Criminal Report Submitted to PA Attorney General (Part 5A)

Criminal Report: Part 5A

Introduction

This two-part report of elderly abuse in Perry County, Pa has caught the attention of two national groups that defend the rights of elderly. We are working in co-operation with Kasem Cares Foundation  and CEAR Justice  (Center For Estate Administration Reform). Both of these organization believe this case involving Perry County has national implications because the tactics used against the elder abuse can be applied in many states. These tactics could force Pennsylvania to comply with both state and federal law. We have the full backing and support of these organizations.

To fully understand what happened in Perry County, go to: Part 1

SIGN THE PETITION TO PROTECT THE ELDERLY

We are asking you to sign our petition to Attorney General Shapiro to have the law enforced and restore the rights of the elderly in Perry County, Pa. After reading this report, it is important you sign the petition to the PA Attorney General to enforce the law and provide the elderly with a civil rights suit. You can go to: Sign the Petition.

Contacting DA Andrew Bender

After reading this report and you want to show your dissatisfaction and express your opinion how DA Bender handled this investigation involving the elderly, you may write to: District Attorney Andrew Bender, PO Box 305, New Bloomfield, PA 17068;  Call: 717 582-5120; Fax: 717 582-5163; FaceBook

If DA Bender or Solicitor Allshouse believes anything in this post is incorrect, he is free to contact me, and if corrections are needed I will address them. John Holman: [email protected]

Background of the Investigation

District Attorney Bender

This investigation started over the rights of the elderly at Kinkora Nursing Home to have the visitors of their choice. From this, it escalated all the way to the involvement of District Attorney Andrew Bender, and ended by him conducting his own bizarre investigation. You will see from this report that DA Bender acted in a way the evidence points to him abandoning the protection of the elderly and acting in a way that appears to hide a possible crime  by the the Penn Township Police.

From the evidence, it appears that DA Bender violated his rules of conduct and ethic rules. During DA Bender’s “investigation”, he ignored the evidence that I and former federal agent John McTernan presented and clearly explained to him. In doing so, he failed to protect the rights of the elderly and to show the crime committed by the Penn Township Police or Kinkora! (On December 28, 2016, the Penn Township Police Department was suspended for budget reasons.)

Background (Please see Part 4 for the full report of my involvement at Kinkora)

On January 1, 2015, I lawfully visited my elderly resident friends at Kinkora Pythian Nursing Home. My wife was with me. Nurse Suzanne Jones was given copies of signed written requests by the residents for me to visit. These signed requests were required by Kinkora Administrator Mitch Himmelberger. Nurse Jones totally ignored the requests. Because of previous bad experiences with staff members, I was given legal advice to record any interference by the staff or abuse of the residence’s rights.

As I was visiting with a friend, Nurse Jones stood at the door entrance and interfered with the meeting. I recorded this entire incidence, and my friend gave me signed permission to record. (To listen to Nurse Jones’ harassment, please go to: Nurse Jones harassment of elderly. I highly recommend before continuing to read this report that you listen as it is shocking to hear the harassment of this elderly woman!)

I left my friend and went to visit another friend. Without my permission, Nurse Jones walked along side me which I considered harassment. I kept the recording going. When I finished visiting my friend, Nurse Jones was at the door along with Penn Township Police Officer Joshua Goodling. I kept the recording going. Almost my entire time at Kinkora was recorded including my interaction with Officer Goodling. At no time did I disregard any of the officers directives. If you listen to the audio, there will be no doubt in your mind that I was innocent of defiant trespass, and keep this in mind as you read the rest of the report. (To listen to this recorded conversation go to: conversation with Officer Goodling. If you listen, it is best to follow with the transcript found at Exhibit 1)

At the end of the meeting, Officer Goodling said that I had cooperated with him, and he would note this in his report. This conversation was transcribed and this section follows:

Attorney Glenn A Parno

A few weeks later I received a letter dated January 16, 2015, from Attorney Glenn A Parno regarding my visit at Kinkora and the interaction with the police officer, staff and residents. In the letter, Attorney Parno stated that I had repeatedly disregarded the police officer’s orders to leave Kinkora and disrupted the staff and residents, thereby causing great alarm. In the future, if I enter Kinkora, the police will arrest me for defiant trespass, and a copy of the letter was sent to the Penn Township police to block me from Kinkora. A portion of this letter follows:

“When confronted by a Penn Township police officer, you repeatedly disregarded the police officers instructions, to leave the premises, thereby disrupting the operations of facility and causing great alarm among the residents and staff…

A copy of this letter is being provided to the Penn Township Police Department. It is my understanding if you enter the Kinkora Pythian Home premises without the express written approval of the Administrator, you will be in violation of 18 P.S. Section 3503 (Defiant Trespass), a misdemeanor offense.” (For the full letter see Exhibit 2)

The recording of my activities at Kinkora is irrefutable proof that this letter falsely reported what happened, and it also violated the Constitutional rights of elderly residing at Kinkora. This letter becomes the very heart of the case against Kinkora and the Penn Township Police, and shows the total disregard of the law regarding the rights of the elderly. It is shocking to see that Attorney Parno was so bold to put this violation of the elderly’s Constitutional rights in writing along with lies about my behavior!

Because this letter was permanently placed on file with the police, I felt it was a derogatory mark against my name that I want cleared. I knew this letter was not true, and I had evidence to prove this. It blocked my lawful right to visit my friends. I believe this letter is crucial to pressing criminal charges against whoever filed this letter and also a possible civil rights case. Since the police report and letter were so critical, I filed a Right-to-Know (RTK) request to obtain a copy of the police report.

DA Charles Chenot

The RTK process was very long. The final decision to release the report was up to the District Attorney of Perry County. During the Summer of 2016, I had telephone conversations with DA Bender. He requested information which I mailed to him in two letters dated August 10,11, 2016. These letters are very important because it proves that DA Bender had detailed knowledge of the elderly’s rights being violated by Kinkora and Perry County officials were aware of this. This included the prior District Attorney Charles Chenot, who made two oral rulings that the elderly’s rights at Kinkora had been violated, and they had a civil rights case.

