Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Former car dealer LoCastro and family facing fraud charges
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/former-car-dealer-locastro-and-family-facing-fraud-charges-635447/
May 11, 2012 12:25 am
By Janice Crompton / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A former Bethel Park car dealer and three members of his family have been charged with obtaining fraudulent loans to buy cars.
Washington County officials on Thursday announced they had charged Vincent LoCastro, 48, of Bethel Park, with two counts of corrupt organizations, two counts of conspiracy, 18 counts of theft by unlawful taking, and 18 counts of defrauding secured creditors.
Also charged were his brother Frank LoCastro, 57, of Peters, and Vincent LoCastro's two children, Nicole, 21, and Joseph, 26, who live with their father.
Frank LoCastro is charged with 69 counts of theft and conspiracy, charges that state police and the Washington County district attorney's office say involved his buying vehicles and financing them through multiple financial institutions.
From Dec. 23, 2008, to Feb. 5, 2009, police said Frank LoCastro, in conjunction with his brother, niece and nephew, used fraudulent employment and income information to obtain 19 loans totaling $509,831 from institutions including PNC, Bank of America and Huntington Bank.
After paying the first several monthly installments, court records show Mr. LoCastro subsequently defaulted on all of the loans.
Several of the banks told police they have not been able to find the vehicles to repossess them.
Nicole and Joseph LoCastro each face two counts of corrupt organizations and two counts of criminal conspiracy.
In the past three years, Vincent LoCastro has faced hundreds of criminal charges in conjunction with his former business, the All Pro Auto Mall in Canonsburg.
In November 2010, he was convicted of 27 counts of falsifying odometers and engaging in unprofessional conduct, although 572 other charges were dropped. He received 12 months probation and paid $5,695 in fines.
A year ago, he was convicted in federal court for identity theft and check-kiting charges involving a scheme to fraudulently obtain car loans for luxury automobiles and was ordered to pay $545,872 in restitution and serve three years probation.
Janice Crompton: jcrompton@post-gazette.com or 412-851-1867
First Published May 11, 2012 12:00 am
Family charged in car scheme
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/break11/05-11-2012-locastros-charges
By Kathie O. Warco Staff writer kwarco@observer-reporter.com
5/11/2012 3:33 AM
The owner of a former Canonsburg used car dealership and three family members face racketeering and theft charges stemming from a car financing scheme.
Vincent LoCastro, 57, of 203 Spartan Drive, Bethel Park, who once owned All Pro Auto Mall, is charged with two counts each of corrupt organizations and conspiracy as well as 18 counts each of theft and defrauding creditors.
His brother, Frank LoCastro, 47, of 151 Carol Drive, McMurray, is charged with two counts each of corrupt organizations and conspiracy along with 32 counts each of theft and defrauding creditors. He also is charged with unsworn falsification.
Vincent LoCastro's son, Joseph Bruce LoCastro, 26, along with his 21-year-old wife, Nicole LoCastro, also of 203 Spartan, also were charged with two counts of corrupt organizations and conspiracy.
A trooper with the state police Bureau of Criminal Investigations filed the charges this week at the office of District Judge David Mark.
Frank LoCastro reportedly purchased 16 high-end vehicles from dealerships in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey and Maryland between Dec. 23, 2008, and Feb. 9, 2009. Thirteen different financial institutions were used to finance the purchases. Vehicles purchased included a Hummer, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz and Cadillac Escalade.
Vincent LoCastro, along with his son and daughter-in-law, reportedly were involved in the vehicle transactions. Specifically, Vincent LoCastro was involved in 14 transactions; Joseph LoCastro, 10; and Nicole LoCastro, eight.
Frank LoCastro reportedly gave false information on loan documents, identifying himself as vice president of LoCastro & Associates with an annual salary of $144,000. Frank LoCastro then defaulted on the loans.
Court documents indicate creditors lost more than $400,000 on the defaulted loans. Some of the vehicles were recovered, but others were not, investigators said.
