Full Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Hadassah Feinberg, : Yvonne Wolski-Worman, and : Paul M. Wolski, Sr., : Petitioners : : v. : : Joshua D. Shapiro, William : Mayhugh, Marlon Osbourne, : Seth Williams, Richard A. : Goldinger, Christopher Paris, : James Dellafiora, Andrea : Cardemone, Samuel Goldberg, : Nancy Barrasse, Mark Powell, : Ralph Marino, Brian Gallagher, : Frank Castellano, Fran Kovaleski, : Sean Gallagher, County of : Lackawanna, and Court of : Common Pleas of Lackawanna : County, : No. 402 M.D. 2024 Respondents : Submitted: June 16, 2026 OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FILED: October 26, 2026 Before this Court are the Preliminary Objections to Hadassah Feinberg’s (Feinberg), Yvonne Wolski-Worman’s (Wolski-Worman), and Paul M. Wolski, Sr.’s (Wolski)1 (collectively, Petitioners) Third Amended Petition for Review for Declaratory, Injunctive, Compensatory, and Punitive Relief (Amended Petition)2 filed by: (1) Pennsylvania Governor Joshua D. Shapiro (Governor 1 Wolski is an alleged incapacitated individual, who is acting by and through his guardian, Wolski-Worman. See Amended Petition ¶ 3. 2 Although titled Third Amended Petition, the Amended Petition is Petitioners’ fourth amended petition for review. Shapiro) and Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Christopher Paris (Commissioner Paris) (collectively, Commonwealth Respondents); (2) the Lackawanna County (County) Common Pleas Court Administrator Frank Castellano (Court Administrator Castellano) and the County Common Pleas Court (Common Pleas) (collectively, Judicial Respondents); (3) the County, former County District Attorney Mark Powell (former County DA Powell), former Assistant United States (U.S.) Attorney Brian Gallagher (former U.S. Attorney Gallagher),3 County Solicitor for the Register of Wills Office Sean Gallagher (Register of Wills Solicitor Gallagher), the County Register of Wills Fran Kovaleski (Register of Wills Kovaleski), and Common Pleas Guardianship Administrator Ralph Marino (Guardianship Administrator Marino) (collectively, County Respondents); (4) Butler County District Attorney Richard A. Goldinger (Butler County DA Goldinger) and Butler County Detective William Mayhugh (Butler County Detective Mayhugh) (collectively, Butler County Respondents); and (5) Chester County Assistant District Attorney Andrea Cardemone (Chester County ADA Cardemone). Facts Feinberg filed three private criminal complaints on July 9, 2024 (July 9, 2024 Complaint), July 23, 2024 (July 23, 2024 Complaint), and February 8, 2025 (February 8, 2025 Complaint) (collectively, Complaints), respectively. See Amended Petition ¶¶ 22-25. 3 Gallagher is the current County District Attorney. 2 July 9, 2024 Complaint Feinberg filed the July 9, 2024 Complaint in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (Philadelphia DA) against Samuel Goldberg (Goldberg), Marlon Osbourne (Osbourne), and Seth Williams (Williams) for Ellen Greenberg’s (Greenberg) murder.4 See Amended Petition ¶ 26. On August 6, 2024, Philadelphia DA James Dellafiora (Philadelphia DA Dellafiora) emailed Feinberg that the Philadelphia DA transferred the July 9, 2024 Complaint to Chester County ADA Cardemone. See Amended Petition ¶ 27. On August 21, 2024, Feinberg contacted Philadelphia DA Dellafiora stating that Chester County ADA Cardemone had not responded. See Amended Petition ¶ 28. On August 21, 2024, Philadelphia DA Dellafiora reaffirmed by email to Feinberg that the Philadelphia DA transferred the July 9, 2024 Complaint to Chester County ADA Cardemone and that all further communications must be addressed to Chester County ADA Cardemone. See Amended Petition ¶ 29. Feinberg emailed Chester County ADA Cardemone at least four to five times and left at least three voicemails and received no response. See Amended Petition ¶ 30. July 23, 2024 Complaint Feinberg filed the July 23, 2024 Complaint in the Butler County District Attorney’s Office (Butler County DA) against Governor Shapiro for his involvement in the attempted assassination of U.S. President Donald J. Trump (President Trump) on July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania. See Amended Petition ¶ 33. On August 22, 2024, Butler County DA Goldinger emailed Feinberg that the Butler County DA disapproved the July 23, 2024 Complaint because other agencies were investigating the matter. See Amended Petition ¶ 34. 4 Petitioners do not aver any additional facts relative to Greenberg’s murder. 