The Bucks County Prothonotary denied Gregory Bulfaro's request for a copy of page 9 from a civil court document. After multiple attempts to obtain the record from various county offices, Bulfaro filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records. The Office dismissed both of Bulfaro's appeals for lack of jurisdiction over the judicial agency. Bulfaro argues that as a custodian of public court records, the Prothonotary must facilitate access under the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania OOR Appeal 1-2023 - Final Determination Ax318960
FOIA and RTKL regulations allow for agency provision of records which are in no way responsive to the requests being made. Said allowance enables agencies to circumvent proper process and protocol and negates the transparency that these laws were created to achieve.
Bucks County did not specify which records in their response corresponded to the 7 items requested, making it impossible to determine if the documents were responsive. The requester is asking Bucks County to address each requested item and advise which provided documents correspond to each item. Additionally, the name redacted on page 17 does not qualify for redaction under the cited regulation as a name is public record, not confidential personal information. The requester is asking for the redaction to be removed and the name provided.
The document is a decision by an Immigration Judge denying the respondent's motion to reopen removal proceedings. It provides background on the case, including that the respondent was ordered removed in absentia on March 7, 2011 for failing to appear at a hearing. The respondent filed a motion to reopen, arguing he did not receive notice of the hearing. The Judge denies the motion, finding the respondent's affidavit alone is insufficient to overcome the presumption of delivery of the hearing notice by regular mail, as no additional corroborating evidence was provided.
081215 - LETTER FROM DORIAN E TURNER (Attorney For Claiborne County Public Sc...VogelDenise
The document is a letter from an attorney representing the Claiborne County School District in Mississippi. It acknowledges a request for public records from Ms. Newsome and provides information on state laws governing public records access as well as the district's policy. It notes fees may be charged for searching for and copying records. If the specific documents are not identified, the district will search and charge an hourly fee with a $30 minimum deposit required. The attorney requests Ms. Newsome specify the documents sought and states the district will provide the cost to proceed.
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIFinni Rice
This document is an amended motion to strike an opposition brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States. The petitioner, Kimberly Cox, argues that the opposition brief should be stricken for several reasons, including that the entities filing the opposition, NewRez LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon, lack standing because they were not named as respondents in the petition and were not involved in the underlying legal proceedings. Cox also argues that the corporate disclosure filed with the opposition is incomplete and misleading. The motion provides detailed arguments supporting Cox's position that the opposition brief should be stricken from the record.
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsRich Bergeron
I prepared a very crisp and professional motion to dismiss just to watch Judge James D. O'Neill shoot it down with junk logic and misrepresentation of the law. He continues to show his blind loyalty to the bumbling prosecutors on my case. I had more than one lawyer tell me this was an excellent motion and hit on all the right points. This is where an appeal would expose how biased the judge really is.
"...the proposed order assumes the entry of the Court’s tentative order in its totality, which is inappropriate given the oral argument in this case on April 24, 2015, and intervening events since that time – including several reforms relating to family detention and the change in policy concerning the consideration of general deterrence as a factor in bond determinations (See ECF No. 164) – that may (and Defendants believe should) affect the content and/or ultimate disposition of the Court’s order such that the Court should rule in Defendants’ favor on the pending motions."
UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S...Eric Johnson
UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S RULING OF APRIL 6, 2016. Utah divorce, Utah family law, Utah Family Law TV, Utah County, district court, divorce, Wolferts v. Wolferts, American Fork, Brian Wolferts, Sonja Wolferts,
Pennsylvania OOR Appeal 1-2023 - Final Determination Ax318960
FOIA and RTKL regulations allow for agency provision of records which are in no way responsive to the requests being made. Said allowance enables agencies to circumvent proper process and protocol and negates the transparency that these laws were created to achieve.
Bucks County did not specify which records in their response corresponded to the 7 items requested, making it impossible to determine if the documents were responsive. The requester is asking Bucks County to address each requested item and advise which provided documents correspond to each item. Additionally, the name redacted on page 17 does not qualify for redaction under the cited regulation as a name is public record, not confidential personal information. The requester is asking for the redaction to be removed and the name provided.
The document is a decision by an Immigration Judge denying the respondent's motion to reopen removal proceedings. It provides background on the case, including that the respondent was ordered removed in absentia on March 7, 2011 for failing to appear at a hearing. The respondent filed a motion to reopen, arguing he did not receive notice of the hearing. The Judge denies the motion, finding the respondent's affidavit alone is insufficient to overcome the presumption of delivery of the hearing notice by regular mail, as no additional corroborating evidence was provided.
081215 - LETTER FROM DORIAN E TURNER (Attorney For Claiborne County Public Sc...VogelDenise
The document is a letter from an attorney representing the Claiborne County School District in Mississippi. It acknowledges a request for public records from Ms. Newsome and provides information on state laws governing public records access as well as the district's policy. It notes fees may be charged for searching for and copying records. If the specific documents are not identified, the district will search and charge an hourly fee with a $30 minimum deposit required. The attorney requests Ms. Newsome specify the documents sought and states the district will provide the cost to proceed.
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIFinni Rice
This document is an amended motion to strike an opposition brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States. The petitioner, Kimberly Cox, argues that the opposition brief should be stricken for several reasons, including that the entities filing the opposition, NewRez LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon, lack standing because they were not named as respondents in the petition and were not involved in the underlying legal proceedings. Cox also argues that the corporate disclosure filed with the opposition is incomplete and misleading. The motion provides detailed arguments supporting Cox's position that the opposition brief should be stricken from the record.
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsRich Bergeron
I prepared a very crisp and professional motion to dismiss just to watch Judge James D. O'Neill shoot it down with junk logic and misrepresentation of the law. He continues to show his blind loyalty to the bumbling prosecutors on my case. I had more than one lawyer tell me this was an excellent motion and hit on all the right points. This is where an appeal would expose how biased the judge really is.
"...the proposed order assumes the entry of the Court’s tentative order in its totality, which is inappropriate given the oral argument in this case on April 24, 2015, and intervening events since that time – including several reforms relating to family detention and the change in policy concerning the consideration of general deterrence as a factor in bond determinations (See ECF No. 164) – that may (and Defendants believe should) affect the content and/or ultimate disposition of the Court’s order such that the Court should rule in Defendants’ favor on the pending motions."
UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S...Eric Johnson
UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S RULING OF APRIL 6, 2016. Utah divorce, Utah family law, Utah Family Law TV, Utah County, district court, divorce, Wolferts v. Wolferts, American Fork, Brian Wolferts, Sonja Wolferts,
This document is a notice of appeal filed by Governor Eric Holcomb appealing a trial court decision regarding the constitutionality of HEA 1123, an Indiana statute addressing the General Assembly's ability to address future emergencies. It provides information about the parties, attorneys, trial court case, basis for jurisdiction, requests for records, and certifications. The governor is appealing the trial court's entry and orders granting summary judgment to the defendants on the governor's challenge to HEA 1123 under the Indiana Constitution.
Plaintiff Joan Silver was injured during a hypnotherapy session with Defendant Stanley Fine, a Baltimore County volunteer. Silver did not provide formal notice to the county of her potential lawsuit as required by law. Instead, some months later, she sent an informal email to her former boss, the County Executive, hinting at a possible lawsuit but not explicitly stating her intent. Defendant argues that Silver did not substantially comply with the notice requirement or show good cause for failing to comply. As such, Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
I received this "court letter" about a non-existing debt.
Anna Maria Hodges is a CIA agent.
She, too, has been stalked, but is now fine.
According to the court (on the record), there is no case with this number, and no hearing appointment was set.
The envelope looked like something someone made in their cellar.
However, the initial communication was using official-looking Milwaukee Court forms, stamp, etc.
This document is a response opposing an application for an extension of time to file a brief. It summarizes that the appellants, who are appealing an order adding them as judgment debtors, have already received 60 days of extensions for filing their brief, totaling 120 days. The response argues the appeal does not require unusually complex factual or legal analysis. It asserts the appellants' claims that the appeal involves issues of probate, taxation, and irrevocable trusts are not properly within the scope of the appeal. The response requests the court deny any further extensions.
In the Application, Fisher certified to the Court that he had “not been reprimanded in any court nor ha[d] there been any action in any court pertaining to [his] conduct or fitness as a member of the bar.” Upon review of the Application, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Fisher had been publicly reprimanded on January 30, 2014 under procedures established in Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-15.B.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the Matter of Douglass Hayden Fisher, VSB Docket No. 13-032-094098 (3d. District Subcommittee, Sec. II 2014). The Virginia State Bar entered its reprimand of Fisher after two hearings conducted on
December 20, 2013 and January 23, 2014. The Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated several Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated rules pertaining to diligence, communication, safekeeping of property, and declining or terminating representation. Fisher did not appeal the reprimand to the Supreme Court of Virginia. See Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part VI, § IV, ¶13-26.
The document provides information about submitting open public records requests to the City of Clifton, New Jersey. It outlines:
1. That all government records are subject to public access unless exempt and how to properly submit a request in writing.
2. The process for responding to requests and potential fees, including deposits that may be required.
3. Circumstances where access to records can be denied, such as for requestors convicted of crimes.
032115 - NOTICE OF APPEAL-PETITION TO EEOC OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONSVogelDenise
Vogel Newsome appeals the dismissal of her EEOC complaint against her former employer. She filed the complaint on February 9, 2015 within the 180-day deadline. However, the EEOC dismissed it on February 20, 2015 claiming it was not filed timely. Newsome then submitted requests to reopen the case, but the EEOC has refused to do so and has engaged in harassing phone calls. Newsome believes the EEOC is obstructing justice and conspiring with her employer and their law firm. She is now filing this appeal to notify the EEOC of her timely filing and their mandatory duty to reopen the case.
This document discusses a text message exchange between the respondent and petitioner regarding picking up their children from an undisclosed event. It also references exhibits of email exchanges between the respondent's attorney and petitioner's attorney regarding requests for respondent's employee plan information and other disclosures. The document indicates the respondent is combative and unreasonable in communications with the petitioner.
2021 Emeryville Special Election PetitionE'ville Eye
The City Clerk of Emeryville filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate to order the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters to amend a candidate statement in the voter information pamphlet. Specifically, the petition seeks to remove the phrase "As the first Black woman in 34 years to seek a seat on Council" from the candidate statement of Courtney Welch because it was discovered to be factually inaccurate after submission. The petition argues this statement must be removed to comply with election laws requiring candidate statements to be true and not misleading to voters.
This document is the verified answer and memorandum of law submitted by respondents John R. Polster and Maryanne McCutcheon in opposition to petitioner Rashad Scott's order to show cause in an Article 78 proceeding. The respondents argue that the proceeding should be dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, they argue that the petitioner's 2013 FOIL request is a duplicate of his 2009 request, and he failed to seek judicial review of the denial of the 2009 request within the four month statute of limitations period. Alternatively, they argue that even if the 2009 request was constructively denied, the statute of limitations began to run then. Finally, they argue that the denial of the 2013 request was not arbitrary or capric
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits in federal court have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation in federal court in Massachusetts. These lawsuits all claim money from the maker of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte, Fresenius Medical Care. NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were drugs used in the process of kidney dialysis. The FDA issued a Class I recall, its most serious, after it was discovered that NaturaLyte and GranuFlo could cause cardiac problems, including heart attacks and sudden death.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were recalled March 29, 2012. A copy of the FDA Recall Notice can be found among the documents uploaded by Michael J. Evans here on SlideShare.
Because the two dialysis drugs were presumably not used after March 29, 2013, there is some reason to believe that most, if not all, NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits could have been filed by March 30, 2012. Therefore, in states which have a two-year statute of limitations, there is an argument that the statute of limitations would run on a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit no later than March 29, 2014. Of course, there are some states with longer statutes of limitation, and there are legal arguments, such as tolling, that may allow some people to file NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits after March 29, 2014.
It seems risky to this lawyer to wait to file a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit. On July 29, 2013, the MDL judge entered this order setting a scheduling conference for August 30, 2013. One part of the Order that should be of particular interest to people with NaturaLyte or GranuFlo claims is this: the judge ordered all plaintiffs' attorneys to provide settlement proposals to the defendants' lawyers no later than two weeks prior to the hearing. That deadline ran on August 16, 2013. The lawyers for Fresenius Medical Care are ordered to respond to the proposals at the August 30 hearing.
