Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Wade Plair, Petitioner v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, et al.

Supreme Court briefSep 30, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

NO.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITIONER

WADE PLAIR,

VS.

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et. al.

(W.D. CIV NO. 3 : 21 -cv- 00163)

(CA. NO. 22-1186)

RESPONDENTS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

APPENDIX-A

FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT : ORDERS

FILED BY : WADE PLAIR, PRO SE

911 GREEN AVE. APT. #920

ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA 16601

PHONE : 814-889-5372

APPENDIX-A

APPENDIX PAGE :

1. WRIT OF MANDAMUS

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE: RULE 21(a)(b)(l)(2) (A)(B)(C)

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE: RULE: 44 (a)

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule: 56(a)(b)(c)(l)(A) (B)

DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2021

----------------------------------------

2. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE, WESTERN DISTRICT REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION. (4) PAGES DATED : NOVEMBER 8, 2021

3. WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE: 72 (b) (2)(3)

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 3.1

DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2021

-----

4. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT ORDER

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON DATED : DECEMBER 29, 2021

•4

5. MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

28 U.S.C. 2254 AND 2255 RULE: 11 (a) (b)

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE: 22(b) (2)

DATED : JANUARY 26, 2022 -

6. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 3rd. CIR ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT (2) PAGES

DATED : MAY 17, 2022 -----------

7. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 3rd. CIR. ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED : MAY 17, 2022

8. PETITION FOR REHEARING

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE: 35 (b)(2)(3)

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Rule: 40 (a) (2)

DATED : MAY 26, 2021

9. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 3rd. CIR. PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

DATED : JUNE 7, 2022 ------------------------- 9

10. U.S.COURT OF APPEALS 3rd CIR. PETITION FOR REHEARING, DENIED (2) PAGES

DATED: JULY 26, 2022 ------------------------ 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE : WADE PLAIR

asm

SEP 5 A 2021

PETITIONER/APPELLANT

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,WESTERN DISTRICT,DOCKET NO. 117 WAL 2021

CONSOLIDATED CASES :

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,WESTERN DISTRICT,DOCKET NO. 179 WDA 2021

TRIAL COURT : BLAIR COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

TRIAL COURT DOCKET NO. 2019 GN 1764

TRIAL COURT DOCKET NO. CP-07-CR-00001231-2019

JUDGE DANIEL J. MILLIRON

RESPONDENT (S) / APPELLEE (S)

TITLE V. EXTRAORDINARY WRIT WRIT OF MANDAMUS

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 21 (a) (b) (1) (2) (A) (B) (C)

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 44 (a)

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 56 (a) (b) (c) (1) (A) (B)

FILED BY: WADE PLAIR, PRO SE, 911 GREEN AVE. APT. 920 ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA 16601

PHONE : 814-889-5372

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WADE PLAIR,

Petitioner

SUPREME COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA, etal,

Respondents

Case No. s^i-cv-ibs^KRG-KAP

Report and Recommendation

Recommendation

On or about September 15, 2021, petitioner submitted what he styled as a writ of

mandamus [sic] directed to the Honorable Daniel Milliron, a judge of the Blair County1

Court of Common Pleas, and to each of the three levels of the Pennsylvania judiciary. It

has been referred to me. Because the petition seeks dismissal of criminal charges against

petitioner, it is a habeas corpus petition. Regarding it as a habeas petition, I recommend

that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

in the United States District Courts, the petition be dismissed and that no certificate of

appealability7 be issued. Petitioner’s ijp status should be revoked on appeal because no

good faith argument could be made that would support an appeal.

Report

As the attached seventeen-page public docket sheet indicates, petitioner is

awaiting trial on criminal charges of disorderly conduct, defiant trespass, and harassment

in the Blair County7 Court of Common Pleas, where he has chosen to proceed pro se. He

filed a motion in the trial court seeking dismissal of the charges against him as barred by

the Double Jeopardy Clause, a motion Judge Milliron heard and deniea in January7 2021.

Petitioner took an interlocutory7 appeal that the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed,

and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to review that action. Petitioner then filed

this petition, asserting that the criminal charges against him are barred by the Double

Jeopardy Clause.

Due to the special nature of the double jeopardy right and the fact that the right

cannot be fully vindicated on appeal following final judgment, a petitioner who has

exhausted his state court remedies can bring a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus

in federal court. Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 302-03

(1984).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, April 24, 1996, allows a federal court to issue a writ of habeas

corpus to a person challenging a state court criminal conviction and sentence if the

petitioner establishes that he "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.§ 2254(a); see Howell v. Superintendent Rockview

SCI. 939 F-3d 260, 264 (3d Cir.2019). AEDPA does not permit a federal court to review

either trial or appellate proceedings de novo.

Where, as here, a state court adjudicates claims on the merits, to obtain relief a petitioner

must show that the ruling:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court

of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C.§ 2254(d). See also Williams v. Tavior. 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). An

unreasonable application of federal law focuses on whether the state court unreasonably

applied Supreme Court precedent, not whether it was “merely wrong.” White v. Woodall,

572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). An unreasonable determination of the facts is one where the

petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence, see 28 U.S.C.§ 2254(e)(1), that the

conclusion drawn from the evidence by the state court is so improbable that it Til inks

reality.” See Miller-El v. Dretke. 545 U.S. 231,266 (2005). Where reasonable minds might

disagree, federal habeas review cannot reject the state court’s determination. See Rice v.

Collins. 546 U.S. 333,341-42 (2006).

These are deliberately demanding standards. As the Supreme Court has observed,

habeas corpus is a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice

system, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal, and requires a

petitioner to show a malfunction in his prosecution so egregious “that the state court’s

ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that

there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any

possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-03

(2011). Or, as the Court of Appeals has put it, at every step of habeas review AEDPA “gives

state courts the benefit of th[e] doubt.” Brown v. Wenerowicz, 663 F.3d 619, 634 (3d Cir.

2011).

Here, there is no benefit of the doubt to discuss because there is no doubt: Judge

Milliron made a decision that correctly applies Supreme Court precedent. Petitioner is

awaiting trial on charges that arose from events that allegedly took place on April n, 2019.

Petitioner says that the events that gave rise to the charges were also the subject of a

November 20, 2019 civil agreement (attached as an exhibit to the petition) that resolved

an eviction proceeding against him by the Altoona Housing x4uthority. The AHA agreed

to drop its eviction proceeding and petitioner agreed to discontinue litigation pending in

the state courts. Judge Milliron approved the agreement.

The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no “person be subject for the same

offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Constitution, Amendment 5. That

clause prohibits the Government from punishing twice, or attempting a second time to

punish criminally for the same offense. United States v. Urserv, 518 U.S. 267,273 (1996).

The key words here are “government” and “criminally.” The Altoona Housing Authority

is not the government and does not have the power to prosecute crimes. No agreement

with it can give petitioner a double jeopardy claim.

Second, an eviction proceeding is not a criminal proceeding and eviction is not so

punitive either in purpose or effect that it would transform what is clearly intended as a

civil remedy into a criminal penalty. See Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99-100

(1997). It is only a criminal punishment (or here, an agreement to forego criminal

punishment) that would bar a subsequent criminal prosecution for an offence. The

Supreme Court, in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144,168-169, (1963), listed

factors that the Court looked to in Hudson: (1) “[wjhether the sanction involves an

affirmative disability or restraint”; (2) “whether it has historically been regarded as a

punishment”; (3) “whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter”; (4) “whether

its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment-retribution and

deterrence”; (5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime”; (6) “whether

an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it ; and

(7) “whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. The

Hudson court noted that “only the clearest proof ” will suffice to transform what has been

denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. Id.

