Philabundance

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
BY: James E. Beasley, Jr. M.D., LL.M.

Terence J. Lynch
Filed and Attested by
PROTHONOTARY
ID No.: 83282, 312203
20 DEC 2012 10:42 am
1125 Walnut Street
S. GARRETT
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (telefax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MANUEL J. BURGOS
3642 Emerald Street
Philadelphia, PA 19134
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
v.
:
:
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP :
1701 Market St.
:
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
:
:
and
:
:
PHILABUNDANCE
:
3616 South Galloway Street
:
:
:
and
:
:
CHAUNDRA LOESCH
:
:
:
:
and
:
:
WILLIAM J. CLARK
:
:
:
:
and
:
:
MELANIE S. JUMONVILLE
:
:
:
:
Defendants. :
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DECEMBER TERM 2012
No.
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CODE 2O

1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
__________________________________________________________________
BURGOS V. MORGAN LEWIS, PHILABUNDANCE, LOESCH, CLARK AND JUMONVILLE
NOTICE TO DEFEND
Case ID: 121202978
COMPLAINT
Code 2O OTHER PERSONAL INJURY
"NOTICE"
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the
claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served,
by entering a written appearance personally 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 fail 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 in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or
other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT
ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. 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 INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY
OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A
REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
Philadelphia Bar Association
LAWYER REFERRAL & INFO.
One Reading Center
Phila., PA 19107
(215) 238-1701
"AVISO"
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse
de estas demandas dispuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene
veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la
notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita en
persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita
sus defensas o sus objecciones a las demandas en contra de su
persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara
medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo
aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del
demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las
provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus
propiedades o otros derechos iportantes para usted.
LLEVE
ESTA
DEMANDA
A
UN
ABOGADO
INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO, VAYA EN
PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA QUE
SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE
PROVEER DE USTED INFORMACION SOBRE EMPLEAR A
UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO TIENE SUFICIENTE DINERO
PARA EMPLEAR UN ABOGADO, ESTA OFICINA PUEDE
PODER PROVEER DE USTED LA INFORMACION SOBRE
LAS AGENCIAS QUE PUEDEN OFRECER SERVICIOS
LEGAL A LAS PERSONAS ELEGIBLES EN UN HONORARIO
REDUCIDO O NINGUN HONORARIO.
Asociacion de Licenciados de Filadelphia
Servicio de Referencia e Informacion
One Reading Center
Phila., PA 19107
(215) 238-1701
Case ID: 121202978

BY: James E. Beasley, Jr. M.D., LL.M.
Terence J. Lynch
ID No.: 83282, 312203
1125 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (telefax)
MANUEL J. BURGOS
3642 Emerald Street
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
v.
:
:
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP :
1701 Market St.
:
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
:
:
and
:
:
PHILABUNDANCE
:
:
:
:
and
:
:
CHAUNDRA LOESCH
:
:
:
:
and
:
:
WILLIAM J. CLARK
:
:
:
:
and
:
:
MELANIE S. JUMONVILLE
:
:
:
:
Defendants. :
1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
DECEMBER TERM 2012
No.
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CODE 2O
1
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
INTRODUCTION
1.
In a desperate attempt to avoid civil liability for falsely accusing an
innocent man of committing a felony (and for which he was incarcerated for over
three months), these defendants caused previously rejected criminal charges to be
brought against the plaintiff for the illegitimate purposes of putting him in jail and
obtaining a favorable outcome in a civil lawsuit.
2.
As identified in the plaintiffs initial lawsuit against defendants
Philabundance and Loesch (2011 lawsuit, Exhibit A), Philabundance and Loesch
falsely accused Manuel Burgos of stealing fuel from their donated Sunoco credit
cards.
3.
When the Philabundance defendants first propagated these outrageous
felony charges against Manuel Burgos, he was incarcerated for three months until
the court threw out the sham charges, in spite of Philabundance having been given
two separate opportunities to present evidence against Mr. Burgos.
4.
During the time that Manuel Burgos was in jail, defendants learned
that another Philabundance employee, Leonardo Bustos the same individual in

charge of the credit cards during the relevant time periods and an accuser of the
plaintiff, had been stealing from Philabundance with another of its credit cards.
5.
Rather than investigate whether Mr. Bustos 1 or anyone else was
involved in the alleged Sunoco fuel thefts, the Philabundance defendants persisted

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
Bustos has a history of employment related theft that was also known to these defendants.
2
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
in seeking jail time for Mr. Burgos for the purposes of burying the theft and having
an individual to blame.
6.
After being released from jail, Manuel Burgos sued Philabundance and
Loesch for their false accusations, sloppy investigation, and defamatory actions;
during that lawsuit, discovery revealed that Philabundance investigated no other
employees beyond the plaintiff, and that its senior vice president, chief operating
officer, and chief of staff, defendant Melanie Jumonville, described Philabundances
oversight and control of the Sunoco credit cards as sloppy.
7.
Defendant Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Morgan Lewis) was the
lawfirm involved in defending Philabundance in the 2011 lawsuit; its attorneys were
Blair Robinson, Esquire, Amir Vonsover, Esquire, Azeez Hayne, Esquire, and
Brandon Brigham, Esquire.
8.
In a blatant attempt to compromise the trial of the 2011 action, the
defendants, knowing that trial was to occur in the November or December, 2012 trial
pools, conspired to lobby the Philadelphia District Attorneys office to reinstate these
rejected two year old felony charges -- even though they had no new evidence than
that twice rejected by the criminal court, as well as having substantial evidence that
the criminal was not Mr. Burgos. 2
It is apparent that the defendants were selective in the materials provided to the District Attorneys
office, in an effort to mislead that office to pursue these bogus criminal charges.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
3
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
9.
On October 25, 2012, Mr. Burgos was informed that the sham charges
were re-filed had caused the re-filing of the sham charges, and the preliminary
hearing was scheduled and occurred on November 26, 2012.
10.
It took the Court only a few minutes to recognize the very flimsy nature
of the claims and that the only witness, defendant Loesch, was not the proper
individual to testify about the Sunoco credit cards; the Court rejected her as the
custodian in this third, failed attempt to incarcerate Mr. Burgos.
11.
The preliminary hearing was again rescheduled, giving the defendants
a fourth chance to create evidence to support these frivolous claims.

12.
On December 18, 2012, defendants again failed to persuade the Court
that evidence existed to prosecute Mr. Burgos; the charges were again dismissed.
13.
At both the November 26 and December 18, 2012 hearings, Attorney
Brigham, on behalf of co-defendant Morgan Lewis, was present.

14.
Upon information and belief, the Morgan attorneys were instrumental
in communicating with the District Attorneys office, preparing Loesch for

testimony, and selecting and creating the exhibits used to attempt to re-incarcerate
Mr. Burgos.
15.
In pursuit of securing a conviction against Mr. Burgos to avoid liability
in the 2011 action, defendants ignored all evidence contrary to their fatal claims
against Mr. Burgos and presented no new evidence than that which was already
rejected by the Court during the first two attempts to convict and incarcerate Mr.
Burgos.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
4
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
16.
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a direct result of the defendants recent
abuse of the legal system to avoid liability in the 2011 lawsuit. In so doing, they have
caused Mr. Burgos new and substantial harm for which these defendants must be
held accountable and assessed substantial compensatory and punitive damages.
PARTIES
17.
Plaintiff, Manuel J. Burgos (hereinafter Burgos) is an individual
adult citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 3642 Emerald

Street, Philadelphia, PA 19134.
18.
Defendant Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (hereinafter Morgan
Lewis), is a lawfirm with offices at 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. At

all relevant times it employed Attorneys Robinson, Vonsover, Hayne, and Brigham,
all of whom were involved in the tortious actions described in this lawsuit.
19.
Defendant Philabundance is a Pennsylvania business with offices
located at 3616 South Galloway Street, Philadelphia, PA 19148.

20.
Defendant Chaundra Loesch (hereinafter Loesch) is an individual
adult citizen of the State of New Jersey who is an employee of Philabundance, and
who conducts business at 3616 South Galloway Street, Philadelphia, PA 19148.
21.
Defendant William J. Clark (hereinafter Clark) is an individual adult
citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who is the President and Executive

Director for Philabundance, and who conducts business at 3616 South Galloway
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19148.
22.
Defendant Melanie S. Jumonville (hereinafter Jumonville) is an
individual adult citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who is the Senior Vice
1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
5
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief of Staff for Philabundance, and who
conducts business at 3616 South Galloway Street, Philadelphia, PA 19148.
23.
At all times relevant to this action, defendant Loesch was an actual or
ostensible agent/servant/employee of Philabundance.

24.
At all times relevant to this action, defendant Clark was an actual or
ostensible agent/servant/employee of Philabundance.

25.
At all times relevant to this action, defendant Jumonville was an actual
or ostensible agent/servant/employee of Philabundance.

26.
At all times relevant to this action, Loesch was acting by, through, and
under the control, or right of control of Philabundance and within the course and
scope of her employment, authority, or apparent authority, in furtherance of the
business of Philabundance.
27.
At all times relevant to this action, Clark was acting by, through, and
scope of his employment, authority, or apparent authority, in furtherance of the
28.
At all times relevant to this action, Jumonville was acting by, through,
and under the control, or right of control of Philabundance and within the course
and scope of her employment, authority, or apparent authority, in furtherance of the
29.
At all times relevant to this action, each defendant expressly or
impliedly assumed liability for the acts of the other named defendants herein.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
6
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
THE 2011 LAWSUIT

30.
After being falsely accused of a felony and incarcerated for over three
months, Manuel Burgos brought a lawsuit against Philabundance and one of its
employees, Chaundra Loesch.
31.
In sum, the 2011 lawsuit sought damages against Philabundance and
Loesch for their knowingly false and fabricated charges that Mr. Burgos had stolen
fuel, using Sunoco credit cards donated to Philabundance by Sunoco.
32.
Prior to these sham charges, Mr. Burgos was a recently hired truck
driver for Philabundance.

33.
Philabundance had no effective oversight or controls relating to the
donated Sunoco cards; anyone could access any of the trucks, and the contents
(including credit cards), through the keys which were available to anyone who went
to the broken key box to take whatever truck key they desired.
34.
On any given day, no one at Philabundance knew where a particular
Sunoco fuel card was actually located.

35.
For many months prior to the summer of 2010, Leonardo Bustos,
Philabundances Director of Logistics, was in charge of reconciling the Sunoco

statements with the fuel usage. That changed in July, 2010 when Yadira Rosa was
hired by Philabundance to work under Mr. Bustos in the transportation office.
36.
Ms. Rosa began to reconciling the Sunoco statements with the fuel
receipts.
37.
On or about August 11, 2010, Ms. Rosa discovered questionable fuel
purchases while auditing the monthly Sunoco statements.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
7
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
38.
Ms. Rosa reported her findings to Leonardo Bustos, the (then) Director
of Logistics in charge of overseeing the transportation department as well as the

Sunoco fuel cards and invoices.
39.
Bustos promptly accused Mr. Burgos of the Sunoco fuel theft; in a rush
to judgment, Philabundance agreed, without conducting any investigation into other

individuals who had significantly more access to the credit cards than Mr. Burgos.
40.
The defendants furthered this malicious scheme by withholding
critical information, and fabricating claims against the plaintiff, to induce the
Philadelphia District Attorneys office to prosecute Burgos.
41.
In spite of the defendants desire to pin the blame on the plaintiff, after
speaking with Detective James Powell, defendant Loesch was told that Sunoco,
rather than Philabundance, would have to file and press charges for any alleged theft
of fuel.
42.
Defendant Loesch informed defendants Clark and Jumonville that
Sunoco would have to press charges for the alleged stolen fuel.
43.
Upon learning this, as further evidence of the Defendants malice and
ulterior motive for bringing criminal charges, Defendant Clark concocted a

strategy to reimburse Sunoco so that Philabundance could lead the charge in
promulgating the false criminal charges against Mr. Burgos. See Exhibit B.
44.
At the conclusion of their shoddy, sham investigation, Bustos and
defendant Loesch presented their findings to defendants Clark and Jumonville.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
8
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
45.
Bustos and defendant Loesch informed defendants Clark and
Jumonville that the results of their [inadequate] investigation pointed to Mr. Burgos
as the guilty party.
46.
Neither
Jumonville
nor
Clark
conducted
any
independent
investigation on their own, and instead summarily agreed with Bustos and
defendant Loeschs unsupported conclusions.
47.
As a result, defendants Clark and Jumonville made the decision to
terminate Mr. Burgos and press charges against Mr. Burgos, in spite of the fact that
Jumonville specifically testified that Philabundances oversight of the Sunoco credit
cards was sloppy:
4 . Is it fair to say that in the,
5
say, July and August 2010 time period
6
Philabundance's oversight of the credit cards
7
was a little sloppy?
8
A. It was not as good as it could have
9
been.
10
Q. Would you consider it sloppy?
11
A. In hindsight, possibly.
12
Q. What about it was sloppy?
13
A. I would rather have seen tighter
14
controls so that there is no question who had
15
a card on a certain day.
See Exhibit C, 20 March 2012 deposition of Jumonville, p. 55 ll. 4-15.
48.
Defendant Clark was specifically involved in determining the false
charges to be brought against plaintiff Burgos:

16
17
18
19
20
1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
58
Q. Were you ever aware that the police said
that since Sunoco was paying for the gas it
would be up to them to press charges, not
Philabundance?
A. I believe so.
9
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q. Did you have any role in determining

whether charges would actually be filed
against Manny Burgos?
A. I believe so. I was part of the
59
discussion. It really was our executive
director that made the call.
Q. Is that Mr. Clark?
A. Um-hum.
Q. What role, if any, did you have in the
criminal charges being alleged against
Mr. Burgos?
A. It was a matter of just explaining
everything to Mr. Clark.
See Exhibit C, 20 March 2012 deposition of Jumonville, p. 58 l. 16 59 l. 9.

49.
At no time during the course of his employment did Burgos steal
anything.
50.
Defendants also knew at the time they falsely accused plaintiff Burgos
of theft that Bustos their transportation manager in charge of all credit cards
had already been twice convicted of employment-related theft.
51.
Philabundance terminated Bustos approximately two months after the
false accusations
against
plaintiff
Burgos for credit
card
theft
from
Philabundance.
52.
In spite of Bustos confession that he stole from Philabundance using
its credit cards, they did not call the police, or initiate any criminal proceedings,
against Bustos but instead attempted to hide his theft by claiming he was terminated
for sexual harassment.
53.
After learning that Bustos had stolen from Philabundance using one of
their other credit cards, the defendants failed to re-open the investigation into the
1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
10
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
Sunoco credit card thefts, or inform the District Attorneys office of the facts
surrounding Bustos theft, even though substantial evidence existed that
demonstrated others and not Mr. Burgos committed the unauthorized fuel
purchases.
54.
A preliminary hearing was originally listed for December 12, 2010
before The Honorable Georganne V. Daher, but a continuance was granted for
further investigation due to a lack of defendants evidence against Burgos, and the
hearing was re-scheduled for January 19, 2011 before Judge James DeLeon.
55.
During the course of the preliminary hearing before Judge DeLeon on
January 19, 2011, the Commonwealth presented defendant Loesch as their sole
witness; Loesch again failed to have sufficient (or any) evidence against Mr. Burgos.
56.
At no time during the course of this second preliminary hearing was
defendant Loesch able to identify and/or produce a single document that supported
the defendants claims that Burgos was the individual responsible for the alleged
unauthorized purchases.
DISMISSAL OF THE SHAM 2010 CRIMINAL CHARGES
57.
A Pre-Trial conference was held on March 14, 2011 before The
Honorable Teresa Carr Deni.

58.
After Mr. Burgos was forced to spend more than three months in jail
on a state detainer, the Philabundance Defendants had still failed to provide any
support for their outrageous claims against Mr. Burgos.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
11
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
59.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Deni immediately dismissed the case
against Mr. Burgos in its entirety, and Mr. Burgos was thereafter released from
prison. See Exhibit D.
THE 2012 REINSTATEMENT -- AND DISMISSAL -- OF THE SHAM
CRIMINAL CHARGES
60.
After the criminal charges were dismissed, plaintiff Burgos initiated
the 2011 lawsuit against Philabundance and Loesch; Morgan Lewis is defense
counsel in the 2011 lawsuit.
61.
During discovery in the 2011 lawsuit substantial evidence was
uncovered that clearly demonstrated that Mr. Burgos was not the thief and there was
no objective evidence in any way supporting the sham charges brought against him.
62.
Mr. Burgos civil action was listed in the November 2012 trial pool.
63.
Having failed in prior attempts to have Mr. Burgos lawsuit dismissed,
in a last ditch effort to gain a tactical advantage in Mr. Burgos lawsuit and to punish
Mr. Burgos, all defendants conspired to have the sham criminal charges refiled
against Mr. Burgos.
64.
The defendants turned over selected documents from the civil action to
the District Attorneys Office, as evidenced by the Bates stamp numbering in the
lower right hand corner of each document, in order to facilitate the re-filing of
criminal charges by the District Attorneys Office.
65.
None of these documents contain any additional information
supporting the fabricated charges against Mr. Burgos than that which was already
rejected by the Court.
1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
12
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
66.
As further evidence of defendants malice in seeking to have the
criminal charges reinstated, defendant Loesch attempted to testify as the custodian

of records in a preliminary hearing on November 26, 2012.
67.
During this third attempt to incarcerate Mr. Burgos, defendant
Loesch was disqualified as the custodian of records by The Honorable Paula Patrick;
the judge made it clear that the Philabundance had better provide evidence against
Mr. Burgos or the charges would again be dismissed.
68.
In the fourth and final attempt to incarcerate Mr. Burgos, on
December 18, 2012, defendants were given yet another chance to present evidence
against Mr. Burgos.
69.
During the December 18, 2012 hearing, defendant Loesch lied under
oath in a desperate attempt to testify as the Philabundance records custodian; only

after being confronted with her deposition testimony from the 2011 lawsuit was she
forced to admit that she was not in charge of the credit cards during the time of the
alleged Sunoco thefts.
70.
Loeschs testimony was again rejected; the Court dismissed the charges
against Mr. Burgos.

71.
The defendants actions in conspiring to abuse the legal process caused
Mr. Burgos substantial damages, including missing his sons graduation from the
Army.
72.
All defendants continued their conspiracy to abuse and misuse the
legal system in the continued prosecution of Mr. Burgos without probable cause and
with malicious intent to cause the incarceration of Mr. Burgos.
1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
13
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
73.
As a direct and proximate result of the defendants misconduct as set
forth herein, the plaintiff has suffered monetary and emotional damages, and
plaintiff further seeks punitive damages as a result of the defendants continuing
outrageous conduct.
COUNT I
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
Manuel Burgos v. All Defendants
74.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if set forth
at length herein.
75.
All defendants acted in concert with the purpose of satisfying their
desires for revenge, greed, and to harm Mr. Burgos.

76.
All defendants acted maliciously, with the intent of injuring Mr.
Burgos by initiating and continuing the malicious, knowingly false criminal charges.
77.
All defendants took continuing, overt acts in furtherance of their
common purpose to maliciously injure Mr. Burgos; these acts continued through
December 18, 2012.
78.
In furtherance of their unlawful and unethical purposes, the
defendants attempted to compromise the trial of the 2011 action by causing the
refilling of the sham criminal charges for the benefit of the Philabundance
defendants in the 2011 lawsuit.
79.
Mr. Burgos was injured by the combined actions of all defendants; he
has suffered actual losses including, inter alia, the expenses of defending the sham

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
14
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
charges, severe emotional distress with associated physical manifestations such as

anxiety, sleeplessness, and other symptoms, and other losses identified herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter
judgment in his favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount
substantially in excess of this Honorable Court's jurisdictional threshold, together
with costs, attorney's fees, trial by jury on all issues, punitive damages, and any
other relief that this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances of this
case.
COUNT II
MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS
80.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if set forth
at length herein.
81.
Attorneys Robinson, Vonsover, Hayne, and Brigham, acting as agents
and employees of Morgan Lewis, used their position to wrongfully advance their
scandalous plan to compromise the 2011 lawsuit and to cause the incarceration of
Mr. Burgos for a crime they know he did not commit.
82.
The defendants unethical scheme was specifically designed to directly
harm Mr. Burgos right to a fair trial in the 2011 lawsuit and to knowingly use false
evidence to deprive him of his liberty.
83.
Even when it was apparent that the defendants evidence pointed to
individuals other than Mr. Burgos and that Philabundances oversight of the credit
cards was admittedly sloppy the defendants persisted in pursuing the frivolous
1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
15
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
charges against Mr. Burgos including by lying under oath, creating misleading
documents, and failing to tell the District Attorney all of the relevant facts.
84.
Morgan Lewis initiation and continuation of the attempt to re-charge
Mr. Burgos was, and is, unethical.