If you were seriously injured by dialysis, or lost a family member due to dialysis, before the NaturaLyte and GranuFlo recall on March 29, 2013, you should have already had your possible lawsuit reviewed by a law firm which is experienced in representing injured people in pharmaceutical and medical device lawsuits. If you or your loved one experienced serious cardiac problems, including a heart attack or sudden death during or after dialysis while NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were still on the market, you may have a valuable claim for money but be unaware of it. You probably wouldn't be told by Fresenius that you or your family member were injured (or died) due to NaturaLyte or GranuFlo. You may wish to contact a law firm which is willing to spend the money to get copies of the medical records (at no cost to you) to see if NaturaLyte or GranuFlo were used. I am part of a group of law firms that handles such cases, and we would be glad to investigate your possible case of cardiac problems or death due to dialysis. If we don't collect money FOR you, we don't collect and money FROM you. It's a risk-free opportunity.
City Water International Inc. v. Great Canadian Oil ChangeMatthew Riddell
The claimant's action was dismissed after no one appeared on its behalf at a settlement conference. The claimant, located in Ontario, had faxed a request to appear by telephone but the document was not added to the file in time. The judge ruled that making the claimant go through the formal process to have the dismissal set aside would be unfair since the mistake was the court's. Under its broad discretion, the judge directed that the dismissal be set aside and the claim reinstated, allowing the claimant to participate by phone in a new settlement conference.
Visa Bulletin Lawsuit amended complaintGreg Siskind
This document is a first amended class action complaint filed on behalf of international medical graduates and their families. It alleges that the US government violated administrative law when it abruptly revised the October 2015 visa bulletin less than 4 days before applications were due to be filed. Thousands of people had spent significant time and money preparing applications in reasonable reliance on the original bulletin. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the enforcement of the revised bulletin.
Petitioner Dioscoro Bacsin, a public school teacher, was charged with grave misconduct for allegedly touching and fondling the breast of his student AAA. The Civil Service Commission dismissed Bacsin from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Bacsin then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the dismissal, finding that sexual harassment of students constitutes grave misconduct based on relevant laws like the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.
This Is Reno’s second public records lawsuit against the City of Reno and Ren...This Is Reno
Petitioner Robert Conrad, who operates the news website ThisIsReno.com, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the City of Reno regarding numerous public records requests. The petition alleges that the City has improperly withheld, redacted, and delayed the disclosure of requested records on various police matters. It also claims the City has improperly closed some requests and demanded payment for records not listed in its fee schedule. The petition seeks an order requiring the City to comply with the Nevada Public Records Act and provide timely access to public records.
This document contains a motion to dismiss a court case for lack of evidence and due process violations. It argues that the judgment should be voided for several reasons, including that no first-hand witnesses testified under oath to provide evidence, hearsay was relied upon, the plaintiff's attorney lacked capacity to testify, substantive due process was denied without a material fact witness, and no valid contract was presented. The motion seeks to dismiss the case based on these deficiencies.
The document is an order from a United States Bankruptcy Court case dismissing an adversary proceeding with prejudice. The order approves a stipulation between the plaintiff Virgie Arthur and defendant Bonnie Gayle Stern to dismiss the adversary proceeding, with each party bearing their own costs and fees. The court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the order.
Thomas Woznicki vs. Jeff Moberg (Decision, Wisconsin Court of Appeals)SteveJohnson125
This Decision, filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on October 4, 2016, concludes as follows: “We conclude that Woznicki has failed to demonstrate that a public interest in nondisclosure of his District personnel file outweighs the strong and presumptive public interest in access to, and disclosure of, his personnel file under Wisconsin’s open records law. We therefore affirm the order denying Woznicki’s request for an injunction.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.”
This document discusses how 47 acres that make up part of the Wyckford Commons subdivision were duplicated through a series of land transactions in the early 1900s. Specifically:
- The 47 acres were legally described as being in one location but physically located elsewhere, due to undisclosed uranium milling and municipal relocation activities.
- The duplication was accomplished by a seller selling land to a buyer, the buyer then selling back to the seller, and the seller selling again to the buyer. However, Pennsylvania law recognizes the first deed recorded, so the seller ended up with two tracts of land.
- For the 47 acres in question, transactions between Hellmann and Reiter followed this three step process, leaving the
Real Estate Issues - The Mews at Wyckford Commons (revised) - REPOSTAx318960
Page 7 was removed by an unknown entity. The edit replaced the original document using the original URL, which means this was another action performed by a SlideShare/Scribd employee at the directive of a third party.
More Related Content
Similar to Appeal - Bulfaro - Bucks County Court of Common Pleas - 4-2023
This document is a notice of appeal filed by Governor Eric Holcomb appealing a trial court decision regarding the constitutionality of HEA 1123, an Indiana statute addressing the General Assembly's ability to address future emergencies. It provides information about the parties, attorneys, trial court case, basis for jurisdiction, requests for records, and certifications. The governor is appealing the trial court's entry and orders granting summary judgment to the defendants on the governor's challenge to HEA 1123 under the Indiana Constitution.
Plaintiff Joan Silver was injured during a hypnotherapy session with Defendant Stanley Fine, a Baltimore County volunteer. Silver did not provide formal notice to the county of her potential lawsuit as required by law. Instead, some months later, she sent an informal email to her former boss, the County Executive, hinting at a possible lawsuit but not explicitly stating her intent. Defendant argues that Silver did not substantially comply with the notice requirement or show good cause for failing to comply. As such, Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
I received this "court letter" about a non-existing debt.
Anna Maria Hodges is a CIA agent.
She, too, has been stalked, but is now fine.
According to the court (on the record), there is no case with this number, and no hearing appointment was set.
The envelope looked like something someone made in their cellar.
However, the initial communication was using official-looking Milwaukee Court forms, stamp, etc.
This document is a response opposing an application for an extension of time to file a brief. It summarizes that the appellants, who are appealing an order adding them as judgment debtors, have already received 60 days of extensions for filing their brief, totaling 120 days. The response argues the appeal does not require unusually complex factual or legal analysis. It asserts the appellants' claims that the appeal involves issues of probate, taxation, and irrevocable trusts are not properly within the scope of the appeal. The response requests the court deny any further extensions.
