Photo: Current Lycoming County Common Pleas Court Judge Eric Linhardt

STAFF REPORTS TALKWILLIAMSPORT.COM

On Wednesday morning current Lycoming County Common Pleas Court Judge Eric Linhardt issued a Scheduling Order for an “argument” based on the “MOTION TO RECUSE” filed last week by the attorney representing Todd Bartley, his family and a company involved in the case.

The filing is listed in its entirety and linked below.

In short, the Motion to Recuse is based upon as noted in #8 of the MTR, “Since Judge Linhardt will be listed as a fact witness by the Plaintiff in the federal case, he may not preside over the above-captioned case as the underlying reason that the Defendant tortiously interfered with contracts was the facts involved in the case currently pending before the federal court.”

In the filing as noted in #6, Linhardt when District Attorney hired now disgraced former Lycoming County Chief Detective Willie Weber.

“Judge Lindhart hired William Weber as a Lycoming County Detective and was his direct supervisor during a part of the time Weber was employed by Lycoming County. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that during Judge Linhardt’s tenure as Lycoming County District Attorney the policies and procedures that were in place as to how to investigate sexual assault cases involving minors were removed. As Chief County Detective, William Weber, was in a position to interfere and to bury the investigation of the sexual assault of a minor during the Williamsport Area High School baseball trip to Myrtle Beach in 2018 which came to light as a direct result of the reporting done by Plaintiff Todd Bartley.”

Linhardt has previously overseen a pair of cases involving the Plaintiff; not without strenuous objection to his involvement in those cases.

The MTR concludes with #13; “Further, Judge Linhardt’s role as a witness in the underlying federal lawsuit and the fact that his actions during his tenure as Lycoming County District Attorney may result in the refiling of a federal lawsuit against Lycoming County puts the entire Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas in a situation in which, at the very least, appear to undermine the integrity of a fair and impartial handling of this matter by the Lycoming County judiciary.”

The filing does not address the phone call received by one of the Plaintiffs from a campaign donor of Linhardt requesting information about “his (Linhardt) involvement in the 2018 Myrtle Beach case”.

On background, the campaign donor has employed the father of the WAHS baseball player who was criminally charged by South Carolina authorities after the botched investigation by Willie Weber and former WAHS head principal Dr. Brandon Pardoe.

The moving Plaintiff in this case is also aware of a letter previously sent by an attorney on behalf of Defendant Dixon to then District Attorney Linhardt threatening legal action after Chief County Detective, William Weber used a “racial slur” in a meeting when referring to Dixon.

On background, as a result of the letter, Linhardt while District Attorney removed Weber from any investigations or pending cases involving Dixon.

After the publication of this story, it is anticipated President Judge Nancy L. Butts will issue a full bench recusal of all Lycoming County Judges from this case as she did in the “Petition to Remove Tom Marino from the Primary Election Ballot” case filed by the Plaintiff in this matter.

Butts has her only conflict of interest in the Webb/Dixon case having previously found Dixon guilty in another case and accepting a plea deal that saw him sentenced in a three-week window when the constitutionality of Megan’s Law was being argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

This is a developing story on TalkWilliasmport.com.

TODD BARTLEY and MICHELLE
BARTLEY, husband and wife, JOHN
DOE AND JANE DOE, AND
COLONIAL RADIO GROUP OF
WILLIAMSPORT, LLC
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES A. WEBB, JR., MORGAN
AIR, INC., WEBB WEEKLY, AND
DARRICK DIXON,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
DOCKET NO. CV 23-01364
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
MOTION TO RECUSE

AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, Todd Bartley, Michelle Bartley, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC by and through their counsel, Gregory A. Stapp, Esquire and moves this Honorable Court to recuse itself as follows:

1. The Plaintiffs, Todd Bartley, Michelle Bartley, John Doe and Jane Doe filed an Amended Complaint on July 29, 2024. Defendants James A. Webb, Jr., Webb, Webb Weekly and Morgan Air, Inc. filed Preliminary Objections on August 12, 2024. Defendant Darrick Dixon filed Preliminary Objections on August 19, 2024. Judge Eric Linhardt issued a Scheduling Order requiring Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants James A. Webb, Jr., Webb and Morgan Air Inc., d/b/a Webb Weekly’s Preliminary Objections not later than September 1, 2024 (20 days from the issuing of August 20, 2024), and to respond to Defendant Dixon’s Preliminary Objections not later than September 9, 2024 (20 days from the issuing of August 20, 2024). Judge Eric Linhardt ordered arguments on all Defendants’ Preliminary Objections for September 20, 2024.

2. Plaintiff Todd Bartley is a journalist who wrote a series of articles related to a sexual assault of a minor during a trip to Myrtle Beach by the Williamsport Area High School baseball team in March 2018. As part of those articles, allegations of impropriety were made related to Lycoming County and its agents, servants, or employees.

3. A lawsuit was filed in federal court related to the incident and subsequent cover-up of the Williamsport Area High School baseball trip to Myrtle Beach in which Lycoming County, William Weber, in his individual and official capacity Williamsport Area School District, Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred A. Holland, Esq., and John and Jane Does were named as Defendants. (See Middle District of Pennsylvania Docket No. 4:22-cv1387).

4. Although Lycoming County and the individual Defendants were eventually dismissed, it is possible that the Plaintiffs will be refiling against Lycoming County as a result of information obtained as part of the discovery process in the federal lawsuit. However, even without refiling against Lycoming County, the Plaintiffs believe and so aver, that Judge Eric Linhardt will be a witness in the federal case because the Office of Attorney General Agent David Scicchitano testified that the reason that William Weber was not charged with crimes was because the Lycoming County Office of District Attorney did not have policies and procedures in place as to how to handle sexual abuse cases involving minors.

5. Prior to Judge Eric Linhardt’s tenure as Lycoming County District Attorney, the Lycoming County Office of District Attorney did have policies and procedures in place as to how to investigate sexual assault cases involving minors.

6. Judge Lindhart hired William Weber as a Lycoming County Detective and was his direct supervisor during a part of the time Weber was employed by Lycoming County. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that during Judge Linhardt’s tenure as Lycoming County District Attorney the policies and procedures that were in place as to how to investigate sexual assault cases involving minors were removed. As Chief County Detective, William Weber, was in a position to interfere and to bury the investigation of the sexual assault of a minor during the Williamsport Area High School baseball trip to Myrtle Beach in 2018 which came to light as a direct result of the reporting done by Plaintiff Todd Bartley.

7. William Weber is a key witness in the case currently before the federal court. As such, it is clear that Judge Linhardt will most likely be listed as a fact witness for the trial of this case.

8. Since Judge Linhardt will be listed as a fact witness by the Plaintiff in the federal case, he may not preside over the above-captioned case as the underlying reason that the Defendant tortiously interfered with contracts was the facts involved in the case currently pending before the federal court.

9. The party seeking to have a judge recused or disqualified is required to raise the objection at the earliest possible moment or the party will suffer the consequences of being time barred. Lomas v. Kravitz, 130 A.3d 107, 120 (Pa. Super. 2015), quoting In re Lokuta, 608 Pa. 223, 11 A.3d 437 (2011).

10. The Preliminary Objections filed by all Defendants is the earliest possible moment in this case.

11. The party that asserts that a trial judge must be disqualified must produce evidence that bias, prejudice or unfairness which raises a substantial doubt as to the judge’s ability to preside impartially. Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 680 (Pa. Super. 2004). Even if the judge decides that he can be impartial, he must then decide whether his continued involvement in a case creates an appearance of impropriety and/or would tend to undermine the public confidence in the judiciary. Lomas v. Kravitz, 130 A.3d 107, 120 (Pa. Super. 2015).