3 February 8, 2025 Complaint Feinberg filed the February 8, 2025 Complaint against Governor Shapiro and Commissioner Paris for the attempted assassination of President Trump on July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania. Therein, Feinberg alleged additional facts beyond those in the July 23, 2024 Complaint.5 See Amended Petition ¶ 35. On March 5, 2025, Butler County DA Goldinger assigned Butler County Detective Mayhugh to investigate the February 8, 2025 Complaint. See Amended Petition ¶ 36. Butler County Detective Mayhugh emailed Feinberg that he was assigned to investigate the February 8, 2025 Complaint. See Amended Petition ¶ 37. On the same date, Feinberg communicated with Butler County Detective Mayhugh and offered evidence to support her February 8, 2025 Complaint. See Amended Petition ¶ 38. On March 6, 2025, Butler County DA Goldinger disapproved the February 8, 2025 Complaint without investigation. See Amended Petition ¶ 39. Amended Petition On May 1, 2025, Petitioners filed the Amended Petition pro se against Governor Shapiro, Butler County Detective Mayhugh, Osbourne, Williams, Butler County DA Goldinger, Commissioner Paris, Philadelphia DA Dellafiora, Chester County ADA Cardemone, Goldberg, Private Attorney Nancy Barrasse (Attorney Barrasse), former County DA Powell, Guardianship Administrator Marino, former U.S. Attorney Gallagher, Court Administrator Castellano, Register of Wills Kovaleski, Register of Wills Solicitor Gallagher, the County, and Common Pleas (collectively, Respondents) in their individual and official capacities. Therein, Petitioners request: (1) this Court to require Butler County DA Goldinger, Philadelphia DA Dellafiora, and Chester County ADA Cardemone to accept the 5 Petitioners do not allege the additional facts in the Amended Petition. 4 Complaints for the initiation of a criminal investigation to include all witnesses and documents that Petitioners have provided (Count I); (2) this Court to hold a hearing so Wolski can establish that there are issues of fraud in his guardianship that vitiate the guardianship (Count II);6 and (3) Wolski’s immediate release from prison and an appropriate award of damages (Count III).7 See Amended Petition ¶¶ 62, 64, 66. Petitioners specifically seek: [J]udgment of this Court, directing the affirmative injunctive relief against [Respondents] and allowing this matter to proceed to discovery on the public corruption matters involving each and all Petitioners, and damages and injuries to Petitioners[,] which damages were foreseeable by these individual Respondents as a result of their unlawful conduct, and for which they are responsible. In addition to the affirmative injunctive relief requested herein, Petitioners demand compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $15,000,000.00. Amended Petition, Ad Damnum Clause. Preliminary Objections On June 2, 2025, Commonwealth Respondents filed their Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition, alleging: (1) insufficient specificity; (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (3) sovereign immunity; (4) no private cause of action - criminal conspiracy; (5) demurrer - civil conspiracy; (6) no private cause of action - Pennsylvania’s Corrupt Organizations Act , 18 Pa.C.S. § 911; (7) demurrer - no enterprise; and (8) no pattern of racketeering activities. Also on June 2, 2025, Judicial Respondents filed their Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition, contending: (1) Petitioners’ claims are barred by sovereign immunities; (2) the 6 In the Amended Petition, Petitioners do not mention any specific determinations relative to Wolski. 7 The Petition includes a fourth Count; however, there is no relief requested therefore. See Amended Petition ¶¶ 67-71. 5 Amended Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) Petitioners cannot collaterally attack Wolski’s guardianship proceedings. That same day, County Respondents filed their Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition, asserting: (1) legal insufficiency (no private cause of action, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); (2) absolute prosecutorial immunity; (3) sovereign immunity; (4) qualified immunity; (5) failure to conform to rule of court; (6) lack of standing (Wolski-Worman); (7) insufficient specificity; and (8) lack of capacity to sue (Feinberg). In addition, that same day, Butler County Respondents filed their Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition, objecting to the Amended Petition on four grounds: (1) jurisdiction; (2) standing; (3) demurrer; and (4) agency determination. Lastly, on June 2, 2025, Chester County ADA Cardemone filed her Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition, claiming: (1) legal insufficiency (demurrer); (2) absolute immunity; and (3) executive discretion. On July 2, 2025, Petitioners filed an Answer to Respondents’ Preliminary Objections. Thereafter, all parties filed their respective briefs. The Preliminary Objections are now ripe for review. Initially, this Court has explained: In ruling on [preliminary objections], this Court must “accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations in the petition for review and any reasonable inferences that [it] may draw from the averments.” Highley