These ruling by former DA Chenot become very important when examining DA Bender’s private investigation. DA Bender later requested my full investigation, which I sent to him on September 23, 2016. The following is a quote from my August 11, letter about DA Chenot’s statement. His statement was videoed at a Perry County Commissioners’ meeting.

“While Chenot was testifying to inaccurate information about our investigation, McTernan corrected him and Chenot admitted that the residents of Kinkora had a right to a civil lawsuit for having their rights violated if there was evidence. It appears Chenot also forgot he had previously reviewed the evidence with McTernan and had said there was evidence for a civil lawsuit.”

A copy of these letters are attached as Exhibits 3 and 4.

The hearing for the RTK was set for November 17, 2016. Prior to this meeting, I met Brian Peters who later became a Penn Township Supervisor. I explained to Peters the background of the letter on file with the Penn Township police, and I was trying to obtain a copy and police report. I made it clear to Peters I wanted the report for a possible civil rights case against Kinkora and the Penn Township police. Peters agreed to work with me and McTernan, but wanted to keep his help covert.  We met with Peters several times at night in both my home and McTernan’s.

Supervisor Peters facing black shirt, Chief Pickles in uniform left

We continued to work with Supervisor Peters and shortly after the September 30, 2015, Penn Township meeting, he called to setup a meeting with me and McTernan. We met with Peters at my residence.

Supervisor Peters expressed concerns about activities of his police department violating citizens civil rights. He was very concerned about a civil rights suit against Penn Township because of illegal actions of Chief Pickles. In particular, he expressed concern about Supervisor Henry Holman (no relation to me) and Chief Pickles conspiring to charge a Duncannon, PA, EMT with a crime, when the evidence pointed to his innocence. The EMT went to trial and was quickly acquitted. He cited Holman’s animosity toward the EMS personal as the reason for the conspiracy!

On August 31, 2016, Supervisor Peters called me and said that he had spoken to Penn Township Solicitor Mark W. Allshouse, who advised him not to provide the affidavit unless he was subpoenaed. Supervisor Peters said Solicitor Allshouse informed him the information he obtained from Chief Pickles was confidential and privileged because he had participated in the conversation in the Penn Township building after the meeting adjoined. Even though the meeting was adjoined, this conversation constituted a continuation of the adjoined meeting! I advised Supervisor Peters that his statement was evidence of a crime and as a public official he had no right to conceal it.

Perry County Courthouse, New Bloomfield, PA

The hearing took place at the Perry County Courthouse with Penn Township’s attorney present. John McTernan assisted me. This meeting was on the record, so before the hearing, I asked DA Bender if I could record it. He said no because he was recording and would provide me with a copy.  He also said I could provide a brief of the hearing. Everything appeared normal until I began to reveal the evidence about a potential crime committed by the Penn Township police.

District Attorney Bender Appears to Deviate From His Professional Rules of Conduct

At this point, DA Bender stopped the recording and said he wanted to talk with us in a private meeting. He said we would be limited at this meeting, and I could give all the information in private. I believed DA Bender thinking the private meeting would be better and agreed. This was a huge mistake on my part because I believe he actually wanted this information off the record. Later, he said the recording failed and there was no recording of anything said at the meeting! This hearing was the first indicator of DA Bender going rogue with plenty more to follow.

We went into the private meeting and immediately we realized something was strange. DA Bender asked us to explain the evidence and then never asked one question! McTernan and I went into great detail explaining the evidence, but he remained silent. I am unaware of any notes he took. His silence was bizarre.

McTernan went into great lengths to explain the letter dated January 16, 2015, from Kinkora Attorney Glen A. Parno (See Exhibit 2), and how the restrictions on elderly violated both state and federal law. He was shown the key aspects of the law but failed to respond. He did not seem to know the legal difference between “incompetent” and “incapacitated”, so McTernan showed him the law. McTernan also explained the part of this letter from Kinkora to the Penn Township police claiming I disrupted the facility and disregarded the police. This part of the letter follow:

“When confronted by a Penn Township police officer, you repeatedly disregarded the officer’s instructions to leave the premises, thereby disrupting the operations of the facility and causing great alarm among the residents and staff.”

DA Bender was made aware of the transcript of the recording made regarding this event and he already had the recording. He was told the transcript would show at all times I obeyed the police officer and never caused a disturbance. There was no doubt that DA Bender was shown and understood all the key evidence. He must have understood because he did not ask any questions.

I told him about DA Chenot giving two ruling that the elderly had a civil rights case against Kinkora. I already provided him with this information in a letter dated August 11, 2016, but reinforced it during this meeting. He was shown the transcript of a resident being harassed by Nurse Jones and was provided with a copy of the recording. I told him the police report was needed for a potential law suit.

I also clearly explained to him that I followed the rules laid out in letter dated September 23, 2014, from Kinkora Attorney Capozzi (See Exhibit 4), who stated that I had to have written permission from the elderly to visit. This was the only stipulation. I showed him the written permission slips, so he knew I followed the demand and was not trespassing. I told him I gave the slips to Nurse Jones, and she called the police anyways! He had all this in writing and now orally from us.

McTernan also told DA Bender about what information Supervisor Peters had provided to us; however, he refused to appear without a subpoena. McTernan asked if he was going to call Peters: he said no, it is up to him to call me! This added to the bizarre setting of this meeting because the information related to official corruption by Chief Pickles and possibly Kinkora Administrator Himmelberger!

At the end of the meeting, McTernan asked DA Bender if he had a copy of the police report, and he said “yes”. McTernan responded by saying then this is easy because all you have to do is listen to the recording and compare it to the report!

The Brief of the RTK Meeting

We left this meeting both bewildered and baffled. McTernan said in his 26 year career as a Federal Agent he dealt with both federal and state prosecutors and never had anyone act like DA Bender. We realized DA Bender’s bizarre behavior was a sign that he was not going to carry through with a real look at the evidence, but he was going to ignore this. We were correct.

