DRAFT

OCT 11, 2023

1800sIntroduction Tangled Deeds 5600 Munhall

fka 5800 Munhall
Until the late 1800s, Squirrel Hill remained farmland, with a few coal mines scattered around, while most of
Pittsburgh’s early industrial and residential development took place elsewhere in its valleys and along its river
banks.

The first inhabitants of Squirrel Hill were Native Americans, who possibly came here in prehistoric times. They
used the hill as a hunting ground. The area was rich in game. A salt lick near the mouth of Nine Mile Run attracted
wildlife. Squirrels were so numerous the Native Americans are said to have given the name “Squirrel Hill” to the
hill.

French and British hunters and trappers roamed the area in the mid-1700s, but Squirrel Hill wasn’t settled by
Europeans until after the French and Indian War, when colonists from the British Isles and German-speaking nations
trickled in, attracted by free land and plentiful game. They blazed claims to large tracts of land. The claims were
later legalized when the government of the colony of Pennsylvania opened a land office in Pittsburgh in 1769.
Meanwhile, treaties between the British and Native Americans had reserved the land only for Native Americans.
Skirmishes between them and the settlers continued until after the Revolutionary War.
’When the first land office opened in Pittsburgh, eighteen men made applications to secure land in Squirrel Hill.
Some of them were already living there. Two of Mary Girty Turner’s sons by her first marriage—George and
Simon Girty—were among those who applied.
Simon later became infamous for defecting to the British during the Revolutionary War. He became a leader of the

Mingo Indians, who were allied with the British. He used his extensive knowledge of the frontier to attack
settlements. After the war, he and two of his brothers fled to Canada, so John Turner inherited the land in Squirrel
Hill. His 140-acre farm, which he named “Federal Hill,” extended from Saline Street to Frank Street in Greenfield.
Turner bequeathed land for a burial ground to his community. Some of the earliest settlers still live in Turner
Graveyard at 3424 Beechwood Boulevard.

A few trails ran through Squirrel Hill in the early days. Among them were what later became Hazelwood, Forbes
and Shady Avenues and Saline Street. The trails were mainly ways for travelers from the east to get over the hill on
their way to the Point or East Liberty.

In the early 1800s a small settlement developed at the top of what is now Browns Hill Road above Nine Mile Run
valley. Around 1820, at the sharp bend of Beechwood Boulevard just a long stone’s throw from Browns Hill Road,
William “Killymoon” Stewart built an inn and tavern where travelers could find refreshment or stay overnight. The
building was not demolished until 1949.

As Pittsburgh prospered and grew in the mid-1800s, wealthy city businessmen began buying up the farmland in
Squirrel Hill for vast country estates. At that time the hill was part of Peebles Township, a large municipality east
of Pittsburgh.

After Pittsburgh annexed Peebles Township in 1868, the large estates began to be subdivided into smaller but still
substantial residential lots where wealthy industrialists-built mansions, many in the northern part of Squirrel Hill
along Fifth Avenue and nearby roads. Some of the mansions were built by a half-dozen interrelated families of
Pittsburgh’s industrial elite on the fifty-five forested acres of the Woodland Road district between Fifth and
Wilkins Avenues.
The Berry mansion on Woodland Road was the first home of Chatham University. It was founded in 1869 as the
Pennsylvania Female College and then renamed the Pennsylvania College for Women. Today Chatham University
occupies a score of buildings there—many of them mansions bequeathed to the university by former occupants or
their descendants.

Another mansion is now a Chatham University gatehouse and guesthouse. Willow Cottage, at the corner of Fifth

Eve_10/11
 Avenue and Woodland Road, is the oldest surviving element of Millionaire’s Row along Fifth Avenue. The cottage
was built in the 1860s by industrialist and civic leader Thomas M. Howe. He served in the U.S. House of
Representatives as a member of the Whig party from 1851 to 1855. Willow Cottage was neglected for years and
almost torn down but underwent a $2.2 million restoration in the early years of the 21st century.
A few miles west are The Pittsburgh Golf Club, whose original building was a farmhouse possibly dating to the
1860s, replaced in 1899 by a neo-Palladian building. The private club is adjacent to the public Bob O’Connor Golf
Course at Schenley Park, which has its own clubhouse.

In spite of such developments, Squirrel Hill remained mostly rural until the late 1800s. The Murdoch Farms district
in northwestern Squirrel Hill was a nursery and dairy land until the early twentieth century.

A major change occurred in 1893 with the coming of the electric trolley. Although prior development had occurred
along the Fifth Avenue corridor from Downtown, the northern area of Squirrel Hill really began to develop when a
trolley route began to run along Forbes Avenue, leading to the growth of the business district at Forbes and
Murray. The trolley route split at that intersection, one set of tracks going to East Liberty and Wilkinsburg and the
other down Murray Avenue to Hazelwood Avenue. When Brown’s Bridge was built in 1895 near the mouth of
Nine Mile Run, it connected the bustling steel town of Homestead with Pittsburgh’s East End, stimulating the
building of hundreds of large homes on Shady Avenue and Denniston Street for middle management of the mills.
The early 1900s saw a continuation of residential development in Squirrel Hill. Some houses became known for the
persons associated with them.

On Murray Hill Avenue stands the house where the famous author Willa Cather lived from 1901 to 1906. Cather
was the telegraph (wire desk) editor and drama critic for the Pittsburgh Leader newspaper. She taught at Central
High School and then headed the English Department at Allegheny High School. Cather is known primarily as a
Westerner from Nebraska, where she grew up, but she used Pittsburgh as the backdrop for many of the short stories
she wrote during her years here. Some of her most famous novels are Death Comes for the Archbishop, A Lost
Lady, and O Pioneerss

Squirrel Hill’s roads developed along with its houses. Shady Avenue (originally Shady Lane) has been a prominent
portal to Squirrel Hill from East Liberty and Shadyside since early times. At Fifth Avenue, the road passes by the
Pittsburgh Center for the Arts—the former Charles Marshall House built by the prominent architect Charles Barton
Keen in 1911

In 1903 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. redesigned Beechwood Boulevard. At its northern end, the boulevard began to
fill with even larger mansions than Millionaires’ Row on Fifth Avenue. The sinuous road was used as an
impromptu racetrack for a decade after its reconstruction.

Even with all the development taking place, large swaths of Squirrel Hill were still rural. In the late 19th and early
20th centuries, these swaths were made permanent by the donation to the city of two huge tracts of forested land
bracketing the neighborhood on the east and west to be used for public parks.

Schenley Park, on the west, was donated to the city in 1889. However, the donor of the park became famous long
before that. Pittsburgh heiress Mary Elizabeth Croghan was the granddaughter of Gen. James O’Hara, a leading
Pittsburgh pioneer and landowner. In 1842, shortly before Mary’s sixteenth birthday, she eloped from her New
York boarding school with 43-year-old Capt. Edward W. Schenley of the British army. It was the captain’s third
elopement. The couple fled America in a British navy ship.
This rash action inspired vituperative denunciations in newspapers, bankrupted the boarding school and spurred the
Federal Government to dispatch the U.S. Coast Guard to pursue the errant couple. Captain Schenley evaded them
by first hiding in the Bahamas and then heading for England. For many years Queen Victoria would not allow
Mary to be presented at court because she had been a disobedient daughter. (The Queen finally relented.)

