IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

NOTICE TO DEFEND

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 claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THJS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE OR KNOW A LAWYER, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
The Allegheny County Bar Association
920 City-County Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
412-261-0518

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs are not certain what is the best form of action. They believe it is equity but if the Court believes it to be some other vehicle, they respectfully request the Court to consider this case to have been filed under that form.

1. This case is respectfully filed to terminate Defendants, individually and as members of the Regional Assets Board (R.A.D.) from all future action aimed at building new stadiums and/or ball parks at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars for the private businesses popularly known as the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Pittsburgh Pirates when there is allegedly not enough money to properly fund the courts, clean up abandoned mines, garbage pickup and other vital City and County operations

2. Louis A. LaRaia is a regional tax payer who has lost confidence in the desire of the judiciary to protect his just claims.

A. After he reversed in the Supreme Court of the United States at 111 5. Ct. 1614, __ US___, Superior Court of Pennsylvania decision authorized by Judge Justin N. Johnson, Judge Johnson refused to obey the United States Supreme Court which refused to enforce its own decision.

B. A protest to Chief Justice Rehnquist has resulted in a direction to ask for enforcement in the state courts and then, if unsuccessful, to return to the United States Supreme Court which procedures are presently pending.

C. However, the excellent reputation of the present Class Action Judge who will decide this case has caused

-1-

him to believe this case will be fairly decided on the law and the facts, unadulterated by political or other illegal and improper influences

3. Constance Schaeffer is the former1 famous actress Connie Costa, also the owner of the formerly glamorous Beverly Hills Theatre and nightclub and also a regional taxpayer who has personally experienced how powerful corporations with deep pockets and overwhelming resources and large law firms can frustrate and delay justice and sign notes at a possible 20.5% interest plus exorbitant fees and costs.

A. At 81 years of age and almost blind from cataracts, she was improperly solicited to take 30 year mortgages in violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act and state legislation enacted to protect her.

B. This litigation is presently pending at G.D. 93-2089 in state court and C.A. 98-246 in federal court at Pittsburgh.

4. Plaintiffs will divide their claims for relief into tiers, each of which shall present different problems. If relief for a higher tier is denied, the Court is requested to go on to the next tier.

TIER #1

5. Defendants and R.A.D. have no jurisdiction or authority to build or plan to build new stadiums or baseball fields.

A. Act 1993-77 which creates R.A.D. and defines and limits its power, provides only for preservation of assets which are already here - not the building of new ones;

-2-

see:

(1) Article XXXX I-B (a)(2), (3) and

(2) Section 3102-B "Regional Asset"

(3) Section 3112-B (1) "Powers and Duties" which makes no provision for new stadiums and baseball parks and

(4) Section 3114-B which makes no provision for new stadiums and baseball parks.

(5) Section 3130-B (b)(3) which directs

"the district shall not provide financial support for the following: -- (3) "Any asset which fails to serve a significant number of persons who are not residents of the City, Borough or Township wherein the asset is located" (Defendants have not, to Plaintiffs; knowledge supplied figures to establish they are not barred by this limitation.

B. The Ordinance No. 32066, effective July 1, 1994, limits Defendants and R.A.D. to assets which are already there; see

(1) "Wherefore" clause, Paragraphs (2), (3) and its Page 899 "Whereas" clause and

(2) "Definitions"; Page 706 (e.e.) and

(3) Page 707, Paragraph (d) and

(4) Page 71 (c) which bars financial support for"any asset which fails to serve a significant number of persons who are not residents of the city, borough or township within which the asset is located".

(5) Of course, the Ordinance cannot legally go beyond the said Act 1993-77.

C. On the date two of the County Commissioners

-3-

voted for this Ordinance, nothing was sai d about building or financing new stadiums or baseball parks.

1 ) Then Commissionion Flaherty used the words "preserve" and "preserving" three times and said nothing about new stadiums or baseball parks.

(2) Commissioner Dunn used those words six times

(see Pages 893-894).

6. The ability of the elected City and County officials to remove Defendants at the will is a violation of Separation of Powers and/or the Act #1993-77 and/or law prohibiting outside influence on discretionary-judicial type decisions and/or the Ordinance #3206C6.

A. Section 3102-B of Act #1993-77 (the Act) defines "Public Officer"as "Every persons elected to any public office of commonwealth government or any political subdivision of the commonwealth" and "Public Official" as "Any elected or appointed official in the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the commonwealth government or any political subdivision of the commonwealth" and "Regional Asset" as "A civic, recreational, library, sports or cultural facility or project designated as such by the district under this article".

B. Section 3110-B of the Act creates the Allegheny Regional Asset District as "A special purpose area wide unit of local government pursuant to Section 7 of Article iX of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, exercising powers as a unit of local government under this article."

C. Section 3111-B of the Act mentions the Governing Board and directs "(a) The powers and duties of the

-4-

district shall be exercised by a board that reflects the racial and ethical diversity of the county and provides for their appointment by elected city and county public officers and officials and directs that each appointee "shall serve at the pleasure of the said "appointing" officials and that a person shall be appointed by and "serve at the pleasure of the governor" and each appointed person's term "shall be coincident with the term of office of the appointing authority-" except that the member appointed by the above city and county appointees shall serve for two years or until replaced".