12. In this case, it is clear that Judge Linhardt must not preside over this case as he is a witness in a case which came to light as a result of reporting done by Plaintiff Todd Bartley. The subsequent investigation and filing of the lawsuit involves decisions made by Judge Linhardt while he was Lycoming County District Attorney and an individual under his direct supervision.

13. Further, Judge Linhardt’s role as a witness in the underlying federal lawsuit and the fact that his actions during his tenure as Lycoming County District Attorney may result in the refiling of a federal lawsuit against Lycoming County puts the entire Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas in a situation in which, at the very least, appear to undermine the integrity of a fair and impartial handling of this matter by the Lycoming County judiciary.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court to recuse itself from this matter and that the Honorable President Judge Nancy L. Butts request that AOPC assign a judge from outside of Lycoming County to preside over this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
STAPP LAW, LLC
Gregory A. Stapp, Esquire
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Attorney I.D. #78247
153 W. 4th Street, Suite 6
Williamsport, PA 17701
Tel. (570) 326-1077
gstapp@stapplaw.net

TODD BARTLEY and MICHELLEBARTLEY, husband and wife, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, AND
COLONIAL RADIO GROUP OF WILLIAMSPORT, LLC
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES A. WEBB, JR., MORGAN AIR, INC., WEBB WEEKLY, AND DARRICK DIXON,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
DOCKET NO. CV 23-01364
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the
Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that
require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential
information and documents.
Signature: ___________________________________
Gregory A. Stapp, Esquire
Attorney No.: 78247

TODD BARTLEY and MICHELLE
BARTLEY, husband and wife, JOHN
DOE AND JANE DOE, AND
COLONIAL RADIO GROUP OF
WILLIAMSPORT, LLC
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES A. WEBB, JR., MORGAN
AIR, INC., WEBB WEEKLY, AND
DARRICK DIXON,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DOCKET NO. CV 23-01364
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Gregory A. Stapp, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Recuse was served upon the following parties via email and Lycoming County Courthouse

Mail:
David Wilk, Esquire Christian Lovecchio, Esquire
Blake C. Marks, Esquire 520 West Fourth Street
140 East Third Street Williamsport, PA 17701
Williamsport, PA 17701 (570) 323-3772
(570) 323-3768 christianlovecchioesq@gmail.com
davew@lepleylaw.com
blakem@lepleylaw.com
STAPP LAW, LLC
Dated:
Gregory A. Stapp, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff

STAFF REPORTS

TALKWILLIAMSPORT.COM

A civil lawsuit was filed today in Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas by local journalist Todd Bartley against James Webb, Jr., Webb Weekly and Darrick Dixon.

The allegations in the complaint allege a years long “campaign” against Bartley, his wife, his children, his business relationships and standing in the community.

Much of the complaint is based on a fake social media profile and the countless repeated harassing, inappropriate and indecent images sent to and posted regarding the Plaintiffs.

From the Complaint:

10. “In the summer months of 2018, Plaintiff Todd Bartley, an investigative reporter/blogger,

began reporting on an incident involving the sexual assault of a minor

while the minor was on a trip to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in March 2018,

as a member of the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team.

Following his investigation into the sexual assault of a minor in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

and the investigation by Williamsport Area School District officials,

Plaintiff began to publish articles outlining the events of the baseball team trip

and how the events were being handled by the Williamsport Area School District

and Lycoming County officials.

11. Following the publishing of the articles by Plaintiff Todd Bartley,

Plaintiffs began receiving threats of violence and

other harassing behavior such as receiving threats via social media platforms,

vandalism to their home and vehicles,

including but not limited to, flattened tires,

a brick being thrown through the window of a business vehicle

and arson to a personal vehicle.”

“22. Based upon the investigation performed by the

Sheriff’s Office of Frederick County, Virgina,

it is believed and therefore averred that the synthetic profile was owned by

and utilized by Defendant Darrick Dixon.

23. The synthetic profile is owned by a business duly licensed and organized in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania doing business as “Hoopers Only TV.”

24. At all times relevant hereto,

Darrick Dixon was an employee of James Webb, Jr. at his business Webb Weekly.”

On background, Hoopers Only TV was granted unfettered access to Lycoming County High School athletic facilities to broadcast sporting events over the past several years.

Plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial as well as financial damages and attorney fees.

Editor’s Note: The addresses of the parties and any reference to said addresses has been REDCATED.

The filing is listed in full below.

TODD BARTLEY and MICHELLE
BARTLEY, husband and wife, JOHN
DOE AND JANE DOE, AND
COLONIAL RADIO GROUP OF
WILLIAMSPORT, LLC
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES A. WEBB, JR., WEBB
WEEKLY, AND DARRICK DIXON,
Defendants.

DOCKET NO.
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
:

COMPLAINT

AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, Todd Bartley, Michelle Bartley, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC by and through their counsel, Gregory A. Stapp, Esquire and complains against Defendants, James A. Webb, Jr., Webb Weekly and Darrick Dixon as follows:

1. The Plaintiffs, Todd Bartley is an adult individual residing at REDACTED, Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 17701.

2. The Plaintiffs, Michelle Bartley is an adult individual residing at REDACTED, Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 17701.

3. The Plaintiffs, John Doe was a minor individual residing at REDACTED, Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 17701 at the time of the incident complained of in this Complaint.

4. The Plaintiffs, Jane Doe was a minor individual residing at REDACTED, Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 17701 at the time of the incident complained of in this Complaint.

5. The Plaintiffs, Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC was a business duly organized and operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal address REDACTED, Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 17701 at the time of the incident.

6. The Defendant, James A. Webb, Jr., is an adult individual residing at REDACTED, Montoursville, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.

7. The Defendant Webb Weekly, is a business duly organized and operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal address at REDACTED, South Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.

8. The Defendant, Darrick Dixon, is an adult individual residing at REDACTED, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

9. At all times relevant hereto Todd Bartley was owner and operator of Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC.

10. In the summer months of 2018, Plaintiff Todd Bartley, an investigative reporter/blogger, began reporting on an incident involving the sexual assault of a minor while the minor was on a trip to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in March 2018, as a member of the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team. Following his investigation into the sexual assault of a minor in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and the investigation by Williamsport Area School District officials, Plaintiff began to publish articles outlining the events of the baseball team trip and how the events were being handled by the Williamsport Area School District and Lycoming County officials.

11. Following the publishing of the articles by Plaintiff Todd Bartley, Plaintiffs began receiving threats of violence and other harassing behavior such as receiving threats via social media platforms, vandalism to their home and vehicles, including but not limited to, flattened tires, a brick being thrown through the window of a business vehicle and arson to a personal vehicle.

12. As Plaintiff Todd Bartley began to publish articles about the handling of the assault of the minor child while on a school trip with the Williamsport High School baseball team, he discovered that Defendant Webb was going to several advertisers with Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC and spreading false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff Todd Bartley and his reporting on the assault.

13. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendant Webb also told several advertisers with Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC that they should stop advertising with Colonial Radio Group because of Plaintiff Todd Bartley’s reporting on the assault.

14. On or about July 01, 2022, Plaintiff Todd Bartley contacted the Sheriff’s Department of Frederick County, Virginia, regarding threats he was receiving via social media platforms while in Frederick County, Virginia for his job. Sheriff Lenny Milholland assigned Investigator Brandon Hazelwood of Frederick County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Investigative Division to investigate the threats.