Petitioner does not come close to satisfying any of the Hudson factors, and to the

contrary his proposed use of the agreement with AHA, though it seems appropriate to

him in a relatively minor prosecution, would wreak havoc in serious criminal matters.

Legal principles announced in one case are precedent in the next. Consider a homicide

committed in a unit in an AHA building or other rental property, after which the accused

suspect quickly “agreed” in a written agreement signed by a friendly landlord to be

evicted, or (if not a tenant) “agreed” simply to stay off the premises. Under petitioner’s

theory, regardless of the lack of participation by (or even notice to) the District Attorney

he thereby could never be prosecuted for murder. That is absurd. The petition should be

summarily denied.

Because petitioner does not make a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c)(3), no certificate of appealability should be

issued.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the petitioner is given notice that he has fourteen

days to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Petitioner is advised

that in the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely

hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. Citv of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93,100 (3d

Cir.2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections

are filed as limited to review for plain error).

The Clerk shall add the District Attorney of Blair County to the docket as counsel

for the Blair County Court of Common Pleas for notice purposes only. The District

Attorney has no duty to respond.

DATE:

November 8, 2021

Keith A. Pesto,

United States Magistrate Judge

Notice by ECF to counsel of record and by U.S. Mail to:

Wade Plair

911 Green Avenue, Apt. 920

Altoona, PA 16601

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WADE PLAIR,

PETITIONER

CASE NO. 3:21-cv-163-KRG- KAP

'F3

iag£3 g

S I 1®

SUPREME COURT OF

NOV 22 2021

PENNSYLVANIA, et. al.

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WEST. DiST. OF PENNSYLVANIA

RESPONDENTS

COMES NOW, THE PETITIONER, WADE PLAIR, PRO SE, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.]636 (b) (1)

TO RESPECTFULLY FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE KEITH A. PRESTO DATED : DATED : NOVEMBER 8, 2021.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE : RULE 72 (b) (2) (3) MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PRE-TRIAL

ORDER.

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE : RULE 3.1. APPEAL FROM A JUDGEMENT OF A

MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN A CIVIL CASE.

FILED BY : WADE PLAIR, PRO SE, 911 GREEN AVENUE APT. 920 ALTOONA PENNSYLVANIA 16601

PHONE : 814- 889-5372.

ftfiE C)

Case 3:21-cv-00163-KRG-KAP Document 9 Filed 12/29/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WADE PLAIR,

Petitioner,

SUPREME COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,

Respondents.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-cv-163

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance

witih the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72. The Magistrate Judge filed a

Report and Recommendation on

Petition, styled as a

November 8, 2021, recommending that Wade Plair's ("Plair")

writ of mandamus, but construed as a habeus corpus petition, be dismissed

certificate of appealability be issued. (ECF No. 21 at 1). The Magistrate Judge further

and no

recommended that Plair's in forma pauperis status be revoked on appeal because "no good faith

argument could be made that would support an appeal." (Id.).

Plair was

written

notified that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), he had fourteen days to file

objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plair filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation on November 22, 2021. (ECF No. 6). Plair also filed an "appeal" to the Court

which the Court construes as further objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 7).

After de novo

the objections

review of the record in this matter, the Report and Recommendation, and

thereto, the Court finds that the objections filed by Plair at ECF Nos. 6 and 7 are

without merit. The following order is entered:

JftfE (4)

Case 3:21-cv-00163-KRG-KAP Document 9 Filed 12/29/21 Page 2 of 2

-ff)

AND NOW, this 22 day of December, 2021, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition

(ECF No. 3) is dismissed with prejudice as stated in the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability is issued. The Court

adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of this Court.

BY THE COURT:

KEMR. GIBSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notice by U.S. Mail to:

Wade Plair

911 Green Avenue

Apartment 920

Altoona, PA 16601

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

THIRD CIRCUIT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE : WADE PLAIR

PETITIONER APPELLANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAGISTRATE JUDGE, KEITH A. PRESTO

FEDERAL JUDGE, KIM R. GIBSON et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3 :21-cv-163-KRG-KAP

RESPONDENTS / APPELLEE (S)

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

28U.S.C. 2254 AND 2255

RULES GOVERNING 2254 AND 2255 CASES RULE : 11 (a) (b) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE: 22 (b) (2)

FILED BY : WADE PLAIR, PRO SE

911 GREEN AVENUE APT. #920

ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA 16601

PHONE: 814-889-5372

Page (5)

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

PATRICIA S. DODSZUWEIT

United States Court of Appeals

TELEPHONE

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

601 MARKET STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790

215-597-2995

CLERK

Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

May 17, 2022

Mr. Wade Plair

911 Green Avenue

Apt 920

Altoona, PA 16601

Peter J. Weeks

Blair County Office of District Attorney

423 Allegheny Street

Suite 421

Hollidaysburg, PA 16648

RE: Wade Plair v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, et al

Case Number: 22-1186

District Court Case Number: 3-21-cv-00163

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Today, May 17,2022 the Court issued a case dispositive order in the above-captioned matter

which serves as this Court's judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 36.

If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The

procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.

LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.

Time for Filing:

14 days after entry of judgment.

45 days after entry of judgment in a civil case if the United States is a party.

Form Limits:

3900 words if produced by a computer, with a certificate of compliance pursuant to Fed. R. App.

P. 32(g).

15 pages if hand or type written.

Attachments:

?m (It)

A copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only.

Certificate of service.

Certificate of compliance if petition is produced by a computer.

No other attachments are permitted without first obtaining leave from the Court.

Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be

construed as requesting both panel and en banc rehearing. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(3),

if separate petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc are submitted, they will be treated

as a single document and will be subject to the form limits as set forth in Fed. R. App. P.

35(b)(2). If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not provide for the subsequent

filing of a petition for rehearing en banc in the event that the petition seeking only panel

rehearing is denied.

Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and

requirements for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.

Very truly yours,

Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk

By: s/ Shannon

Case Manager

267-299-4959

cc:

Colleen Willison

CLD-149

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

C.A. No. 22-1186

WADE PLAIR, Appellant

VS.

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; ET AL.

(W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:21-cv-00163)

Present:

AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and BPBAS, Circuit Judges

Submitted are:

(1)

Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability under 28

u.s.c.

§ 2253(c)(1);

(2)

Commonwealth’s response in opposition;

(3)

Appellant’s reply to Commonwealth’s response in opposition

in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully,

Clerk

______ __________________________ ORDER_____________________

Wade Plair requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the District

Court’s December 29, 2021 order denying what was properly construed as Plair’s pretrial

habeas petition. A COA will issue if jurists of reason would debate whether the litigant’s

habeas petition “states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v.

McDaniel 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000)! Plair fails to make that showing. In particular,

reasonable jurists would not debate the invalidity of Plair’s double jeopardy claim,

regardless of whether the test under Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 16869 O 963J see Hudson v. United States. 522 U.S. 93, 99-100 (1997), or the test under

Artwav v. Attorney General of New Jersey, 81 F.3d 1235, 1254 (3d Cir. 1996), see

?/k?e eo

Tavlor v. Cisneros. 102 F.3d 1334, 1341-42 (3d Cir. 1996), is applied. Accordingly, the

COA request is denied.

By the Court,

s/Pattv Shwartz

Circuit Judge

A True Copy:""0

Dated:

SLC/cc:

May 17, 2022

Wade Plair

Peter J. Weeks, Esq.

Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk

Certified Order Issued in Lieu of Mandate

CLD-149

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

C. A. NO. 22-1186

WADE PLAIR, Appellant

VS.

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; ET AL.

( W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3 :21-cv-00163)

PETITION FOR REHEARING

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE : RULE 35 (b) (2) (3) EN BANC DETERMINATION

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE: RULE 40 (a) (2) PETITION FOR PANEL

REHEARING.

FILED BY : WADE PLAIR, PRO SE

911 GREEN AVENUE APT. #920

ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA 16601

PHONE : 814-889-5372

(g)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 22-1186

WADE PLAIR,

Appellant

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

(W.D. Pa. No. 2-21-cv-00163)

Present: SHWARTZ. Circuit Judge

1. Motion by Appellant for Extension of Time to File Petition for Rehearing

Exhibits and for Leave to File Rehearing Exhibits.

Respectfully,

Clerk/slc

____________________________

ORDER_______________________________

The foregoing motion by Appellant for an extension of time to file a petition for

rehearing exhibits and for leave to file rehearing exhibits is granted. These items shall be

filed no later than June 21, 2022.

By the Court,

s/Pattv Shwartz

Circuit Judge

Dated:

SLC/cc:

June 7, 2022

Wade Plair

Peter J. Weeks, Esq.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 22-1186

WADE PLAIR, Appellant

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; ET AL.

(W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3-21-cv-00163)

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Present: CHAGARES, Chief Judge. McKEE, AMBRO, JORDAN, HARDIMAN,

GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY,

and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant in the above-entitled case having

been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the

other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who

concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the

circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the

panel and the Court en banc, is denied.

?«I0)

BY THE COURT,

s/Patty Shwartz

Circuit Judge

Dated:

SLC/cc:

July 6, 2022

Wade Plair

Peter J. Weeks, Esq.

NO.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITIONER

WADE PLAIR,

VS.

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et. al.

(W. D. CIV No. 3 : 21 -cv- 00163)

(CA. No. 22-1186)

RESPONDENTS

APPENDIX-B

FILED : WADE PLAIR, PRO SE

911 GREEN AVE #920

ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA 16601

PHONE : 814-889-5372

APPENDIX-B.

APP-PAGE :

1. ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHORITY,LEASE TERMINATION NOTICE /

NOTICE TO QUIT EVICTION DATED : MAY B, 2019

----- -

(A)

2. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DOCKET: CP-07-CR-00001231-2019 DATED: MAY 29, 2019

(B)

3. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DOCKET: CP-07-CR-00001231-2019 DATED: JUNE 20, 2019

(C)

4. LETTER, HABERSTROH, SULLIVAN & GEORGE, DATED: JUNE 28. 2019

(D)

5. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, ORDER

JUDGE TIMOTHY M. SULLIVAN, DATED : JULY 24, 2019

(E)

6. COUNTY OF BLAIR, COURT ADMINISTRATOR, THOMAS M. PRICE

DOCKET NO. 2019 GN 1764

------

(F)

7. BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, PROTHONOTARY, CIVIL CASE PRINT

14373809202019 PYS510 (2) PAGES :

----------

(G)

8. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, ORDER

JUDGE TIMOTHY M. SULLIVAN, DATED : SEPTEMBER 4, 2019

(H)

9. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR C., PENNSYLVANIA, ORDER

JUDGE TIMOTHY M. SULLIVAN, DATED : SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

(1)

10. LETTER, HABERSTROH, SULLIVAN, & GEORGE, DATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 —(J)

11. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, ORDER

JUDGE TIMOTHY M. SULLIVAN, DATED : OCTOBER 9, 2019

(K)

12. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT

DOCKET NO. : 109 WM 2019

(L)

APPENDIX -B

APP-PAGE :

13. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, FINAL ORDER,

JUDGE DANIEL J. MILLIRON, DOCKET NO. 2019 GN 1764, DATED: NOV. 20, 2019 —(M)

14. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA,

MOTION TO BARR PROSECUTION, DATED : JANUARY 6, 2021

(N)

15. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, ORDER, DENIAL

JUDGE DANIEL J. MILLIRON, DATED : JANUARY 12, 2021

40)

16. SUPERIOR COURT OFPENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, APPEAL

MOTION TO BARR PROSECUTION, DATED : FEBRUARY 3, 2021

(P)

17. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, MOTION TO AMEND

CRIMINAL INFORMATION, ASSIT. DIST. ATT. JESSICA ANN WEIL,

DATED : FEBRUARY 3, 2021

(Q)

18. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL INFORMATION

SHEET. ASSIT. DIST. ATT, JESSICA ANN WEIL, DATED: FEBRUARY 3, 2021 --------

(R)

19. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, ORIGINAL CRIMINAL

INFORMATION SHEET, DIST. ATT. RICHARD CONSIGLIO, DATED: JULY 3, 2019

(S)

20. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, ORDER TO QUASH,

DOCKET NO. 179 WDA 2021 PER CURIAM DATED : MARCH 18, 2021

(T)

APP-PAGE:

APPENDIX -B

21. COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR CO., PENNSYLVANIA, ORDER,TO

GRANT, MOTION TO AMEND CRIMINAL INFORMATION, ASSIT. DIST. ATT.

JESSICA ANN WEIL, DATED : MARCH 18, 2021,

------------------

(U)

22. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, PETITION FOR

ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL, FILED, DATED : APRIL 9, 2021.

(V)

23. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, ORDER,

TO QUASH, APPEAL AT: 476 WDA 2021, DATED: MAY 19, 2021

(W)

24. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, FILED,

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL, MOTION TO AMEND CRIMINAL

INFORMATION, DATED : JUNE 14, 2021.

(X)

25. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, DENIAL, OF

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL, AT: 117 WAL 2021

DATED : AUGUST 16, 2021.

(V)

26. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, DENIAL, OF

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL, AT : 194 WAL 2021

DATED : NOVEMBER 10, 2021.

(Z)

gSBjSjagsjgg^gg^gsg

- ' ‘ --Ste

:-.' '

255?

it:

'■'i--'',ii:\:~r:

> :

■ '■■■:

■■

.....: 2700 Pleasant Valle)' Shi" Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602-4492

’ tel 814-949-2000 ‘ tdi / voice 814-949-2002 - fax 814-949-2025

www.alloonahousing. org

'^^^M^:MLMsE^TEIiMINATldN^N6TICE ..:•/.

#1^0;'^; -• x; ^N&TICE TO QUIT/EVICTION

sgg

Jssms

WS^k-':

WMmm

^fe^l^fer^enjAvemie^.-Apt-: 920:. ■;.

••.■

Si?

.v.• •- •; > • •■'

F3p)c>

_^^h^fe^8qnaiHoxi^ing Authority’s One Strike Policy, Section V- Lease Enforcement: The

li^^^H^^mgS^&oiiiy.’sJease provisions,bar.drug-related'and other criminal activity.

cephonSf tbj|V‘6i^Stnke” Policy, the Housing Authority will maintain a “zero

-^^^^^^^^^epecFioiidbiaSoni' of lease terms regarding -drug' related or criminal activity. The

^^^^^^^fRm^Ah&qn^^^apprdpriately evict a public housing resident who: (1) engages in

fof

jgf^^rSSS3Isj

I&8WbetweeQ

your premises within ten (10) days from the

andanother resident

wberein

were

^^gea^iE.the^iollowiiig .by.'the Altoona Police Department: :...

ms^^mmsimW:m::" T ■:' ' ■

SSeS

tea

^^pHsorderly .jSonduct/Ehgage, in fighting.