"Filing of criminal charges under Pennsylvania's Racketeering Influence and corrupt Organizations Act is a rare event due to the complex nature of these type of cases," said Eugene Vittone, Washington County district attorney.
"Hundreds of hours of police work were invested in this case," added Vittone.
Vincent LoCastro is no stranger to Washington County courts. Last September, he pleaded guilty to charges in connection with a false insurance claim in November 2008. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation after pleading guilty to one count each of insurance fraud, theft and forgery. LoCastro also was fined $500.
In December 2010, LoCastro pleaded guilty to unlawful business practices at the dealership from 2007 to 2009.
Also in December 2010, LoCastro was indicted in federal court for allegedly using another person's personal information to obtain financing for nine luxury cars. He was charged with identity theft for allegedly using the name, date of birth and Social Security number of "a person known to the grand jury" to acquire loans that resulted in four banks losing thousands of dollars.
Last June, LoCastro pleaded guilty and was placed on probation for 3 years. He was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $545,872.
All four LoCastros are expected to be arraigned before Mark on the charges later this month.
heard some goofy rumors today about this trash email me
somethings up other than the stock price!
Since the RB Pinnacle board has turned into a place for certain posters to do nothing more than mislead, I guess this is now the main place to go for information.
Now....anyone got any?
So, any more news on Vince or his brother? Anyone know if he's still "working" with Ray Anthony?
It's going nowhere because you are being evasive. If you answered questions honestly, I'll bet we could get a rousing discussion going.
I got bored halfway through. What's the Readers Digest version? Banks are bad, zardiw good?
WOW, most excellent post.
WOW
I actually forget how long ago this stock was exposed as a scam. You would think people would have gotten over that by now.
Geesh.
I'm bored with this content empty, go nowhere convo.......et z
I rest my case:
Posted by: Georgia Bard (Gary Swancy)
Date: 1/22/2001 5:40:23 PM (ET)
Post # of 331
Let us hold your 144 cert for safekeeping!
No matter where you go in the USA, you are told that you can not short against 144 restricted stock. That is about as true as you can not short an OTC stock. All stock can be shorted if it is in a brokerage account, which will show up in the broker’s long position.
As a service most brokerages are more than happy to hold a certificate for you in their vault. That way should you decide to register the 144, they would at least have the certificate on hand and only the form 4 plus a signature verification document would be all that is required. That can easily be done by fax or email. But is it wise to have a brokerage firm hold a 144 certificate for you in safekeeping? Is it really safe?
Well take today for example. I was watching a security, which I have 3 year restricted 144 stock. Now I had placed that 200,000 shares of 144 in certificate form into a brokerage house that told me they would glad to hold for me in their vault. So I did not sign it but just put sent it in to the broker to hold for me. Of course, I then see the 200,000 shares in my account on my monthly portfolio statement. The statement also notes they are restricted and the equity has no value by the denoted N/A under the Price column and thus no market value across the board. Now based on that statement the brokerage's long position just increased in accordance to my portfolio statement.
Now I realize and know the float is only 240,000 but it has traded the float over the past week and I could not understand where they were getting the stock to roll the bid every 30 – 90 seconds. (“Rolling the Tape”) So I called a broker and surprisingly was informed there was a big seller. Now how could that be since there was no large positions except 144 holders that I knew of at all. Further checking, I discovered there was plenty of stock in the long position of the clearinghouse! In other words, my restricted shares were now showing up in the Broker’s long position that MMs, MIMs, offshore and other players of the market can legally short against. (“Shorting Against the Box”)
A Brokerage’s Long Position is the available stock in the brokerage house accounts that can be shorted against that has not already been shorted. In other words, all stock in a Brokerage’s accounts can be shorted against, restricted or unrestricted. Thus the infamous “Air Shares” suddenly becomes “Restricted Air Shares” if the 144 holder happens to place a restricted certificate in their brokerage house for safe keeping. Because the share amount shows up as shares in the holder’s account, the brokerage shows all shares on the report as a long position for the brokerage.
