HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-3422 Civil
TOWNSHIP OF
SILVER SPRING,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GREGG R. CARIGNAN,
Defendant
NO. 94-3422 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO P A. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, 1., June 9, 2005.
In this continuing litigation involving a municipality's attempt to rectify the
condition of a yard that was found to be a public nuisance by this court in 1995,
the pro se Defendant has filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth
Court from his fourth adjudication for contempt. Docket entries in this court,
resulting from years of recalcitrance on the part of Defendant, now consume
eleven pages. At least eleven opinions have been previously generated in the case:
seven by this court1 and four by the Commonwealth Court.2
Several appeals by Defendant from earlier orders to the Commonwealth
Court resulted in affirmances, in whole or in part because he refused to file
statements of matters complained of on appeal. 3 In the present appeal, a
handwritten statement filed by Defendant suggests thirty-four errors on the part of
this court:
1. Has the trial court casually co-mmingled civil and criminal contempt
proceedings?
1 Opinions by this court were issued on the following dates: September 28, 1994; October 19,
1995; February 15, 1996; November 24, 1997; March 18, 1999; July 20, 1999; and September 22,
1999.
2 Opinions by the Commonwealth Court were issued on the following dates: October 29, 1996
(No. 87 C.D. 1996); November 10, 1999 (No. 67 C.D. 1999); January 6, 2000 (No. 1308 C.D.
1999); and March 24,2000 (No. 1788 C.D. 1999).
3 See, e.g., Township of Silver Spring v. Carignan, No. 67 C.D. 1999 (memorandum opinion
November 10, 1999); Township of Silver Spring v. Carignan, No. 1308 C.D. 1999 (per curiam
opinion January 6, 2000).
2. Did the trial imposed an illegal sentence upon the Defendant and/or
unsupported by statute and or containing a purge of which the Defendant is unable
to presently comply with?
3. Did the Township of Silver Spring, (Plaintiff) prove beyond a reasonable
doubt the Defendant has and or had the present ability to comply with the order?
4. The Plaintiff is a governmental entity and the Plaintiff and the Court
pursued this case allegedly to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
community therefore the court erred in not affording the Defendant proper
criminal protections.
5. The Defendant did not knowingly & intelligently waive his right to
counsel and the Court failed to inform him of his right to counsel.
6. The Court in rejecting the Defendant's, Petition to stay dated 10/6/04,
Petition for the modification of the Order of this Court, and the Court complete
failure to address the Defendant's Habeas Corpus Petition support the contention
the Defendant does not hold the keys to his release once again supporting that the
contempt sanction was punitive and not coercive.
7. The trial Court has converted a, lab led, civil contempt into a criminal one
and has sought to punish the Defendant for past acts.
8. Does equity demand that the court address changes in law &
circumstances of a nine year old stale Court Order?
9. Has the Court abuse its discretion seeking to enjoin a permitted use by
right in the Defendant's zone and one grandfathered, nonconforming use without a
showing of a nuisance in fact and in refusing to address such has the Defendant
been denied Due process and as such a taking without compensation?
10. Does the current injunction violate and oppress rights confered to the
Defendant by the Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance and whether the
township has presented any justification to continue the order absent nuisance
findings or violation as of its current Zoning Ordinance and or does it constitute a
taking without just compensation and or violates the Defendant's due process
rights?
11. Do the changes at the property, the lack of any of the items described in
the Decree nisi remaining on the property from the old stale order, and the
absence of [unintelligible] findings constitute a reason for modifying and or
dissolveing the outdated injunctive order of this court?
12. Is the township selectively enforceing it's Ordinance and or is the
Defendant intitled to equal protection under the law?
13. Has the trial courts' actions, ignoring facts and evidence favorable to the
Defendant deprived him of a fair trail and further evidences the Courts bias in this
case?
14. Are the willfull delays in executing orders or motions a sign of this
Courts' bias and prejudicial treatment of the Defendant?
15. the Court's repeated ignoring of evidence, erronious factual findings,
changes in circumstances favoring the Defendant shows a bais and prejudicial
conduct toward the Defendant?
16. Has the Court by ignoring and misrepresenting the Defendant financial
condition in the Contempt proceedings, in the In forma pauperis application, and
in the Habeas Corpus Petition constitute an abuse of judicial discretion and or an
attempt of the court to deny the Defendant Due Process and are the financial
conditions as caricaturized by the Court supported by the evidence of record?