In the Application, Fisher certified to the Court that he had “not been reprimanded in any court nor ha[d] there been any action in any court pertaining to [his] conduct or fitness as a member of the bar.” Upon review of the Application, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Fisher had been publicly reprimanded on January 30, 2014 under procedures established in Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-15.B.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the Matter of Douglass Hayden Fisher, VSB Docket No. 13-032-094098 (3d. District Subcommittee, Sec. II 2014). The Virginia State Bar entered its reprimand of Fisher after two hearings conducted on
December 20, 2013 and January 23, 2014. The Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated several Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated rules pertaining to diligence, communication, safekeeping of property, and declining or terminating representation. Fisher did not appeal the reprimand to the Supreme Court of Virginia. See Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part VI, § IV, ¶13-26.
The document provides information about submitting open public records requests to the City of Clifton, New Jersey. It outlines:
1. That all government records are subject to public access unless exempt and how to properly submit a request in writing.
2. The process for responding to requests and potential fees, including deposits that may be required.
3. Circumstances where access to records can be denied, such as for requestors convicted of crimes.
032115 - NOTICE OF APPEAL-PETITION TO EEOC OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONSVogelDenise
Vogel Newsome appeals the dismissal of her EEOC complaint against her former employer. She filed the complaint on February 9, 2015 within the 180-day deadline. However, the EEOC dismissed it on February 20, 2015 claiming it was not filed timely. Newsome then submitted requests to reopen the case, but the EEOC has refused to do so and has engaged in harassing phone calls. Newsome believes the EEOC is obstructing justice and conspiring with her employer and their law firm. She is now filing this appeal to notify the EEOC of her timely filing and their mandatory duty to reopen the case.
This document discusses a text message exchange between the respondent and petitioner regarding picking up their children from an undisclosed event. It also references exhibits of email exchanges between the respondent's attorney and petitioner's attorney regarding requests for respondent's employee plan information and other disclosures. The document indicates the respondent is combative and unreasonable in communications with the petitioner.
2021 Emeryville Special Election PetitionE'ville Eye
The City Clerk of Emeryville filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate to order the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters to amend a candidate statement in the voter information pamphlet. Specifically, the petition seeks to remove the phrase "As the first Black woman in 34 years to seek a seat on Council" from the candidate statement of Courtney Welch because it was discovered to be factually inaccurate after submission. The petition argues this statement must be removed to comply with election laws requiring candidate statements to be true and not misleading to voters.
This document is the verified answer and memorandum of law submitted by respondents John R. Polster and Maryanne McCutcheon in opposition to petitioner Rashad Scott's order to show cause in an Article 78 proceeding. The respondents argue that the proceeding should be dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, they argue that the petitioner's 2013 FOIL request is a duplicate of his 2009 request, and he failed to seek judicial review of the denial of the 2009 request within the four month statute of limitations period. Alternatively, they argue that even if the 2009 request was constructively denied, the statute of limitations began to run then. Finally, they argue that the denial of the 2013 request was not arbitrary or capric
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits in federal court have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation in federal court in Massachusetts. These lawsuits all claim money from the maker of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte, Fresenius Medical Care. NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were drugs used in the process of kidney dialysis. The FDA issued a Class I recall, its most serious, after it was discovered that NaturaLyte and GranuFlo could cause cardiac problems, including heart attacks and sudden death.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were recalled March 29, 2012. A copy of the FDA Recall Notice can be found among the documents uploaded by Michael J. Evans here on SlideShare.
Because the two dialysis drugs were presumably not used after March 29, 2013, there is some reason to believe that most, if not all, NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits could have been filed by March 30, 2012. Therefore, in states which have a two-year statute of limitations, there is an argument that the statute of limitations would run on a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit no later than March 29, 2014. Of course, there are some states with longer statutes of limitation, and there are legal arguments, such as tolling, that may allow some people to file NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits after March 29, 2014.
It seems risky to this lawyer to wait to file a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit. On July 29, 2013, the MDL judge entered this order setting a scheduling conference for August 30, 2013. One part of the Order that should be of particular interest to people with NaturaLyte or GranuFlo claims is this: the judge ordered all plaintiffs' attorneys to provide settlement proposals to the defendants' lawyers no later than two weeks prior to the hearing. That deadline ran on August 16, 2013. The lawyers for Fresenius Medical Care are ordered to respond to the proposals at the August 30 hearing.
If you were seriously injured by dialysis, or lost a family member due to dialysis, before the NaturaLyte and GranuFlo recall on March 29, 2013, you should have already had your possible lawsuit reviewed by a law firm which is experienced in representing injured people in pharmaceutical and medical device lawsuits. If you or your loved one experienced serious cardiac problems, including a heart attack or sudden death during or after dialysis while NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were still on the market, you may have a valuable claim for money but be unaware of it. You probably wouldn't be told by Fresenius that you or your family member were injured (or died) due to NaturaLyte or GranuFlo. You may wish to contact a law firm which is willing to spend the money to get copies of the medical records (at no cost to you) to see if NaturaLyte or GranuFlo were used. I am part of a group of law firms that handles such cases, and we would be glad to investigate your possible case of cardiac problems or death due to dialysis. If we don't collect money FOR you, we don't collect and money FROM you. It's a risk-free opportunity.
City Water International Inc. v. Great Canadian Oil ChangeMatthew Riddell
The claimant's action was dismissed after no one appeared on its behalf at a settlement conference. The claimant, located in Ontario, had faxed a request to appear by telephone but the document was not added to the file in time. The judge ruled that making the claimant go through the formal process to have the dismissal set aside would be unfair since the mistake was the court's. Under its broad discretion, the judge directed that the dismissal be set aside and the claim reinstated, allowing the claimant to participate by phone in a new settlement conference.
Visa Bulletin Lawsuit amended complaintGreg Siskind
This document is a first amended class action complaint filed on behalf of international medical graduates and their families. It alleges that the US government violated administrative law when it abruptly revised the October 2015 visa bulletin less than 4 days before applications were due to be filed. Thousands of people had spent significant time and money preparing applications in reasonable reliance on the original bulletin. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the enforcement of the revised bulletin.