85.
The re-filing of criminal charges against Burgos was to accomplish a
purpose for which proper legal process is not designed.

86.
Defendants caused the reinstatement of the fabricated and knowingly
false felony charges against Mr. Burgos for the purposes of securing a more
favorable outcome in the 2011 lawsuit.
87.
Defendants used a legal process against the plaintiff and substantially
participated in the re-filing of criminal charges.

88.
Defendants pushed for the re-filing of criminal charges not in the
interest of justice but rather as an illicit tactic to gain an advantage in the 2011 civil
lawsuit.
89.
Despite knowledge of their failures and deception, defendants
fervently sought to have Mr. Burgos re-charged and re-arrested for crimes he did not
commit.
90.
The defendants used a legal process for purposes for which it is not
designed, specifically to punish the plaintiff.

91.
The defendants had no probable cause to believe they could ethically
initiate or continue to cause the reinstatement and prosecution of Mr. Burgos.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
16
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
92.
The defendants causing the charges to be re-filed and the continued
attempts to incarcerate Mr. Burgos was done for a purpose other than that for which
the legal process was intended.
93.
All defendants acted willfully and maliciously to improperly
compromise the 2011 lawsuit, and to harass, embarrass, and to cause great expense
and injury to Mr. Burgos.
94.
As a result of the continuing abuse of process by all defendants, Mr.
Burgos has suffered severe damages.

case.
COUNT III
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
95.
at length herein.
96.
By the conduct set forth above, Defendants intentionally and recklessly
caused a criminal prosecution to be initiated against plaintiff. Specifically, the

defendants sought to have the felony criminal charges re-filed against Mr. Burgos.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
17
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
97.
The defendants caused criminal proceedings by reinstating the false
felony charges against Burgos almost two years after the charges were originally
dismissed.
98.
As a result, plaintiff had to endure, for the fourth time, the prospect of
going to trial in order to prove his innocence.

99.
Defendant acted with malice and furthered the prosecution of Plaintiff
by providing false information, and/or withheld truthful information, all of which, if

known, would have resulted in no prosecution and/or re-filing of criminal charges
against the plaintiff.
100.
Despite defendants attempts to fabricate evidence and concoct a story
to frame Mr. Burgos, as evidenced by defendant Loesch lying under oath, the Notice
of Refiling of Criminal Charges was denied by The Honorable Paula Patrick, and all
charges against the Mr. Burgos were dismissed.
101.
As a result, the criminal charges against plaintiff were terminated in
his favor.
102.
All defendants acted without probable cause and in doing so acted
maliciously for purposes other than that of bringing the matter to justice.
103.
All defendants acted willfully and maliciously to improperly
compromise the 2011 lawsuit, and to harass, embarrass, and to cause great expense
and injury to Mr. Burgos.
104.
As a result of the continuing abuse of process by all defendants, Mr.
Burgos has suffered severe damages.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
18
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978

case.
COUNT IV
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
105.
at length herein.
106.
As set forth above, the defendants have persisted in attempting to pin
fabricated criminal charges on the plaintiff through the use of discredited and
unreliable evidence.
107.
The defendants intentionally acted in an extreme and outrageous
manner toward the plaintiff.

108.
Defendants strategy of bringing and continuing the criminal charges
by the defendants despite an utter lack of evidence or facts, has caused the plaintiff
to suffer monetary damages and damages for mental anguish and humiliation.
109.
As a direct and proximate result of the defendants conduct as set forth
above, plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, mental suffering, mental
anguish, sleeplessness, restlessness, anxiety, and depression.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
19
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
110.
The severe emotional distress suffered by plaintiff as a result of the
intentional and outrageous actions by defendants was certain to occur, and

foreseeable, and a reasonable reaction under the circumstances.
111.
As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered the damages set
forth herein.
112.
As a result of the intentional conduct of the defendants, punitive
damages are demanded of all defendants, individually and collectively.

case.
NOTICE OF PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS AND REQUESTS THAT DEFENDANTS
TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF ALL
DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR OTHERWISE,
ITEMS AND THINGS IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PARTY TO
THIS ACTION, OR ANY ENTITY OVER WHICH ANY PARTY TO HIS ACTION HAS
CONTROL, OR FROM WHOM ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION HAS ACCESS TO,
ANY DOCUMENTS, ITEMS, OR THINGS WHICH MAY IN ANY MANNER BE
RELEVANT TO OR RELATE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CAUSES OF
ACTION AND/OR THE ALLEGATIONS OF THIS COMPLAINT.

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
20
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
BY:
/s/ James E. Beasley, Jr.

JAMES E. BEASLEY, JR., ESQUIRE
TERENCE J. LYNCH, ESQUIRE
THE BEASLEY BUILDING
1125 Walnut Street
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (facsimile)
jim.beasley@beasleyfirm.com
Dated: 20 December 2012

1125 WALNUT STREET
215.592.1000
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
21
_______________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978
VERIFICATION
I, Manuel J. Burgos, hereby certi that I am the plaintff in this aetion; andthat the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief. Ttre undersigned understands that the

statements made therein are subject to penalties of rB Pa.C.S*A.. +goq relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
EEEASLEY NNM, TJ.C

I
12' WAfl,TSTREET
PI{.DIIPA 9IO?
2r5.592.1000
2t5.r92.t60(F^X)
ywlv.t^SNYFIR,!.COM
Case ID: 121202978
EXHIBIT A
Case ID: 121202978

BY: James E. Beasley Jr. M.D., LL.M.
Attorney ID No.: 8gz8z
Filed and Attested by

PROTHONOTARY
19 SEP 2011 04:34 pm
P. MARTIN
uz5 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania tg1,o7
215.592.10OO
(telefax)
MANUEL J. BURGOS
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs
215.592.886o
:
:
and
PHII,ADBLPHIA COUNTT
:
:
TINA MARIE MILLER

9642 Bmerald Street
Philadelphia, PA rgr14
JUNE TERM
2<111
No. rt-o6-o726
Plaintiffs
vs.
PHII-ABUNDANCE
g6t6 South Galloway Street
Philadelphia, PA r9r48
and
CHAUNDRALOESCH
COMPLAINT
:
.
:
!
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Manager/Transportation
g6t6 South Galloway Street

Philadelphia, PA rgr48
Defendants.
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Manuel J. Burgos and Tina Marie Miller, by and
through their attorneys, The Beasley Firm, and file this Complaint against the abovenamed Defendants for their tortuous conduct described herein.
INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit arises out of the Defendants' creation and propagation of false
and defamatory claims against Plaintiff, Manuel Burgos, manufactured solely to hide
IIIE BEASLEY FIR\', LLC
ll25 w^r.Nur SrRrir:T
Pril N)r:r.Prn, PA l9l0?
2
their own malfeasance and transgressions. Defendants' statements falsely ascribed
r5.592.1000
215.592.8360(l \)
$1ts'.Bl;tsLl:Yf t &\f .col
Burgos, et al. v. Philabundance, et al.
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
to Burgos of criminal, felonious behavior and caused the commencement of the

criminal proceedings against him. Plaintiff spent three (B) months in jail, before the
prosecuting authorities realized that Burgos' "crime" was nothing but a fabrication
by Defendants. Only after the false charges were dismissed for want of prosecution
was Burgos released from custody, but not without permanent and irreparable
damage to his reputation, ability to obtain employment, and significant physical and
emotional pain and suffering to him, Plaintiff, Tina Marie Miller.
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff, Manuel J. Burgos (hereinafter "Burgos") is an individual
adult citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 9642 Emerald

Street, Philadelphia, PA rglg4.
2.
Plaintiff, Tina Marie Miller is an individual adult citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 9642 Emerald Street, Philadelphia, PA

r9r34.
3.
Defendant Philabundance (hereinafter "Philabundance") is
Pennsylvania non-profit organization, with its principal place of business located at

3616 South Galloway Street, Philadelphia, PA
4.
t9t48.
Defendant Chaundra Loesch (hereinafter "Loesch") is an individual
adult citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who is the Transportation

Manager for Philabundance, who conducts business at 3616 South Galloway Street,
Philadelphia, PA r9r48.
S.
"
Collectively, Plaintiffs
will refer to Philabundance and
Loesch as the
Philabundance Defendants. "
BEASLEY FIR}T, LLC

I25 W,\I.NuI STRET
[,\t)tt-Hrr\. PA l9l0?
2r5.592.t000
2 15.592.t30 (rL\)
,t\.r:.\st.ut f tR\l,coll
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
6.
At all times relevant hereto,
Loesch was
an actual or
ostensible
agent/servant/employee of Philabundance.
T.
At all times relevant hereto, Leo Bustos was an actual or ostensible
agent/servant/employee of Philabundance.
B.
At all times pertinent hereto, and at the time of the behavior described
herein, Loesch was acting in a managerial capacity on behalf of Philabundance.
g.
At all times relevant to this action, Loesch was acting by, through, and
scope
of her employment, authority, or apparent authority, in furtherance of the
10. At all times relevant to this action, each Defendant expressly or

impliedly assumed liability for the acts of the other named Defendants herein.
FACTS
1r.
During the winter
of zoo9, Burgos was employed with LRI, a
temporary placement company for truck drivers out of Swedesboro, New Jersey.
During his employment with LRI, Burgos was assigned as a truck driver with
Philabundance.
L2.
Burgos' performance at Philabundance was exceptional, to the point
that he was offered a
permanent position; ultimately, Burgos accepted
Philabundance's offer of permanent employment.
19.
Sunoco, in its partnership with Philabundance, donated multiple fuel
cards for the Philabundance vehicles to purchase fuel at Sunoco Stations.
BE.tSLEY nRrf, LLC

125 w^r.--u Sluri
,\Dttrilr^. PA l9l0?
2r5.59?.1000
? I
5.592.8360
^\'.tu^\t.t:t
(u)
f IR\f
.c()ll
COMPI-AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
THB SHAM CRIMINAL CHARGES
L4. In or around early August of zoto, Burgos was called into Loesch's
office for a meeting. Also present at this meeting was one of Philabundance's
Human Resources representatives, and Leo Bustos, the Director of Logistics for
Philabundance.
15.
Loesch and Leo Bustos falsely accused Burgos of stealing gasoline,
using the fuel cards Sunoco had donated to Philabundance for personal use. These
offenses were allegedly perpetrated "during working hours."
t6.
Upon being presented with these false claims, Burgos vehemently
denied these charges and demanded proof; no such proof was ever presented to
Burgos, as there was none.
17.
At no time during the course of his emplorment did Burgos steal fuel,
specifically from fuel cards Sunoco had donated to their organization.
rB.
Although Burgos maintained his innocence, Leo Bustos threatened
referral to law enforcement; due to these outrageous and false accusations, Burgos
employment with Philabundance was terminated immediately.
rg.
Soon thereafter, Loesch, upon information and belief, advised the
other drivers (Burgos' former peers) of Philabundance's intention to prosecute

Burgos for stealing gasoline during their weekly meeting.
20.
On August 2c, 2olo, a representative of Philabundance, on behalf of
and/or under the authority of the Defendant Philabundance, contacted criminal law
enforcement authorities and falsely reported the alleged embezzlement by Burgos.
BEASLEY
FIRIt. LLC
125 w^r.rrrSrtrtr
u^l)rirrrn, PA l9l0?
2 r5.592.
t000
(hL\)
,{st-t:\'rlf,\t.co\l
215.592.8360
^\'.f
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
2L. The defendants furthered their lies by
providing more
false
information to the authorities to induce the Philadelphia District Attorney's office to

prosecute Burgos.
22.
Pursuant to the Affidavit of Probable Cause, following the report of
embezzlement, Detective James Powell was called
to
Philabundance's office and
interviewed Loesch, an alleged witness who related the following "facts" (later
proven false and unsupportable by her own testimony at the preliminary hearing):
a.
Loesch had discovered unauthorized charges to a company credit card.
b.
The card in question, Sunoco fuel card #oo3, was allegedly assigned to
the diesel truck that Burgos was assigned to drive.
c.
After investigating the card history, she found that there were fifty-one
(Sr) unauthorized charges for unleaded fuel totaling $2,969.57.
d. The charges were only made at two (z) Sunoco
stations located close to

the Burgos'home (3zoo Richmond Street and 5oo W. Erie Ave).
e. A number
of these purchases were made at odd hours (late night and

early morning) and during Burgos'shift.
f.
to Defendant Loesch, "this situation has now caused the

non-profit to be responsible for the stolen unleaded fuel that Sunoco
According
does not cover."
g.
See Exhibit
Philabundance had terminated Burgos for this theft.
"4" (effidavit of Probable
Cause, Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania,
County of Philadelphia, Police Incident Number roo3o5oo73).
29.
Defendant Loesch also signed
identifying him for the offcer.
24.
Exhibit "4."
As a result of the foregoing allegations made by Philabundance's
representatives,
BEASLET','rRrf,
See
a photo of Burgos (PPN+BoZ6g+)
all on behalf of and/or under the authority of the
Defendant
l,t,c
W,\r..*t[SRririt
[,\olt]{L\. PA 19107
125
2r5.592.r000
215.592.330
(ru)
,\\' nt:r\t-:\'t IR\f .c()\t
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
Philabundance, a Criminal Complaint was filed against Burgos. See Exhibit "B"
(Criminal Complaint No. COM-ooo72gg-2o1o, dated November 13, 2o1o).
25.
Burgos was charged with theft by unlauful taking, theft by deception,
receiving stolen property and access to a device used to obtain or attempt to obtain
property/services. The amount in question was approximately $3ooo.oo thereby

making the offenses felonies of the third degree. See Exhibit "B." See also Exhibit "C"
(Philadelphia County Criminal Docket No. MC-Sr-CR-oo5r9z3-zoro).
26. An arrest warrant
was further issued, and on December 1, 2o1o,
members of the Philadelphia Police Department appeared at Plaintiffs home.
27.
Burgos was arrested in front of his two (z) minor children, and taken
into custody.
zB.
These charges were brought against Plaintiff based upon knowingly
false accusations by the Defendants, and/or their representatives. As a result of the
contrived and completely fabricated charges, Plaintiff spent more than three (S)
months in jail.
THE INIVESTIGATION AND TERMINATION OF

PHII.ABUNDANCE EMPLOYEE, LEO BUSTOS
29. Within weeks of initiating the criminal prosecution of
Burgos,
however, Leo Bustos, (the Director of Logistics who initially threatened Burgos with
criminal action for his alleged theft) was terminated. Leo Bustos' office was locked,
his computer was seized and password disabled.
BEASLEY FIRII, LLC

W,u NUr StR81
125
[^DtitltrL\.P l9l0?
2 I
2 I
5.592. t000
5.592.830
,\st.r! f
^t.rf
(L\)
tR\t.c()If
Burgos, et al. v. Philabundance, et aI.
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
30.
Upon information and belief, representatives and/or agents of
Philabundance took affirmative steps
to cover up the facts and to keep secret
evidence that would exculpate Burgos.
81. In light of the

Philabundance's agents
and
suspicious circumstances
employees
and activities of
prior to Leo Bustos'
departure,
Philabundance Defendants knew and/or should have known that the impending
criminal charges against Burgos were bogus.
82. In spite of being confronted with the truth, none of the agents or
supervisors of Philabundance who were involved admitted their error or took any
steps to stop the prosecution.
33.
Defendants lacked honest suspicions and were not acting in good faith
when they knowingly pushed ahead with the sham criminal charges against Burgos,
and permitted the knowingly false and highly damaging allegations of criminal
conduct to spread.
54.
The nurturing of the state's prosecution of this action against Burgos
was a contrived and malicious scheme to deflect attention from and/or cover up
Defendants own malfeasance and transgressions; all to the great detriment of the
Plaintiffs.
PHII-ABUNDANCE'S CONTINUING MALICE AS EVIDENCED IN

PROSECUTION OF THE SHAM CRIMINAL CHARGES
gS. A preliminary hearing was originally listed for December tz, zott
before the Honorable Georganne
BE.\SLY T'IR}f,
V. Daher, but a
continuance
for
further
LLC
125 W^r.wt SrRr:ril

[,\t)tiutr^, PA 19107
2r5.592. r000
2 t
5.592.8360
([,u)
rl"nI.\st-t: \'tt R\t.cott
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
investigation due to a lack of defendants' evidence against Burgos, and the hearing
was re-scheduled for January rg,2oll- before Judge James Deleon.
86.
During the course of the preliminary hearing before Judge Deleon on
January Lg,2ort, the Commonwealth presented Defendant Loesch, Philabundance's

Transportation Manager, as their sole witness. See Exhibit "D" (Preliminary Hearing
Volume I, dated January r9, zorr).
37.
When Judge Deleon questioned Defendant Loesch directly about her
position within the company, she testified under oath that she was responsible for
managing the trucks and truck drivers and was "the keeper of all records that come
in as it related to these trucks, the running of the truck..."
See
Exhibit "D" at pp. 5:7
- n.tc
98.
Defendant Loesch testified under oath, that she brought the
entire file
with her to the hearing. Id. at p. 10:11-13. Yet, at no time during the course of the
preliminary hearing was Defendant Loesch able to identify and/or produce a single
document that supported Defendant Philabundance's false, defamatory and

scandalous claims against Burgos. Id.
39.
The defendants had no legitimate evidence connecting Burgos to this
theft or of any other wrongdoing. Id. at pp. g1i7-g1i2o.
40.
Following this testimony, it was quite clear that the alleged total loss of
approximately $g,ooo.oo was based on nothing more than speculation and

guesswork.
BEASLEY FTRIT,
125
l,l,C
w^r.-*u[ SrR[[r
u^rnilrlh,PA l9l0?
2t5.592.1000
215.59?.830
^\'-tt:.{sI-t
(rL\)
ttR\f .co\t
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
4L.
The Assistant District Attorney conceded that based on the documents
within their file, he could not prove his case, and that was no reason to proceed with
the preliminary hearing. Id. at pp. g6-38.
42.
The Judge instructed the Assistant District Attorney to provide the
defense with any new discovery ten days prior to the next listing.
45.
Despite the utter lack of evidence of wrongdoing by Burgos, Burgos
remained in custody on a state detainer until his trial. Burgos subsequently retained
the services of Gregory Pagano, Esquire a criminal defense attorney and his
associate Robert Lynch, Esquire to the represent him.
44.
No additional discovery was provided because the defendants had
none, further evidencing their false claims and ill will towards Burgos.
DISMISSAL OF THE SHAM CRIMINAL CHARGES
45. A Pre-Trial conference
was held on March L4, 2o1o before The
Honorable Teresa Carr Deni. See Exhibit "E" (Transcript from the Pre-Trial
Conference, dated January r9, zorr).
46. After more than three months in jail on a state detainer,

Philabundance Defendants had
still failed to provide any support for their
outrageous claims against Burgos.
47.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Deni immediately dismissed the case
against Burgos in its entirety, and Burgos was thereafter released from prison.
Exhibit "E."
See also
See
Exhibit "F" (Trial Disposition and Dismissal Form and Release
of Prison Form).
BEASLEY FIRTI,
125
w^r.rr
{nirflrr\.
LLC
Sn[[l
P 19107
2t5.592. t000
215.592.330
(r,,)
,1t.ar:,\st.r'f
lR\t.colt
COMPI-AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
48.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants misconduct as set
forth herein, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages including but not limited to loss of
standing in their community, loss of business profits, loss to their reputations and
emotional damages, and further seek punitive damages as a result of the Defendants
continuing outrageous conduct.
COUNT I
COMMON I.AW MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Manuel Burgos vs. All Defendants
49.
at length herein.
So.
The Defendants caused criminal proceedings against Burgos to occur,
initiated by Defendants with false pretenses and fabricated claims; these false
charges were created to cover up Defendants' own misfeasance.
51.
Defendants knew that the impending criminal charges were bogus and
predicated on facts, which were simply and very obviously
false.
Despite this
knowledge, the Philabundance Defendants pushed ahead with the sham criminal
charges against Burgos, misleading
the District Attorneys' office for their
own
malicious purposes.
52.
The criminal proceedings against Burgos were based solely on false
statements, manufactured evidence, and contrivances deliberately promulgated by

