Lancaster Independent Press
RSS icon Home icon
  • * UPDATE *** BREAKING NEWS *** ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE!

    Posted on October 10th, 2017 Becky 7 comments

    —  Making phone call this afternoon. LIP News will be back tomorrow.

    ISN’T THAT CONVENIENT?

         If the invoice remains unpaid we will file suit against Ms. Schmucker at the local Magisterial District Justice office.
         So, the law office of Scott E. Albert is threating to file a suit in Scott E. Albert’s District Justice office. Isn’t that convenient? See below.

    *************

    *** BREAKING NEWS ***

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

      

         District Judge Scott E. Albert, pictured above right, has a private law practice (click here for his website). His office represented and then sued “Amish Mafia” star Esther Schmucker for non-payment.
          On August 4th of this year, he presided over the preliminary hearing for Schmucker’s boyfriend and abuser, Imir Williams. He should have recused himself. He will be reported to the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board. See below.

    **********

    BLATANT ADS
    PRESENTED AS NEWS

    (Click here for the “insider” story online)

         This is nothing but an ad for Lloyd Smucker. There is nothing new in this article. Nice of Smucker to provide LNP the photos.

    (Click here)

         And here’s another ad by Tom Baldrige who pays himself $262,000 a year and whose wife is an “investigative reporter” for LNP and he broke the PA Ethics Code by voting to give LNP millions in CRIZ money. Nice, LNP! “Buy local.” There’s a new concept! There is absolutely nothing new in this blatant ad. You have to work harder to earn that $262,000, Tom!
    Please check back later today.

     

    7 responses to “* UPDATE *** BREAKING NEWS *** ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE!”

    1. Maybe lnp should return their printing process to Lancaster, rather than shipping it outside the county.

    2. Maybe they could become a real newspaper too as opposed to a merchandiser with rewritten press release stories.

    3. hang on, before you report him there is a lot of info missing from this docket. Was this a waiver? did the defendant show up? was there actually a hearing? if there was a waiver Albert didn’t preside over anything. there are more pages to this docket. all it says is that it was held over for court, it doesn’t say how that occurred. he may not have done anything wrong. also, you have to file in the court that has jurisdiction. the case has to be file in his court, its what he does after that.

    4. According to the docket the preliminary hearing was held before Albert on 8-4-17 at 9:00 am. The docket states the defendant (Williams) was present. The docket does not indicate it was waived – and that really doesn’t matter because Albert should not have touched this case.

    5. Funny how the lawyers (regular reader) come out to try to protect their own (Albert) even in the most obvious example of a conflict

    6. I am not a lawyer, not that you’d believe me, I just choose to be educated. I’m assuming you think I’m a lawyer because I might know something about court documents and procedure. Just because you feel it’s unethical doesn’t make it so.

    7. Isn’t it a violation of the (oxymoronic) Code of Ethics for lawyers – or bill collectors – to contact someone’s employer? I am pretty sure it is and adding the C.Y.A. sentence that “she indicated you would pay” doesn’t make it ethical.