Observers to Lancaster courts not permitted to take notes

You should find interesting the part where they (Lancaster sheriff’s deputies) have been taking pens and paper away from anyone who tried to take notes at my proceedings for years including from Ron Harper, book writers and citizens.

This filing is related to the Right to Know hearing I just had.

Judge Braxton was brought in from Philadelphia because Lancaster  judges were all intervening parties against me in the action.

More to come on this one.

Bennett J. Vonderheide

3113 Main St. Ste. 100

Conestoga, PA 17516

ATTN: Judge Braxton

In consideration of saving time and money for the taxpayers and by way of demonstrating the correct possibilities available for this court to correct its tack Respondent hereby submits the following three  “PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER”.

I trust these will be of value to the court.

Bennett J. Vonderheide

Pro se

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION – LAW COUNTY OF LANCASTER {COMMISSIONERS & SHERIFF’S OFFICE conjoined}

Complainant

And

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA conjoined with THE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS {via the AOPC}

Intervenor

vs. DOCKET NO.: CI 2010-00631

1. BENNETT J. VONDERHEIDE

Respondent

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER

AND now this _____ day of March 2011 this Court hereby finds the following:

1. This hearing was originally scheduled for two days; specifically, Monday, February 7 and Tuesday, February 8, 2011, which time would have accommodated Respondent’s witnesses.
2. This Court flubbed that date by double booking, and rescheduled for one day only on March 1, 2011, leaving insufficient time for Respondent’s witnesses, either intentionally or by oversight.
3. Within the pleadings filed by the AOPC, specifically the Brief in Support…(filed January 6, 2011), they cite Bowling v. OOR, 990 A.2d 813, 824 (Pa. Commw. 2010). The RTKL is “designed to promote access to official government information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials and make public officials accountable for their actions.”
4. This quote is reflected precisely and exactly in Respondent’s offers of proof for witnesses, which this Court incorrectly deemed irrelevant and quashed subpoenas in total. Respondent had subpoenaed judges, a county commissioner, and sheriff and deputies, to scrutinize their actions, and access to the film is requested to make public officials accountable for their actions.
5. In some circumstances the aforementioned witnesses “quashed” are parties to the case, and/or others claim they are endangered by the release of the footage in question. Thus Respondent has the right to question them in these regards.
6. Also in the aforementioned AOPC Bowling brief, it states, “the court’s scope of review is not limited to the evidence that was before the OOR”. Id. at 820-21. “To the contrary, the court may receive additional evidence by stipulation, in camera review, by supplementation by the parties.” Id.
7. This is a hearing de novo, and therefore the Court is wide open to receive truth and evidence, including evidence related to Bowling v. OOR, aforementioned in #3 above.
8. To refuse to allow the testimony and evidence be entered which might prove wrongful actions by “My Team” [as I identified them in the hearing] and those whom I would have affiliation with such as judges, sheriffs, county commissioners, the AOPC, lawyers, etc, would in effect allow secrets and prohibit scrutiny of the acts of public officials. It could further create the impression of this court conjoining with those individuals and the system to thwart the righteous actions of a citizen and even to further oppressive actions and obfuscation against citizens by the judicial system.
9. The Court hereby orders scheduling of another hearing date to hear testimony of Judge Wayne Hummer, Joe Madenspacher & Don Totaro, Sheriff Terry Bergman (ret.), Attorneys Linda Parsons and Jim Wolman, Court Administrator Mark Dalton, and County Commissioner Scott Martin.

cc: Lancaster County Court, County Sheriff’s Office, Lancaster County Commissioners, and AOPC

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION – LAW

COUNTY OF LANCASTER {COMMISSIONERS & SHERIFF’S OFFICE conjoined}

Complainant

And

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA conjoined with THE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS {via the AOPC}

Intervenor

vs. DOCKET NO.: CI 2010-00631

1. BENNETT J. VONDERHEIDE

Respondent

AND now this _____ day of March 2011 this Court hereby finds the following:

