United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Michael Peters Esq ,Michael J. Savona Esq., John A. Van-luvanee Esq and Robert P. Hoopes Not acting as offices of the Courts! Feasterville PA Pennsylvania

Layman’s Terms: Michael Peters Esq Michael J. Savona Esq., John A. Van-luvanee Esq and Robert P. Hoopes all took part in shenanigans that ended up Honorable Judge, Gene E.K. Pratter Court room but not timely to a final decision. Honorable Judge, Gene E.K. Pratter to my understanding will not tolerate shenanigans. Letters to the Honorable Judge, Gene E.K. Pratter. Will Justice prevail Psalm 94:15(?) all to my understanding and hope with a little help.

Not Layman’s Terms Two Letters 11/10/2018 Honorable Judge, Gene E.K. Pratter United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania U.S. Courthouse 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 RE: PETER SAUERS vs. Lower Southampton Township; Appeal No:2110 EDA 2018 My Lord, May I humbly write to the above subject matter referred in which this letter is written as a follow up to the previous letter dated 10/24/2018 for your kind re-consideration. I am writing to follow up on my request I mailed to your attention on 10/25/2018. I have also attached herein a copy of the previous letter. My name is PETER S, I am the Appellant Pro se in the above styled case. I am aware that I am not allowed to directly communicate with you about my pending case and this letter would have nothing to do with any ex parte communications under Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC), as the Appellee is also copied herein. I am eager to receiving your response, please kindly find a time that is most convenient for you, as I am yet to receive your response. I have no other means of redress; a nunc pro tunc appeal is the only means by which I can challenge the wrong decision of the Superior Court and your opinion on this will help to change the decision of the Supreme court as the Matter is appeal therein.

On October 31 1, 2018 the Superior court further denied my Motion to reconsider its order and appeal in nunc pro tunc, hence, I am appealing to the Supreme court to reverse the Superior Court’s Order. I am not seeking the request of assistance in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. The interests of justice and judicial economy will undoubtedly be served if my request is granted and the other party will not be prejudiced I have enclosed my contact information should you or a member of your staff need further information. Thank you for your kind consideration of this letter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Peter Sauers PETER (((REDACTED))) Feasterville, PA 19053 (215) 3xx-6xxx 10/24/2018 Honorable Judge, Gene E.K. Pratter United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania U.S. Courthouse 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 EX GRATIA ASSISTANCE IN; RE: PETER S vs. Lower Southampton Township; Appeal No:2110 EDA 2018 My Lord, My name is PETER S, I am the Appellant Pro se in the above styled case. Appellant, Peter S Pro se filed a Complaint with No: 2015-05753 in the Court of Common Pleas, seeking to have the Land zoning of Appellee, Lower Southampton Township declared improper, null and void. The Appellee filed a Preliminary Objection (Motions to dismiss) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P § 12(b) (6) in the Court of Common Pleas to have the matter dismissed on April 22, 2016 by the court order. Appellant been a Pro se litigant lacked the legal skill and the ability to understand some certain civil procedural issues and erroneously appeal the Order to the Eastern District Court on May 13, 2016 with Civil Action No: 16-2325 instead of Appealing to the Superior courts. The matter came up before Honorable Judge, Gene E.K. Pratter of this court. This court dismiss my appeal without final decision and anything done in the district court before 12th day of April 2017 is of no effect, it is void, as the district court lacks jurisdiction.

Subsequently, Appellant filed his appeal to Superior court after he realized that, the filing of appeal in the District court was erroneous since the order is from the Court of Common Pleas, currently, the Appellant appeal was quashed by an Order of the Superior court, on the grand that it was untimely pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236(b). Currently, the Appellant has filed a Motion for Reconsideration to appeal in IN NUNC PRO TUNC before the Superior court of Pennsylvania. It must be added that Appellant wasted his appeal time with the district court, however, Rule Pa.R.C.P. 905(a)(4), which concerns filing a notice of appeal. This Rule says that even though an appeal may have been filed incorrectly in the wrong court, it is still considered timely. If a notice of appeal is mistakenly filed in an appellate court or is otherwise filed in an incorrect office within the unified judicial system, the clerk shall immediately stamp it with the date of receipt and transmit it to the clerk of the court which entered the order appealed. Appellant has no other means of redress; a nunc pro tunc appeal is the only means by which the appellant can challenge the wrong decision of the Court of Common Pleas. It is in the light of the above, Appellant humbly requests Honorable Judge, Gene E.K. Pratter, who conducted the district court proceedings to contact all the Superior Court Judges to reconsider my Motion to Appeal in nunc pro tunc. The appellant’s filing of the Appeal in the wrong court and the nonchalant attitude of the Appeal officer is an extenuating circumstance.

As you look to the chronological order of event`s and fact`s the Superior Court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas, regardless of the nature of the controversy or the amount involved, except such classes of appeals as are by any provision of this chapter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the Commonwealth Court. This appeal is from a "Dismissal order” Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., § 12(b) (6) which is deemed final under Pa. R.A.P. 313. Without any [final orders as of 12th day of April 2017 and outstanding Motions made timely. Appellant believes in you that you can persuade the Superior court judges to resolve my Motion to RECONSIDER APPEAL IN NUNC PRO TUNC based solely upon my Brief in support of Motion, the extenuating circumstance narrated herein above and the exhibits. Appellant is not seeking the request for Ex Gratia assistance in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. The interests of justice and judicial economy will undoubtedly be served if my request is granted and the Appellee will not be prejudiced.

Finally, I can only thank you for the efforts you have given to your cases and the parties who have come before you. My words are in many ways distillations of what I have seen in you. You are ideal judge who is impartial, not because of dispassionate or uninterested, but because you have equal passion for and interest in the needs of both parties. Thank you for your kind consideration of this letter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Peter S "Bickerstaff Clay Products Co., Inc. v. Harris County, Ga., 89 F.3d 1481, 1491 (11th Cir. 1996). Federal takings claim also cannot ripen if not final decision has been reached. The federal court cannot determine if there has been a taking if it cannot determine what use can be made of the property. If a variance can be applied for, or the property owner has not sought to develop his property under the current zoning, his claim is not ripe. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.2d 1412, 1215 (11th Cir. 1994)”.