The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About895 S 2007LANI D. PETERSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION V. EDWARD A. PETERSON,: PASCES NO. 688108437 Defendant : NO. 590 SUPPORT 2006 EDWARD A. PETERSON, Plaintiff V. LANI D. PETERSON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PASCES NO. 941109563 NO. 895 SUPPORT 2007 IN RE: SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., July 30, 2008. Appellant, Edward A. Peterson, has complained to this court that in the court's previous 1925 opinion, dated July 1, 2008, the rendition of Appellant's three-page statement of matters complained of on appeal contained several typographical errors. A correct version of the statement is as follows: I. This case should have gone to Judge Guido. Our Divorce, Custody & other issues have been going on for more than 2 years & there is way too much history. Until now, we've appeared in front of Judge Guido many times for everything & all previous support orders were signed by Judge Guido. II. Plaintiff is a Psychopathic Liar. The court appointed export that did the custody evaluation was Dr. Shienvold. In his report, he writes extensively about Plaintiff's deceptive & manipulative ways. She suffers from mental illness & takes very high doses of 4 medicines a day. She has a Master's degree in psychology & it is her job as a therapist to manipulate people. Plaintiff's very first statement at our custody hearing in front of Judge Guido was shown by Defendant to be a lie. III. Several topics are repeated many times (this includes the Master's statements) that emphasize points that Defendant believes are incorrect. These include the following... 1. Defendant was terminated for cause. Defendant willfully & conveniently lost his job to avoid his support obligation shortly after Plaintiff lost her job. Why would Defendant purposely lose a job he was at for more than 8 years that paid $71,000 when the support order is less than $14,000 and Defendant has EQUAL custody of his daughter & has to provide equally for her as well as live himself? Defendant did not lose his job until 4 full months after Plaintiff did. Defendant's unemployment compensation has ran out, he still can not find work & he faces support enforcement which may include incarceration when there is a recession. 2. The August 7, 2007 was not appealed & can not be relitigated. On 6/20/2007, Plaintiff wrote in her petition to modify " I was terminated from my job due to my inability to report to work because of circumstances related to our custody & divorce litigation." Defendant was let go due to the same reason. Defendant was not terminated for cause. Defendant requested at the oral arguments that his case be remanded back to the Master so Defendant could have his boss testify that Defendant ran out of vacation like Plaintiff but it was denied. Defendant petitioned for a new hearing & there was no reply before Defendant had to file an appeal to Superior Court. Defendant petitioned for a stay on support enforcement (as Superior Court suggested) until the appeal process was over & it was denied. Defendant mentioned various fraud (taxes, unemployment compensation, state licensing, etc.) committed by Plaintiff at the oral arguments but it was quickly disregarded. On January 3, 2008, Plaintiff testified as follows: " I could not report to work at that time because I had used up all my vacation leave and that week [Mr. Peterson] was going to be arrested for felony stalking. I could not go to work in Lebanon and have my daughter in school in Camp Hill because of fear for our safety." Defendant was arrested & incarcerated on May 26, 2007 trying to get clothes for daughter after Plaintiff called the police. Defendant had custody of his daughter & was with him at the time. Plaintiff did not lose her job until June 6, 2007 which was 11 days later. Defendant was incarcerated during this time & was not found guilty of felony stalking. Defendant lived close to Plaintiff before & after this & EQUAL custody was & has been restored through out this & more. Not only did Plaintiff change her reason for her termination from employment from August 7, 2007 to January 3, 2008 but she also lied on January 3, 2008. Part of the doctrine of collateral estoppel where a party is estopped from relitigating is as follows... that party had a full & fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question in a prior action. Therefore, Defendant is not trying to relitigate what Plaintiff said on August 7, 2007 but what Plaintiff said on January 3, 2008 which should be preserved for this appeal stage of the proceeding. 3. There was a subpoena served to Plaintiff by Defendant for the Master's hearing but Plaintiff failed to comply. This was not the first time Plaintiff failed to produce required items & this was not the first time the Defendant asked for sanctions (which were all ignored). 2 Plaintiff had previously filed a petition to Judge Guido based on Plaintiff's non compliance & the Master's hearing was not a true Trial De Novo. Defendant brought this up at the oral arguments. A request for relief on the basis of a failure to comply with a subpoena can not be raised for the first time in review does apply here; therefore, any issues with Plaintiff's failure to comply with a subpoena should be preserved for purposes of review at this appeal stage of the proceeding. 4. Plaintiff's loss of employment was not her fault & her earning capacity was implicit because her prior Unemployment Compensation & eBay sales were not appealed & can not be relitigated. This is cyclical logic (it is because it is) & is based on false premises. From the above arguments, both Plaintiff's loss of employment & eBay sales (the premises) can be appealed & relitigated. 5. Plaintiff stated that she was actively seeking employment when she did not until her unemployment compensation was running out. She was out of work for 8 months in a healthcare field. Plaintiff stated she was selling many items at a loss on eBay and anticipated a net income for 2007 of $125 per month. Defendant crossed Plaintiff & caught her lying in front of the DRO conference officer & he assigned Plaintiff an income of $1500 per year (or $125 per month) based on a $1000 to $2000 the last 2 years from Plaintiffs tax returns. The past is not always an accurate indicator of the future. Plaintiffs eBay sales significantly increased in 2007 & her failure to comply with the subpoena to produce her tax records has allowed her to escape divulging this information. Plaintiff sold many items for way more than she listed them. One example was Plaintiff listed a rusty piece of jewelry for $99 & sold it for $670. Plaintiff stated that she was forced to pay $748.00 per month for medical insurance for her and daughter. The DRO conference officer lowered this because he said she was paying too much & Defendant could get free health insurance for daughter who is the only person Defendant was responsible for. Defendant currently has free healthcare insurance for daughter. Plaintiff started working 4 months ago & still pays an excessive amount for daughter's health insurance when Defendant told her not to. 6. Defendant had been to be admonished, warned or limited by the master no less than 20 times. Defendant was pro se & and not familiar with the procedures. The same was true for the Plaintiff. Credibility. The determinations for conclusions on terminations & witness credibility for Plaintiff & Defendant should be reversed. Defendant's thinking he was unemployable was after numerous employment rejections then a discussion & an argument developed from an analogy by his previous divorce attorney who went in front of the same master but got the opposite results. 3 7. Plaintiff's resources, earning capacity & spending habits all exceed Defendant's & Plaintiff refuses to finalize divorce allowing her more APL even though it's been more than 2 years.' BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. ' Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed June 26, 2008. 11