Musser Rules: Must Be Resident of District
Hypocrite Mussers Busts on Constables & DA

March 6, 2005

Did Musser know that he had to live in his district? In yet another smoking gun, 5thEstate.com reveals, that not only did Musser KNOW of the residency requirement, but that Musser was a hypocrite!

5thEstate.com readers will recall in January of 2004 that we ran an exclusive story on the constables that were not living in their district. It seems that Judge Musser had a well-developed opinion about the constables:

"A constable who is not a resident of the district he is serving, has, in my opinion, no legal foundation to perform the duties of a constable."

In a memo sent to constables dated December 17, 2003, Musser wrote an email that said the Judge, "… will not issue any work to constables who are not residents of the districts they are supposedly serving." (emphasis ours) Supposedly serving? Does that apply to himself?

One month later, after writing the constable-condemning memo, Musser got married and bought a house several miles away from the district the constitution says the Judge must live!

Interestingly, Musser took exception to the District Attorney Don Totaro's position of not going after the constables (after our story was published, Totaro moved to remove the constables) Amazingly, Musser says that, "I don't believe that Lancaster County, as usual, is dealing with the situation properly!"

So how is Musser dealing with his situation? Stay tuned to 5thEstate.com - where we are changing the way news is delivered!

Entire Memo Follows: Sent 12/17/2003 9:01 AM
Subject: Non-Resident Constables

As you may know the Supreme Court has issued a ruling stating clearly that a constable must be a resident of the district in which he/she was elected.

There are approximately 30 constables in Lancaster County affected by this ruling. However, the DA has indicated that he will file motions to remove such constables only when objections are raised by intrested citizens within individual districts. As a result, these 30 constables will be sworn in on 1/5/04.

In my opinion this is wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled. It is the law. A constable who is not a resident of the district he is serving, has, in my opinion, no legal foundation to perform the duties of a constable. I believe that a defendant could rightfully raise issues regarding the legality of process served by such an individual. I understand that the 2 remaining insurance companies issuing liability policies in PA may be reconsidering policies for these constables. They may be taking the position that they're not obligated to pay any claims for such constables.

In light of all this, I have determined that I will not issue any work to constables who are not residents of the districts they are supposedly serving. (of the 10 working out of my office, that affects 3 of them).

I believe that we all should tread very carefully on this issue. I don't believe that Lancaster County, as usual, is dealing with the situation properly!

Dick