In the brief, I decided to highlight both key facts presented to the DA and also the criminal aspect. In the criminal section, I said this information was referred to him as a criminal complaint never dreaming that he would conduct his own private investigation outside the law! This is where DA Bender goes fully into the realm of “going rogue”! (See brief Exhibit 7)

 DA Bender’s Odd Behavior

In a letter dated December 7, 2016, DA Bender denied my Right to Know request (See Exhibit 16). He went into great detail about the event on January 1, 2015, which triggered the police report. From the beginning, DA Bender’s finding is completely off, even though, we spent so much time showing him the evidence. It is impossible for him to mistakenly make such a error. The issue is whether I had a legal right to be at Kinkora, and I showed him the evidence. He totally disregarded the evidence and apparently interviewed unknown members of Kinkora staff, but likely Administrator Himmelberger. He then used this testimony in an attempt to offset the evidence!

I later found out DA Bender conducted his own private investigation of this matter outside the law, and this comes out in this finding. DA Bender claimed this was a legal dispute between me and Penn Township and only the both of us were at the hearing. Kinkora was not at this hearing, yet DA Bender interviewed Kinkora staff to offset my meeting with him, the evidence I presented, and my brief. What DA Bender did was use this interview to setup that I was at Kinkora under threat of defiant trespass and Kinkora had the right to call the police and Office Goodling had the right to demand me to leave. He made this a criminal investigation of me, and then he made his ruling under the pretext that it was a criminal investigation.

From the beginning of his finding, it appears the police were responding to a legitimate call from Kinkora, and I was guilty of defiant trespassing: therefore, I was the subject of a bona-fide criminal investigation. By doing this, it really does appear that he “framed” me.

The following is from DA Bender’s finding:

“Mr. Holman presented his own testimony and brief testimony from Mr. McTernin. Mr: Holman testified that he visited residents at Kinkora to offer religious counsel, pray with them and read Scripture. Mr. Holman testified that the residents he visited all requested his visitations, and that on January 1, 2015 he was removed from Kinkora Nursing Home by Officer Goodling at the request of Kinkora staff for allegedly violating a no trespass notice.

Mr. Holman indicated that this incident related to an ongoing dispute he had with Kinkora staff on whether he was permitted to visit residents at the facility. Mr. Holman’s position is that he is entitled to visit with residents who desired visitation with him.

Kinkora’s position would be very different as they served Mr. Holman with no trespass notices which underlie the reason for Officer Goodling being called to the home on January 1, 2015.

For the reasons set forth below, the underlying dispute between Mr. Holman and Kinkora on his visitation with residents is immaterial to the question whether Mr. Holman is entitled to a copy of Officer Goodling’s police report.”

The evidence which I provided to DA Bender both in writing and oral, made it absolutely crystal clear to him I had every legal right to be at Kinkora and the complaint was bogus. This is what happened. Around the end of April, 2014, I went to Kinkora to visit with my friends. While I was visiting, Administrator Himmelberger called and we spoke. He said I was no longer allowed at Kinkora, and if I returned it would be considered trespassing. He refused to tell me why, so I left. I obeyed Himmelberger’s demand and did not return.

Without any prior notice, I received a letter dated September 18, 2014, from Attorney Louis Capozzi. He represents Kinkora. This letter was a follow up to my conversation with Himmelberger in April. My only contact with Himmelberger was through his law firm. In the letter, I received clear instructions on what was needed to allow me back to Kinkora. The instructions were not complicated, and what I needed to do was obtain written permission by a resident, the resident’s guardian or been invited by the Administrator.

A copy of this letter follows:

I decided to visit my friends for New Years, so a friend of mine visited Kinkora and spoke with my friends. She obtained written requests to visit as required by Attorney Capozzi’s letter. After the letter dated September 14, I had no additional contact with Attorney Capozzi or anyone connected to Kinkora. When I visited Kinkora, I was there following the exact written instructions needed. My presence was lawful, and I was not under the threat of defiant trespass. After entering, I encountered Nurse Jones and told her I had the permission slips and gave her copies.

Nurse Jones immediately began to harass me and my friend. As previously stated, I had written permission to record this harassment. On the recording, Nurse Jones said Administrator Himmelberger was on the telephone and wanted to speak with me. I refused. Himmelberger knew I was in Kinkora, and he knew I had the permission slips. It is my belief that Himmelberger called the Penn Township police. He knew I followed the instructions of his law firm and yet called the police to have me arrested for defiant trespass, when I was not trespassing and had every right to be at Kinkora by his own law firm instructions!

DA Bender knew all about the law firm’s requirement to visit because I personally told him and showed him all the evidence. He knew I was not trespassing, and yet he framed his findings that I was served with no trespass notices and this is why Officer Goodling was called! This was done so he could make his finding based on the report being criminal! He is very cleaver, but the evidence shows what he did. A part of DA Bender’s finding follows:

“Kinkora’s position would be very different as they served Mr. Holman with no trespass notices which underlie the reason for Officer Goodling being called to the home on January 1, 2015.”

In addition to the above evidence, the letter from Attorney Parno dated January 16, 2015, (Exhibit 2) supports I was never served with any trespass notices. This letter refers back to Attorney Capozzi’s dated September 18, 2014. (Exhibit 6) Attorney Parno’s letter makes no reference to any prior trespass notices, but to the fact I needed written approval to visit. Attorney Parno never claimed I trespassed when I visited on January 1, 2015, but he disagreed with the written permission slips I presented. He claimed all the residents were “incompetent”; therefore, their permission slips were invalid.

These two letters were my only contact with Kinkora since April 2014. Whoever provided DA Bender with this information made a false statement, and his RTK request finding was based on this false information. I was not subject to a criminal investigation for defiant trespass, but I had every right to visit.

Whoever called the police told them I was trespassing which I was not. When Officer Goodling spoke with me, he said I could be arrested right now for defiant trespass! Obviously, someone told him, I was previously warned. If the police report shows the complainant was Administrator Himmelberger, he made a false report and was using the police to strong-arm me off the premises! Officer Goodling from the transcript:

(OG) I am telling you if you refuse to leave I will charge you with defiant trespass which is a misdemeanor. (See Exhibit 1)

How would DA Bender know Kinkora claimed I was served with several trespass notices? It was not in my report nor did it come out in the hearing or the later meeting. The explanation is he conducted his own private investigation which I go into great detail in the next section. Did this investigation include speaking with Administrator Himmelberger, who might be the subject of a criminal investigation for sending a false report to the police? This is very troubling and appears to be beyond unethical but possibly into the realm of obstruction of justice.

