Spot Zoning Preliminary Statement
"Activism is my rent for living on this planet." Alice Walker, Pulitzer Prize-winning author.
In November Plaintiff received notification that Lower Southampton Township would consider rezoning a residentially zoned property adjacent to Plaintiff's property/home/family, to commercial zoning. Plaintiff and nearly the entire neighborhood adjacent to this property numbering nearly a hundred citizens of Lower Southampton Township were against rezoning this residential property to commercial status. Ours is an old traditional suburban residential neighborhood which would be severely and negatively impacted by the imposition of a commercial development in our back yards.
At the time of the rezoning hearing on this matter the Township building had interested residents flowing over into the hallways and exits, all vying for an opportunity to express their opposition to the subject rezoning. Facing such animated and vocal opposition, the Lower Southampton Supervisors voted to deny the Planning Department's recommendation to approve the rezoning. And there we stood, concerned citizens once united in our dissent now united in victory. This Court in its recent Order stating that the Plaintiff appeared to have "emerged from the zoning process victorious" captured the gravamen of this action - the residents had indeed emerged victorious, only to have that victory stolen through chicanery and illegal means. Plaintiff humbly comes before this Court to address this fraud and the mechanisms of its perpetration.
Contrary to Pennsylvania law which imposes a specific appeal/reconsideration period and requires that opponents have an opportunity to be heard, Defendant, Lower Southampton Township, revisited the matter untimely and purportedly rezoned the subject property. Since that time public records of these matters have disappeared from the public library, records that do exist have been doctored so as to not reveal anything about the subject property, requests for copies of transcripts of hearings, minutes of meetings, and other information vital to the residents' rights to object have been denied.
A virtual lockdown of any records or information related to this transaction has prevented the exercise of any meaningful objection or dissent.
Plaintiff acknowledges a zealous activism and leadership role in opposing this rezoning. However, this passion has had serious negative consequence. During the initial hearing/meeting on this matter Lower Southampton Township Supervisor Mike Connelly said to the Plaintiff "you need to get out of this township, like you did Bensalem which occurred in front all gathered there on December 10.
Also since that hearing, Plaintiff has received harassing notices concerning bogus violations of Township codes, ordinances, and/or regulations. Plaintiff's activism and involvement has been rewarded with public accusations, malicious aspersions, harassment, and violation of Plaintiff's right to the quiet enjoyment of his home and family.
Carol Drioil told me, Peter Sauers at the zoning office? We don't want your kind here" in this Township. Lower Southampton Township Supervisor Mike Connelly said to the Plaintiff Peter Sauers you need to stop the frivolous lawsuits on or about December 10.
Appeal
response and appeal to order fild mar 29
? All persons are to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to Due Process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness? I did not and was not given the same access to the law and courts.
SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTED
? The ADA Pro Se must be filed in Federal District Court because the ADA is a Federal law this court has jurisdiction? The laws could and may and do call for other / another courts to come first in and under the law. Action that was called for was in the Court of common pleas at the time. If I would have had access accommodations and services needed I could have used the court of common pleas. Defamation and false light claims were made within one year. Discussion page 6 HONORABLE JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER stated it was after one year this was and is an error as was other facts.
Court of common pleas of buck county office of court to the prothonotary response
from the plaintiff case no. 08-11076
? Zoning is the chief planning tool of local government to guide the future development of a community, protect neighborhoods.? NOT in this case the Board of Supervisors made a clear need for money and to make money in this case to my understanding not having any wish to protect my neighborhood one Supervisor told me I should just move / get out of Lower Southampton and did this on record. U. S constitution u. S constitution: rights under the u. S CONSTITUTION ONLY.
Decision rendered December 10 was over turned on APRIL 7. Case No. 0811076 Court of common pleas within 30 days this is the substantive law and a clear fact
HONORABLE JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER, removed what was my A.D. A rights, I (Peter Sauers) fail to show the Judge I was denied access and accommodations in Court of common pleas an element of fundamental fairness but within their rights to do, so and I apologize to all and the Court. On the other hand anyone significantly restricted has to have access to a court if need be to uphold the laws and given justice. Original jurisdiction the Court of common pleas was also filed ADA Pro Se as need be and on time and at this time. PAGE 5: Court of common pleas denied access and accommodations after an illegal act.
THE LAW Legal element
? Section 1002-A. Jurisdiction and Venue on Appeal; Time for Appeal. All appeals from all land use decisions rendered pursuant to Article IX shall be taken to the court of common pleas of the judicial district wherein the land is located and shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the decision as provided in 42 Pa. C.S. 5572 (relating to time of entry of order) or, in the case of a deemed decision, within 30 days after the date upon which notice of said deemed decision is given as set forth in section 908 (9) of this ac? T.
On or about October 2 Plaintiff Filed within 30 Days to the Court of common pleas. FACT: Plaintiff was granted Relief on or about December 10.
This Court in its recent Order stating that the Plaintiff appeared to have "emerged from the zoning process victorious" captured the gravamen of this action - the residents had indeed emerged victorious and we did and it was over on December 10.
? Zoning is the chief planning tool of local government to guide the future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate, retail business and industry, channel traffic and play a major role in the enhancement of urban as well as small-town life.in 1926, zoning was declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co?