Lets say that a brokerage house has in its accounts 1,000,000 shares, which is their long position to hopefully sell at a higher price. Of that say 500,000 is restricted that they are merely holding for 144 holders. The brokerage still shows a long position of 1,000,000. If someone plays the market and ”short against the box,” say 500,000 shares then the long position would reduce to 500,000 shares. Basically, they have shorted the unrestricted and have the restricted to go or vice versa. Now say another broker needs to borrow some of the long position to short and make an orderly market. Then the other 500,000 shares can be loaned out and thus shorted against the brokerage’s long position.
Restricted or not, signed or not, giving a broker a certificate for any reason is like putting a T-Bone steak (raw or cooked to whatever preference) on the floor and asking your dog to guard it. When you get back you will discover all that is left is the bone and the dog is still chewing on it. Please note, the dog is waging his tail and loves you to death but will growl at you if you try to even take the bone back. Expect a terrible hassle just to get what is left.
What does the Internet do? They merely start screaming P&D, or some other wild card to justify the stock price and the blame is no where close to the actual events of what has occurred. Now it may very well be 144 stock but not the 144 holders selling it. Most likely they are under the old belief you can’t short 144, which is apparently bogus.
Say a stock is trading at $10.00 a share. A 144 holder places his restricted stock certificate at his broker for safekeeping. The 144 holder now does not have to worry about trying to keep up with the certificate because they feel it is safe hands. Well, the MMs and MIM once the long position is out can just sell the fired out of the stock thus pre-selling the 144. Seems strange but the broker basically just nailed their client who they are suppose to be looking out for by the way. Just like the dog started eating the second you walked out the door.
Now the MIM has sold you out high and the price plummets. Watching with disbelief, you scratch your head on what happen to the stock price. Who in their right mind would be selling the stock, you ask yourself? Now you are ready to sell a bit once the legend is lifted and the price is 80% down from where you first put it into the brokerage house. Your brokerage house will be more than happy to sell the stock for you for a commission or buy it from you. Eventually, it makes back to whoever sold for you so they get the difference from when they pre-sold it for you much higher and can cover in getting you to sell at the low price. Still chewing on the bone in another words. But do not think about trying to pull that cert. Oh man the dog will used whatever they can to stop that from happening.
Bottom line is the 144 holder could not sell the 144 and was trying to be responsible and protect his interest. Heck, the 144 holder did not even sign the certificate nor even file a form 4 if they could. Unknowingly, they just shot themselves in the foot allowing a brokerage to hold their restricted security certificate and guard their investment.
When I called today to pull the certificate out and have it mailed back to me, I was informed of a numerous scenarios about getting my certificate. I was told it would take 6 weeks because the certificate was in the brokerage’s name. How could that be because the legend was still on the certificate and I had not signed it or even filed a form 4. The more I pressed on that issue I was later told that they had my original certificate and it was not in the brokerage’s name or street name. I was told they had talk to the company legal counsel and I was later told that did not happen especially after I did inquire to the counsel. I was told I needed the CUSIP numbers (I did not know you needed both restricted and unrestricted CUSIPs!), the certificate number and a reason for calling my certificate back.
Man I was blown away. My reason was became I owned the flipping certificate and I wanted back. I got both the CUSIP numbers and the certificate number to send in the written-signed request for my certificate. I even gave my Federal Express Account number so I could get the certificate back to me registered mail.
At the end of the day, I have discovered that anything in a brokerage account, restricted or unrestricted, is a long position and can be shorted. Supply and demand now is basically potential supply and demand. I was told today the “Rolling the Tape” I had been witnessing was, “Keeping the market honest.” Talk about an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms. But very few days come along where a light bulb come on or a 2x4 hits you in the head awakening you to the reality of the market.
Never put more into a brokerage account that you are willing to sell. Greed is putting in more shares than you are willing to let go of in a short term basis. They stock you do not intend to sell will be sold one way or another as long as it is in the brokerage account and thus showing up on the brokerage's long position.
