DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma Case 19-01038-M Document 69 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 08/11/20 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA IN RE: Filed/Docketed Aug 11, 2020 SHELDON E. LANDON, Case No. 19-11005-M Chapter 7 Debtor. CHRISTOPHER W. KANAGA and LARAJA & KANAGA, P.C., Plaintiffs, Adversary No. 19-01038-M v. SHELDON E. LANDON, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”),1 filed by Christopher W. Kanaga (“Kanaga” or “Mr. Kanaga”) and Laraja & Kanaga, P.C. (collectively “Plaintiffs”); a Response,2 filed by Sheldon E. Landon (“Defendant”); and a Reply,3 filed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs hold multiple state court judgments against Defendant and filed this adversary proceeding to except two of those judgments from discharge in Defendant’s present bankruptcy 1 Docket No. 36. 2 Docket Nos. 42 and 43. Defendant’s Response is spread across two sprawling pleadings. Although Plaintiffs raised the issue that the pleadings did not conform with the Court’s local rule regarding page limitations for a response to a motion for summary judgment, they did not expressly object to the Court’s consideration of both pleadings. After review, the Court determines that it will consider the pleadings together to make up the Defendant’s Response to the Motion. 3 Docket No. 53. Case 19-01038-M Document 69 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 08/11/20 Page 2 of 20 case.4 The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7056. Jurisdiction This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b),5 and venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. Reference to the Court of this matter is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Determination as to the dischargeability of a debt is a “core” proceeding as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). Summary Judgment Standard The United States Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit has held that Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “An issue is ‘genuine’ if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.” Adler v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). “An issue of fact is ‘material’ if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.” Id. Put differently, “[t]he question . is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). “On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986) (quotation omitted). The Court will apply this standard to the Motion. 4 The Court notes that Plaintiffs discuss numerous other judgments and grievances against Defendant in both the Complaint and the Motion, but concludes that they seek a finding of non- dischargeability for only the two judgments discussed herein. See Complaint, at Docket No. 1. Because the Court cannot find reason to muddy the analysis, the Court will restrict its discussion of facts and law to those judgments that Plaintiffs seek to be held excepted from discharge. 5 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 2 Case 19-01038-M Document 69 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 08/11/20 Page 3 of 20 Findings of Fact Kanaga is an individual who resides in Massachusetts. Laraja & Kanaga, P.C. is a Massachusetts professional corporation. Both are judgment creditors of Defendant. On May 14, 2019, Defendant filed a petition for relief under chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, Case No. 19-11005-M. 1. The Defamation Judgment Long before these matters reached the present forum, Plaintiffs filed an action in Massachusetts Trial Court, Barnstable Superior Court Department (the “Massachusetts Court”), Civil Action No. 1572-00335, against Defendant for defamation (the “Defamation Action”), based on an allegedly defamatory Facebook post, among other statements. Plaintiff Kanaga was awarded a judgment after a trial on the merits before a jury (the “Defamation Judgment”).6 In the Defamation Action, with respect to Kanaga’s claim only, a Massachusetts jury found that: a. “Plaintiff Christopher Kanaga has proved by preponderance of the evidence that [Defendant] published one or more of the following statements of and concerning Mr. Kanaga and that they were false: [1] he attempted to pay off [Defendant]’s own lawyers; [2] he attempted to pay off judges; and [3] he attempted to pay off members of law enforcement, including a police officer from Cohasset.” b. “[Defendant] published the false and defamatory statement or statements either negligently, or recklessly or intentionally[.]” c. The amount of $100,000 “would fairly and reasonably compensate Mr. Kanaga for damages caused by [Defendant] in defaming him[.]”7 In addition, the jury answered the following “additional advisory factual questions for the benefit of the court”: 6 Docket No. 36-4. 7 Docket No. 36-3 at 1–2. Although Defendant denies making the defamatory statements, she does not raise a genuine dispute that Kanaga alleged that she made such statements, or that a Massachusetts jury ultimately found that she made such false statements by a preponderance of the evidence. 