1

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

----------------------------- :
:
IN RE: : No. CI-20-05137
:
WENDY CHAN, ESQUIRE :
:
----------------------------- :

HEARING

Before: David L. Ashworth, President Judge

Date : Monday, August 10, 2020

Place : Lancaster County Courthouse

Courtroom 12
50 North Duke Street
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

APPEARANCES:

WENDY CHAN, ESQUIRE

(Via Lifesize Video Application)

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 2

P R O C E E D I N G S
(4:06 p.m.)

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MS. CHAN: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: We are here today as a result of

an order issued by this Court on July 31st, 2020,

prohibiting Attorney Wendy Chan from entering any

court facilities until further order of Court.

I received a letter from Attorney Chan, and I

considered this to be a motion for reconsideration.

This order was my decision, and my decision

alone, as President Judge. It is the responsibility

of every President Judge to protect the health and

safety of all court personnel and those citizens who

use court facilities. I take this duty very

seriously, as does the entire Board of Judges.

Many people in this courthouse have worked

tirelessly during these trying times to ensure a safe

working environment for everyone.

Thirty-six administrative orders have been

issued addressing the impact of the coronavirus

pandemic on our court system.

A declaration of judicial emergency remains

in effect, which limits access to all court

facilities.

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 3

The order of July 31st was necessitated

solely and as a result of the actions of Attorney

Chan and only Attorney Chan.

The facts upon which the order was based are

as follows:

By e-mail dated July 17, 2020, Attorney Chan

informed the chambers of both Judge Brown and Judge

Stedman that members of her family had been ill and

that her son had been tested for COVID-19.

By e-mail dated July 20 of 2020, at

8:49 a.m., Attorney Chan was specifically advised by

Judge Stedman's chambers that the judge did not want

to take any chances and that he did not want Attorney

Chan in the courtroom.

On July 24, 2020, Attorney Chan contacted

Judge Brown's chambers and publicly disclosed that

her son had tested positive for COVID-19. Perhaps

more importantly, she stated that as a result of her

son's positive test, she could not return to the

courthouse until August 10 of 2020 because she needed

to self-quarantine for the recommended 14 days.

A conference call was held between Judge

Brown, Attorney Chan and opposing counsel, in which

Attorney Chan requested a continuance. Based upon

the representations of Attorney Chan, Judge Brown

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 4

granted the continuance.

On that same day, Attorney Chan had a

conference call with Judge Stedman and opposing

counsel, with the judge's secretary on the call as

well.

Once again, Attorney Chan publicly disclosed

to the Court, court staff and opposing counsel that

her son tested positive and that she needed to

self-quarantine until August 10 of 2020.

Attorney Chan confirmed all of this in an

e-mail in which she noted, and I quote, according to

the nurse that I spoke to at LGH COVID-19 Triage

Station, I have to count ten days from the day that

my son first showed symptoms, which is July 16 of

2020. This brings us to July 26, 2020.

Then we have to count 14 days from July 27,

because we could possibly be infected by my son on

the tenth day of his symptoms showing. Then the rest

of the family would be contagious for another 14 days

if we were asymptomatic and have COVID-19.

This brings me to August 9 of 2020, being the

14th day. And the first day I could go back into

court is August 10 of 2020. End quote.

And I will have the e-mail from Ms. Chan

marked as Court Exhibit A.

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 5

Given the nature of the case before Judge

Stedman, he concluded that the hearing could proceed

as scheduled and instructed Attorney Chan to appear

by video conference known as Lifesize on July 30th.

Ms. Chan was provided with the necessary video link.

During the pandemic and judicial emergency,

this has become a common practice and has been

authorized by our Supreme Court.

Attorney Chan's objection to proceeding in

this fashion was overruled by Judge Stedman.

On August -- excuse me. On July 30th, 2020,

without any prior notice to the Court or the judge's

staff or opposing counsel, Attorney Chan chose to

ignore the judge's instructions and her own

recognition of the need to self-quarantine and

appeared in person at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 6.

Judge Stedman immediately stopped the hearing

and instructed Attorney Chan to leave. Rather than

leave the courthouse, Attorney Chan chose to remain

outside the courtroom as she drafted an e-mail to the

judge and opposing counsel claiming that she had just

found out she tested negative.

Significantly, her e-mail also acknowledged

that her son had remained contagious until Sunday,

July 26, less than four days before the hearing.

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 6

Of course, according to CDC and Department of

Health guidelines, a negative test within the 14-day

quarantine period is irrelevant. Many people have

tested negative, only to test positive later within a

quarantine period; hence the need to quarantine for

14 days. In fact, Attorney Chan had acknowledged her

need to quarantine until August 10 in her previous

e-mail.