v. Dep[’t] of Transp[.], 195 A.3d 1078, 1082 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). However, [this Court] [is] “not bound by legal conclusions, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion encompassed in the [p]etition for review.” Id. This Court should sustain [preliminary objections] only where “the law makes clear that the [p]etitioner cannot succeed on his claim.” Id. at 1083. “[W]here any doubt exists as to whether the [preliminary objections] should be sustained, the doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the [preliminary objections].” [Pa.] State Lodge, Fraternal 6 Ord[.] of Police v. Dep[’t] of Conservation & Nat[.] Res[.], 909 A.2d 413, 416 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). Donahue v. Pa. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 347 A.3d 96, 101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2025). Commonwealth Respondents’ Preliminary Objections Commonwealth Respondents first argue that all claims against them should be dismissed in their entirety under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 1028(a)(3) because the allegations are insufficiently specific. Feinberg8 rejoins that in the Amended Petition, Petitioners set forth specific factual allegations demonstrating that Respondents’ actions were unlawful, arbitrary, and/or contrary to governing statutes and regulations.9 Rule 1028(a) provides, in relevant part: “Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: . . . insufficient specificity in a pleading[.]” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a). To determine if a pleading is sufficiently specific, a court must ascertain whether the facts alleged are sufficiently specific to enable a defendant to prepare his defense. Preliminary objections in the nature of a motion for a more specific pleading raise the sole question of whether the pleading is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. Further, in pleading its case, the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense. Hill v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 271 A.3d 569, 578 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (quoting Unified Sportsmen of Pa. v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (emphasis added; citation omitted)). 8 In her brief, Feinberg states that Wolski-Worman will be filing a separate brief; however, Wolski-Worman did not do so. 9 Feinberg did not specifically address Commonwealth Respondents’ Preliminary Objections. 7 Only three averments in the Amended Petition reference Governor Shapiro.10 Specifically, in Paragraph 33, Petitioners state: “On July 23, 2024, [] Feinberg filed a private criminal complaint to the Butler [County DA] against [Governor] Shapiro for his involvement in the attempted assassination [of President Trump] on July 13, 2024.” Amended Petition ¶ 33. In Paragraph 35, Petitioners provide: “On February 8, 2025, [] Feinberg filed a second private criminal complaint for the attempted assassination alleging additional facts to the first related private criminal complaint. [] Feinberg added [Commissioner] Paris as a [d]efendant on the [February 8, 2025] Complaint with [Governor] Shapiro.” Amended Petition ¶ 35. Finally, in Paragraph 41, Petitioners allege: “Upon information and belief, the July 23, 2024, and February 8, 2025 [] [C]omplaints were denied by [Butler County DA] Goldinger so he could insulate himself, [Governor] Shapiro, and [Commissioner] Paris from the blatant knowing falsehoods contained therein.” Amended Petition ¶ 41. Only two averments in the Amended Petition reference Commissioner Paris: Paragraphs 35 and 41.11 Given that the only facts pleaded relative to Commonwealth Respondents are that they were named as defendants in private criminal complaints that were ultimately disapproved, this Court concludes that “the pleading is [not] sufficiently clear to enable [Commonwealth Respondents] to prepare a defense.” Hill, 271 A.3d at 578. Accordingly, Commonwealth Respondents’ first Preliminary Objection is sustained, and Commonwealth Respondents are dismissed from the instant action.12 10 In addition, in Amended Petition Paragraph 7, Petitioners aver that Governor Shapiro is the acting Pennsylvania Governor and provide his counsel’s name and address. See Amended Petition ¶ 7. 11 In addition, in Amended Petition Paragraph 9, Petitioners aver that Commissioner Paris is the Commissioner for the Pennsylvania State Police and provide his counsel’s name and address. See Amended Petition ¶ 9. 12 Based on this Court’s disposition of Commonwealth Respondents’ first Preliminary Objection, this Court does not reach their remaining Preliminary Objections. 