2
17. Did the trial courts' orders authorize work release?
18. Did the trial Court attempt to set up the Defendant in a No Win scenario
in order to refuse the I.F.P. Petition?
19. Did the trail Court err by ignoring the true reasons why the Defendant
did not participate in the work release program contained in his petition?
20. Did the Court err in refusing to pay the $90.00 appeal fee.as part of the
Defendants I.F.P. Petition?
21. Will the Defendants incarceration further slow his future ability to
comply?
22. Are the Old Ordinancesas applied by this Court prohibitional and
therefore unconstitutional?
23. Did the trial Court err in finding the Defendant's appeal was untimly
filed?
24. Does the evidence support the factural finding that "the Defendant has
intentionally, voluntarily, and willfully failed to comply?
25. Did the trial Court err and Deprive the Defendant of his rights, by
deliberately ignoring the Habeas Corpus petition, and does such conduct show
bais and prejudicial conduct toward the Defendant and further support the "keys
were not in the hand of the Defendant for his release?
26. Has the Township shown there is no less burdensome a means to apply
the Zoning Ordinance and or protect the health, Safety, and welfare of the
community?
27. Is the injunctive order clear as to what conduct is restrained. by the
order. and does it go beyond what is necessary and impose on rights granted the
Defendant?
28. Are the statutory notices needed to be followed in order to afford the
Defendant Due Process, especially in light of the New Zoning Ordinance of Silver
Spring?
29. Has the Court cassually comingled the enforcement of a Zoning
Ordinance and the abatement of a nuisance?
30. Are the trial courts findings supported by the record and has the
Township meet it's burden?
31. Has the trial Court abused it's discretion and or misapplied the facts and
or misapprehend facts or evidence?
32. Is the definition of "Junk", "disabled vehicles and trailer" clear or vague
and or what constitutes these as through the Courts opinion?
33. Does this order interfere with the Defendants right and ability to earn a
living?
34. Should Silver Springs be bared from equitable relief for concealing
changes in its Zoning Ordinance?4
This opinion in support of the adjudication of contempt and sanction IS
written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
4 Defendant's response to his Honor's Rule 1925(b), filed February 3, 2005.
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On October 19, 1995, a permanent injunction was issued against Defendant
to clean up the premises of his residence in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. 5 The relief accorded the municipal Plaintiff arose out of
the court's finding that Defendant's property constituted a public nuisance and
was being maintained in violation of several ordinances. 6 The premises were
described by this court in 1995 as follows:
Since at least March of 1987, the township has been
engaged in a running battle with Defendant as a result of the
condition of his yard. The entire yard, except for passageways
through it, is full of decaying vehicles, mobile home trailers
acting as huge storage containers, rusting pieces of machinery,
inoperable equipment, broken kitchen appliances, oil drums,
worn out tires, and so forth.
During a view of the premises by the court, the door to a
refrigerator which was ostensibly operating on the porch was
opened to reveal the disintegrating remains of some animal or
bird habitation. Neighboring residents are unable to venture
into their yards at night because of an influx of skunks
emanating from the direction of the property, their windows
must be kept shut because of the animals' stench, and one
neighbor has resorted to the use of a gun to repel the skunks-
successfully killing ten of them. 7
The court's decree was affirmed by the Commonwealth Court on October
29, 1996.8 In affirming the decree, the Commonwealth Court noted that "[w]e
believe that these undisputed findings meet the legal requirement of public
5 Township of Silver Spring v. Carignan, 44 Cumberland LJ. 484 (1995). The court's decree was
issued as a final decree, following disposition of a motion for post-trial relief on December 11,
1995.
6 See id.
7 Id. at 486-87.
8 Carignan v. Silver Spring Township, 683 A.2d 988 (Pa. Commw. 1996).
4
nuisance in fact. ,,9 Defendant's petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court on July 11, 1997.10
Defendant was adjudicated in contempt of the decree for the first time on
May 29, 1996.11 He was sanctioned on June 7, 1996, to imprisonment, with the
condition of purge being that the property be cleaned Up.12 He refused to comply
with the condition of purge 13 and was released after a three-month period.