Mary Schenley always loved Pittsburgh and perhaps had a nostalgic yearning to live there once again. This was in
spite of a happy life, filled with the care of six daughters and a son and the direction of her estate after her father’s
death. Later in life she did enjoy a long visit to her home city. (Captain Schenley, however, always hated it.)
1

Eve_10/11
 Mary’s love for the city is proved by her generous gifts. Of her gift of Schenley Park, the Standard History of
Pittsburgh, edited in 1898 by Erasmus Wilson, says, “In 1889 she donated a princely tract which made the
magnificent Schenley Park possible. She gave 300 acres out and out for this great scheme and sold the city 120
acres more at the merest nominal price. Unborn generations will enjoy the blessings of this gift.”
Frick Park, on the eastern side of Squirrel Hill, didn’t open until 1927. Henry Clay Frick was Andrew Carnegie’s
most prominent executive. When Frick died in 1919, he bequeathed 151 acres of land, mainly undeveloped
wilderness, to the city of Pittsburgh for a park. Over the years large parcels of land were added to increase the area
of Frick Park to almost 600 acres,

In the 1800s, Pittsburgh has a relatively small local government which controlled opening and vacating roads,
easements, contracting to build a city, etc. And giving urbanization, zoning laws, environmental issues etc., to
accurately identify and untangle a deed in Pennsylvania, one must view local maps and plans to interpret the
language of an alleged deed in the property description,
For example in 1890, City Council relocates Beacon from Wightman to Schenley see
https://historicpittsburgh.org/islandora/object/pitt:20090625-hopkins-0002/viewer;
https://historicpittsburgh.org/islandora/object/pitt%3A04v01p35/viewer1 and as follows:

In 1899, the City Council enacted the first of many laws controlling land use and allowing for the police power of
the state via eminent domain. See Act of 1989 below example:

In 1901, City Council approved an Ordinance locating Wightman Street and published the same:

 1 Source
Real estate plat-book of the city of Pittsburgh : from official records, private plans and actual surveys, Volume 1. (1904
2

Eve_10/11
3

Eve_10/11
4

Eve_10/11
 1903 Mar 11: PLN000020/102 listing Bellefield Land Corp and Schenley Heights Plan as Grantor/Grantee
respectively (2 pg dox) Plan Book zoo 20. 102 and d.103 contains a Map of Plan see pg 103 (retrieved by damson
online search for •Munhall”. See 103 Map Beacon fka Munhall Ave.2 Plaintiff identified the Plan of Lots by
conducting an online search for “for •Munhall”. SEE 103 Map Beacon fka Munhall Ave.
To begin to understand the nature and extent of equity deed fraud, one must identify the actual location of streets
and properties as located for each applicable period of time.
For example, my mother’s Deed, all current public records that I have identified 86-P-150 as taxable property. By
way of limited example, in 2022 I ran a DCR search on 86-P-150 and all results representing liens, foreclosures,
Allegheny County Tax liens, Mortgage foreclosure and judgments that are identified as the search results “ on 86-
P-150” “describe the Block and Lot as follows::
“ Imperial House Condo 1.648 ALD FRONTING 65.89 FT MUNHALL ROAD [FKA HOBART SEE 1911 city
council transcript supra] IRREG 71.85X270.31X59.03 BEACON ST .66904% 10 STY BRK & CB APT
BUILDING #5600 UNIT___”

2
Random Search Allegheny online for John Murdock happened upon the following: PLN000020/102 listing Bellefield Land Corp
and Schenley Heights Plan as Grantor/Grantee
5

Eve_10/11
6

Eve_10/11
7

Eve_10/11
Comparing the geography and location of lot 50, it is necessary to view the map as follows below.
Specfically for example, in 1903, the plan below describes Munhall Ave at Lot 60; however, at some point between
1903 and 1911, as described supra, the City Council renamed Munhall Ave as Hobart Street. Going forward, that
name has not changed.

Eve_10/11
9

Eve_10/11
All versions of the alleged Declaration of Condominium and deeds contain a reference back to the Bellefield Land
company plan. See e.g., [INSERT WEBSITE]

10

Eve_10/11
In 1907, Robert J. Croyle was identified as incorporator of Bellefield Land Co.

In or about March 2021, Plaintiff ran a random Search Allegheny online for John Murdock happened upon this

11

Eve_10/11
 material official record which does not appear unless one happens to know that John Murdoch is in the chain of
title. See below PLN000020/102 listing Bellefield Land Corp and Schenley Heights Plan as Grantor/Grantee
respectively (2 pg dox) Plan Book zoo 20. 102 and d.103 Includes Map of Plan see pg 103 (retrieved by damson
online search for •munhall”. SEE 103 Map Beacon fka Munhall Ave.
All versions of the alleged Declaration of Condominium and deeds contain a reference back to the Bellefield Land
company plan specifically, lot 59-60 and Lots 45-50 See Munhall; Beacon Hobart. Bellefield 1904. There is no
Lot No. 150 which is the taxable property which my mother was fraudulently led to believe she purchased. See all
tax records describing property as taxed per search by property at Allegheny County DCR. See Exh.__
Never any lot 150 and fronting on old Munhall references the location of Munhall in 1903 so today it should read
fronting on Hobart but for what appears to have been a structural relocation in the 50s. See Elichny Bros.
(historically to hire house mover than to tear down and rebuild).
Upon information and belief, the nine-story apartment building which was known as 5800 and faced Hobart was
simply moved so that it appears to front what is today known as Munhall Road linking Beacon to circular
driveway.
Today, the numbering of the buildings is out of order and nonsensical. It appears that at some point, the houses on
Munall Road today were papered and marked with new house numbers so that they now appear to front Munhall
Road, meaning that what appears to be the front of buildings on Munhall Road today were given back doors and
USPS numbers on the rear of the buildings as part of the generational scheme to evade multiple federal, state and
12

Eve_10/11
 local laws and more importantly to defraud current and prospective buyers by making it near impossible to
accurately trace a chain of title.
To picture the geography and location of lot 50, it is necessary to view the map as follows below. In 1903, the
plan below describes Munhall Ave at Lot 60; however, at some point between 1903 and 1911, as described supra,
the City Council renamed Munhall Ave as Hobart Street. Going forward, that name has not changed.
Absent identification and review of this recorded map there is no way to identify the equity fraud by which my
mother was victimized. To picture the geography and location of lot 50, it is necessary to view the map as follows
below.
In 1903, the plan below describes Munhall Ave at Lot 60; however, at some point between 1903 and 1911, as
described supra, the City Council renamed Munhall Ave as Hobart street. Going forward, that name has not
changed.

13

Eve_10/11
14

Eve_10/11
 3

Facts:
First, in 1903, Beacon Road did not run to Schenley Park which only came into existence in 1899-ish.
Second, the 1903 Map references Munhall and appears to cut off Beacon but in fact what is above described as
Munhall is today Hobart Street.
Third, in 1922, the Council of Pittsburgh, President John M. Goehring, members Messrs. Babcock, Kerr, Rauth,

3
This is a two-page paper. To properly understand the plan pg. 102-103 must be viewed as one page per the above photo. Plaintiff
had to do two-years of research to even be able to make sense of the mag or geography even this is direct evidence of the overall two-
hundred-year fraud upon honest tax paying citizens.
15

Eve_10/11
 Garland, McArdle , Wilkins, see also references to Bigelow). See Official Record, City of Pittsburg, Ordinance
No. 992 copied and pasted below: “ Hobart (‘formerly Munhall”)

In 1903, for reasons apparent to the prospective purchasers, patrons, investors as described supra at (Naffah
litigation), Mellon Bank fka Park Bank identified its officers and directors as including E.M. Diebold.