8 Judicial Respondents’ Preliminary Objections Judicial Respondents also argue that the Amended Petition fails to set forth sufficient facts that they did anything to support Petitioners’ claims. Feinberg rejoins that Petitioners set forth specific factual allegations in the Amended Petition that Respondents’ actions were unlawful, arbitrary, and/or contrary to governing statutes and regulations.13 There are only three averments in the Amended Petition that reference Common Pleas and Court Administrator Castellano.14 Specifically, in Paragraph 59, Petitioners contend: “Castellano is the Court Administrator for [Common Pleas]. [] Wolski-Worman communicated with him about [Attorney] Barrasse’s alleged misconduct.” Amended Petition ¶ 59. In Paragraph 66, Petitioners assert: The actions and conduct of Respondents [Common Pleas] and [Attorney] Barrasse, [former County DA] Powell, [Guardianship Administrator] Marino, [former U.S. Attorney] Gallagher, [Court Administrator] Castellano, [Register of Wills] Kovaleski, and [Register of Wills Solicitor] Gallagher, has resulted in [Wolski] being falsely imprisoned[] on a continuing basis[] pursuant to an obviously fraudulent and unlawful guardianship proceeding involving these named Respondents, and [Wolski] is entitled to his immediate release and an appropriate award of damages. Amended Petition ¶ 66 (emphasis added). In Paragraph 70, Petitioners state: [Wolski] and [Wolski-Worman] have suffered enormously as a result of the acts of Respondent [Common Pleas] and [Attorney] Barrasse, [former County DA] Powell, [Guardianship Administrator] Marino, [former U.S. Attorney] Gallagher, [Court Administrator] Castellano, [Register of Wills] 13 Feinberg did not specifically address Judicial Respondents’ Preliminary Objections. 14 In addition, in Amended Petition Paragraph 19, Petitioners state Court Administrator Castellano’s address, see Amended Petition ¶ 19, and in paragraph 21, Petitioners state that Common Pleas is “part of the Pennsylvania 45th Judicial District and is located in Scranton, PA.” Amended Petition ¶ 21. 9 Kovaleski, and [Register of Wills Solicitor] Gallagher, in [t]heir [o]fficial [c]apacit[ies] as set forth herein. Amended Petition ¶ 70 (emphasis added). However, nowhere in the Amended Complaint do Petitioners mention what “actions and conduct” Judicial Respondents performed that “resulted in” harm to Wolski, Amended Petition ¶ 66, or what “acts” of Judicial Respondents caused Wolski and Wolski-Worman to have “suffered enormously.” Amended Petition ¶ 70. Because the facts alleged are not sufficiently specific to enable Judicial Respondents to prepare a defense, Judicial Respondents’ first Preliminary Objection is sustained. See Hill. Accordingly, Judicial Respondents are dismissed from the instant action.15 County Respondents’ Preliminary Objections County Respondents argue that Petitioners’ Amended Petition is legally insufficient pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(4).16 Specifically, County Respondents contend that Petitioners bring claims pursuant to Section 903 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 903; however, there is no private cause of action to enforce Pennsylvania’s criminal laws under Section 903 of the Crimes Code. County Respondents further assert that Petitioners’ averments relate to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Rule) 506, Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, and involve allegations of organized crime and criminal conspiracy in government units pursuant to Section 903 of the Crimes Code, which constitute a pattern of organized crime and conspiracy to conceal. 15 Based on this Court’s disposition of Judicial Respondents’ first Preliminary Objection, this Court does not reach their remaining Preliminary Objections. 16 Rule 1028(a) states, in pertinent part: “Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: . . . (4) legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer)[.]” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a). 10 County Respondents insist that although it is unclear exactly what claims Petitioners are attempting to assert, Petitioners have failed to set forth any cognizable legal theory. Specifically, County Respondents proclaim that Petitioners mention the phrases criminal conspiracy, organized crime, fraud, and false imprisonment throughout their Amended Petition, yet they do not plead facts in any coherent manner to support their multiple causes of action. Feinberg rejoins that County Respondents’ demurrer fails because Petitioners adequately pleaded each element of their asserted claims. Feinberg further retorts that Petitioners’ allegations that County Respondents’ intentional fraud, obstruction of justice, collusion, record tampering, and corruption, if proven, are violations of statutes, regulations, constitutional provisions, and common law duty. Notably, Feinberg does not specify which statutes, regulations, constitutional provisions, or common law duty County Respondents purportedly violated. In her brief, Feinberg states: Feinberg commenced this