I have to wonder how many people unknowingly realize that by putting their 144 certificates in their brokerage house, they actually are shooting themselves in the foot? Are they aware the market is actually about to nail them financially? How many stocks have been nailed not by 144 holders selling but putting their certificate in the hands of their broker for safe keeping and someone else sells for them? Could account for a tremendous MM oversell from what I have learned today.
Not only that, have you ever sent a certificate in to a brokerage house and it is free trading? Ever watch the selling that occurs prior to the 3 days to clear before you can sell. Envision this … you send in a certificate for say 100K shares and are informed it takes 3 days to get good delivery to street name. The broker upon receiving the certificate can short the stock. Who cares about fundamentals or anything? They got a certificate.
Hey, this is based on events today that I experienced and I could possibly be wrong. However, at 10:48 AM when I called for that 144 certificate the last “Rolling the Tape” occurred at 10:47 AM. The rest of the information in this composition was obtained by speaking to professional brokers. It was quite an eye opening experience and explains to me how a lot of stocks fall and no one lied because they have not sold a share. Nothing more than that someone else selling "Restricted Air Shares" causing the downward movement and looking for the holder to sell at the low price.
#1 Rule of the Market: Sell High (even if it is not your stock) and buy low (especially if it is the holders of the stock you sold against)
:=) Gary Swancey
z
I'm on your list of they? Explain.
LOL! You say go back to the beginning and there's your culprits and you are post number 3. Hmmmmmmmmm, I note post number 4 is very happy to see you here.
You are like Mccurddy, you keep using the term "they". Why is everyone so afraid to name names if they know them? Do "they" scare you?
But moving along, so at 600 million shares you thought it was naked shorted, what did you think when the share count kept growing? Wasn't it about 2 billion?? Did you still think it was "they"? Do you still not blame management?
Why is it, no one is willing to spell this out?
Try reading the board from the beginning........and this butter wouldn't melt etc.....is too funny..........z
Some known, some unknown....but you prolly know all of em.....and yes....there was and probably is a lot of air shares out there....and that WAS my original interest in the stock...we thought we could get them to cover....what a dream.....they NEVER freaking cover.....lol......cause guess what....they figure they can drive it to no bid.......and that's what they did.......z
Wait a minute....are you saying there was talk of a naked short long before the stock got going?
Hmmmmmm, a few holes there. At the time, there was only something like 600 million shares or so. I just checked and I bought on 3/1/00 at .465, which was probably the all time top!
So, there's no way there was already talk of a naked short.
I believe it was a check cashing biz.
I'm curious as to who you think is on "the crew"?
I'm very confused right now. Who do you think brought down the company?
Hall?
Turino?
Jensen?
Andle?
Vinny?
The Mob?
SBG?
Slhicks?
Treff and slurpy?
LandM?
Riter?
Rodders?
Wendy?
Flecksman?
guru?
Elgindy?
Janice?
McCurry?
Who exactly in your mind do you think is to blame for the downfall?
I was made aware of a huge naked short position in the company.....that was my sole and only interest (as I recall....don't even remember what the company was about if the truth be told....and the IBox is no help, since it's been vandalized by the *crew*...nice job there....looks just like some house in the ghetto)....seeing the miscreants brought to their knees...........z
Ha Ha....funny...PCBM on a long list of *conquests* by the crew...but you already knew that.........z
Do you know what ever happened to Hall?
So Vinny has a brother who also has some legal issues? I'm sure their parents must be so proud.
Do RBers just gloss over any and all of the info about Vinny and his troubles?
Can't believe people are now trying to claim PCBM was also a part of the CMKX "sting"!
Separated at birth???
OMG This guy from Locastro's neighborhood in McMurray, Peters Township Pa. looks EXACTLY like Vinnie the Torch! Is Dino his older brother or cousin?
http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/hot_pennsyltucky_mess/drunk-casino-patron-gets-his-italian-up-screams-death-threats/article_d026fab6-ad59-11e0-bf4b-001a4bcf6878.html
Drunk casino patron gets his Italian up, screams death threats at cops
Posted: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:16 am | Updated: 11:54 am, Wed Jul 13, 2011.