Petitioner Dioscoro Bacsin, a public school teacher, was charged with grave misconduct for allegedly touching and fondling the breast of his student AAA. The Civil Service Commission dismissed Bacsin from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Bacsin then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the dismissal, finding that sexual harassment of students constitutes grave misconduct based on relevant laws like the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.
This Is Reno’s second public records lawsuit against the City of Reno and Ren...This Is Reno
Petitioner Robert Conrad, who operates the news website ThisIsReno.com, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the City of Reno regarding numerous public records requests. The petition alleges that the City has improperly withheld, redacted, and delayed the disclosure of requested records on various police matters. It also claims the City has improperly closed some requests and demanded payment for records not listed in its fee schedule. The petition seeks an order requiring the City to comply with the Nevada Public Records Act and provide timely access to public records.
This document contains a motion to dismiss a court case for lack of evidence and due process violations. It argues that the judgment should be voided for several reasons, including that no first-hand witnesses testified under oath to provide evidence, hearsay was relied upon, the plaintiff's attorney lacked capacity to testify, substantive due process was denied without a material fact witness, and no valid contract was presented. The motion seeks to dismiss the case based on these deficiencies.
The document is an order from a United States Bankruptcy Court case dismissing an adversary proceeding with prejudice. The order approves a stipulation between the plaintiff Virgie Arthur and defendant Bonnie Gayle Stern to dismiss the adversary proceeding, with each party bearing their own costs and fees. The court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the order.
Thomas Woznicki vs. Jeff Moberg (Decision, Wisconsin Court of Appeals)SteveJohnson125
This Decision, filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on October 4, 2016, concludes as follows: “We conclude that Woznicki has failed to demonstrate that a public interest in nondisclosure of his District personnel file outweighs the strong and presumptive public interest in access to, and disclosure of, his personnel file under Wisconsin’s open records law. We therefore affirm the order denying Woznicki’s request for an injunction.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.”
Similar to Appeal - Bulfaro - Bucks County Court of Common Pleas - 4-2023 (20)
This document discusses how 47 acres that make up part of the Wyckford Commons subdivision were duplicated through a series of land transactions in the early 1900s. Specifically:
- The 47 acres were legally described as being in one location but physically located elsewhere, due to undisclosed uranium milling and municipal relocation activities.
- The duplication was accomplished by a seller selling land to a buyer, the buyer then selling back to the seller, and the seller selling again to the buyer. However, Pennsylvania law recognizes the first deed recorded, so the seller ended up with two tracts of land.
- For the 47 acres in question, transactions between Hellmann and Reiter followed this three step process, leaving the
Real Estate Issues - The Mews at Wyckford Commons (revised) - REPOSTAx318960
Page 7 was removed by an unknown entity. The edit replaced the original document using the original URL, which means this was another action performed by a SlideShare/Scribd employee at the directive of a third party.
The request seeks records from the Bucks County Planning Commission related to homeowners associations, property owners, and approvals for subdivisions in the Wyckford Commons development. Specifically, it requests documentation for HOA listings, property owners, entities, relationships between parcels and developments, and Planning Commission approvals for subdivision plans involving several tax parcels in order to verify the accuracy of information available in an online county property map.
The request seeks records from Sellersville Borough pertaining to the development history of land in the borough dating back to the 1960s. Specifically, the request seeks:
1) Records related to a 1968 agreement regarding development of 500-600 housing units.
2) Meeting minutes from 1968-1986 between the borough and county planning commission on the subject.
3) Records on "Family Farm Corporations" within the borough from 1908 to present.
4) Records identifying relationships between entities involved in developing subdivisions.
5) Additional records on individuals and entities in the chain of ownership and tax records of relevant properties.
This document is a standard open records request form submitted to the Bucks County Open Records Office. The request seeks review and/or copies of various documents related to roads, subdivisions, and development in eastern Bucks County between 1900-1998, including road dockets, papers, plans, death records, and planning commission files. The requester is seeking access to review the identified records.
This document is a public records request submitted to Perkasie Borough. The requester seeks assessment and tax records from 1945-1989 for two properties owned by Henry and Margaret Nahrman. They also request any records listing physical addresses for the Nahrman's in those years. Additional requests include assessment records for a property on N. Main St from 1945-1989, Perkasie Borough street maps from 1890 to present, and records related to annexations and relocations of properties within Perkasie Borough from 1890 to present. The request includes five addendums providing supplemental information to support the requests.
This document discusses an online thread about explosions in Upper Bucks, Pennsylvania that was deleted on June 11, 2018. Fair use of copyrighted material is permitted under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 for purposes such as commentary, news reporting, teaching, and research.
https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com
LinkedIn representatives have confirmed that the disenabling of the "Viewers" functionality in SlideShare Analytics for this account (as is referenced in the document) is an "isolated incident" with no definitive restoration timeframe. Functionality was removed in 2018. No additional information has been provided.
Update: Two years have passed since the issue was reported without resolution. Representatives have not responded to any additional inquiries.
Transcripts from a 2016 zoning case regarding residential construction near a subdivision were sealed by Bucks County, making them unavailable to the public. Sealed records are common in criminal cases but uncommon in real estate cases. In 2017, a request was made to view the sealed transcripts but was denied by Bucks County.
The summary discusses an online article commentary from January 2018 that references something secretive and destructive related to missing acreage from historic land grants and unacknowledged early 1900s industry-related municipal relocations in the northwest. It includes a link to the original article about a -acre tract purchase and notes fair use of copyrighted material is supported under US law.
This document contains a partial list of over 200 company and organization names. The list includes corporations, government agencies, municipalities, and other entities. Many of the names are preceded by an address or other identifying information. The breadth and variety of names listed suggests it contains information gathered from various sources for some type of research, legal, or administrative purpose.
The Original South Perkasie Covered BridgeAx318960
The document discusses the original location of the Original South Perkasie Covered Bridge. It notes that while a painting depicted the surrounding location of the bridge, the municipal realignments that occurred make it impossible for the bridge's depicted location on South Main Street to be its original construction location. It reaffirms that "Main Street, South Perkasie" is not the same as "South Main Street, Perkasie."