Regardless, the claimed negative test alone

certainly did not justify Attorney Chan and her

unannounced attendance at the hearing, in violation

of the Court's clear instructions.

Based upon Attorney Chan's statements to both

Judge Brown and Judge Stedman, as confirmed by her

own e-mails in which she recognized the health risk

to others, Attorney Chan's blatant violation of the

Court's instruction to appear by video and her

decision to place everyone in the courthouse at risk

by making an unannounced in-person appearance at the

hearing, I requested the sheriff's deputies to escort

her out of the courthouse.

In light of all of this information, and in

the interest of protecting all courthouse employees

and the public, I concluded that it was necessary to

prohibit Attorney Chan from entering any court

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 7

facilities until she could demonstrate that it was

safe for her to re-enter.

Simply stated, by her actions, Attorney Chan

demonstrated she could not be trusted not to return

to the courthouse unless specifically ordered not to

do so.

I directed that all reasonable accommodations

should be made to enable Attorney Chan to continue to

represent her clients using video or phone equipment.

Again, this is in keeping with accepted protocols set

forth by our Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, rather than take

responsibility for her actions, Attorney Chan has

attempted to deflect blame onto the Court and others

by creating a false narrative filled with distortions

of fact and outright fabrications.

What Attorney Chan should have done, as any

competent attorney would have done when they disagree

with a Court order, is to file a motion for

reconsideration of this Court's order of July 31st.

Instead, Attorney Chan chose to write one of

the most unprofessional and irresponsible letters

written by an attorney to a judge that this Court has

ever read. While it might be expected, perhaps, of

an unrepresented pro se litigant, it is beneath the

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 8

dignity of an officer of the court.

To be clear, this matter is nothing more than

an attorney who chose to violate a judge's

instruction and risk the health and safety of others

for her own personal and professional gain.

Rather than take responsibility for her

actions, Attorney Chan chose to escalate this matter

and blame others.

It must also be noted that this Court's

letter to Attorney Chan dated July 31st, which

accompanied the order of July 31st, was not

disseminated to any one of -- was not disseminated by

any of the court staff who received copies.

Any public embarrassment or adverse

consequences which may befall Attorney Chan are a

result of Attorney Chan's actions and no one else.

Finally, this Court understands that

everyone, myself included, is frustrated and tired of

this pandemic and the impact it has had on our daily

lives and our businesses.

We cannot and we must not allow this

frustration to dissolve into complacency that risks

the health and safety of ourselves and others. Any

such complacency would bring the court system to a

grinding halt. Too many people have worked too hard

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 9

to ensure the courthouse is a safe place to work to

allow this to happen. We must remain vigilant.

Any person who ignores a judge's instruction

or any person who places other people at risk within

court facilities, particularly during these difficult

times, will be treated in the same manner as Attorney

Chan.

Now, Ms. Chan, in light of all of the

information you provided to the Court in your e-mail,

what do you propose that would ensure the safety of

courthouse personnel and enable you to return to the

courthouse?

MS. CHAN: There really is not a lot I can

provide because we're not able to get tests unless

they are prescribed to us. And I cannot get a test

prescribed without having symptoms and be in contact

with someone who has been confirmed to have COVID-19.

And that is the policy of most of the places

that actually do the tests. And that would include

Hershey, LGH, any of the WellSpan, UPMC places. UPMC

actually doesn't even give testing other than their

own patients that are in their facilities.

The other places that would have tests would

be CVS, that I looked into, and CVS or like a

MedExpress or something like that, along those lines.

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 10

And I've called them and they said it would take

about two to three weeks.

THE COURT: Would you like me --

MS. CHAN: So --

THE COURT: Would you like me to issue an

order for named individuals to be tested? Because if

I do that, I'm sure we can get you tested or whoever

you would like to be tested, if that's what you would

like. I'll be happy to do that.

MS. CHAN: Well, since I have written that

letter, I found out that apparently one of the

bailiffs actually failed to inform anybody in the

courthouse that her husband had -- was positive. And

she, herself, the bailiff, also got very sick. And

that's when she stopped coming in.

So I'd like to know what was done -- if the

same thing was done with her that is now done with

me.

And I think it is -- we have -- I have a

doctor's note from my -- from the pediatrician,

actually, that I got last Friday that -- from Eden

Park, stating that there is -- there's essentially

nothing wrong with my son right now.

And at LGH, they're the ones that told me

that I was fine on -- I guess that was Thursday the

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 11

31st -- 30th, excuse me. July 30th.