action along with . . . Wolski- Worman . . . by filing a Petition for Review on August 25, 2024, alleging that Respondents engaged in and continue to engage in a series of crimes, including but not limited to public corruption, fraud, conspiracy, criminal racketeering, and federal laundering. These crimes involve the kidnapping of [Feinberg’s] four children from November 3, 2023[] through November 16, 2023, the murder of [] Greenberg on January 26, 2011, which was intentionally deemed a suicide, the attempted assassination of President . . . Trump in Butler, Pa[.], on July 13, 2024, and the ongoing kidnapping of [Wolski]. [Feinberg] sets forth specific factual allegations demonstrating that Respondent[s’] actions were unlawful, arbitrary, and/or contrary to governing statutes and regulations. 11 Feinberg Br. at 3-4 (emphasis added). However, the Amended Petition contains no references to the kidnapping of Feinberg’s children, that Greenberg’s murder was deemed a suicide, or that Wolski was kidnapped. Relative to Rule 1028(a)(4), this Court has explained: In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. Moreover, in order to sustain a demurrer, it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain the demurrer. Glenn v. Horan, 765 A.2d 426, 430 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (citation omitted). Further, the complaint need not cite evidence, but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense. Dep[’t] of Transp[.] v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., . . . 380 A.2d 1308, 1313 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1977). Allegations will withstand challenge where they contain averments of all of the facts the plaintiff will eventually have to prove in order to prevail and they are sufficiently specific so as to enable [the] defendant to prepare a defense. Id. Podolak v. Tobyhanna Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 37 A.3d 1283, 1287-88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (emphasis added). Criminal conspiracy is not a private cause of action; however, “civil conspiracy occurs when two or more persons combine or agree intending to commit an unlawful act or do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means.” Brown [v. Blaine], 833 A.2d [1166,] 1173[] n.16 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)]. A party asserting such a claim is required to aver “material facts which will either directly or inferentially establish elements of conspiracy.” Id. Th[is] Court in Brown noted that, in addition to alleging the above, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting a claim for conspiracy, namely[:] (1) the persons combined with a common purpose to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means or unlawful purpose[;] (2) an overt act in furtherance of the common purpose has occurred[;] 12 and (3) the plaintiff has incurred actual legal damage. Id. Additionally, absent a civil cause of action for a particular act, there can be no cause of action for civil conspiracy to commit that act. McKeeman v. Corestates Bank, N.A., 751 A.2d 655 (Pa. Super. 2000). Weaver v. Franklin Cnty., 918 A.2d 194, 202 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (emphasis added). Here, all of Petitioners’ alleged claims are criminal in nature and have no corresponding private cause of action. Thus, Petitioners did not, nor could not, plead all of the facts they would have to prove in order to prevail on a civil conspiracy claim. Similarly, Criminal Rule 506 is not a private cause of action but, rather, a procedural rule, that provides: (A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without unreasonable delay. (B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth: (1) approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this decision on the complaint form and transmit it to the issuing authority; (2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision. For the contents of a private complaint, see [Criminal] Rule 504. In all cases where the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint must be submitted for approval or disapproval by the attorney for the Commonwealth. The district attorney may “transmit” the complaint to the issuing authority pursuant to paragraph (B)(1) by returning it to the affiant for delivery. 13 Pa.R.Crim.P. 506 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioners base their Amended Petition on the Complaints; however, according to Criminal Rule 506, Petitioners recourse concerning a district attorney’s disapproval of a private complaint is not a civil action, but rather an appeal in common pleas court. In the Amended Petition, concerning Former County DA Powell’s actions, Petitioners pleaded: 43. [Former County DA] Powell made statements to [] Wolski-Worman that a criminal investigation would be opened by Detective Joseph Blazosek[17] against John McHugh [(McHugh)18] and [Attorney] Barrasse. 