16

Eve_10/11
 The “Roaring Twenties”
In general, the decade following WWI was known as a period of wealth and excess. . Building on post-war
optimism, rural Americans migrated to the cities in vast numbers throughout the decade with hopes of finding a
more prosperous life in the ever-growing expansion of America's industrial sector and housing market..[6]
In 1923, Pittsburgh enacted its first general zoning ordinance and relatedly Ordinance 325, which in relevant part
limited the use of the El Tower lot for 21/2 story apartment houses which was in accord with the uses and
development of the district at the time. Book Vol. 34, page 556, Ordinances, City of Pittsburgh.4
In 1923, Gerard Hoskins official map of Squirrel appeared as follows which demonstrates the Hobart has replaced
Munhall and described Ls Naffah as owner. Note this map reflects the Lot descebed in all eve related property
records.

4
See Rubin v. City of Pgh.et al. 142 F.Supp. 787 (1956) (injunctive action relating to the instant property
describing it as follows, action to enjoin (1)a rezoning ordinance of the City of Pittsburgh permitting apartment
house construction, namely, on a tract of 2¼ acres in the vicinity of Whiteman Street and Munhall Road,, and (2)
specifically enjoining the rezoning of a tract of land within the rezoned area., having a frontage of 80 feet and a
depth of 233 feet, upon which the[ putative owner aka Nominee] Public Relations Research Service, Inc proposes
to erect a luxury type eight story apartment house. See Rubin Ruben citing, Ordinance 325, City Council File No.
288, File No. 1740, Series 1955. 325, City Council File No. 288, File No. 1740, Series 1955 and including finding
of facts regarding related zoning ordinances enacted between 1923 and 1956.

17

Eve_10/11
https://historicpittsburgh.org/islandora/object/pitt%3A23v0219b/viewer (compare mutli-party 1930) supra at pg
___ supra, . the properties described in that and in future deeds in demonstrably not part of related property – see
lot 150. See ja west property location, see Goldstein et al. Direct evidence every lie told in official records by all
coconspirators.

Also, in 1923 January Park Bank v. Naffah, 276 Pa. 199 (Pa. 1923) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (More credible
facts per Reed Smithfield: January B3rd, 1923 Precedential

On January 30, 1927 ,the Pittsburgh Sunday Post, reported that lymia Naffah sold a Wightman Street parcel to
Michael Coury --. Lymia N to Mike Coury, 80 X 11[] fronting on Wightman Street (see historical maps rear of
Building). Three different Prop History cards. The initial version for Imperial house Assoc. On the same date, it
was reported that the annual banquet for Realtors would be held at the El Tower Apartment and Cabaret.
The ”Coury Lot” identified by a targeted screen of the above map as follows:

18

Eve_10/11
19

Eve_10/11
On September 14, 1930, at DBV 2549/446 BE deed recorded at 14 DBV 2549/446. Latoof NAFFAH and Lymia
NAFFAH conveyed to Mellon dba Union Trust nominees Edward M. Diebold. George E Bartley Scott A White
Moss.”. Being the same property upon which City the “ El Tower Apartment Hotel” being lot 86-P-102. See
DBV 2428/249 July 1930) (see also tract C]. 5
On October 16, 1928, it was reported that the El Tower Hotel was owned by Syrian Latoof Naffah and apartments
for rent were available for inspection. At this time, historic maps demonstrate that the building fronted on
Munhall today known as Hobart. Based upon official maps including the 1930 survey the positioning of the
original El Tower the remnants of which were used to build up in the early ‘70s the Ross nominees entered the
scheme. In any event, in 1926 and until it was at least partially razed or abandoned in the late 1950s the building
on Munhall as it existed then.

5
*** Compare fraudulent Declarations that cite two diff DBV for 1928 Deed Lymia to Diebold first is DBV
2349/4469 and then in the same paragraph DBV 2349/446

20

Eve_10/11
Late 1920s the Stock Market Crash

On Jan 30, 1927, the Pittsburgh Sunday Post, reported that Lymia Naffah sold to Mike Coury, 80 X 11[] fronting
Wightman Street (see historical maps rear of Building). Lymia Naffah sold Wightman Street Parcel to Michael
Coury _ hot.pdf HOT proof its part of Mellon parcel. See the related litigation, [] infra. In fact, Naffah had no
interest in selling as everyone, but the public knew. See subsequent litigation.
On SEPT l4, 1928, at 14 DBV 2549/446. Latoof NAFFAH and Lymia NAFFAH executed a deed that allegedly
conveyed to Mellon dba Union Trust nominees Edward M. Diebold. George E Bartley Scott A White Moss on Sept
14, 1928.___ Per Reed Smith Mellon’s see _

On March 25, 1929, after the Federal Reserve warned of excessive speculation, a small crash occurred as investors
started to sell stocks at a rapid pace, exposing the market's shaky foundation.[8] Two days later, banker Charles E.
Mitchell announced that his company, the National City Bank, would provide $25 million in credit to stop the
market's slide.[8] Mitchell's move brought a temporary halt to the financial crisis, and call money declined from 20
to 8 percent.[8] However, the American economy showed ominous signs of trouble.[8] Steel production declined,
construction was sluggish, automobile sales went down, and consumers were building up large debts because of
21

Eve_10/11
 easy credit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929
On October 24, "Black Thursday", the market lost 11% of its value at the opening bell on very heavy
trading.[13] The huge volume meant that the report of prices on the ticker tape in brokerage offices around the
nation was hours late, and so investors had no idea what most stocks were trading for.[14] Several leading Wall
Street bankers met to find a solution to the panic and chaos on the trading floor.[15] The meeting included Thomas
W. Lamont, acting head of Morgan Bank; Albert Wiggin, head of the Chase National Bank; and Charles E.
Mitchell, president of the National City Bank of New York.[16] They chose Richard Whitney, vice president of the
Exchange, to act on their behalf.[citation needed]
‘On Black Monday, October 28, 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined nearly 13 percent. See
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/stock-market-crash-of-1929
On the following day, Black Tuesday, October 29, the market dropped nearly 12 percent, . hit Wall Street as
investors traded some 16 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange in a single day. Billions of dollars were
lost, wiping out thousands of investors. The panic selling reached its peak with some stocks having no buyers at
any price.[19] The Dow lost an additional 30.57 points, or 11.73%, for a total drop of 68.90 points, or 23.05% in
two days. See e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929
On October 29,1929, William C. Durant joined with members of the Rockefeller family and other financial giants
to buy large quantities of stocks to demonstrate to the public their confidence in the market, but their efforts failed
to stop the large decline in prices. The massive volume of stocks traded that day made the ticker continue to run
until about 7:45 p.m. Id.

After a one-day recovery on October 30, 1929, when the Dow regained 28.40 points, or 12.34%, to close at 258.47,
the market continued to fall and arriving at an interim bottom on November 13, 1929, with the Dow closing at
198.60.