The last thing about his finding is about how bizarre his reasoning process operates. He writes about the details of the incident and how he conducted an investigation and was told there were several no trespassing warnings against me, but then he writes none of this matters and is immaterial to the question whether I am entitled to the report! Why did he conduct his own investigation and write about it in his findings, if it was immaterial! It was extremely material because it set me up as being under a criminal investigation! This section of the finding follows:

“For the reasons set forth below, the underlying dispute between Mr. Holman and Kinkora on his visitation with residents is immaterial to the question whether Mr. Holman is entitled to a copy of Officer Goodling’s police report.”

It appears DA Bender gave a lot of thought and did cleaver writing, but the writing in this finding and other evidence all points to the real possibility of a conspiracy between him, Penn Township and now Kinkora to deprive the elderly of their Constitutional rights and frame me as a criminal subject to arrest!

DA Bender handled both this RTK request and the investigation by himself. It is apparent he did both outside the requirements of the law. The law states the district attorney shall designate an appeals officer to hear appeals relating to access to criminal investigative records in possession of a local agency. It is the appeals officer who determines if the record is part of a criminal investigative and not the DA. What DA Bender did was appoint himself to make the determination instead of appointing someone as the law requires! The law follows:

Pennsylvania’s New Right to Know Law Act 3 of 2008, Effective January 1, 2009

(d) Law enforcement records and Statewide officials.

(2) The district attorney of a county shall designate one or more appeals officers to hear appeals under Chapter 11 relating to access to criminal investigative records in possession of a local agency of that county. The appeals officer designated by the district attorney shall determine if the record requested is a criminal investigative record.

This law fits the exact situation of my RTK request for the report from the Penn Township police. This was a local agency in Perry County under DA Bender jurisdiction! Because DA Bender failed to follow this law, his decision should be reopened so that it follows the law. An independent appeals officer should make the decision and not DA Bender. Why did DA Bender fail to follow the law? Because he failed, it appears he was trying to hide the report from me.

This only gets worse for DA Bender because he conducted a private investigation also outside the law. The information in the next section proves this.

DA Bender’s response to my Criminal Complaint.

In a letter dated January 13, 2017, Regarding Private Criminal Complaint, DA Bender denied my request for a criminal investigation. In this letter, he admitted initiating his private investigation without the proper form as required by Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, and then he conducted his own private investigation! He admitted to conducting his own investigation by interviewing potential witnesses!  (To read this letter, see Exhibit 8)

A section of DA Bender’s letter dated January 13, 2016 follows:

“I have reviewed the criminal complaint you submitted to this office, a copy of which is attached. While the complaint is not in the form typically required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, I assume based on our previous discussions that you wish for me to treat this document as a private criminal complaint…

I am denying your private criminal complaint. I have reviewed the materials you submitted in support of your complaint, discussed the events with potential witnesses who could be called as witnesses if charges were approved, and reviewed the law enforcement agency’s response to the original complaint that prompted this complaint. After conducting this review, I have concluded that insufficient evidence has been presented demonstrating that any of the above-referenced crimes were committed. As such, I cannot approve criminal charges.”

The law does not give any option other than the required form for a private criminal complaint to the DA. It appears this form is for record keeping. DA Bender just ignored the law! The law is very detailed about what information is to be reported on the form. Is there even any record of the DA Bender conducting this investigation? I think not! This was a rogue investigation, but for what reason?

The required form needed is titled Private Criminal Complaint and must be filled out by the person making the complaint known as the Affiant. According to the law, there does not appear any option by the district attorney for not using this form when a complaint is received. The law follows:

Title 234 Rules of Criminal Procure: Rule 506  Approval of Private Complaints.

(A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without unreasonable delay. (B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth: (2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision. For the contents of a private complaint, see Rule 504. In all cases where the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint must be submitted for approval or disapproval by the attorney for the Commonwealth.

The form is detailed with a description of the alleged crime and details why the district attorney rejected the complaint. The person filing the form does so under the penalty of perjury. It appears that this form is also used for record keeping. (To review this form, see Exhibit 9).

In stead of following the law, DA Bender decided to ignore it, go rogue and do his private investigation outside of the law. He could have called me, and I could have easily completed the form and signed it as the affiant. I only live a short distance from his office. He decided to do his own private investigation, including interviewing witnesses, outside the law! Why did he go rouge? Did he do it so there would be no official record he conducted this investigation? This is added to there was no recording of the hearing, and he failed to follow the law regarding the RTK request!

By DA Bender conducting his private investigation, he potentially tainted a prosecution. If a witness made admissions that corroborated the evidence, DA Bender becomes a witness in a crime that his office would prosecute! I am not aware of a DA ever being a witness under circumstances like this. What if a witness lied to him? Could the DA prosecute the person? Why did he do this? He took a chance on creating a tremendous conflict of interest: bizarre!  Maybe he didn’t take a chance because he knew what the witnesses were going to say before he interviewed them! Did he really interview anyone? There was no legitimate reason for him to do this.  Remember, whatever he did was outside the law!

The American Bar Association, under its Criminal Justice Standards Section warns against DA Bender’s actions. This would cover DA Bender’s investigation. The DA is warned about being the sole interviewer and becoming an essential witness to any aspect of the investigation! This section follows:

American Bar Association (Criminal Justice Section Standards)

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations: Standard 2.2 Selecting Investigative Techniques

(f) The prosecutor should avoid being the sole interviewer of a witness, being alone with a witness, or otherwise becoming an essential witness to any aspect of the investigation.

DA Bender with Chief Pickles

Conflict of Interest

This investigation involved an official corruption complaint against the Penn Township police. DA Bender conducted his private investigation involving the Penn Township, Chief of Police Pickles and Officer Goodling. If he knows Chief Pickles or had criminal cases and prosecutions with him, this is a conflict of interest! The same with Officer Goodling. Why not give this matter to the State Police to interview any potential witnesses and avoid a conflict of interest?

By DA Bender doing his own private investigation of possible official corruption, he cast a dark cloud over his action.

