To: Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street P.O. Box 812 Charleston, West Virginia 25323

From: Michael Pavlock P.O. Box 787 Masontown, Pennsylvania 1546 1

Re: Charles E. Gratz - d/b/a Chuck Gratz Limousine Service Suspension Proceedings Case No. 08-1939-MC-M w

0

RESPONSE OF MICHAEL PAVLOCK IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION OF CHARLES EDWARD GRATZ TO HOLD DECISION

AND NOW COMES, the Respondent, Michael Pavlock, Pro Se, and files the following Response in Opposition to the Petitioner's Petition to Hold Decision and in support thereof states the following:

1. That Golden Investment Acquisitions, LLC was the Purchaser of a limousine service

owned by Charles and Trudy Gratz, the total purchase price was $175,000.00, the

limousine service was represented by Mr. Gratz and his attorney to be a turnkey,

operational limousine service with multiple valid and transferable transportation

authorities including one from the Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

2. Charles Gratz and his attorney, James Marchewka, represented that the subject limousine

service maintained multiple state and other transportation authorities in addition to state

transportation authorities in West Virginia and Pennsylvania; in fact Mr. Gratz had an

interest in only one (1) West Virginia PSC authority and one (1) Pennsylvania PUC

authority, it was later learned by the Purchaser the both abovementioned authorities were

under suspension at the time the sales contract was signed.

The Purchaser began to ask questions in early June 2006 as to the validity and operational

status of the PSC and PUC transportation authorities and discovered that both were under

suspension. Further performance under the sales contract was halted until Mr. Gratz

resolved the suspensions with the PSC and the PUC. The Purchaser diligently attempted

to resolve the situation with Mr. Gratz for over (10) months to no avail.

3. Michael Pavlock at no time represented himself to be the owner and or sole

representative of the Purchaser, Golden Investment Acquisitions, LLC; Craig A. Golden

signed the sales agreement on March 3 I, 2006 as the Managing Member of the Purchaser

who was the sole owner of the Purchaser. Michael Pavlock provided financing to the

Purchaser.

4. In December of 2006 multiple titles to aging and unserviceable limousines were

transferred to the Purchaser or their assigns as part of an agreed plan that Charles Gratz

would correct the suspensions of the PSC and PUC transportation authorities and to then

provide the Purchaser with valid, operational and transferable PSC and PUC

transportation authorities; Mr. Gratz was advanced the costs to acquire valid

insurance coverage which was accomplished only after an additional 30 day delay, but

thereinafter failed to lift the suspensions on the authorities as promised. An additional

part of the agreed plan to complete the sales agreement required that two of the most

serviceable limousines were to remain titled to Mr. Gratz for “grandfathering” provisions

of the transportation authorities; these limousine would however remain in the possession

of the Purchaser pending complete transfer of the transportation authorities.

The issue of the advance of insurance costs by the Purchaser to Mr. Gratz was argued

before Judge Katherine Emery of the Washington County, Pennsylvania Court of

Common Pleas on June 19,2008, and the Court issued a finding of fact and ruling stating

that the Purchaser had not been obliged to make the advance of costs to Mr. Gratz nor

was the Purchaser responsible to continue to advance insurance costs to Mr. Gratz.

Petitioner Gratz testified at this hearing before Judge Emery and Attorney Marchewka

presented and argued the matter to the Court; the statements as contained in the Petition

of Charles Gratz filed on May 4, 2009, are knowing and intentional false statements

intended to mislead the Commission in decisions going forward with regard to

suspension or cancellation proceedings on Mr. Gratz’s transportation authority.

5. That $125,000.00 of the total purchase price has been delivered to Mr. Gratz; the

remaining $50,000.00 has been withheld until Mr. Gratz and Attorney Marchewka

deliver valid, operational and transferable PSC and PUC transportation authorities.

Craig A. Golden, Managing Member of Golden Investment Acquisitions, LLC delivered

a check in the amount of $23,500.00 that was not honored at the time of presentment, Mr.

