Spirit of the Avenger Ministries v. Commonwealth
767 A.2d 1130
Pa. Commw. Ct.
2001
Check Treatment

*1 KELLEY, cor Judges, Pa.Super. Before SMITH and RODGERS, in court and be poration reassigned 2. Act of November This matter was to the author on §§ 371-385. October *2 rights com- by jurisdiction a officer and to consider a civil represented corporate by prisoner on behalf of a attorney.).3 plaint shareholder who is not an filed licensed to prisoner who was not another Thus, juris this Court is without By reasoning, ... law that same practice by diction to consider the claims raised jur- without are convinced that we are we ap Michael T. Orth in the instant mo- to consider arguments isdiction in peal as he is not licensed to law practice in a civil on behalf of a prisoner tions made McCain; Express this Commonwealth. prisoner are filed by action that another result, way appeal II. As Associates a ”). ... not licensed law practice is McCain, must be dismissed. See 527 A.2d II, 34 Expressway also Associates See (“In against view of the prohibition at 594 (“We 551, at 642 at 66-67 Conn.App. non-lawyers judi in representing parties who is not therefore hold an individual sus proceedings, compelled cial we are attorney general partner and who is a an tain the Board’s to McCain’s mo may par- appear a not partnership of summary supporting relief and se, in of pro appeal an on behalf a ticipate, brief as not in law. conformity [the] appeal partnership. Because general Sheporwich, In Winters 83 Pa. D. & C. [v. se, by general partner], [the (C.P. 1930) 484, ], Lu 486 Luzerne partnership, appeal behalf of the on County zerne Common held Pleas Court omitted).4 dismissed.”) (footnote must be proceedings by commenced Accordingly, instant practice nullity unauthorized to law are a quashed. ... Erie County The Pleas Common Court

reached the same conclusion Goldstein ORDER Marriott, (C.P. [v. 14 Pa. D. Erie & C. 635 1930) Estelle, NOW, January, In Thomas day ]. [v. 603 F.2d AND this of 25th (5th Cir.1979) F.R.1999, 488, ], 2001, 489 Fifth at appeal, Circuit No. 237 Court of held that it was without quashed. Cocivera, 62, denied, 915,

