Greg Rotz permit revocation after action reports, links to news/video, and comments.

[Pa. Patriot]

I'm interested in finding out if former sheriff Wollyung is going to be served with a warrant for failure to appear?

I'm going to be looking in to how to follow up with this. He should face the same legal consequences as any other person.

[chesire17201]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

I'm interested in finding out if former sheriff Wollyung is going to be served with a warrant for failure to appear?

I'm going to be looking in to how to follow up with this. He should face the same legal consequences as any other person.

doubtful, as it was an act of the office and not the man, in which case the new sheriff was at the hearing, so the office was represented.......

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by chesire17201

doubtful, as it was an act of the office and not the man, in which case the new sheriff was at the hearing, so the office was represented.......

I considered that. The judge mentioned Wollyung was not present, and that he was expected/supposed to be.

[doug]

I believe he was present in the audience. Someone pointed him out to me.

[CCinPA]

Originally Posted by doug

I believe he was present in the audience. Someone pointed him out to me.

Doug are you certain it was the ex sheriff. I know the constable was in the audience and was pointed out to me but not the sheriff that I know of.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by doug

I believe he was present in the audience. Someone pointed him out to me.

I think your thinking of the constable. Judge said sheriff W was not present during session.

[gnbrotz]

I also do not believe that Wollyung was present. The Constable was there (under subpoena).

If I had known that Wollyung would not show, I would have put him under subpoena as well. The reporter from ABC 27confirmed his address and phone number with me when we were done. I'm assuming she was going to attempt to speak with him regarding the matter. I did notice that she quoted him in the piece (with a stock photo) but did not have anything on camera. I can't say for sure when the comments were obtained, but I'd guess it was after the decision.

I do remember Wollyung saying in one of the newspaper articles that "The sheriff is not required to be represented at the hearing", but the way it was worded, I assumed it meant the new Sheriff, not Wollyung. In my own mind, I will never refer to Mr. Wollyung as "Sheriff Wollyung". He is "Robert Wollyung, who used to be the Franklin County Sheriff". I deny him the honor of referring to him by his former title. He dishonored the office and does not deserve that consideration.

Chesire is right, in that despite the fact that my filing named Wollyung, technically the action was against the office. He was in office at the time of filing, thus the need to name him. If he had been out of office two days after revoking me, the paperwork would have named Anthony, as he would have been in office at the time of the filing.