Defendant was adjudicated in contempt of the decree for the second time on
September 30, 1997, following a hearing at which the evidence revealed that he
had still done virtually nothing to bring his property into compliance with the
court's decree. 14 He again refused to make a commitment to clean up the
property15 and was sanctioned on December 2, 1997, to imprisonment, with the
condition of purge being that the property be cleaned Up.16 Defendant was
released from prison by agreement of the parties about a week after his
commitment. His release was the result of his representation that he would finally
clean up the premises. 17
Plaintiffs third petition for contempt was filed on August 14, 1998.18
Although not required to do SO,19 the court employed the five-step contempt
9 Id. (memorandum opinion at 10).
10 Carignan v. Silver Spring Township, 548 Pa. 663, 698 A.2d 69 (1997).
11 Order of Court, May 29, 1996.
12 Order of Court, June 7, 1996.
13 See NT. 3, Hearing on Commitment of Sentence, June 24,1996.
14 Order of Court, September 30, 1997. Defendant's appeal to the Commonwealth Court from
this adjudication was eventually quashed as interlocutory. Township of Silver Spring v.
Carignan, No. 2976 C.D. 1997; Order of Court, May 11, 1998.
15 See NT. 12, Hearing, December 2, 1997.
16 Order of Court, December 2, 1997.
17 Order of Court, December 11, 1997. Defendant was placed in an electronic monitoring
program. Id.
18 Plaintiffs Third Petition for Adjudication of Civil Contempt, filed August 14, 1998.
19 Diamondv. Diamond, 2002 PA Super. 34 ~11, 792 A.2d 597,601.
5
procedure in dealing with Plaintiff s petition?O The evidence presented at the
hearings on the petition satisfied the court that the condition of the premises had
not materially changed since the initial adjudication that found it to be a public
nUIsance.
F or instance, one of Defendant's own witnesses, a neighbor named Donald
W. Moorhead, engaged in this exchange with the court:
Q Let me just ask you this. Have there been changes
on Mr. Carignan's property? Has it improved? Is it worse? Is it
the same? What are your observations?
A I can't see no improvement at all. I see stuff
coming in. I see-like down along the fence, for example,
look at the golf carts that's sitting down there. Look at that
cart that's half ways down in the-I think it's a station wagon
that's sitting back by the-down in the-down on the ground.
No, I haven't seen no improvements?1
Mr. Moorehead also testified that "right now, we know there's skunks
around, because we can smell them at night. We can see where they're
bb. ,,22
ru mg....
The evidence included recent photographs of the property,23 which the
court was able to compare with its recollection of the view of the premises it
conducted prior to its initial adjudication that found the property to be a public
nuisance. The evidence showed that Defendant was continuing to bring items
h . 24
onto t e premIses.
Defendant was adjudicated in contempt for the third time on December 9,
1998?5 His appeal from this adjudication, which included an authorization for the
20 See McMahon v. McMahon, 706 A.2d 350,356 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
21 NT. 61, Hearing, October 1, 1998.
22 Id. at 60.
23 Plaintiff s Exhibit 1, Hearing, October 1, 1998.
24 NT. 36, Hearing, December 9, 1998.
25 Order of Court, December 9, 1998.
6
municipality to attempt to clean up the premises after a grace period of one month,
resulted in an affirmance by the Commonwealth Court.26
Plaintiff s fourth petition for adjudication of civil contempt was filed on
April 28, 2003.27 Again, although not required to do so, the court employed the
five-step contempt procedure?8 The evidence at the first hearing on August 13,
2003, made it clear, in the court's view, that the present condition of Defendant's
premises was comparable to what it had been when first found to be a public
nuisance in 1995?9
Testimony at the hearing included that of Kim Hoover, an Environmental
Protection Compliant Specialist with the Waste Management Program of the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 30 Ms. Hoover had
inspected Defendant's property on numerous occasions31 and found it "filled with
what we term solid waste. . . .,,32 She documented the materials which filled the
property as
including, but not limited to, cardboard, wood, plastic,
electronic waste, food waste, household waste, and
miscellaneous municipal and residual waste onto the surface of
the ground without a permit from the Department. 33
In the year and a half commencing in February of 2002 in which she had
been conducting inspections of the premises, Ms. Hoover noted, "more items had
been added to the property, more waste has accumulated on the property in that
26 Township of Silver Spring v. Carignan, No. 67 C.D. 1999 (memorandum opinion November
10, 1999).