15. Investigator Hazelwood was provided a plethora of screenshots of direct messages by Plaintiff Todd Bartley that had been sent to his personal social media page and his business social media page from an obviously synthetic identity as well as public posts on his business and personal pages, specifically https://www.facebook.com/talkwilliamsport and https://www.facebook.com/todd.bartley.9. For example, “If He dies…you die.” Which was received by Plaintiff Todd Bartley in December 2021.

16. The focus of the investigation by Frederick County Sheriff’s Office the was on a message dated June 29, 2022, where Meta Profile |talkwilliamsport| was in receipt of “Tick Tick Boom” from Meta Profile https://www.facebook.com/CharlieBrown00. This in and of itself is vague and open ended; however, the circumstances of this “threat” that are credible are as follows:

a. As outlined in Pennsylvania State Police Report REDACTED titled “Arson Vehicle” dated August 18, 2020, was provided to Investigator Hazelwood through Frederick County Crime Analyst Gattshall.

b. Within this report it is reported by responding Troopers and Investigators that suspects were developed in this case and data was captured detailing the “bombing” of Bartley’s car by use of “accelerant” intentionally while it was parked in his driveway of his home causing four fire companies to respond to extinguish the flames. As a result of this “bombing”, the car was considered a total loss and was investigated as an intentional and deliberate Arson.

c. Leads in this arson case were developed and suspects were identified by Pennsylvania authorities and this case was presented for prosecution.

d. The reported “reason” for this intentional “bombing” of Bartley’s car is explained to have stemmed from a Radio broadcast and social media publications from 2018 of a series of stories outlining Bartley’s views of Myrtle Beach’s Police fallacies and Pennsylvania’s prosecutorial mistakes made during the investigation, involving a sexual assault that took place in Myrtle Beach South Carolina that involved students on the Williamsport High School baseball team.

17. Due to this reporting, “trolling” of Plaintiff Todd Bartley’s social media sites was expected by Todd Bartley; however, messages were delivered to him on his business Meta Site and his personal profile page that contained lewd, lascivious, and provocative language whereas a handful of messages were interpreted as circumstantial threats by Investigator Hazelwood.

These threats are as follows:

a. In a majority of the messages that were received through Bartley’s business page since the 2018 reporting and the 2020 car bombing incident, statements are made such as: “if you don’t write back I guess you want us to keep going,” “ok I am about to go on one of the schools pages and unload you don’t want to reply I will delete whatever I’m about to put up all you have to do is
reply to me,” “reply! It’s going to get worse,” “say something,” “or we keep going just like you do our Mayor,” “ok Todd,” “Watch the movie American gangster listen to what Denzel says after the saying that happened to you already listen to what he says. That’s your clue. Since you like to use movies as references. I want to be just like you tired so I’m learning from you,” “now you
throw a jab at Gary Brown again! You are going to pay for all of this Todd Bartley,” “go to his house REDACTED [Bartley residence] and have a conversation.” (In the social media and social engineering circles, this element of publicly posting a subject’s address is known as “doxing.” The sender of this message repeats this tactic several times throughout these message
threads where the synthetic identity posts Bartley’s home address enticing the public to respond to Bartley’s home with ill intentions.

b. These messages are repetitive, with the intent to coerce, intimidate and harass Bartley using indecent language and images whereas the venue of these messages are in both Pennsylvania and Frederick County Virginia. However, these messages are the circumstantial building blocks of the criminal investigation which were utilized by the Frederick County Sheriff to establish probable cause and show a pattern of ramping up “the campaign” using their words as posted by the synthetic identity and the connection with the car bombing that occurred in Pennsylvania in August of 2020.

18. The messenger message received by Bartley to his personal profile page June 29, 2022 while Bartley was present in Frederick County Virginia. This thread is as follows: “look at your cameras from today if they work lol between 9pm -11pm I drove,” “I am closer to you than you know lol [cry/laughing emoji] it’s so funny you can’t figure out who I am,” “doubt your cameras work,” “if they did you would of caught the [lit bomb emoji],” “that’s right you got the cameras after the [explosion emoji],” “lol.”

19. The synthetic profile continued to launch the “campaign” against Bartley stating the following: “Todd I’m giving up soon! This is like a movie I want to get caught so I’m gonna give you tips you are smart with trying to be a detective. I gave you enough clues. And I drove by your house and I gave you the timeframe you have to figure this out soon before it’s too late,” “One more clue?” “I was in there at the last board meeting you went too for Williamsport,” “I was there for 15min,” “[alarm clock emoji] tick Tock night,” “saw. (Line 6 of subsection is followed by screenshots of the Horror thriller movie “Saw” [whereas as victim’s are tricked and or abducted and placed in locked rooms with decisions to kill/maim or disfigure themselves or others in order to save their own lives], “you like movies [popcorn emoji], “ha lol [cry laugh emoji] love this movie,” “we can watch it together Todd,” “let’s play a game” (This line of “let’s play a game is what the main character uses to threaten and intimidate the participants in the movie right before the element of death is provided to the participant in the challenge.)

20. Investigator Hazelwood interpreted these various threats as Plaintiff Todd Bartley now being provided the forethought that this could happen to him or his family, whereas Bartley has provided that he is afraid that this synthetic identity is being managed by several people and could follow through with a threat such as this or cause another car bombing at his home.

21. Additional messages were sent to Plaintiff Todd Bartley related to a reporting of a crash that occurred in Pennsylvania that Todd Bartley reported on, the synthetic profile replies to a commenter on his profile “this is what he does he is not a human being we need to get rid of him and his comrades.”

22. Based upon the investigation performed by the Sheriff’s Office of Frederick County, Virgina, it is believed and therefore averred that the synthetic profile was owned by and utilized by Defendant Darrick Dixon.

23. The synthetic profile is owned by a business duly licensed and organized in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania doing business as “Hoopers Only TV.”

24. At all times relevant hereto, Darrick Dixon was an employee of James Webb, Jr. at his business Webb Weekly.

COUNT I

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

WITH A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP

(Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)

25. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully herein.

26. The law has long recognized that the wrongful inducing of a breach of contract or the encouragement of one not to enter into a contract or business relationship with another is an actionable tort. The Restatement of Torts, § 766 (1939). The Restatement described this tort as follows: “one who, without a privilege to do so, induces or otherwise purposely causes a third person not to (a) perform a contract with another, or (b) enter into or continue a business relation with another is liable to the other for the harm caused thereby. Id. The courts have identified two separate instances in which there may have been an alleged interference. One with an existing contract right and another in which the interference charged with affecting prospective contractual relations. See Glenn v. Point Park College, 441 Pa. 474, 272 A.2d 895 (1971).

27. In the present case, the Defendants participated in a civil conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiffs’ existing contract with advertisers and with prospective contractual relations as well.

28. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant Webb and Defendant Dixon approached existing advertisers of Colonial Radio Group, LLC and discouraged them from continuing to advertise with Colonial Radio Group, LLC because Defendant Webb and Defendant Dixon were upset that Plaintiff Bartley (primary shareholder of Plaintiff Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC) was continuing to report, publish and to pursue his investigation related to the Williamsport High School Baseball Team and the Williamsport Area School District’s handling of the 2018 Myrtle Beach incident.

29. The necessary elements of cause of action for intentional tortious interference with existing contractual relationships are: (1) the existence of a contractual relationship between the complainant and a third party; (2) an intent on the part of the defendant to harm the Plaintiffs by interfering with that contractual relationship; (3) the absence of or justification on the part of the defendant; and (4) the occasioning of actual damages as a result of defendant’s conduct. See Walnut Street Associates v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 982 A.2d 94 (Pa.Super. 2009) and Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766.