3 Case 19-01038-M Document 69 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 08/11/20 Page 4 of 20 Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Defendant] published one or more of the following statements either knowing that they were false or in reckless disregard as to whether each statement was false: [1] Mr. Kanaga attempted to pay off [Defendant]’s own lawyers; [2] Mr. Kanaga attempted to pay off judges; and [3] Mr. Kanaga attempted to pay off members of law enforcement, including a police officer from Cohasset.8 The jury answered each question in the affirmative. On February 21, 2019, the Massachusetts Court entered the Defamation Judgment based on the jury verdict in the amount of $144,064.90, which included the jury’s damages, court costs, and pre-judgment interest.9 The Defamation Judgment is currently on appeal by Defendant.10 2. The Sanctions Judgment The parties were simultaneously engaged in litigation in Oklahoma, where Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendant pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act in the District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the “Tulsa County Court”), Case No. CV- 2016-1634 (the “Tulsa County Action”).11 On August 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant in the Tulsa County Action, which was served on Defendant the same day.12 Defendant filed a response, with permission of the Tulsa County Court.13 On August 25, 2017, Defendant was given notice of a hearing to be held on September 28, 2017, regarding the 8 Id. at 3. 9 Docket No. 36-4. 10 Docket No. 56-10, at 332. 11 At some point, this action was consolidated with Tulsa County Court Case Number CJ- 2018-3751. Reference to the “Tulsa County Action” will therefore include both cases. 12 Docket No. 54-2, at 194, 201. 13 Docket No. 54-3, at 1. 4 Case 19-01038-M Document 69 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 08/11/20 Page 5 of 20 Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.14 On September 28, 2017, the Tulsa County Court held the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, at which Defendant did not appear.15 On that same day, the Tulsa County Court entered a journal entry making various findings and awarding unspecified fees to Plaintiffs. On October 11, 2017, the Tulsa County Court reiterated its findings and entered a judgment for sanctions against Defendant (the “Sanctions Judgment”) in the amount of $5,591.45.16 In the Sanctions Judgment, the Tulsa County Court found: 1. The Defendant has violated OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 2011(B) by filing herein the: (1) February 16, 2017 Motion to Vacate; (2) March 6, 2017 Motion to Dismiss Court Order for “Judgment Debtor” to Attend March 9-17 Hearing; (3) April 4, 2017 Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment; and (4) July 14, 2017 Motion to Vacate Bond, Order of Judgment. 2. Defendant’s pleadings were presented improperly and frivolously to harass, unnecessarily delay, and needlessly increase the cost of the litigation. 3. Defendant’s pleadings did, in fact, unnecessarily delay and needlessly increase the cost of the litigation. 4. Defendant’s pleadings contained claims, defenses, and other legal contentions that were unwarranted by existing law. 5. Defendant’s pleadings contained allegations and factual contentions that did not have evidentiary support and were not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. 6. Defendant’s pleadings contained denials of factual contentions that were not warranted on the evidence. 7. Defendant’s behavior with respect to this litigation was conducted in bad faith and was oppressive. 8. Defendant should be sanctioned therefor and Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their attorney fees and costs incurred herein.17 Section 2011(B) of title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which the Tulsa County Court found Defendant to have violated, states: 14 Docket No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rule 6 Criminal Cases
    RULE 6 CRIMINAL CASES RULE 6.10 Felony and Misdemeanor Cases No Local Rules under this subdivision. RULE 6.10-A Grand Jury No Local Rules under this subdivision. RULE 6.11 Filings/Return of Information Assignment of Cases after Information The following rules shall govern the assignment of misdemeanor cases and other matters within the jurisdiction of the County Courts at Law in Fort Bend County, Texas: (A) All misdemeanor proceedings presented to the County Clerk for filing shall be assigned by the County Clerk on a random basis to the County Courts at Law by mean of a blind filing process which provides for the equal distribution of new cases in such a manner that it cannot be determined to which court a case will be assigned until after said court assignment. Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, the County Clerk shall randomly assign every criminal case filed by information with uneven numbered cases being assigned to County Court at Law No. 1 and even numbered cases being assigned to County Court at Law No. 2. (B) After refiling and docketing of misdemeanor information into the County Courts at Law, the County Clerk will determine by research [based upon information provided by the District Attorney at the time of filing the information] whether the defendant named in the misdemeanor information has a prior connection to an existing case in any of the County Courts at Law. Such prior connection is defined as: (1) defendant has been accorded misdemeanor probation in one of the County Courts at Law and the probation has not