3. See also United States F.3d v. 104 cert. 230 Conn. (3rd Cir.1996), denied, (1994) (An 566 cert. 520 U.S. individual who is not an 1018 1861, attorney general partner 117 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1062 who is of 137 a (1997) (Permitting repre participate, corporations partnership appear to be not se, by non-attorney partner sented their chief executive in an on behalf of the Williams, officer/controlling ship.); Stephan criminal ex rel. 246 shareholder State v. proceedings voluntary violated the Sixth Amendment Kan. 793 P.2d 234 right though unincorporated even to counsel association of individuals officer/share permitted repre proceed pro separate legal holder was se on the status could him.); charges lodged against only by duly criminal re attor sented in court licensed Airlines, Settle, (9th law.); practice v. ney America West 40 F.3d 1058 Cir. admitted to State 1994) (1987) (An (Non-attorney partner of a 129 N.H. officer members association, appear unincorporated ship bankruptcy not court on an who is not could of attorney, may appear on be corporations and an in court partnership behalf of the association.); Oregon unincorporated ap Peaceworks other must half of associations State, Green, through Secretary v. 311 Or. attorney.); The PAC pear in court an States, (The politi treasurer of 810 P.2d 836 the New Church Testament v. United committee, non-attorney, was (9th Cir.1986) cal action (Unincorporated 783 F.2d 771 associations, empowered to committee before corporations, like courts.). the state extraordinary through attorney; except an circumstances, by they represented cannot be issue, Systems laypersons.); Transport Clean Air v. Although party neither has raised District, Cal. obligation San Mateo Transit raise the issue this Court has App.3d Cal.Rptr. jurisdiction cert. to hear an sua II, sponte. 488 U.S. 109 S.Ct. 102 L.Ed.2d Contact Inc. v. Horse Commission, unincorporated Racing member of asso A.2d 181 Cmwlth.1995); Transportation rep not an ciation who is could Kmetz, court.); Expressway 129 Pa.Cmwlth. resent the association in (1989), Friendly Corpora Associates II Ice Cream Connecticut, Conn.App. tion SMITH, Judge, Dissenting. Ministries has refused to the information that allow the would Com- majority quashes on monwealth or this to determine Court, sponte by sua whether it satisfies the uniform standards which has never been addressed either purely public charity for a established I party. respectfully therefore dissent. by longstanding the Act and common law. Timothy Pastor M. Orth was *3 qualify to a purely public order as apply tax-exempt status for the Spirit charity, an institution must meet each of (Ministries) of the be- (1) following the five criteria: advance a fore the Board of Finance and Revenue (2) purpose; operate entirely charitable Department of the (3) motive; private profit free from donate (Department) a pro litigant. se He was gratuitously or render por- substantial appeal pro to se the Board’s services; (4) tion of its benefit substan- decision to Ap- the tial persons and indefinite class of who are peals, to file se for review (5) legitimate subjects charity; and re- this Court and to file a brief in se government lieve the of some of its bur- May Court. On 2000 the Court en- Act, 375; § den. Section 5 of the 10 P.S. requiring tered an order that this be case Hospital Project. Utilization submitted on briefs. The record contains no indication that the need for the Minis- that dispute does not tries to be pur- Ministries advances charitable However, ever raised. Fundamental pose. fairness re- the Ministries has failed quires stage the Court at this provide necessary to decide the information merits of the or in the satisfy remaining alternative to four criteria. The afford Pastor opportunity provided specific Orth an to re- Ministries no information spond to the majority concerning expenses, its revenue and or to obtain counsel within a reasonable thus it has not shown that it satisfies the period. time requirement operates entirely that it free private profit Regarding from a motive. As peti- for the merits of the Ministries’ requirement that it donate or render review, affirm I would the order of gratuitously portion a substantial the Board. The Ministries attacks the services, the Ministries asserted an an- validity constitutional of the Institutions of that interrogatory swer to an its charitable (Act), Act Act of all purposes purposes include of those November 5(b) Act, mentioned in Section §§ 371-385. The Ministries contends that 375(b). § P.S. The Ministries offered no being improperly subjected it is to taxation specific pro- details as to what services it that recognize the Act fails to vided other than to state that it offers sovereignty of church. firm- spiritual growth any tangible ly grounded Hospital in common law. See goods. The Ministries is located Commonwealth, Project Utilization operates home in which he also Orth’s (summarizing the other agency travel and which offi- years interpreta- the 100 of common law cers reside. Act). tion closely pur- followed Its Likewise, pose objective is to record contains no evi- standard consistently uniformly dence that the Ministries benefits a sub- applied any seeking class of exemp- institution stantial and indefinite subjects charity. purely legitimate tion from the sales and use tax as a are Con- 2(b) Act, public charity. cerning requirement the Minis- Section 372(b). § of some of its government P.S. The Ministries raises no tries relieve the burden, purpose the Ministries’ stated is to meritorious constitutional promote teachings Act. of God and Jesus as in the This expressed purpose, Bible. laudable, satisfy

however insufficient Deitch, Scripture

that criterion. Union Pa.Cmwlth. merit, lacks

Thus the Ministries’ so Court should hold.

Timothy B. RICHARDS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA-

TION, LI- BUREAU OF DRIVER

CENSING, Appellant.

Commonwealth Court

Submitted on Briefs Dec. Timothy P. M.

Terrance Edwards Wile, In-Charge, Harris- Asst. Counsel burg, appellant. for Stevenson, Pittsburgh, ap- Shawn M. pellee. COLINS, PELLEGRINI, J., J.

Before McCLOSKEY, COLINS, Judge. the Court is

Before Bureau Transportation, (Bureau) from the deci- Licensing Driver Pleas of of Common sion of court). (common pleas Allegheny pleas court sustained The common