By mid-November of 1929,, the Dow had lost almost half of its value. The slide continued through the summer of
1932, when the Dow closed at 41.22, its lowest value of the twentieth century, 89 percent below its peak. The Dow
did not return to its pre-crash heights until November 1954. Id.
1930 through 1960 – The Beacon Apartment Hotel Years (see also Depression and Recovery

June 14, 1930: PPG reports on Sheriff sales scheduled for July 1930 includes the following:-

1930 July 7: DBV 2428 at pg 249 at all relevant EvE deed and chain and Title as adopted and affirmed in every
version of the fraudulent declarations and by putative a probate lawyer Sunseri who provided the Instrument
22

Eve_10/11
 beginning on pg 250 omitting the first page which contains the operative facts as to parcels at issue and the true
chain of title using Mellon nominees which continues the present Specifically, pg 249 describes multi-party
transactions via foreclosure/bankruptcy.

The owner of the properties including 86-P-102 and 86-P-150 is the “City of Pittsburgh” apparently also a Mellon
Nominee. In material part: Page 249 Pennsylvania the Party of Second Part and Edwin M Diebold and his Wife
Marion. Lymia and Latoof Mechanics lien and William Secrist, Terra Tenant [sheriff]

Part of Lot 55 and all of Lot 56 Schenley Heights plan of Lots P. B. Vol, 20, pages 102 and 103 Fronting on the
easterly side of Wightman St.. and extending from the northeastern corner of Hobart and along the easterly side of
Wightman St. to Munhall Road. and extending thence backward eastwardly from as Wightman St.. between Hobart
St. and Wightman Sts. northwardly and Munhall Road to other property now or late of Lymia Naffah. Having
erected thereon a 3story building…

Per the screenshot of the Hoskins map above, the JA West, Kossman, Bartley lots are not part of the Shenley Plan of
Lots and do not have any connection other than a multideed from 1930. The purpose of the entire of the entire
deed was to confuse and conflate the properties to conceal the true chain of ownership which would force Mellon
to declare major losses likely destroying whatever fortune he built up at the point.

1930 July 7: DBV 2428 at pg 249 at all relevant EvE deed and chain and Title as adopted and affirmed in every
version of the fraudulent declarations and by putative a probate lawyer Sunseri who provided the Instrument
beginning on pg 250 omitting the first page which contains the operative facts as to parcels at issue and the true
chain of title using Mellon nominees which continues the present Specifically, pg 249 describes multi-party
23

Eve_10/11
 transactions via foreclosure/bankruptcy. See below.
The owner of the properties including 86-P-102 and 86-P-150 is the “City of Pittsburgh” apparently also a Mellon
Nominee. In material part: Page 249 Pennsylvania the Party of Second Part and Edwin M Diebold and his Wife
Marion. Lymia and Latoof Mechanics lien and William Secrist, Terra Tennant [sheriff] Part of Lot 55 and all
of Lot 56 Schenley Heights plan of Lots P. B. Vol, 20, pages 102 and 103 Fronting on the easterly side of
Wightman St.. and extending from the northeastern corner of Hobart and along the easterly side of Wightman St.
to Munhall Road. and extending thence backward eastwardly from as Wightman St.. between Hobart St. and
Wightman Sts. northwardly and Munhall Road to other property now or late of Lymia Naffah. Having erected
thereon a 3story building…
Page 248 contains language duplicated in my mother’s putative deed and title insurance reflecting the acts of July 9,
1930, when the Grantor, allegedly the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in return for $1.00 consideration sold Curtis
Kossman (see Kossman Development today) the land described below followed by a photo of the official survey
map demonstrating that the Kossman, West Properties were not related to the property at issue per the applicable
official survey map, see infra at p____.
Next pp. 248-249 misleading describes July 5, 1930 agreement between and Curtis Kossman et ux., Rebecca
Kossman, his wife, And George F, Bartley et ux., wife Agnes Bartley; when in fact the agreement is between the
latter as parties of the first part and the Mellon nominees as parties of the parties of the second part, in connection
with the land described below and in the map immediately above and page ___ infra, again describing the
Schenley Plan of Lots laid out by the Bellefield land Co., recorded at PBV 102-103, above. And the substance of
the agreement is as follows below and describes an agreement to construct a shared driveway. Munhall Road today
which has never part of this alleged condominium property known as 5600..

24

Eve_10/11
25

Eve_10/11
26

Eve_10/11
27

Eve_10/11
28

Eve_10/11
In the three deed above, there is no 86-P-150 anywhere near the Shenley Heights Plan of Lots and all the detail in
the pg 248-249 are completely to the plot of land upon which the instant building known as 5600 sits.
Furthermore, there is not even a description of a lot 86-P-102 as described in many other documents including the
declarations to the extent recorded to the present. It appears that as part of the decades long scheme, the
conspirators who changed over time simply used the 102 digits because of the 1903 Plan which is on pg. 102 (i.e.,
PBV 20/102 (actually more accurately pgs 102-103.
On page 250, there is finally a reference to 86-P-150, however, that reference and property description is regarding
an entirely unrelated plan of lots; specifically, the Richard Breed Plan of Lots, which is in Lawrenceville or near
that area. A snapshot follows. This deed was structured as a multiparty for the purpose of concealing ongoing c
control and ownership by the Mellon Nominees. See all Naffah cases and public representation.

Upon information and belief that the driveway connected Munhall Road as it appears today to Wightman street.
This driveway no longer exists. Furthermore, to understand the falsity of the representations to the extent that they
refer to the El Tower Property today dba Imperial a review of the applicable property rec9r reveals the truth given
that the transactions on p. 249 refer Lot no. 60, described on the Southerly side of Munhall which per the official
Plan of Lots is at the bottom of Munhall Road by Beacon.

Finally, turning to page 250, the last piece of this multiparty deed, it describes transactions related to an entirely
different Plan – specifically, the Breen Plan of Lots., which is not in Squirrel Hill, does not reference the same
parties or bear any obvious to PPs. 248 and 249. What does stand out however, is that Pg. 250 of 2428/248 Deed
that appears in my mother’s chain of title references Blocks 150, 155 etc.

At all relevant times, my mother and countless have paid taxes for 86-P-150 which is described as part of the
Schenley Plan of Lots. This is a two-hundred year lie. I assume that the reason for including p. 250 as part of an
unrelated transaction was solely to have a basis to refer to lot 150 per p. 250.

In fact, the Plan of Lots as recorded per the PBV 20/102-03, above and the screen shot that follows demonstrates
that the lots upon which the El Tower, etc., was constructed did not include any Lot 150 ever. And the
overwhelmingly credible public record is that the taxable property if any is 86-P-102 which was effectively erased
from public records during the 1970s (note again that today what is described as Munall Ave below, Lot 60, is
today Hobart Street. 131. At all relevant times, my mother and countless have paid taxes for 86-P-150 which is
described as part of the Schenley Plan of Lots. This is a two-hundred year lie. I assume that the reason for
including p. 250 as part of an unrelated transaction was solely to have a basis to refer to lot 150 per p. 250.