Defendants.
53.
The bringing and continuing of the underlying criminal charges by
Defendants constituted malicious prosecution on the part
of Defendants
against
Plaintiff.
BSASLEI'FIRTf, LLC
125 W,\r.M SrRlr:r
[^Dlr.P[L\, PA 19l0?
2 t5.592.
t000
(ru)
215.592.3160
^r.Bt,\sl.l:t
IR\t.coll
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
54.
Defendants took advantage of Philabundance's reputation within the
Philadelphia Community and/or
its
personal relationships with Philadelphia
County, Philadelphia County Police Department, and the Philadelphia County

District Attorneys' office to initiate false criminal charges and ensure that Burgos
would be arrested and prosecuted.
SS.
The Defendants took affirmative steps to cover up the facts and to keep
secret evidence that would exculpate Burgos.
56.
The Defendants withheld material evidence and failed to make a full
and fair disclosure of all relevant facts to the prosecuting authorities in ensure that
the criminal charges against Burgos would be maintained.
57.
As a result of the malicious prosecution, Burgos suffered substantial
damages, including attorney's fees
and costs for his defense, along with
noneconomic damages such as those for physical and emotional damages, including
mental anguish, reputational injury, and loss of business opportunities arising from
Defendants misconduct.
SB.
Defendants'misconduct is so egregious and outrageous that
it
warrants the imposition of punitive damages.
\IVHBRBFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants, jointly

and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits such
that a jury trial is guaranteed. In addition, plaintiffs demand an award of punitive

damages, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief, as the court deems just and
equitable under the circumstances.
BEASLEY FIR,U,
125
w^l.Mn
Iir)riurrL\,
2
I,I,C
SrRrir:T
P.A
21s.592. t000
l9l0?
15.592.3360 (1,,1\)
,1\'.nt:,\sl-t\'f IR\t-c()\l
Burgos, et aI. v. Philabundance, et al.
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
COUNT II
NBGLIGENCE
59.
at length herein.
6o.
Defendants had a duty to Burgos to reasonably investigate the facts
involved in the underlying criminal prosecution prior to making accusations
to
law
enforcement, to report all the facts/disclose material information to both the police
and the Philadelphia County District Attorneys office.
6r.
Defendants breached this duty by failing to reasonably investigate the
circumstances, as they then and there existed, before concluding
that
Burgos
engaged in any criminal conduct.
62,
Defendants breached
this duty by failing to disclose material
information and/or take steps to stop the prosecution of Burgos once Defendants
knew and/or should have known that the impending criminal charges against
Burgos were bogus.
69. As a
Philabundance,
result, Defendant Loesch and/or other representatives of
on behalf of and/or under the authority of the
Defendant
Philabundance, contacted criminal law enforcement authorities and accused Burgos

of.
embezzlement.
6+.
As a result of the contrived and completely fabricated charges by
Defendants, Plaintiffspent over three (3) months in jail.
6S.
These accusations are false.
LLC
W^t-MSrRrril
BEASLEY FRIf,
125
[iDlrrilh.
2 15.592.
2 I
P 19107
t000
5.592.830
(r)
^t.81:^sl,rrlR\t.cott
COMPI-AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
66.
As a direct and proximate result of the accusations of Defendants,
Burgos suffered injuries to his business and to his personal life.
62.
Burgos suffered severe economic and personal harm, including the
restraint on his liberty, severe embarrassment, physical and mental pain and
suffering, loss of standing in the community, loss of business opportunities, and
legal costs.
\IVHBREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants, jointly


COUNT
III
MALICIOUS DEFAMATION
68.
at length herein
69.
Defendants' statements falsely ascribed
to
Burgos of criminal,
felonious behavior.
Zo.
The Defendants published the defamatory statements with knowledge
that they were false or with a reckless disregard of whether they were false.
TL. In
spite of being confronted with the truth, the Philabundance
Defendants outrageously pushed ahead with the sham criminal charges against
Burgos, thereby permitting the knowingly false and highly damaging allegations of
criminal conduct to spread.

BEASLY FIRTf, LLC
125 W,\r.Ntr STRIr
[d[rrlil^, P^
19107
2t5.592.1000
215.592.8360
^v.t!:,!st,tYf
(rn)
tR\t.coI
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
72.
As a result of the Defendants failure to remedy the situation, Plaintiffs
reputation has been destroyed throughout the trucking community in which Burgos
was always respected.
73.
The defamatory statements constitute defamation per se, and were
published by Defendants with actual malice.
74.
Loesch acting individually and during the course and scope of her
employment, agency and/or authority
of
Defendant Philabundance, knowingly
published the defamatory statements identified here with the specific intent to harm
Plaintiffso
to cover the Defendants'improper conduct.
as
75.
Loesch acting individually and during the course and scope of her
emplo;rment, agency and/or authority of the Defendant Philabundance, continued to
propagate the false and outrageous criminal allegations
of embezzlement about
Plaintiff even though she knew or should have known them to be untrue and highly
damaging.
26,
Loesch was acting within the course and scope of her authority as an
employee of Defendant Philabundance when she propagated these per se actionable
defamatory accusations; as such, Philabundance is directly and vicariously liable for

her actions described herein.
77.
The above-referenced statements, and the inferences, innuendos and
implications that reasonably flow from the false, criminal allegations, are highly
defamatory of Manuel Burgos.
ZB.
implications that reasonably flow from the false, criminal allegations, has spread
DESLEY FTR\t,
125
f
2
LLC
w,\.Mn Sm[ET
PA 19107
^r)rrflrn.
2r5.592. r000
15.592.8360(rrL\)
^\'.at:\st-r:TlR\f
.coll
COMPI.AJNT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
throughout the community and has damaged Plaintiffs reputation, lowering him in
the estimation of the community, deterring third persons from associating with
them and compromising future business ventures.
79,
implications that reasonably flow from the false, criminal allegations, has exposed
Plaintiff to contempt and/or ridicule, effectively prohibited him from obtaining

meaningful employment, caused significant physical and emotional pain and
suffering, and has injured his reputation in his community.
Bo.
implications that reasonably flow from the false, criminal allegations, has lowered
Plaintiffs reputation in the estimation of his community.
Br.
The content of the defamatory statements was clearly comprehensible
to all persons to whom they were thus published.
Bz.
Defendants had no privilege, whether absolute or conditional, to utter
and broadcast the false and defamatory statements.
Bg.
Defendants published, and permitted the continued propagation of the
defamatory statements, with
full knowledge that they would
raise questions in the
minds of all who read or heard the falsehoods that Plaintiffs were dishonest and
criminals.
B+. It is outrageous that someone in Defendants
position of trust and
power would fabricate and propagate such false allegations; therefore, Defendants
publication of the defamatory statements warrants an award of punitive damages

against all Defendants because their conduct,
in
reckless disregard
of Plaintiffs
B,ISLY FIR}T, LLC

125 w,\r.Nrrr SrRrr:r
[Ir]r:rJ{L\,PA
2
19107
5.592.1000
t5.592.830(iL\)
.1\.BL\$.tt ttR\t.colt
2
COMPIAINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
interests, was malicious, outrageous, willful and wanton, and the result of improper
motives.
BS.
Burgos is entitled to recover from Defendants such damages as will
compensate him for the severe harm to his professional and personal reputation,
for
mental and emotional suffering, and for the humiliation and embarrassment caused
by Defendants' malicious propagation of the above-referenced false and defamatory
statements, innuendos and implications, and which,
in addition, will punish the
defendants for their malicious libel and will deter them and others in the future from
repetition of similar libels.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants, jointly


COUNT IV
FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY
86.
at length herein.
82.
The defamatory statements were widely disseminated by Defendants,
published throughout Philadelphia County, and circulated and repeated throughout

the region, the Nation, and beyond.
88.
The defamatory statements were false.
BEASLY FRTf, I,LC

125 W,\r.NurSlR[r
[,v)rurtL\, PA l9l0?
2r5.592. t000
2
r5.592.8360
;1\',_tf
(rM)
,\sl.:\'tstRtt_coll
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
89.
The defamatory statements
particularly
in
falsely ascribing to
Burgos of criminal, felonious behavior and stating and/or clearly implying as fact
that he had stolen from his employer on approximately fifty-one different occasions
placed Burgos
in a false light
before the public, a false light that was highly
offensive to Burgos, and that would be highly offensive to any reasonable person.
90.
The Defendants, acting individually and during the course and scope of
their emplorment, agency and/or authority of Philabundance, broadcast
the
defamatory statements with knowledge of, or acted in reckless disregard as to, their
falsity, and the highly offensive false light in which they placed Burgos.
gL.
Defendant Loesch, acting individually and during the course and scope
of her employment, agency and/or authority of Philabundance, broadcasted false

and defamatory statements with knowledge of and/or a reckless disregard as to their
falsity, and the highly offensive false light in which they placed Burgos.
92.
The Defendants conduct was outrageous, willful and wanton.
99. It is outrageous that someone in Defendants
power would fabricate such a review; that warrants punitive damages.
WHBRBFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants, jointly


damages, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as the court deems
just and
BEASLEY FIRju, LLC

w^r Nu SrRrr:r
125
l^Drfilr\,PA l9l0?
2r5.592. r000
215.592.8360
(ru)
,1l.Bt:ist.l: f R\t.c())t
COMPI.AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
COUNTV
INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTTVE ECONOM IC ADVANTAGE
94.
at length herein.
95.
Philabundance Defendants were
not
privileged
to make the
defamatory statements defined herein.
96.
Philabundance Defendants' defamatory statements have interfered
and/or will in the future interfere with Burgos' prospective economic opportunities,
business relations, and earning capacity.
97.
Philabundance Defendants' accusations, statements and false claims
have interfered and
will continue to do so into the future with the aforesaid lost
economic opportunities, business relations, and earning capacity of Plaintiff.
98. The Defendants
were aware that Burgos prospective economic
advantage and earning capacity would be harmed by the false and defamatory
statements.
gg.
The Defendants'conduct was outrageous, willful and wanton.
loo. It is outrageous that an entity in Defendants
power would fabricate such false and damaging claims; that warrants punitive
damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants, jointly


BESLY FIRTt, I,LC
W,\r ilrr S'rru[1
[tr\DrirJrL\. PA 19107
2r5.592. t000
125
2 15.592.8360ofl\)
,1t.t:lst_t: ItR\t.c()\l
Burgos, et al. v. Philabundance, et aI.
COMPIAINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
damages, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and
fina
1o1.
COIJNT VI
LOSS OF CONSORTII]M
Marie Miller vs. AII Defendants
at length herein.
1o2. Plaintiff, Tina Marie Miller
tog.
is the wife of Manuel Burgos.
As the result of Defendants malicious prosecution of her husband, Ms.
Miller suffered substantial noneconomic damages such as those for emotional

damages, including mental anguish,
and reputational injury, arising from
Defendants misconduct.
\IVHEREFORB, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants, jointly and

severally, for compensatory damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits such that a
jury trial is guaranteed. In addition, plaintiffs demand an award of punitive

damages, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and
NOTICE OF PRESERVATION OF E\IDBNCB

PI.-A.INTIFFS HEREBY DEMAND
AND REQUEST THAT DEFENDANTS
TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF ALL

DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR OTHERWISE,
ITEMS AND THINGS IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PARTY TO

THIS ACTION, OR ANY ENTITY OVER WHICH ANY PARTY TO HIS ACTION HAS
CONTROL, OR FROM WHOM ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION HAS ACCESS TO,
ANY DOCUMENTS, ITEMS, OR THINGS WHICH MAY IN ANY MANNER BE

BEASLEY FIRTI,
125
LLC
w.\t.Nr'tSrRrlr
0nDl;trltL\,P 19l0?
2r5.592.r000
2 r5.592.830
(rd)
^\'.tl:.!sl,DYrRI.co)r
COMPI-AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
RELEVA\TT TO OR RELATE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CAUSES OF

__ATrQN A{D/OR rHE ALLEGATTONQ
lElr{q qOMPr.arNr,
DEMAIVD FORJURYTRIAL
Plaintiffs demand
jurytrial.
THE BEA,SLEYFTRM, Lr,C
BY:
lsl
Jannes E. Beaslev. Jr.

JAMES E. BEASLEY, JR., ESQUIRE
THE BEASLEY BUILDING
rrz5 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA tgto7
215.592.1OOO
215.592.896o (facsimile)
jbj@beasleyfirm.com
Dated:
BEASLEYNNM,
125
19 September
zorr
LI,c
\it^Txt,STREET
ruulil
,PA
19107
2r5.59.1000
215.592.8360(Fu()
,W.AEASLEYfIR\I.COM
COMPI,AINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
\TERIFICATION
I, Manuel J. Burgos, hereby certi& that I am the plaintiffin this action; and that
the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. The und.ersgned understands that the statements
made therein are subject to penalties of
r8
Pa.C.S.A. $+goq relating
to unswonr
falsification to authorities.
TBEASLEYtrTRM, LI
I125
fvALlrrr SrREr
&[JDB[!PA l9lq,
2t5.5t.1000
215.59.t3@(FÔ
lYlYlY.ElrSLYflnrt COl,
Burgos,
etal
v. Philabundance,
COMPLAINT
etal
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
VERIFICATTON
I, Tina Marie Miller, hereby certiff that I am the plaintiffin this action; and that
the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements
made therein are subject to penalties of
r8
Pa.C.S.A. gqgo+ relating
to
unswom
falsifi cation to authorities.
TINAMARIE MILLER
THEBEASLEY FIRM, LI,C

I
25
w^LMrrSrRE
Pro"ADErPA
19107
215.59.1000
215.592.8l@(F^10
W.EHffW.C}I
Bugos, et aL v. Philabundance, et al.
COMPLAINT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
EXHIBITA
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
AFFIDA' r OF PROBABLE
copy
Commonwealth of Pennsylvl
County of Philadelphia
G,AUSE
Police lncldEnt Number (DC#):
Wanant Control Number:
1003050073
AFF-0007239-2010
DET POWELLJAIVIES
8166 South Detectives Dtvlston
PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWNG FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANGES:
1. That after iirvestation I have probable cause to believe that a
Defendant Name:
'
warant of anest should be issued for:
MANUEL-BURCOS
cender:
Alias:
Race:
DOB: OZZanglA. pid: 807634

Addrss: 3642 EMERALD ST phtadetphia, pA 19134
CHABGES:
DC Number Ctde
1003050073 cc3921
cc3922
cc3925
cc4106
Grade Description
F3
F3
F3
F3
THEFT.UNLWF TAKING
THEFT BY DECEPTION
THEFT-RSP
ACCESS DEVCE FRAUD
1
1
2. Tht-the facts tending.to e-stablish the grounds for the issuance of the warant of arrest and the probable cause for my belief
( Note: if extsnded text exists, see following page(s))
arc as
follows:
1OO3O5OO73 ON 8/20110 AT 7:30 AM POL]CE WERE CALLED TO 3616 S GALLOWAY STREET FOR A REPORT OF
EMBFTTLEMENT. THE WITNESS WHO IS THE TRANSORTATION MANAGER FOR PHILABUNDANCE LOCATED AT
3616 S GALLOWAY STREET WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE ASSIGNED AND RELATED THAT SHE DISCOVERED
SOME LINAUTHORIZED CHARGES TO A COMPANY CREDIT CARD. THE.CARD IS A sUOCo FUEL CARD FoR UsE
. AT THEIR SERVICE STATIONS. THE CREDIT CARD ]N OUESTON WAS ASSIGNED TO THE TRUCK THAT THE
DEFENDANT IS ASSIGNED TO DRIVE. THE TRUCKS USED BY THIS COMPANY ALL USE DIESEL FUEL. THE CARD
#OO3 ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENDANTS TRUCK HAD BEEN USED TO PURCHASE UNLEADED FUEL. THE WITNESS
THEN INVESTGATED THE CARDS HISTORY AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE (51) UNAUTHORTZED CHARGES
FOR UNLEADED FUEL TOTALING $2969.57, THE CHARGES WERE ONLY MADE AT TWo sijNoco sTATIoNs
LOCATED CLOSE TO THE DEFENDANIS_HqMq(92oq RICHMOND ST & 500 W. ER|E AVE). A NUMBER OF THESE
PURCHASES WERE MADE AT ODD HOURS (LATE NIGHT & EARLY MORNTNG) AND DURt{c THE DEFENDANTS
SHIFT.
I
I
THE WITNESS ALSO NFORMED THE ASSIGNED THAT SUNOCO DONATED THE CARDS TO PHILABUNDANCE AND
PAYS FOR ALL FUL USED BY THEIR TRUCKS. THIS SITUATION HAS NOW CAUSED THE NON.PROFET TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STOLEN UNLEADED FUELTHAT SUNOCO DOES NOT COVER. THE WITNESS AND HER
AGENCY TERMINATED THE DEFENDANT FOR THIS THE THEFT. THE WITNESS ALSO SIGNED A PHOTO OF THE
DEFENDANT (ppN#807634) tDENTlFylNc HtM FOR THE ASStcNED.
I
I
I
I
I
I, THE AFFIANT, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE
AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATIoN AND BELIEF AND THT nosReLe
CAUSE TO ARREST EXISTS.
Afant DET
POWELL JAMES 816 South Detecrives Dvision
Sworn to or affirmed and subscribed before me this 13 day of November,2010
*a@a
-f8
Affiant Signature
IIIAUUEL SURCOS
lssuing Authority Sig natuie
PagloflPage
Pnled; 1A0?J2010 09:29 AM
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
EXHIBITB
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
PARS
;
C-./IMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVA,-.,r
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
oc*:
Complaint
Criminal Complaint
tb-os-oboo73
DckUMC#: MCS -CR-005 1923-201 0

'Date: Nov '13,2010
COM-0007239-201 0
copy
Felony
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA YS. MANUEL BURGOS

I, lhe undersigned, do hereby state under oath or affirmation:
(1)
is:
POWELLJAMES South Detectlves Divislon

laccuse MANUEL BURGOS
who lives at 3642 ementato sT Philadetphla, PA 19134
with viofating the Penal Laws of Pennsylvania on or about Thursday, August 0S, 2010
My name
(2)
in th.e county of Philadelphia,

(3) The acts committed by the accused were:
AT OR NEAR 32OO RICHMOND ST AND 5OO W ERIE AVE. THE DEFENDANT UNLAWFULLY USED A CREDIT CARD
PRoVIDED To HIM BY Hls EMPLoYER PHILABUNDANCE oN s1 occAStoNS. bEFENDANT MADE uAufHoRrzeo
PURCHASES TOTALLING $2969.57, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COMPLAINANT, WTH THE INTET TO DEPRVE
COMPLAINANT THEREOF
ln violation of Pennsylvania Penal Laws, section(s) and tlde(s)
GHARGES:
Grade Descrption
Gode
Gounts
cc3921
F3
THEFT.UNLWF TAKING
001'
cc3922
F3
THEFT BY DECEPTION
001
cc3925
cc4106
F3
THEFT,RSP
001
F3
ACCESS DEVICE FRAUD
001
All of whlch is agalnst the peace and dignity of the Commonweallh of Pennsylvania
(4) I ask that a wanant of arrest or a summons be issued and that the accused be required to answer the
charges I liave made. This complaint has been reviewed and approved y A"D.A ANDREW JENEMANN
(5) I surear to or affirm the within complalnt upon my knowledge, informatton and bellef, and sign it on
11 l13t2O1O before Philadelpha Municipal Court Judge/Anaignment Court Magistrate.
1#
Ma
Signature of Anaignment Court Magistrate.
On 11n3nm0
Signature of Afant
the above named affiant swore or affirmed that the f;acts set forth in thecomplant were true and
corect to the best of hisiher knowledge, lnformation and belief, and signed it in my presence. I believe the
within affiani to be a responsibte person and that there ls probable cause for the issuance of process.
lssuing Authority
Seal
MANUEL SURGOS
DC#: 1003050073
Page
I of
Prlnled; 1210?2010 0929 AM
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
EXI{IBIT
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
MUNICIPAL COURT OF PHLADELPHIA COUNTY