My Response to DA Bender’s January 13, letter

In response, I sent him a letter dated February 13, 2017, requesting clarification on what my rights were to visit Kinkora. This letter in part follows:

“This letter is in response to your letter dated January 13, 2017.  In your letter you declined to prosecute people from Kinkora Pythian nursing home and the Penn Township police who entered in a conspiracy to deny the residents of Kinkora and me of our rights. Your ruling leaves issues which needs clarification, so I know how to act within the law…

As you know from the report of investigation that I submitted to you, I did not commit defiant trespass. At all times when visiting Kinkora, I acted within the law.  I  intend to visit my friends at Kinkora accompanied by several people who will video the entire episode; therefore, you will have evidence of my activities to ensure I acted within the law…” (To read this letter, see Exhibit 10)

DA Bender responded to my letter in a letter dated March 3, 2017. In this letter, he first admits that the private criminal complaint was not in the format required by law, but proceeded to conduct his own investigation! The question immediately comes to mind again, why did he fail to comply with the law?  (To read this letter, see Exhibit 11)

“First, with regard to the private criminal complaint you asked me to review, your statement that I declined to prosecute individuals who entered into a conspiracy to deny Kinkora residents and you of your rights completely mischaracterizes the actions I took.

You filed a private criminal complaint with this office. The complaint you filed was not in the format required by law. However, you informed me of the allegations you were making, provided me with what you believed was evidence in support of charges and advised me of the specific charges you were alleging. Therefore, I felt I had sufficient information to review your complaint, and did so despite any technical deficiencies.”

DA Bender’s letter continues with details of his investigation. Before examining this part of the letter, it is an important reminder to what was the focus of my action and what was needed to prove a crime was committed. With the evidence I presented to DA Bender, his investigation was very simple. There was only three pieces of evidence he needed to look at and compare. There really was no one to interview to make this case. The Penn Township police report was the focus of my RTK action, and it was critical to identifying if a crime was committed. This was the first piece of evidence for the DA to review. The second was the recording of my meeting on January 1, 2015. He also had a transcript of the meeting. The third was the letter dated January 16, 2015,  from Attorney Glenn Parno. In this letter, Attorney Parno said the following:

“When confronted by a Penn Township police officer, you repeatedly disregarded the police officers instructions, to leave the premises, thereby disrupting the operations of facility and causing great alarm among the residents and staff…A copy of this letter is being provided to the Penn Township Police Department. It is my understanding if you enter the Kinkora Pythian Home premises without the express written approval of the Administrator, you will be in violation of 18 P.S. Section 3503 (Defiant Trespass), a misdemeanor offense.” (For full letter, see Exhibit 2)

The recording and transcript I provided to DA Bender was incontrovertible proof of the events of what happened. The recording shows that at no time did I disrupt the operation of Kinkora or alarm any of the residents and staff. It also showed that at no time did I disregard the police officers instruction.

The letter from Attorney Parno was fraudulent as proven by the recording. This letter was sent to the police to have me arrested if I went to Kinkora. A crime was committed by submitting a false letter to the police, and it is a crime for the Penn Township to knowingly accept a false this letter as an open criminal investigation of me! This is very easy to prove just by listening to the recording. It appears DA Bender failed to do this even after it was pointed out to him on the meeting of November 17, 2016. How could he miss such and easy step? Something is not adding up with DA Bender’s actions.

The next obvious missed investigation step was to compare the recorded meeting with the police report. If the report claimed, I had disregarded the officer’s instructions and caused a disturbance, then this report was fraudulent as proven by the recording. At the end of the recording, Officer Goodling said the following: (If you want to listen, I recommend you follow with the full transcript, see Exhibit 1)

(John Holman)  I understand, I totally understand, its your job.  We never came in here to make problems.

(Officer Goodling)  I appreciate your cooperation.

(Officer Goodling)  I will make sure it says that on my report.

Perry County, PA

New Evidence

(OG) I do understand that there’s some people that do want you here, I’m not denying that, OK , however it is up to the director OK. Now however you go about getting permission here it needs to go through the director. All right, I’m just trying to tell that you that for your future, if I have to come back and your here without the directors permission I am going to charge you with defiant trespass.

Penn Township Solicitor Mark Allshouse

On August 28, 2016, I spoke with Supervisor Peters. I asked him to provide an affidavit detailing the conversation between Chief Pickles and Supervisor Holman on September 30, 2015.  He said he would. On August 31, 2016, Supervisor Peters called and said that he had spoken to Solicitor Allshouse, who advised him not to provide the affidavit unless he was subpoenaed. Supervisor Peters said Solicitor Allshouse informed him the information he obtained from Chief Pickles was confidential and privileged because he had participated in the conversation in the Penn Township building after the meeting adjoined. Even though the meeting was adjoined, this conversation constituted a continuation of the adjoined meeting! On August 31, 2016, I sent a letter to DA Bender reporting that Solicitor Allshouse had blocked Supervisor Peters from providing information about a crime unless he was subpoenaed. (See Exhibit 15)

It is impossible to understand Solicitor Allshouse reasoning for the subpoena. How can a conversation after an adjourned meeting be part of the original meeting? The Township meeting falls under the Sunshine Act, Section 704. This means the meeting was open to the public and not closed so all information is public. By Allshouse connecting the Peters – Pickles meeting to the Township meeting means, it falls under Sunshine law and is open to the public; therefore, the conversation is public information and no subpoena is needed.

Solicitor Allshouse was fully aware the events involving Kinkora and the Penn Township police, which included a possible lawsuit by me and the elderly residents. At the January 27, 2015, Supervisors meeting he recused himself from this issue, and said he would not give legal advice to me or the Township, but then in August 2016, he advised Supervisor Peters not to provide his knowledge of a crime unless he was subpoenaed! His subpoena could only be for blocking Supervisor Peters from reporting evidence of a crime.

When the time drew close for the hearing about my RTK request, Solicitor Allshouse sent a letter to DA Bender recusing himself from the hearing. On January 27, 2015, he already recused himself, but that did not stop him from giving advice to Supervisor Peters!

I sent a letter dated October 31, 2016, to Solicitor Allshouse connecting his legal advice to Supervisor Peters to only respond to a subpoena, to Peters’ knowledge of crime committed by the Penn Township police. He never responded to my letter and Peters never appeared at the meeting. (See Exhibit 5)

It appears that by recusing himself from the hearing it was a way of protecting himself from being challenged during the hearing while his testimony was being recorded. It is difficult to think of any rational scenario for why Solicitor Allshouse acted like he did.