Other.to Physical Contact

^^^^afe:usjng^uthbrity:haii'' siiLScientreas6n'.to believe that you have seriously or

t;KG

^^^^Sp|f0SlSst7¥i

B(rttaR^*SWm;s“::':- ^'fiicha:'as|bllo™s:'

■:■ ' ■:■ ■-. ■ v :

aaMMmmswmtmm,-;- ■ ■ ■

3JCE)'

^^mi&omEliaiicawith Laws’kTenant shall,•■at its sole cost and expense, promptly comply with

erninehtai rules, • regulati ohs' or requirements now in force or

force'ah'd with the requirements of any board of fire underwriters or other

Cbnstitufed relating to or. affecting 'the condition, use or occupancy

jjjj

WSBmSzSKiffi™

^/^ohibitfeafActM'ties-V ~ -Resident shall, not engage in and. shall prevent any Household

^^^fp^||tl5ivisitbri or' invitee, "under the -Resident’s control from engaging in any of the

• ••

.*.•.“.

*\ ■

•'• „

•

•.

;•

Faindev? Hills

1614 First Sl

949-2016 ‘

Section 8 Program

2700 Pleasant Valiev Blvd.

949-2008 ‘

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY

DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-07-CR-0001231-2019

CRIMINAL DOCKET

Court Case

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Page 3 of 10

Wade Plair

CASE PARTICIPANTS

Participant Type

Name

Defendant

Plair, Wade

BAIL INFORMATION

Nebbia Status: None

Plair, Wade

05/29/2019

Set

Sea.

*”■

Bail Type

Date

Bail Action

Percentage

Amount

Bail Posting Status

Posting Date

Posted

05/29/2019

$2,500.00

Unsecured

Orio Seo.

Grade

Statute

18 §5503 §§ A1

CHARGES

Statute Description

Disorderly Conduct Engage In Fighting

18 § 3503 §§ Bill

DefTres Posted

04/11/2019

U701659-0

Harassment - Subject Other to Physical

Contact

04/11/2019

U 701659-0

18 § 2709 §§ A1

Offense Dt.

04/11/2019

OTN

U 701659-0

DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES

Disposition

Case* Event

Seduence/Description

Sentencing Judge

Sentence/Diversion Program Type

Sentence Conditions

Final Disposition

Disposition Date

Grade

Section

Offense Disposition

Credit For Time Served

Sentence Date

Start Date

Incarceration/Diversionarv Period

Defendant Was Present

05/29/2019

Lower Court Disposition

Waived for Court (Lower Court)

1 / Disorderly Conduct Engage In Fighting

Waived

for Court (Lower Court)

2/DefTres Posted

Waived for Court (Lower Court)

3 / Harassment - Subject Other to Physical Contact

Waived for Court (Lower Court)

Proceed to Court

Information Filed

1 / Disorderly Conduct Engage In Fighting

2 /DefTres Posted

3./Harassment - Subject Other to Physical Contact

07/12/2019

Proceed to Court

Not Final

18 §5503 §§A1

18§3503§§ Bill

18 §2709 §§A1

Not Final

18 §5503 §§A1

18§3503 §§ Bill

18 §2709 §§A1

Printed: 02/09/2021

CPCMS-9082

Rdoent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial

System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed

data errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can

only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record

Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY

DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-07-CR-0001231-2019

CRIMINAL DOCKET

Court Case

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

COMMONWEALTH INFORMATION

Blair County District Attorney's Office

Name:

District Attorney

Supreme Court No:

Phone Number(s):

814-693-3010

(Phone)

Address:

Blair County Courthouse

Suite 421

423 Allegheny Street

Hollidaysburg, PA 16648

Page 4 of 10

Wade Plair

ATTORNEY INFORMATION

Blair County Public Defender's Office

Name:

Public Defender

Supreme Court No:

Inactive

Rep. Status:

Phone Numberfsl:

Address:

Blair County Courthouse

423 Allegheny Street, Suite 344

Hollidaysburg, PA 16648

ENTRIES

Filed Bv

Document Date

Sequence Number

CP Filed Date

05/29/2019

DeAntonio, Daniel C.

05/29/2019

Plair, Wade

Bail Set - Plair, Wade

Bail Posted - Plair, Wade

Blair County District Attorney's Office

eService

06/20/2019

Blair County Public Defender's Office

eService

06/20/2019

Served

Court of Common Pleas - Blair

County

06/20/2019

Original Papers Received from Lower Court

Blair County District Attorney's Office

eService

06/20/2019

Served

'.i!

MDJ-24-1-03

06/20/2019

Waiv of arraignment-Jury Trial

Blair County District Attorney's Office

eService

06/20/2019

Blair County Public Defender's Office

eService

06/20/2019

Served

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

07/12/2019

Information Filed

Blair County District Attorney's Office

eService

07/12/2019

Blair County Public Defender's Office

eService

07/12/2019

CPCMSM82

/ffi-C

Served

Printed: 02/09/2021

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial

System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed

data errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can

only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record

Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.

. •:

f~t i

?fJf

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Haberstroh, SvJLivan, & George, up

Associs

Partners

William J. Haberstroh

Brandon T. Ry;

Shawn P. Sullivan

June 28,2019.

Terressa E. George

WADE PLAIR

911 GREEN AVENUE TOWER APT. 920

ALTOONA PA 16601

In Re:

Altoona Housing Authority v. Wade Plair

No. 2019 GN1764

Dear 2v£r. Plair:

Please be advised that I have been contacted and retained by the Altoona Housing

Authority, in regards to the above-captioned eviction action. Pursuant to that

representation, enclosed herewith please find a copy of the Complaint, which I have

prepared and filed on behalf of my client, the Altoona Housing Authority. You have

twenty (20) days to file a response to this Complaint

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

SincerSly,

(IavcaAAA 'VATerressa E. George

Enclosure

Cc:

Linda Holsinger

Altoona Housing Authority

/^Altoona Office

I I Martmsburg Office

3615 Buxgoon Road Altoona, PA 16602

Phone 814.944.9486 or 814.944.0300

Fax 814.944.4299 or 814.944.3200

133 East Allegheny Street Ivlartinsburg, PA 16662

Phone: 814.793.7904

Fee 814.793.2673

Please reply to the above office.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHORITY,

PLAINTIFF

2019 GN 1764

WADE PLAIR,

DEFENDANT

HON. TIMOTHY M. SULLIVAN

PRESIDING JUDGE

WILLIAM J. HABERSTROH, ESQUIRE

TERRESSA E. GEORGE, ESQUIRE

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT

WADE PLAIR

‘911 Green Avenue Tower, Apt 920

Altoona, PA 16601

ORDER

AND NOW, this

P H tu day of July, 2019, the court having received the

Plaintiffs Certificate of Readiness, it is hereby ORDERED, DIRECTED ’ and

DECREED that this matter shall be scheduled by the Blair County Court

Administrator’s Office for a one (1) day trial by court before the undersigned.

BY THE COURT:

'VPl

✓

/IPf-t

Hany Lorenzi

Deputy Court Administrator

Janice Meadows

District Court Administrator

OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR

423 ALLEGHENY STREET, SUITE 239

HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA. 16S48

Telephone §14-693-3050

Facsimile § 14-693-3289

Mary Wilt

Deputy Court Administrator

July 25,2019

William J. Haberstroh, Esquire

Terressa E. George, Esquire

HSK&G, LLP.