The People's Task Force: Recommendations for the Future of SuperfundAx318960
The document is a letter from the People's Task Force, made up of communities affected by toxic contamination, responding to the EPA's Superfund Task Force. The key recommendations are: 1) prioritize public health in Superfund cleanups over private interests; 2) do not cut enforcement or community involvement funding; and 3) reinstate the polluter pays tax to fully fund cleanups of contaminated sites.
Pennsylvania Nuclear Disposal Site - Location "Unknown"Ax318960
The location of a nuclear disposal site in Pennsylvania is unknown, as topographic maps from 2014 redacted its whereabouts, showing only that it was located somewhere in the state. Later maps from 2015 on the U.S. Department of Energy's website still did not specify the exact location, instead noting it as the "Pennsylvania Disposal Site-PA 43" without providing further geographic details.
Perkasie Historical Society - Removed CommentaryAx318960
The Perkasie Historical Society removed a commentary from their Facebook page several weeks after posting it in June 2017. The commentary referenced a historical real estate registry book that contained evidence of municipal realignments in the Perkasie area. However, when requested under the Right to Know Law in 2014, Perkasie Borough denied having the registry. The same book was later found in the borough building by a local resident. Screenshots from the original records request and the borough's denial are also included, noting they said the files did not exist.
This document is a response from the Bucks County Open Records Office to a records request. It summarizes and comments on documentation related to tax parcel numbers, property records, and subdivision boundaries in Sellersville, Pennsylvania. The response provides context for various parcel numbering systems, legislation changes, and property transactions but does not fully address or provide all documentation requested about connections between old subdivision boundaries and current properties or explanations of mortgage records. The requester asks again for internal communications, maps, and additional clarification on related topics.
A letter to the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania argues that fair use of copyrighted material is supported by Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 and expresses concern that an online commentary will eventually be removed from a news website. The letter references a specific URL for an article commentary and notes that the commentary is currently still available online but may not remain so indefinitely.
Kinetic studies on malachite green dye adsorption from aqueous solutions by A...Open Access Research Paper
Water polluted by dyestuffs compounds is a global threat to health and the environment; accordingly, we prepared a green novel sorbent chemical and Physical system from an algae, chitosan and chitosan nanoparticle and impregnated with algae with chitosan nanocomposite for the sorption of Malachite green dye from water. The algae with chitosan nanocomposite by a simple method and used as a recyclable and effective adsorbent for the removal of malachite green dye from aqueous solutions. Algae, chitosan, chitosan nanoparticle and algae with chitosan nanocomposite were characterized using different physicochemical methods. The functional groups and chemical compounds found in algae, chitosan, chitosan algae, chitosan nanoparticle, and chitosan nanoparticle with algae were identified using FTIR, SEM, and TGADTA/DTG techniques. The optimal adsorption conditions, different dosages, pH and Temperature the amount of algae with chitosan nanocomposite were determined. At optimized conditions and the batch equilibrium studies more than 99% of the dye was removed. The adsorption process data matched well kinetics showed that the reaction order for dye varied with pseudo-first order and pseudo-second order. Furthermore, the maximum adsorption capacity of the algae with chitosan nanocomposite toward malachite green dye reached as high as 15.5mg/g, respectively. Finally, multiple times reusing of algae with chitosan nanocomposite and removing dye from a real wastewater has made it a promising and attractive option for further practical applications.
RoHS stands for Restriction of Hazardous Substances, which is also known as t...vijaykumar292010
RoHS stands for Restriction of Hazardous Substances, which is also known as the Directive 2002/95/EC. It includes the restrictions for the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. RoHS is a WEEE (Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment).
Optimizing Post Remediation Groundwater Performance with Enhanced Microbiolog...Joshua Orris
Results of geophysics and pneumatic injection pilot tests during 2003 – 2007 yielded significant positive results for injection delivery design and contaminant mass treatment, resulting in permanent shut-down of an existing groundwater Pump & Treat system.
Accessible source areas were subsequently removed (2011) by soil excavation and treated with the placement of Emulsified Vegetable Oil EVO and zero-valent iron ZVI to accelerate treatment of impacted groundwater in overburden and weathered fractured bedrock. Post pilot test and post remediation groundwater monitoring has included analyses of CVOCs, organic fatty acids, dissolved gases and QuantArray® -Chlor to quantify key microorganisms (e.g., Dehalococcoides, Dehalobacter, etc.) and functional genes (e.g., vinyl chloride reductase, methane monooxygenase, etc.) to assess potential for reductive dechlorination and aerobic cometabolism of CVOCs.
In 2022, the first commercial application of MetaArray™ was performed at the site. MetaArray™ utilizes statistical analysis, such as principal component analysis and multivariate analysis to provide evidence that reductive dechlorination is active or even that it is slowing. This creates actionable data allowing users to save money by making important site management decisions earlier.
The results of the MetaArray™ analysis’ support vector machine (SVM) identified groundwater monitoring wells with a 80% confidence that were characterized as either Limited for Reductive Decholorination or had a High Reductive Reduction Dechlorination potential. The results of MetaArray™ will be used to further optimize the site’s post remediation monitoring program for monitored natural attenuation.
Evolving Lifecycles with High Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) and 3-D...Joshua Orris
The incorporation of a 3DCSM and completion of HRSC provided a tool for enhanced, data-driven, decisions to support a change in remediation closure strategies. Currently, an approved pilot study has been obtained to shut-down the remediation systems (ISCO, P&T) and conduct a hydraulic study under non-pumping conditions. A separate micro-biological bench scale treatability study was competed that yielded positive results for an emerging innovative technology. As a result, a field pilot study has commenced with results expected in nine-twelve months. With the results of the hydraulic study, field pilot studies and an updated risk assessment leading site monitoring optimization cost lifecycle savings upwards of $15MM towards an alternatively evolved best available technology remediation closure strategy.