In fact, the Plan of Lots as recorded per the 1902 PBV above and the screen shot that follows demonstrates that the
lots upon which the El Tower, etc., was constructed did not include any Lot 150 ever. And the overwhelming
29

Eve_10/11
credible public record is that the taxable property if any is 86-P-102 which was effectively erased from public
records during the 1970s (note again that today what is described as Munall Ave below, Lot 60, is today Hobart
Street In fact, the Plan of Lots as recorded per the PoM above and the screen shot that follows demonstrates that the
lots upon which the El Tower, etc., was constructed did not include any Lot 150 ever. And the overwhelming
credible public record is that the taxable property if any is 86-P-102 which was effectively erased from public
records during the 1970s (note again that today what is described as Munall Ave below, Lot 60, is today Hobart
Street

30

Eve_10/11
31

Eve_10/11
Even the Official 1930 Census Map is direct evidence of the knowing falsity of the chain of title and property
ownership as well as scheme to conflate, confuse properties, streets, areas, townships, boroughs, municipalities all
for profit and greed by Bureaucrats and Contractors. See below for a true and correct copy of the 1930 Census
Map. Specifically, it confirms certain property transactions as publicly reported by the Municipal Government,
Deed records and press.

. Among other things, Naffah allegedly donated certain land for a driveway between what was then Munhall and
Wightman Road, which is today the West side of the building and which driveway was razed or covered at some
point unknown.

On June 14, 1930, the Sheriff reported on June 14, 1930, include the following Mechanics Lien foreclosure
inaccurately identifying Lymia and Latoof Naffah as the debtors on the fake Mechanics lien and William
Secrist, Terra Tennant [sheriff] describing as the foreclosed property as Part of Lot 55 and all of Lot 56 Schenley
Heights plan of Lots P. B. Vol, 20, pages 102 and 103 Fronting on the easterly side of Wightman St.. and
extending from the northeastern corner of Hobart and along the easterly side of Wightman St. to Munhall Road.
and extending thence backward eastwardly from as Wightman St. between Hobart St. and Wightman Streets,
northwardly and Munhall Road to other property now or late of Lymia Naffah. Having erected thereon a 3-storv
brick apartment known as now. 2037 and 2039 Wightman and a 1 story concrete and tile garage in the rear thereo

See photos and see Census Map infra. The property described above is identifiable by the then-Census Map which
reveals that in or about 1930 a road was constructed connecting what is today Munhall Rd. with Wightman Street on
what is today the west of the building. At all relevant times, from 2006 to the present, that connecting road was
covered up and there is no evidence of it in any record going forward.

On July 30, 1930, the parties later identified by Reed Smith as nominees for then then- bank recorded a deed
which failed to disclose the true ownership of the property, Specially, inaccurately included in a Deed Book Vol
versus,, This deed describes a multiparty transaction involving multiple parties and lots which appears to have
know8ingly false and intended to conceal and defraud.

It took more than two years of dedicated investigation and research to identify the materiality of this deed in
relationship to Unit 309 or the property at issue today, namely, Imperial House Condominium. Specifically, the
title insurance the entity then dba Censtar provided as follows in relevant part contains material omissions and
misrepresentations specifically that any portion of the Deed of 1930 was remotely related to the instant property.

32

Eve_10/11
33

Eve_10/11
34

Eve_10/11
On At DBV 2428 at pg. /249 describes the establishment of a for Common Use) per Agreement of Rebecca and
Curtis Kossman Parties of First Part and Scott A and Jessie g White and parties of Second Part Edward M and e.
Marion Diebold and John P. P Moss and wife Lulu G Moss. A
In 1944, as part of the Naffah litigation the following undisclosed facts came to light: The lawyers represented to
the Court, that in 1924 and 1925. Naffah was nominal owner of three adjoining tracts of land in the City of
Pittsburgh, the title to which was in his wife's name.
In order to secure loans of considerable sums made to him by the City Deposit Bank, four mortgages of $50,000
each were successively executed and delivered to the bank, all of them becoming liens on one of the tracts (tract
"A"), the second, third and fourth mortgages on another tract (tract "B"), and only the fourth mortgage on the third
tract (tract "C") from the property upon foreclosure.
Court referred back to its earlier decision: “We stated in Naffah v. City Deposit Bank, 343 Pa. 348, 351, 23 A.2d
340, 342, [Naffah v. City Deposit Bank, 343 Pa. 348, 23 A.2d 340 (Pa. 1941) (describing ) plaintiff wife [Lymia] ,
who was the [nominal owner of three adjoining tracts of land in the City of Pittsburgh, executed in the years 1924
and 1925 a series of four mortgages on the various tracts, which were held by the City Deposit Bank as collateral
security for plaintiff's indebtedness to it
On tract "C" of a large apartment building known as the El Tower Hotel but lacked resources to finance this building
to its completion, so that unpaid obligations to contractors and subcontractors amounted approximately to
$185,000. [at all relevant times 86-P-102]
Negotiations between these creditors, plaintiff and the bank resulted in an agreement by which plaintiff and his wife
gave to a committee of the creditors a mortgage on the El Tower property (embracing tracts "B" and "C") for
approximately $285,000, which covered the indebtedness to the creditors and also an additional sum of $100,000
representing a new loan in that amount made by the bank to the creditors' committee as security for which the
mortgage of $285,000 and all the claims of the creditors were assigned to the City Deposit Bank.
Subsequently Latoof Naffah the nominee plaintiff , owner, contractor, and lawyer and his wife, Lymia Naffah
conveyed the El Tower property to [Bank nominees,]Messrs. Diebold, Moss, Bartley, and White, constituting the
creditors' committee, subject to the mortgage liens thereon. See below (albeit no reg to underlying mortgages) .
None of the above facts were disclosed now known to the general public because at all relevant times, the
defendants performed overt acts to conceal their role, ownership, and control of the land for purposes of evading
federal, state and local laws while shifting liability to taxes, purchasers, taxpayers, etc.
In April 1931, the local press reported SHERRIF SALE OF EL TOWER HOTEL DESCRIBED BELOWN.

35
36
On Feb 6, 1934. PPG reported Lymia NAFFAH ne of “54 favorites who escaped taxes must pay!” [note at all
relevant times Lymia is a nominee for Mellon] see also other individuals identified in article]. See
The_Pittsburgh_Press_Fri__Feb_26__1932_.pdf indictment exonerated no interest taxes Lymia.

On June 23, 1934. Sheriff Sale Reed Smith listed as attorney in re: sale referencing back to the 1930 multi-party
deed. See below third column bottom and fourth column top (describing property “formerly known as El Tower
and describing Naffah as Mortgagors with Notice to “Owner -mortgage – Warren Johnston” .(see Edward
Stephens litigation Beacon Apartment Hotel)

37
On July 10, 1934, Reed Smith Shaw &McClay at 747 Union Trust Building aka Mellon, gave Notice that alleged
38
 clients Donkin, Pomeroy, McHugh, filed Articles of Incorporation for “The Beacon Hotel Corporation” describing
its purpose as, “The conduct of general hotel and apartment business and the operation as an incidence thereto, of
restaurants or equivalent [sic]. See supra at 1948 for the next notice of incorporation relevant to the property at
issue.

See The_Pittsburgh_Press_Tue__Jul_10__1934_.pdf.