PROPOSED ORDER

1. Bennett Vonderheide filed a request under the Pennsylvania Right To Know law, Act 3 of 2008, seeking film that is retained by the Sheriff of Lancaster County from cameras in the courthouse. The request was made of the Sheriff of Lancaster County and the Lancaster County Commissioners. Intervening in the case was the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, through the AOPC. The Court must first determine who the proper parties are to this litigation. Is the possessor of the record the Court of Common Pleas, the Sheriff, or the Commissioners of the County of Lancaster?
2. The cameras are lodged in the Lancaster County Courthouse, which houses all three branches of local government. The judiciary, the executive and the legislative branch with the executive and legislative branches being the joint function of the County Commissioners. The Sheriff of Lancaster County is not an officer of the Court. Under Pennsylvania law, the Sheriff is an elected row officer who performs numerous functions and duties for all three branches of government.
3. First, there is a presumption that a record in the hands of a local agency is a public record. §305. The very definition of “record” in the Open Records Law includes “film”. The Court must next determine who has the burden of proof. The law makes it clear that the burden of proof is upon the person seeking to hide or keep from disclosure the record to prove every element of any exemption. §708.
4. The Right To Know Law was clearly established by the legislature to provide substantial rights to the citizens to add transparency to the activities of governmental agencies. The persons objecting to the release of this record, which appears to be the County of Lancaster Court of Common Pleas and/or Retired Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Bergman, rely upon an exemption that states that records shall not be disclosed if it “would be reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to or the personal security of an individual.”
5. The phrase “likely to result” and a “substantial and demonstrative risk” imposes on this Court a test far stronger than some isolated potential, hypothetical scenario that could be fashioned by an “expert witness” without having a basis in experience from actual damages and physical harm.
6. Anyone can dream of scenarios to fit just about any potential act or action. Conjuring up potential scenarios is certainly insufficient to override the overwhelming public interests that are clearly to be protected under this statute.
7. Mr. Vonderheide in his presentation of this case, though pro se, asks very pointed questions about real-life episodes upon which the objectors were basing their “demonstrable risk of physical harm”.
8. The objectors totally failed to meet any burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of substantial risk of physical harm.
9. Throughout the hearing, it was never made clear who actually owns the cameras and is responsible for them. It became clear, however, that it is not the court system which either owns, funded, or maintains the cameras. Thus, it must be presumed that the cameras are either owned by the Sheriff’s department, which is not a court body but an independent row office, or by the Commissioners of the County of Lancaster, who serve the functions of an executive and legislative branch at the county level.
10. To suggest for one moment, as the objectors do, that public records can be hidden whenever any expert could conjecture a scenario where they might provide a potential for harm would totally eviscerate this statute, upset the will of the legislature, and trample upon the constitutional rights of the citizens of this Commonwealth to open and transparent government.
11. The objectors in this case had the burden of proof on all issues. They have proven nothing. They have set forth conjecture, innuendo, hypothetical and potentialities, but not one scintilla of factual evidence was submitted into the record to show a “demonstrable risk”. The objectors had ample opportunity to demonstrate risk. This case has been going for months. They could have gathered evidence of specific incidents where substantial harm has occurred when someone has been given access to the location of security cameras or their direction. They did nothing. The words and phrases “likely to result” and “substantial and demonstrable risk” are words of extreme strength and need to be proven and there simply was no proof.
12. This Court personally witnessed an attack by a Deputy Sheriff upon a citizen observer who was taking notes with a pen and paper in the rear row of the Courtroom. When brought to the attention of this Judge, the Deputy Sheriff suggested that there is an “unwritten rule” in Lancaster County that court observers cannot “take notes”.
13. It is unfathomable that in the Twenty-First Century in a free society, which the United States of America purports to be, that any right-thinking individual could suggest that an observer should be prohibited from taking notes of courtroom proceedings. This Court can easily see why it is of paramount importance, to protect people, that courthouse films from security cameras be open and available for public inspection and scrutiny to prevent such outrageous conduct.
14. This Court witnessed itself that the Deputy Sheriff was prepared to take physical action and assault Mr. Ron Harper, Jr. if he did not relinquish his pen and notepad.
15. Subsequent to the hearing, it is Respondent’s understanding that the Court of Common Pleas and the Sheriff’s Department have clarified that there is no such “unwritten rule” prohibiting taking notes on open courtrooms.
16. Respondent has checked with the local press and found that is only he and those who are reporting discrimination against fathers who have had this rule enforced upon them. The local TV and newspapers regularly, and without intimidation take notes in Lancaster County Courtrooms.
17. In contrast to the conjecture and imaginary circumstance presented by the objectors, Respondent clearly identified that he was a personal victim of numerous assaults by sheriff’s deputies and court personnel for just such unwritten rules that this court witnessed being enforced.
18. Specifically, Respondent represented that sheriff’s deputies had “put their hands on him” on uncountable occasions, causing him extreme anxiety in a directed attempt to intimidate and stifle his battle for his son and to prove his innocence, resulting in his subsequent political advocacy.
19. This Court recognizes that it and other courts are not theaters for judges to play out pretend kingdoms nor for sheriffs to play out their egos and tyranny, but rather belong to the citizens. It is not “my team” that is of importance, but rather the citizens that they serve which stand at the highest level of significance in the courtrooms and in all government facilities.
20. Certainly, any time that film might expose corruption of officials, it should be made available to the public for just such a purpose.
21. This Court acknowledges that while some officials may be in danger, history demonstrates that so are Amish and all schoolchildren, as well as and the public at large. In fact, judges and all who attend courts have the added protection of armed, trained sheriffs, putting them at considerably less risk as demonstrated statistically.
22. This Court acknowledges that, as in the case of “Kids for Cash” in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, proves, it is the citizens that take the greatest beating in the courtrooms, and not the judges or others who gain employ in the judicial industry, (including “My Team”). Whenever those law enforcement officers enacted to protect citizens become an agent to intimidate or attack the citizenry with such things as “unwritten rules”, this Court will rise to the occasion and ensure the protection of those who are forced to attend the courts. The citizens are paramount in the decision which this Court may render.
23. The purpose of the Right To Know Law is to protect the citizens from the government, not protect the government from its citizens. This Court will not reverse the intent for the purpose of its brothers and sisters in the judicial industry.
24. The objectors in this case attempt to make themselves potential victims, but they are, in fact, the perpetrators. The citizenry needs protection, the security film is public information, and the objections to the request for this material are denied.

BY THE COURT

______________________________

Judge John Braxton

ATTEST:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION – LAW

COUNTY OF LANCASTER {COMMISSIONERS & SHERIFF’S OFFICE conjoined}

Complainant

And

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA conjoined with THE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS {via the AOPC}

Intervenor

vs. DOCKET NO.: CI 2010-00631

1. BENNETT J. VONDERHEIDE

Respondent

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER

AND now this _____ day of March 2011 this Court hereby finds the following:

1. While this Court has refused to hold paramount the protection of the citizens from wrongful and corrupt government by refusing to release of the requested video, it does so with the following condition:
2. This Court surely does not want Respondent Mr. Vonderheide’s efforts to wrongfully result in law blocking all film from citizens in any government building in the state of Pennsylvania.
3. While this Court upholds the hyperbole and hypothetical fears of the judges as being of greater significance that the danger to the citizens and of the Respondent to Mr. Vonderheide, this Court does acknowledge blocking of the video is meant to apply to areas directly adjacent to courtrooms, consistent with the contention presented in court by Objectors, and not to include all cameras in government buildings in the state of Pennsylvania.