And so if you do read my e-mail, absolutely I

followed every single precaution that was given to me

by LGH COVID-19 Triage Center. And in my e-mail, it

says that the rest of the family will be contagious

for another 14 days if we were asymptomatic and have

COVID-19.

That was the reason why I chose to get tested

on the 29th -- I'm sorry, 27th and -- because it

would speed up that process.

The whole point of the 14-day quarantine is

to see if a person would develop symptoms because

they had COVID-19, and it doesn't develop symptoms

until maybe, at most, 14 days later. That was the

whole reason I had a test, so that we know I am not

sick and just asymptomatic.

THE COURT: Well, Ms. Chan, you specifically

mentioned in your e-mail to me and to others that

your son -- you were told that your son was

contagious up to the 27th of July. That was only

four days before the hearing.

And so a test within that -- the 14-day

requirement to quarantine was from the last date of

your son being contagious.

So having a test, a negative test, done --

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 12

having a negative test done within that 14 days

serves no purpose whatsoever. You need to quarantine

during that 14 days.

But more importantly, and the reason that I

issued the order that I did, was because Judge

Stedman, through his secretary, instructed you to

appear by video, specifically said don't come into

the courtroom. And you never gave Judge Stedman or

anybody else an opportunity to discuss anything with

you. You just showed up.

And there were a lot of people in the

courtroom. The people who were in the courtroom were

concerned for their safety.

The fact that you just unilaterally decided

to do this is what is of concern.

Now, have you been self-quarantining?

MS. CHAN: No, because I was told I didn't

have to. And as you will see in the letter and

actually reading through all the CDC policies, it

seems that I wouldn't even be considered to be in

quote, unquote, close contact with my son because

he's a teenager. I'm never within six feet of him

for 15 minutes or longer unless we were on a road

trip.

He doesn't even sit down at the dinner table

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 13

for more than five minutes, and that's assuming we

eat dinner together, which is only about half the

time in the summer. So I was not even within close

contact with him.

THE COURT: Well, see, here's -- see, here's

the problem --

MS. CHAN: I would have actually not even

been concerned.

THE COURT: Here's the problem, Ms. Chan.

You wrote to the judges. You contacted both Judge

Brown and Judge Stedman and you specifically said,

and there's no equivocation about this, you

specifically said -- you specifically told them that

you needed to self-quarantine until August 10th, and

as a result you requested a continuance. One case

was continued. One case was decided to proceed. All

right?

MS. CHAN: Okay.

THE COURT: And then suddenly you show up

before August 10th without any word to anybody about

anything. And I trust you can understand why all of

these people were concerned because you, by your own

language in your e-mail, specifically said that you

had been told that you need to quarantine until

August 10th. And then there you go, you show up on

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 14

July 30th and create all of this problem.

Had you simply said to anybody prior to

showing up that, hey, I received additional

information, I think I can show up, here's the

information and you let somebody decide that, all of

this could have been avoided. But you showed up.

And then, to make matters worse, Ms. Chan,

you go and write this outrageous e-mail that somehow

gets disseminated out in public and make all kinds of

accusations which are totally unfounded, when this is

simply a matter of this is what you were told to do,

you chose not to do it. You chose to show up and,

without any explanation, put other people at risk,

based upon your own e-mail.

Do you understand why people were concerned?

MS. CHAN: Yes, I understand why people were

concerned. And as I wrote in my letter, ideally,

yes, ideally I would have had time to call.

I didn't want to delay. I thought about

signing on to Lifesize at 10 a.m. and telling Judge

Stedman, hey, give me five minutes, by the way, I

have these results, have a whole conversation. I

figured that would waste another 15, 20 minutes by

coming back to the courthouse. And so I was trying

to save time.

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 15

I made a decision. As I said, ideally, I

would have called. Any other -- if I had more time,

I would have called.

THE COURT: That's what you should have done.

MS. CHAN: I certainly was not trying to

delay anything. I certainly was not using the

pandemic to gain a tactical advantage. I think that

was pretty outrageous.

And I do believe that, yes, in my own e-mail,

if you would read it again, it says I would be

contagious if or I could be -- the family would be

contagious for another 14 days if we were

asymptomatic and have COVID-19.

THE COURT: You specifically asked --

MS. CHAN: And that's -- and so 14 days --

and so 27th, we count the 14 days. The 26th was the

last day he was contagious because it's ten days from

the 16th. The 17th he was tested. That's it.

THE COURT: Ms. Chan, you specifically told

Judge Brown and Judge Stedman that you needed to

quarantine until August 10, and that's why you

needed --

MS. CHAN: Yes.

THE COURT: That's why you needed a

continuance.

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 16

MS. CHAN: Yes, yes.