3615 Burgoon Road

Altoona, PA 16602

Wade Flair

911 Green Avenue Tower, Apt 920

Altoona, PA 16601

Subject jyt@@isa

JUstlB©ri£y ¥se Wade Flair

Trial by Goar!

Tbe above mafter is scheduled per order of Court dated 7/24/19 as follows:

Date:

Friday, NOVEMBER 225 2019

Time:

Place:

Courtroom 5

Presiding:

The Honorable Timothy M. Suffivan

Pleasefeel free to contact this office if you have questions regarding this matter.

Hmmsek are responsible for notifying their parties and witnesses.

/*)

Tfurzo a o

Thomas M. Rice

Civil Processor

Cc:

The Honorable Timothy M. Sullivan

Court Administration

14373809202019

PYS510

2019-01764

BLAIR COUNTY - PROTHONOTARY

Civil Case Print

Page

ALTOONA HOUSING (vs) WADE PLAIR

Reference No..:

Case Type

: CIVIL APPEALS - JUDICIAL: MDJ

(LANDLORD/TENANT)

Judgment

. 00

Judge Assigned: SULLIVAN TIMOTHY M

Disposed Desc.:

Case Comments

Filed.................:

Time .................:

6/05/2019

10:44

Execution Date

Jury Trial....

Disposed Date.

Higher Crt 1.:

Higher Crt 2.:

0/00/0000

**************★*★**********************************★★******<:********************

General Index

Attorney Info

ALTOONA HOUSING

911 GREEN AVE

ALTOONA PA 16601

PLAINTIFF

PLAIR WADE

911 GREEN AVE

APT 920

ALTOONA PA 16601

DEFENDANT

********************************************************************************

Entries

*I********************************************************************************

Date

6/05/2019

_____________ FIRST ENTRY ------------NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT WITH PRAECIPE TO

ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT FILED BY

WADE PLAIR

(SENT TO CT ADMIN 06 05 2019)

6/05/2019

SECTION 8 TENANT’S SUPERSEDEAS AFFIDAVIT FILED PURSUANT TO

PA.R.C.P.M.D.J. NO. 1008C(2)

6/05/2019

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT

FILED BY WADE PLAIR

6/05/2019

PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FILED BY WADE PLAIR

6/14/2019

ORDER GRANTING IFP DATED 6/10/19 BY WAK

6/27/2019

COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION FILED BY ATTY GEORGE

7/11/2019

ANSWER FILED BY WADE PLAIR

7/16/2019

PRAECIPE FOR TRIAL LIST FILED BY ATTY GEORGE WITH CERTIFICATE OF

COMPLIANCE (SENT TO CT ADMIN 7/16/19)

7/16/2019

CERTIFICATE OF READINESS AGAINST DEFENDANT WADE PLAIR FILED BY

ATTY GEORGE WITH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

7/24/2019

ANSWER TO PRAECIPE FOR ARBITRATION FILED BY DEFT ALONG WITH CERT

OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE (SENT TO CT ADMIN 07/25/19)

7/24/2019

ANSWER TO CERTIFICATE OF READINESS FILED BY DEFT ALONG WITH CERT

OF COMPLIANCE AND SERVICE

(SENT TO CT ADMIN 07/25/19)

• 7/25/2019

COURT ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULED TRIAL BY COURT SET HEARING FO

Rll/22/19 @9:00 AM IN CT RM 5

7/25/2019

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN AS REQUIRED BY PA.R.C.P.

236 (B) .

7/25/2019

ORDER DATED 7/24/19 BY TMS THAT THIS MATTER SHALL BE SCHEDULED BY

THE BLAIR COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATORS OFFICE FOR A ONE (1) DAY

TRIAL BY COURT BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED (SEE ORDER)

7/25/2019

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN AS REQUIRED BY PA.R.C.P.

236 (B) .

7/31/2019

AMENDED ANSWER TO CERTIFICATE FO READINESS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS

ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHORITY FILED BY WADE PLAIR WITH CERTIFICATE OF

COMPLIANCE

14373809202019

PYS510

2019-01764

BLAIR COUNTY - PROTHONOTARY

Civil Case Print

Page

ALTOONA HOUSING (vs) WADE PLAIR

Reference No..:

Case Type

: CIVIL APPEALS - JUDICIAL: MDJ

(LANDLORD/TENANT)

.00

Judgment

Judge Assigned: SULLIVAN TIMOTHY M

Disposed Desc.:

Case Comments

Filed

Time.

6/05/2019

10:44

7/31/2019

Execution Date

0/00/0000

Jury Trial....

Disposed Date.

0/00/0000

Higher Crt 1.:

Higher Crt 2.:

CONTINUATION OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS FILED BY WADE PLAIR

8/30/2019

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT FILED PRO SE

8/30/2019

CONTINUATION OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS FILED PRO SE

8/30/2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED PRO SE

9/05/2019

ORDER DATED 09/04/2019 IT IS ODD APPEAL IS QUASHED AND A HEARING

IS SCHEDULED.

9/16/2019

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT FILED PRO SE

RE-FILLED APPEAL OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT

9/16/2019

CONTINUATION OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS FILED PRO SE

9/16/2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED PRO SE

9/16/2019

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT FILED PRO SE

9/16/2019

CONTINUATION OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS FILED PRO SE

9/16/2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED PRO SE

9/19/2019

SCHEDULED

ORDER DATED 09/19/2019 ODD NOTICE OF APPEAL IS QUASHED.

HEARING FOR 11/14/2019 AT 3:15 IN COURTROOM 5. THIS ORDER ALSO

AUTHORIZES PROTHONOTARY TO REJECT ANY FILINGS OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

UNTIL AFTER SCHEDULED HEARING ON 11/14/2019. BY TMS

LAST ENTRY -------------

********************************************************************************

★

Escrow Information

* Fees & Debits

Beg Bal

Pymts/Adj

End Bal

•k

*************************************************

RENT

222.00

. 00

666.00

. 00

********************************************************************************

^^j.^*^*^^****************i******************************************************

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHORITY,

PLAINTIFF

2019 GN 1764

WADE PLAIR,

DEFENDANT

HON. TIMOTHY M. SULLIVAN

PRESIDING JUDGE

WILLIAM J HABERSTROH, ESQUIRE

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

WADE PLAIR

SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT

ORDER

AND NOW, this

day of September, 2019, it was brought to our

attention that the Defendant, who is acting in a pro se capacity, filed an “Appeal of the

Order of the Court” on August 30, 2019. it is hereby ORDERED, DIRECTED and

DECREED that said Appeal is quashed. Our order of July 24, 2019 simply directed

that this matter shall be scheduled for a one-day trial by court.

In his Appeal,

however, the Defendant seeks that we disqualify ourselves from presiding over his

trial since the Plaintiff is represented by Attorney William J. Haberstroh and Attorney

Terressa E. George, who work in the same law firm with Attorney Shawn P. Sullivan,

the undersigned’s brother. Therefore, we will treat the Defendant’s “Appeal” as a

Motion for Recusal and direct the Blair County Court Administrator’s Office to

schedule this matter for hearing before the undersigned. Fifteen'(15) minutes shall be

set aside for this hearing.