Gratz was timely provided a replacement cashiers check within several days of the return

of the original check which was accepted and successfully negotiated by Mr. Gratz. On

the day of delivery of the original $23,500.00 check as noted above, Attorney Marchewka

represented via telephone from Washington County, Pennsylvania directly to Michael

Pavlock in Morgantown that the PSC and PUC transportation authorities were up to date,

operational and transferable and on the basis of those representations it was okay to issue

the additional $23,500.00 payment to Charles Gratz. Attorney Marchewka then repeated

the same representations that he had made to Michael Pavlock to Robert J. Konchesky

and Edith Konchesky; brother and sister; who were present with Mr. Pavlock and who

each spoke separately to Attorney Marchewka. The involvement of the Robert and Edith

Konchesky was necessary as they were providing the financing of the limousine service

business and wanted to be assured that Mr. Gratz indeed had valid, operational and

transferable authorities. The Koncheskys were transferring monies via wire transfer into

the account to cover the $23,500.00 payment to Mr. Gratz and both Mr. Gratz and

Attorney Marchewka understood that the funds would not be available the same day, but

Mr. Gratz went ahead and attempted to negotiate the check the same day leading to the

return of the check by the bank.

Attorney Marchewka claimed that a “bank continuation charge” from Charleroi Federal

Savings in the amount of $2,500.00 was incurred by Mr. Gratz as a result of the returned

check and Attorney Marchewka demanded and received reimbursement for the claimed

“bank continuation charge”, numerous requests have been made upon the Petitioner and

Attorney Marchewka to produce documentation of the “bank continuation charge”, to

date no documentation has been provided. Michael Pavlock alleges that no such “bank

continuation charge” was ever incurred by Charles Gratz and that Attorney Marchewka

committed interstate fraud by claiming and receiving the $2,500.00 payment from Mr.

Pavlock via telephone communications between Pennsylvania and West Virginia and

obtained the monies under false pretenses. The $2,500.00 was obtained by Attorney

Marchewka and applied as payment for the Petitioner’s legal fees or was obtained by

Attorney Marchewka without the knowledge of the Petitioner.

That in December of 2006, Mr. Cratz entered onto the property of the Purchaser in

Morgantown, West Virginia under the cover of darkness and over a weekend and

removed one of the two limousines that it had been agreed would remain in the

possession of the Purchaser; the agreed to value of which was already paid by the

Purchaser within the $125,000.00 already delivered to the Petitioner; pending final

transfer of the PSC and PUC transportation authorities.

6. That Attorney Marchewka instituted a civil action against the Purchaser by means of a

Writ of Summons filed on November 2,2006, thereinafter failing to provide service of

the Writ as required under Pennsylvania law and Court Rules; a copy of said Writ of

Summons at Docket No. 2006-8367 is attached hereto and Marked as “Exhibit 6 a”. On

February 26,2007, Attorney Marchewka filed a Complaint against the Purchaser and

Michael Pavlok (name misspelled in court filing) but service of this filing has never been

completed as the Complaint has been reinstated twice, the first time on August 30,2007

and again on November 9,2007; a copy of said Complaint at Docket No. 2006-8367 is

attached hereto and marked as “Exhibit 6 b . Attorney Marchewka has displayed a

substantial pattern of abuse of civil process and noncompliance with Court rules, his

representations and filings are not credible.

Attorney Clancy has represented to Judge Emery that the second limousine still titled in

Mr. Gratz’s name is in storage and not being operated in any manner.

7. The only fiaud in this matter before the Cornmission emanates from Mr. Gratz and his

attorney, James Marchewka, who for years represented Mr. Gratz in numerous actions

before this Commission absent his licensure as a West Virginia lawyer; the Petitioner and

his attorney have routinely engaged in abuse of civil and criminal process and threats of

extortion to force the Purchaser to pay the remaining $50,000.00 of the purchase price.