30. Defendants intended to harm the Plaintiffs by interfering with the contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and its current advertisers as well as potential advertisers.

31. The Defendants were without any privilege or justification to act as they did.

32. Due to the Defendants’ behavior, Plaintiff Bartley and Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC has lost reputation in its industry and may continue to lose reputation in its industry. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Plaintiffs have lost business and/or customers as a result of the Defendant’s behavior resulting in pecuniary loss and may lose prospective customers in the future causing additional pecuniary losses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court Orders the following:

a. Award damages in the form of lost earnings for advertisers lost as a result of the actions of Defendants;

b. Award damages in the form of lost earnings for future prospective customers of Plaintiffs that were interfered with as a result of the actions of Defendants;

c. Award punitive damages; and

d. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs attorney’s fees and costs; and such other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

COURT II

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A

PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP

(Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)

33. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully herein.

34. In Glenn v. Point Park College, supra, we established that four elements must appear in a complaint in order for the Plaintiffs to state a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective contractual relations:

(1) a prospective contractual relation;

(2) the purpose or intent to harm the Plaintiffs by preventing the relation from occurring;

(3) the absence of privilege or justification on the part of the defendant; and

(4) the occasioning of actual damage resulting from the defendant’s conduct.

35. The Defendants actions as identified above interfered with prospective advertisers of Plaintiff Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC in that the Defendants approached business owners and discouraged them from purchasing advertising with Plaintiff Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC because the Defendants were upset over the reporting and investigation being conducted by Plaintiff Todd Bartley related to the Williamsport High School Baseball Team and the Williamsport Area School District’s handling of the 2018 Myrtle Beach incident.

36. Plaintiffs believes, and therefore avers, that potential advertisers were approached and influenced by the Defendants not to advertise with Plaintiff Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC.

37. Defendants intended to harm the Plaintiffs by interfering with prospective contractual relationships between Plaintiffs and potential advertisers.

38. The Defendants were without any privilege or justification to act as they did.

39. Due to the Defendants’ behavior, Plaintiff Bartley and Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC has lost reputation in its industry and may continue to lose reputation in its industry. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver that Plaintiffs have lost business and/or customers as a result of the Defendants’ behavior resulting in pecuniary loss and may lose prospective advertisers in the future causing additional pecuniary losses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court Orders the following:

a. Award damages in the form of lost earnings for advertisers lost as a result of the actions of Defendants;

b. Award damages in the form of lost earnings for future prospective advertisers of Plaintiffs that were interfered with as a result of the actions of Defendants;

c. Award punitive damages; and

d. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs attorney’s fees and costs; and such other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

COUNT III

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

(All Plaintiffs v. James A. Webb, Jr. and Webb Weekly)

40. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully herein.

41. Darrick Dixon. was an agent, servant or employee of James A. Webb, Jr. and Webb Weekly are vicariously liable for the actions of their agents, servants or employees.

42. Defendant Darrick Dixon was the apparent agent of Defendant James A. Webb, Jr. and Webb Weekly, which through their actions and conduct or failure to act, held out Defendant Darrick Dixon as their agent, servant, or employee.

43. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Darrick Dixon was acting within the scope of his employment as agent, servant, or employee of Defendant James A. Webb, Jr. and Webb Weekly.

44. Defendant James A. Webb, Jr. and Webb Weekly are vicariously liable for the commissions and omissions of Defendant Darrick Dixon who is an agent, servant, or employee of theirs or who is apparently held out as such.

45. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Dixon and James A. Webb, Jr. and/or other agents, servants or employees, Plaintiffs has suffered and will suffer the loss of advertisers and potential advertisers.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court Orders the following:

a. Award damages in the form of lost earnings for advertisers lost by Colonial Radio Group of Williamsport, LLC as a result of the actions of Defendants;

b. Award damages in the form of lost earnings for future prospective customers of Plaintiffs that were interfered with as a result of the actions of Defendants;

c. Award punitive damages; and

d. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs; and such other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in excess of $50,000.00 with costs and interest, including punitive damages.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(All Plaintiffs v. Defendant Darrick Dixon)

46. Plaintiffs incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

47. Defendant Darrick Dixon by and through his contact with Plaintiffs, as described above, negligently and/or recklessly committed multiple acts of extreme and outrageous conduct which caused severe emotional, psychological, and psychiatric injuries, distress, and harm to Plaintiffs, as set forth above in an extreme, outrageous, and harmful manner.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendant Darrick Dixon in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post judgment interests and costs.

COUNT V

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(All Plaintiffs v. Defendant Darrick Dixon)

48. Plaintiffs incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

49. Defendant Darrick Dixon engaged in the aforementioned conduct, which would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Harassment (18 Pa.C.S. § 2709), and/or Disorderly Conduct (18 Pa.C.S. § 5503), and/or Criminal Trespass (18 Pa.C.S. § 3503), and/or Arson (18 Pa.C.S. § 3301), and/or Criminal Mischief (18 Pa.C.S. § 3304).

50. Defendant Darrick Dixon by and through hiscontact with Plaintiffs, as described above, committed intentional and willful misconduct.

51. Defendant Darrick Dixon by and through his contact with Plaintiffs, as described above, acted with actual malice towards Plaintiffs.

52. Defendant Darrick Dixon by and through his contact with Plaintiffs, as described above, intentionally committed multiple acts of extreme and outrageous conduct which caused severe emotional, psychological, and psychiatric injuries, distress, and harm to Plaintiffs, as set forth above, in an extreme, outrageous and harmful manner.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendant Darrick Dixon in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post judgment interests and costs.

Respectfully submitted,
STAPP LAW, LLC

Gregory A. Stapp, Esquire
Attorney I.D. #78247
153 W. 4th Street, Suite 6
Williamsport, PA 17701
Tel. (570) 326-1077
Counsel for Plaintiffs

This is a developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Photos: Current Lycoming County District Attorney Thomas A. Marino (left) and

Kelly Callihan, PDAA Executive Director and former Cambria County District Attorney (top right)

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association (PDAA) logo (middle right)

Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry (bottom right)

By Todd Bartley, TalkWilliamsport.com

News@TalkWilliamsport.com

From a recent PennLive.com article, “The Lycoming County district attorney’s office has rejected the call that it be recused from prosecuting the CEO of a Lycoming County firm accused of fatally shooting his brother-in-law inside the business.”

In a recent court filing by Lycoming County First Assistant District Attorney Martin Wade; he stated in part in response to Marino sitting at the prosecution table “Although Marino sat at counsel table for Michaels’ preliminary hearing and one in November on bail, he was only a spectator.”

Tom Marino as an unelected District Attorney and an attorney that publicly stated he left local law firm Lepley, Engelman, Yaw & Wilk “as to avoid any conflicts” served as a “spectator” with a seat at the prosecution table.

Prior to the filing by Tom Marino enabler Martin Wade, TalkWilliamsport.com reached out for comment from the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association.

The PDAA was founded in 1912, one hundred twelve years ago.

Sean Connolly PDAA Spokesperson, who manages communications for the Pennsylvania District Attorney Association (PDAA) offered the following, “Thanks for reaching out on Friday. This matter is currently in litigation, and PDAA will not be commenting on the case. Thanks.”

