Letter to Freemason Judge Bruce Bratton - Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas

Andy Ostrowski

August 26, 2015 · 

Letter to Freemason Judge Bruce Bratton - Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas

What follows is the email correspondence I sent to the Judge in my case against the doctor who severely mistreated me in the past, as I've discussed before. If you get through it all, there is a little true story toward the end in reference to Isaiah 10:1-4 that compelled me to write this, and share it publicly.

Judge Bratton,

This email is directed to you in your personal capacity, and, while related to your duties as a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, is not seeking anything on the docket of the referenced matter, which is now on appeal to the Superior Court, with a Motion for Reconsideration still pending before you; therefore, this is not in any way a violation of the administrative correspondence I received from Ms. Verchik intended, in part, in my view, to chill my First Amendment right of expression. I am deliberating whether I will test the constitutionality of that action in a federal civil action, in which I would name both you and Ms. Verchik as defendants, down the road, if I deem it necessary, in the pursuit of justice.

I am requesting a copy of your public official’s bond, Judge Bratton, and/or the name of the carrier who has issued said bond, and all information that I need to make a claim thereon, in the pursuit of my claims for your blatant violation of my constitutional rights. I would also like a copy of your oath.

At the outset, I am aware that you are a member of the Free and Accepted Masons, Robert Burns Lodge, No. 464, Harrisburg. While I, personally, have never been a part of any fraternal organization, for personal reasons, and have no qualms in a broad and general sense with those who choose to enjoy such memberships, I do have a problem with judicial officials having such memberships. It is due to the nature of the oath that I understand a freemason must take in order to become accepted into that organization, and the conflict that creates with the oath that is then taken in order to be a Judge to uphold and defend the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States. I believe that there is an irresolvable conflict created by the taking of these two oaths, and that no one should be accepted onto the bench of any state or federal judgeship unless or until they renounce any and all prior oaths they have taken. This, of course, is a political issue, and I will address these matters in my future political endeavors. I believe it is well-founded, and appropriate to preserve the integrity of our judiciary in this country, which is something about which I care very deeply, as my record makes clear.

I do believe that the vast majority of freemasons are well-intended, and believe that they are part of a fraternal service organization, with social benefits and networking opportunities. I also believe many of said members become acculturated over time to the climate of secrecy under the auspices of the secret oath that they have taken and, perhaps unwittingly, adopt those practices and rituals as a way of life, which, when it comes to the duty of judging, becomes a problem The Free and Accepted Masons literature does, after all, advocate it as a “way of life.” I believe that you revealed some of these problems in your handling of my case, and I do specifically charge you with the violation of your oath of office.

Initially, in that regard, is the way you originally addressed the first set of preliminary objections in the referenced case. I’m just going to come right out and say that I believe that you would have to perjure yourself, something I understand to be ratified by the freemason oath, if you were to say that you gave any substantive consideration to the Complaint and brief that I filed, clearly and unequivocally demonstrating the particulars in which I set forth claims for relief. We had an oral argument on those objections back on June 24, 2014, which you did not, despite my request, and over my objection, allow to be conducted in the presence of a court reporter. I expressed my discomfort to you, but specifically told you that I would proceed so as to not buck the custom you cited, and to create an air of distrust of you. As I told you then, my limited past experience with you suggested no reason to not trust that you would treat me fairly, and adjudge the matter accordingly. It created great discomfort for me, but I agreed to proceed under those terms and conditions. The defendants got up and made their typical mealy-mouthed, “throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks” arguments, and I then proceeded in a very orderly, clear, and articulate manner to refute the arguments that they made, address the concerns you addressed, and finished my business that day.

I would be remiss if I did not again mention the matter of Mr. Haverstick, counsel for Defendant Meguerian, who is nothing but an abject scoundrel, get up before you and make his argument on the filing of a notice of non pros on the certificate of merit issue on behalf of Mr. Meguerian. Everyone knows that Mr. Meguerian never represented me, and I am not making any claim against him governed by Rule 1042; yet Mr. Haverstick stood before you, as I demonstrated at our April 2, 2015 non-recorded argument, and, when asked by you why Rule 1042 applies to any of the claims I made against Mr. Meguerian, Mr. Haverstick said “we just think it does,” or words almost exactly to that effect (remember, there is no record). I was shocked at the lack of regard he showed for you and the system of justice in making such an inept argument that this revealed, and you, of course, said nothing, when any sensible judge, concerned for the integrity of the process would have dressed him down for doing that. Appalling.

The filing of that certificate of merit did, of course, become the basis of my abuse of process claim against Mr. Haverstick, of which which I candidly advised him before we even stepped foot in the courtroom on that day, and your dismissal did not make a single mention of it. Your Order dismissing my case for failing to make proper amendments covered this claim, as well, which was not even in the original Complaint. Did you even take the time to know that?