    [Show full text]
  • Judge Emily A. Miskel
    Judge Emily A. Miskel 470th Judicial District Court 2100 Bloomdale Road, 2nd Floor, McKinney, Texas 75071 T: (972) 548-5670 F: (972) 548-5674 E: [email protected] Minimum Standard Health Protocols for Court Proceedings Effective August 1, 2021 – October 1, 2021 Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Texas’s 40th Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster,1 this document contains the minimum standard health protocols for court proceedings and the public attending court proceedings that will be employed in all courtrooms and throughout all public areas of the court buildings.2 Collin County courts will follow the most current d health recommendations made by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS). The current recommendations can be found at https://www.dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/ These are the minimum standards that apply in all Collin County courts and court buildings. Each court has the authority to require additional protocols.3 If a court is requiring additional protocols, those protocols will be posted on each court’s public website: • List of District Court Websites - https://www.collincountytx.gov/district_courts/Pages/default.aspx • List of County Court at Law Websites – https://www.collincountytx.gov/county_court_law/Pages/default.aspx • List of Justice Court Websites - https://www.collincountytx.gov/justices_peace/Pages/default.aspx Social Distancing 1. Unvaccinated people are encouraged to practice social distancing, also called physical distancing, within the courthouse, including in elevators, restrooms,
    [Show full text]
  • Small Claims Court Procedures
    SMALL CLAIMS COURT PROCEDURES The Rules of Judicial Ethics prohibits this office from giving legal advice or hearing your case without the presence of the defendant or plaintiff. If you need legal counseling, we highly recommend any licensed Texas attorney. Your first meeting with the attorney is usually (but not always) free because the lawyer is trying to determine if they can be of service to you. In a civil suit any CORPORATION MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY. REMEMBER, IT IS YOUR JOB TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE (RECEIPTS, JOURNALS, RECORDS, POLICE REPORTS, WITNESSES, ETC) TO PROVE YOUR CASE. IF YOU FAIL TO PROVE YOUR CASE IT CAN BE DISMISSED. If you have any LEGAL QUESTIONS, contact LEGAL AID AT (915)-585-5100. Small Claims Courts are courts in which parties can settle small money disputes in a speedy, informal setting. To ensure that Small Claims Courts can be used without the help of an attorney, the Legislature established less formal procedures for these courts. The purpose of this pamphlet is to help you understand the basic procedures in these courts, but is not intended to present complete coverage of them. A Small Claims Court is a judicial forum to hear and decide civil cases involving claims for MONEY ONLY, for $10,000 or less. The court cannot require a party to return, replace, or repair property; to do something; or, to refrain from doing something. For example, you could sue a car mechanic in Small Claims Court to get back money you paid for repairs that were not made.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Reform in England
    Comments COURT REFORM IN ENGLAND A reading of the Beeching report' suggests that the English court reform which entered into force on 1 January 1972 was the result of purely domestic considerations. The members of the Commission make no reference to the civil law countries which Great Britain will join in an important economic and political regional arrangement. Yet even a cursory examination of the effects of the reform on the administration of justice in England and Wales suggests that English courts now resemble more closely their counterparts in Western Eu- rope. It should be stated at the outset that the new organization of Eng- lish courts is by no means the result of the 1971 Act alone. The Act crowned the work of various legislative measures which have brought gradual change for a period of well over a century, including the Judicature Acts 1873-75, the Interpretation Act 1889, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the Administration of Justice Act 1933, the County Courts Act 1934, the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 and the Criminal Law Act 1967. The reform culminates a prolonged process of response to social change affecting the legal structure in England. Its effect was to divorce the organization of the courts from tradition and history in order to achieve efficiency and to adapt the courts to new tasks and duties which they must meet in new social and economic conditions. While the earlier acts, including the 1966 Criminal Appeal Act, modernized the structure of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the 1971 Act extended modern court structure to the intermediate level, creating the new Crown Court, and provided for the regular admin- istration of justice in civil matters by the High Court in England and Wales, outside the Royal Courts in London.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin V. Wegman