As a follow-up, “Sean, Can PDAA cite any legal precedent that allows any person other than a paid representative of a District Attorney’s Office or state law enforcement entity to be able to sit at a counsel table in a hearing?

Same question on background for conducting interviews in any case?”

Connolly replied, “Hi Todd: PDAA does not have any information on that matter.”

Is it fair to say in the 112-year history of the PDAA; no other unelected District Attorney has engaged in either behavior?

From the Wade response; “He (Marino) was not acquainted with the Roskowski family before the start of the prosecution so there is no apparent or actual conflict that would prevent him from performing his duties as a prosecutor.”

But what about that one-time Tom Marino as a candidate for Lycoming County District Attorney called the decedent asking for a political donation to his campaign which is alleged in the Defense Cousel motion to recuse?

On background, Tom Marino ran unopposed for Lycoming County District Attorney.

From the Wade response; “Wade disputes that possibility pointing out a law enforcement officer was present for the entire interaction so it would not be necessary to call Marino.”

From the talkwilliasmport.com article: “This is just between us. It doesn’t leave the room. We were never here.”

Attached to the Omnibus Motion is a document titled: “Turner Declaration”:

I, Erin Turner, state as follows:

1. I have been employed at Cable Services Company, Inc. since June 12, 2023.
2. I was at work on August 17, 2023, but did not hear or see anything connected to the shooting that took place at the Company office that day.
3. On or about September 8, 2023, I was asked by my father-in-law, former Lycoming County Detective Donald Turner, if I would talk to Tom Marino. I was told Mr. Marino was “talking to people” about the investigation into the shooting that resulted in the death of John Roskowski by Kenneth Michaels, CEO of Cable Services, and that Mr. Marino was looking for information “to help Ken.” I agreed.
4. On September 8, 2023, Mr. Marino came to my home. He was accompanied by Lycoming County Detective Steven Sorage. Detective Sorage interviewed me and recorded the interview.
5. From Detective Sorage’s questions, it did not seem that he was looking for information “to help Ken.” Instead, he was asking questions that seemed to favor John Roskowski. He also, asked questions about where Jeremy Michaels, President of Cable Services, and son of Ken Michaels, was during the shooting. He also asked whether Ken Michaels carried a firearm at the office. With each of my answers, Detective Sorage made facial expressions that he did not agree with my answers.
6. After about 15 minutes, Detective Sorage turned the recorder off. Mr. Marino then asked if the employees at the Company like both John and Ken.
7. I asked if the recorder should be on for those questions. Detective Sorage asked Mr. Marino if the recorder should be on. Mr. Marino answered, “No.” Detective Sorage said if there were more questions he wanted recorded he would turn the recorder on or jot down notes.
8. The interview ended with Mr. Marino saying, “This is just between us. It doesn’t leave the room. We were never here.”
9. The facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information, and belief, subject to 19 Pa. CSA 4904.
10. I have made the foregoing statements freely, voluntarily, and intelligently.

Signed Erin Turner, March 28, 2024.

According to the Wade response, Defense Counsel has no ability to call witnesses they choose to call at a hearing on the recusal motion or at trial in the homicide case – because he says so?

On background, the Lycoming County Commissioners (Metzger, Mirabito and Mussare) had full knowledge of candidate Tom Marino being provided a desk and computer prior to his election as District Attorney.

Was Marino serving as a “spectator” when the county detective asked him to keep the recorder on during the interview?

Does this not implicitly indicate that Marino was running the interview he allegedly put together in the first place with a family member of one of his former detectives under false pretenses according to the Turner Declaration?

From the talkwilliasmport.com article: “Systemic failure of Lycoming County DA’s Office to govern conduct of county detectives taints OAG investigation.”

On background, PDAA Appoints Kelly Callihan, a Former District Attorney, as Executive Director

On background, from Wikipedia: “At age 30, Marino enrolled in the former Williamsport Area Community College (now Pennsylvania College of Technology). Marino would then transfer to Lycoming College, where he graduated magna cum laude, before completing his J.D. degree at Dickinson School of Law.^[6]”

Is it fair to say, that based on the Turner Declaration and the scolding letter from then Assistant Attorney General Dan Dye working for then Attorney General (now Governor) Josh Shapiro stating; “The OAG was unable to determine whether any attempt to ‘cover-up’ the conduct occurred in Pennsylvania due to the failure of the District Attorney’s Office to create, implement, and enforce any policies governing the conduct of county detectives”; at this writing are there still no policies governing the conduct of county detectives?

The hearing to recuse is set for 2:30 p.m. today before Lycoming County Common Pleas Court Judge Ryan Tira.

This author will not be attending the hearing as a self-imposed sequester is in place in order to preserve any rebuttal testimony for an appeal hearing if Tom Marino commits perjury on the stand.

Marino committed perjury in the previous hearing to removes him from the primary ballot last year based on his Florida residency.

At this writing Tom Marino remains under investigation by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Michelle Henry regarding his Florida residency while running for elected office in Pennsylvania.

This is a developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Photos: Current Lycoming County District Attorney Thomas A. Marino (left) and

Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry (right)

By Todd Bartley, TalkWilliamsport.com

News@TalkWilliamsport.com

History remembers the speech President Franklin D. Roosevelt made to Congress on December 8, 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan when he said in part; “Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy.”

For Lycoming County District Attorney Thomas A. Marino; September 8, 2023 may be that day.

This story will focus on the “Motion to Disqualify and Recuse the Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Kenneth R. Michaels case currently in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas.”

In order to gain a broader understanding and grasp the full context of the potential conflict of interest in the case; the following numbered paragraphs are taken from the Omnibus Motion filed by defense counsel Michael J. Rudinski and Edward J. Rymsza on March 29, 2024 on behalf of Defendant Kenneth Michaels.

From See Def.’s Ex. 2 (Erin) Turner Declaration:

3. “On or about September 8, 2023, I was asked by my father-in-law,

former Lycoming County Detective Donald Turner,

if I would talk to Tom Marino.

I was told Mr. Marino was “talking to people”

about the investigation into the shooting

that resulted in the death of John Roskowski

by Kenneth Michaels, CEO of Cable Services,

and that Mr. Marino was looking for information “to help Ken.”

I agreed.”

According to the Turner Declaration, Marino told a fact witness he was “looking for information to help Ken.” The Ken referenced is the Defendant charged with homicide in this case.

As a private citizen and unelected Lycoming County District Attorney; Marino sat in on an interview with Lycoming County Detective Steven Sorage of a potential fact witness in a high-profile homicide case under the guise of “looking for information to help Ken.”

More on that interview later in the story.

From the Omnibus Motion filed be defense counsel Michael J. Rudinski and Edward J. Rymsza on March 29, 2024 on behalf of Defendant Kenneth Michaels.

I. Motion to Disqualify and Recuse the Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Kenneth R. Michaels case currently in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas.

15. A Preliminary hearing was held on September 22, 2023 before Magistrate Judge William Solomon and the charges were held for court.

16. Upon information and belief, at the time of the incident, then-district attorney candidate Thomas Marino was a close personal friend with the Decedent, and continues to maintain a friendly relationship with the Decedent’s family.

17. Upon information and belief, on at least one occasion, Mr. Marino assisted driving the Decedent to an inpatient drug treatment facility.

18. Upon information and belief, Mr. Marino and his friends and family were frequent social guests of the Decedent in the early to mid-2000’s on the Decedent’s corporate plane while he was CEO of Cable Services Company Inc. See Def.’s Ex. 1 (sample of flight records of Cable Services Company).

The flight records indicate multiple flights to Florida locations including Boca Raton and Kissimmee.