Attorney Marchewka instituted a private criminal complaint against the Purchaser and

Michael Pavlok (name again misspelled in court filing) while the identical issues of

possession of the second Gratz-titled limousine was pending in the civil action before

Judge Emery; a copy of said Private Criminal Complaint, Private Criminal Complaint

Questionaire and Case Docket Sheet at Docket No. CR-0000146-08 are attached hereto

and marked collectively as “Exhibit 7 a”. Judge Emery termed Attorney Marchewka’s

institution of criminal charges as “ridiculous” and ordered the attorney to withdraw the

charges. Attorney Marchewka’s intent in filing the criminal charges was to extort a

settlement in the civil case through the use of false criminal charges.

8. Judge Emery has issued rulings and instructions to the parties intended to maintain the

status quo of the case, had the Petitioner or Attorney Marchewka been dissatisfied with

the Court’s Orders, one would assume that the Petitioner and Counsel would have

addressed the matter with the Court. In fact the Petitioner and Attorney Marchewka

obtained an emergency exparte injunction for the return of the second Gratz-titled

limousine by making misleading and false representations to the Court; Attorney

Marchewka failed to comply with the rules of Court and the emergency exparte

injunction expired by operation of law five ( 5 ) days after issuance.

9. That due in part to the substantial economic losses which resulted from the failure of Mr.

Gratz to deliver valid, operational and transferable transportation authorities in March of

2006, the Purchaser was forced to file for Bankruptcy protection; Craig A. Golden had an

appreciation of the pending filing and had in fact by the time of the filing of the

Bankruptcy Petition had transferred all operational and management of the Purchaser to

Spencer W. Graham, 11. Any resulting non-notification of the Bankruptcy action was a

result of stolen, missing and/or incomplete business documentation on the part of Craig

A. Golden.

10. That Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee Thomas Fluharty has attempted an illegal removal of

the Washington County civil action filed by Mr. Gratz to the Northern District of West

Virginia. Trustee Fluharty undertook various actions within the Bankruptcy matter in

reliance on false and misleading statements and representations of Petitioner Gratz and

Attorney Marchewka. When Trustee Thomas Fluharty realized that he could not transfer

the State matter from one federal district to another, he and Attorney Marchewka agreed

to impermissibly discontinue the Washington County civil action and Trustee Fluharty

would then institute an Adversarial Proceeding against Golden Investment Acquisitions,

LLC and Michael Pavlock while naming the Petitioner as a defendant but, only as a party

of interest.

The Petitioner and Attorney Marchewka have failed to discontinue the Washington

County civil action as they agreed before Trustee’s commencement of the Adversarial

Proceeding in Bankruptcy Court.

1 1. That Michael Pavlock categorically denies the numerous allegations and factual

misrepresentations that Attorney Marchewka makes in the Petition to Hold Decision; that

Attorney Marchewka is under a professional obligation to provide accurate and factual

information to the Commission; and that Attorney Marchewka has made willful and

intentional false statements to this Commission within the Petition filed on May 4, 2009;

12. That at no time since March 31, 2006, has Petitioner; Charles Edward Gratz held a valid,

operational and transferable PSC transportation authority.

13. That at no time since March 31, 2006, has Petitioner; Charles Edward Gratz made any

request, application or other action to transfer the subject PSC transportation authority to

the Purchaser.

14. That all issues of statutorily required insurance coverage for Mr. Gratz’s PSC

transportation authority were the responsibility of Mr. Gratz to resolve and by statute and

PSC regulation, the Purchaser lacked standing to obtain insurance coverage for Mr.

Gratz.

15. That the Purchaser has been in direct contact with PSC Motor Carrier Section Supervisor

Robert Morris to work toward resolution of the suspended status of Mr. Gratz’s PSC

transportation authority and to express the valid and long-standing concerns of Purchaser

toward the defects in Mr. Gratz’s PSC transportation authority and to the actions of Mr.

Gratz and Attorney Marchewka in maintenance and transfer of the same.

16. That Mr. Gratz and Attorney Marchewka have obtained monies under false pretenses

from the Purchaser and from Robert J. Konchesky and Edith Konchesky via interstate

telephonic and U.S. Mail communications.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Commission DENY the

Petitioner’s request to hold further action against the Petitioner’s PSC transportation authority

and to issue a final ruling addressing the following issues:

a.

transportation authority since March 3 1,2006 including the last date of valid insurance

coverage prior to said date;

the lack of requisite insurance coverage by the Petitioner on the Petitioner’s PSC

b.