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CHARLES RICHARD MARTIN, II, : APPEAL NOS. C-180268 C-180308 Plaintiff-Appellant, : TRIAL NOS. A-1704203 A-1706197 vs. : O P I N I O N. DONALD A. WEGMAN, : Defendant-Appellee. : Civil Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed as Modified in C-180308; Appeal Dismissed in C-180268 Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 19, 2019 Harry B. Plotnick, for Plaintiff-Appellant, Frederick J. Johnson, for Defendant-Appellee. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS CROUSE, Judge. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Charles Martin appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his defamation claim. We modify the judgment so that dismissal is without prejudice, and affirm as modified. Facts and Procedure {¶2} Martin initially filed a defamation claim under the case numbered A- 1704203 and, after voluntarily dismissing the claim without prejudice, refiled his claim under the case numbered A-1706197. Martin’s complaint alleged that defendant- appellee Donald Wegman “published false, misleading and defamatory statements about plaintiff in written correspondence both to government officials and on defendant’s personal Facebook account.” According to the complaint, Wegman published that Martin was an adult male member of the community who was filming defendant and his 12-year-old daughter with a drone…implying that the alleged acts were committed for immoral purposes. {¶3} Wegman filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After hearing oral argument, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, saying “the complaint doesn’t state enough on its face.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement Officers (Formerly Known As Bailiffs)
    BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP04103, 4 June 2021 Enforcement officers By Lorraine Conway (formerly known as bailiffs) Contents: Summary 1. Introduction to enforcement agents 2. Regulation of enforcement agents 3. Complaints about enforcement agents 4. Frequently asked questions 5. Where to get debt advice 6. Recent developments 7. Effectiveness of current regulation 8. Bailiff action during Covid-19 www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Enforcement officers (formerly known as bailiffs) Contents Summary 4 1. Introduction to enforcement agents 5 1.1 What is an enforcement agent? 5 1.2 Types of enforcement agent 5 High Court enforcement officers 6 County Court bailiffs 7 Civilian Enforcement Officers 7 2. Regulation of enforcement agents 8 2.1 Overview 8 2.2 New national standards on enforcement 10 3. Complaints about enforcement agents 11 3.1 Is there a regulatory body? 11 3.2 Is there a general guide? 11 3.3 Who should I complain to? 11 3.4 Complaints about private sector enforcement agents 11 Certificated enforcement agents 11 High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs) 12 3.5 Complaints about court enforcement officers 13 County Court bailiff or civilian enforcement officer 13 3.6 Complaining to the creditor 13 3.7 Taking legal action 13 4. Frequently asked questions 14 4.1 When can bailiffs enter a property? 14 4.2 Are there any time restrictions? 14 4.3 Who can let a bailiff in? 14 4.4 Can bailiffs force entry? 15 4.5 How do you know it is a certificated bailiff and not a debt collector? 15 4.6 What belongings can a bailiff take? 15 4.7 Can bailiffs take other people’s belongings? 16 4.8 Can bailiffs take goods from outside of the home? 16 4.9 Are vulnerable people protected? 17 4.10 What fees can bailiffs charge? 17 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson: What It Takes to Become a Judge Objective
    Courts in the Community Colorado Judicial Branch Office of the State Court Administrator Updated November 2020 Lesson: What it takes to become a Judge Objective: Students know how power, authority, and responsibility are distributed, shared, and limited in the Colorado judicial system. (Colorado Model Content Standards: Civics, Standard 2.2, grades 9-12) Activities: Teacher lecture (background material and lecture outline provided); class participation activity; and homework assignment. Outcomes: Students develop an understanding of how judges became judges, what criteria qualified them for the job, and what attributes they must have to maintain their positions. Grade Level: Grades 9-12 Anticipated classroom time: 45-60 minutes Message from former Court of Appeals Judge Daniel M. Taubman: Although there are about 37,000 licensed lawyers in Colorado, there are only about 390 judges. Thus, only a very small percentage of lawyers have the opportunity to serve the citizens of the State of Colorado as a judge. In almost all cases, a person must be a Colorado lawyer before becoming a judge (in some rural areas, a non-lawyer may serve as a county court judge). Whether for county court, district court, the Colorado Court of Appeals, or the Colorado Supreme Court, a judicial applicant must apply to a nominating commission that reviews his or her qualifications. Typically, the nominating commission makes three recommendations to the governor, who then appoints one of the nominees to serve as a judge. Both the nominating commission and the governor look to certain traits in order to find well-qualified judges. Among the primary criteria are open-mindedness, fairness, and lack of bias.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do the Ohio Courts Work?