DOCKET
Docket Number: MC-51 -CR-0051 923-201 0
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 1 ofS
v.
Manuel Burgos
CASE INFORMATON
Cross Court Docket Nos: PARS-MC-51-CR-0051923-2010
Judqe Assiqned:
Date Filed: 1210212010
OTN: N7152036
Lower Court Docket No: MC-51-CR-0051923-2010
lnitial lssuino Authority:

Arresting Agencv: Philadelphia Pd
Case Local Number Tvoe(s)
Final lssuing Authority:

Arrestino Officer: COONEY, JOSEPH P
Case Local Number(s)
District Control Number
lnitiation Date : 1 1 I 1312010
003050073
STATUS INFORMATION
Case Status: Closed
Status Date
03t14t2011
01t1912011
Remanded for Trial
01t19t2011
Awaiting Trial
12t02t2010
Awaiting Preliminary Hearing

Complaint
Event Schedule
I-V
Preliminary
1111312010
Room
Judqe Name
Schedule
Status
1210212010 9:20 am
808
Scheduled
1211712010 8:00 am
503
Arraignment Court Magistrate

Francis J. Rebstock
Judge Georganne V. Daher
0111912011 8:00 am
503
Judge James M. Deleon
Scheduled
031141201'1 10:00 am
503
Judge Teresa Carr Deni
Scheduled
St"rt
Start
D"t" T'-"
Arraignment
Arraignment
Date:
CALENDAR EVENTS
J'.
Case Calendar
12t01t2010
Arrest Date:
Processino Status
Completed
Scheduled
Preliminary Hearing
Preliminary
Trial
Hearing
CONFINEMENT INFORMATION
Confinement
Tvpe
opczzzo-
Rev(x/15/2011
Destination
Location
Confinement
Stillin
Reason
Custodv
Printed:04/15/2011
Recent entries made in the court fling offces may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Nether the courts of the Unifed Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Offce of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for naccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which cn
only be provided by the Pennsylvana State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
lnformaton Act may be subiect to civil liability as set forth in l8 Pa.C.S. Secton 9183.
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
MUNICIPAL COURT OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

DOCKET
Docket Number: MC-s1 -CR-0051 923-201 0
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Page 2 of 5
v.
Manuel Burgos
Date Of Birth:
DEFENDANT INFORMATION
Citv/State/Zip: Philadelphia, PA 19134
02t24t1976
Alias Name
Burgos,
Burgos,
Burgos,
Burgos,
Emanuel
Lopez
Ramon
Ramos
CASE PARTICIPANTS
Participant Tvpe
Name
Defendant
Burgos, Manuel
BAIL INFORMATION
Nebbia Status: None
Burgos, Manuel
BailAction
BailTvpe
Date
Percentaqe
Amount
Bail Postinq
Set
12t02t2010
Monetary
Change Bail Type
02t02t2011
ROR
10.00%
Status
Postinq Date
$2,500.00
$0.00
CHARGES
Seq.
Orio
Seo. Grade
Statute
Statute Description
Offense
Date
OTN
Theft By Unlaw Taking-Movable Prop
08/05/2010
N71 52036
r8 s 3s21
18 S 3s22 SS
Theft By Decep-False lmpression
08/05/2010
N71 52036
r8 s 3e25
SS
Receiving Stolen Property
08/05/2010
N71 52036
r8 s 4106
SS
Access Device Used To Obt Or Att Obt
08/05/2010
N71 52036
SS
Prop/Service
Printad:04/'15/201I
AOPC 2220 - Rev 0411512011
Recent entries made in the court fling offces may not be immediately reflected on these dockel sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on lhese reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used n place of a criminal history background check which can
only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Polce. Moreover an employer who does not comply wth the provisions of the Criminal History Record
lnformation Act may be subiect to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9 183.
Case ID: 121202978

110600726

DOCKET
Docket Number: MC-51-CR-0051923-201 0
GRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Page 3 of 5
V.
Manuel Burgos
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTI ES
Disposition
Case Event
Sequence/Description
Sentencinq Judoe
Sentence/Diversion Prooram Tvoe
Sentence Conditions
Linked Offense - Sentence
Disposition Date
Final Disposition
Grade Section
Offense Disoosition
Sentence Date
Credit For Time Served
I ncarceration/Diversionary
Period
Start Date
Link Tvoe
Linked Docket Number
Proceed to Court
12t02t2010
Preliminary Arraignment
Not Final
Proceed to Court
2 lTheft By Decep-False lmpression
Proceed to Court
18S3922SS41
3 / Receiving Stolen Property
Proceed to Court
18S3e25SSA
4 / Access Device Used To Obt Or Att Obt

Prop/Service
Proceed to Court
18S41065541
1/
8S3e21 SSA
Remanded to Municipal Court

Preliminary Hearing
1/
01t19/2011
2l'fheft
By Decep-False lmpression
4 / Access Device Used
Prop/Service
lo
Obt Or Att Obt
Not Final
1
853921 SSA
18S3e22SSA1
18S3s25SSA
8S41 0655A1
Dismissed - LOP
03t14t201',|
Trial
/ Theft By Unlaw Taking-Movable Prop
2 lfheft By Decep-False lmpression

4 / Access Device Used To Obt Or Att Obt

Prop/Service
AOPC222O-
Revo4/15/2oll
Dismissed - LOP
Dismissed - LOP
Dismissed - LOP
Dismissed - LOP
Final Disposition
18S3e21SSA
18S39225541
18S3e25SSA
18S41065541
Printed: 04/15/2011
Recent entres made in the court fling offices may nol be immedately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonweallh of Pennsylvana nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for naccurate or delayed
data, errors or omssions of these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only be provided by the Pqnnsylvana State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of lhe Criminal History Record
lnformaton Act may be subiecl to civl liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
Case ID: 121202978

110600726

DOCKET
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Page 4 of 5
V.
Manuel Burgos
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
COMMONWEALTH INFORMATION
Name;
Philadelphia County District Attorney's

Office
Prosecutor
Suoreme Court No:

Phone Number(s):
(215) 686-8000 (Phone)
Address:
3 South Penn Square
Philadelphia
PA 19107
Name:
Gregory Joseph Pagano, Esq.

Private
No:
Rep. Status:
Supreme Court
071730
Active
Phone Number(s):
(215) 636-0160 (Phone)
(215) 636-0164 (Fax)
Address:
123 S BROAD ST STE 810
PHILADELPHIA
PA 19109
Representing: Burgos, Manuel
Pfinted: 04/15/201f
AOPC 2220 - Rev O4l1
Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheels. Neither the courts of the Unfed Judcial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvana nor the Adminstrative Office of Pennsylvania Courls assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. 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. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
lnformation Act may be subject to civil liabilily as set forth in
l8 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
Case ID: 121202978

110600726

DOCKET
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Page 5 of 5
V.
Manuel Burgos
ENTRIES
Sequence Number
CP Filed Date
12t02t2010
Document Date
PARS Transfer
Municipal Court
Philadelphia County
12t02t2010
Bail Set - Burgos, Manuel
Rebstock, Francis J.
12t17t2010
CW Request 1119111 Rm. 503
CW not ready; need further investigation and witness called off. Defense ready.
Daher, Georganne V.
01t19t2011
Trial Scheduled 311412011 10:004M
Municipal Court
Philadelphia County
o 1lt1gt2o11

DeLeon, James M
02t02t2011
Burgos,
Manuel
Bail Type Changed
Woods-Skipper, Sheila
03t14t2011
Dismissed - LOP
I
AOPC 2220 - Rev 0411512011
Deni, Teresa Carr
Printed: 04/15/2011
Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be mmediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of th Unifed Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor lhe Admnislrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any labilty for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should nol be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only be provded by the Pdnnsylvania State Polce. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
lnformation Act may be subject to civl lability as set forth in 'l 8 Pa.C.S. Secton 9183.
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
EXHIBITI)
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

5rcR00sr9232010
Manuel Burgos
Prelminary Hearing Volume

January 19, 201l
ffiffi
f rt Rrporlng Syrtenr
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

100 South Broad Street, Second Floor
Philadelphia, PA I9llA
(2ts) 683-8000 FAX:(215) 683-800s
Orgnal
ile
cs4l^l-19-l Ltxt, 4l
ID: I I 03 1645
Pages
CRS Catalog
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
5tCR005r9232010
Manuel Burgos
t2t
f31
Prcliminary Hearing Volumc I

JanuarY 19?2011
1
CENTER
Page
tN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF
PHILADELPHIA
COURTROOM 503 CRIMINAL JUSTICE

1301 FILBERT
STREET
r4r 66MM6NWEALTH ,
:
isi vs BURGoS
ioieruuel
f7t
: MC
slcR-00s1923-2010
ESQ.
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE COMMoNWEALTH
ERIC STRYDE,
INDEX
t2
t3 MTNESS
17l
tel
0l
t1
[r 1]
[12]
fr3l
tl41
!i]
| p
I rzt
i rel'
r'
t']
:t101
;t111
ittzl
ltrs
ltro
,11:1
;t16]
ia14
ifre
t20l
[21]
.1221
a23l
1241
rjill
Page3 :
DR CR RDR
tsI SHAWN CHUDRA LOF,SCH
t8l
HErDr M. RorH
REP0RTER
tsl
DEFENDER
DEFENDANT
t4!
t6J
By:
oF'tcIAL couRr
itrsl
RITA BOWLES, ESQ.

ASSTsTANT peltc
FoR THE
i isnrponrED
r-r '-!
APPEARANCES:
f17t
fr8j
tlel
iz6
irri
l22l
[23]
1241
t2sl
i pt
'
tel
JANUARY 19,2011
fe)
rlo pHILAELpHIA, pENNSYLVANTA
iri
l1z)
irs eeroRr: HoNoRABLE GEoRGANNE v. DAHER J.
fr4l
t15l
116l
Page 2
Page4
i l2l
RCR
; t3l
, l4l
i tsl
coMMoNwEALTtl's vlDENcE
rq
ALL PARTIES swoRN
i r
NUI\4BER4l,M^,NUF)|"
THECOURTCRIER:
i tet
BuRcos.
Itsi
MS. BOWLES: ASK FOR SEQUESTRTION.
.lrol
THE COURT: GRANTE.
itrt
sIlAwN,A, cAHUDRA LoEScH, wITNEss
it't"l
itt HEREBY SwoRN.
DIRECT-EXAMINATIoN.
',tl
!
t15
ilts BY MR. STRYDE:
tr 6l
IIO
nn
itrzJ
Ir8
jt,et
flel
11IS
f20l
l21l
l22l
l23l
l24l
t2sl
1ZO
A.
ELL TI{E
a.
PHILABUND^NCE.
V/HAT'S PHILABUNDANCI]?
JUDGE VIHERE YOU'RE CURREN'],Y
el4rtovBpt
Q.
e.
Wr:ne A FOOD
RESCUE, AND DONATTON
ORG^NIZATION
It21l
NoN-PROFIT.
iaz
t23]
o. wrels YouR JoB TIILE TIT oRcANIzATIoN'l

^T
A. TRANSPORTATION MANAGER.
it24l
,tzst
o. wHT's rllAT ENTAIL?

a, n ENTAILS MANGING 14 DRMR'S,
CURRENTLY TOW
Heidi Donaldson, O.C.R
Court Reporting System
(page 'l - 4)
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
Preliminary Hearing Volumc I

January 19,20ll
51cR00s19232010
Manuel Burgos
Page 5
THEM
AND
OFFICE STAFF, WE HAVE I3 TRUCKS, MOST OF

t3l sIRATcHl TRUCKS. WE I.TAVE ONE TR^CTOR TRÎLER
t4l BASTC^LLY MKING SURE THAT WE',RE FOLLOWTNG ALI12]
tsl RULES wE NEED To BE :oLLowINc so {AT v/E cAN

cET TIIE FOOD DELTVERED AND PICKED UP
16l SAFE
[7]
Q,
^ND
YOU SUPERVISE TI{E TRUCKS
SO,
t8loF THOSE TRUCKS?

telA. UHM, UHM.
[10]
a.
DO YOU PRITP^RE THE PAPERWORK
THE
^ND
OHER
Page 6
itTl]
MR. STRYDE: I,LL ASK HER QUESTIONS

AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE IF SHE HANDLES THE
DOCLrI\4ENT,I'M COING TO BE INTRODUCING.
MS. BOWLES: YOU CANMAKEA RULING
NOW. VIE CAN -. RATHER THAN GO THROUGH ALL OF
ITS DOCLIT\4ENTS FROM A THIRD PARTY.
THE COURT: ARI] THEY KEPT AS PART OF
TI{E BUSINESS, ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS?
THE WITNSS: PART OF THI DOCUMENTS
ARE AND PART OF TIIE DOCUMENTS A.RE FROM A
ltlzl
CREDIT CRD COMPA}Y, NOT CREDIT CARD BUT FROM
itrsl
SUNOCO WHO DONATES OUR FUEL.

THE COURT: V/HIIRF. DO YOU PUT THOSE
i
I
IZI
pl
TIJE i t4l
BE
AND--
DRMRS
i
i
i
RELATED
^.ND
f11I DOCUMENTS IN REGARD TO THOSE TRUCKS?
t12l A. Do I IREnARE T, No. I ME,N, TITEY'RE RIleutRED
t13t TO FILL OUT CERTATN PAPERVORK EVERY DAY.
THE CoURT: YOU'Rll THE KF,F.PER OF Tflli
t14l
t1s) RECORDS?
MR. STRYDE: YES, AND SHE'S ALSO THE

ti6l
t17l CoMPLAINANTIN THECASE.
THE GOURT: SHES THECOMPLAINANT
tlsl
llel AND THE KEBPER?
YOU WANT A STIPULTION AS TO KEITPER
t20l
RICORDS?
OF
l21l
MS. BOWLES: I'M NOT STIPULATING TO
l2zl
OF RECORDS,
KEEPER
t2sl
THE COURT: IS SHE KljllPER OF THE
l24t
t25l RECORDS?
p:
t0:
t71
t81
i lnl
it1 0l
iltql
ltrst
jfr6l
FILES, TIE CREDIT CARD .. WHATI]VER YOU GET

FROM SUNOCO, I'HERE DO YOU PU'f. IT /I{EN YOU GET
ittzl
IT?
lltal
THE WITNESS: WE AUDII'lT TO MAKE

SURE THE PURCHASES THAT ARE MADE ON IT ARE
:trgl
i[211
AUTI{ORIZED.
THE COURT: THEN V/HERB DO YOU PUT
.l2zl
IT?
itzol
THE WITNESS: THEN WE FILE IT IN THE
[23]
SUNOCO FILE IN A LOCKIID FILING.

THE COURT: WHO KEEPS THAT STNOCO
itzl
'1251
Page
Page 7
t2l
THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CCIURT: OKAY. SHE'S KEEPER OF
t3l
t4l
t5l
t6j
t7l
t8l
Iel
l1 0]
f1 1l
FII-E?
i t3i
i
THE RECORDS.
SUNOCO. SOMEONE FROM SUNOCO WAS TIERE TO TALK

ABOUT THE PURCIISES, TftEY'D BE TIIE KEEPER OF
THE STJNOCO.
THE COURT: NO. WAITTHERESTWO

KEEPERS OF RECORDS, YOU'RE T,LKING.ABOUT YOU
t14l
WAN SOMEBODY FROM
tlsl
V/I{AT THEIR RECORDS SHOTV, S}IE'S HERE TO SAY
SUNOCO TO SAY THEY SENT
t18l
WIIAT SHE GOT FROM SUNOCO, WE KEPT IN A FILE.

SO, SI{E'S THE KEEPRR OF LLTI{B RECORDS THAT
COME iN AS Il RELATES TO THESE TRUCKS, THE
tlel
RI.JNNNG OF THE TRUCKS, EVERYTI'IING TI'IAT COMES
117l
HETHER IT BEEN DONATED FUEL OR NON-DONATts
t20l
TN Vf
l21l
FUEL, OR YOU KEI]P THB RFIORDS HOUCH, CORRECT?
l22l
23],
241
l25l
RECORDS.
THE COURT: ONLY THINGS SHII'S

SAYING, EVERYTHING TIIAT SHE HAS SHE KN,EPS.
MS, BOWLES: THE LIMITED AMOUNT,
YEAH.
THE COURT: YDS,
i tz:
MR, STRYDE: THAT'S FINE, I.LL ASK
: t8l
: IgI HER A FEW MORE QTIESTIONS ABOUT THAT. THAT'S
,t''ol ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M ARGUING.
:ttrev MR. STRYDE:
o. I MEAN, you cET RF.coRDs FRoM sLINoco, RIcHT?

:ro A. WE GET RECORDS FROM SUNOCO, YES.
it14l o, You'RE TI'IE ONE TI{/IT'S IN CH^RGE? You'RE TI{E
itrz]
[131
116l
tl
l5l
!tul
:
MS. BOWLES: YES. MY OBJECTION IS

EVERYTHING SLTNOCO.- IT'S HEARSAY W]THIN
HI]ARSAY. ] CAN'T CROSS EXAMINEANYONE FROM
(12
t21
THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURI: SO, YOU WANT ME TO HAVF.
IIIM QUALIFY HER AS THE KFEPER OF TIjE RECORDS?
MS. BOWLES: ABOUT V/HAT IS IN THESII
;tT5]
DIRECToR? YoU.RE T}IE oNLY ONE THAT IIANDLES I{OSE
ACCOIINTS V/ITH SLTNOCO?

,lrn e, HAVllro APPROVE,- BASICALLY, VHATWEDO
itTs] WITII TI{E SUNOCO STEMENT IS TVE MATCH TTIE FUEL
Itrs) nncnnrs II{AT coME IN FRoM Tt{E DRIVER'S PAPERwoRK
rt suNoco s\TEMENT
AUDrr rr
itzol evenvnnv
^ND
^cArNsr
SO TI{AT W C^N VER|}Y TH^T Tt{E CH^RGF.S T}IAT AR. ON
;
t1
[2] I
t22l HDRE RE CORRECT. AND THEN WE PRESENT TO SUNOCO
lzr
rHer, yoIJ KNow,
llza
culRcrs
Tr-r.ESF. crr^Rc^s ARF: coRREcr oR Ttt!:sE

LoNc As
coRRr;cr, pay FoR o(n FUF.L
^s
^REN'T
'
[25] THE CIIARGES ARE AUTHORIZED AND CORRECT.
IIcidi Donaldson, O.C.R
2 (page 5 .8)
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
Preliminary Ilcaring Volume I

January l9,20ll
5ICRo0519232010
Manuel Burgos
I
it2)
Page 9
8.
WHEN YOU SAY THEY PAY FOR TI{E FUNL-THE COURT: HOLD ON A SECOND,
t3l
MR. STRYDE: YOU W^NT METO ASK
f4l
t51 THOSE QUESTIONS?
THE COURT: THOSE TlE QUESTIONS YOU
f6l
TO ASK, IF YOU WANT TO QU,A,LIFY HER AS
WANT
t71
OF TIE RECORDS.
KEI]PER
IS]
BY
STRYDE:
MR.
te]
[10] Q. r'LL ASK YOU A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS.
12]
tsl
.
i t8l
MR. STRYDE: YES.

