When I was a kid, our field of dreams was Weston Field, where we played all of our Little League games.  It was the only field we had for organized baseball. I have many very fond memories of those days, and I can't imagine having to remember our field being sold out from under us by our mayor.  But for today's generation of kids, that's exactly the memory they'll have if the expansive South Side Sports Complex was their Field of Dreams. The Complex was sold by Mayor Doherty to the University of Scranton.  It's no longer publicly available to the children or the adults to log their memories and strive to fulfill their dreams. I use the term sale loosely; in reality, it was really stolen. 

     The South Side Complex is 30 years old and in good condition.  It has two lighted baseball fields; one for hardball for the kids and a softball field for the adults; plus three basketball courts, two tennis courts, a playground, lots of open green space and the biggest parking lot of any city sports field complex. It was the most heavily used park in the city as well, generating more lease revenue than all other fields. Back in 1977, it was formally accepted by the City of Scranton as a dedicated public park, thereby creating a public trust. With that public trust distinction, public trust laws made its deed forever irrevocable, meaning it was supposed to stay a public park forever, forbidding any type or kind of private use. Well, that's not the way Mayor Doherty interpreted the Public Trust Laws. This is the story of how the Complex was stolen in a conspiracy so broad that it's hard to believe so many people in high places were gathered for the theft, but gather they did, right up to and including the governor of the state. 

THE LEAD ARCHITECT OF THE CONSPIRACY

     The chief architect in this land grab conspiracy was the mayor of the City of Scranton, Christopher A. Doherty. A more deceitful, corrupt, underhanded, two-faced, evil, liar never held the office. Not long after taking the office in 2002, he announced that he was going to transfer the deed for the Complex over to the Scranton Redevelopment Authority. An Ordinance was prepared by the crony City Council Solicitor, Gene Hickey, and it stated that the deed was being transferred so that the SRA would take over maintaining and managing the park. It was passed by City Council, and then approved by Doherty. Doherty was supported by three crony rubberstamp coucil members who passed the Ordinance over repeated, strong public objections voiced at council meetings. When the people found out the Complex was going to be sold, things got hot and heavy at council meetings in further objection to the sake. Behind the scenes, Mayor Doherty had already been in negotiations to sell the Complex to the University of Scranton long before the Ordinance was introduced. So, why then did the mayor transfer the deed to the SRA?  The answer is this; if the city tried to legally sell the Complex, it would have been subjected to open public bidding. Doherty had already made that mistake when he illegally sold the Municipal Golf Course and apparently didn't want to repeat it.  However, the SRA was legislatively authorized to sell property with no public bidding process, although it had never done so before.  The Ordinance cleverly didn't specify that the SRA couldn't sell it.  Doherty was actually quoted in the local paper as saying the deed was transferred so there would only be one bidder. In this way, the University's postion was secured.

PROJECT 70 RESTRICTIONS HAD TO BE LIFTED FROM THE DEEDS TO THE COMPLEX

     Besides the fact that the Public Trust Laws forbade any private use at the Complex, there were also state-wide Project 70 restrictions on the deed that had to be removed through legislation before the property could be sold. One of several restrictions, for example, was that the $689,000.00 of taxpayer money used to build it would have to be repaid if the land was sold. However, the1977 legislative action by the City of Scranton, which formally accepted the Complex as a dedicated public park forever, prohibited any private use, so selling it should not have been an allowable consideration even with the lifting of Project 70 restrictions.

    The Public Trust laws didn't stop the conspiracy to steal the park because, after all, how many members of the public knew anything about public trust laws? The risk of getting caught seemed favorable. To make matters worse, sitting on the Board of Directors of the University of Scranton was George Lynett, who just happened to own the only newspaper in town, so there was no chance that this conspiracy was going to be examined and exposed in the local paper for what it was. Contrarily, Lynett's paper made little mention of Public Trust Laws, and as if only the Project 70 restrictions stood in the way of selling the Complex and the sale would actually be good for the people. At any rate, the Project 70 restrictions had to be lifted for the show to go on. The stage was set, props were in place. 