BY THE COURT:

-B

/•

{jr**

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHORITY,

PLAINTIFF

2019 GN 1764

WADE PLAIR,

DEFENDANT

HON. TIMOTHY M. SULLIVAN

PRESIDING JUDGE

WILLIAM J HABERSTROH, ESQUIRE

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

WADE PLAIR

SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT

ORDER

AND NOW, this

day of September, 2019, it was brought to our

attention that the Defendant, who is acting in a pro se capacity, has filed another

“Notice of Appeal" from our July 24, 2019 order. Our order of July ,24, 2019 simply

directed that this matter shall be scheduled for a one-day trial by court. Therefore,

such order is merely a scheduling order and not a “final order”.

It is hereby

ORDERED, DIRECTED and DECREED that said “Notice of Appeal” is quashed.

The next court hearing scheduled is Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 3:15

p.m. in Courtroom No.-5, at which time we will address the Defendant’s request that

we recuse ourselves from presiding over this trial.

The Defendant is specifically

directed not to file any “Notice of Appeal” before the November 14, 2019 hearing.

he does so, the Blair County Prothonotary’s Office is authorized to reject such filing.

BY THE CD-URT:-

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Haberstroh, Sullivan, & George, ujp

Associate

Partners

Brandon T. Ryan

William J. Haberstroh

Shawn P. Sullivan

September 23,2019

Terressa E. George

THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M SULLIVAN

423 ALLEGHENY STREET

HOLLIDAYSBURG PA 16648

In Re:

Altoona Housing Authority v. Wade Plair

No. 2019 GN1764

Dear Judge Sullivan:

This letter will acknowledge receipt of your September 4th and September 19th

Court Orders, in the above-captioned matter.

It is my understanding that Mr. Plair is requesting that you recuse yourself from

hearing this case because of your relationship with Attorney Shawn Sullivan, in our

office. Please be advised that, on behalf of our client, we will not object to your recusal.

While we believe that you can be fair and impartial in this case, however, we understand

Mr. Plair's position.

It is my understanding that a hearing on the issue of recusal is scheduled for

November 14th. As you know, the hearing, in this matter, is scheduled for November

22nd. we do not want to delay the November 22nd hearing. Therefore, we request that

this matter be moved before another Judge on November 22nd.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, concerning

this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincgrely,

j yijiIAAj

Terressa E. George

v<Ic:

Cc:

Wade Plair

Altoona Housing Authority

AtM

fHPj Altoona Office

3615 Burgoon Road Altoona, PA 16602

Phone: 814.944.9486 or 814.944.0300

Fax: 814.944.4299 or 814.944.3200

□ Martinsburg Office

s A

jTl|3l|aift Allegheny Street Martinsburg, PA 16662

a a

W A/ I

Please reply to the above office.

Phone: 814.793.7904

Fax: 814.793.2673

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHORITY,

PLAINTIFF

2019 GN 1764

WADE PLAIR,

DEFENDANT

HON. TIMOTHY M. SULLIVAN

PRESIDING JUDGE

WILLIAM J. HABERSTROH, ESQUIRE

TERRESSA E. GEORGE, ESQUIRE

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

WADE PLAIR

911 Green Avenue Tower, Apt 920

Altoona, PA 166D1

SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT

ORDER

AND NOW, this

day of October, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED,

DIRECTED and DECREED that the undersigned recuses himself from this case.

Therefore, the hearing that was scheduled on Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 3:15

p.m. in Courtroom No. 5 is cancelled.

This matter remains scheduled for trial on

Friday, November 22, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 3, before the Honorable

Daniel J. Miiliron.

BY THE COURT:

Aff- )\

cc: The Honorable Daniel J. Miiliron

:sr—

Supreme Court of |3enngplbanta

John A. Vaskov, Esq.

Deputy Prothonotary

Patricia A. Nicola

Chief Clerk

RE:

Western District

November 15, 2019

801 City-County Building

414 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 565-2816

www.pacourts.us

Plair, W., Pet. v. Blair County et al

109 WM 2019

Intermediate Court Docket No:

Trial Court: Blair County Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court Docket No: 2019 GN 1764

Dear Attorney George

Attorney Williams

Blair County Prothontoary

Judge Sullivan

This is to advise that the below listed item(s) was/were received in the above-captioned

matter.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Application for Leave to File Original Process

An original (unbound) and one (1) copy of either the Answer, or a letter stating that an

Answer will not be filed, is required to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. An

additional three (3) days may be added if service was effectuated by mail. See Rule

Pa.R.A.P. 121(e).

Effective January 6, 2018, all filings must contain a certification of compliance with the

Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System. For more information, visit

www.pacourts.us/public-record-policies.

Very truly yours,

Office of the Prothonotary

/a If

cc: Wade Plair

4Pp' U

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION

ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Plaintiffs

NO. 2019 GN 1764

vs.

WADEPLAIR, '

Defendant

ORDER OFCOURT

WHEREAS, this matter has come before the Court on an appeal, by Defendant from an

Order of the Magisterial District Judge, seeking possession of premises occupied by the

Defendant; and

WHEREAS, the parties have reached agreement and compromise relative to the

possession of the premises and disposition of the appeal and, based upon the consent of the

parties, the Court enters the following Order;

AND NOW,

, 2019, this matter comes before the Court

on a Complaint for Eviction and the parties having reached an agreement, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED, DIRECTED AND DECREED as follows:

The foregoing action shall act as a warning and notice to the Defendant, WADE

PLAIR, and Defendant agrees that he shall not violate the Rules and Regulations of the

Plaintiff, ALTOONA HOUSING AURTHORITY, and/or the terms of his Lease. In the event

of a violations of said Rules and Regulations and the terms of his Lease, in the future,

■9/

Defendant/ WADE PLAIR, agrees the Plaintiff has the right to evict Defendant from the

premises.

Defendant/ WADE PLAIR/ agrees to withdraw the pending Petition for

Allowance of Appeal, Writ of Mandamus and Application for Leave to File Original Process,

currently pending before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, docketed to 109 WM 2019. This

Order shall act as a withdrawal of said actions and a formal request to the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania to dismiss the actions.

The Defendant's appeal and this action for possession is hereby denied and

dismissed.

BY THE COURT:

We, ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHRORITY, Plaintiff, and WADE PLAIR,

Defendant, do hereby consent to the foregoing as an Order of Court

Date:.

U-/9-/9

^/Witness

ALTOONA HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff

BY:,

Linda Holsinger,

Sministratiy^ Officer, II

Date:.

Wndoj 'Pi/yjji.

Wade Plair, Defendant

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BLAIR COUNTY, PEN NSYLVAltflA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

V)c

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

CASE NO. CP-07-CR-000012B1-2019

WADE PLAIR

r-=

DEFENDANT

: *

MOTION TO BARR PROSECUTION

JURISDICTION

r-o

COMES NOW, THE DEFENDANT, WADE PLAIR, PRO SE, TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION, PURSUANT TO 42 PENNSYLVANIA C.S.A.

931 TO FILE: A MOTION TO BARR PROSECUTION,.42 PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE 575 AND IS PENNSYLVANIA C.S.A. 109 (2) AND 18 PENNSYLVANIA C.S.A. 111 (2)

AND TO CLAIM A VIOLATION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE 5th. AMENDMENT, OF

THE UNltED STATES CONSTITUTION.

FILED BY : WADE PLAIR, PRO SE '

911 GREEN AVENUE APT. #920

ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA 16601

PHONE: 814-232-4305

jDlElSEllWEln}

II JAN SO

0;yTRiOi.,A'j

202i :

IN THE 'COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA •

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

VS.