Commission false and misleading information regarding insurance coverage and annual

assessments of the Petitioner’s PSC transportation authority;

that the Petitioner and Attorney James Marchewka intentionally provided the

c.

and misleading information in the Petition filed May 4, 2009;

that Attorney James Marchewka intentionally provided the Commission false

d.

transfer of the Petitioner’s PSC transportation authority was possible due to the

suspended status and chronic lack of insurance coverage on said PSC transportation

authority;

under West Virginia law and PSC regulation, that since March 3 1, 2006, no valid

e. under West Virginia law and PSC regulation, that a third party, such as the

Purchaser, is unable to obtain insurance coverage for the Petitioner’s PSC transportation

authority and that said insurance coverage must be procured and maintained by the

Petitioner in his own name:

f.

the March 3 1,2006 Sales Agreement; and

that the Petitioner has received in excess of $125,000.00 toward the payment of

8,

undertake actions with the Commission to transfer the Petitioner's PSC transportation

authority to the Purchaser or its assigns.

that the Petitioner has at no time since March 3 1,2006, did the Petitioner

Date: June 9,2009

VERIFIED STATEIIEKT

I, Michael Pavlock, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Response in

Opposition to Petition to Hold Decision are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,

information and belief.

Date 3

vs .

PRAECIPE FOR SUMMONS

TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF S A I D COURT: \

c -4 , -4 Issue sumRons i n in t h e above case. V {

P W r i t of Sumnons shall be issued a

Supreme Court I D No. 707 d g * * * * DATE :

, i SUMMONS I N CIVIL ACTION

I

/e- ,/

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION

CHARLES E. GRATZ a/Ma CHUCK GRATZ, TRUDY GRATZ, his wife, d/b/a CHUCK GRATZ LIMOUSINE SERVICE

Plaintiffs

vs

GOLDEN INVESTMENT ACQUISTIONS LLC and MICHAEL PAVLOK

Defendants

W N m w LL

.- . . ..

NO.

06-5367

TYPE OF PLEADING: COMPLAINT

FILED ON BEHALF OF: PLAINTIFFS

COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR THIS PARTY:

JAMES A MARCHEWKA ESQ PA ID 70928 222 W PIKE STREET CANONSBURG PA 15317 724-746-1 140

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION

CHARLES E. GRATZ alWa CHUCK GRATZ, TRUDY GRATZ, his wife, d/b/a CHUCK GRATZ LIMOUSINE S E RVlC E

Plaintiffs

vs

GOLDEN INVESTMENT ACQUISTIONS LLC and MICHAEL PAVLOK

Defendants

NOTICE TO DEFEND

TO: DEFENDANTS

You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, your must take prompt action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you ail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORAMTJON ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

Washington Lawyer Referral Service 119 South College Street Washington, PA 15301

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION

CHARLES E. GRATZ a/Wa CHUCK GRATZ, TRUDY GRATZ, his wife, d/b/a CHUCK GRATZ LIMOUSINE S ERVlC E

Plaintiffs

vs

GOLDEN INVESTMENT ACQUISTIONS LLC and MICHAEL PAVLOK

Defendants

COMPLAINT

AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, by and through their attorney, James A. Marchewka, Esquire and files this Complaint and in support thereof avers the following:

1. The Plainti, Charles E. Gratz and Trudy Gratz are married individuals residing at 255 County Club Road, Washington, PA.

2. Gratz Limousine Service is a registered ficitious name with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and owned and operated by the aforementioned Plaintiff with an address of 31 5 % Jefferson Avenue, Washington, PA.

3. The Defendant, Golden Investment Acquisitions LLC is a West Virginia limited liability corporation with a place of business at 12 Mont Chateau Road, Morgantown, County of Moncungalia, West Virginia.

4. Michael Pavlok is an adult individual residing in Monogahelia County, West Virginia.

COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PLAINTIFFS vs QEFENQANTS

5. On or about March 31, 2006, the parties entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of the limousine service known as Chuck Gratz Limousine Service. A copy of the contract is attached hereto. (Ex. I)

6.