In 1940, the Hoskins official Map demonstrated that the area designated as owned by Lymiah Naffah was replaced
by the next nominee for the Mellon Group, the Beacon Apartment Hotel. 6

6
This is last available Gerald Hoskins Map via historical Pittsburgh. It demonstrates among other things, that even Hobart was
described interchangeably with Munhall and other relevant lots in the property allegedly conveyed to my mom. See also
e https://historicpittsburgh.org/islandora/object/pitt%3A39v02p19/viewer viewed May 9, 2023.
39
40
41
Upon information and belief there are multiple historical property cards maintained by the Deed Recorder which can
be found online at _____ However, I was only to obtain the version reflecting the alleged Beacon Hotel Chain of
title by somehow inputting the right search term or combination of numeric digits to find the Beacon Hotel
Corporation alternative version of the history of the property my mother was led to believe she purchased per an
entirely different property history card papered to reflect the overt acts of the 1970’s going forward infra. Among
other things, the property history below is materially false and misleading because it conflates the unrelated
properties that are reflected in the 1930 deed which are not part what today is known as 5600 Munhall or the sham
condominium property.

42
43
 On June 15, 1948, Atty James Callahan, 1204 Grant St. publishes his intent to file a Certificate for the conduct of a
business in Allegheny County under the fictious name of Beacon Apartment Hotel at 5800 Munhall Rd. apparently
to conceal the previous articles filed infra at P.. This subterfuge almost related to the Naffah litigation and the
need to conceal Rssm conflicts, knowledge, intent and role in what was now a fifty-year equity theft, mortgage
fraud, and OREO national bank fraud. See representations in each Naffah litigation and contrast to the facts as
published to the public openly during the same time period.

7
See Exh _____ at https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d0a08de3-8e3f-3725-a68a-aacb4804aa94

44
45
On Friday, September 7, 1948, at p. 20, the PPG reported on another litigation involving the undisclosed Mellon
Group owners and their nominee Edward Stephens, describing a federal court litigation in which 19 tenants sought
an injunction against the putative owner Stephens for unfair and deceptive practices including locking them out of
their homes. :

46
47
 Next, in relevant part the coconspirators took the overt action in furtherance of the multifaceted scheme; namely, in
July 1949, Sherriff sales reported in the press including the following Coury with notice to wife Sulona Coury,
Sheriff Sale for failure to pay taxes referencing what appears to be a conflated description of the rear of what is
now Wightman and the rear of the Beacon which is likely a reference to the long vacant, burnt out land described
as being destroyed by fire above.8 See maps and notices re sales forceclosures Naffah and Coury,

08 May 1951, Page 33 - The Pittsburgh Press at Newspapers.com Stephens woodland lab my s co
https://www.newspapers.com/image/142984267/?terms=%22Edward%20Stephens%22&match=1

8
Search terms: https://www.newspapers.com/image/89952024/?terms=%22Edward%20Stephens%22&match=1

48
On May 8, 1952, the PPG reported at p. 33 tenant harassment at Beacon Hotel Apartments fka El Tower:

https://www.newspapers.com/image/142984267/?terms=%22Edward%20Stephens%22&match=1
Also in 1951, the City of Pittsburgh issue the following alleged Certificate of Occupancy almost certainly in

violation of the then-zoning code upon information and belief –residential only thus allowing for nominee Stephens
wife to operate a dance school which is not permissible under the then Articles of Incorporation.

49
.

In 1956 yet another theatrical litigation occurred involving the property known today as 5800. See Ruben v. City of
Pittsburgh findings of fact.

50
 9

9
1 See also 1968, Sanford Lanford registers another business at 5600 then known as 5800. Research Partners.
51
52
On Nov. 5, 1956, the PPG reported an apparently fictitious real estate transaction which is consistent with the Unit
309 Property History Card infra at p. .Namely reporting that a Pittsburgh Syndicate, Goldstein, Levinson, L.
Goldstein, Benjamin Raphael, and Eva Mars, Silverman, Louis Levy, William n. Silverman and Meyer H. Sachs
(see HO-11156-A Five Towns, Rebbes) purchased for investment what is described as three-story apartment
building on Munhall ff Beacon in consideration of $132, 309. : name to the alleged defendants in Ruben infra..

53
54
 After Ruben, Between 1957 and 1958. Address changes from 5800 to 5600 Munhall
See 1956. See 1960 Lampfl See Reed Smith for Public Relations Research, Inc. re.

In 1960, the next Mellon Group nominee, namely, Steel City Investments is reported to control the property today
known as 5600 Munhall.

In 1963, Sanford Lampfl reported in the PPG that articles of incorporation had been filed of filed for the entity

described below and that the incorporator resided in 5600 Munhall as described below. See similarity in.

In 1960, the next Mellon Group nominee, namely, Steel City Investments is reported to control the property today
known as 5600 Munhall.

Overt Act exaggerated Occupancy Permit. 1963 Aug 6. Not razed altogether given the obvious architectural
similarities between El tower and imperial house. Upon information. And belief used a structure mover to change
the positioning 9( the building leaving a vacant lot where rear of building historically towards what is today known
as Beacon. See miler.

55
Unit Property Act enacted by Pennsylvania legislator and continues to substantively govern condominiums (and
apartment buildings successfully and legitimately converted to Condos unlike 5600 Munhall) see The Act of July
3, 1963 (P.L. 196, No. 117), known as the Unit Property Act, (UPA) governed (assuming for the sake of
argument, that a Condominium was ever created at 5600 Munhall as admitted by Jug, in the Feb. 2021, pleadings:
. Complaint in Equity and Motion for Special Injunctive relief), the Unit Property Act governed or applied during
all applicable periods. The UPA is as follows:

56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
IN 1965 – Richard Ellis forms Australian partnership.
The UPA was not relevant until the 70s when the Apartment Building was allegedly converted. However, the
conversion never occurred. See 199____ public records re Tozzi, Frank, Contract killings, tax evasion, Wilbur
Knox etc. Supra at pg. ___.

1968: The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure of 1968 Enacted

Overview

65
The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act requires the registration of all "subdivisions" with the Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") unless the subdivision falls within one of 16
exemptions, eight that exempt the subdivision from all provisions of the Act ("Full Exemptions") and eight that
exempt the subdivision from only the registration requirements under the Act ("Partial Exemptions"). Under a
Partial Exemption, compliance with the anti-fraud provisions of the Act is still required. The Act defines a
"subdivision" as "any land which is located in any State or in a foreign country and is divided or is proposed to be
divided into lots, whether contiguous or not, for the purpose of sale or lease as part of a common promotional
plan."

The Act defines a "common promotional" as a "plan, undertaken by a single developer or a group of developers
acting in concert, to offer lots for sale or lease; where such land is offered for sale by such a developer or group of
developers acting in concert, and such land is contiguous or is known, designated, or advertised as a common unit
or by a common name, such land shall be presumed, without regard to the number of lots covered by each
individual offering, as being offered for sale or lease as part of a common promotional plan." A developer
"registers" with HUD by filing a Statement of Record. Most developers seek an exemption because the filing is
often both time consuming and expensive.
Of the sixteen possible exemptions (eight full and eight partial), the following two are the most relevant and most
commonly used exemptions:

Improved Lot Exemption (15 U.S.C.§1702(a)(ii)). This Full Exemption applies to lots that are completed at the time
of the signing of the purchase contract or which the Developer has absolutely and unequivocally committed to
complete within two years of the date the purchase contract is signed. This two-year completion obligation can be
extended for Acts of God, force majeure, casualty losses, material shortages, etc. However, the Developer will not
be able to limit the Buyer's remedies in the Contract upon a seller default if this Improved Lot Exemption is relied
upon. 2. 100 Lot Exemption (15 U.S.C.§1702(b)(i)).