D. Plaintiffs are not, at the present time possessed with information in re whether the appointing conditions detailed in this article have been followed and will use discovery to flush out the facts and reserves the option of raising non-compliance if it is exposed by said discovery.

E. Section 3117-B of the Act directs that Board members shall not at the same time "be a party officer, public official-".

F. Ordinance #32066 defines "Board" in its Section 1 (c) as "the governing body of the District" and "public officer" in Section l (aa) "public official" in Section l (bb) substantially in the words of the Act.

(1) Said ordinance defines "Powers of the District" in Section 2 and limits powers in Section 3 substantially to what has been done in the Act.

(2) Section 4 (b) of the Ordinance details the powers of the "District Board" to be "in accordance with provisions of Section 3111-B of the Act" and Section 4 (c)

-5-

directs no members shall be "a party officer, public officer, public official--".

G. The Regional District By-Laws, in Section 4, sets the term of office of the board members to the Act and Section 6 provides for "at the pleasure" of the appointer removal and for removal of the Board appointed member by 5 out of 6 of the others.

H. The members of the Advisory Board are appointed by a majority of the Board under Section 1, Subsection 4 and removable at will by a majority under Subsection 6.

5. The regional district operations are subject to the Ethics Act, 65 PS 401, et sec. by provision of Article 1,X, Section 1, Subsection 6.

6. Around June 1, 1998, Commissioner Cranmer removed his appointee, Fred Baker, because he would not follow the Commissioner's orders on two proposed Steeler and Pirates' new stadiums; see Page 1, Section B of June 3, 1998 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (article attached).

A. Chairman Commissioner Crammer admitted that he, not his -appointed Board Nember was calling the shots in re so-called New Stadiums Plan B.

B. He told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporters that "It is too important of a decision to go down on the personal philosophy of one guy" and that he had attempted to coerce him to obey him.

C. On or about June 4, 1994, Cha)lman Commissioner Crammer appointed David W. Christopher because he

-6-

would vote and act as ordered; see Post-Gazette notices attached.

1) Mr. Christopher may bee disqualified because of the employment involvements listed in this article and /or

(2) because the nomination list mandates before before selection were not followed (see Section 3110-B(i)).

D. Mr. Baker told Post-Gazette Reporter Belko that he was removed solely because he refused to do what the Chairman Commissioner directed (see article attached indicates Mr. Baker's "No" vote "might have killed Plan B".

7 Because of the above Paragraph 7 facts, Plaintiffs contend each and every Board Member is a mere straw person and, in actuality the appointers are really, the Board in violation of the Act, the ordinance and/or the by-laws.

A. Plaintiffs request discovery in order to add to or delete this statement and

B. Also contend the appearance of propriety the entire Board be declared illegal.

8. The discretion of the Board to act is in the nature of a judicial decision and should be absolutely free from outside pressure. Plaintiffs rely on cases like U.S. v. Kahaner, ____ C.A.2, 317 F.2d 547; U.S. v. Manton, ____, C.A.2, 107 F.2d 834, 836 (fact decision correct irrelevant); U.S. v. Polakoff, _____ C.A.2, 1940, 112 F.2d 888, 889 (attempt to influence prosecution's recommendation to court is obstruction of justice); Hastings, Judge v. Judicial Conference of the United States, 1987, C.A.D.C., 829 F.2d 91, 95, N.12; U95. V. Hoizer, _____

-7-

C .A.7, 1987, 816 F.2d 304 (affirmative duty to disclose); Judicial 1nquiry and Review Board v. Snyder, _____ , -___Pa. __ 523, A.2d 294,298, Commonwealth v Chementi, 1986 507 A.2d 79, 510 Pa 149); Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 1953, 347 US 2 260; Weber v. Lynch, 1977, 473 Pa. 599, 610, N.8, 375 A.2d 1278; 1283, N.8; White v. Nd., 1963, 373 US 59, 83 S. Ct. 1050 (disclaimer influenced by contact rejected); County of Allegheny V. Cornmonwealth of Pa. , 1988, 517 Pa. 65, 75-76, 534 A.2d 760, 764-765 (impact of political pressure); In the Interest of McFall, 1989, __Pa. Super. ___ , 556 A.2d 1370, 1376 ("subconscious" temptation sufficient to establish bias); Appeal of Klein, 1989, ___Pa. ___ 565 A.2d 757, 761-763 (appearance of justice controls). The former Justice Larsen removal proceedings and a recent case involving former Chief Justice which led to his resignation

9. The factual posture of this case also is at war with the Doctrine of Separation of Powers and cases like Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., 1934, 295 US 602, 624, 55 5. Ct. 869, 872; Weiner V. U.S., 1958, 357 US 349, 352, 78 5. Ct. 1275, 1277; Marbury v. Madison, 1803, 1 Cranch 137, 162.

10. Because of the above facts, Plaintiffs aver the Members of R.A.D. are, in reality, the alter egos of the person who appointed them and that the RA.D. Board is, in reality, the appointers, not the appointees, and thus illegal due to the above act, and/or ordinance and/or by-laws.