When the second set of preliminary objections were scheduled for April 2, 2015, I called in advance, and asked that a court reporter be present. When I got into the courtroom on that date, there was no court reporter. When you came out and took the bench, I addressed this issue immediately, and you again cited this unwritten rule that oral arguments are not recorded. I noted my objection to that unwritten rule, and asked for permission to record the argument on my cell phone, to which you responded by citing another rule about not allowing cell phones in the courtroom. I noted that that appeared to elevate an administrative rule over my constitutional rights, and you did not much seem concerned with that, and would not give me permission to do so, as a sheriff’s deputy began to hover around me looking at my device. I then made an apparently off-the-record motion, orally, in open court, that the argument be continued so that I could look into the matter, and make an arrangement to have the proceedings recorded. You denied that motion, and, again, because of this secret policy of yours, or the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, there is no record of this Motion, other, now, than this email, though I did, I believe, also reference it in my most recent motion for reconsideration.

We then proceeded with the argument. Each of the defendants’ lawyers got up and made their one or two minute mealy-mouthed arguments, parroting parts of their brief, and offering nothing of any substance to support the objections that they filed, and certainly not providing any substantive analysis that my Amended Complaint did not state claims for relief, as outlined in my briefs, and as is clear on the face of the Amended Complaint. You didn’t really question them or challenge them on anything. I then got up, and you and I went back and forth for a good 45 minutes or more, with me clearly and succinctly countering and rebutting every point you made, clearly appearing to suggest that you were pre-disposed to throw out my Amended Complaint. There is no record of any of this because of this policy I’ve discussed. Consider this, in part, me making that record. I even addressed the matter of Mr. Haverstick’s conduct as set out above, and the fact that I amended the Complaint to add a claim for abuse of process against him, which was not in the original Complaint, and which, the below email record makes clear, I gave all due notice to advancing. I was very respectful and professional with you, even when you started to make veiled threats against me concerning my calling into Chambers last August 29 (more than 60 days after the June 24, 2014 argument), and reminding me how your predecessor, presumed to be Judge Clark, who I always got a fair shake from, though not always approving of his tactics and treatment of others, may have responded to some of my points.

Despite all of this, your July 6, 2015 Orders granted the preliminary objections on the sole ground that I did not properly amend my Complaint to address your overnight Order of Saturday, August 30, 2014, the day after I called in to Chambers, late in the afternoon, mind you, inquiring into the status of the original preliminary objections, which led to the Order, with no discussion of the merits whatsoever – not a single word about any claim in the Complaint – nothing at all to guide me – the essence of arbitrary and capricious conduct. Of course, I believe that is because the claims in the Complaint are quite clear, and there was no way for you to acknowledge their basis, and dismiss them without revealing your blatant dishonesty. Your July 6, 2015 Order also did not mention a single allegation of the Amended Complaint, involved no analysis and comparison of the pleadings, which did, contrary to your Order, include amendments, even though you provided no guidance as to any shortcomings that you perceived in the original Complaint, which, without reasonable question, did set forth claims for relief.

I set all this out in my July 20, 2015 Motion for Reconsideration, on which you, of course, have also remained silent, apparently choosing to take a pass on the exercise of your judicial duties in the hopes that the Superior Court, to which I filed an appeal, will cover your actions. I really don’t think you show much regard for the judicial process, your role in it, or, frankly, the Superior Court, let alone me as an individual bringing legitimate claims to the Court who is entitle to fair and open access to the court, and judicial integrity in the adjudication of these claims. I received none. You violated my rights, and your oath, and that is why I want to submit a claim against your bond. Please provide me with that information.

In my July 20, 2015 motion for reconsideration, I described your behavior as dishonest and cowardly, and I, unfortunately, stand by those characterizations. There was just no other honest way for me to describe it.

This secrecy and stealth with which you conducted yourself suggests influences and motives that guided you in your decision-making in this case, to which my reference to your freemasonry membership is relevant. Nefarious motives are reasonably suggested when there are such denial and deprivations of due process, notions that go back to the magna carta. There simply appears to have been something going on behind the scenes all throughout this litigation. I did address early on in a footnote to my first brief that I know Dr. Kruszewski to be connected professionally to many lawyers, judges, and others, and because of his pathetic lack of ethics and discretion, know that he has treated many such professionals. I addressed this very early on in this litigation so as to avoid any difficulties in this case. I must ask, however, whether you ever treated with him? Do you know him personally or professionally? I’m aware of connections that suggest that you may. Do you know of him, or have you talked to anyone during the pendency of this case, other than your staff and the lawyers about him and/or about me and this case? Are there any relationships, or influences of which I should be made aware in these regards?