Verifying the Supervisor Peters’ interaction with Solicitor Allshouse

On February 28, 2017, I along with John McTernan and Gary Korth, attended a Penn Township public meeting. My purpose for attending this meeting was to confront Supervisor Chairman Gary Peters for not attending the hearing with District Attorney Andrew Bender after he received a written request from me to attend, and also to confront Penn Township Solicitor Allshouse for requiring Chairman Peters to be subpoenaed to attend the meeting. I also confronted both Chairman Peters and Solicitor Allshouse to resign their positions. This meeting was video recorded and transcribed (See Exhibit 17).

During the meeting, I stated the history of my interaction with Peters along with details about my request that he attend the hearing with the DA and also Peters’ claim that at Solicitor Allhouse’s directive, he could not attend the meeting unless subpoenaed. Chairman Peters listened to my entire testimony but failed to respond. I requested that Chairman Peters resign. A partial section of my testimony follows:

“On August 28, 2016, I spoke with supervisor Peters in person and told him DA Bender wanted to have all the information regarding my right to know requesting the report of the investigation by Penn township police. I asked him to provide an affidavit detailing the conversation between Pickles and Holman and he said he would. On August 30, 2016, Peters called me informed me that he had spoken to Penn Township solicitor Allshouse. Allshouse advised him not provide an affidavit unless he was subpoenaed. Allshouse told Peter’s the information was confidential and privileged and because he had participated in the conversation in the township building after the meeting adjourned his conversation.”

Following my testimony, John McTernan also testified. He supported what I said and then added more information about Chairman Peters’ failure to report a crime to the DA without being subpoenaed. Peters failed to respond to McTernan’s testimony. A partial section of McTernan’s testimony follows:

“I’m going to follow up with additional information which Mr Holman spoke Our goal here is for the public to know behind the scenes what Mr Peters is doing and that we are requesting that he resign because he has no credibility, so I will add more information so everybody here can understand what happened.

This involves the elderly’s rights being violated at Kinkora, which he knows he is. He has knowledge of the Penn Township Police working in concert with Kinkora because he came to my house and he told me about it in the presence of John Holman.

He was requested to give this information to the district attorney, which he refused to do. First He said he would. Then he refused to do it based on information from the town, solicitor, why we don’t know Then he then the letter here, which was given to him requesting his presence at a meeting with the district attorney which you were at.

I was at Mr Holman was at we spent a lot of time with the district attorney after the meeting laying things out. He was asked to come to provide his firsthand knowledge, but what was going on, with Chief Pickles here, and Mitch Himmelberger and the employees at Kinkora, he refused to do it. He is the Commissioner, he is the police weren’t functioning then. He didn’t come. He didn’t. He had knowledge of a crime which you didn’t come and tell the district attorney. I have it in writing right here.”

In addition to the above testimony, McTernan requested that Chairman Peters accompany us to meet with the DA and provide all the information about the Penn Township Police and Kinkora. He did not agree to meet with the DA. He also admitted that John Holman approached him about giving an affidavit. A transcript of this follows:

JM: John McTernan; GP: Gary Peters; JH: John Holman

JM: (Time 13:24) Ok Commissioner. Commissioner Peters we’re requesting you to come with us to meet with district attorney Bender and explain all the knowledge you had about Chief Pickles

GP: what authority do you have.

JM: Are going to hide behind the subpoena, know your knowledge.

GP: Wait, wait Is this under federal investigation is it or what

JH: What you did is not

GP: Is it under federal investigation

JH: what you did is not

GP: Is it under federal investigation

JH: What you did is not under federal investigation

GP: Why did you say I needed this affidavit because it was under federal investigation

JM: no, no, that affidavit was for the court for the court

GP: Ok, fake news.

JH: we asked you to come and give testimony and you refused

Possible Reason for DA Bender’s Actions

When putting all the evidence together, what appears happened was DA Bender and Solicitor Allshouse along with Supervisor Peters entered into a conspiracy to hide evidence of a crime by the Penn Township police. The police worked in concert with Himmelberger and possible employees of Kinkora to deny the elderly residents their Constitutional rights and me of my rights. The police were willingly used as a strong-arm to remove me from Kinkora under the penalty of arrest. The police filed a fraudulent report of the incident and then accepted a fraudulent letter from Attorney Glenn Parno, to block me from returning under the penalty of being arrested for defiant trespass.

The obvious reason for this criminal conspiracy was to protect Penn Township from a major lawsuit from the residents of Kinkora along with me. DA Bender was aware of the potential law suit because I provided him written proof what the former DA had said. I also told him this at our meeting. What he did also hides official corruption, which he might not want to go public.

Does DA Bender’s actions constitute obstruction of justice? Has he lost all credibility, and if so, it is time for him to step down as the District Attorney!

The unexplainable actions of Solicitor Allshouse blocking DA Bender of evidence and then recusing himself for a second time.

Supervisor Peters failed to show for the hearing to provide evidence of a crime by the police.

DA Bender failed to follow the law under the Pennsylvania’s New Right to Know Law Act 3 of 2008 and did not appoint an appeals officer to conduct the RTK hearing. He appointed himself.

In DA Bender’s denial of the RTK request, he reported on his own investigation and then said it wasn’t needed.

DA Bender stopping the RTK hearing and requesting a private hearing off the record. He failed to record any of the meeting.

DA Bender’s bizarre action at the private meeting and not caring that Supervisor Peters was blocked.

After being made aware of Peters evidence, DA Bender said he was not calling Peters but would wait for Peters to call. Then, it appears later DA Bender conducted his own “investigation” and interviewed Peters.

DA Peters conducted is own private investigation outside of the law and of which there is no record.

The American Bar Association, under its Criminal Justice Standards Section warns against DA Bender’s actions of interviewing witnesses.

His investigation failed to use three key pieces of evidence that was clearly pointed out to him during the private meeting.

A review of the three pieces of evidence: the recording, police report and Attorney Parno’s letter would instantly reveal if a crime was committed!

His “investigation” appears to be a smokescreen in an attempt to hide the real evidence of official corruption. Why would he conduct interviews when the evidence was proof and should have been turned over to the state police for a real investigation!