Improving the viability of probiotics by encapsulation methods for developmen...Open Access Research Paper
The popularity of functional foods among scientists and common people has been increasing day by day. Awareness and modernization make the consumer think better regarding food and nutrition. Now a day’s individual knows very well about the relation between food consumption and disease prevalence. Humans have a diversity of microbes in the gut that together form the gut microflora. Probiotics are the health-promoting live microbial cells improve host health through gut and brain connection and fighting against harmful bacteria. Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are the two bacterial genera which are considered to be probiotic. These good bacteria are facing challenges of viability. There are so many factors such as sensitivity to heat, pH, acidity, osmotic effect, mechanical shear, chemical components, freezing and storage time as well which affects the viability of probiotics in the dairy food matrix as well as in the gut. Multiple efforts have been done in the past and ongoing in present for these beneficial microbial population stability until their destination in the gut. One of a useful technique known as microencapsulation makes the probiotic effective in the diversified conditions and maintain these microbe’s community to the optimum level for achieving targeted benefits. Dairy products are found to be an ideal vehicle for probiotic incorporation. It has been seen that the encapsulated microbial cells show higher viability than the free cells in different processing and storage conditions as well as against bile salts in the gut. They make the food functional when incorporated, without affecting the product sensory characteristics.
Improving the viability of probiotics by encapsulation methods for developmen...
Appeal - Bulfaro - Bucks County Court of Common Pleas - 4-2023
1. BUCKS COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PUBLIC RECORD ACCESS REQUEST APPEAL (Revised)
IN THE MATTER OF
GREGORY BULFARO,
Requester
v.
BUCKS COUNTY PROTHONOTARY
Respondent
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2023, Gregory Bulfaro (“Requester”) visited the office of the Bucks
County Prothonotary (“Respondent”) to obtain a copy of a document in relation to Bucks County
Court of Common Pleas No. 98-000107-24-2 (consolidated into Bucks County Court of
Common Pleas No. 96-000270-20-2), the specifics of which can be found in the Right-to-Know
request (“Request”) attached as “Addendum 1.” Mr. Bulfaro advised said office that the
document was not present on the microfilm and showed the representative accordingly. He was
advised that the office would have to request this document from an offsite entity and to leave his
name and contact information and said representative would contact him. Mr. Bulfaro never
heard anything further from said office. After calling the office several weeks later and being
advised that they were “unaware” of any such request, Mr. Bulfaro asked for the applicable
Right-to-Know Officer to handle this kind of request. He was advised that the Prothonotary’s
office did not handle these requests and to check online.
On March 24, 2023, Mr. Bulfaro sent the Right-to-Know request (“Addendum 1”) via
email to Michael J. Paston, Esq. (“Addendum 2”) as was referenced in instructions found online
(“Addendum 3”).
1
2. On March 27, 2023, Mr. Bulfaro was advised that Mr. Paston was not the correct person
to handle the request in question (“Addendum 2”). Additional dialogue took place with Mr.
Paston advising Mr. Bulfaro to inquire with the Prothonotary’s office, which, as aforesaid, had
already been done. On the same date, Mr. Bulfaro sent the request to Ashley Dayoub at
openrecordsofficer@buckscounty.org and asked her to please forward it on to the appropriate
County Open Records Officer (“Addendum 4”).
On April 4, 2023, Mr. Bulfaro received an email from Ms. Dayoub stating that the
request was denied for being misdirected (“Addendum 5”). It was then stated:
Civil case information subject to the RTKL may be obtained through the Prothonotary.
Criminal case information subject to the RTKL may be obtained through the Clerk of
Courts. Information on obtaining records from the Prothonotary and Clerk of Courts can
be obtained at the below link. https://www.buckscounty.gov/1504/Court-Records
Said link, when clicking on the “Prothonotary” hyperlink contained on the page, led full circle
back to the Prothonotary’s office (“Addendum 6”).
On April 6, 2023, Mr. Bulfaro sent the request to Coleen Christian ("Addendum 7") per
the information contained in the aforesaid hyperlink. No response was received from Ms.
Christian.
On April 14, 2023, after the requisite five business day response time as is stipulated in
Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law rendered the request “deemed denied,” Mr. Bulfaro filed an
appeal with the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (“Addendum 8”).
On April 18, 2023, Mr. Bulfaro filed an amended appeal to include a statement that had
been erroneously omitted from the initial appeal (“Addendum 9”).
On April 20, 2023, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records dismissed both appeals due
to lack of jurisdiction (“Addendum 10,” “Addendum 11").
2
3. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Bucks County Prothonotary is a judicial agency. Faulk v. Phila. Clerk of Courts, 116
A.3d 1183 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). Section 3.0 of the Public Access Policy of the Unified
Judicial System of Pennsylvania explicitly states that all case records shall be open to the public
in accordance with said policy. If the interpretation of Section 304 of Pennsylvania's
Right-to-Know Law excludes a judicial agency from having to provide any court record that is
not financial in nature, the agency is still required to provide access under the Public Access
Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. If the submission of the request on a
Right-to-Know form was erroneous and in any way contributory to the lack of response and/or
fulfillment of the request, that is a failure of the Respondent to communicate said issue to the
Requester accordingly. As a custodian of public records in accordance with Subsection G of
Section 1.0 of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, it is the
responsibility of the Respondent to facilitate the processing of public requests for access to court
records. Subsection A of Section 5.0 of said policy explicitly states: "A custodian shall fulfill a
request for access to case records as promptly as possible under the circumstances existing at the
time of the request." Furthermore, Subsection B of Section 5.0 of said policy explicitly states:
"If a custodian cannot fulfill the request promptly or at all, the custodian shall inform the
requestor of the specific reason(s) why access to the information is being delayed or denied."
The Respondent failed to comply.
CONCLUSION
Through deemed denial by failure to acknowledge the Requester's request for access to a
public court record, the Bucks County Prothonotary is in direct violation of the regulations
3
4. stipulated in the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania and should
be mandated to provide the requisite response.
4
6. Addendum 2
On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 07:18:08 AM EDT, Paston, Michael J.
<mjpaston@buckscounty.org> wrote:
The docket numbers provided are not criminal case docket numbers. Thus, Clerk of Courts has
no information to provide.
Michael J. Paston, Esquire
First Deputy
Clerk of Courts
Bucks County
mjpaston@buckscounty.org
215.348.6526
From: Gregory Bulfaro <gbulfaro@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Paston, Michael J. <mjpaston@buckscounty.org>
Subject: RTKL Request
Good afternoon. Please see attached.
Thank you.
-Gregory Bulfaro
gbulfaro@aol.com
6
8. Addendum 4
From: Gregory Bulfaro <gbulfaro@aol.com>
To: openrecordsofficer@buckscounty.org <openrecordsofficer@buckscounty.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 6:25 pm
Subject: Fw: RTKL Request
Please forward this on to the appropriate County Open Records Officer.