ILLEGAL: The court of common pleas of the judicial district wherein the land is located and shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the decision as provided in 42 Pa. C.S. 5572. This suit was brought by Plaintiff that was deprived without due process of law as to bypass the Court of common pleas and go back to the Board of Supervisors Lower Southampton Township and not within 30 days was illegal misconduct actions of Board of Supervisors as to vote two times.
ILLEGAL: Board of Supervisor? Mr. Hopkins said before the motion is made he would like to say that his recollection of the December 10th meeting is slightly different than what Counsel has represented? Ms. Kirk is omitting information that there was a meeting on December 10th in her first motion to the District Court abracadabra.
HONORABLE JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER Did not see the December 10th meeting Since that time public records of these matters have disappeared from the public library, records that do exist have been doctored so as to not reveal anything about the subject property, requests for copies of transcripts of hearings, minutes of meetings, and other information vital to the residents' rights to object have been denied.
I PETER SAUERS made a telephone call to Township Manager Ted Taylor and Two written request under the (R.T. K) act. Flipped the presumption. I also made other written request all the way back to 2008 with no response.
The Pennsylvania Right to Know Act, also known as the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law, is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of governmental bodies in Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act: legislates the methods by which public meetings are conducted.
Prior to the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act was widely regarded as one of the worst in the country, partly because the pre law presumed that government records were not public, unless someone who wanted the record could establish otherwise. A new law passed by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Ed Rendell "flipped the presumption". This new law goes into full effect on January 1 and it states, in sharp distinction to the previous law, that all documents will be presumed to be open to the public unless the agency holding them can prove otherwise.
Lower Southampton Township (the) agency holding the public records has stopped access, with no just case?
HONORABLE GOVERNOR RENDELL
Please take action in asking HONORABLE JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER as to have Lower Southampton Township come forward public records asked for and to take a full look at them and my case.
Quote? Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi, one of the most influential figures in modern social and political activism? Democracy and violence can ill go together. Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side?
? It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us?
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good heart whatever they might have to say?
? The weak can never forgive.
Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong
HONORABLE JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER
My anger is not with you or the Court but the illegal misconduct, omitting information, Bad faith and all my understanding the lying of my opponents as to get your court to dismiss my case.? THE FIRST AMENDMENT This petition the Government for a redress of grievances? Mental impairment / challenged don? T have a prayer when you buy in-to the swindle.
HONORABLE JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER JUDGE
Due Process called for The Galaman Group and Nico Landscaping inc, to go to the Court of common pleas. Sauers? Has a legitimate gripe with these Defendants failure to respond? As this court has said. Acting fraudulently stopped Defendants from going to the Court of common pleas and no rights to go back to the Board of Supervisors and did an illegal act.? A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud. Quite often there are several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all may be liable for the total damages.inherent in fraud is an unjust advantage over another which injures that person or entity? GONE my rights to U. S CONSTITUTION and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania Constitution rights as I see it and others do. Legal element.
HONORABLE JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER
I do understand clear lies and falsehoods were made I feel I could show them to a jury of my peers if need be. What would Ms. Kirk motive be to omit information of December 10 meeting and falsely reporting a clear fact (s) as to what happened? Lying to the District Court about this land use decisions rendered. Mike Connelly was on the Board of Supervisors and working for Lower Southampton Township at the same time. Mike Connelly stated the money was for the Township workers and severs as at the time he was one of. Where is the ethics in this, as not in part a fraud, sufficient to shock the conscience in my words selling out and helping Them self. The Board of Supervisors with help from Nico Landscaping Inc. Would bring outsiders in talking tax dollars and lower taxes are illegal misconduct because zoning laws call for so many ft. And not money for the Defendants and others.
F.R.C.P. 8 (a) Claims for Relief. (c) Affirmative Defenses. (1) In General.in responding to pleading, affirmatively I (Peter Sauers) stated an affirmative defense, including: Fraud and the statute of limitations; AND Should NOT have been DISMISS with F.R.C. P 12 (b) (6). As not to
prepared to hear the my side in fact at this time public records of these
matters have disappeared.
HONORABLE JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER
DISMISSED On one Defendants Motion other Defendants failure to respond? No action taken.
Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.
Rule 62. Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment
(a) Automatic Stay; Exceptions for Injunctions, Receiverships, and Patent Accountings.
Except as stated in this rule, no execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 14 days have passed after its entry. But unless the court orders otherwise, the following are not stayed after being entered, infringement. Even if an appeal is taken:
(1) an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or a receivership; or
(2) a judgment or order that directs an accounting in an action for patent
(b) Stay Pending the Disposition of a Motion.
On appropriate terms for the opposing party's security, the court may stay the execution of a judgment? Or any proceedings to enforce it? Pending disposition of any of the following motions:
(1) under Rule 50, for judgment as a matter of law;
(2) under Rule 52 (b), to amend the findings or for additional findings;
(3) under Rule 59, for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment; or
(4) under Rule 60, for relief from a judgment or order.
(c) Injunction Pending an Appeal.
While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party's rights. If the judgment appealed from is rendered by a statutory three-judge district court, the order must be made either: (1) / (2).
Verification
PLAINTIFF PETER SAUERS Pro-se the PLAINTIFF verifies that he is one for himself in this action, and that the statements made in the forgoing APPEAL are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements made
herein are subject to the penalties of law? Relating to unsworn,
falsification to authorities and all is to my understating.
Now up for re-sale as Commerial after we all were told this will not happen?
Lower Southampton Township Rip-OFF?
0 comments