7.

8.

9.

Pursuant to the contract, the purchase price was supposed made as listed below:

$1 7,500.00 (non refundable deposit) February 14, 2006 $20,000.00 March 14, 2006 $23,500.00 March 31,2006 $57,000.00 April 14,2006 $57,000.00 at closing

The Defendants have failed to make timely payments and several payments have been late.

The payments that have been made have only been made after the bank has returned the checks for non-sufficient funds.

Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Contract, the closing was to take place on May 14, 2006. However, the closing had not taken place.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants are in breach of contract and the Plaintiffs demand specific performance.

COUNT II REPLEVIN PLANTiFFS vs DEFENDANTS

10. Pursuant to an oral agreement between the parties, the Plaintiffs delivered the vehicles listed in Exhibit 1 of the Contract on or about February 2006.

11. On or about NQvember 2006, the vehicle titles for 10 of the vehicles were turned over to the Defendants. The two vehicles remaining in the possession of the Defendant are still registered to the Plaintiff.

12. Due to the Defendants failure to close on the aforementioned contract, the Plaintiffs hereby demands the vehicles still under the Plaintiffs’ registration and presently in the possession of the Defendants be returned forthwith to the Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request the vehicles still under registration and in the possession of the Defendants be returned forthwith to the Plaintiffs.

COUNT 111 BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT PLAINTIFFS vs MtCHAEL PAVLOK

13. The Plaintiffs and Michael Pavlok entered into business relations.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

The Defendant, Michael Pavlok is a purported principal and director of Golden investment Acquisitions, LLC.

On or about November 2006, the Defendant-Pavlok agreed to pay insurance premiums for the limousine service that was acquired by Mr. Gratz.

Despite several assurances to James A. Marchewka, Esquire, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Fedele Insurance, the Defendant-Pavlok has failed to make the proper insurance payments and a notice of cancellation has occurred on the insurance policy.

The cancellation severally hinders the Plaintiffs ability to get re-insurance and ability to operate or effectively transfer their license as per the contract.

The Defendant-Pavlok has failed to make the payments and has breached the contract.

As a direct, approximate and legal result of the breach of contract, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of potential business revenue.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor against the Defenda nt-Pavlo k.

c-

V E R I F I C A T I O N

1, Ji-&f- 4: /d&q/$y&+&~,~(do hereby verify that the statements

made in this

correct. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18

Pa.C.S. $4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

are true and to l by&# f 4 '7-

BY /'

I "

PRIVATE 'GWIMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WASHINGTON

2 7 - 3 - 0 5 Magistenal Distnct Number - CRJMINAL COMPLAINT

COUNTY OF:

District Juslrce Name Hon

Address 1929-A R O m E 519 SOuTfI MMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA JAY WELLEX

CANONSBURG, PA vs. 15317 DEFENDANT

NAME and ADDRESS

L ~ e l e ~ m n e ( 724 746 - 1227 n cket No.: CR-oooO146-08

(Fill in defendant's name and address) 'N: K 7477131 (Above to be completed by court personnel)

ice: Under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, your complaint may require approval by the attorney for the Commonwealth before it can

1 as much information as you have >dam's RaWElhnlcrly Defendant s Sex Defendant s D 0 B Defendants *ai Secvnfy Number Yhite Asian D Black Female hpanrc Native Amencan 0 Unkncwn Idant's A K A (also known as)

be accepted by the magisterial district court. If the aitorney for the Cornmonweaith disapproves your corcplaint, YOU i ~ i petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision of the attorney for the Cornmonwsaltg

6C3 C', -- i": 1 J

m a l e

Delendanr 5 Vehicle intormatm OefendanFabrtGGs mnse wtxr 0 P7 Plate Number State Aeglstraf~onSficker(MM/YY) State 7.j 22 T-, -,< _I cJ7 i > - I_

-7 -2- "-l (yJ 7 1 4 -

I L.T3 (13 Ti?, -3 -7 ...z ,"7 I-" ,.. d 1 . a <3 0 r:r

0 0 c 3 (Name of Complamanl . Please Print or Type) 'T 7

iereby state: (check the appropriate box) rn PI u m a c c u s e t h e above named defendant who lives at the address set forth above