    How Do The Ohio Courts Work? Judge John J. Russo Administrative and Presiding Judge Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judges John J. Russo, Presiding and Administrative Judge Dick Ambrose Pamela A. Barker Janet R. Burnside Deena R. Calabrese Maureen E. Clancy Cassandra Collier-Williams Brian J. Corrigan Peter J. Corrigan Michael P. Donnelly Carolyn B. Friedland Stuart A. Friedman Nancy A. Fuerst Steven E. Gall Hollie L. Gallagher Kelly Ann Gallagher Shannon M. Gallagher Daniel Gaul Michael E. Jackson David T. Matia Robert C. McClelland Timothy McCormick Nancy R. McDonnell Sherrie Miday John P. O’Donnell Joseph D. Russo Michael J. Russo Nancy Margaret Russo Shirley Strickland Saffold Michael Shaughnessy Brendan J. Sheehan John D. Sutula Kathleen Ann Sutula Joan Synenberg Structure of The Ohio Judicial System Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice and Six Justices Original jurisdiction in select cases; court of last resort on state constitutional questions and questions of public or great general interest; appeals from the Board of Tax Appeals, Public Utilities Commission and death penalty cases. Court of Appeals 12 Courts, 69 Judges Three Judge Panels Original jurisdiction in select cases, appellate review of judgments of Common Pleas, Municipal and County Courts; appeals from Board of Tax Appeals. Court of Common Pleas 88 Courts (one per each Ohio county), 244 Judges General Division Domestic Relations Division Probate Division Juvenile Division Civil & criminal cases; Divorces and dissolutions; Probate, adoption, Offenses involving appeals from most support and custody of and mental illness minors; most paternity administrative agencies. children. cases. actions. Municipal Courts County Courts Court Of Claims 130 Courts, 217 Judges 35 Courts, 37 Judges Judges Assigned by Supreme Court Misdemeanor offenses; traffic Misdemeanor offenses; traffic cases; civil actions up to $15,000.
    [Show full text]
  • 10-2 (Court Administration)
    THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-2 (Court Administration) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 10-87 IN RE: GENERAL ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES TO TEMPORARILY SERVE AS ACTING COUNTY COURT JUDGES _______________________________ WHEREAS, it is necessary, from time to time, for the prompt dispatch of the business of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, that Circuit Court Judges be temporarily assigned to hear and determine matters of the County Court; and WHEREAS , Rule 2.215(b)(3) of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration places responsibility upon the Chief Judge to develop an administrative plan for the efficient and proper administration of all courts within the circuit, including an administrative organization capable of effecting the prompt disposition of cases; NOW, THEREFORE , pursuant to the authority vested in me as Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, under Rule 2.215 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, I hereby authorize and designate all Circuit Court Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit to serve temporarily as Acting County Court Judges of Miami-Dade County, under the following terms and conditions: 1. CRIMINAL DIVISION The Circuit Court Judges in the Criminal Division are authorized to hear and dispose of all cases originally filed or transferred to their respective divisions, including those cases that are subsequently reduced to misdemeanors by the filing of a “bind-down to county court” Information. However, such authorization shall not extend to the final disposition of misdemeanor or traffic bench warrants and “bind-down” Informations in traffic and domestic violence cases, in light of the unique administrative and clerical procedures entailed in such cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Criminal Overview FY 2017-18 Statistical Reference Guide 3-1