44. [Former County DA] Powell authorized his office to deny two private criminal complaints against [] McHugh with irrefutable evidence of theft, harassment, physical assault, illicit substance abuse, and forgery of fraudulent checks. 45. Upon information: and belief [former County DA] Powell communicated with [Attorney] Barrasse to conceal [] McHugh’s crimes which harmed [] Wolski- Worman and [] Wolski[.] Amended Petition ¶¶ 43-45 (emphasis added). Relative to former U.S. Attorney Gallagher’s and Register of Wills Solicitor Gallagher’s actions, Petitioners averred: 49. Upon information and belief, [former U.S. Attorney] Gallagher communicated with [Register of Wills Solicitor] Gallagher to falsify documents relating to [Wolski’s] Guardianship and the fabricated [Protection from Abuse] against [] Wolski-Worman. 50. [Register of Wills Solicitor] Gallagher is a licensed attorney in the state of Pennsylvania who[,] upon 17 Detective Joseph Blazosek is not a Respondent in this action, and this is the only time his name appears in the Amended Petition. 18 McHugh is not a party in this action and is only mentioned in Paragraphs 43 through 46 of the Amended Petition. See Amended Petition ¶¶ 43-46. 14 information and belief, falsified documents; fabricated seals on invalid [c]ourt [o]rders for [Register of Wills] Kovaleski. Amended Petition ¶¶ 49-50 (emphasis added). Concerning Register of Wills Kovaleski’s actions, Petitioners pleaded: 51. Upon information and belief, [Register of Wills] Kovaleski mailed . . . Wolski-Worman a Cease-and- Desist Petition with a forged signature which included a Motion for Continuance and did not reference a Cease and Desist. .... 54. [] Wolski-Worman informed [Register of Wills] Kovaleski that crimes were committed by [Attorney] Barrasse, and others, and uploaded the proof of emails to the Guardianship Docket of [] [Wolski]. 55. Upon information and belief, [Register of Wills] Kovaleski signed, stamped, and certified a fraudulent [c]ourt [o]rder dated May 4, 2023. Amended Petition ¶¶ 51-55 (emphasis added). Finally, with respect to Guardianship Administrator Marino’s actions, Petitioners alleged: 56. [Guardianship Administrator] Marino is the Guardianship Administrator for [Common Pleas] and engaged in fraud, corruption, and, obstruction of justice. 57. Upon information and belief[,] [Guardianship Administrator] Marino had knowledge of the conspiracy and fraud of the [o]rder against [] Wolski- Worman and failed to report such crimes to police. 58. [Guardianship Administrator] Marino stated to [] Wolski-Worman, “God Bless You for going up against the Barrasse’s [sic][.]”[] .... 15 60. Upon information and belief [Guardianship Administrator] Marino had knowledge of the conspiracy and misconduct of [Attorney] Barrasse against [] Wolski-Worman and failed to report such crimes to police. Amended Petition ¶¶ 56-60 (emphasis added). This Court agrees with County Respondents that it is unclear exactly what claims Petitioners are attempting to assert against County Respondents in the Amended Petition, and that they do not plead facts in any coherent way to support their multiple claims. Because the Amended Petition does not “contain averments of all of the facts [Petitioners] will eventually have to prove in order to prevail,” Podolak, 37 A.3d at 1288, Petitioners have failed to set forth any cognizable legal theory against County Respondents. Accordingly, County Respondents’ first Preliminary Objection is sustained, and County Respondents are dismissed from the instant action.19 Butler County Respondents’ and Chester County ADA Cardemone’s Preliminary Objections Butler County Respondents first argue that this Court does not have jurisdiction to address Petitioners’ claims against them because Butler County Respondents are not Commonwealth actors for the purposes of original jurisdiction. Petitioners rejoin that Butler County Respondents are officials acting in an official capacity. Section 761(a) of the Judicial Code provides, in relevant part: General rule.--The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings: 19 Based on this Court’s disposition of County Respondents’ first Preliminary Objection, this Court does not reach their remaining Preliminary Objections. 16 (1) Against the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity, except: (i) actions or proceedings in the nature of applications for a writ of habeas corpus or post-conviction relief not ancillary to proceedings within the appellate jurisdiction of the court[.] 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a) (text emphasis added). Further, “[t]o the extent prescribed by general rule[,] the Commonwealth Court shall have ancillary jurisdiction over any claim or other matter which is related to a claim or other matter otherwise within its exclusive original jurisdiction.