WADE PLAIR

-CR 1231-2019

HON. DANIEL J. MILLIRON

PRESIDING JUDGE

SIMON RYDER, ESQUIRE

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

WADE PLAIR

911 Green Avenue Apt. 920

Altoona Pa. 16601

SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12^ day of January, 2 021, the Court is

conducting a Suppression Hearing in which the .Defendant has

been appropriately questioned and has made the voluntary

decision to proceed representing himself and he has waived

counsel.

The Defendant has filed numerous Pro Se petitions and the

Court believes that an Order which is dispositional of the

majority of them will aide-all parties, perhaps particularly

the Court, in going forward, therefore it is ORDERED, DIRECTED

AND DECREED as follows:

1. The Motion to Suppress under jurisdiction is hereby.

denied.

2. The Amended Motion to Suppress listed under

-jurisdiction is hereby denied. •

3. The fact is that the undersigned Judge executed an

Order dated November 20, 2 019 which, is being relied

upon by the Defendant.

That Order was civil in nature

and involved the Altoona Housing Authorities efforts •

to evict/terminate the lease of the Defendant,

That

agreement apparently- has'been maintained by all

parties and is not dispositional nor sets any

precedent by way of estoppel or any other legal

justification for this Court to stop the current

prosecution.

Simply put- if the Altoona Housing

Authority attempts to evict the Defendant on these

same matters then the Defendant has a right to ask the

Court. to enforce that agreement but that will remain

civil in nature.

4. The. request by the Defendant to bar the prosecution is

also denied.

5. The reguest to prevent the one witness, John Perazzo,

from testifying based on a speculative but prior

criminal record which may include crimen falsi prior

■i

' convictions is deferred with the Court noting that if

in fact Mr. Perazzo 'does testify the Defendant is

entitled to all the crimen falsi information as

entitled under the rules.

6. Finally, the prosecutions efforts to dismiss this case

are also denied.

•Although the. Defendant did not

comply with the Pretrial Rule 571 are true and ’correct

however, this Court is-not prepared to dismiss the

Defendant's Pre'trial Suppression Claims on a

procedural matter at this point.

7. The Commonwealth's further request to dismiss this

matter on Constitutional grounds are denied.

The

Court j^gTi^ves hoth parties are measuring this matter

in Constitutional issues raising it far above what is

necessary when it becomes a simple Motion to Suppress.

The Motion to Suppress will continue forward and this

Order is a final Order issued after approximately one

—

hour of the hearing simply ,as a roadmap so this matter

may go forward.

PY TTTR COURT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

CASE NO. CP-07-CR-00001231-2019

era

WADE PLAIR

DEFENDANT

-G;’!

JURISDICTION

g::

re;

tj..

—. - .'4

: •-<

-•

COMES NOW, THE DEFENDANT, WADE PLAIR, PRO SE, TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO 42 PENNSYLVANIA 741 TO APPEAL THE

ORDER OF COMMON PLEAS COURT, BLAIR COUNT, PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION

JUDGE DANIEL J. MILLIRON, DATED: JANUARY 12, 2021. IN WHICH, THE DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO BARR PROSECUTION, WAS DENIED.

FILED BY : WADE PLAIR, PRO SE

911 GREEN AVENUE APT. # 920

ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA 16601

■

•v

-v

PHONE : 814-232-4305

'T>

„>■

ttB 03102'!

----- -v

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

2019 CR1231

WADEPLAIR,

DEFENDANT.

MOTION TO AMEND CRIMINAL

INFORMATION

Filed on behalf of

Commonwealth ofPennsylvania

District Attorney’s Qffice by:

Jessica Ann Weil, Esquire

PA ID #325191

Assistant District Attorney

Office of the District Attorney,

County of Blair

423 Allegheny Street, Suite 421

Hohidaysburg, PA 16648

(814) 693-3010

Pro Se Defendant

Mr. Wade Plan911 Green Ave., Apt 920

Altoona, PA 16601

App-(^.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

r-o

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

2019 CR1231

-n

WADEPLAIR,

DEFENDANT.

MOTION TO AMEND CRIMINAL INFORMATION

AND NOW, comes lie Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by and through, the District

Attorney’s Office of Blair County, and files this Motion to Amend Criminal Tnfnrmari^

seaport thereof avers tie following:

1. Defendant, Wade Plair (“Defeadant-Plaif”), is charged at the above criminal docket

number with Disorderly Condnct (IS Pa. C.S.A. §5503A1); Criminal Trespass (18 Pa.

C.S JL §3503B.l); and Harassment (18 Pa. C.S.A. §2709A1).

2. The Commonwealth avers that tie information filed in Defendant Kearney’s case has a

defect in tie description ofthe Disorderly Condnct charges, and, pursuant to

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 564, tie Commonwealth is permitted to amwwl

tie information to accurately describe tie offenses charged. PaRCrim P 554.

3. Rule 564 states: “The court may allow an information to be amcnrlftH when, there is a

defect in form, the description of the ofFense(s), tie description of any person or any

property, or tie date charged, provided tie information as amended does not charge an

additional or different offense.” PaJLCrinrP. 564 (emphasis added).

4. The Information presently describes the offense of Disorderly Conduct as a Misdemeanor

of the third degree. However, after further consideration of the facts and evidence, the

Commonwealth now believes that it is appropriate to amend the grading of the Disorderly

Conduct charge to a Summary offense.

5. The Commonwealth avers that it is neither charging an additional or different offensenor

prejudicing Defendant-Plair in any way.

6, In light of the above, the Commonwealth avers that the requested Amendment to the

Information is authorized by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 564 and has

attached a proposed Amended information as Torhihit A.

"WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania respectfully requests this Honorable

Court allow and/or permit the Commonwealth to amend Count 2 and 3 ofthe instant Information

to reflect the appropriate description for the Esczpe charge and Flight charge and amw»d the date

range of the offenses. A copy of the proposed Amended Information is atfar-hwj hereto as Exhibit

“A”

Respectfully submitted,

Oessica Ann Weil, Esquire

Assistant District Attorney

/J.

AMENDED INFORMATION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Criminal Action No. CP-07-CR-0001231-2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

VS.

WADEPLAIR

The District Attorney ofBlair County, ty this information charges that on or about Thursday, the 11th day of April, 2019, in

said County of Blair, WADEPLAIR did commit the crime or crimes herein in,

COUNT 1: DISORDERLY CONDUCT ENGAGE IN FIGHTING

185503Ai — Summary

did, with

public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly create a risk thereof engage in fighting or

fhTy-atenmg or in violent tumultnons behavior, all ofwhich constitutes Disorderly Conduct, a Summary, in violation of Section

5503(a)(1) of die Crimes Code [18 Pa. C.SA. 5503(aXl)]COUNT2: CRIMINAL TRESPASS/SEMPLE TRESPASSER

18 P.S. 3503B.il — Summary

A person nnmTnitg an offense ifknowing that he is not privileged to do so enters or remains in any place far the purpose of

threatening or termn-T7rng the owners or occupants of the premises.

COUNT 3: HARASSMENT/STRIKE, SHOVE, KICK, ETC

18 P.S. 2709A1 — Summary

With the intent to

annoy or alarm another person, namely JOHN PERAZZO, did strike, shove, kick or otherwise subject

such other person to physical contact, or did attempt or threaten to do the same, namely TEE DEFENDANT WALKED TO THE

DOOR AND PUNCHED THE VICTIM IN THE SIDE OF THE FACE in violation of Section 2709al of the Pa Crimes Code. [18

Pa C.S.2709A1]

All of which is again gf the Acts of Assembly and die peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

District Attorney

Citation of Statute and Section:

185503A1

18P.S-3503B.il

18 P.S. 2709A1

/M3 - / f

0'pc. qf.'/Co

INFORMATION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Criminal Action No. CP-07-CR-0001231-2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

■ VS.