THE COURT: And having made those

representations to the Court as to why you needed a

continuance and then showing up prior to that time is

what caused all of this turmoil.

And had you contacted anyone in advance to

let them know or to request permission to show up in

person, that could have been addressed, but you

didn't do that.

Looking at this from an objective standpoint,

the only thing that I can conclude, based upon what

your -- based upon your actions and what you had told

people, what you had told the Court and then what you

did was that you weren't going to do anything other

than what you wanted to do.

And that's -- whether that's true or not,

that's what -- that's the perception that you gave to

everyone because of what you chose to do.

Now, if you can -- again, I have no desire to

keep you out of the courthouse any longer than is

absolutely necessary for the safety of others.

So given everything that has happened, again,

what is it that you propose that we do to confirm

that the people that you have been in contact with

have not been -- have not tested positive because,

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 17

you know, as you well know, this town is great with

rumor mills, but we've also --

MS. CHAN: Because you know what, my son,

because of all this -- my son, as of actually

Thursday, before the article even came out in the

paper, was not even allowed to go to graduation

because of you.

THE COURT: No, no, Ms. Chan, this was

because of you.

MS. CHAN: Yes.

THE COURT: This was because of you and your

actions, make no mistake.

MS. CHAN: There's a timestamp. If you look

at the timestamp of your secretary's e-mail to me of

this letter, it was 10:06 a.m. And do you know what

was the first timestamp on the comments at LIP News?

10:08. I didn't even get to read your order yet --

10:08, how do you explain that?

THE COURT: Ms. Chan, I am not going to get

in a back-and-forth with you.

MS. CHAN: I did not even read it, so clearly

somebody leaked it.

THE COURT: Ms. Chan, how would you -- what

would you like to do? What would you like to do?

What do you propose to ensure that you can come back

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 18

into the courthouse safely at this point?

MS. CHAN: All I want to do is what's

required that the bailiff had to do when she failed

to tell you she was -- her husband --

THE COURT: I'm sorry, stop, stop. You're

breaking up. We're having difficulty with the --

John, what is going on with the video?

MR. WIMER: It might be a little bandwidth

issue.

THE COURT: Ms. Chan, at this point, in my

letter to you I directed that you provide negative

tests from the people that you are in close contact

with.

Do you have any documentation of anything

that suggests that people at this point are not COVID

positive?

MS. CHAN: I told you, I have a letter from

Eden Park Pediatrics about my son. I can just read

it. I do have a picture, a copy of it on my phone.

THE COURT: I'm not asking you to give it to

me right now. Provide me with whatever -- here's the

problem, Ms. Chan. You have publicly announced that

your son was COVID positive and I -- I don't -- I

don't know your household environment, I don't know

who you were in contact with, I don't know what the

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 19

situation is.

I have to be -- I have to provide for the

safety of the people in the courthouse. Having done

what you have chosen to do up to this point, I don't

know who -- you're obviously not self-quarantining

because you're in your office.

MS. CHAN: No. Right.

THE COURT: Okay. When did you -- have you

ever self-quarantined?

MS. CHAN: I did until I got the negative

result.

THE COURT: And that was still within the 14

days after your son was contagious, right, on the 27?

Right?

MS. CHAN: Correct.

THE COURT: So --

MS. CHAN: And as I said, the actual

definition of close contact, I wasn't even in close

contact with him. And this is according to CDC

guidelines. And I attached the printout of what you

would do, what one would do if somebody, a household

member, was infected with COVID-19.

Nothing in there says that we have to

quarantine. Nothing. And it doesn't clearly define

close contact. LGH told me it was ten minutes.

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 20

Apparently CDC was 15.

And I actually have someone in the office

here that was tested, too, because she had her own

sick, whatever, illness issues. And also LGH -- and

apparently now LGH now says, actually, no it's not

really 15, it's really just ten now.

So I don't know. I mean, it's like a moving

target. Everybody's got a different interpretation.

LGH, when I called them, when they talked to me at

the triage station, clearly they didn't really define

close contact the way CDC did. And they never asked

me if I had actual, quote, unquote, close contact

with my children. They just said, oh, household

member, that's it. And so --

THE COURT: I --

MS. CHAN: There's no reason why I would have

had to be tested to begin with.

THE COURT: I'm reluctant on the record to

get into a discussion of your family makeup and how

many people in your family and that type of thing

because I don't think that's for public

dissemination.

My concern -- and I trust by now you

understand my point. What I'm trying -- based upon

your e-mails where you requested a continuance and

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 21

said you needed to quarantine until August 10th, all

right, since that time -- let's do this.