I have noted from the beginning of this matter that all the lawyers were oddly very non-responsive to me. I tried to address responsibilities they have in the course of litigation, tried to discuss settlement, tried to have dialogue about case management issues, etc, and there was a marked absence of any substantive dialogue on these matters, though there was some. I even recently tried to address a very reasonable settlement proposal - more silence. I note, though, that early on, Mr. Osborne and Ms. Arosell did respond to settlement overtures, but Dr. Kruszewski’s lawyers, and Meguerian’s too, have been largely silent, except as noted in the below email thread. Then there was the Haverstick issue, the “we just think it does” argument, which caused you no concern at all, and your reluctance to make a record of these proceedings, then your orders not addressing a single word to the actual merits of my pleadings – except the paragraphs you ordered stricken, which I addressed with you, off the record, of course, but in open court, at our April 2, 2015 argument, and gave clear legal and evidentiary justification for their inclusion. I don’t think I’m being at all unreasonable in suggesting that the handling of this matter, given the nature of the claims, and the identities of the parties, is peculiar, to say the least, and, I submit, and will argue, was a violation of my rights. Are any of the people connected with this litigation freemasons that you know of, including individuals in the law firms of these attorneys? I intend to pursue all of these issues, both in this litigation, in possible future litigation, and publicly, as there is just something wholly amiss about the way you have handled my case.

Interestingly, when I was at the Widener law library last week researching some of these issues, and your responsibilities, for purposes of my appeal, and other actions, see Commonwealth v. Shaffer, In re Smith, Pa. Const. Art. 1 Section 1, Moore v. Sims, I set my books down across the table from a woman who was there doing her own research. We were the only 2 in the whole library. In casual conversation, I asked her what she was working on, and she proceeded to tell me about the abuse she received at the hands of Dauphin County Judge Bruce Bratton, and was researching some issues as her and her totally disabled daughter, who, I understand, was in your court on a gurney some weeks before, had been denied their claims under an Orphans Court Will contest issue, or some such thing. She didn’t live far from Widener, so I stopped by, and I met her sweet daughter (she jokingly offered me her lunch which was being fed to her intravenously), totally disabled by crippling cerebral palsy, and other conditions, living on her hospital bed in the living room of her condo, with medical apparatus and a nurse attending to her, as I understand is a daily need. She told me about her desperate circumstances, and how they were destitute, and how she was threatened by you for suggesting that an attorney in her case was being less than truthful in some regards, and then you gave her an order cutting off any rights to anything under the will, and leaving them near penniless.

I have not read everything in her case, or studied the issue further, or the possible freemason connections in that case, but, in the below email to you, which I was rebuked administratively for sending, I cited a Bible passage at the bottom (you freemasons do profess a devotion to God, but I have seen some research that calls the nature of that god into question).

The verses were Isaiah 10:1-4. Which provide:

1Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;

2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!

3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?

4 Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

For me, the evil and abhorrent treatment I was subjected to at the hands of Dr. Kruszewski, and even this litigation, have served some greater purpose in my life, that I need not get into here, but if I walk away with nothing of pecuniary value from this case, despite my clear legal rights to a remedy at law, I lose nothing. I don’t need a judge to tell me I was mistreated, though I am entitled to have a jury confirm it. The sworn record of my pleading will always be true, and I defy Dr. Kruszewski to deny a single word of it. I defy you to have an argument on the record with me about it. I am doing this because these are justice issues, and I will take them wherever they lead, and accept whatever God’s plan is in all these regards. Perhaps your misconduct, and whatever comes from the appeals, and any further proceedings, has lessons yet to be fully understood, and objectives to which we are currently blind, but which will be revealed. I’ll accept those results from this man-made system of justice, and take whatever lessons I learn from them, and can impart to others, in stride, and in that vein.

Anastasia (Stacey), however, and her mother, may not have that luxury, and maybe me meeting her last week in the Widener law library is part of the greater plan addressed above. I know that their situation, if not mine, makes the prophetic words of Isaiah much more pertinent and apt to the circumstances, and it is more than uncanny that I cited that very verse to you below. I cite another verse to you – Isaiah 5:20 – that is pertinent to my view of freemasonry. Read it if you care to.

If there is one lesson I have taken from my experiences, even those with the pervert Dr. Kruszewski, who told me about his drugged up sex orgy, and wanted to paint me naked, and talk about my male anatomy, and fix me up with women at his house, and have me share a bedroom with his homosexual adult son, and violates the rights of other patients, and tells secrets about their private affairs of others for his prurient, deviant amusement, the Lord does, indeed, work in mysterious ways.

Please provide me with the requested bond carrier information. I remind all other Counsel to provide me with their insurance carrier information, as well.

His hand is still stretched out.

Thank you.

bccs

https://www.facebook.com/andy.ostrowski.9/posts/10206710296423603