CHIEF CHARLES HOLTGRAVER

 

a witness herein, having been first duly sworn in

by the court reporter.

 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 BY MR. BAXTER

Q. Would you state your name, please?

A. Charles Holtgraver

Q. And you're the Chief of Police for the

Borough?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. How long have you been -­

MR. WATSON: We're going to have to move this chair. I think both sides are going to want us to see their witnesses. So,

Chief Holtgraver -- if you wish -­

Q. Well, look at them when you answer. I won't be

insulted.

A. Sure.

Q. How long have you been the Chief of Police?

A. Three years.

Q. And how long have you been employed by the

Borough?

A. Since 1972.

Q. And you started in 1972 as a police officer?

A. That's correct.

Q. And when you started as a police officer,where

was the police headquarters located?

A. Across the street from where it is now.

Q. And that would be on Perry Highway?

A. Yes. That's right.

Q. Were you familiar with the property at

479 Perry Highway?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. During the course of time from 1972

until the present time, what were your observations

of that property as far as parking is concerned?

A. I've never seen any vehicles parked in

front of the building.

Q. Right. Now, when we talk "in front of the

building," can you be a little more descriptive to

the Board what you're talking about?

A. What I'm talking about is what I described

as being the sidewalk. It would be directly in

front of the building.

Q. I want to show you photographs here.

MR. BAXTER: I think you've seen these

before.

(Mr. Baxter handing photographs to the

witness for his review.)

MR. WATSON: Chief, why don't you move

your chair back; and, Fred, why don't you sit up

here?

(Attorney Clement reviewing

photographs.)

BY MR. BAXTER:

Q. I want to show you, Chief, what are a

series of photographs --

MR. WATSON: Do you want us to mark

those, first?

MR. BAXTER: Yes. I want to mark

this.

Q. I've marked this first set Borough 1, 2, 3,

and 4; and I ask if you'd take a look at those and

identify what those pictures depict if you would.

A. To me, this is what I always believed to be

a sidewalk in front of a business. This is a

decorative stone portion along the highway here.

This is = -- I believe it would be an asphalt or

asphalt slab behind it.

Q. Okay. So when you talk about the front of

the building and not -- well, strike that. Let's

look at Borough No. 2 and explain to the Board what

that picture depicts.

A. The same. The decorative portion along

there, the slab along the front of the storefront.

Q. Okay. And Borough No. 3?

A. It would be the same.

Q. And likewise, with Borough No. 4.

A. That also would be the same.

Q. Now, have you ever made an observation within the last couple of years of anyone parking in that particular area?

A. Mr. Ballon. That's all.

Q. On how many occasions did you observe

that?

A. Recently, it's been numerous.

Q. Okay. But when you first issued him the

citations, was he parking pretty much in that

particular area that that picture depicts?

A. The first citation that he was issued, he

was parked in the center, partway on the stone,

partway on the asphalt. That was what originated

the original complaint.

Q. When he parked there on other occasions -­

did he park there on other occasions?

MR. CLEMENT: I have an objection, and I move to strike the prior answer. There's no foundation that he made a personal observation of the parking that he saw.

MR. BAXTER: Yes. I'm going to ask

that.

Q. Did you make this observation personally?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And were you doing that in the course of

your duties as Chief of Police?

A. Yes. Actually, I was on my way to work,

seen the vehicle there.

Q. Then when you made those observations, you

issued a citation. Is that correct?

A. After I seen the car there, I went to the

station. I then received a complaint about the car

being parked there, and it was obstructing the view

of the fire hall parking lot next to that. A lady

was walking down. She complained about it. I sent

an officer up, and he put a tag on it.

Q. Now, on how many occasions prior to that

occasion did you notice parking in that particular area?

A. I've noticed parking there.

Q. Are you telling me you've never seen a car

parking there?

A. I have never seen a car parked there.

Q. Well, where does Mr. Ballon park, if you know?

MR. BAXTER: I would like to show these to the Board now.

MR. WATSON: Do you want to offer these?

MR. BAXTER: I would offer these.

MR. WATSON: Any objection?

MR. CLEMENT: No objection.

MR. WATSON: Borough Exhibits 1

through 4 are admitted.

A. In a parcel of land that's shared by the

Borough and him. Mr. Ballon's always parked in a

section of land.

Q. So during the course of you being employed

by the Borough, have you ever seen him park in that

particular slot?

A. I've never seen him park there.

MR. BAXTER: You may cross-examine.

<BGSOUND SRC="midi/coward.mid">

It's hard to believe any of his testimony, especially when it so dramatically differs from so many others. How gutless, cHIEF hOLTGRAVER, to assert that the vehicle was partially parked on the sidewalk. It would have been stupid and as well as inconvenient to park on the sidewalk far away from the entrance. wEST vIEW cHIEF of POLICE cHARLES hOLTGRAVER's testimony is imaginary and completely contrary to reality. Whether you characterize his words as outright lies, or label it perjury, it is totally reprehensible for the wEST vIEW chief of Police to feel the need to make statements to defend the indefensible in an attempt to try to hide his poor judgement and utter stupidity in ordering tickets to be issued for "sidewalk obstruction" when the freekin' car wasn't on the sidewalk!

(Yes cHIEF hOLTGRAVER, I contact an Attorney, because of receiving illegal tickets for "sidewalk obstruction" and then park on the sidewalk, get real!)

Perhaps the entire series of photographs of the vehicle with tickets attached would refresh his deficient memory, (each photo showing the car closer and closer to the building) including the photograph of the final ticket showing the car mere inches from the building, which leaves it several feet from the sidewalk. His testimony holds no more credibility than testimony at Common Pleas Court on May 27, 1999 by Police Officer, Tony Pusiteri stating that the sidewalk was "Approximately three, three and a half feet", where in reality it is 89 inches including a 15 inch curb.
It should also be noted that in wEST vIEW, your property turns into sidewalk when you're dealing with Pittsburgh Attorney Dennis A. Watson and the wEST vIEW Zoning Board, AKA the wEST vIEW Tribunal. When you know that their agenda was a foregone conclusion, in retrospect it is certainly easy to see why the word "sidewalk" was used over and over in the transcript to include private property. Common Please Judge Dauer found that conepr to be "unconstitutional". Evidently this was their collective attempt to cover up the illegality of the Police issuing tickets under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code for "sidewalk obstruction", when the vehicle was completely and totally on private property.

~click here to see more conflicting holtgraver hogwash~