As of today, August 10th, since your son --

by your own statements in your e-mail, your son was

no longer contagious as of the 27th of July, all

right? Has anyone that you have -- has anyone in

your household tested positive since then?

MS. CHAN: No. No one's been sick, sick at

all.

THE COURT: And they have not tested

positive, they have no symptoms, they have no

indication of that?

MS. CHAN: No.

THE COURT: All right. Then here's what

we're going to do. You --

MS. CHAN: We can't get tests even if we

wanted one, so we wouldn't be able to get tested.

But again, there was no reason, no symptoms, nothing.

There was no reason for anyone to be tested.

THE COURT: All right. Let's do this

because, frankly, my goal is to try and get you back

in the courthouse as quickly as you can, as long as

it can be done safely.

Let's do this. Provide me with documentation

that confirms that your son was no longer contagious

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 22

after the 27th, because that's -- your son -- you've

acknowledged publicly that your son was COVID-19

positive, so that's where we have to start.

MS. CHAN: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Provide me with

something from a medical provider that says after a

certain date he was no longer contagious. Okay?

That's number one.

Number two, then provide me with an affidavit

from you that states that you have not been

exposed -- that no one else in your household has

tested positive, has not had any symptoms, as you are

telling me right now, and that you have not been

exposed to anybody else with COVID-19.

If you can do those things: Number one,

medical statement of when your son was last

contagious, which I think you mentioned.

MS. CHAN: Is it possible because, again,

that's -- so it doesn't -- the Eden Park Pediatrics

letter doesn't say that he was not contagious. It

said that, you know, he was positive and he's way

past that time, he's no longer a risk.

So I will have to get one from LGH, the

triage station. And if I can't get that from the

COVID-19 triage station because they couldn't tell

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 23

me -- they wouldn't give me -- they couldn't give me

a letter that I was negative.

THE COURT: Tell me what you have.

MS. CHAN: Could I just get the CDC --

THE COURT: No, tell me what you have.

MS. CHAN: -- guideline --

THE COURT: I need something specific with

regard to your son. What do you have with regard to

your son, any kind of medical record, what do you

have?

MS. CHAN: I have a letter stating that he's

perfectly fine.

THE COURT: You obviously had something --

you obviously had -- you had something --

MS. CHAN: I needed it so he could be able to

go to graduation.

THE COURT: You had something that stated

that he was COVID positive; correct?

MS. CHAN: Correct. Right.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have anything after

that?

MS. CHAN: From the hospital? No.

THE COURT: From any medical -- from any

medical professional.

MS. CHAN: From Eden Park Pediatrics. I have

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 24

a letter from Eden Park Pediatrics that he's

perfectly fine and not contagious.

THE COURT: Okay, good. Good, good. Okay.

So you have something from a medical professional

that says he's no longer contagious; correct?

MS. CHAN: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. Provide that to me, number

one.

Number two, provide me with an affidavit that

states that no one in your household has since tested

positive and that you have not knowingly been in

contact with anyone else who has been -- who has

tested positive with COVID-19.

MS. CHAN: Okay. Okay.

THE COURT: And if you are able to do that,

I'll take a look at it. And if it covers everything

that we have just discussed, then I will vacate my

order and you'll be able to return back to the

courthouse.

MS. CHAN: And so did you want me to file

this?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MS. CHAN: Do you want me to file this?

THE COURT: Pardon me?

MS. CHAN: Do you want me to file it?

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 25

THE COURT: You're breaking up.

MS. CHAN: Did you want me to file it, file

it under the --

THE COURT: No.

MS. CHAN: In the Prothonotary's Office?

THE COURT: Send it to my attention. We

don't need to have your son's medical records filed

of record, so send it to me. And if it's -- if it is

as -- what is that noise?

MR. WIMER: That's a siren, Your Honor.

MS. CHAN: Yes.

THE COURT: If it is -- if it includes the

information that I need, I will then issue an order

and simply say based upon additional information

received from Attorney Chan, the previous order is

vacated and she's allowed to return to the

courthouse.

MS. CHAN: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Anything further at

this point?

MS. CHAN: No.

THE COURT: All right. That will be all.

(The proceedings concluded at 4:39 p.m.)

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098

 26

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that I was present upon the

hearing of the above-entitled matter and there

reported stenographically the proceedings had and the

testimony produced; and I further certify that the

transcript is true and correct and meets the format

specifications established by the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania in Rule 4010.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto

subscribed my hand this 10th day of August, 2020.

Cathy S. Mertz, RMR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

August 11 2020
AND NOW, , , this transcript

is approved and ordered to be filed.

David L. Ashworth
President Judge

Cathy Mertz, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter (717) 299-8098