THE COURT: SHE BROUGHT TJ'lll WHOLE
FILE TODAY.
itrr)4. YOU BROUCII

irzrooevt
a.
TI{E DoCUMENTS, LET I\48 Sllov/ YOU TIIE DOCUMENTS

[r3] wE RE ^LKTNG,ABOUT. FRST rLL ST^RT SHOWING yOU
I14I WHA,T I'LL MARK AS CI AND C2?
THE COURT: I MEAN, ONCE WE SEE
t15l
[16] l'rt^T, wE c^N STIPULATE OR IrE C^N GO rHROUcr.r
117) ASKING T]IOSE QUhSTIONS, AND AT TIIE END I WILL
QUALIFV HER .S A KEEPER OF THE RECORDS.
(18t
tlet
lel
CERTAIN DOCLIMENTS, RIGIIT?
iIlO)BY MR. STRYDE:
f11lA. OKAY.
lr2l
ISI
tot
: t7
THE COURT: Hll'S SIIOWNG THE RECORD,

To sHow IIER ALL THE RECORDS, BECÛSE
YOU'RE TAKING OUT OF THAT GROUP OF RECORDS
t41 You lI/\vE
i
i
Page 10
TIII IECORD YDT WITI-IOUT QUALIFICATIONS.
itr3t
A.
LL I{ESE OCUMENTS IN
wlrl{
YES.
MS. BOWLES: WHAT IS l{E SI{OWNG?

l14l
iIS
THE COURT: HE'S SHOWING I{ERTHE
,IIOl WIJOLE FILF,. OUT OF TI{ts FILE, OUT OF TI.II FILI]
iITZI HE CAN TAKE -- I{E CAN DIRECT IJI]R TO CF,RTAIN

,IIEI DOCUMENTS IN TIE FILP AND WI{,AT DO TI{EY MEAN.
121J
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. STRYDE: I'M SHOV/ING IJER FIRST

;tlsl
itzo: wHAT I'M sHov/INc cr.
;t2rl
THE COURT: YOU HAVE TO SIJOW THE
t221
MS. BOWLES: MAY I APPROACH THE
,122J lvHoLE--
MS. BOWLES: I DON"| THINK THEY CAN
t2O]
BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
l23t WTNESS?
THE COURT: YES.
l24l
MS. BOWLES: I'M GOING TO OBJECT
tzsJ
.t231
,.1241
MR. STRYDE: I CAN GIVE HER ALL OF

THEM IF YOU WANT, FINE.
TO
125)
Page
I2J
BY MS. BOWLES:
13]
Q.
t4l
ocuMENTS?
ll
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOME OF THOSE
tsl A.
OKAY.
I'M COING TO START WITH WH,T I N4ARK Ct,C2,
t6l Q.
THE FIRST TWO PAGES ON TI{E TOP OF TI{T SIIEET, OK,,\Y.

JUST
[8] cAN YOU IDENTIFY \4rUAT TTIOSE TWO RECORDS
^RE,
tgJ FOR THE RECORD WHAT THEY ACTUALLY-.
t7]
A. SLTNOCO STATEMENTS.
[1 1] a. THOSE TWO OCUMENTS, WERE THEY PREP^RED
tlot
By AN
INIUU,ALWITII A BUSINESS RELATjONSI.ilP WrTI-I YOUR

[r3] coMpA.Y? THE PERSON THAT PREPARES TI{OSE RECORDS,
112)
[14] DO TI]EY I{AVts.,q. REL^TIONST{IP WITI.I
t15tA.
t16I
Q.
t14 A.
TI{^T COMPANy?
MS. BOWLES: OBJECTION.
tlsl
THE COURT: OVERRUI-ED.

MS.BOWLES: NOT/IJATTHEQUESTION
122)
[231
241
t25]
Page 12
THE COURT: THAT'S WHATHEASKED.

MS. BOWLS: WHO WAS IT PREP.ARED BY?
THE COURT: SHE SAID, YES, SUNOCO.
ilz)
I3l
i t:
;
j I5l
i tol eY MR. sTRYDE:
Iz:O. WHET PERSON IN SLTNOCO?

THE couRT: IT'S THE CoMPANY.
i n:
I
tel
jtrot
MS. BOWLES: YOU H.AVE'IO HAVE

KNowLEDcE oF TUE BUsINEss, llow rItE Acrtvtry IS
Itrr KEPT.
J12l THE COURTT THAT'S ON CROSS. ALL
ilrsl THATIS cRoss eursrroNs.
MS. BOWLES: OKAY.
ill4l
itlslBY MR. STRYDE:
YES.
WH,AT RELATIONSHIP?
THEY DONATEOUR PUEL.
trsl
t20l
[2r]
YOIJ
s^YS.
itrol o. w.qs rfrERE,A BUSINESS RELATIoNSI{IP BETwFEN You

ipz AND SIINOCO?
igro a, vns, nETWEFN ME, pERsoNAJ-r-y, No, BUT BETwEEN
't1el PHILABLNDANCE AND SUNOCO, YES.
't2ol
o. w^s THER Nv SORT OF -- DID YOU REPORT WI{.4,7
ANY T^X
w/\S GOING ON WITH Tr{E SUNOCO AS FR
'22 nErntEo puRposEs? soMt; pEopLE wr{EN TttEy ^S
DoNATE To
'[21J
THE COURT: WHAT'S THE QUESTION SAY?
MS. BOWLES: WAS THE DOCUMENT
[23]NON-PROFIT ORC.ANIZAIIONS, TIEY GET
PREPARED BY AN INDIVIDU.AL WITH A BUSINESS

RELATIONSHIP V/ITI{ THE COMPAI.TY?
T^X WRITEOFF,
;zalRrcrrrr rT's A YEs oR No.

t25l
A.
YES.
Ilcidi Donaldson, O.C,R
3(pageI-12')
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
Preliminary Hcaring Volume I

January 19,20lI
51CR00s1 923201 0
Manuel
Page 14
Page 13
t2l
a.
IN THIS CIRCTMSTANCES, WERE YOU AWARD, WAS

TAX WRITEOFF?
MS. BOWLES; OBJECTION' LACK OF
t2t
t3I SUNOCO USING IT AS A
t3l
l4l
{41
I51
tl
t7
i5l
PERSONALKNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT: THAT'S NOT ONE OF TIIE
t6l
QUESTION.
t8i BY MR. STRYDE:
OF
tel Q. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, DID THE CREATOR
i t7l
REPORTTHT:
[10] PENNSYLVAMA BUSINESS DUTY TO ACCURATELY
irror
itt tl
INFORMATION?
THE COURT: ASK THAT QUESTION?
f12l
MR, STRYDET OKz\Y.
t1 sl
MS, BOWLES: SHE DOF.SN'T KNOV/.
[141
MR. STRYDE: SHE'S NOT Tl'lli CREATOR,
[151
t11]
r81
I tel
ittzl
itrsl
iltl
Itr
st
tT6]
il16l
I18] O. YOU KEEP I{OSE RFCORDS, BU YOU DIDN'T CREATE

119]THOSE RECORDS; IS THAT FAIR?
[2OI A. NO, I DIDN.T CREATE THE RECORD'
itlBl
KI]BPER OF THE RECORDS.

lTZBY MR. STRYDE:
f21l
:171
MS. BOWLES: THAT'S THE PROBLEM'
424)
125l
leot
itztl
L22t rr{ERE I{AS TO BE SOMEONE FROM SUNOCO WHO S/\lD
I23i
it''t:
THIS IS OUR BUSINESS POLICY.
;l2zl
t2sl
THE COURT: YOU'REA 501 -MR. STRYDE: C3ORC4?
l24l
t25l
THE COURT: YOU'RE A NON-PROFIT?

THE WITNESS: NON-PROIrIT, YES'
THE COURT: YOU GIVE SL\OCO A
DOCUMI]NT SAYING THA.T TI'IEY GAVE YOU X AMOUNT OF
FUEL?
THE WITNESS: BASICALLY, THEY GIVE

US CREDIT CARDS AND WE USE TIIOSE CREDIT CARDS
TO PURCI.IASE FUEL AT SLNOCO STATIONS. SO' THF,Y
SEND US THE STATEMENT. WE AUDIT IT AGAINST

OUR RECORDS, AND }VE APPROVE. AS LONG AS ALL
THE CHARGES ARE CORRECT, MOST, A.LMOST ALI, OF
TI.IE CI'IRGES ON TI.IE STATEMENT STTOULD BE ONLY
rO DIDSEL. W DO I.IAVE A FEW STATIONS TIAT WE
ALLOW PURCHASE OF GASOLINE.

SO, WHAT'S TIIE QUESTION?
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ALLOW Ttlls'
MS. BOWLES: I HAVETO OBJECTTO
THIS. THEIR V/HOLE CASEIS BLATANT IJEARSAY
V/ITH NO-
THE COURT: I NEED TO KNOW V/HAT'S

THE BASIS OF THE CASE, WHAT'S GOING ON I{ERI].
MR' STRYDE: BASICALLY, MY OFFER OF

PROOF IS THAT THE DEFENDANT WORKED-.
Ms. BOWLES: CAN WE HAVE TIiE IVITNESS
Page 16
Page 15
IA SEQUESTERED?
THE COURT: STEP oUT FOR A SECOND.
t31
ME
l4l LET FIND OUT WHAT'S COING ON.
YoU CAN LIIAVE EVERYTHING THERE'
tsl
BE BACK N.
YOU'LL
i6]
COURT; \{l'lAT'S GOING ON NOW?
THE
lrl
THE DEFENDANT USE TO
STRYDE:
MR.
tsl
tgl woRK FOR PHJLABUND^NCE. MY OFFER OF PROOF IS
tlol THAT IIE WAS GIVEN CRF.DITCRDS WITH SUNOCO rO
t11l
MAKE PURCILASES FOR DIFSEL FUEL FOR THF. TRUCKS

THAT HE WAS DNVING FOR PHILABU{DANCE.
l12l
THE COURT: DID HE ONLY DRIVE
ti3l
I14] DIESEL?
MR. STRYDE: HE WAS SUPPOSED ONLY TO
t15l
DIESEI..
HANDLE
IT6]
COURT: SHE SAID TI{ERE WAS A
THE
tlzt
THEY ALLOW GASOLINE'
TRUCKS,
COUPLE
I18]
RIGHT'
BOWLES:
MS.
tret
JUST SAID TIIERE.S A
SHI]
COURT:
THE
I2O]
1211
tzzl
I23
t24t
t25]
t2t
t3
t4]
i5l
I6l
I t7l
: t8l
: tsl
;trol
irrrt
itrzt
itl3l
t14l
itrsl
Itrol
itr
i[18]
I
[19]
:[2ol
COUPLE THAT ARE ALLOV/I]D GASOLINII.
.tzrl
MR. STRYDE: THETRUCK HE WAS

ASSIGNED, SHE IVAS SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED ONE
TRUCK.
THE COURT: WAS HE SPI]CIFICALLY
,1221
'{zel
'rzr
it25J
ASSIGNED ONE CRF,DIT CARD?

MR. STRYDE: YES, TI{ERE.S A CREDIT
CHART THAT GOES WITH TIIAT TRUCK.
THE COURT: V/ITH THAT TRUCK?
MR. STRYD: YES,THERE'S ANUMBER
OF DAYS IN WI-IICI{ THE DEFENDANT WAS WORKING
TI'1T CREDIT CARD IVAS USED NOT ONLY FOR DIESEL
PURCHASES, BUTALSO INLEADED AND OTHER

PURCHASES MADEAT SUNOCO STATIONS'
NO}V, THERE'S DOCUMENTATION FROM
SUNOCO SAYING TIIESE RE PURCHASES THAT WERE
MADE ON TTIAT DAY. SI{E HAS LOGS TI{AT V/ILL BE
INTRODUCED. HE SIGNED THE TRUCK OUT TTIAT

MORNINC, AND TI{EN IIF SIGNED IT BACK IN LATER
THAT DAY AND TI{EREARE PURCHASES MADE.
THE COURT: SO, BASICALLY WHAT YOU

IIAVE IS TI{AT PIIL1\BTINDNCE HAS A CREDIT CARD?
MS. BOWLES: MULTIPLE.
THE COURT: NO, \E'RE TALKING ABOUT
HOV/ MANY CREDIT CARDS ARP WE TALKING?
MR. STRYDE: I DIDN.T ASK HER THT.
I KNOW THERE'S A SPECIFIC CREDIT CARD FOR A
SPECIFIC TRUCK THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS
DRIVING.
i
:
Il eidi Donaldson, O.C'R
Court Reporting SYstem
4 (page 13 - 16)
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
Prcliminary Ilcaring Volume I

January l9,20ll
51CR00s19232010
Manuel Burgos
Page 17
l2l
t3l
t4l
tsj
161
THE COURT: LET'S SAY THEY HAVE

CREDIT CARD
TH
PIIIL^tsUND^NCE
t16l
l17l
AND PIilLA-BUNDANCECAVETHIS CREDITCARD TO

TIus DEFFND^NT TO USE DURTNC A PERIOD OF TIMr,
AND WHEN THE STATEMENT CME IN V/IJEN TI.IEY
LOOKED AT THE STATEMIINT AS TO THE TIMIT rrJ^T
TI{E DEFENDANT WAS USING THE CREDIT CARD, rlF.Y
].I^s H^NDWRmTEN NOTES. TIIEY',REH^NDWRITTEN

NOTES BESIDE --'fHAT',S THII THING. r'r',S A
CoNFRONTATION ISSUE. TIJIIRE'S HANDWRITTEN
t18l NOTES,TTMES, f DON'TKNOWLIAISIIESGETTING

[1s] FROM SUI{OCO. I ON'WIiATSIE'S WRITING DOWN.
THE COURT: THE DOCUMENT, THAT

120)
I21I SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. THE SUNOCO BILL IS GOING
t22l TO H.VE 10 SAY ON lHE BILL THAT YOU GET -l23l IT'S COING TO HAVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, DIESEL,
t24) GAS,
MS. BOWLES: IT DOESN'T. IT'S
t2s
t2)
f5l
f4l
t5l
t6l
t7l
tBl
te1
t1
0l
f1
1l
112)
llsl
l14l
t15l
[16]
117l
[1 8]
tlsl
l20l
121l
I22l
t23l
t24l
f25l
, [3]
I
MR. STRYDE: I UNDERSTAN.

THE COURT: BRING HER BACK. SIIE'S
KEEPER OF THE R.ECORDS AS FAR AS..
MS. BOWLES: C2.
IIeidi Donaldson, O.C.R
GAS ON THE BILL?
t51
t6l
t71
MR. STRYDE: TIJIIRES TWO DOCUMENTS,
: tsl
i tel
itl0l
if11l
ittzl
itrsi
:
l1a)
:1151
I
:t161
it.'tr
i
trel
irrsr
;f201
tzt
,1221
.
t23l
'f24)
I25l
ONE, A SLINOCO BILL TI.IAT DOES DO TI{AT. IT SAYS

TI.IIS PURCIASE PARTICULARLY ON JUI"Y 26,
PURCHASE FOR DIESBL, PURCI.].ASI] FOR UNI,EADI]i)
PURCHASE FOR SUPERSORT OF.
TIJERE'S A SECOND DOCUMI]NT, SI{E DOES
NOT HVE A SECOND COPY 1'I.IAT IAS SUNOCO'S TI{I
HI]AD, BUT THIS IS ADDITIONAI. CUT AND PAS'TED
.TRANSACTION
IS SI'IE WROTE ON'f'IE SIDI] I.IF,RE.
THE COURT: WEI-L, USE TIJE SUNOCO
DOCUMENI'S TI.IAT SIIOW DII]SEL AND LNI-I]DDD.

MS. BOWLES: NO\W,'fljERli'S ONE COPY
AND PASTE DOCUMENT.
THE COURT: THE DIDSEL, IF SLTNOCO
SENT A BILL AND IT I{AS ON IT THE DIESEL AND IT
I.I,AS ON IT lHE UNLEADED, AND TT I{S 1I{AT IT WAS
USED FOR THAT PARTICULAR CREDIT CAR, THE
CREDIT CARD IS TIIE
PIIIL
BLJND^NCE CREDIT Cr'IRD.
IT MIGI.TT I'IVE BEEN CIVEN TO T.IEM BY SIJNOCO,

BU IT'S A PI{ILAIJI'NDNCE CREDIT CARD. SO, S]IE
ea!e"zo
t2t
tsl
t4l
tsl
t6l
,
t7J
r81
; tel
THE COURT: WELL, AS FAR AS I\NVTHiNG

BY SLJNOCO AS lT RELATES
TO TI.IAT CREDIT CARD THAT SUNOCO CAVE HER TO
USE.
MS. BOWLES: I'M STILL cOINc TO
OBJECT TO THE CONTENTS. IT'S A
CONFRONTTIONAL ISSUE. I C,AN'T SK SLJNOCO HOW
THEY KIEP IT IF TI{E CHARCES ARE NSTANTANEOUS.
THE COURT: IT.S LIKE A REGULAR
CREDIT CAR COMPANY. IN OTHER WORS, YOU KNOW
LIKE IF YOU I{AVE YOUR CREDIT CARD AND YOU USE
YOUR CREDIT CARD,.N SOMEBODY ELSEUSES YOUR
CREDIT CARD, AND WI{EN YOU GE'T THE BILL FROM
THE CRBDIT C^RD CoMPi\NY,Il SIOws IIIEUSEAGE
OF THAT CARD, IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLJ,
WHFJ.I YOU LOOK AT THE CARD, YOU SAY,
W.A'S SENT TO I{ER
TI.IERI' TI.IAT DIFFERENTIATES IESEL FROM UNLEADD
; t4l
Page 19
CAN TESTI}'Y ruST LIKE SHE WAS TI{E OWNER OF THE
CREDIT CARD AS TO WFIA.T TI'IEY SIIOW, BUlNOW THE
ONE WI'ERE TI{ERE'S I{ANWRITTEN, YOU KNOW, fF WE
CAN'T -, YOU CAN'T DO THAT ONE.
TI{/IT
Page 18
I|^NDV/RITTEN BISIDI:, l'l-l^l''S TI{D THINC.

THE COURT: IS TERE NY'IIJING ON
i f2l
H,S FROM SUNOCO
t7l
tel
fe) sAw rHAT IE HAD CHARGED ON THE C^RD DIESEL
Ir0] PLUS UNLE ED GAS PLUS PRODUCTS OF PURCTTASI
f11l FROM THE STORE.
MR, STRYDE: NO PRODUCTS OF
12J
JUST G^S.
PURCI{ASE,
t13l
THEYDON'TSAY. SI'IE
BOWLES:
MS.
t14l
[151
:
I
[10]
it1 1l
!t121
itr3l
i|141
ifisl
I BOUGH1'THIS, OR I DIDN'T BUY THIS, OKAY.

TI]AT'S WI{ERE WE ARE. IT DOESN'T I{AVE A}fYTIIING
TO DO A,BOUT TIj CREDIT CARD COMPAI.ry COMING IN
HERE TO SAY THIS IS HOV/ WE KIEP TIIE BILL.
,TIIEY
SENT YOU YOUR BILL.
MS. BOWLES: HOW THEIR PRACTICE IS.
THE COURT; TI'IDONLY PRACTICE LIES
WITH PHILABUNDANCE IS SAYING WE AI-I,O}/ OUR
DRIVER'S TO PURCHASE DIESEL, GASOLINE. V/HI]N
WE GOT OUR CREDIT C/IRD, IT I.IAS NOT ONLY DIESEL
BUT LNLEADED. WE ARE SAYING T}IAT'THOSI]

PURCHASES OF LNLEADED GASOLINE WERE DONE
WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION.
MS. BOWLES: OKAY.

THE COURT: IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.
Itrsl
itrzl
SO, SHD CAN COME IN AS THEKEEPER OF THE
:[r Bl
RECORDS.
:flsl
THE COURT CRIER: YOU'RE STILLUNDER

OATII.
THE COURT: I'M ALLOWING HER TO
[20]
l21l
122)
[231
!
t24J
TESTIFY AS KEEPER OF TIJE RECORDS.