-Gregory Bulfaro
8
9. Addendum 5
From: openrecordsofficer <openrecordsofficer@buckscounty.org>
To: gbulfaro@aol.com <gbulfaro@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 4, 2023 1:26 pm
Subject: RTK No. 2023-03-28-00916- Response
Dear Requester Bulfaro:
We received your request for the following information pursuant to the Pennsylvania
Right-To-Know Law (“RTKL”), 65 P.S. §§ 67.100 et seq. on March 28, 2023:
“RE: Bucks County Court of Common Pleas No. 98-000107-24-2
(consolidated into Bucks County Court of Common Pleas No. 96-000270-20-2)
Docket 984741-00063:
Page 9 was not included on the scanned microfilm in the office of the Bucks County
Prothonotary. I am requesting a copy of this page. Thank you.”
Your request is denied as misdirected.
Please be advised that docket information is not in possession of the County’s Board of
Commissioners and Administration.
Civil case information subject to the RTKL may be obtained through the Prothonotary. Criminal
case information subject to the RTKL may be obtained through the Clerk of Courts. Information
on obtaining records from the Prothonotary and Clerk of Courts can be obtained at the below
link.
https://www.buckscounty.gov/1504/Court-Records
You have the right to appeal this denial in writing to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records,
333 Market Street, 16th
Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2234. If you choose to do so, it must be
done within 15 business days of the date of this response. Your appeal must include a copy of
this email and your request.
Please be advised that this correspondence will serve to close this file as permitted by law.
Regards,
Ashley Dayoub
Open Records Officer
Bucks County Board of Commissioners
9
11. Addendum 7
From: Gregory Bulfaro <gbulfaro@aol.com>
To: prothonotarychristian@buckscounty.org <prothonotarychristian@buckscounty.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 01:02:34 AM EDT
Subject: Fw: RTKL Request
Please see attached.
-Gregory Bulfaro
11
12. Addendum 8
From: no-reply@openrecordspennsylvania.com
To: gbulfaro@aol.com
Subject: PA Office of Open Records - Appeal Confirmation
Date: Fri, Apr 14, 2023 11:42 pm
Attachments: You have filed an appeal of an agency's response to a request for records under the
Right-to-Know Law.
Name: Gregory Bulfaro
Company:
Address 1: 3911 Concord Pike
Address 2: #7392 City: Wilmington State: Delaware Zip: 19803 Phone: 267-227-8433
Email: gbulfaro@aol.com
Email2:
Agency (typed): Bucks County Prothonotary
Agency Address 1: Bucks County Justice Center
Agency Address 2: 100 North Main Street
Agency City: Doylestown Agency State: Pennsylvania
Agency Zip: 18901
Agency Phone: 215-348-6191
Agency Email: prothonotarychristian@buckscounty.org
Records at Issue in this Appeal: This request was deemed denied as no response was received
within the requisite five business days as is stipulated in Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law.
Request Submitted to Agency Via: e-mail
Request Date: 04/06/2023
Response Date:
Deemed Denied: Yes
Agency Open Records Officer: Coleen Christian
Attached a copy of my request for records: Yes
Attached a copy of all responses from the Agency regarding my request: Yes
Attached any letters or notices extending the Agency's time to respond to my request: No
Agree to permit the OOR additional time to issue a final determination: No
Interested in resolving this issue through OOR mediation: No
Attachments: Screenshot_20230414-231552.png Screenshot_20230414-231939.png RTKL
Request - Bucks County Clerk of Courts and Prothonotary - 3-24- 23 (1) (2) (5).pdf
I requested the listed records from the Agency named above. By submitting this form, I am
appealing the Agency's denial, partial denial, or deemed denial because the requested records are
public records in the possession, custody or control of the Agency; the records do not qualify for
any exemptions under § 708 of the RTKL, are not protected by a privilege, and are not exempt
under any Federal or State law or regulation; and the request was sufficiently specific.
12
13. Addendum 9
From: no-reply@openrecordspennsylvania.com
To: gbulfaro@aol.com
Subject: PA Office of Open Records - Appeal Confirmation
Date: Tue, Apr 18, 2023 3:33 am
Attachments: You have filed an appeal of an agency's response to a request for records under the
Right-to-Know Law.
Name: Gregory Bulfaro
Company:
Address 1: 3911 Concord Pike
Address 2: #7392 City: Wilmington State: Delaware Zip: 19803 Phone: 267-227-8433
Email: gbulfaro@aol.com
Email2:
Agency (typed): Bucks County Prothonotary
Agency Address 1: Bucks County Justice Center
Agency Address 2: 100 North Main Street
Agency City: Doylestown Agency State: Pennsylvania
Agency Zip: 18901
Agency Phone: 215-348-6191
Agency Email: prothonotarychristian@buckscounty.org
Records at Issue in this Appeal: I am resubmitting this request to amend the one sent 4/14/23 to
include the requisite statement referencing why the information is public record. The Unified
Judicial System of Pennsylvania explicitly states that court records are public records and that
there is comprehensive public access provided online and upon request. Bucks County rules for
civil docket access are in accordance with this policy. The request is for a civil court case
document filed in Bucks County, PA and is therefore public record.
Request Submitted to Agency Via: e-mail
Request Date: 04/06/2023
Response Date:
Deemed Denied: Yes
Agency Open Records Officer: Coleen Christian
Attached a copy of my request for records: Yes
Attached a copy of all responses from the Agency regarding my request: Yes
Attached any letters or notices extending the Agency's time to respond to my request: No
Agree to permit the OOR additional time to issue a final determination: No
Interested in resolving this issue through OOR mediation: No
Attachments: Screenshot_20230414-231552.png Screenshot_20230414-231939.png RTKL
Request - Bucks County Clerk of Courts and Prothonotary - 3-24- 23 (1) (2) (5).pdf
I requested the listed records from the Agency named above. By submitting this form, I am
appealing the Agency's denial, partial denial, or deemed denial because the requested records are
public records in the possession, custody or control of the Agency; the records do not qualify for
any exemptions under § 708 of the RTKL, are not protected by a privilege, and are not exempt
under any Federal or State law or regulation; and the request was sufficiently specific.
13