ENTER A CORRUPT SENATOR, CORRUPT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND GOVERNOR RENDELL

     There are many Project 70 properties in the state, and getting the restrictions lifted for municipalities to sell them has been a normal practice for the Senate and the House of Representatives. But, not many of the Project 70 lands are formally accepted dedicated public parks. And, that's where the problem was for all the corrupt players in this conspiracy, as they well knew. The Complex is in the district of Senator Robert Mellow and Representative Gaynor Cawley. Senator Mellow, currently a board member of the University of Scranton, authored Senate Bill 850 on June 25, 2003, which legislation sought to lift all of the Project 70 restrictions on behalf of the University. Rep. Cawley, however, strongly objected to the sale, and was vehemently challenging every aspect of SB 850. In addition to Cawley's challenges, Senator Mellow had a substantial time related problem. It was also an election year, and the rubberstamp council that originally passed the Ordinance transferring the Complex deed to the SRA, had been voted out in the May primary and the general election. The new council members didn't want the sale to go through, but they wouldn't be taking office until January 2004, and until then, they couldn't stop the sale. Senator Mellow had to move quickly to rush SB 850 through the Senate and the House. By December 17, 2003 the senator managed to get SB 850 passed through committee, and then unanimously through the Senate, thanks in substantial part to a lobbying firm, Wolf Block Relations (another crony player), hired by the SRA for approximately $25,000.00.  As precious time was slipping by and the legislative year was coming to a close, Rep. Cawley was locked in a verbal war with House Majority Speaker Bill DeWeese and Rep. Mike Veon on the House floor. (Note: DeWeese and Veon are from the opposite side of the state)  Cawley was desperately trying to stall the vote until next year, but DeWeese and Veon were pushing for a rushed passage. Speaker DeWeese told the members that the Complex (which was in good condition), was nothing but a rough and tumble patch of land that wasn't worth anything. Veon argued that enough discussion had taken place and it was time to vote. But, Veon was also challenged on the floor by Delaware County Rep. Vitali, who wanted to know what the rush was all about. Veon said that a new legislative body would be taking office in Scranton in early January, less than a month away, and that body would not likely allow the sale to go through as described in SB 850, so it was a now or never situation. Cawley again pleaded with the House members to vote down SB 850 because the people of Scranton did not want the sale to go through; and, that the newly elected city council had the right to make the decision to challenge the action of the lame duck council. Cawley's last words on it were that SB 850 was a disgrace because all restrictions were removed, leaving the people's park unprotected, and that someday SB 850 would come back "to bite all of us." After the House voted, SB 850 was passed and sent to Governor Rendell for his consideration. Governor Rendell signed it on December 23, 2003. Worthy of noting throughout the rush of SB 850, as its language was being hammered out, those being kept up to date on its progress were Mayor Doherty and local wealthy businessman Louis DeNaples. Mr. DeNaples was copied in on fax communications between the SRA attorney Carl Greco and the Speaker of the House at the time, Mr. Perzel.  Mr. DeNaples is a very heavy contributor to many members of the Senate, particularly Senator Mellow, and members of the House of Representatives. Mr. DeNaples was recently awarded a Pa. slots license for his Mt. Airy casino in the Pocono Mountains. Mr. DeNaples has also served on the Board of Directors for the University of Scranton. 