27 Plaintiff s Fourth Petition for Adjudication of Civil Contempt, filed April 28, 2003.
28 See Order of Court, August 13,2003.
29 NT. 9, 15, Hearing, August 13,2003.
30 NT. 31, Hearing, August 13,2003.
31 NT. 31-32, Hearing, August 13,2003.
32 NT. 32, Hearing, August 13,2003.
33 NT. 32, Hearing, August 13,2003.
7
time frame.,,34 According to Ms. Hoover's testimony, an order of the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to Defendant on April 10,
2003, directing that the property be cleaned up had produced no results, and the
Department intended to file a petition for contempt with the Commonwealth
Court.35 Defendant, for his part, advised the court, inter alia, that he had "been
shafted all the way around. ,,36
Based upon the evidence which it found credible at the hearing, this court
issued a contempt citation against Defendant. 37
A second hearing was scheduled for November 12, 2003, affording
Defendant an ample additional period of time within which to bring his yard into
compliance.38 He did not, and conceded this fact when the hearing was
convened.39 The municipality, however, yielded to his promise that he would have
the site cleared within 90 days, and agreed to a general continuance of the second
h . 40
eanng.
On August 23, 2004, the municipality filed a motion requesting that the
second hearing be resumed, because Defendant had failed to keep his promise.41
The hearing was resumed on October 6, 2004. At that hearing, Defendant
conceded that he had not done what he had said he would do,42 and that he was not
in compliance at this point. 43
34 NT. 32-33, Hearing, August 13,2003.
35 NT. 33-34, Hearing, August 13,2003.
36 NT. 53, Hearing, August 13,2003.
37 Order of Court, August 13,2003.
38 Order of Court, November 12,2003.
39 NT. 2, November 12,2003.
40 NT. 6, November 12,2003; see Order of Court, November 12,2003.
41 Plaintiffs Motion for Second Hearing on Fourth Petition for Adjudication of Civil Contempt,
filed August 23, 2004.
42 NT. 3, Hearing, October 6, 2004.
43 NT. 3, 17,22, Hearing, October 6,2004.
8
The municipality's zoning officer testified, credibly in the court's view, that
the condition of the premises had not improved since a visit he had made to the
residence in the fall of 2003.44 He testified further that in April of 2004 the
Cumberland County Redevelopment Authority had caused the premises to be
posted as "a blighted property.,,45 Defendant advised the court, inter alia, that a
state order arising out of his failure to clean up the property was now on appeal by
him to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.46
At the conclusion of the second hearing, the court, while expressing its
aversion to incarceration as an instrument in such cases, pointed out that "I am
rather limited in what tools I have at my disposal to try to effect compliance with
these orders. . . .,,47 The court also emphasized that what was being asked of
Defendant was not a difficult assignment.48 The following order, from which
Defendant has appealed, was then entered:
AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2004, upon
consideration of Plaintiffs Fourth Petition for Adjudication in
Civil Contempt, and following the second hearing in the five-
step civil contempt procedure, the Court finds that the
Defendant has intentionally, voluntarily, and willfully failed to
comply with the prior orders of Court, and he is, again,
adjudicated in contempt.
The sanction is that the Defendant undergo imprisonment
in the Cumberland County Prison for a period of four months.
The condition of purge is that the Defendant effect full
compliance of his property at 6495 Carlisle Pike,
Mechanicsburg, Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, with the prior orders of court.49
44 NT. 4-5, Hearing, October 6, 2004.
45 NT. 8, Hearing, October 6,2004.
46 NT. 23, Hearing, October 6, 2004.
47 NT. 29, Hearing, October 6, 2004.
48 NT. 29, Hearing, October 6, 2004.
49 Order of Court, October 6, 2004.
9
Defendant subsequently filed a "Petition to Stay an Order of the court dated
10/6/04 and Expited Ruling" and a "Petition For the Modification of the Order of
This Court Dated October 6th, 2004.,,50 The latter noted, inter alia, that the
Defendant's imprisonment was costing the county fifty-five dollars per day and
philosophized that "Cumberland County could better use these funds on other
things.,,51 These petitions were denied as attempts to relitigate matters already
ruled upon. 52
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from this order to the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court requesting in forma pauperis status. 53 At a hearing on the
in forma pauperis request, Defendant, who at the time was also incarcerated as a
result of a finding of contempt arising out of his failure to pay child support, 54
testified that he refused to participate in the work release program at the prison
because of a concern that drugs would be planted on him by other inmates in the
work release program. 55 The court did not find this explanation for his refusal to
participate in the program, and thus for his alleged financial incapacity, to be
credible.