Registration is not required for the sale or lease of lots in a subdivision containing fewer than 100 lots. The 100 Lot
Exemption is a Partial Exemption. In determining the number of lots to be counted, all lots that are sold or offered
for sale under a "common promotional plan" must be counted. However, lots that are exempted under a Full
Exemption may be excluded -- None of the exemptions are applicable herein. See Kenny Ross facts/. See
Microsoft Word - Client Alert .Recission Applicable Under ILSFDA.032108.DOC (bhfs.com)
Therefore, while the Developer could exclude lots exempted under the Improved Lot Exemption (a Full
Exemption), it could not exclude lots otherwise exempted under the Single-Family Lot Exemption (a
Partial Exemption). The 100 Lot Exemption is not automatic; to satisfy the anti-fraud provisions of the
Act, the purchase and sale agreements must contain express language which discloses to purchasers
which utilities and recreational amenities the seller shall agree to complete. Discussion of the Recent
Adverse Decisions The Act prohibits developers and their agents from (1) engaging in the sale or lease
of any lot "not exempt under Section 1702" without registering by filing a statement of record with the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and providing buyers/tenants with a
property report; and (2) engaging in the sale or lease of any lot "not exempt under Section 1702(a)"
without complying with the anti-fraud provisions of the Act(which, among other things, prohibit the use
of untrue statements or omissions of material fact and require contractual obligations on the developer to
complete advertised infrastructure improvements and amenities). 15 U.S.C. § 1703(a). Section 1702(a)
of the Act sets forth the "full exemptions" from the Act, which include the sale or lease of lots in a
subdivision containing less than 25 lots, the sale of improved land or the sale of land to be improved
where the contract contains an absolute obligation on the developer to complete the contracted
improvement on the land within 24 months from the date of contract, subject only to force majeure
defenses which are accepted in the jurisdiction where the property is located. Section 1702(b) sets forth
the "partial exemptions" which are exempt only from certain provisions of the Act but not the anti-fraud
provisions. Such partial exemptions include, for example, the sale or lease of lots in a subdivision containing fewer
than 100 lots.

66
In the 1960s going forward, Mellon Control did business at 5600 Munhall fka 5800 using the corporate title of
Regal Arms Hotel.

1970s The Kenny Ross Nominees Phase of the Scheme to Evade all Federal and States laws regulating Banks, Real
Estate, Taxation, the Constitution and all Property Rights

The Imperial House Condominium Conversion Phase of the multi-decade fraud seems to have begun per public
records in or about early 1974 after Kenny Ross and controlled Ross entities filed for bankruptcy hence the
references to Receivers going forward.

In the early 1970s Kenny Ross, like many others, was in severe financial straits. On or about December 17, 1973,
he obtained a mortgage as described below from what was then known as First Federal Savings and Loan today
dba PNC.

On or about December 17, 1973, Ross obtained a mortgage as described below from what was then known as First
Federal Savings and Loan today dba PNC.

67
Feb 7, 1974 . DBV 4671/539 1 Overt Act. Receiver Loncario Receiver Re Deed allegedly Kenny Ross and Wife
68
 86-P-150 deeded to S.R.N.D. Corp. (Kenny Ross and DAVID McLaughlin in incorporated capacity Overt Act:
On Feb. 7, 1974, as reflected at DBV 4671/539 , Receiver Arthur Loncario, another Pittsburgh lawyer and
Receiver per the record, papered and recorded a Deed which reflected a fictitious transfer of land identified as 86-
P-150 a non-existent lot which not owned by Kenny Ross or his wife Claire to himself in his corporate form as
S.R.N.D. Corp. (Kenny Ross and DAVID McLaughlin as vice president)n incorporated capacity.10

. . Overt Act. Receiver, Attorney Loncario papers a deed puropotng to show Kenny and Claire Ross transferring a
legitimate title to 86-p-150 to S.R.N.D. Corp., incorporated to conceal the actual of tile. Artivcles of Incorporation
filed with the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania deemed credible identity . (Kenny Ross and DAVID
McLaughlin11 in incorporated capacity. See 1990 for Power of Atty and Mortgage satisfaction for a 1973
outstanding mortgage loan to Ross from First Fed S&l aka PNC aka Mellon. . This mortgage. PNC fka First
Federal Savings & Loan. (See S&L crisis supra).

1974 April 11-OVERT ACT -.

City Counsel Municipal Records. Approve sale of “vacant lot” rear of beacon to S.R.N.D. Corp. [86-P-102]
Present: Luchinno Coyne, Lynch, Stone,

10
Note, this deed does not appear in my chain of title, nor did it appear in my mother’s Title Search nor did my so-called probate
lawyer, Augustus E. Sunseri ever disclose or identify the existence of this record despite my having paid him to do so.
11

69
70
71
DePasquale n

72
June 16 1974 The conspirators begin to pump the alleged Condominium being built by Kenny Ross. below from
what was then known as First Federal Savings and Loan today dba PNC.

On Oct 1974. OVERT ACT: PPG Notice of Sheriff Sale Lot 102 described as owned by Naffah Last and first
ref to 86-P-102 going forward it is all 86-P-150 which is not on or near the EL Tower.
See the first known multi-party deed of 1930 relating to the Breed Plan of Pos.

73
74
AND OVERT ACT: Seemingly unrelated Flaherty slips in an ordinance change at 86p area in s1quirrel hill,

Oct 1974 Purported Bankruptcy litigation --- City of Pittsburgh v. Imperial House, Inc. Order of the Court of
Common Pleas at Allegheny County, No. 3966 October Term 1974

Overt Act. 1974 Nov 29 86-P-102. DBV 5385/505: A sham deed is drafted and executed by allegedly Pursuant
Order of the Court of Common Pleas at Allegheny County, No. 3966 October Term 19774

Arthur Loncario (City of Pittsburgh a municipal corporation, State of Pennsylvania convex to Imperial House, Inc,
a Pennsylvania Corporation . in consideration of $150.00, All Property. ….BEING. LOT86-p-102 ,….Deed
Registry of Pittsburgh To wit the same land described [in DBV 6/207 1949 above). Executed J Mulvihill Pete
Flaherty 1975. It is in every decl., etc. it is 102 NOT 150. Last overt or public record of 86-P-102 which everyone
involved in this long fraud is estopped from denying.