K »*

WADE PLATR

The District Attorney of Blair County, by this Information charges that on or about Thursday, the 11th day of April,

said County of Blair, WADE PLAIR did commit the crime or crimes herein in CITY OF ALTOONA,

2019, in

COUNT 1: DISORDERLY CONDUCT ENGAGE IN FIGHTING

18 P S 5503 A1 — Misdemeanor 3rd DEGREE

did, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly create a risk therem engage in

fighting or threatening or in violent tumultuous behavior, all of which constitutes Disorder^ Conduct, a

MISDEMEANOR, in violation of Section 5503(a)(1) of the Crimes Code [18 Pa C.S.A. 5o(b( )( )].

COUNT 2: CRIMINAL TRESPASS/SIMPLE TRESPASSER

18 P.S. 3503B.11 - Summary ....

. .

......

Aperson commits an offense if knowing thathe is not pnveledged to enter or remains in any place ior the purpose of

threatening or terrorizing the owners or occupants of the premises.

COUNT 3: HARASSMENT/STRIKE, SHOVE, KICK, ETC.

18 P S 2709A1 — Summary

With the intent to'kras, annoy or alarm another person, namely JOHN PERAZZO didstrike, drove, kickor

nth™* subject such other person to physical contact, or did attempt or threaten to do the same, namely THE

raSSw!uked TO THE DOOR AND PUNCHED THE VICTIM IN THE SIDE OF THE FACE in

violation of Section 2709al of the Pa Crimes Code. [18 Pa C.S. 2709A1]

All of which is against the Acts of Assembly and the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

District Attorney

i /?.

SECEWElfji

Citation of Statute and Section:

18P.S. 5503A1

18 P.S: 3503B.il

18 P.S. 2709A1

w??-s

0 3 20IS

DEF®,.

Filed 03/1B/2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Blair County Criminal Division

CP-07-CR-0001231-2019

WADE PLAIR

No. 179 WDA 2021

Appellant

ORDER

se letter to this Court,

Upon consideration of Appellant Plairs pro

docketed on March 4, 2021, as a response to this Court's Order of February

25, 2021, directing Appellant to show cause

why this appeal should not be

quashed as premature, the following is now ORDERED:

The appeal is QUASHED.

PER CURIAM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

-vs-

CR 1231-2019

THE HON. DANIEL J. MILLIRON

: PRESIDING JUDGE

SIMON R. RYDER, ESQUIRE

: ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY

WADE PLAIR

: SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT

WADE PLAIR

ORDER

.AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2021, the.Court has

conducted a hearing on the Motion to Amend Criminal

Information filed by the Commonwealth.

The' Commonwealth'' s

Motion was to reduce Count 1, Disorderly Conduct, from a

Misdemeanor of the Third Degree to a Summary Offense.

The

Motion also alleges a typographical error which they wish to

correct.

The Court has, in open Court, reviewed Title 18

Section 5503, which defines Disorderly Conduct and the Court

agrees that the Commonwealth, pursuant to Rule of Criminal

Procedure 564, has the authority to amend this charge.

the record

For

it is apparent that the Commonwealth wishes to

amend this so that a Trial by Jury would not be available and

this matter would be subject to an expedited disposition as a

Trial by Court,

The Defendant objects to this and wishes to

have a Trial by Jury,

The only question the Court has is

whether a previous appeal filed pro se by the Defendant

deprives this Court of the jurisdiction to make a ruling on

this case.

The Court has once again gone over the Defendant-' s

right to counsel and the attendant questions at this stage of

the proceedings.as it did previously when the Defendant made

the decision to represent himself,

Mr. Plair has again

indicated his desire to act as his-own counsel.

The Court grants the Motion and the Information is

amended so that Count 1, Disorderly Conduct, is degraded to

become a Summary Offense.

Once again, the only question the

Court has is whether it maintains that authority once the

case.has gone to the Superior Court,

A copy of this Order

shall be provided to the Superior Court,

That appellate

caption is 299 WDA 2021.

The Defendant has correctly pointed out that the Motion

to'Amend Criminal Information, in the WHEREFORE clause at the

end, reflects an intention to amend an Escape Charge and a

Flight Charge, which are simply not correct and are in error.

There is no Escape or Flight Charge involved in this matter

and Count 2 and Count 3 remain Summary Offenses as originally

charged.

BY THE COURT

6^'

lah

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLAIR COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION

PLAINTIFFS

DOCKET NO. CP-07-CR-00001231-2019

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOCKET NO. 179 WDA 2021

WADE PLAIR

DEFENDANT

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL

JURISDICTION

COMES NOW, THE PETITIONER, WADE PLAIR, PRO SE, TO THE SUPREME COUR

PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, PURSUANTTO 42 PENNSYLVANIA C.S.A. 724 (A)X\|5^^

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1112 TO APPEAL THE FINAL ORDER,

PER CURIAM, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, DATED :

MARCH 18, 2021 WHICH QUASHED,THE DEFENDANT'S, MOTION TO BARR PROSECUTION

FILED: FEBRUARY 3, 2021, TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT,

PURSUANTTO : 42 PENNSYLVANIA C.S.A. 741, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1113 (A)

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1311 (A)

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1311 (A) (3)

•w-

FILED BY: WADE PLAIR, PRO SE, 911 GREEN AVENUE APT. #920

ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA 16601 PHONE: 814-232-4305

A?p- V

Filed 05/19/2021

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Blair County Criminal Division

CP-07-CR-0001231-2019

. WADE PLAIR

No. 476 WDA 2021

Appellant

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant Plair's pro se pleading docketed on May

12, 2021, as a .Response to this Court's Order of May 5, 2021, which directed

Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be quashed as premature,

the following is now ORDERED:

The appeal is QUASHED.

PER CURIAM

06)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLAIR COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION

PLANTIFFS

DOCKET NO. CP-07-CR-00001231-2019

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WADE PLAIR

-2

DOCKET NO. 476 WDA 2021

DEFENDANT

PETITION FOR ALLOWACE OF APPEAL

JURISDICTION

C-l

COMES NOW, THE DEFENDANT, WADE PLAIR, PRO SE, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO 42 PENNSYLVANIA C.S.A. 724 (A)

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1112, TO APPEAL, THE ORDER, PER CURIAM,

OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT, DATED: MAY 19, 2021

WHICH QUASHED, THE DEFENDANT'S APPEAL, TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DATED: MARCH 19, 2021. THE DEFENDANT, FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL, NUNC PRO TUNC,

DATED: APRIL 13, 2021 TO THE PRE-TRIAL MOTION TO AMEND CRIMINAL INFORMATION,

FILED BY. THE BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DATED: FEBRUARY 3, 2021 RESPECTIVELY,

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1113 (A)

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1311 (A)

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1311 (A) (3)

;

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE

fCED BY: WAD PLAIR, PRO SE, 911 GREEN AVENUE APT. #920 ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA

‘16601 PHONE: 814-889-5372

. [i JUN S 4 2021 ^

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Respondent

No. 117 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

WADE PLAIR,

Petitioner

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.

A True Copy Patricia Nicola

As Of 08/16/2021

Attest: r_T____________ .—

Chief Ciertc

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

No. 194 WAL 2021

Respondent

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

WADE PLAIR,

Petitioner

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

A True Copy Nicole Traini

As Of 11/10/2021

Attest: „_______________

Chief Cleric

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.