He took a very simple three pieces of evidence investigation and turned it into a nightmare.

Conclusion

1 Thessalonians 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.

Code of Federal Regulations (from Older Americans Act) 42 CFR 483.10 – Resident rights.

(4) The resident has a right to receive visitors of his or her choosing at the time of his or her choosing, subject to the resident’s right to deny visitation when applicable, and in a manner that does not impose on the rights of another resident. (b) Exercise of rights. The resident has the right to exercise his or her rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen or resident of the United States.

(1) The facility must ensure that the resident can exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal from the facility. (8) The resident has a right to participate in other activities, including social, religious, and community activities that do not interfere with the rights of other residents in the facility.

It is shocking that the chief law enforcement official in Perry County had written documentation of the elderly’s rights being violated and did absolutely nothing. In addition, he also was provide with the audio recording of elderly abuse. DA Bender with all this information failed to do anything to protect the elderly. To hear this abuse, go to Nurse Suzanne Jones harassing elderly.

He also was provided evidence that charges against me in Attorney Parno’s letter were bogus; thus a crime against me and the elderly’s rights. It is my opinion, what DA Bender did through his tacit approval, allowed Administrator Himmelberger to act as a de facto “warden”, when clearly according to the law he has no right to do. Why did he allow this?

DA Bender could have contacted Attorney William Bunt, Perry County Solicitor for the Area Agency for the Ageing and together they could have worked to protect the rights of the elderly at Kinkora, but no action whatsoever was taken. In Part 6, the actions of Solicitor Bunt and other Perry County officials will be revealed, which mirrors DA Bender’s.

Federal law states the elderly are to be provided with legal assistance if their rights are violated. The residents of Kinkora need the federal government to step in and provide them with a civil rights case against Kinkora and Perry County.

CFR Title 45 §1324.13 Functions and responsibilities of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.

(5) Represent the interests of residents before governmental agencies, assure that individual residents have access to, and pursue (as the Ombudsman determines as necessary and consistent with resident interests) administrative, legal, and other remedies to protect the health, safety, welfare, and rights of residents

Because DA Bender utterly failed to protect the Constitutional rights of the elderly as citizens of the United States, he should resign as Perry County District Attorney. He has lost all credibility. Because he has lost all credibility, law enforcement outside of Perry County needs to conduct a real investigation of DA Bender’s actions and all those connected to this conspiracy.

Kinkora: Nursing Home or Jail with a Warden?

To continue reading this series, go to Part 5B

To start at the beginning, go to: Part 1

SIGN THE PETITION TO PROTECT THE ELDERLY

We are asking you to sign our petition to Attorney General Shapiro to have the law enforced and restore the rights of the elderly in Perry County Pennsylvania.After reading this report, it is important you sign the petition to the PA Attorney General to enforce the law and provide the elderly with a civil rights suit. You can go to: Sign the Petition.

Exhibits

List of Exhibits

1. Copy of Officer Goodling’s transcript

2. Letter dated 01/16/2015 from Attorney Glenn A. Parno

3. Letter dated 08/10/16 to DA Bender

4. Letter dated 08/11/16 to DA Bender

5. Letter dated 10/31/16 to Penn Township Solicitor Allshouse

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6

Exhibit 7 (1)

Exhibit 7 (2)

Exhibit 8 (1)

Exhibit 8 (2)

Exhibit 9 (1)

Exhibit 9 (2)

Exhibit 10

Exhibit 11 (1)

Exhibit 11 (2)

Exhibit 12

Exhibit 13

Exhibit 14

Exhibit 15(1)

Exhibit 15 (2)

Exhibit 16 (1)

Exhibit 16 (2)

Exhibit 16 (3)

Exhibit 16 (4)

Exhibit 16 (5)

Exhibit 17

Part 1 (John Holman)

Speakers

BP: Supervisor Brian Peters

GK: Gary Korth

JH: John Holman

JL: Supervisor Joseph Landis

BP: That’s good. Let me see if there’s anything else. You have to make sure that anytime the meeting is being recorded in the public, it must be made known that it’s being recorded. So if you were recording this meeting and have that received permission, I would ask me to discontinue recording if he addressed the board for asking permission from start. Anybody at this time wish to have this meeting recorded outside of our recording.

GK: I am.

JH: John Holman, Gary Korth will do the recording

I have some documents I would like to give to Chairman Peters.

GP: Documentation it must be provided to all three supervisors.

JH: The issue I’d like to address concerns a right to know that I submitted to Penn township which was denied and then appealed and we have a hearing before a district attorney Andrew Bender, which Penn township attended. I attended and John McTernan attended as a witness for me.

I’m going to read an excerpt from our report of investigation. This is an interview with supervisor Brian Peters. Shortly after the 09-30-2015 township meeting, Peter’s called John Holman and McTernan and myself met with Peter’s at the John Holman residence. Peter’s expressed concerns about activities of this police department violating citizens’ rights, in particular, he expressed concern about supervisor Holman, no relation to me, and Chief  Pickles conspiring to charge a Duncannon EMT with a crime when the evidence pointed towards his innocence. The EMT went to trial and was acquitted. He cited Holman’s animosity toward the Duncannon EMS as a reason for the conspiracy.

Peters informed myself and John McTernan that he was present at a conversation between supervisor, Holman and Chief Pickels, which took place after the 9-30-2015 Penn township supervisors meeting was adjourned. The essence of the conversation follows; Holman questioned pickles. He asked pickles, where does John Holman live and what is going on at Kinkora?  Pickles replied that Holman lives in Wheatfield township. Pickels said he spoke to Mitch Himmelberger, Kinkora administrator and Himmelberger did not want John Holman back in Kinkora because the nature of his preaching was disagreeable with Himmelberger.

On 8-28-2016. I spoke with supervisor Peters in person and told him DA Bender wanted to have all the information regarding my right to know requesting the report of the investigation by Penn township police. I asked him to provide an affidavit detailing the conversation between Pickles and Holman and he said he would. On 08-30- 2016 Peters called me informed me that he had spoken to Penn Township solicitor Allshouse. Allshouse advised him not provide an affidavit unless he was subpoenaed. Allshouse told Peter’s the information was confidential and privileged and because he had participated in the conversation in the township building after the meeting adjourned his conversation.

