What puzzles me are two Orders of Court from Baratta on February 17, the day after my appeal. One of them orders me to supply him with a "concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal," and by March 10. I am ominously warned that "failure to comply" could be considered a waiver of all complaints on appeal.
Now this might make sense in an ordinary appeal, especially if there was no opinion from Judge Baratta. His opinion could address my concerns. But here, it's just a hoop to jump through. For one thing, Judge Baratta has already issued his opinion. On top of that, the Commonwealth Court has ordered him to transmit the entire record, including his opinion, by March 7, three days before my "concise statement" to him is due. So basically, he has directed me to file something that won't help him or the Commonwealth Court a bit, but could hurt me if I forget.
The second February 17 Order of Court that puzzles me is one scheduling a Friday hearing on Larry Otter's claim for $24,000 in attorney's fees. I'm not even sure that Judge Baratta has jurisdiction at this point. If he does, isn't it a tad premature to decide attorney's fees on a matter under appeal? On the merits, I am certain that Baratta knows as well as I do that Otter's motion is frivolous. But of course, the time I spend researching and briefing that matter is time I won't be spending researching and briefing my appeal to Commonwealth Court.
Judge Baratta must have known that he would be appealed. But the two Orders he filed on February 17 certainly seem designed to discourage me from moving forward. If that was the plan, it failed.