Complaint Review: Judge Brian Mc. Guffin - Doylestown, Bucks County PENNSYLVANIA
- Judge Brian Mc. Guffin Justice Center, 100 North Main Street Doylestown, Bucks County, PENNSYLVANIA United States
- Phone:
- Web: BucksCuont.org
- Category: Judge
Judge Brian Mc. Guffin IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Court of Common Pleas in Bucks County Justice Center Judge Brian Mc. Guffin is disregarding principal cases and case-laws using his opinion. Doylestown, Bucks County PENNSYLVANIA
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
Ripoff Report
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
FILED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION – LAW 2021 -04674 To Judge Brian Mc. Guffin in reference to the ORDER and DECREE Dated December 4, 2022, which should be December 4, 2021, received on January 3, 2022. (Postmarked December 30, 2021) (Filed within 20 days).
1. The present Action is NOT barred by the Statute of Limitations, pursuant to 42 Pa. C. S. 5524(7), as this provision does not apply in this first-time filing. Defendants’ objection was duly covered by the pleadings of Peter Sauers, the Plaintiff, Filed on 8-17-2015 at 10:18 AM: to the Court of Common Pleas for illegal land transaction and damages. Defendants only responded as on April 12, 2017, and later and NOT before such date. It is evident from the documents on record that the decision was taken in haste and without complying with the procedures established by the Rule of Law. Judge Brian Mc. Guffin of the Common Pleas is receiving this case WITHOUT PRJUDICE coming from an upper Court for civil damages and was never out of Court System. The decision as provided in 42 Pa.C.S. 5572 (relating to time of entry of order) or, in the case of a deemed decision, within 30 days after the date upon which notice of said deemed decision is given as set forth in section 908(9) of this act. Actions of Statute of Limitations have been overcome by the Plaintiff long before this civil case for damages comes forward WITHOUT PRJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff Pro-se secured assistance to clarify legal writing only. Di Sarrio v. Mills, 711 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) Unsworn argument by counsel simply "is not evidence.” Principle cases are clear for a pre-trial conference at this point. Judge Brian Mc. Guffin is allowing a 12 (b) (6) ruling in place, stating "Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” This is prejudiced and biased because Judge Brian Mc. Guffin is disregarding principal cases and case-laws against his opinion. Principal cases show clear relief like in complain 461 US 30, 103 S. Ct. 1625, 75 L. Ed. 2d 632 - Supreme Court, 1983 - We granted certiorari in this case, 456 US 924 (1982), to decide whether the District Court for the Western District of Missouri applied the correct legal standard in instructing the jury that it might award punitive damages under 42USC § 1983. -Property, City manager liable for deprivation of zoning rights. Hon’ble Gene E.K. Pratters has also vindicated that the facts are in favor of the principal cases and case will communicate actions to the courts.
3. Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)B.Platsky v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991), "Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." The Court of Common Pleas / Judge Brian Mc. Guffin failed to do this. The Plaintiff, a pro-se litigant requests a Judge Brian Mc. Guffin to please provide instructions on how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings to prevent future errors. Dismissal of a case under section 12 (b) (6) or Judge Brian Mc. Guffin’s opinion according to the facts is not justifiable or permissible and the court should re-evaluate Collateral Estoppel and Demurrer in this case to ensure equal protection of laws, due process and democracy. Defendants’ actions show cause and effect of property damages financial damages to the Plaintiff.
4. HAINES v. KERNER ET AL. Plaintiff: "Allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith”. Legal conclusions should entitle Plaintiff an opportunity to offer proof also in full use of witnesses, evidence and oral argument all denied to the Plaintiff. Why? Plaintiff also willing to amend his complain making any plenary objections a moot point to Judge Brian Mc. Guffin. Defendants’ actions fall under Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426. "Fraud vitiates everything” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 "Fraud vitiates the most- solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. Judge Brian Mc. Guffin needs to realize Defendant’s counsel is not the original counsel for the Defendants using original counsel contracts, documents. Judge Brian Mc. Guffin needs to show criterion to change a case WITHOUT PRJUDICE from one Court to WITH PRJUDICE in his Court and also an opinion for pro se litigant about how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. VERIFICATION PETER SAUERS ADA Pro-se verifies that he is one for himself in this action, and that the statements made in the forgoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of law "18 pa. C.S. Section 4904’, relating to unsworn, falsification to authorities. Plaintiff under First Amendment Rights will post this on posted Rip-off Report.com, sent to all interested parties and filed within 20 days to the Court.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/10/2022 08:49 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/report/judge-brian-mc-guffin-court/doylestown-justice-center-usg-1515101. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.