WHAT ARE TIIE DOCUMENTS SIIOWING OTHER
THAN DOCTORED UP DOCUMENTS?
f2sl
Court Reportng System
5 (page 17 -20l.
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
51CR005t92320t0
l\{anuelBurgos
Preliminry llearing Volume I

January l9t20lt
Page
if11l
a.
tI6tGASOLINE.
^ND
lrTl a. so, you clRcLED, You PUT SQUARE AROUND
ONF.?
t184. ONE DAY JULY 26.

t1elQ. AND THAT'S JULY 26?
f2olA. RIGHT.
o.
[25] O'C-OCK rN THE AFTF.RNOON,
13]
tsl
itr1
lHE Or{ER TWO PURCL^SES
THE COURT: 1\AS ANYTHING TO SHOW WHO

;tzol
r[21] wAS DRIVNG TIIATTRUCK TI{.ATDAY? IS THEREA.Zz)
THE WITNESS: I HAVE PRE]MPOSED
,f231
t5l
I6l
ANY--
ti1
it12)
THE COURT: OR PROBLF.MS WITH THE

VEHICLE SOTHEY CAN BE REPAIRED?
V/AS I{E HIRED FOR ANYTHINC OTHER THAN
DRIVING A TRUCK?
THE WITNESS: NO.
THE COURT: DO YOU H.AVE rIS WORK
,flsl
SHEET SITOWING HE CAME TO WORK ON THE 26TI.]?
',ql
TH WITNESS: I I{AVEASCHEDULE.
THE GOURT: YOU HAVE THE SCHEDULE?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO
SHOW HE GOT PAID FOR WORKING IULY 26TH?
Tl"lE WITNESS: NOT HERE, BUT I CAN
CERTAINLY GET YOU SOMETI{ING.
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU HAVE TI{E
SCHEDULE THAT SIIOV/-THE WITNESS: I I{AVE THE SCI{EDULE,
t3l
t4l
t17l IT?
THEWITNESS: NO,ICAN'TSAYTHATI
llst
flsl sAw HIM slGN IT.
THE COURT: BUT IN YOUR FILEYOU
t2ot
1221
t23l
l24l
t25l
A DOCLTI,ENT TH1:\T
PURPORTS TO BE HIS?
H,A.S
SIGN,ATURE THAT
Heidi Donaklson, O.C.R
i f8l
i ro:
i
t10l
;t111
itrs
i
tror
itrzl
:[1 BJ
't1sl
itzor
'[zlr
'1221
THE WITNESS: YEAH, HE IS RRQUIRDI)

PRE AND POST TRP INSPECTION Or
TO FrLL OUT
l{ts VEHICLE ÂS /\ CDL DRIVER EVERYDAY. SO,
THE COURT: WHERII'S THAT?

MR. STRYDE: IT,S PART OF THE PACKET
Page 24
BEFORE }TE DzuVES THE TRUCKS, HE HAS TO FILL
OUT A PRE-TIUP, HE H.AS TO INSPECT HIS
VEHICLE, AND HE HAS TO SIGN OFF ON THE
COND}TION OF THATVEHICLE. HE TIAS TO REPORT
2)
MS. BOWLES; I OBJECT AS TO THIS

18] HEARSAY.
THE WITNESS: HOIV'S IT HEARSAY? HE
tel
IT.
SIGNBD
f1O]
THE
COURT: DID HE SIGN IT?
tlrl
WITNESS:
YES.
THE
I12l
MS. BOWLES: IT'S HEARSAY, THE
trs
14) SIGNATURE.
THE WITNESS: THE SIGNATURE IS HERE.
f r5l
THE COURT: DID YOU SEE TI{E GUY STGN
t16I
TRIP.
il24l
ITzsI
THE COURT: SHOW IT TO COL{SEL.

MR. STRYDE: COUNSEL HAS A COPY.
THE COURT: ON THF 26TH?
THE WITNESS: YES.
1211 {AVE
crEDrr cARD wAS ASSTGNED? How Do You
!ro.so, Trrrs pARllcuLAR TRUcK I.t^D A cREDIT cA{D iNDtNc

;1171 lN 003, AND TIE TRUCK I G^,VE YOU A COUPLE OF OTHER
irel nocuMnNTs sr{owrNc IHAT THAT cREDIT cARD w^s IN Tr{^T
I'VE PASSED UP TO I.IER,
t3l
t4l
tsl
t6l
t7l
o. wl.lt
itrl.ssrc cREDIT cAITDS AND To wt{o?

jtrsl a. rttE cREDIT cARDs ARE AssrcNED To rt{E TRUcKS.
Page 23
T2I
NUMBER? I MEAN--
iIIzBY MR, STRYDE:
itrgtrnucr.
THE PURCH^SES ON JULY 26 TELLS YOU WIIERE

^ND
l22lWERE THEY AND WHAT WERE THEY FOR?
l23l A. TI{E FrRST PURCH^SE W^S AT 4r60 NORTH AMENCAN
[24j STRI]ET, I'I{AT'S }:OR DIESEI- FUEL; TIIAT V/AS AT 12
l21l
wS FOR UNLE/IDED GASOLINE.
A.
TI{E^DDRESS WIIERE TI{E FUEL WAS PURCr{ASED.

DOES IT INDICi\TEiF THE FUEL PURCHASED IS
tr3lUNLEADED, SUPF.R OR DIESEL?
yES, PRoDUCT D|ESIIL, AND THE LI1.TLE BOX't^',r r
[14] A.
IS DI['SEL,
THFN UN.EÊD AND SUPEI
crRcLED
[rsl
t12l
ONE
WHAT IS LNDER THERE?
[9] DOCUMEN rT S^YS TRANS^CTION DFSCRTPTION, LOCATION.

[11]
f2j wlllE l:Ol Tll FllST
TIIE OTI'IER WAS F'OR SUPER G/ISOLINE, AND THDY U/ERE

t41 BOTI.I PURCHASED AT 5OO WI]ST ERIE AVF,NUE.
[5IA. I]{EY WERE PURCHASD DUITING BUSINESS I{OURS WTI{
[6] TI{I SAME CREDIT CARD, TI{E DRIVER SIIOIILD ONLY BE
t7J PURCI.IASING DII]SEL WITH THEIR CREDIT CARD. SO*
THE COURT: IS TI{ERE ANYTHING THAT'S
IgJ CONNECTING THESE CREDIT CARDS TO ANYBODY?
if 1O] WTIAT'S TI"IE NUMBER ON TIIAT CARD? \VIIAT'S TIIE
ISICoRRECT?
t6lA. YES.
n a. I'M GOINC TO SI{OW YOU, VELL START WITI{ C2.
t8l cAN YOU EXPLÎN TO Tr.rE JUDGE rN Tr.rE MTDDLE OF Tr.IA'r'
IIOI
Page 22
21
12] BY MR. STRYDE:

t3]O. I HAVE C2 WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THE WITNI]SS;
t4l I'HAT'S A SUNOCO DOCUMENT DIRECTLV FROM SUNOCO,
.f231
.424J
t25l
WELL, TIAT I.IE WAS SCIIEDULED TO WORK THAT DAY,

YES.
6 (page 21 -24,
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
Preliminary Hearing Volume I

January 19, 2011
5rcR005192320r0
Manuel Burgos
'
Page 25
THE COURT: OKAY.

AND DO THIY PUNCII IN ON-THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: TIIEY PUNCH IN AND THIIY
t21
t3l
t4l
t51
t61 PUNCH OUT?
THE WINESS: YES.
t7t
i
i
THE COURT: W)ILL, YOU NEED TIIAT.

l8l
t9] You MIGHT NOT NEED rT TODAY, ISUT YOU NEED rr.r^r
t10t TO SHOW HE PLTNCT.TED INTO V/ORK.
3l O. Tr-tE DoCUMFNT YOU INDTCATED TO HE, JUDCE rN

SICNTNG OUT ]:OR Tt{E
[14] REGRD TO l.llM SIGNJNG ]N
^N OF YOU FOR 7-26?
frsl VJHICLD, ]'IOSE .RE IN I"'RONT
f 1
crvE TO
lr9l
A,
TI.TEY I{AVE A COPY. Tr.rEY HAVE
^LL
I25]
.1211 THE MORE MILEACE W]TH THE POST.
.1221 THE COURT: SO, MANNY, THAI"S WHO V/E

I23] HAVE HERE?
TIiT,S WRONG
Î.IYTI{INC
\\rylETl{ER
OR
IRoBLEM vtrH TI{u rtRE oR
THEWITNESS: ONEISAPREANDPOST
;l1s
'[eol up. you cAN TELL THI] MILEAGE, THE oNE wrH
BOOK, TI{EY,RE
^. EvERy MORNINC IS
TRUCK. AND Wr{^T TiEY NEED TO DO
[21] FILL OUT A PAGE FROM TIJIS BOOK, SrcN IT AND TURN IT
t22l IN WITH -- TIEY HAVE TO TURN IT IN BEFORE THEY
[24] WTH THE TRUCK,I NEED TO
w\s
[20]
f23l LE^'VE, BECÛSE tF TI{ERE'S
IF'THtRE
a nnonuv wlrg Tr{EIr^wrNDsr.rrrir,D
,[15J
itrsl
iltzl
tf 6l
PAPERWORK YOU
tzl
DIRECTLY
;lr0l YARD wrrr.r rr.tB TRUCK, oR I WOULD SEN I{lM
if11l'ro ouR LEASING COMP^NY TO H.AVE'll{E PROBLEM FIXED.
THE COURT: SO, TI{ERES A PRE AND
iIIz
ilrs Posr FoR TH^T DAY TI{p 26TH?
MR. STRYDE: Yll.S.
itrl
THE COURT: LETMESEDIT.
Ms. BowLES: r HAVII rWO, V/llICll ONE
Do You wANT?
THE COURT: TI{E PRE AND POST.
;11Bl
MR. STRYDE: I UNDERSTND.

t12t BY MR. STRYDE:
118] THE DRIVER'S BEFORE THEY LE.AVE?
wrptR oR soME soRT ot

! I9I SAFETY ISSUE. I WOULDN.T ALI.OW II]M TO LEAVE TI.IE
[r 1]
A. YES.
'rHE NORMAL
117l o. rs TII^T
Page 26
VIOIATION, WD NEED TO SEND THEM STRAIGI{T TO GET IT

: t3JFIXED, YOU KNOW.
14 BASICAI,TJ, I I{AVE TO LOOK AT V/}IAT THEY'RE
i 1s sEHnrruo, vrr.A,'r rHEy'rE TURNTNG fN To pRove wHETIII:R
i lel on Nor n{Ey c^N co oN Tr.rE RoAD wtrH l HE TRUcK.
;
NT
THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: SO, PRE WAS 8:35 AND
.124)
ÛTI.IORTZE
THEY SHOULD GO AHED,,\ND PROCEED, IS IT A DOT
'.l25)
:
tzl
t3l
VERY GOOD, DRIVER'S REN4ARKS, VERY GOOD, OKAY.

WHAT TO SIIOW TI.IAT WIH THJS TR,AILER NUTIBER,
t4l
t5l
t6l
t7l
t8l
{el
0l
f1
t1
1l
112)
l1 3l
1141
1 5l
[1
6]
117)
f
181
llel
t20l
l21l
1221
231
124l
t25
Page27
THI'S D^TED AND EVERYTHING WAS
POST WS 9:06,
YOU I{AVE A CREDIT CARD TIIAT GOES WITH THIS

ONE, VHERD'S THAT? TRAILOR NUMBER FOR 37?90
TRAILERNT]MBER?
THE WITNESS: WE HAVE MONTIJLY
INSPECTIONS OF OUR TRUCKS.
THE COURT: NO, NO. V/I{AT I'M
Page28
il2t
gl
tl
:
:
15]
itot
i
I
DAY WENTWITFT THIS TRUCK?

THE WITNESS: IT.S IN THE1.RUCK ALL
THETIME.
THE COURT: THERE HAS TO BE SOME
KIND OF RECORD TIIAT SA.YS IN TRAILER NUMBER FOR
37790 WE PUT CREDIT CARD NUMBER WI{ATEVER.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE THAT HERE.
THE COURT: OKAY,THAT'S WHATI'M
18]
fsl
rRUcK.
THE COURT: YOU SHOULD HAVE
SOMETIJING TI'IAT SAYS ON THE BECINNING OF JLILY
YOU HAVE'I'HIS P^RTICULAR CARD IN THE TRUCK,

AND AT'rHE
JULY TI{AT P^RTICULAR CARD
OF
.t1TI w/\S STILL END
IN TIE TRUCK.
itrzl sv MR. STRYDE:
:1rs
e. .axn vou I{AvE TI{^T DocUMENT IN FRoNT oF you
:[14J TI.',AT SIJOWS
\\t{AT CRED]T C/\RD WAS PLACED tN TfrE, TRUCK
IT5] THE DEFENDANT WAS IN?
'tr6lA,
[1 7l
!t18
;lrel
ASKING COUNSEL.
THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY. IT'S NOT A
D,ILY THING WE DO. LIKE A MONTHI-Y CHECK OF
TIIE IRUCK, WE HAVE A CIECKLIST.
THE COURT: I.M JUST TALKING ABOUT
JULY 26NOW.
spEcrFrc.4.Lly FoR rH^T spEctFlc DAY, BEc,AusE wE

pur rHE c^RD IN TI{E TRUCK EVERvDY. wE
PUT TIJE CARD IN TIF TRUCK AND LEAVE IT IN THE
DoN'T
I71
:t101
S,AYING, THE CREDIT C,CRD FOR T.IAT PARTICULAR
THE WITNESS: r DON'TllAVE
.{201
t21t
'122t
l23l
I24J
.
0003.
THE COURT: GET IT AND SHOW NJIT TO

couNSEL 0003.
MS. BOWLES: IT'S DATF;D 6-0-THE COURT: THAT'S END OF THEMONTI-I.
THE WITNESS: WHICH WOULD BE JULY

FIRST.
MS. BOWLES: WHERE IT SAYS AFTER Il'i

TITE MONTH OF JULY,IT STILL REMAINS TIJFRE.
t25l
I{eidi Donaldson, O.C.R
Coud Reporting System
7 (pase 25 - 281
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
Prcliminary llearing Volumc I
srcR00s19232010
Manucl Bu
JanuarY l9'2011
Page 30
Page 29
I2l
I2lBY MR. STRYDE:
f3Q. THENBXTON'EYOU GAVE US?

[4] A. IF I I{.AD SOM,ONE TI{^T RAN OUT
OF FUEL ND THEY
IVITII' I WOULD
[5] DIDN'T HAVE SOMETI{ING TO BUY FUFL
I MEAN,
MISSING.
WAS
THE
CARD
TIAT
REPORTED
ISSUE,
t6l
FUEI- CARD IS
THE
TI'IAT
INDICATION
BE
MY
WOULD
Tr'r^.l
l7l
RAN OUT OF FUEL.
IBJ MISSING THAT SOMEBODY
O, SO, THE CRD TI{T'S ON TIJE DOCUMENT TI{EJUDGE
[S]
REFERS TO
llo) I{AS NOW
Ttllt SAMD C^RD NUMBR 1}lAr
W''RE
t11l TALKING ABOUT IN THE OTIIER DOCUMENT?
t12lA.
t1
3l
U41
t15l
YES.
THE COURT: WHFRE,S THATDOCUMENT

TI{AT SI.IOWS IVE'R'IALKING ABOUTTIIE SAME CARD
NUMBER? SI{OWTHATTO COUNSEL.
MR. STRYDE: 'tl{AT'S Al.RliADY BEIIN
f16l
117) GMN
f1
sl
itrs:
YOU'RE GI]TTING READY TO SHOW ME.

MR. STRYDE: C2 CARD NLIMBER'
l21l
t22]BY MR. STRYDE:
I23] Q. DO YOU HAVE C2 IN FRONT OF YOU?
I2O]
t24tA.
t25]
Q.
ts:
tet
i tzl FILLS our rHE PAPERwoRK'
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
iIEI
Ms. BowLES: oN TllEVErlIcLE
i tst
itrol INSPDcIoNRIIPoRT.
THE WITNESS: I CAN,T FILL OUT-iIT.I
THE couRl: cARD NUMBER 0003, wHAT's
itlz:
iITgI THE FULL CARD NL}MBER?
THE wlrNESS: I'l,l- FIAvE'l'o ccl'T
ira
Itrsl FoRYoU.
itrt
ilret
TO COUNSEL.
YES.
It'ol
MS. BOWLES: WHICH ONE?

THE COURT: SHOWHER\VT{ICH ONE
t18l
A.
THE
i tsl o. r LL\s 0003, rttn sME NUMBER rHAT wAs oN
TFIE
JUDGE'
i tl PPen WE GAVE TO
THE couRT: YES, LET ME sEIl rHAT'
i
Ms. BowLES: I oBJECT UNLESS sHE
it201
itztl
THE COURT: YOU DON'T HAVE TI{AT'

wa'R GotNG oN ooo3.
Ms. BowLES: cAN I ASK, wHo DoES THE
vEHICLE INsPEcrloN REPoRT?

THE WITNESS: THE DRIVERS.
MS. BOWLES: THE DRIVERS DO IT
THEMSELVES?
,22
't231
,,PAI
YES,
ON THE FAR LEFT SAYS CRD NUMBER?
'1251
THE WITNESS: THIS VEHICLE
INSPECTION REPORT, THAT VETIICLE RIPORT' YES' I

HVE A DRTVER TI{AT DOES THE VEHICLF INSPECTION
Page 31
l2l
t3]
t4J
tst
t61
t7l
teI
tet
Ilol
t111
T12I
t13l
t14l
t15l
Page 32
112)
REPORT MONTHLY, MONTHLY.

MS. BOWLES: IT'S ONE DRIVER TH.i\T
:t31
DOES TFIEM AJ.L.
THEWITNESS: TI{ATwEDOAMONTHLY
CHECK OF THE TRUCKS, YES.
MS. tsOWLES: 'WHO CHIICKS THE TRUCK
AND FILLS THIS OUT?
THE WITNESS: TODD TzuPLET.
THE COURT: WHAT HAPPENED TO

SoMEBODY LIKE IN THIS ONE AT TI'IE BEGINNING OF
THE MONTI{, TI{ERE WAS FIRST AID KIT. I \'EAN'
THE
AT lHE EVEN OF Ti{E MONTI'I, THERE W.AS ^^.T
BEGTNNING OF THE MoNTH THERE WAS NO FIRSr AID
KIT. TOVARDS IE END OF THE MONTII' FIRST AID
t16l KfTWAS PUTTIIERII,

THE WITNESS: BASICALLY,I/HAT THIS
t17t
t18l TNSPECTION IS FOR IS TO LET ME KNOW TO HAVE
t19 EvERYll'tlNcTHEYNEEDANDwH T'SMISSING'AND
THEN IT SHOULD AI.f. BE REPLACED OR-THE GOURT: OKAY. SO' I HAVE IT
f22) HDRE SHOWINC ON THE 26TH THA DIESI]L WAS
PURCTTASED, TJNLFADED WAS PURCI'IASF,D AND SUPER
l2ol
1211
[23I
l24t wAS PURCHASED?