    Florida Office of the State Courts Administrator Circuit Criminal Overview The Circuit Criminal division includes the following five categories of felony offenses: capital murder, serious crimes against persons, less serious crimes against persons, crimes against property, and drug offenses. Within these categories are the following case types: Capital Murder - capital murder offenses Serious Crimes Against Persons - non-capital murder (examples of non-capital murder cases include: negligent manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, non-premeditated murder, commission of a felony which causes death, aggravated manslaughter, and other similar offenses) and sexual offenses Less Serious Crimes Against Persons - robbery and other crimes against persons Crimes Against Property - burglary, theft, forgery, fraud, worthless checks, other crimes against property, and other felony offenses (examples of other felony offenses are: weapon charges, resisting arrest, contempt of court, failure to appear, accessory after the fact, and book-making) Drug Offenses - drug offenses In the Circuit Criminal division, filings correspond to each defendant against whom an information or indictment is filed. Dispositions correspond to each defendant for whom a final judicial decision is rendered terminating a criminal proceeding by an acquittal, a dismissal, or a judgment stating the specific sentence (in the case of a conviction). Charges (counts) are defined as each individual offense with which a defendant is accused. These charges (counts) are tied directly to
    [Show full text]
  • MISCELLANEOUS LIST INDEX Chester County Court of Common
    Chester County Court of Common Pleas PAGE 1 MISCELLANEOUS LIST INDEX From September 27, 2021 through October 01, 2021 Courtroom Event Judge Pages Courtroom 3 Judge Emanuel A. Bertin ....................................... 1 — 8 Courtroom 12 Judge Bret M. Binder ....................................... 9 — 9 Courtroom 6 Judge David F. Bortner ....................................... 10 — 23 Courtroom 5 Judge Jacqueline C. Cody ....................................... 24 — 30 Courtroom 19 Judge Allison Bell Royer ....................................... 31 — 31 Courtroom 8 Judge Jeffrey R. Sommer ....................................... 32 — 33 Courtroom 3 Judge Phyllis Streitel ....................................... 34 — 40 Courtroom 17 Judge Ann Marie Wheatcraft ....................................... 41 — 41 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 09:30 AM JUDGE EMANUEL A. BERTIN Courtroom 3 9:30 AM Summary Appeals Baker, James E. SA-0000307-2021 / Blackmore, David H. SA-0000306-2021 / Love, Dakota E. SA-0000305-2021 / Menasion, Steven John SA-0000303-2021 / Kelly, Joseph Kevin Milbourne, Brett Omar SA-0000308-2021 / Sheehan, Gary SA-0000302-2021 / 10:30 AM Expungement Hearing Ahn, David CR-0000380-2006 Yen, Ronald C. / Baland, Alexandria Michelle Ahn, David CR-0003103-2006 Yen, Ronald C. / Baland, Alexandria Michelle Ahn, David CR-0003233-2007 Chester County District Attorney's Office / Baland, Alexandria Michelle Ahn, David CR-0003885-2006 Chester County District Attorney's Office / Baland, Alexandria Michelle Page 1 of 41 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER
    [Show full text]
  • Policy 10000 - Bailiff Procedures 10000 – Introduction
    Policy 10000 - Bailiff Procedures 10000 – Introduction Bailiffs are an integral part of the court team. They are the primary person for maintaining law and order within the courtroom and by their actions can greatly influence the efficiency and effective-ness of court operations. For that reason, the impression a bailiff creates in the minds of court officers and members of the public must be that of an objective, unbiased professional. Generally, the duties of the bailiff include providing security for the judge and court staff, escorting inmates, affecting the arrest of specified individuals and making appropriate contributions toward the court's work product. Included in that list, of course, is the bailiff's responsibility to assist in the organization and control of court operations. The information in this policy will address all aspects of the bailiff's involvement in court and inmate procedures, and will state the department's operating policies in those areas. This policy shall be made available to all new sworn employees and made available, upon request, to all sworn employees of the department who are assigned to a court facility. 10001 – Court Terminology and Definitions 10001.1 - Court Terminology a) Arraignment: When a person is accused of committing a crime, appears in court, advised of the charges and asked to plead “guilty or “not guilty.” b) Commissioner: A person chosen by the court and given the power to hear and make decisions in certain kinds of legal matters. Commissioners cannot sign search warrants and have limited power as opposed to a judge. c) Hearsay: A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
    [Show full text]