A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE SALE WAS FILED BY RESIDENTS OF SCRANTON 

    The people of the City of Scranton weren't willing to lose their prized park without a fight. A lawsuit was filed in Common Pleas Orphans' Court by two residents, Fran Vutnoski and Christopher Phillips. They were represented by Atty. Paul Walker, who worked Pro Bono, or free.  It seemed like a pretty good deal at the time. They sued the Scranton Redevelopment Authority, which was represented by Atty. Carl Greco. The actions filed against the SRA included a Complaint and a Petition for Injunctive Relief. The claims made were; that the sale was statutorily prohibited by the Dedicated Property Act of 1959, that the SRA had no authority to sell the park, and, it failed to follow sale related procedures. The injunction was argued first, as is typical. The court ruled against Vutnoski and Phillips, citing that the Dedicated Property Act of 1959, a state statute, didn't apply to the Complex, and that the SRA had authority to sell it since there was no language in the Ordinance passed by council that prevented it. Greco argued successfully that the Complex was a formally accepted dedicated public park. He argued that the Dedicated Property Act clearly stated that it did not protect formally accepted dedicated parks. Greco's argument was on sound legal ground, because the reason that Act doesn't protect formally accepted dedicated public parks is that those parks are otherwise protected by the Public Trust Doctine, a common law and the stronger of the two public trust laws.Walker had claimed a violation against the wrong law. He should have claimed the Public Trust Doctrine was violated. All was not lost, however. The complaint part of the action, Declaratory Judgment, still had to be argued. Since Walker knew the SRA's defense, he only had to amend the complaint to include a violation of the Public Trust Doctrine. But, he didn't do it. Perhaps he couldn't because the action was filed in Orphans' Court, which only rules on statutory based claims, and not claims rising from violations of common laws. So, why then, did Walker file the action in Orphans' Court? He clearly did not have to. Instead of amending the complaint, Walker and Greco once again argued the same exact issues with the same exact results. Case dismissed. Strange that Walker didn't amend the complaint, don't you think?  Both the injunction and the complaint suffered a quick death in appellate court, where every other complaint predicated upon the wrong law dies.

HOWEVER, DEATH WASN'T IN THE CARDS FOR THE LEGAL BATTLE OVER THE COMPLEX, AT LEAST NOT YET.

   Chris Phillips lost in court, but he knew the Public Trust Doctrine was the law that had to be fought. He couldn't file a new lawsuit himself because the rules prevented it, so he needed someone who would file the right lawsuit making the right claims. That's when I met Chris Phillips. I was interested in what was happening with the Complex and we got together for a few hours. Forthwith, another lawsuit was filed claiming that the sale of the Complex violated the Public Trust Doctrine of 1915, with me as the Plaintiff.  The Public Trust Doctrine goes back to about 450 AD.  It's just about the oldest common law on the books and recognized practically around the world. It's also the common law that protects beaches, rivers and forests from man's invasion, among other things natural. But, this case was in Scranton, one of the most corrupt cities in the country. And in Scranton, you can appear in front of a judge with your mangled son in a wheelchair sitting next to you, along with the drunk truck driver that ran him over positively identified by 3,000 people, and  if he's the right driver, the judge will go deaf, dumb and blind right before your eyes, tell you that you have no case, and toss you to the curb. (That's a hint of what is coming.) 

     First, a quick 101 on lawsuits involving public trusts in the form of public parks necessary to understand how uncomplicated this is. Who can sue a municipality when it tries to sell a public park? Anyone can. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania established standing for any resident to sue in a case called the Philadelphia Museum vs. the University of Pennsylvania. That case became known as the Public Trust Doctrine of 1915. Simply put, the court stated that public parks belong to the people because the people paid for the land, paid for renovations and paid for perpetual care management. The municipality is merely a trustee constitutionally charged with the care of the park on behalf of the people. Therefore, any resident of the municipality could challenge the sale of a public park. ANY RESIDENT. You don't even have to be a taxpayer. The case law on the subject of standing for residents and taxpayers in these types cases could be stacked to the moon, and all of it is in favor of the taxpayer/resident bringing the lawsuit. There is not one case on the books where a taxpayer/resident was ultimately denied standing in a public trust related lawsuit.