I accuse the defendant whose name is unknown to me but who is described as

I accuse the defendant whose name and popular designation or nickname is unknown to me and whom 1 have therefore designated as John Doe

with violating the penal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 14 Fa/ (Piace-P&!iCal Subdimson)-

in stf-/ufi rfJ /t/ County on or about / I -dg-a 7j

Participants were: (if there were participants, place their names here, rspeating the nzme of above defendanij

The acts committed by the accused were: (Set forth a summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offense charged. A citation to the statute allegedly violated, without more, is not sufficient. In a summary case, you must cite the specific section and subsection of the statute or ordinance allegedly violated.)

'031

MICHAEL PAYLOK

Docket Number: CR-oooO146-08

all of which were against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and contrary to the Act of Assembly, or in violation of 3 2 . i f (Secttbn) 3CZ2 and

(Subsemon) ofthe-/& p . ' ~ 3 r-"c p - (PA Statute)

I ask that process be issued and that the defendant be required to answer the charges I have made.

1 verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (1 8 Pa.C.S. 3 4904) relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

7 -

3

4

d

C

(to be completed and filed with EVERY Private Criminal Complaint)

AFFIANT: (person filing complaint)

DEFENDANT: (against whom)

If known date of birth

Relationship of Affiant to defendant, if any. (how affiant knows defendant- ex-spouse, relative, neighbor, friend, employee, etc, o r no relationship)

STATEMENT OF FACTS: (Please state in as much detail as possibie ai1 of the facts as to what happened concerning the incident upon which the charges are filed.)

f incident 12 -AS--& "time "Township qo& - k d

lGES BEING FILED:

; -. e

! '

WITNESSES TO ALLEGED INCIDENT: (please give the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any persons who observed the events and are wilting to testify on behalf of the affiant.)

Magisterial District Judge 27-3-05 DOCKET

000146-08 Criminal Docket

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

PAVLOK, MICHAEL v.

Page 1 of 1

Judge Assigned: WELLER, JAY 3TN: K 747713-1

Issue Date: File Date: 0312512008

Westing Agency: 4rresting Officer: ;omplaint/lncident # Zounty: rownship:

Uame: late Of Birth:

Case Disp: Withdrawn Disp Date: 08/12/2008 Requested: $0.00

WASHINGTON Judgment: $0.00 SOUTH STRABANE TWP Case Status: Adjudicated

DEFENDANT INFORMATI PAVLOK, MICHAEL Address: ANTOWN, W 26508

Sex: Race:

CHARGES ,

..... . ... ............. ............................................. .. . .... .. #-.C!!!!93 - .5%.?de - .-esation __ DiSP!?S~9!! ____.I ~

1 18S3921 §§A THEFT BY UNLAW TAKING-MOVABLE PROP Withdrawn (Lower Court) 2 18 § 3922 89 A I THEFT BY DECEP-FALSE IMPRESSION Withdrawn (Lower Court)

CALENDAR Status

35/05/2008 1 1 :00 AM Preliminary Hearing CONT 36/10/2008 09:30 AM Preliminary Hearing CONT

_ _ ...... __ . . Event Type Schedule QS-.- __ _~ ._

3811 212008 1 1 :00 AM Preliminary Hearing WD

Total Due: $0.00 Total Adj: $0.00 Total Paid: $0.00 Balance. $0 00

%!unlmons _Date .. -.Summ9nsActkn ........... . . . .. - ._

SUMMONS

34/02/2008 SUMMONS ACCEPTED

AFFIANT INFORMATION Name: GRATZ, CHARLES E

1200

....... ..

- Printed 06/09/2009 11 17 am

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unitied Judiaal System of he Cornmnweatth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Offrce of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any Iiabiri for i n m r a t e or delayed data, errors or xnissions on these docket sheets. Docket sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check, which can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Employers who do not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record Information Act (18 Pa.C.S. Section 9101 et seq.) may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.