GP: I’m sorry. Your time has expired.

JH: I would ask you to allow me additional time this way here. Had more than five minutes.

GP: She did not have more than five minutes because there was time to respond to her. Her time was to her questions and then our response does not get included in.

JH: Is there are a reason that you’re cutting me off.

GP: That’s good. Your time is up.

JL: I do have a question for you, sir. What if you could sum up why you felt the need to read that here in the public meeting? I don’t know. I don’t quite understand what that has to do with the good of the township. Right. It appears to be some type of personal matter that you’re dealing with.

JH: Are you going to allow me more time? I’ll get to the point.

JL: By all means. if you could.

JH: If you let me finish.

JL: I’m not giving granting permission just like you to sum things up. Give us the reader’s digest version of what’s your complaint or problem. It’s basically.

JH: All right. Let me read this real quick so I can’t.

JL: I’m not gonna. I’m not going to allow

JH: what we want is Peter’s to resign and we want the solicitor to resign.

GP: Supervisors have the floor.

JL: If he cannot give us a summation of his complaint we should move on.

JH: I’ll read one more line. We want Peters to resign.

GP: You’re out of order, your time is up.

Part 2 (John McTernan)

 Speakers

GP: Chairman Gary Peters

JH: John Holman

JM: John McTernan

JP: Joseph Landis Town Supervisor

Time: 07:31

JM: Yeah, that’s me. I’m going to follow up with additional information which Mr Holman spoke Our goal here is for the public to know behind the scenes what Mr Peters is doing and that we are requesting that he resign because he has no credibility, so I will add more information so everybody here can understand what happened.

This involves the elderly’s rights being violated at Kinkora, which he knows he is. He has knowledge of the Penn Township Police working in concert with Kinkora because he came to my house and he told me about it in the presence of John Holman.

He was requested to give this information to the district attorney, which he refused to do.

First He said he would. Then he refused to do it based on information from the town, solicitor, why we don’t know Then he then the letter here, which was given to him requesting his presence at a meeting with the district attorney which you were at.

I was at Mr Holman was at we spent a lot of time with the district attorney after the meeting laying things out. He was asked to come to provide his firsthand knowledge, but what was going on, with Chief Pickles here, and Mitch Himmelberger and the employees at Kinkora, he refused to do it. He is the Commissioner, he is  the police weren’t functioning then. He didn’t come. He didn’t. He had knowledge of a crime which you didn’t come and tell the district attorney. I have it in writing right here

JL:  the bottom line is I might.

JM: I didn’t finish I still have my five minutes

JL: go right ahead.

JM: Thank you. So, him, I think him and know him. And uh, we wish that the solicitor was here that could explain his legal advice to Mr Peters for not coming forward on his own to talk to the district attorney, but he hid behind He had to be subpoenaed.

So we’re asking that he do the right thing and resign. His credibility has really has no credibility. I’ll answer your question

JL: As I understand the entire situation about Kinkora sir the business itself. And this was addressed sometime back the business itself. They contacted with our police department and advised our department that they did not want Mr Holman to trespass on their property. That was the understanding that I had at the time and it was addressed sometime back several months back where Mr Holman wanted us to advise the police department to basically not to enforce the law out there. The whole situation is, I understand it involves Mr Holman going up onto that business property. The property owner doesn’t want them there. They have a right to ask them to leave and if they refused to leave, to contact the  police to have the police force them to leave and take them into custody if necessary, but that’s the bottom line is I understand this whole situation

JM: Well I’ll enlighten, I’ll enlighten you. To what happened.

JL: The bottom line with (Talk over) reference to the right to know and be hearing that was held for the district attorney you shouldn’t reach. The district attorney issued a ruling and we are abiding by that ruling and if it’s appealed and goes forward and the ruling changes, then we will abide by that law. What the situation right now appears to be a personal attack on Mr Peters. I don’t think that this is the time nor the place for such.

JM: I think that is the exact time

JL: I think that’s the bottom line involves around can Kinkora and the trespassing complaint that he initiated the entire episode.

JM: Are you finished.

JL: I’m finished.

JM: OK well I’M We’re going to tell you what happened behind the scenes because a commissioner Peter’s knows it. He knows that there was collusion between your chief and perhaps an officer that they didn’t want Mr Holman there because of his religious beliefs and it’s not only him. We have Mr Koth back here. He was also violated there and we have another woman who was also thrown out in court for the same reason. Now he didn’t know that.

JL: Let me let me

JM: No let me finish I’m answering your question. I’m answering your question.

JL: Stop your right there, sir.

JM: Why I you finished?

JL: Excuse me. Who is the property owner? The property owner to order? Kinkora Did Kinkora ask these people to leave,

JM: but you can’t you have to have a reason look you or you don’t understand. There are two issues. One issue is you is what were we addressed here already? About the right to know request. The second issue is criminal activity between Kincora and your former police department and we wanted him to come and meet with us and Bender.

JL: If you believe sir

JM: why are you cutting me off I didn’t cut you off

JL: If you believe sir that there’s some criminal activity, I suggest that you file a complaint.

JM: We did.

JL: With the appropriate authorities

JM: we did and he was requested to come and provide evidence

JL: so the proper authorities is not this board of supervisors. If you believe there was some criminal activity

JM: We did he didn’t respond he knew he knows of criminal activity with your police department

JL: regardless of what he knew what he didn’t. No, that’s not for us to decide right here, but if you believe there was some criminal activity then file a complaint with the appropriate authorities,

JM: (Time 13:24) Ok Commissioner. Commissioner Peters we’re requesting you to come with us to meet with district attorney Bender and explain all the knowledge you had about Chief Pickles

GP: what authority do you have.

JM: Are going to hide behind the subpoena, know your knowledge.

GP: Wait, wait Is this under federal investigation is it or what

JH: What you did is not

GP: Is it under federal investigation

JH: what you did is not

GP: Is it under federal investigation

JH: What you did is not under federal investigation

GP: Why did you say I needed this affidavit because it was under federal investigation

JM: no, no, that affidavit was for the court for the court

GP: Ok, fake news.

JH: we asked you to come and give testimony and you refused

JM: fake news fake news

Time up

JM: Wow. Well, we ask everybody here. You heard make a decision for yourself?

End