ENTER THE CORRUPT JUDGE, THE GATEKEEPER AND PROTECTOR OF THE CONSPIRACY

   It's not a pleasant duty to call a judge corrupt. As a taxpayer, I find it is my duty to report that to other taxpayers. I find little or no pleasure in it. It's both disturbing and rattling to experience that the judicial system is corrupt. Naivete'? Perhaps, but going in one would think that with all the respect they demand, they'd at least be earning it. That's not the case, nowhere near it. You can draw your own conclusion as to whether or not the system, or this particular judge, is corrupt. I'll just tell you what happened in this case. The judge's name is Robert Mazzoni. Judge Mazzoni is a very likable man, charming in his judicial mannerisms and as good as any judge at giving you the screwing of your life with a very warm, yet vexatious, smile on his face.

   The Complaint I filed against the SRA, which was amended once, made only one claim. It alleged that the South Side Complex was a formally accepted dedicated public park, and for that reason, it was protected from any use inconsistent with its dedicated purpose, which was public use only, and forever. My opponent was Carl Greco, the same lawyer who had opposed the Phillips lawsuit. Atty. Greco filed preliminary objections to my Complaint, which was something he didn't do in the Phillips case. That's what lawyers do to try to get a Complaint tossed on some technicality.  That way, the merits of the Complaint are never argued. He claimed that I had no standing in the matter. So, now you need a brief 101 on standing from Atty. Greco's position.

    Typically, not every taxpayer can sue the government.  You have to have suffered more than the common taxpayer from a government act in order to have a claim. So, if you, as a taxpayer, cannot demonstrate that you have been harmed above and beyond every other taxpayer, you can't sue. It's a high standard to meet. The court figures everyone would be suing if any taxpayer was allowed to sue, so that's how they limit the Plaintiffs. That's also how they've eliminated many Plaintiffs who want to challenge a government action.

     In this instance, the issue involves the challenged sale of a public park. That changes everything from a standing point of view because a taxpayer challenging the inconsistent use of a public park is automatically given standing, as discussed earlier. In addition to that, the Supreme Court has provided that if all the taxpayers were eliminated from the pool of potential Plaintiffs, it's very likely that many government actions that should be challenged, would not be. So, guidelines were set that lowered the standard for a taxpayer to sue the government. If you met these guidelines, you were allowed to challenge the government action. Those were the two sources of taxpayer standing that I relied upon to win my argument against Atty. Greco's preliminary objections in order to proceed with the case. If Atty. Greco won, I was out of court. Read on. You can review the legal brief I submitted that makes the argument that I had standing as a taxpayer by Clicking Here.    

     After the court read the briefs submitted by the parties, and heard extensive oral argument, Judge Mazzoni shockingly ruled that I had no standing in this matter. Actually, shockingly is an understatement. He issued a lengthy opinion that completely failed to address the fact that under the Public Trust Doctrine, my standing was automatic. Instead, he went on and on about my failure to intervene in the Phillips case, and held that since Phillips sued the SRA already under statutory law, I couldn't sue under a different common law. Mind you, Phillips' lawsuit was never even heard because it was dismissed for citing the wrong law as grounds to stop the sale. You can review Judge Mazzoni's opinion by Clicking Here. He makes an elaborate mess out of it over the span of 18 pages. Another thing he did was to take 106 days to make his decision. That's a long time for such a simple decision. That really annoyed me. It was during this period of time that the University of Scranton and the SRA completed the sale of the Complex, ironically. I let the judge know how annoyed I was with his decision by filing a Motion for Reconsideration. That's what you file when you think there's something wrong with the judge's decision or there's something new to consider. It was my way of saying to him, "You have got to be kidding me". The judge reviewed my Motion and granted a hearing on it. At the hearing I reminded him that he completely overlooked my automatic taxpayer standing as my Complaint involved the wrongful sale of a Public Trust owned by the people of the City of Scranton. It went in one ear and out the other, however, a really bizzare thing happened at that hearing.  I had raised the issue that Atty. Greco never objected to standing when he was defending against the previous lawsuit filed by Phillips. I was arguing with the judge about it when Atty. Greco blurted out that "those litigants had standing under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act of 1959", and that was why he didn't object. That Act was the statutory law that Walker incorrectly claimed was violated, as I indicated earlier in this story. At any rate, wrong law or not, it was a challenge to the sale and wrongful use of a dedicated Public Trust, that being the Complex. Of course, I quickly jumped on what Atty. Greco stated in open court and pointed that out to the judge, who responded to me, "I didn't hear him say that".  He didn't hear him say it?  How could he not hear him say it? Well, he did say it. And, it was transcribed. I asked the judge to hold off for a day or two on making his decision so I could get those words in transcript form from the stenographer.  He agreed. I submitted to Judge Mazzoni that part of the transcript where Atty.Greco clearly agreed that standing was automatic in a Public Trust challenge, along with a letter of supportive explanation. The judge still denied me standing. You can review the letter with the excerpt of the transcript in it by Clicking Here. How frustrated and furious was I with Judge Mazzoni?  He told me to my face that if I didn't like his decision, I could appeal it to the Commonwealth Court.  I did that, but I didn't stop there.