PATRICK BERKERY | 0 comments
Madonna mi! Get a load of this gavone (pictured) from Peters Township, who got drunk and very disorderly at Meadows Casino last Saturday, and started screaming death threats at the cops who confronted him.
From the WTAE story:
Dino Vincent LoCastro, 53, of Peters Township, was causing problems by being loud, insulting to the wait staff and disturbing other customers at the casino in North Strabane on Saturday night, police said. When LoCastro was told that he would be cited for public drunkenness, police said he became aggressive and screamed, "I will tear your eyes out. I'm Dino Vincent LoCastro. I'm Sicilian. You are dead. Your wife and children are dead. I'm coming after your family. You are going to pay. I'm going to bury you. I will hunt your family for the rest of my days. You can let me go and be my best friend or I will never leave you alone for the rest of your life." Police said LoCastro was arraigned before District Judge Larry Hopkins on a charge of terroristic threats and taken to Washington County Correctional Facility on $35,000 bond.
Is it wrong to suggest this mook was probably wearing a track suit at the time of the incident?
http://ptcrimewatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/peters-twp-man-faces-charges-of-dui.html
Peters Twp. Crime Watch
THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2009
Peters Twp. man faces charges of DUI, fleeing: O-R 3/26/09
Peters Twp. man faces charges of DUI, fleeing
By Kathie O. Warco
Staff writer
kwarco@observer-reporter.com
A Peters Township man faces a number of charges after leading police from three municipalities on a chase that started about 1:15 a.m. Tuesday in Bethel Park.
Dino V. LoCastro, 50, of Center Church Road, McMurray, was charged by Bethel Park police with fleeing and eluding police and driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. He also is charged with a number of traffic violations.
Bethel Park police Chief John Mackey said one of his officers was on patrol in the area of Superior Street and Milford Drive when he noticed a driver, later identified as LoCastro, acting suspiciously. Mackey said LoCastro's vehicle did not have any rear lights.
When the officer tried to stop LoCastro, he failed to obey the stop sign and continued to accelerate, Mackey said. Two minutes later, the officer lost sight of LoCastro.
A minute later, Bethel police received a report from Upper St. Clair police that LoCastro was spotted on East McMurray Road traveling at a high speed, Mackey said.
Three minutes later, Peters Township police reported that they were in pursuit of LoCastro. At 1:23 p.m., Peters police said he was in custody after he had crashed at East McMurray and Center Church roads. Mackey said LoCastro tried to flee on foot and run to his home.
LoCastro, who police said smelled of alcohol, was taken to St. Clair Hospital for treatment of facial injuries. Blood also was drawn to determine whether he was under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. He was admitted to the hospital for a mental health evaluation.
Charges will be sent by summons from the office of District Judge Robert C. Wyda. He also faces traffic charges filed by police in Upper St. Clair and Peters Township.
Copyright Observer Publishing Co.
Unbelievable! With Vinnie the Torch's previous record of fraud, why would any judge sentence him to 3 years probation with time half served at home under house "detention"? That must really hurt Vince's feelings that the Judge was such a meanie. Did the Judge decide it was too harsh a sentence to have Vinnie write a hundred times "I will never commit another fraudulent act again in my lifetime"?
Oh well, there is still the insurance fraud pending.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11148/1149788-55.stm
McMurray man sentenced in check kiting scheme
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Vincent A. Locastro, who took $545,872 through check kiting and identity theft, will have to pay it all back and serve three years probation, half of that under home detention, U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone decided Thursday.
Mr. Locastro, 47, of McMurray, was accused of using a trusting friend's name and Social Security number to get financing for nine luxury automobiles. He told the judge he "violated a dear friend's trust" and wants an opportunity to go from being "a good man" to "a better man."
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AUCTION CREDIT ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIM LO CASTRO,
Defendant.
