have affected the outcome of the trial. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/11, at 17. Appellee has therefore failed to show that this claim has arguable merit. See Koehler, supra. As a result, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellee is not entitled to relief on this issue. Finally, in her tenth issue, Appellee argues that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for failing to object to the Commonwealth's amending the guideline sentence forms from less than two -and -a -half grams of cocaine to 101 grams of cocaine. Appellee's Brief at 41. Specifically, Appellee argues "that the Commonwealth's evidence at trial in regard to the historical case failed to support a finding that she possessed with intent to deliver 101 grams of cocaine." Id. In this section of her brief, Appellee reproduces 3F •� i 12035-12 verbatim part of her argument that she makes in her response to the Commonwealth's appeal. See id. at 14-15, 41-42. Since Appellee does not provide any new argument concerning this contention, and we have already held that the mandatory minimum sentence applies in this case, Appellee cannot show how this claim was of arguable merit. See Koehler, supra. Therefore, we conclude Attorney Gutkin was not ineffective for not objecting to the Commonwealth's amendment, and Appellee is not entitled to relief on this issue. To summarize, we conclude that the PCRA court erred in holding that Attorney Gutkin was ineffective for failing to litigate the applicability of the mandatory minimum sentence. We further hold that the PCRA court correctly concluded that Appellee was not entitled to relief on any of the guilt phase issues raised in her PCRA petition. Accordingly, the portion of the May 13, 2011 order granting Appellee a new sentencing hearing is reversed and Appellee's original judgment of sentence is reinstated. As to all other aspects of the May 13, 2011 PCRA court order, we affirm. Order affirmed in part and reversed in part. Judgment of sentence reinstated. Motion to quash denied. Jurisdiction relinquished. 36 r� • 1-A12035-12 Judgment Entered. Interifn. eputy Proth notary Date: 7/12/2012 37 ti IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE ff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA�1iIA C t, jR- SHELBY J. UNGER-BACZ, PLAINTIFF NO. 13-3809 VS. CIVIL TERM ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, DEFENDANT MOTION TO WITHDRAW CIVIL COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF, SHELBY UNGER-BACZ RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE COURT TO WITHDRAW THE ABOVE CIVIL COMPLAINT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1023.2 PLAINTIFF IS WITHDRAWING THIS COMPLAINT WITHIN THE 28 DAYS OF SERVICE OF LETTER FROM ATTORNEY CRAIG E. KAUZLARICH AT ABOM & KUTULAKIS. PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THE COURT TO NOTE THE TIME REQUIREMENT IS BEING MET AND DEFENDANT HAS NO RECOURSE TO FILE DAMAGES AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR "ATTORNEY FEES AND REASONABLE EXPENSES" INCURRED DURING DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ABOVE COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFF WISHES TO THANK THE COURT FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN RESOLVING THIS ISSUE. WHEREAS, PLAINTIFF PRAYS THE COURT GRANT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW. RESPECTFULLY, /.,QiL �=Q Zi ZQ i Lj SHELBY J. I ER-BACZ, 0 SE DATE 1031 KUNKLE DRIVE CHAMBERSBURG, PA 17202 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE And now this 27`x' day of May, 2014, I, Shelby J. Unger-Bacz, hereby certifiy that I did serve Motion to Withdraw Complaint and Proposed Order of Court via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Attorney Craig E. Kauzlarich Abom & Kutulakis 2 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Shelby J. Unger-Bacz, Pro Se Date SHELBY UNGER-BACZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ARTHUR L. GUTKIN, DEFENDANT : 13-3809 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT 44) AND NOW, this 'i day of June, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's "Motion to Withdraw Civil Complaint," which the court treats as a praecipe to discontinue this action, we deem the complaint to be withdrawn and this action is hereby DISCONTINUED. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Shelby Unger-Bacz 1031 Kunkle Drive Chambersburg, PA 17202-8518 .6raig E. Kauzlarich, Esquire 2 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Defendant :sal t'U S/ " �� /*/i? .=e))