After reviewing the flight records from Def.’s Ex. 1 (sample of flight records of Cable Services Company); the dates in 2005 – 2007 coincide with Thomas Marino serving as United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

From an online search: Marino served as a Lycoming County District Attorney from 1992 to 2002. In 2002, Marino was appointed the United States Attorney for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by President George W. Bush; in office 2002 – October 12, 2007; preceded by David Barasch and succeeded by Martin Carlson.

The last flight documented with a day, month and year occurred on April 13, 2007. Several date ranges in the Def. Ex. 1 do not reflect a year.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A message has been left with the Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Ethics Office in Washington D.C. seeking guidance for gifts of travel being received by a U.S. Attorney and what financial disclosure forms and or federal forms (if any) that need to be filed.

Marino subsequently purchased a condominium in Vero Beach, Florida where he obtained a Florida Drivers License, Florida voter registration and became a member of the Indian River County Republican Party Executive Committee as recently as February 2023.

The facts surrounding the Florida residency are currently under investigation by the Office of Pennsylvania Attorney General Michele Henry.

More from the Omnibus filing:

19. Furthermore, the discovery received in this case reveals at least one phone voice mail on the Decedent’s personal cell phone from Mr. Marino on June 6, 2023 requesting the Decedent’s financial support for his campaign for district attorney.

Editor’s Note: Marino ran unopposed for Lycoming County District Attorney.

22. At the time the chargers were filed in August 2023, the Lycoming County District Attorney was Ryan C. Gardner.

23. At the time of the preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth was represented by First Assistant Martin Wade.

24. However, District Attorney Gardner was not present at the preliminary hearing; instead, sitting with ADA Wade at counsel table for the Commonwealth, for reasons unknown, was then candidate for District Attorney, Thomas Marino.

25. Likewise, at the subsequent bail evidentiary hearing held on November 8, 2023, candidate-elect Marino again appeared and sat at counsel table for the prosecution.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On background from one year prior: Based on the exclusive reporting of TalkWilliamsport.com on his (Marino) residency status, and according to Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles documentation the Driver License that was issued to Tom Marino at 2:17 p.m. on November 7, 2022 with an Expiration date of August 13, 2031 inexplicably expired on February 15, 2023.

According to voter records obtained from Lycoming County Voter Services through a formal Request for Public Information, Tom Marino had an absentee ballot counted in the 2022 election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022.

26. Furthermore, upon information and belief, in early-September 2023, then candidate Marino and Lycoming County Detective Sorage engaged in a joint interview of Cable Services Company employee, Erin Turner at her residence. 1 (footnote from the filing)

1. Mr. Marino’s personal involvement in at least one interview in the official investigation indicates he may have had input into the charging decisions in this case. 

27. According to Ms. Turner, she was asked questions about the shooting incident and related details. See Def’s Ex. 2 (Turner declaration)

28. The interview was conducted by Detective Sorage and after about fifteen minutes he turned off the recorder even though more questions were being asked. (Id. at PP 6.)

29. According to Ms. Turner, the interview concluded by Mr. Marino telling her, among other things, that their conversation was “just between us” and that “we were never here.” (Id. at PP 8.)

30. These events aptly demonstrate that then candidate Marino was personally invested in the process and ultimate outcome of this case.

31. A district attorney is not only subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct but also the American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function (“ABA Standard”), which Pennsylvania has adopted. See Pa. R. Prof. Cond. 3.8; Commonwealth v. Starks, 387 A. 2d 829, 831 (Pa. 1978) (court acknowledging Pennsylvania adoption of ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function).

34. As a result of the foregoing, there exists at a minimum an appearance of a conflict, if not an actual conflict.

35. Given the Turner interview conducted by then candidate Marino with Detective Sorage , which has never been disclosed by the prosecution, Mr. Marino has independent information about facts in controversy and therefore may be faced with the possibility of testifying at trial.

37. Moreover, the objectivity of the Lycoming County District Attorney’s

office must be called into question

by even permitting Mr. Marino’s personal involvement in the case

before he had any legitimate and lawful reason

to be involved in the case.

39. Consequently, the Court must disqualify the entire Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting Mr. Michaels and order the matter be referred to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

WHEREFORE, prior to any evidentiary hearing, the Commonwealth should be ordered to file an answer and after an evidentiary hearing, Mr. Michaels requests that the Court grant his Motion to Disqualify and Recuse the Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office and order that the case be transferred to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

Attached to the Omnibus Motion is a document titled: “Turner Declaration”:

I, Erin Turner, state as follows:

1. I have been employed at Cable Services Company, Inc. since June 12, 2023.
2. I was at work on August 17, 2023, but did not hear or see anything connected to the shooting that took place at the Company office that day.
3. On or about September 8, 2023, I was asked by my father-in-law, former Lycoming County Detective Donald Turner, if I would talk to Tom Marino. I was told Mr. Marino was “talking to people” about the investigation into the shooting that resulted in the death of John Roskowski by Kenneth Michaels, CEO of Cable Services, and that Mr. Marino was looking for information “to help Ken.” I agreed.
4. On September 8, 2023, Mr. Marino came to my home. He was accompanied by Lycoming County Detective Steven Sorage. Detective Sorage interviewed me and recorded the interview.
5. From Detective Sorage’s questions, it did not seem that he was looking for information “to help Ken.” Instead, he was asking questions that seemed to favor John Roskowski. He also, asked questions about where Jeremy Michaels, President of Cable Services, and son of Ken Michaels, was during the shooting. He also asked whether Ken Michaels carried a firearm at the office. With each of my answers, Detective Sorage made facial expressions that he did not agree with my answers.
6. After about 15 minutes, Detective Sorage turned the recorder off. Mr. Marino then asked if the employees at the Company like both John and Ken.
7. I asked if the recorder should be on for those questions. Detective Sorage asked Mr. Marino if the recorder should be on. Mr. Marino answered, “No.” Detective Sorage said if there were more questions he wanted recorded he would turn the recorder on or jot down notes.
8. The interview ended with Mr. Marino saying, “This is just between us. It doesn’t leave the room. We were never here.”
9. The facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information, and belief, subject to 19 Pa. CSA 4904.
10. I have made the foregoing statements freely, voluntarily, and intelligently.

Signed Erin Turner, March 28, 2024.

On February 5, 2023, after announcing his run for Lycoming County District Attorney from his home in Vero Beach, Florida he told PennLive.com; “I have to get back to work,” he said. “He recently became associated with a Williamsport law firm but he said he has left to avoid potential conflicts if elected.”

Having been sworn in last December, as Lycoming County District Attorney by his former fellow Assistant District Attorney and now Lycoming County President Judge Nancy Butts; a mere three months after sitting in on an interview with Erin Turner in her home. From another PennLive.com article on December 29, 2023.

“County Judge Nancy L. Butts, who administered the oath in her chambers, explained it had to be done in advance of Tuesday’s swearing in of other county officeholders to ensure there was a district attorney at the beginning of the new year.”

“He (Marino) resigned as a federal prosecutor on Oct. 12, 2007, and later was in-house counsel for Scranton-area businessman and casino owner Louis DeNaples for three years.”

“Trump in 2017 nominated Marino as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the nation’s drug czar.

He withdrew his name citing his mother’s health issues and what he called false allegations about the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016 he authored.

Critics claimed the bill that was passed in the House and Senate by unanimous consent weakened efforts to block excessive distribution of opioid-based painkillers.”