The court entered an order excusing Defendant from paying the costs for
transcripts relating to the appeal, but not excusing him from paying the modest fee
for filing the appeal. 56 The filing fee was paid, and the appeal is proceeding in the
Commonwealth Court with Defendant's in forma pauperis status being recognized
50 See Petition to Stay an Order of the court dated 10/6/04 and Expitxed Ruling, filed October 12,
2004; Petition for the Modification of the Order of This Court Dated October 61\ 2004, filed
October 20, 2004.
51 Petition for the Modification of the Order of This Court Dated October 61\ 2004, filed October
20, 2004.
52 Order of Court, December 6, 2004.
53 Application To Proceed in Forma Pauperis, filed December 3,2004; Notice of Appeal & Order
for Transcripts to be Filed, filed December 3, 2004.
54NT. 13-14, Hearing, October 6,2004.
55 NT. 3, 6, December 29, 2004.
56 Order of Court, January 4,2005.
10
by the Court. 57 The sanction of imprisonment, with a condition of purge (which
was never met), has long since expired. Whether Defendant's appeal is moot
because of the sanction's expiration is beyond the scope of this opinion.58
In 2005, Defendant filed a "Petition for Habeas Corpus," attempting to
relitigate the Court's order of October 6, 2004, and a petition to recuse the
undersigned judge, neither of which was cognizable by this court in light of the
appeal.
DISCUSSION
As has been noted by the Commonwealth Court,
A 'nuisance' is "such a use of property or such a course of
conduct as, irrespective of actual trespass against others or of
malicious or actual criminal intent, transgresses the just
restrictions upon use or conduct which the proximity of other
persons or property in civilized communities imposes upon
what would otherwise be rightful freedom. In legal
phraseology, the term 'nuisance' is applied to that class of
wrongs that arise from the umeasonable, unwarrantable, or
unlawful use by a person of his own property, real or personal,
or from his own improper, indecent, or unlawful personal
conduct, working on obstruction or injury to a right of another,
or of the pubic and producing such material annoyance,
inconvenience, discomfort or hurt that the law will presume a
d 59
consequent amage....
"A public nuisance is an inconvenience or troublesome offense that annoys
the whole community in general, and not merely some particular person ... and [it]
is not dependent upon covenants.,,60 The Commonwealth Court has previously
affirmed this court's factual determination that Defendant's property has been
57 See Order of Court, April 1, 2005 (No. 259 C.D. 2005).
58 But see Reap's Appeal, 88 Pa. Super. 147 (1926); see also Commonwealth v. Simon, 526 Pa. 69,
77, 584 A.2d 895, 899 (1990); Altemose Construction Co. v. Building & Construction Trades
Council, 449 Pa. 194,216,296 A.2d 504,516 (1972); Smith v. Smith, 431 Pa. Super. 588, 594,
637 A.2d 622,625 (1994).
59 GrojJv. Borough ofSellersville, 12 Pa. Commw. 315,318,314 A.2d 328,330 (1974).
60 Phillips v. Donaldson, 269 Pa. 244,246, 112 A. 236, 238 (1920).
11
maintained as a public nuisance, and based upon the evidence recited above, the
court was of the view that Defendant's property continues to be a public nuisance.
In general, a court of equity has jurisdiction to enjoin or abate a public
nuisance. Groff, 12 Pa. Commw. At 318,314 A.2d at 330. Where an order of the
court is disobeyed, the court has the authority to find the violator in civil
contempt61 upon (a) proof of the noncompliance by a preponderance of the
evidence, and (b) a failure on the alleged contemnor's part to demonstrate that he
made a good faith effort to comply. 62 A finding of contempt, absent an error of
law, is relegated to the sound discretion of the trial court.63 Based on the
foregoing evidence and principles, the court made such a finding of contempt for
the fourth time in Defendant's case, on October 6, 2004.