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(c). Section 102 of the Judicial Code defines Commonwealth government as: The government of the Commonwealth, including the courts and other officers or agencies of the unified judicial system, the General Assembly and its officers and agencies, the Governor, and the departments, boards, commissions, authorities and officers and agencies of the Commonwealth, but the term does not include any political subdivision, municipal or other local authority, or any officer or agency of any such political subdivision or local authority. 42 Pa.C.S. § 102 (emphasis added). “District attorneys are charged with conducting criminal prosecutions in the name of the Commonwealth but only in the county in which the district attorney is elected.” Pa. Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 551 A.2d 361, 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). “[N]either a district attorney’s office, nor a district attorney or their subordinates, are part of the [C]ommonwealth government or are [C]ommonwealth officers for purposes of [this Court’s] original jurisdiction.” Webster v. Lehigh Cnty. Court of Common Pleas (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 687 M.D. 2019, 17 filed Oct. 8, 2020), slip op. at 6.20 Thus, “[c]ivil actions against district attorneys [and their detectives] may not be brought in this [C]ourt’s original jurisdiction.” Id. Consequently, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address Petitioners’ claims against Butler County Respondents or Chester County ADA Cardemone. Moreover, because the Commonwealth Respondents have been dismissed from this action, this Court does not have ancillary jurisdiction over Butler County Respondents, Chester County ADA Cardemone or any of the remaining Respondents who did not file preliminary objections.21 Accordingly, Butler County Respondents’ first Preliminary Objection is sustained,22 and Butler County Respondents, ADA Cardemone, and all remaining Respondents are dismissed from the instant action.23 Conclusion For all of the above reasons, Commonwealth Respondents’, Judicial Respondents’, County Respondents’, and Butler County Respondents’ first 20 Per Section 414(a) of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a), unreported Commonwealth Court opinions issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their persuasive value. Webster is cited for its persuasive value. 21 Although Chester County ADA Cardemone and the remaining Respondents did not raise jurisdiction in their Preliminary Objections, “[t]he question [of] whether a court has jurisdiction . . . may be raised at any time in the course of the proceedings, including by a reviewing court sua sponte.” Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cnty., 32 A.3d 639, 646 (Pa. 2011). 22 Based on this Court’s disposition of Butler County Respondents’ first Preliminary Objection, this Court does not reach their remaining Preliminary Objections or Chester County ADA Cardemone’s Preliminary Objection. 23 “A [petition for review] is properly dismissed without allowance for amendment when leave to amend would be a futile exercise.” Chasen v. Platt, 244 A.3d 73, 84 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020). Here, this is Petitioners’ fourth amended petition for review and it is still unclear exactly what claims Petitioners are attempting to assert and they do not plead facts in any coherent manner, as to sufficiently allege any of their multiple claims. For this same reason, this Court will not transfer Petitioners’ claims against Butler County Respondents, Chester County ADA Cardemone, or any of the remaining Respondents to Common Pleas. 18 Preliminary Objections are sustained, and the Amended Petition is dismissed with prejudice. 19 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Hadassah Feinberg, : Yvonne Wolski-Worman, and : Paul M. Wolski, Sr., : Petitioners : : v. : : Joshua D. Shapiro, William : Mayhugh, Marlon Osbourne, : Seth Williams, Richard A. : Goldinger, Christopher Paris, : James Dellafiora, Andrea : Cardemone, Samuel Goldberg, : Nancy Barrasse, Mark Powell, : Ralph Marino, Brian Gallagher, : Frank Castellano, Fran Kovaleski, : Sean Gallagher, County of : Lackawanna, and Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna : County, : No. 402 M.D. 2024 Respondents : PER CURIAM ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 2026, the first Preliminary Objections to Hadassah Feinberg’s, Yvonne Wolski-Worman’s, and Paul M. Wolski, Sr.’s (collectively, Petitioners) Third Amended Petition for Review for Declaratory, Injunctive, Compensatory, and Punitive Relief (Amended Petition)1 filed by: (1) Pennsylvania Governor Joshua D. Shapiro and Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Christopher Paris; (2) the Lackawanna County (County) Common Pleas Court Administrator Frank Caste