From the Omnibus Motion:

17. Upon information and belief, on at least one occasion, Mr. Marino assisted driving the Decedent to an inpatient drug treatment facility.

Democrat candidate for Lycoming County Commissioner, Denitra Moffett was brave enough on the campaign trail last year to publicly state she would not vote in favor of funding the Office of the Lycoming County District Attorney so long as Tom Marino was the D.A.

It appears her instincts were spot on.

For Lycoming County taxpayers, if the coin of the realm is trust; how can District Attorney Tom Marino be trusted with anything?

With all of the allegations outlined in the Omnibus Motion; how is he to be believed about anything or anything or anyone coming from the Office of the Lycoming County District Attorney?

In conclusion, based on previous experience, nothing will come of this either.

This is a developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Photo from 2021: Lycoming Commissioners Rick Mirabito, Scott Metzger, Tony Mussare,

Administrative Manager Lycoming County Commissioners, Eileen Ebner and

Lycoming County Controller, Krista Rogers.

By Todd Bartley, TalkWilliamsport.com

News@TalkWilliamsport.com

On Friday the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a MEMORANDUM OPINION in the Rogers versus Lycoming County Board of Commissioners lawsuit that stems from the Commissioners unilateral move of employees in the office of the Lycoming County Controller to a different department.

Lycoming County Controller, Krista Rogers was awarded declaratory relief on her Complaint.

Derek A. Keightly, Esquire of the law firm Rudolph Clarke, LLC has been representing Rogers in the litigation and offered the following statement in light of the Commonwealth Court finding for his client;

“We are very pleased with today’s ruling by the en banc Commonwealth Court. Now that these issues have been definitively addressed by the appeals court, Controller Rogers looks forward to Lycoming County’s return to a structure of fiscal affairs which aligns with the intent of the Pennsylvania Legislature. As has always been Controller Rogers’ goal with this litigation, the taxpayers of Lycoming County will now benefit from proper financial oversight of all tax dollars expended by the County.”

The MEMORANDUM OPINION excoriates the Lycoming County Board of Commissioners including current Commissioner Scott Metzger plus former Commissioners Tony Mussare and Rick Mirabito.

From the PA Commonweath Court MEMORANDUM OPINION authored BY JUDGE WOJCIK and FILED: January 26, 2024.

“The Lycoming County (County) Board of Commissioners, and Commissioners Tony Mussare, Scott Metzger, and Rick Mirabito (collectively, Commissioners) appeal the order of the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying their motions for post-trial relief and entering judgment in favor of Krista Rogers (Controller) on her Complaint seeking declaratory relief. We affirm.”

“In short, the Commissioners’ claims in this regard are without merit and do not compel reversal of the trial court’s order in this case.”

Section IV

“However, the Commissioners overlook that the Controller

is as much a constitutional county officer as are they.”

See article IX, section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pa. Const. art. IX, §4 (“County officers shall consist of commissioners, controllers or auditors, district attorneys, public defenders, treasurers, sheriffs, registers of wills, recorders of deeds, prothonotaries, clerks of the courts, and such others as may from time to time be provided by law.”) (emphasis added).

As recounted above, Sections 1702, 1705, 1750, and 1751 of The County Code confer specific powers upon the Controller that cannot be impaired or contravened by the general supervisory authority conferred upon the Commissioners by Section 1701.

Any other construction of The County Code would be as exhaustively outlined above, the trial court properly analyzed the provisions of The County Code outlining the respective roles of the Commissioners and the Controller with respect to the Commissioners’ removal of the payroll, accounts payable, and general ledger functions and employees from the Controller’s Office to the Finance Office.

Thus, contrary to the Commissioners’ assertions, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the requested declaratory relief based on the Commissioners’ improper and unauthorized actions in this regard.

12 Moreover, under Section 1933 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972,13 it is a well-established rule of statutory construction that where a general statutory provision is in conflict with a special provision, the special provision controls as an exception to the general.

“As exhaustively outlined above, the trial court properly analyzed the provisions of The County Code outlining the respective roles of the Commissioners and the Controller with respect to the Commissioners’ removal of the payroll, accounts payable, and general ledger functions and employees from the Controller’s Office to the Finance Office.

Thus, contrary to the Commissioners’ assertions, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the requested declaratory relief based on the Commissioners’ improper and unauthorized actions in this regard.”

Section V

“Herein, although there are disputed facts relating to whether the Controller can perform her required duties under The County Code, the thrust of the Commissioners’ argument is based on their misapplication of the various grants of authority under The County Code.”

The Lycoming County Board of Commissioners issued a press release after their seventh loss in this matter.

“This case was started by the Controller. The Controller opted to litigate how the payroll, accounts payable, and the general ledger functions has been done in the County for decades. A prior Board of Commissioners allowed her these functions previously and it did not function to its satisfaction. The Controller filed the case after the Board of Commissioners returned these functions to how they had been done previously.

The case involved interpretation of the County Code. The County’s position was that there was more than one way to perform these functions, while respecting the Controller’s responsibilities and the Commissioners’ role over the fiscal affairs of the County. The Commonwealth Court’s decision interpreted the County Code differently. This Board of Commissioners will review the decision and consider its options and decide how to move forward in the best interest of the residents and taxpayers of Lycoming County.”

Darrick Dixon (left) and Jim Webb (right) are named as Defendants

in a civil lawsuit filed by local journalist

STAFF REPORTS

TALKWILLIAMSPORT.COM

Recently, a “A Writ of Summons” was served upon local publisher Jim Webb as well as his business associate Darrick Dixon.

A Writ of Summons is a legal document that notifies a person that a lawsuit has been initiated against them.

It is an alternative form of original process in Pennsylvania that allows a plaintiff to start a lawsuit without filing a complaint. A person who receives a Writ of Summons must appear in court or respond to the plaintiff within a specified time period.

Dixon is the former Williamsport High School girls basketball coach who was previously convicted in Lycoming County Common Pleas Court of having a sexual relationship with one of his then 14 year old players. He served 20 months in jail and was not required to be put on the Megan’s law sex offender registry. The case was adjudicated by current Lycoming County Common Pleas Court President Judge Nancy Butts.

According to the Pocono Record at the time the case was going on in 2002;

“The victim, now 15, testified at Wednesday’s preliminary hearing that she and a friend met Dixon on a secluded road. Dixon first searched the girls for wiretaps, then paid the second girl $20 to leave so that he and the victim could be alone, she said. The girl said they had consensual sex.

The other teen then testified that she and Dixon exchanged Internet messages in which Dixon urged her to lie about the meeting. Dixon allegedly paid the girl again, leaving $40 in a secluded spot. The girl took pictures of Dixon leaving the money and turned the cash over to school officials, who notified the police.”

Webb is the publisher of Webb Weekly.

The current lawsuit centers around the pattern of behavior involving a “synthetic online profile” used to threaten, harass and intimidate the local journalist, his wife and children.

One such threat from the synthetic online profile, “if he dies, you die.”

The “he” referenced is Dixon, and the “you” referenced is the local journalist.

A more formal complaint will be filed in the near future providing additional details of the alleged behaviors engaged in by the Defendants.

This is a developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

On background, this past week New Mexico State University settled a similar lawsuit with several former men’s basketball players who claimed to be victims of hazing and sexual assaults by teammates.

In the NMSU case, there has been no published reporting of any of the hazing or sexual assaults being captured on video or shared to social media unlike the 2018 WAHS/Myrtle Beach baseball case referenced in this story.