11. Because of the above facts, Plaintiffs contend each Board Member is in the position of a Corporate Director who has obtained his position on a corporate board of directors by a promise to vote in a certain manner so that his vote is invalid.

12. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend Paragraphs

-8-

11 and 1 2 after discovery: Lapp. V Titus, ____, 302 A.2d, 366,224 Pa Super.150.

13. The recent passage of the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter triggers the Pocket Part Section of the Pennsylvania Constitution County Code, Article 9, Section 4 which revokes the Constitutional sections whIch make R.A.D. possible.

TIER #2

Plaintiffs do not desire to raise more issues than necessary but if any Defendant objects to the Issues of Tier #1, Plaintiffs will amend Tiers 2 and 3 under Pa.R.C.P. 1028 (c) by fleshing out in more detail the following and the Attorney General.

14. David Matter, appointed by the other members of the R.A.D. Board is removable at their will thus subject to the problems raised in Tier #1.

15. The Act is a special Bill in violation of Article III, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. And also contains more than one sunset in violation of Article 3, Section 3 and/or 11.

16. The Act is a special Bill in violation of Article III, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

17. The Act is a Revenue Bill which cannot be delegated and is thus in violation of Article III, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

18. The Act pays money out of the Treasury without legiislature appropriation in violation of Article III, Section 24 the Pennsylvania Constitution.

19. The Act violates Article III, Section 29 prohibiting benevolent appropriations.

20. The Act is a violation of Article III,

-9-

Section 31 which bars delegation of power there enumerated.

21. The Act is a special law prohibited by Article III, Section 32 o fthe Pennsylvania Constition.

22. The power to appoint a member of the Board, given to the Governer, violates Article IV, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

23. The Act violates Article VI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvani~ Constitution because they are not elected.

24. The special 1% sale~ tax violates the uniformity provisions of Artic4e VIII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

25. The Act violates Article IX, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides for election of County officers.

26. Article IX, Section 5 and/or 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit creation of R.A.D. especially as it applies to stadiums and baseball parks.

27. Article IX, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Act especially as applied to stadiums and baseball parks.

28. The Act makes no provision for its abolishment by the voters in violation of Article 1, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

29. The Act makes no provision for citizens to petition against or protest use of tax money for stadiums or baseball parks in violation of Article 1, Sections 20, 25 and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

30. The Act insofar as it is used for creating and

-10-

financing stadiums and. baseball parks violates Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution

TIER #3

31. The Act's Section 3102-L3 (1) (2) and (3) which defines " Business Enterprise" and later defines "Women's Business Enterprise" and Section 3112-B (20) which aids them in a violation of the recently prohibited as in federal equal protection and affirmative action legislation discussed in gender prohibitions of Article 1, Section 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

32. Section 1 (3) (1), (2) (3) and (h) (h) and (o) (o) Ordinance definitions of these groups and its Subsection (T) is also prohibited for the said above Paragraph 31 reasons.

33. Section 2 (20) of the by-laws is also a violation of the prohibitions stated in above Paragraph 31.

34. Section 3 of the by-laws has been violated the Board does not "reflect the racial and ethnic ty of the County and/or this provision is also prohibited provisions of above Paragraph 31.

35. So-called Stadium Plan B and/or spending about 20% of the new 1% Tax on stadiums already in existence is invalid because it is out of proportion in re the other projects required by the said Act 'Tto finance and support civic, recreational, library, and other regional assets" see Opening Amending Paragraph and Section 3101-B (2).

36. There is also a question if Plan B is good long term investment when the lack of interest of young people in baseball and the recent growth of soccer which may result in no

-11-

fans or media interest in football and/or baseball; see attached June 11, 1998 Post-Gazette editorial: Axman v. Board of Education of the Township of Piscatawny, 1996, C.A. ~ 91 F.3d 1547, certiorari denied December 2, 1997 and Coalition for Economical Equity v. Wilson, 1997, C.A.91 122 F,3d 682 C.D. September 4, 1997.

1. The class is so numerous that joinder of all practicable members is not practicable.

2. There are questions of law and fact common to the class.

3. The claims defenses of the representative parties are typical of the calaims or defense of the class.

4. The representative parties will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interest of the class under the criteria set forth in Pa. P.C.P. 1709.

5. A class action provides a fair and efficient method for adjudication of the controversy under the criteria set forth in Pa. IZ.C.P. 1708.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:

1. That each Defendant be required to answer this Complaint.

2. An order directing the R.A.D. and its Members illegal and otherwise N.G.

3. An order that Defendants and R.A.D. do not vote or proceed to move ahead on so-called Plan B.

4. Other proper relief.

-12-

5. The right to use this action as a Bill of Discovery to obtain facts in re behind the scenes actions by Defendants and their sponsors.

Respecfully Submitted,

Allen N. Brunwasser
Attorney for Plaintiffs
and the Class

P.O. Box 22212
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

VERIFICATION

Verified under penalty of 18PS 4904.

RETURN TO VOICE PAC