)))))))))
2:10-mc-49
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
Pending now before the Court is Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 4). On February 11, 2010, confessed judgment was entered in favor of
Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $530,424.33, plus interest at 18% per annum
and expenses and costs as shall continue to accrue, a copy of which was served on Defendant by
hand delivery on April 7, 2010. See Doc. Nos. 2 and 3. On June 10, 2010, Defendant was served
with a notice of deposition to be conducted on July 13, 2010. Doc. No. 4 at exhibit A.
Included within the notice of deposition was a request for the production of documents at the deposition. Id. On July 12, 2010, counsel for Plaintiff was contacted by counsel representing Defendant’s husband in an unrelated matter, the nature of which was not described in the motion to compel. The attorney for Defendant’s husband advised counsel for Plaintiff that Defendant would not be attending the deposition noticed for the following day. On July 13, 2010, Defendant did, in fact, fail to appear for her deposition, and has further failed to produce any documents. Plaintiff has moved to compel Defendant to attend and testify at deposition with production of documents pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 as incorporated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a).
Rule 69(a) reads in pertinent part:
In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or a successor in interest
when that interest appears of record, may obtain discovery from any person,
including the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in these rules or in the manner
provided by the practice of the state in which the district court is held.
Rule 69 authorizes a judgment creditor to use the federal or state procedural process to determine
whether and what kind of assets exist that might satisfy the judgment. The scope of
post-judgment discovery is broad, enabling judgment creditors to seek discovery of both current
assets and past financial transactions that could lead to the existence of fraudulently concealed or
fraudulently conveyed assets. See, e.g., Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §
3014 (West 1973).
The limitations upon post-judgment discovery are those established by Rule 26(b). A
judgment creditor “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant
to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Under the Rules,
"relevance" is to be construed liberally, but not without boundaries. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351-52, 98 S. Ct. 2380 (1978). There appears to be no justifiable reason
why Defendant failed to appear for her deposition.1
1 The Court notes that a virtually identical action between Plaintiff and Vincent
LoCastro, Defendant’s husband, was initiated at the same time as the matter sub judice in this
Court at miscellaneous action number 2:10-mc-48. That action apparently involves the same
confessed judgement, a notice of deposition for Vincent LoCastro that was delivered on the same
day as the one herein, and the same phone call from the attorney for Vincent LoCastro indicating
that his client would not be appearing for the deposition. See Doc. No. 4 at 2:10-mc-48, Auction
Credit Enterprises v. Vincent LoCastro. Similarly, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking an
order for Vincent LoCastro to appear and respond to the notice of deposition, and also seeking
sanctions. Id. On July 30, 2010, that motion was granted in part and denied in part. Id. at Doc.
No. 6, 2010 WL 3039180 (slip copy). There are two distinctions between the posture of Vincent
LoCastro in that matter and Defendant here. Vincent LoCastro was represented by the attorney who contacted counsel for Plaintiff, while Defendant is not. Further, Vincent LoCastro’s
attorney indicated that if his client was ordered to appear, that he would most likely be invoking
his right not to incriminate himself under the Fifth Amendment. Id. No such rationale has been
provided to Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant in this action to justify Defendant’s failure to appear.
AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED, that Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 4), is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that Defendant is hereby ordered to appear
and to submit to examination by oral deposition in aid of execution, as well as to produce those
documents previously identified with the notice of deposition, no later than August 24, 2010.
Plaintiff’s motion, to the extent it seeks sanctions, is DENIED without prejudice.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Terrence F. McVerry
United States District Court Judge
cc:
For Plaintiff: Elene M. Moran, Esquire
Email: emoran@thorpreed.com
Kerri L. Coriston, Esquire
kcoriston@thorpreed.com
Defendant: Kim Lo Castro
102 Standing Rock Drive
McMurray, PA 15317
Courtesy copy to:
John A. Schwab, Esquire
jas@pietragallo.com
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2010mc00049/96104/6/0.pdf