From the NBCSports.com article on the NMSU settlement; “Deuce Benjamin and his father, William, who was a co-defendant, will receive $4.125 million, while the other plaintiff, Shak Odunewu, will receive $3.875 million, according to the terms on the state’s open-records website.

Benjamin’s attorney told The Associated Press the settlement was made in part to keep the players from having to relive their experience over what could have been a years-long legal process.

“To New Mexico State’s credit, they took the lawsuit very seriously,” Joleen Youngers said. “They obviously recognized that our clients had been harmed.”

The unredacted ORDER of Denial Time Extension issued by Chief United States District Judge Matthew Brann on June 27, 2023, is listed below.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, LYCOMING COUNTY, and JOHN and JANE

DOEs #1-#20 (fictitious names), whose true identities are currently unknown to Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

No. 4:22-CV-01387

(Chief Judge Brann)

ORDER

JUNE 27, 2023

AND NOW, upon consideration of Defendants Williamsport Area School District and Lycoming County’s Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docs. 74 and 75) and Plaintiff having subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 92), and the Court noting that an amended pleading supersedes the original “in providing the blueprint for the future course of the lawsuit,” Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002); see also 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (3d ed. 2015), and the Court thus finding that the amended complaint renders the original complaint a nullity.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Williamsport Area School District and Lycoming County’s Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docs. 74 and 75) are DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 88) and Plaintiff’s Motion to exceed page limitation (Doc. 89) are DENIED as moot.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge

Multiple stories on the full Second Amended Complaint filed by JOHN DOE #1 will be forthcoming.

This is a developing story on Talkwilliamsport.com.

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

231. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

232. As outlined above and upon information and belief, Defendants WASD, LC, and their respective employees, agents, staff, administrators, directors, teachers, coaches all knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to misrepresent to and conceal from the public, including, but not limited to Plaintiff and his family, information relating to his and other students’ sexual abuse and/or their investigation of and response to such abuse and/or their intent regarding consequences to be faced by B.M. and others who they knew participated in the abuse of Plaintiff and other students. This conspiracy continues to this day as all Defendants have claimed privately and publicly that their investigation of and response to Plaintiff’s abuse was prompt, appropriate, and thorough.

233. The Defendants conspired to keep the abuse of Plaintiff and other WAHS students from the public, as well as appropriate law enforcement authorities. Instead of informing the public, Plaintiff, and/or appropriate law enforcement authorities about such instances of abuse, Defendants intentionally and falsely told Plaintiff, the public, and appropriate law enforcement authorities that what occurred was merely “indecent” and/or “inappropriate” rather than criminal sexual behavior.

234. Further, the Defendants likewise conspired to keep their investigation of and response to the abuse of Plaintiff hidden from the public and appropriate law enforcement authorities. Defendants conspired to: destroy evidence; silence witnesses; make back-room deals to protect perpetrators of abuse rather than Plaintiff, the innocent victim of a sexual assault; discriminate against Plaintiff by seriously vetting and investigating the allegations of a similarly situated white victim of abuse; falsify records and/or fabricate information contained in official law enforcement documents; and other activities described throughout this Complaint in an effort to minimize the seriousness of Plaintiff’s abuse and any corresponding embarrassment or reputational harm Defendants would face as a result of the abuse. Instead of informing the public, Plaintiff, and/or appropriate law enforcement authorities about such instances of abuse, Defendants intentionally and falsely told Plaintiff, the public, and appropriate law enforcement authorities, among other things, that Defendants first learned of the abuse via local law enforcement, that the matter was investigated by outside agencies including the LC DA’s Office, that the individuals
conducting the investigation were not biased, that Defendants had communicated with families of all students involved, and that the conduct of B.M. and other students towards Plaintiff was not condoned.

235. In furtherance of said conspiracy and agreement, Defendants engaged in fraudulent representations, omissions and/or concealment of facts, acts of cover-up and statements. Defendants were purely motivated in this regard for the purposes of protecting their own interests at the expense of innocent children, including Plaintiff.

236. All of the actions of Defendants set forth in the preceding paragraphs were in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and committed in furtherance of the aforementioned conspiracies and agreements. Moreover, each of the aforementioned individuals lent aid and encouragement, and knowingly financed, ratified and/or adopted the acts of the other. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered significant damage as outlined above.

237. These acts constituted malicious conduct which was carried on the Defendants with willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of willfully concealing incidents of abuse and harassment, and was despicable conduct by any measure that subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Accordingly, punitive damages should be awarded against Defendants to punish them and deter other such persons from committing such wrongful and malicious acts in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum more than Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

Dated: ____5/10/23____

LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP
BY:
Brian D. Kent, Esq., Gaetano D’Andrea, Esq., Michael J. McFarland, Esq., Jillian P. Roth, Esq.
LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP
1100 Ludlow Street, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(T): REDACTED BY AUTHOR
(E): REDACTED BY AUTHOR

STAPP LAW, LLC
BY: /s/ Gregory A. Stapp
Gregory A. Stapp, Esq.
STAPP LAW, LLC
153 West 4th Street, Suite 6
Williamsport, PA 17701
(T): REDACTED BY AUTHOR
(E): REDACTED BY AUTHOR
Attorneys for Plaintiff

This is a developing story on Talkwilliamsport.com.

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

223. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

224. Defendants, individually, derivatively, and in concert with each other, engaged in the aforementioned conduct, which would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301).

225. Defendants, individually, derivatively, and in concert with each other, engaged in the aforementioned conduct, which would constitute violations of 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 and the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. § 2070.1 et seq.

226. Defendants’ violations constitute negligence per se under Pennsylvania law.

227. Defendants’ negligent, reckless, and/or intentional failures to report criminal acts allowed the dissemination of videos of Plaintiff’s abuse, which enabled others at WAHS and in the Williamsport community to view said videos, causing Plaintiff to be subject to ridicule, harassment, and bullying and the other injuries and damages described herein, as a result.

228. Defendants’ negligent, reckless, and/or intentional failures in investigating or responding to Plaintiff’s allegations of abuse caused Plaintiff the injuries and damages described above.

229. Such failure on part of Defendants was reckless, intentional, knowing, grossly negligent, deliberately and recklessly indifferent, outrageous, malicious, and/or was a reckless and conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiff.

230. Defendants’ failures to report pursuant to their legal obligation under either Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law (PCPSL), 23 § 6311(a) and (b) et seq. and/or the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. §§ 2070.1 et seq. as well as the conduct which would violate the criminal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proximately caused the harm to Plaintiff and the injuries and damages described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum more than Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT XI – CIVIL CONSPIRACY, Plaintiff v. All Defendants” in this series, is forthcoming.

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

219. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

220. The negligence and recklessness of Defendants in directly and proximately causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff described herein, include:
a. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to rescue the Plaintiff after placing him in a position of harm;
b. failing to exercise reasonable and necessary steps to prevent further harm after rendering Plaintiff in danger of further harm;
c. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to give aid or assistance to Plaintiff after rendering him in danger of further harm;
d. failing to take reasonable steps to obtain aid or assistance for the Plaintiff after rendering him danger of further harm;
e. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to prevent the delay in the appropriate care of Plaintiff; and
f. violation of the duties set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sections 314A & 322, as adopted in Pennsylvania.

221. As a proximate and direct result of Defendant’s breaches described in the preceding paragraph, Plaintiff sustained psychological and physical harms and injuries as described above.

222. The aforementioned incidents resulted from the negligence, recklessness and/or intentional acts of Defendants and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on part of Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT X – NEGLIGENCE PER SE, Plaintiff v. All Defendant” in this series, is forthcoming.