A court, when "imposing coercive imprisonment for civil contempt, [must]
set conditions for purging the contempt and effecting release from imprisonment
with which it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, from the totality of the
evidence before it, the contemnor has the present ability to comply." Barrett v.
Barrett, 479 Pa. 253, 264, 368 A.2d 616, 621 (1977). In this regard, "[a] court
may exercise its civil contempt power to enforce compliance with its orders for the
benefit of the party in whose favor the order runs but not to inflict punishment. ,,64
Imprisonment for a fixed term is coercive, and thus civil in nature, when
the contemnor is given the option of earlier release if he or she complies with the
court order. Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 114 S. Ct. 2552,
L. Ed.2d. 642 (1994); see Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 86 S. Ct. 1531,
16 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1966) (upholding a two-year prison sentence as a civil sentence
where a purge condition was attached). In the present case, the sanction of
61 See, e.g., Wellington Farms, Inc. v. Township of Silver Spring, 679 A.2d 267 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
1996)
62 Hyle v. Hyle, 2005 PA Super. 50, ~12, 868 A.2d 601, 604; Sinaiko v. Sinaiko, 445 Pa. Super.
56,64-65,664 A.2d 1005, 1009-10 (1995).
63 Diamondv. Diamond, 2002 PA Super. 34, ~6, 792 A.2d 597,600.
64 Sinaiko, 445 Pa. Super. at 64,664 A.2d at 1009 (1995).
12
imprisonment was coercive and civil in nature, including a purge condition in the
form of compliance with the underlying order. The clean-up of one's yard is not,
in the court's view, a very difficult assignment and can easily be affected through
the use of third parties. Defendant's alleged incapacity in this respect is, and has
always been, disingenuous, illusory and a product of obstinacy rather than
circumstance.
In general, there is no right to free counsel in a civil case. Commonwealth
v. Stock, 545 Pa. 13, 679 A.2d 760 (1996). The absence of a right to an appointed
counsel applies to civil contempt cases.65 Nor has this court's research revealed
any authority for the propositions apparently being advanced on appeal by
Defendant that the court was under an obligation to advise him of such a right or
to appoint counsel to represent him in the absence of a request for the same and a
demonstration of indigency.
Any changes which might have occurred in the zoning ordinance of the
municipality since the inception of this case would not have authorized Defendant
to continue to maintain a public nuisance in violation of this court's orders.
Finally, in view of Defendant's perfection of the present appeal and his in forma
pauperis status in the Commonwealth Court, issues relating to that matter appear
to the court to be moot. 66 On the merits of the issue, it may be noted that it is the
"policy of this Commonwealth that those persons who can afford the costs of
appeal may not enjoy the right of appealing without payment." Davila v. Soto,
250 Pa. Super. 42, 44, 378 A.2d 443, 444 (1977). Applications with respect to in
forma pauperis status in civil cases are, to a large degree, left to the sound
discretion of the court.67 In this case, Defendant's alleged financial incapacity was
by his own choice, the court absorbed the costs of preparation and filing of the
65 Wade v. Daniels, 34 Phila. Co. Rptr. 525 (1997).
66 See generally Brady v. Ford, 451 Pa. Super. 363, 679 A.2d 837 (1996); Madden v. Myers, 102
F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996).
67 See In re Adoption ofB.G.S., 418 Pa. Super. 588, 614 A.2d 1161 (1992).
13
transcripts required for the appeal, and he met the only financial condition
imposed upon him by the court in connection with the appeal-payment of the
filing fee.
In summary, it is believed that the vanous Issues raised on appeal by
Defendant, which are premised upon indirect criminal contempt principles, are
dependent upon a mischaracterization as to the process and sanction employed by
the court herein, and that Defendant's remaining assignments of error are similarly
not soundly based in law or fact. As noted, the issue of the mootness of
Defendant's appeal by virtue of the expiration of the sanction, with purge,
imposed is beyond the scope of this opinion.
BY THE COURT,
1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1.
Steven A. Stine, Esq.
23 Waverly Drive
Hummelstown, P A 17036
Attorney for Plaintiff
Gregg R. Carignan
6495 Carlisle Pike
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055
Defendant, pro se
14