THE WITNESS: RIGHT.
t2st
THE COURT: OKAY. V/HAT ELSE YOU
GOT?
tIBY MR. STRYDE:
i t5] Q. SO, THE CARD TI{AT WAS GIVEN OR PUT IN THAT

i toj VEHICLE-THE COURT: RIGI{T NOW, COTINSEL, THE
i
IZ:
t8l CARD WAS USED ON TIIE 26Tli, wAs SIGND OUT TO
ANIJ SIGNED IN BY MANNY ON
; tsl MANNY ON THE 26Tt'l
ilrol THE 26TIt.
\\TFIAT'S NExr?
itrrl
MS. BOWLES: THE CARD, V/HDRE'S THAT
iTIzI
i
it''sr
t14l
It''sl
itrol
Itrzl
ilrs
coMlrFRoM? ITwASsIcNEDourroHIM.
THE WITNESS: RIGI{]'HERE ON HIS
sIcNATURE.
MS,
BowLES: I oBJECT To rllAT'
THE COURT: OBJIICTION NOTED, BUT
IT'S OVERRULED.
iITSIBY MR. STRYDE:
PRINTOUT OF
,trol o. wroT tvE sl{owN YOU C2 TIIE SLTNOCO
'zr soME oF THosE THINGS-:t22lA. YES.
DATES FOR
.IES O. PRINTOUT FROM SUNOCO FOR OTHER
'z+
itzsl
AUCUST AND SEPTEMBER?

a. I cAN cETTHEM,YES.
Hcidi Donaldson' O.C.R
Court Reporting SYstem
8 (page 29 -32)
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
Preliminary- learing Volume I

January 19'2011
sl cR00519232010
Manuel Burgos
Page 34
Page 33
l2l
t3l
THE COURT: YOU GOT TO HAVE THEM,
SEPTEMBER,
t6]BY MR. STRYDE:

[7] a. You'vE GIVEN US WIAT WE M^RKED Cl W]llcll
t8]KIND OF A HA.NDWRITTEN.{elA. OKAY,
[r 0]
a.
W.AS
^,I.
[11lrr.IEsE TIrNGS TH^T IS NOT II^NDWRITTEN TJ^T',S A
t1 2l stJN oco DocI4 ENT?
t13lA. THAT'S NOT HANDWRITTEN, THAT I DIDN'T PUT
t14jNo'njs oN?
f
THE COUR: YEAH, LIKETtlls -- LIKD
161 TI{^T WIIURE
TITEY JUST SENT YOU
Tl! BILL SIJOWINC
t17l
MAYBE YOU MIGHT H^VE

WIIAT w.,\S PURCH^SED,
^ND
YOU
IT
LIKE
DID ON HIS ONE BUT
BLOCKED
OUT
fl8]
IT'S
SLTNOCO.
FROM
tlet
THE WITNESS: RIGI{T. I DO HAVE TIE
t20l
l21l oRTGINAL DOCUMENT. YES, I DON' lt^,VE IT IIERE
122] TODAY, NO.
MR. STRYDE: OKAY. SO, IF WE COULD,
l23l
I24l you
l25l
WENTONTO ONLNE AND PRINTED OUT A COPY OF OUR
t6l
STATEMENT.
MS, BOWLES: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: THAT'S OKAY. IF YOU
t7t
Do You u/lv suNoco DocuMNT REFDRRINC T0
hsl
t4l
I3l
THE WITNESS: FOR AUGUSTAND
I5I
t5l
a2t
oKAY?
141
THE WITNESS: YES. WELL, TI-IIS

P,ARTICULAR ONE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE OTI{ERS
BECÛSE I1 W^S PRINTED OI'-F-LINE, YOU KNOW. WE
GET Tr.rOSE DOCU4ENS FOR US, SPECIFICALLY,
tel
Il
OFF TIIOSE STATEMENTS,
i ttl
WENT ONI.INE AND PRNT
rr0
WI.IF,RE ARE THOSI STATEMBNTS YOU CAN SIIOW US
jrrrt
TI.IAT \ry]{I]RE THOSE STATEMENTS, WI.IAT YOU PRINTED

OFF LINE?
.1121
llr sl
MR. STRYDE: YOU HAVE THEM IN YOUR
itr)
IIAND.
:trsl
THE CoURT: WITHOUT TllE IIANWRITING

ON THEM.
THE WITNESS: I DON'TI.IAVE T
WITHOUT THE HNDWRITING ON IT.
THE COURT: LET MESF,ETHAT. LETME
SEE V/HAT TI'IE HANWRITING IS SHOWING,
LET ME SE,E WHAT IT SAYS. OH, IT
DOESN'T HAVE WHAT Wi\S REALLY PURCHASED.
THE WITNESS: NO, ITDIDN,T. WHAT
WAS REALLY PURCHASED, I HAD TO DO THAT
MANUALLV BECAUSE LIKE I SAID IT WAS--
tr ol
't171
[18]
trel
itzo:
;1211
221
.t231
tl24l
YOU KNOW, TI{IS lN THE FORMAT.
f25l
Page 36
Page 35
t4l
THE COURT: SO,YOU'RE ON LINE

OESN'I SHOW LIKE TI]IS ONE SHOW.
THE WITNESS: NO, BECAUSE IT
t5t
WASN' -. THE MONTH WASN'T CLOSED, WHEN HE
t5l
t6t
DIIJ IT, WIIAT
t61
t2l
t3l
{71
t8
tel
[1
0]
[1 1]
lr 2l
[1 s]
114l
trsl
f16l
{171
t1
el
[1ej
l20l
t21l
1221
VYE
T2J
tsl
t4l
WERE DOTNG, WE WERF. DOING THE
AUDIT FOR JULY, AND THEN WE WERE LIKE, LET'S

GO LOOK AT AUGUST AND SEE IF SOMNTHING IS
t7l
GOING ON INTO THE MONTTI OF AUGUST.

THE COURT: B\SICALLY, TI{IS IS YOUR
NOTES TO LET YOU KNOW SOMETHING WAS UP, I]UT
YOU WDREN'T ABLE TO GET THE SLNOCO COPY TO
tsl
t1 0l
SHOW IN THEIR WORDS?
;[t 3l
THE WITNESS: I DIDN'THAVE ITAT

THI] TIME THIS ALL HAPPENED.
THE COURT: YOU IIAVEITNOW?
ir 1]
1121
:t141
:t151
Itsl
THE WITNESS: I DON'TIl^,vEITHERE

TODAY. I DIDN'T KNOV/ I NEEDED TO BRING IT.
t17l
ir a
THE COURT: OKAY, WELL. Wll CAN'T
t1e
USE THIS DOCLT,ENT.
'lzol
WHAT F,LSE DO YOU IJAVE?
[21]
MR. STRYDE: UNDDRTHESE
122)
[23J
CRCUMSTANCES, I'M GOINC TO SK TO BIFURCATE
124l
TO GE'T'|-IIOSE DOCUMENTS.
t2sl
f8t
THE COURT: YOU SAID THAT'VVITI{ A
Heidi Donaldson, O.C,R
[231
24J
t25l
STR.IGHT FACE, TOO.

MR. STRYDE: TO BE HONEST,I DIDN'T
QUITE UNDERST.AND IT MYSELF.
I TNDERSTAND THE COURT HAS CONCERNS
WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS,
THE COURT: YoU H.AVE CONCERNS WITII

TIJE DOCUMENTS. TIIOSE ARE OCUMNS TI{AT SHOW
WHETHF,R ORNOTTHIS MAN COMM]TTED A CRIN,, AND
WH,{T CRIMES HE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED.

MR. STRYDE: THERIGHTNOW WEJUST
IIAVE7-26. IF WE GET OTHER DOCUMENTS, WE

MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVE THE OTI{ER ONES WI{ICII
WOULD BUMP UP THE LEVI]L OF THE AMOUNTS.
RIGHT NOW WE I{AVE 7-26, V/HICH THIS
IS ABOUT I20 OR I I5.
IT SHOULD BE A REMAND IF YOUR I{ONOR
FOT'ND IT, HELD FOR COURT BASED FOR THAT.
TH COURT: 7 -26 tS ABOUT LIKE YOU
SAID $I50 OR $146, SOME}IINC LIKE TIIAT.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING DLSE? THS
IS IT? I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU HAD THE OTHER ONE,
WHAT WOTJLD YOU I{AVE? THIS ON'T }TAVE TOO MUCII
BI]NEATH.
MS. BOWLES: I STILLNEED TO CROSS
Gourt Reporting System
(page 33 .36)
Case ID: 121202978

110600726

January 19,2011
s1cR005I92320t0
Manuel Burgos
Page 37
121 DXAMINE,
t3l
THE COURT: IT'S STILL HIS CASE.
IsIBY MR. STRYDE:
a.
How MUCI{ TOTAL WAS LOS
OR
DID YOU GtrYS LOSE
RESULT OF THIS CRFDIT CARD BEING COMPROMISED?
t7l
^s ^
t8l A. I IVAS A LITTLE OVER TI"IRIIE TITOUSAND.
THE COURT: WHERE'S THE PROOIT?
STRYDE:
MR.
tlotBY
t11t Q. HOW MUCH OF IT CAN WE HONESTLY--
t13l
r{^vE
t14)
TRUCK OUl'AND IJE IIAD ACCESS

DAY ABOUT $300.
117l
lo,
i
t6l
rzr
PITII,AI]UNDANCE, ALI- TIE GOOD WORK THEY DO IN

TI.IE COMMTJNITY.
MS. BOWLES; IF I CAN CROSS?
i tsl
I
tloj
ttz:
Itrll
WHiIT CllN I I{ONF-STLY PROVE TIIROUGI{ DOC(IMENTS I

wr.lERF., YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE TIIAT HE SIGNED THE
TO'tI{E CARD
ON A
t15l PARTICULAR
t16l
rr
p
i
tsl
[12J
THE COURT: V/llCAN CO WITI-I TI{AT. WE

COT I.IIM FOR SOMETHTNG. I MEAN, HE CAN' BE --
rzt
I rsl
141
t6l
Page 38
itrs:
i
t141
t15l
THECOURT: OKAY.
MR. STRYDE: FROM MY COUNTINGUP,I
tlsl
tlel
f20t
Izil
lz2t
t23l I{E STOLE N,ONEY FROM PIIILABUNDANCE, BUl WE C^N
l24l oM-Y PROVE I-lE SLF. BETWEEN THREE AND FM.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
f2s)
WAS LOOKING CLOSF.R TO S500. IT'S PROBABLY
FAIR TO SAY $2,000. WE CAN'T-THE WTNESS: YES, PROBABLY ABOUT
$2,700 THAT I CAN'T QUITE ACCOUNT FoR.
THE COURT: SO, THIS GUY LUCKS UP.
ittur
jlrzt
!rrar
er
irr
I
THE COURT; YOU C.AN CROSS. GOON'

I CAN'T BIFURCATE. WE ARE ALRBADY
KNOW SHE SAID IT'S..
MR. STRYDE: I.LL VOLUNTARILY
REMAN. AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NO POINT US
GOING THROUGH..
THE COURT: YES,YOU'RE CORRBCT'

OKAY.
WI.IAT IS T NOW MI OR V/HAT?
MS. BOWLES: Ml, UNGRADED.
THE COURT: SHB SAID BETV{EEN THREE
AND FIVE.
MR, STRYDE: WECAN SEND IT IN
'ilzo)
UNGRADED MISDEMEANOR, I BELIEVE IT'S
ilzrl
ON OUR CONVERSATION TVHAT WE'LL INTEND TO
,122)
PROVE.
Itzs:
ieqt
!tzsr
MI BASED
THE COURT: BETWEENNOWAND TRIAL,

YOU INTEND TO PROVE MI? RIGHTNOW IT'S
UNGRADED, AND IT VIILL BE PROVEN AT A LATER
i
,
Page 39
T2I
DATE.
t31
MR. STRYDE: YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT

L4l
WELLMOVEIT
UNGR^DEDGOINGINTOTHETRI^L.
tsl
TRAL,
FNE,
WHEN
THE
TIME
OF
AT
IN
Ml
f6l
t7l WE'RE THE COURT: I'LL PUT IT DOWN Ml
tsl
tel AND-MR. STRYDE: IF THEY CAN PROVE
tlol
tlrl oTllllRwisE.
THE COURT: IF YOU CAN PROVE
ttzt
tr3l oTHERWISE,IT GETS REDUCED.
MS. BOWLES: IT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO
t14)
TO-PROVE
t15t
THE
COURT: HE'S REMANDINC TODAY.
fr6l
TO REMAND IT ON Ml; IT'S HIS CALL.
HE
WANTS
l17t
RIGHTNOM DON'THAVII
SAYING
HD'S
tisl
tlel ENOUCH TO SHOW FELONIES, BUT I BELIEVE tLL
l20J IIAVE ENOUCII TO SIIOW MISDEMEANOR AT THE FIRST

^
WANYOUTO PUTIT
121t DEGREE. SO,THAT',S Wl{A'l'l
t2z) IN ON, AND H HAS THAT RIGHT.

CIVE ITA REMAND DATE Ml.
l23l
THE
COURT CRIERT 3-14.
241
I'LL MAK A PRESTON
MS.
BOWLES:
lzsl
,
it2l
i t3l
! tl
i ISI
I IOI
i trl
I
I re:
Page 40
oBiEcrtoN AND ASK
FOR DISCOVERY.
THE COURT: PRESTON OBJECTION NOTED'
Do You HvEDIScovERY?
THE COURT: ANY NEV/ DISCOVDRY YOU
GT TO BE GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE TEN DAYS PRIOR
To NEXT LISTINC.
(HEARINc coNcLUDF,D.)
I tgr
I
't1 0l
i
rt,'
:1121
i
ttsl
tr4l
itrsl
i
troi
Itrzj
;
ttel
tts:
t20l
itzzt
"1211
.
tzsl
.124)
;tzsJ
I{eidi Donaldson, O.C.R
10 (page 37 - 40)
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
51CR00s19232010
Page 41
t2
t3t
f4l
tst
t6
t7t
r I{ERIEBY CERTTFY
IEJ EV|D!NCE
TII^T TI{EPROCEEDINGS AND

ACCTTRATELY IN 1'{E NOTES
CONTATNED FULLY
^D
^RB
[9] TAKEN BY ME ON THE TRAL OF TIIE ABOVE CAUSE, AND
H^T TIIIS
tlol copY rs A CoRRECI TRANSCRIPT OF THE SAME.

tr
11
il"!^)*
1121
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
t13!
couRToFcoMMoNPLll s
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
114l
t15l
THE FORI,.GOINO CERTTFICATION OFTIIIS TRANSCRI'T

ME^NS
TO
RI]PRODUCfION OF THI| SMl lY
^NY
^NY
^PPLY
[1] DOS .-O [

I
IT81
DIRCTION OF TH
rrNr..Fss T NDER THE DTRECT CONTROL
^]D/OR
CERTIFYING COURT REPORTER.
fre
{201
[21]
122!
[231
1241
t25l
' n ndrins sysraniceqa iit/tt
Ileidl
Donaldson, O.C.R
'i'ilt{it{
".---- .*.,.
t.
I
.-
Gourt Reporting System
11 (page
4l
-411
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
EXHIBITE
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FTRST' JUDTCIAL DTSTRTCT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRlMTNAL lRIAL DIVTSION
MC-5L-CR-005L923
COMMONV{EALTH
4
vs.
6
7
MANUEL BURGOS
PRETRTAL CONFERENCE
1_0
L1
I2
COURTROOM
M/\RCH 14TH , 201,L

503, CRIMTNAL JUSlTCE
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANA
l_3
CENTER
L4
15
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE TERESA CARR
DENT
L6
L7
APPEARANCES:
DTSTRICT ATTORNEYIS OFFICE
18
BY: KEVIN HARDEN, ESQUIRE
ASSTSTANT DTSRTCT ATTORNEY
1_9
ROBERT LYNCH, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT
20
2t
22
REPORTED
23
BY:
WTLLIAM GEFTMAN,
OFFTCTAL COURT REPORTER
24
25
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
3
1
m lsdem
MR. TYNCH: Thcrc was Prellmaary
lN {e COUrl 0 COt4MO}r PLIS

FRS JUDICL DIS?RC OP PEN{SYt,VII
CRIS{INL 1R!. OvtSIO
I
2
3
COIllON',{Ellll
4
5
! }lC-St-cR-00519e3
6
5
vS.
6
7
yN0t 8irGos
lr
tz
13
t{
t5
t0
--.
9
tO
PRg?II, CONFSAENCC
losses.
13
- - -
14
8FORe: 18 llolloR8! R9SA
ls
CRR D:N
l6
PPERNCDS
17
18
19
20
D:StRrCl' 110Rr:tY'S O'r'tcD

Bf: KD\,;N llhR0gtr eSQOIRE
SSlSll? ot5l8!C1 \11R-Y
o8,Rt
t8
t9
lYriclr, E9ourr:
Fol Ttrg DeFNolT
10Rry
2L
t7
2t
22
couRfsoor', 503, cRIMfN JUSIC CCNER
6
,.,
21
12
t41[.20tt
!c
RPORIo
8Yr
20
l{LL:l OFllrN,
OFalCtttL COUR? RPosreR
hearg wherc thls defendant represented

-TllE COURT: There's no record ln
th qurtcr sessons file.
MR. HAROEN: There wa3 a
oflim nay horn0 your llonor.
MR. LYNCH: /t lemale that
repfegeted ths co 0any had started to
testfy, And l'm getting thls from m y

clent's wfe rvho sas there and through the
oefenders. I personally wasn't present.
8ut my understandng ls th female
testifed os to allegatlons of theft
regrdlng my clienl, who drlves a truck for
Philaundance. And with regard3 to a
Sunoco 9as card that goes to the truck,
tht stays wth the truck whlch he drives
nd othe? people drlvc. don't know.
$2,800. 12,900, le5s than 93.000 ln alleged
11
l$Ir,O6L?$, PE!STLV^[!
enors.
24
23
25
24
25
After the female testified, lt was

qute cler that there was no evidcnce
lhrough her connccti9 m y clent to thls
WLLIAM GFTMAN
IYNCH; Good mornlng, your

Honor. Robert Lynch fro Greg Pgno's
offce.
MR.
'l
THE COURT: We oave this a date,
It's a J0lnt request, Commonwelth to

prepfe a wflt, M r. Pagano ls attached,
MR. LYNCH: lud9e, my I address
th court on that?
5
6
I
I
5
6
7
I
I
THE COURT: Yes.
l"lR, LYNCH: We sent a letter to the

Comronwealth .- I had t here '. on larch
3rd telling them that we would be enterng
and requesting full dlscovery, W e recelved
nothlng from them. Knowlng that t was
l0
11
12
l3
14
,t5
rem Anded, contACted the Pulic Defender's
l6
office. Got dlscovery from lhem or

whatevef they had n thelr file, which yvas
nothlng. There w5 no dlscovef y, There
$ras the pretf lal arraignm ent date. The
quarter sesslons tie reflects all
dlscovery we've had ten dayg pror to
tody's date, the reand date,
At the prellrninary hearng ..
ThE COURf : there was no
plellm lnary heri9. t Just hve
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l0
't1
12
13
14
15
t6
'l7
l8
l9
20
21
22
thett, That it ws sort of guesswork on

hor pa.t rylhl the con pany. And it eally
tuned out to be that Judge DeLeon found at
rnost there was maybe $120 worth of
potentlal conne cton to m y cllent. And
that thefe was no reason that lt should
have been there for a prelim lary hearng.
So they rem anded it.
N ow, I brlng tht to the cou rt's
attentlon becuge m y clent has ben ln on
a state detalner on these allegatons' The
pelson w ho kept tne uooks ffom this com pany
w as flred f rom abroad, w e've had no
opporunlty to c0ntest these of eveD to be
provlded dlscovery on ths tn atter' He has
a fam ly, Hs wite ls present ln tbe
courtroom. l you could stand up. He hs
a son. He ays over $700 in chlld support
ln prlor m arrlage and chlldren that can't
be psd s he Slts ln on a state detaler
which am ounts to potental $120 loss.
And the Commonwalth 9 not ready. We have
24
r dscovery.
THg COURT: Are Your wltnesses
25
here?
23
WILLIAM GEFTMAN
10f
sheets
Pagelto4ofT
011
Case ID: 11121202978
110600726
5
MR. HARDEN: They
left.
THE COURT: It was a jont request.
MR. LYNCH: For what reason?
were. They just
l0
THE COURT: So why s it a joint

request if you had the witnesses here?
MR. HARDEN: It was a joint request
because we don't have discovery.
THE COURT: I thought I was told
that the defense requested a date. That's
11
not such.
5
6
7
I
I
So you were ready.

MR, PAGANO: Absolutely.
12
13
14
their witnesses.
16
MR, LYNCH: Because they didn't

have discovery. I guess they still don't
have discovery.
17
18
23
have a problem that

he has a state detainer. You have no
discovery and he was arrested December 1st,
WILLIAM GEFTMAN
5
6
7
I
I
10
11
12
13
l4
15
l6
17
l8
t9
20
21
22
23
J hcrGlry cctlfy lhl lho procedngs rd

vldoice oe cntaincd ful)y aod cclly lD thc
olcs t;(co l)y tl oi thc til of hc tove ctsc'
nd ths cotry 3 cortct .ln!c1|)t of tha s.ms.
!f,
1
tilt-1,'-iiil
Offcil Cgurt feport
20
2l
22
23
THE COURT:
24
25
wil,Ll4
GeFVl
6
MR. LYNCH: He's been in since that
3
4
o
{r
i0
t
t9
the
that,
CRlltlclrolt
t8
22
25
R?OTBR'S
)7
21
24
t6
Commonwealth's request,
MR. HARDEN: I have no problem with
2A
t5
THE COURT So it's
19
THE COURT: And then they dismissed
15
I
2
day.
THE COURT: He's afready been in
for three months and you have no discovery.

So if you don't withdraw, I'm going to
discharge it.
MR. HARDEN: Your Honor, it's not
that we don't have any discovery. The
discovery that we have, it's not all of it,
THE COURT: Three months in jail
and you don't have discovery, I'm sorry.
I'm going to discharge it F you don't
withdraw it.
MR. HARDEN: We have no motion.
THE COURT: Discharge. Lack of
prosecution. So vacate the date.
Commonwealth to prepare writ and vacate the
must be tried both sides. It's basically a
Commonwealth request. Incomplete
discovery. Witnesses present. Defendant
not brought down from SCI Grateford. No
wrt was prepared.
(Proceeding is adjourned, )
24
25
06108/2OLL
0l:55:16
PM
Pge5to7of7
2 of 2 sheets
Case ID: 121202978
110600726
EXHIBIT F
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
.- -,
-L
Trial Disposition and Dismissal Form
curently in county Prlson
_
_
lntake gven at me of Plea
-_
-
Plea
Pa & Sentencing
Trlal
tPP
ARD
Page:
Standard
Revo. (Prob"Parole)
Date:
tcc
Court Rep. lnitials: .