     I always looked at this sale as a conspiracy in the first place, so why not call a spade a spade and sue the proper parties for conspiracy?  I couldn't find a reason not to. On January 5, 2007 I sued the University of Scranton for Fraud, Conspiracy to commit fraud, Wrongful taking of a public park and Unjust Enrichment. You can view that lawsuit by Clicking Here. And, I wasn't done. During my research for the lawsuit against the university, I discovered that there was a strong possibility that Senate Bill 850, was unconstitutional. It goes something like this, the legislature can't pass a law that causes someone to surrender any of their constitutional rights, federal or state. SB 850's only intent was to clear the way for the sale of the Complex specifically to the university, but Article 1, Section 27 of the Pa. State Constitution states that we have a constitutional right to the preservation of our parks, which are, in their nature, natural resources. So, on February 7th, 2007, I also sued Governor Rendell, Senator Mellow, Representative DeWeese, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the University of Scranton, Scranton's City Council and Scranton's Mayor Doherty. One tidy little package of conspirators if you ask me.You can review that lawsuit by Clicking Here.  That's about where it stands. I'm in the process of putting together a Civil RICO lawsuit naming all the parties who have been involved in this conspiracy to swipe our park. I'll post it for everyone's review when it is done. 

    I have already received preliminary objections from the attorney representing the University of Scranton, Tim Hinton. Guess what he's arguing?  I have no standing. What a surprise. I have not received any answers or objections yet from the parties named in the SB 850 lawsuit, but they are due by the end of February. However, on February 13th, 2007, I received a call from the Attorney General's Office, a Mr. Keating, Deputy Atty. General, who advised me that he represented Governor Rendell in the lawsuit. He wanted to chat about the lawsuit. He was not happy that the governor was named as a defendant, so apparently, neither was the governor. He wanted his name removed as a defendant, which is impossible since the governor's name is on SB 850 and without it, there would be no SB 850 as law. By conversation's end, he threatened me with sanctions (legal fees) if he has to file paperwork to get the governor's name off the action, but they all do that. I've run into that numerous times. Even Judge Mazzoni threatened that I'd be facing huge sanctions for filing the lawsuit against the University of Scranton. That's very inappropriate from a judge, and it didn't intimidate me in the least.

     That's where we are for now, but I'm sure things will be getting busy on these actions soon. I asked the Commonwealth Court for expedited review in the SB 850 action, but I haven't heard anything as yet. The University has possession of our public park, courtesy of this group of evil, selfish and arrogant conspirators and thieves. I'll update this page as changes in the facts occur, right up to the day the university gives the park back.

UPDATE: I've received an Order from the Commonwealth Court of Pa. that is dated February 9, 2007.  The Order does two things.  First, it denies my  Petition for Expedited Relief as filed on February 7th, 2007; and secondly, it set a hearing date on my Motion for Injunctive Relief for March 7th, 2007 at 10:00 am at the Irvis Building in Harrisburg, Pa. It's on the fifth floor in courtroom one. The Irvis Building is attached to the Capitol Building at the extreme right side.