THE APPEAL       The session of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 was in an elegant and yet low-keyed court room in a massive building right off of Independence Square in Philadelphia.  There were three judges who sat on a very high bench at the end of the room.  There was a table for the appellant’s (plaintiff’s) lawyer and a table for the appellee’s (defendant’s) attorney.  There were fifteen cases scheduled for the day and all parties were to appear at nine-o’clock.  Both attorneys had fifteen minutes to present their case with the attorney representing the appellant going first.  The parties could agree to expedite their arguments, limiting them to five minutes each, and those cases were called first.  Most chose that option.  We did not.  So we sat through 14 cases until Holzinger v. Holzinger was called.      There were both criminal and civil cases being appealed and they ranged from a venue location to a medical malpractice case to a criminal DUI case.  The judges actively questioned the attorneys on most of the cases.  The most interesting was Halpern v. Jewish Children & Family Services.  The man had successfully sued the agency because when he was adopted in 1963, the agency had not informed his adoptive parents that the blood mother had a history of mental illness, including schizophrenia.  He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia as well.  The attorney for the agency argued that in 1963, the medical and psychiatric professions were not aware of the hereditary link in mental illness and schizophrenia.  In all of these cases, including mine, the judges will issue a decision whether the case moves forward in approximately three to six months.     Holzinger v. Holzinger was called at about 12:00 noon.  My attorney, David Dessen, reiterated that this complaint is based on the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress not Battery.  He argued the tort could not have been “completed” until I recovered the memories of abuse and suffered severe emotional distress.  My parent’s attorney, Lorrie McKinley, argued that it was a Battery and, therefore, according to the presiding precedent in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court decision in Dalrymple v. Brown, my case was barred by the statute of limitations.  The judges asked a number of questions of both attorneys and one said to David Dessen, “You may have to argue this in front of the Supreme Court.”  At one point, McKinley made the argument that my parents are in their eighties, as if somehow that was enough to get the case dismissed.  The judges seemed to disregard that “argument” and also her argument that this was not “fair” to the defendants.     Nineteen states recognize repressed memory, obviously Pennsylvania is not one of them. Sooner or later someone will challenge Dalrymple v. Brown in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and win.      Had I ever met McKinley, who is married to my first cousin?  No.  They married in July of 2001, about the time all this began, and I had never met her.  I did not “meet” her on Wednesday either, I only saw her.  I had no desire to meet her.  As noted previously, my sister from Minnesota was present in the company of McKinley.  How did this woman go from meeting with my therapist for two hours and sending me emails in which she said my father was capable of incest, to a woman who later tried to intimidate my therapist and her boss repeatedly by phone, fax and letter?  Coming .                 BRIEF UPDATE       Sometimes writers, or want-to-be writers, get temperamental (a fancy word for cranky and blocked) and that is me today and I apologize.  I am still trying to absorb all of yesterday’s events (including my sister from Minnesota walking into the courtroom with my parent’s attorney).  So please forgive me.  I will detail the proceedings at a later date.  The outcome?  The Judges will issue a decision in three to six months.     I did want to clarify one item regarding my attorney, David Dessen.  He represents me in my complaint against my parents only.  This website and anything on it is posted by me.  I made him aware of this website several months ago and we have never discussed it or the contents since.     I would again like to thank him for the outstanding job he did yesterday.     SUPERIOR COURT       The Superior Court of Pennsylvania is nothing like I had imagined.  It was ten times better.  There were fascinating cases and even humor.  I would like to thank my attorney, David Dessen, for his forthright and reasoned argument.      My parent’s attorney, Lorrie McKinley, fell flat on her face.  She began her rebuttal with, “There is no sense, law or logic to this case.”  David Dessen is a distinguished lawyer who owns his own firm.  This was an uncalled for and despicable insult to David Dessen, the Justices and the legal system in this country.