Everything2Stroke Forum banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
this information is protected by the united states constitution first amendment rights
dan dixon pa state constable forg hazle township is a convicted felon ?
he lives a short distance from amcfreeks home.
and of course he has harassed amcfreek since he moved into the neighb orhood in 1984 .
in about 1984 dan dixon started a used car lot located on pa state route 940 neer hazleton .
he then was arrested by the attorney generals office for odometer tampering and fraud charges , wich dan dixon plead guilty to in luzerne county court , for wich he was sentenced to surrender his professional liscence for life in the state of pennsylvania for his fraud and criminal odometer tamperin g you may request this from the attorney generals office of consumer protection who procecuted mr dixon . he was senetenced to if i remember correctly 3 years supervised proation , 2600$ in court costs , 10,000$ in fines and about 20,000$ resitution , now if you feel you bought a used car from j&r used cars j&r used motors pa sr 940 in hazle township and you did not get paid yopur restitution please contact the attorney generals office ..
it was a big mistake for mr dixpon to slam into amcfreeks 1991 ford ranger and illegally stop him on sr940
it was also illegal for mr dixons son to arraghn mr anthony kasarda on 5-17-2013 at his office in district 11-304
it was also illegal for mr doxons son to call in a favour and send a police destroy a officer he new to the crash scene in hazletoqnship on 06-13-2008 , where as anthony kasarda was injured and filed a law suite in luzerne county court for wich anthony kasarda was seeking damages in kasarda v dixon , and in may of 2013 charles pedri attporney for hazle township the party that hired mr dan dixon state constable with a criminal record to slam into anthony kasardas 1991 ford ranger thus fracturing his right arm . wheraz anthony kasarda had a legal right to sue . he has full torte.
whereas he also is a protected witnes and andrew benyo did when mr kasardas case had a motion to dismiss filed andrew benyo a township supervior who was being sued in kasarda v dixon. mr andrew benyo did order a backhoe driver to destroy a yamaha srx snowmobile serial number 8jo 005775, a yamaha dt250 and a titled trailor , they were destroyed knowing that a vehicle cannot be impounded by hazle township as a similiar incedent sparked yachera v hazletownship and hazle township lost money,
this attack on anthomy kasarda did result in a heart attack and anthony kasrda was arested at guesinger general hospital and rraighnbed 5-18-2013 by son james dixon who demanded 30 thousand dollars for teroristic threats staiting he was taking lives do you understand on the phone while clearly mr benyo was destroying his personal property with a backhoe.
this was all to cover up factual ownship government cases the hazle ttwp cannot win
mr dan dixon is a fraud and you cannot buy a used car from him why did pennsylvania let a criminal like him get a gun and become law enforcement?
the apple never falls far from the tree
no doubt his son knows howto spin em back or replace em with used junkyard ones with les milage!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
http://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2010/title-18/chapter-3/313
le.--A public law enforcement official or a
person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates
an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the
commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another
person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either:
(1) making knowingly false representations designed to
induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or
(2) employing methods of persuasion or inducement which
create a substantial risk that such an offense will be
committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit
it.
(b) Burden of proof.--Except as provided in subsection (c)
of this section, a person prosecuted for an offense shall be
acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his
conduct occurred in response to an entrapment.
(c) Exception.--The defense afforded by this section is
unavailable when causing or threatening bodily injury is an
element of the offense charged and the prosecution is based on
conduct causing or threatening such injury to a person other
than the person perpetrating the entrapment.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top