Who: Peter Flaherty, Mayor, M.J. Mulvehill, City Solictoer, James Kelly

75
76
77
1974 Dec 20 overt Act. Above Deed Recorded. Dec 20, 1974, No 63265 (see DBV 5385/505 above) 86-P-102
1975.
On Feb 28, 1975, Overt Act, 1975 Feb. 28: Putative Right-of-Way Agreement per “Drawing No. 11037-T1” “print
of DLC ‘given to [putative] Grantor, ] Imperial House, Inc. formerly S.R.N.D. Corporation,” to DLC in
consideration of $1.00. [note the drawing and right of way stay with owner under PA law which per this official
document is DLC. Executed by David [] McLaughlin, self-described “Vice President of Imperial House Inc.].
See Handwritten note- 14 Pgh 675.. The attorney recording the instrument is RSSM T.B. McAuliffe, 435 Sixth
Ave. who does RSSM represent — Mellon; Location described as …. “Over and across Grantor’s land fronting
Munhall Road [predecessor to Beacon Ave. see maps].
Thus, Mellon controlled electric utility dba Duquesne Light entered the conspiracy on the instant property. record
a fictitious easement for the property currently known as 5600 Munhall Road. Namely, Feb. 28: Putative Right-
of-Way Agreement per “Drawing No. 11037-T1” “print of DLC ‘given to [putative] Grantor, ] Imperial House,
Inc. formerly S.R.N.D. Corporation,” to DLC in consideration of $1.00. [note the drawing and right of way stay
with owner under PA law which per this official document is DLC. Executed by David [] McLaughlin, self-
described “Vice President of Imperial House Inc.]. See Handwritten note- 14 Pgh 675.. The attorney recording
the instrument is RSSM T.B. McAuliffe, 435 Sixth Ave. who does RSSM represent — Mellon Location described
as …. “Over and across Grantor’s land fronting Munhall Road [predecessor beacon Ave. see maps]. L

78
79
On Mar. 11, 1975, above-described instrument recorded Sam Exler DBV 5459/98 under Grantor Grantee not
property.
Mar 11, 1975:: OVERT ACT Above-described instrument recorded Sam Exler DBV 5459/98 under Grantor
Grantee not property by Sam Exler MDV predecessor’ Then see 2021 v. for acts in 1970x ross phase failed

1975 Oct. 7. FOIA Appeal. In the Matter of Tower Corp (First National)

1975 Nov. 7. SEC Decision- FOIA APPEAL OF FIRST NATIONAL CITY BAN

80
On October 21 the Commission granted in part the appeal of First National City Bank for access to certain material
in the Commissions closed investigatory file on Topper Corporation

https://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1975/dig110675.pdf

Commission reversed the determination of the Public Information Officer and granted access to the following
Submissions made to it by persons and entities involved
in the Topper Corporation investigation pursuant to informal procedures set forth in
17 CFR 202.5c Wells submissions were ordered disclose

The Commission concluded that the exemption under the FOIA for material disclosure of which would constitute
81
 an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy did not authorize withholding of the sub missions of business entities
In addition the submissions of individuals in this.
case were found not to contain any information of such personal nature as to warrant reliance on the privacy
exemption under the Act Disclosure was ordered of memor
anda of conversations had during the investigation because these are essentially fac tual records for which there is
no exemption under the Act The texts of investor complaint letters were ordered disclosed with identifying details
deleted to protect the identity of confidential sources and Disclosure was also ordered of material relating to
settlement discussions which was exchanged with third parties Other material of this sort prepared by the
Commissions staff and not exchanged with third parties was withheld
The Commission upheld the Public Information Officer and continued to deny access to internal staff memoranda
and various staff work product and to Commission minutes in the matter pursuant to the fifth exemption under the
Act Relying on the exemption for investigatory records disclosure of which would deprive person of right to.. an
impartial adjudication the Cofllsission also denied access to material given to the staff which constitutes the
attorney work product of counsel for an interested party Finally access was denied to staff digests of investigative
testimony since the underlying transcripts had been made available to the requesting party FOIA 36

Overt Act. 1977 Nov. Yet another Sheriff Sale Ppg ref 86-p-150 and 102 but now Fort Pitt S&L (aka PNC). Now
styled as Fort Pitt Federal s&L v Imperial House Sanford lamp FL receiver )

82
83
 O

84
Overt Act January 19, 1978, the paper deed to infer that it was sold so as to reveal OREO VIOL AMONG OTHER

85
86
87
88
 1981. President Biden then-Senator Biden takes lead in enacting Section 1455 - National Security and Violent
Crime Control Act of 1981 Introduced in Senate (07/09/1981)
National Security and Violent Crime C - Title I: Omnibus Drug Control Amendments - Om
Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (07/09/1981)
National Security and Violent Crime Control Act of 1981 - Title I: Omnibus Drug Control Amendments

Makes it a federal offense to kill any attorney, agent, or employee of the U.S. Government employed to investigate
or prosecute violations of Federal criminal statutes or any employee of the Intelligence Community.
Establishes a new offense of assaulting, kidnapping, murdering, or threatening the relative of any Federal employee
covered by the current assault statute, with intent to interfere with such employee's official duties.
Amends the obstruction of justice statute to expand the class of persons protected from coercion to include potential
witnesses and informants (current law protects actual witnesses).
Amends the Freedom of Information Act to expand the exception relating to informants to limit disclosure of
information which "tends to disclose" an informant's identity.
Amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to permit disclosure of Federal grand jury information to a State
or local law enforcement official who is assisting a U.S. Attorney in the enforcement of Federal criminal law….
Amends the Federal criminal code to establish a mandatory term of imprisonment whenever: (1) serious bodily
injury resulted from the defendant's participation in the offense; or (2) the offense is a felony and the defendant
was previously convicted of a Federal or State felony, unless a substantial period of time has elapsed.

See .1455 - National Security and Violent Crime Control Act of 1981 97th Congress (1981-1982)12

Date Cosponsored
Co-Sponsors Cosponsor
Sen. Nunn, Sam [D-GA]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Chiles, Lawton [D-FL]* 07/09/1981
Sen. DeConcini, Dennis [D-AZ]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Heflin, Howell [D-AL]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Bumpers, Dale [D-AR]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Bentsen, Lloyd M. [D-TX]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Eagleton, Thomas F. [D-MO]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Byrd, Robert C. [D-WV]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Metzenbaum, Howard M. [D-OH]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT]* 07/09/1981
Sen. Cannon, Howard W. [D-NV]* 07/09/1981

12
S.1455 ‐ National Security and Violent Crime Control Act of 1981

Related Bills (0)

Cosponsors: S.1455 — 97th Congress (1981‐1982)
All Information (Except Text)
Sponsor: Sen. Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [D-DE] |

89
1981 Nov 4 Introduced in House

Violent Crime Control Act of 1981 - Title I: Mandatory Sentences for Use of Firearms in Felonies - Amends the
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970 to revise and increase the mandatory penalties for using or carrying a
firearm during commission of a Federal felony. Also, in relevant part:

Title II: Assassination-Related Killings

- Amends the Federal criminal code to extend the current offense of killing designated Federal employees to
include any Federal public servant engaged in the performance of, or on account of, his or her duties.

Replaces the current crimes of Presidential and Congressional assassination with new offenses covering the
assassination, assault, kidnapping, or conspiracy to kill or kidnap "United States officials." Includes Cabinet
heads and Federal judges within such definition, in addition to the President, Vice President, and Members of
Congress

. Makes it a federal crime to kill any civilian in the course of an assassination of a U.S. official.

Authorizes the Attorney General to offer a reward of up to $100,000 for information and services concerning
these offenses. Makes it the duty of any Federal agency to assist the Attorney General in the investigation and
prosecution of violations.13 ??
14

13
Makes the additional penalties inapplicable to offenses consisting solely of possessing, transporting, or selling a
firearm. Increases the additional penalty to two years' imprisonment for a first offense (currently, one to ten years) and
to five years for a second or subsequent offense (currently, two to 25 years). Extends to first offenders the stipulations,
currently applicable only to second or subsequent offenders, that the court not suspend any sentence, grant probation,
or impose concurrent sentences.
Prohibits the Government attorney from plea bargaining with respect to this offense.

14

90