Case Asslgned To:
PSI
Bench Wanant Revlew Hearlng
Agent
Collactlons lnitials:
Presently on suprvlslon with P.O.
DSPOSITION / COMMITMENT
Burgor,Man!d
Namq
RacE: Caucasian Sex
Ug!-_
Sentencing te:
Defense Counsel Paqano. GreoorvJoseoh
48Hrs:-
D.A.:
DOB:
SSN:
Time:
PID:
DOCKET
COUNT. OFFENSE
FINE RANGE
PLEA
Mc-51-CR-00s1923-2010
1 - Thefi
N 715203
Prop'
.Datq-cEcAcREF:
OFFENSE CODE
GRADE
By Unlaw TakingMoable
8s3921SSA
DISPOSITION
DISPOSITON DATE
SENTENCING DATE
)ismissed- LOP
)isposition Da:
vfi
FINES
COSTS
REST
Costs/
A3l 141201 1
Finee
_MCARE
08/052010
- Thaft By
M51-CR-0051923-2010
N 715203
lmpression
' Rest
-EMSA
DecepFalse
8s39225$Ar
)ismissed- LOP
)isposition Dale:
\rll
Costs/
Flnes
031 1 *201 1
08t05t2010
MC-51-CR-0051823010
!]qffigq
Gourt Room:
0807634
3ODays: 90Days:- BA-:-cRf
OTN
DATE ofOFFENSE
Philadelpha County Dlstrlct Attolley
DlspAuthority; Denl, Teresa Car

Typing Date:
- MCARE
Rest
-EMSA
3 - Recelvlng Stolen Properly
N 71520&6
rEs3ezssSA
Dismissed: LOP
)isposition Dalez
Costd
031 1 41201 1
Fines
ElV.lSA
0u05nu0
_MCARE
Rest
MGs1-CR-0051922010
N
7f5203
4 - Access
DevicB Used To Obt Or
AObt ProilSeMce
r8s4r06ssAr
)ismissed - LOP
)isposition Dale:
031 1
Costs/
Flnes
EMSA
4t201 1
t1
08/05/20r0
- MCARE
TRest
CommEnts: All Charges Dismissed Lack of Prosecution ADA: Fran McCluskey, Kevin Harden Attomey Greg Pagano Steno:
BillGeftman Clerk Chrlstlan Hess
Teresa
AOPC 3573 REV. 10/1912010
Car Denl
Printed:
3n4f21
3:28 PM
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
32-
Com monwealth of Pennsylvania
Release of Prisoner
MunicipalCourt
County of Philadelphia
lst Judcial District

1 309 Criminal Justice Center
Phila, PA 19107
V.
Manuel Burgos
Docket No: MC-51-CR-0051923-201 0
oTNt N 7152036
Date of
18 S3e21
r8 $e22
r8 s3e25
SSA
SSAI
$SA
18 54106 SSAI
Birth:
0212411976
Charge(s)
Theft By Decep-False lmpression
Receiving Stolen Property
Access Device Used To Obt Or Att Obt Prop/Service
To the Warder/Director of SGI Graterford:
You are ordered/directed to release Burgos, Manuel on Docket No. MC-51-CR-0051923-2010 for the
charges listed, for the following reasons:
Hearing to be held at:

Date:
Location:
lrme:
=-
f]
tr
n
tr
u
tr
Acquitted/Found Not Guilty by (Jury/Court)

Case Dismissed
Charges wihdrawn by Prosecuton
Wlien Bailis Posted

Burgos, Manuelhas been placed on
Other:
ry
Thls release does not apply to any other commitment, hold order, or detalner against Burgos,
ManueL
Witness my harid and official seal at my office mts
./V
ay
W u<-L!
, zo-'/f-.
ot2"-,t*
SEAL

My corirmission expires first Monday of January,
AOPC 2004 REV. 09/30t2010
z- a r\
Pago2of 4
Printed 03/14n1 Z32PM
Case ID: 121202978

110600726
EXHIBIT B
Case ID: 121202978
CONFIDENTIAL
Case
ID: 121202978
D-02001
CONFIDENTIAL
Case
ID: 121202978
D-02002
EXHIBIT C
Case ID: 121202978
Melanie S. Jumonville
Page 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
- - MANUEL J. BURGOS, et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
PHILABUNDANCE, et al.
Defendants.
June Term, 2011
No. 11-06-0726
- - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
- - Deposition of MELANIE S. JUMONVILLE, taken
pursuant to notice, at the law offices of The
Beasley Firm, 1125 Walnut Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, on the above date, beginning at
11:07 a.m., before Donna A. Bittner, RMR-CRR.
- - -
DONNA A. BITTNER REPORTING

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
61 Penn Road
Voorhees, New Jersey 08043
dbitt15142@comcast.net
(856) 768-6619
Case ID: 121202978
a54f56a6-3cd9-4b9e-83a5-83be9ac9659f
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. How would drivers coming in and being

given a specific card have avoided, as you
say, this?
MR. VONSOVER: Objection. Go
ahead.
THE WITNESS: There would have
been no question if somebody came in and
signed a card out that that person had the
card that day and if they were driving a
diesel truck there shouldn't have been any
reason to buy anything other than diesel
fuel.
BY MR. BEASLEY:
Q. Okay. So given that that wasn't the
scenario, can we agree that there is a
question as to who was using card 003 for the
unleaded purchases during the time that Manny
was accused of using it?
A. If you're asking me am I one hundred
percent sure, the answer is no. If you're
asking me if I'm convinced that the evidence
still points to Manny, I believe that it
does.
Q. Okay. I understand your testimony and
Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. So we don't have pin numbers, it's

actually our cards. They're not donated to
us. We get the bills and we pay them, so we
keep track of the receipts. They go through
finance. We keep a spread sheet of who is
using it for what, so it's slightly
different.
Q. Okay. And have you ever seen the
documents that were supportive of accusing
Mr. Bustos of using the cards improperly?
A. The Lowe's cards?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us the time period range
that these Lowe's purchases were being
improperly made by Mr. Bustos?
A. I don't remember specifically.
Q. Was it a one-week period, a couple
months?
A. No, I think it was a one-month statement
and I believe that the facilities manager
went back and looked at a couple of months
prior to that.
Q. And who is the facilities manager?
Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the reasons for it, but my question is a

little different. I think we've agreed that
the system at Philabundance -- let me put it
this way. Is it fair to say that in the,
say, July and August 2010 time period
Philabundance's oversight of the credit cards
was a little sloppy?
A. It was not as good as it could have
been.
Q. Would you consider it sloppy?
A. In hindsight, possibly.
Q. What about it was sloppy?
A. I would rather have seen tighter
controls so that there is no question who had
a card on a certain day.
Q. Were there any changes to the way that
the Lowe's credit cards were used at
Philabundance after Mr. Bustos' allegations
were made, the allegations against Mr. Bustos
were made?
A. Slightly, yes.
Q. How?
A. It's a different system.
Q. How was that changed?
Page 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Richard Preito.
Q. Is he still at Philabundance?
A. Yes.
Q. When Mr. Prieto went to look at the
previous statements for the Lowe's card, do
you know whether he found any other
discrepancies?
A. I don't remember if the discrepancies
were all on one statement or if there were a
couple of statements.
Q. Did you go to the police before
considering repayment would be sufficient for
Mr. Bustos and the Lowe's card?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I wasn't sure if the charges were
explainable.
Q. Okay. Was there a time that you found
out that these Lowe's charges were
unexplainable?
A. I found that out when he sent us a check
which basically said to me he used it for
personal use.
Q. Do you consider what Mr. Bustos did with
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Case ID: 121202978
a54f56a6-3cd9-4b9e-83a5-83be9ac9659f
Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the Lowe's cards a crime?

A. Yes.
Q. Is it different than what the
allegations against Manny Burgos were?
A. Slightly different.
Q. How?
A. But still wrong.
Q. How?
A. With the Sunoco cards, that's a donation
to us from a specific donor and somebody that
we worked really hard to have a good
relationship with, so part of that is really
showing good stewardship of the donor dollar
and making sure that we're protecting what's
donated to us.
Q. Were you ever aware that the police said
that since Sunoco was paying for the gas it
would be up to them to press charges, not
Philabundance?
A. I believe so.
Q. Did you have any role in determining
whether charges would actually be filed
against Manny Burgos?
A. I believe so. I was part of the
Page 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Yes.
Q. At least as far as this document goes,
486 and 485, Plaintiff-23, the first question
where you talk about one of the new ones, the
question was, "And did you have any luck with
locating a camera at either station?"
With regard to at least the trail
that's been produced and identified as
Plaintiff-23, did he ever address the
question that you raised, did Mr. Bustos ever
address the question of whether you were able
to get the camera information?
A. Yes.
Q. And he did it in this e-mail trail?
A. I don't know if he did it verbally or
via e-mail.
Q. And as best you can recall, I think you
told us that he attempted to get the
surveillance and it wasn't available?
A. Right.
Q. Didn't you suggest that Sunoco deal with
this and not Philabundance?
A. I'm not sure. I mean, we passed the
information along to Sunoco and if we were
Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
discussion. It really was our executive

director that made the call.
Q. Is that Mr. Clark?
A. Um-hum.
Q. What role, if any, did you have in the
criminal charges being alleged against
Mr. Burgos?
A. It was a matter of just explaining
everything to Mr. Clark.
Q. Did you have any hesitancy in actually
being part of the decision making to pull the
trigger and call the police on Mr. Burgos?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever get a written answer from
Mr. Bustos that he actually spoke with
somebody at the Sunoco stations and they do
not have the surveillance?
A. Did I ever get a written answer?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't remember if I got that verbally
or via e-mail.
Q. Because the e-mail trail that we looked
at, you did I believe ask in one of the
questions about the surveillance.
Page 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
told that they had to prosecute I probably

passed that along. Is that what you're
asking?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay.
MR. BEASLEY: Let's mark this as
24.
(Exhibit P-24 was marked for
identification.)
BY MR. BEASLEY:
Q. I'm sharing with you 2002. It looks to
me like this is August 20, the day after card
003 was used to purchase unleaded when
Mr. Cartagena had the truck.
A. Um-hum.
Q. Tell us the import of what's on this
page as far as the discussion between you and
Bill Clark and Ray Pagliarulo.
A. So this is discussing whether Sunoco has
to press the charges and whether we need to
get Sunoco involved.
Q. Okay. Well, did you speak to the
police?
A. No.
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Case ID: 121202978
a54f56a6-3cd9-4b9e-83a5-83be9ac9659f
EXHIBIT D
Case ID: 121202978
1
2
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FTRST JUDICIAL DTSTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRTMTNAL TRIAL DIVTSION
MC-51-CR-0051-923
COMMONf/EALTH
4
VS.
6
7
MANUEL BURGOS
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
t-0
11-
t2
l_3
MARCH
14TH, 20tL
couRTRooM 503, cRTMTNAL JUsTrcE cENTER

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANA
L4
15
BEFORE: THE HONORABLB TERESA CARR DENI
T6
T7
APPEARANCES:
DISTRTCT ATTORNEY'S OFFTCE
1_8
BY: KEVIN HARDEN, ESQU]RE
L9
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
20
ROBERT LYNCH, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT
2L
22
REPORTED
23
BY:
VIILLTAM GEFTMAN,
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
24
25
Case ID: 121202978
3
1
I,
IN lHS COURT OF COMMON PLEI\S

FIRST JUDICIL DSTRICl OF PENNSYI,VNI
CRIMINL RAL DIVISION
2
3
COMMON?ELH
: lC-51-CR-005t
vs.
l
MNOEL
BURGOS
21
THE COURT: There's no record in

the quarter sessons file.
MR. HARDEN: There was a
prelm nary hearing, your Honor.
MR. LYNCH: A female tht
represented this com pany had started to
testify. And I'm gettn9 ths from m y
clent's wife who was there and throuqh the
Defenders. I personally wasn't present.
But m y understanding is the fem al
testified as to allegatons of theft
regarding my clent who drives a truck for
Philabundance. And wth regards to a
Sunoco 9as card tht goes to the truck,
that stays with the truck whch he drives
and other people drive. I don't know.
$2,800, $2,900, less than $3,000 in alleged
22
losses.
23
After the fem ale testif ied, t w as

quite clear that there was no evidence
through her connectng my client to this
I
I
-PRERIL
10
1'l
CONFARENCS
II
't2
12
COORlROOM
13
r.tRcH 141t,20ll
503 CRIMINL JUSTICE
PIIIDELPHI,
14
l3
CENlER
PENSYLVI
14
- - -
15
EEFORS: THE HONOR8L ERAS CRR DENI
l6
I6
I?
a --
10
15
hearng where this defendant represented
4
5
923
17
PPERNCES:
18
DISRICT TTORNAY'S OFFICE
18
BY: KEVIN HRDEN, ESQUIRE

SSSTN DISRCT TTORNAY
19
20
19
RO8ER LYNCH, ESQUIRE

TTORNEY FOR THE DEF6NONT
20
21
tt
23
RePORTED
BY:
t{ILLIM GTFTMN,
OFFICIL COUR REPORTTR
24
isdem eanors.
MR. LYNCH: There was a prellminry
24
25
WILLIAM GEFTMAN
4
MR. LYNCH: Good morning, your
24
theft. That t was sort of guesswork on

her part wlthn the company. And t really
turned out to be that Judge OeLeon found at
most there was maybe 9120 worth of
potental connecton to m y client. And
that there was no reason that it should
have been there for a prelm inary hearng.
So they rem anded t.
Now,I bring that to the court's
attenton because m y clent has been n on
a state detaner on these allegations. The
person w ho kept the books from this com pany
was fred from abroad. we've had no
opportunity to contest these or even to be
provded dscovery on ths m atter. He has
a famly, His wfe s present n the
courtroom. If you could stand up. He has
a son. He pays over $700 n chld support
n pror m arriage and children that can't
be paid as he sits n on a state detaner
whch amounts to a potentll$120 loss.
And the Com m onwealth s not ready. W e have
no d scovery.
THE COURT: Are your witnesses
25
he
Honor. Robert Lynch from Greg Pagano's
office.
4
5
6
7
I
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: We gave this a date.
t's a J0nt request. Com m onwealth to

prepare a wrlt. M r. Pagano s attached.
MR. LYNCH: Judge, may I address
the court on that?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LYNCH: We sent a lettef to the
Com m onw ealth -- I had t here -- on M arch
3rd telling them that we would be enterng
and requesting full dscovery. W e received
nothng from them. Knowing that t was
rem anded, contacted the Publlc Defender's
offce. Got discovery from them or
whatever they had in their file, whch was
nothing. There was no discovery. There
was the pretrialarragnment date, The
quarter sessions file reflects all
discovery we've had ten days prior to
today's date, the rem and date.
At the prelim inary hearn9 -THE COURT: There was no
prelim inary hearng. I just have
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
1 of 2 sheets
re
Case ID: 121202978
WILLIAM GEFTMAN
WILLIAM GEFTMAN
Pagelto4ofT
06108/20tt 01:55:16
PM
MR. HARDEN:
Theywere. They just
left.
It was a joint request.
THE COURT:
MR. LYNCH: For what reason?
THE COURT: So why is
it a joint
l0
request if you had the witnesses here?

MR. HARDEN: It was a joint request
because we don't have discovery.
THE COURT: I thought I was told
that the defense requested a date. That's
11
not such.
6
7
I
I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
2
5
6
REPORER'S CERTFICIO
I
9
that the proceedings nd
I hereby certify
and accurate.y l the
evidence re contained fuly
t0
notes !ken by me on the tril
So you were ready.
tt
and this copy is a co!rect
MR. PAGANO: Absolutely.

THE COURT: And then they dismissed
t2
their witnesses.
MR. LYNCH: Because they didn't
have discovery. I guess they still don't
have discovery.
THE COURT: So it's the
Com monwea lth's req uest.
MR. HARDEN: I have no problem with
that,
THE COURT: I have a problem that
he has a state detainer. You have no
discovery and he was arrested December 1st.
WILLIAM GEFTMAN
of the above cause,
transc!ipt
of the
same,
t3
l4
l5
16
william
official
Gettman,
cou!t Repo!te!
1?
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
I{ILLIH GEFIMN
MR. LYNCH: He's been in since that
day.
THE COURT: He's already been in

for three months and you have no discovery.
So if you don't withdraw, I'm going to
discharge it.
MR. HARDEN: Your Honor, it's not
that we don't have any discovery. The
discovery that we have, it's not all of it.
THE COURT: Three months in jail
and you don't have discovery. I'm sorry.
I'm going to discharge it if you don't
withdraw it.
MR. HARDEN: We have no motion.
THE COURT: Discharge. Lack of
prosecution. So vacate the date.
Commonwealth to prepare writ and vacate the
must be tried both sides. It's basically a
Commonwealth request. Incomplete
discovery. Witnesses present. Defendant
not brought down from SCI Graterford. No
writ was prepared.
(Proceeding is adjourned,)
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
l3
14
l5
t6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case ID: 121202978

0q0e/20LL 01:55:16
PM
Page5toTofT
2 of 2 sheets

Philabundance

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Philabundance

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

BY: James E. Beasley, Jr. M.D., LL.M.

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

Case ID: 121202978

Case ID: 121202978

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

Case ID: 121202978

In a desperate attempt to avoid civil liability for falsely accusing an

As identified in the plaintiffs initial lawsuit against defendants

When the Philabundance defendants first propagated these outrageous

that another Philabundance employee, Leonardo Bustos the same individual in

Rather than investigate whether Mr. Bustos 1 or anyone else was

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

Case ID: 121202978

In a blatant attempt to compromise the trial of the 2011 action, the

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

Case ID: 121202978

The preliminary hearing was again rescheduled, giving the defendants

a fourth chance to create evidence to support these frivolous claims.

On December 18, 2012, defendants again failed to persuade the Court

At both the November 26 and December 18, 2012 hearings, Attorney

Brigham, on behalf of co-defendant Morgan Lewis, was present.

Upon information and belief, the Morgan attorneys were instrumental

in communicating with the District Attorneys office, preparing Loesch for

In pursuit of securing a conviction against Mr. Burgos to avoid liability

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

Case ID: 121202978

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a direct result of the defendants recent

Plaintiff, Manuel J. Burgos (hereinafter Burgos) is an individual

adult citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 3642 Emerald

Defendant Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (hereinafter Morgan

Lewis), is a lawfirm with offices at 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. At

Defendant Philabundance is a Pennsylvania business with offices

located at 3616 South Galloway Street, Philadelphia, PA 19148.

Defendant Chaundra Loesch (hereinafter Loesch) is an individual

Defendant William J. Clark (hereinafter Clark) is an individual adult

citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who is the President and Executive

Defendant Melanie S. Jumonville (hereinafter Jumonville) is an

Case ID: 121202978

At all times relevant to this action, defendant Loesch was an actual or

ostensible agent/servant/employee of Philabundance.

At all times relevant to this action, defendant Clark was an actual or

ostensible agent/servant/employee of Philabundance.

At all times relevant to this action, defendant Jumonville was an actual

or ostensible agent/servant/employee of Philabundance.

At all times relevant to this action, each defendant expressly or

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

Case ID: 121202978

THE 2011 LAWSUIT

In sum, the 2011 lawsuit sought damages against Philabundance and

driver for Philabundance.

Philabundance had no effective oversight or controls relating to the

On any given day, no one at Philabundance knew where a particular

Sunoco fuel card was actually located.

For many months prior to the summer of 2010, Leonardo Bustos,

Philabundances Director of Logistics, was in charge of reconciling the Sunoco

On or about August 11, 2010, Ms. Rosa discovered questionable fuel

purchases while auditing the monthly Sunoco statements.

Case ID: 121202978

of Logistics in charge of overseeing the transportation department as well as the

to judgment, Philabundance agreed, without conducting any investigation into other

The defendants furthered this malicious scheme by withholding

Defendant Loesch informed defendants Clark and Jumonville that

Upon learning this, as further evidence of the Defendants malice and