BELL blames Supervisor Hughes as the reason Herbein refused to continue as Exeter Township's Auditor. Makes a claim but provides NO PROOF! WOULD YOU HIRE A FINANCIAL ADVISOR WHO PUTS HIS OWN AGENDA BEFORE YOUR BEST INTERESTS?

BELL & VOLLMER'S HATEFUL AND MALICIOUS SLANDEROUS ACTIVITY CONTINUES

​George Bell is shamelessly flouting every rule and regulation concerning public meetings. Bell, a so-called financial advisor with Fidelity Investments, is at it again, trying to pass off his glaring mistakes in our township's financial reporting onto the only responsible adult present. This clueless individual seems to be conveniently forgetting Article 2 of Public Meetings under 65-2 Rules and Regulations section D(3), which clearly states to "refrain from maligning others", and D(4)(C) that expressly forbids Supervisors from launching personal attacks or questioning the motives of their colleagues or staff members.
I urge you to scrutinize this short video clip closely and decide for yourselves: is this a blatant violation of the ordinance? Mr. Bell, who appears to live on social media—even when he should be working as an insurance salesman for Fidelity Investments—asserts he will verify all his falsehoods. What an immature imbecile. His constant deceit has us all questioning who, in their right mind, would entrust their hard-earned retirement savings to such a deceptive clown!
Pay attention to the Chair, David LEO Vollmer, who pretends to restore order on the Board while allowing this disgraceful conduct to persist. These two are nothing more than petulant children desperately in need of discipline. When I rise to a point of order, according to Robert's Rules of Order, the Point of Order should take precedence: the speaker must cease, and the chairman must inquire about the nature of the Point of Order. This is how RRO is meant to function, unless, of course, you're part of some pathetic high school clique hell-bent on silencing any opposing voice. David LEO Vollmer didn’t hesitate to quash it. What was his response? That my Point of Order is not recognized? I demand to see the evidence that Herbein withdrew as our Audit firm specifically because of my actions. If that is the case, why? What exactly did I do? The behavior of these two, Bell and Vollmer, who have hijacked the Board for over a year now, is nothing short of DISGRACEFUL! Below is Herbein's letter for your reference.

Why did this happen? Not because of what the board did, but what they did not do. Further details on what Bell and Vollmer did not do. Also, what Herbein may have done and should not have done.

This is it above, the letter/email from Schnee Legal Services to me claiming attorney client privilege and all that other CRP. But there is more to this that you need to know. Additional correspondence that Schnee Legal Services claims are also attorney client privilege. The RTK process is completed, deemed moot since I have the documents un-redacted. The videos attached are key to this charade that Schnee Legal Services continues to play.. video number one is where Schnee mentions the crime code. The joy he must have felt.... The second video is where he claims all of this was done outside of the context of my position as a supervisor and therefore I am not gong to be provided with legal council.....hmmmm

Regarding second censure where they improperly (illegally) removed me from the meeting, Schnee says in this meeting that according to the crime code I should be censured. See the Video attached below.

Schnee Legal Services being helpful.....which email? Could you be a little more specific? Still, this is considered by him as Attorney Client Privilege 

In the meeting Schnee was asked what did I violate? he specified the "crime code" and I am simply which section? See video 1 Schnee mentions Crime Code and subsequently his memory fails.

Schnee does this often, pretends not to know in order to generate more emails at $21.50 minimum. Up above (four emails ) I asked him to specify which section of the crime code he was referring to......

All this occurred in an open meeting with regards to my discussion. Again, asked and ignored...this is the guy we are paying $45,000 a quarter...$180,000 a year. Spending much of his time on prosecuting me.

 Schnee is being his usual self here....I was not asking for legal advice....do any of you interpret my asking for what section of the crime code was he referring to I the public meeting as asking for legal advice? NO! What do you think of his line above claiming all future communications between the two of us will be protected by privilege? On another note, since the signing of the Kozloff Stoudt agreement where he pawns off the obligation and the action to a third party...note in the meeting where this was adopted he claims n these conversations and release of the one email (top above) I was not acting in the capacity of a supervisor and therefor no legal representation will be provided to me....WHICH IS SCHNEE LEGAL SERVICES? See anything in here that is Attorney Client Privilege ?

This was additional nonsense communications that Schnee Legal Services considers attorney client privilege. This prompted the email in question....all around the second ridiculous censure. 

Here is where he mentions the crime code......then seems to forget

Schnee Legal Services, a contractor with Exeter Township convince's the BOS to file an "Injunctive Relief" case on 9/11/23. Schnee Legal Service contends I do not warrant legal counsel claiming my actions were not as a supervisor. 

Here is what stated it all....The illegal removal, the second ridiculous censure and claim that I disrupted the meeting by simply attempting to point out that the Treasury Report should be under the Approvals with Minutes and Disbursement as it has been for several decades.....Bell and Vollmer are not your leaders

We're concerned about a novice lawyer who seems to misuse key legal principles to hide the negative impact he's having on our community, our values, and the very essence of the legal profession.

Let me break this down:

• Attorney-client privilege is meant to keep conversations between a lawyer and their client private. It's there to protect the client, whether they're involved in a court case or just seeking advice. Misusing this privilege outside its intended purpose is wrong.

 

• The work-product doctrine shields any material an attorney creates while preparing for a case. It's supposed to be used only in the context of legal work. Using it for other purposes is not acceptable.

Despite these clear guidelines, this lawyer, Schnee, claims every interaction he has falls under attorney-client privilege. Moreover, he labels any document he touches as work-product, even if it has nothing to do with a legal matter. It seems he's trying to control the township's decisions and, more importantly, control what the people of Exeter are allowed to know.

We've invested considerable time submitting Right-To-Know requests, resulting in  numerous appeals forced by Schnee and addressing Schnee's consistent efforts to obstruct our access to information. Schnee has made the Right-To-Know process painstakingly slow, with an average wait time of over 65 days for us to receive any documents. This delay is particularly frustrating when contrasted with Schnee's "preferred" associates, like Jupina and The Exeter Informant, who are affiliated with the majority party of Bell, Vollmer, and Kirsher. They often receive documents in under 5 days, especially if these materials align with Schnee's objective of defaming Hughes.

We've chosen to highlight Schnee's unsavory tactics by publishing documents he wrongly labels as privileged. The content of these communications doesn't pertain to legal matters, litigation, or requests for legal counsel. We aim to shed light on Schnee's maneuvers, especially considering that his law practice seems to be struggling with Exeter Township as its sole client. His financial predicament appears to have led him to disregard professional ethics and expected conduct for an attorney, prioritizing self-preservation over impartiality and integrity.

We want to emphasize that Schnee’s methods are not only troubling but also extremely manipulative. We've grown tired of his inappropriate behavior. We've decided to shine a light on his questionable ethics. It is absolutely striking to see the amount of energy that Schnee is spending at taxpayer’s expense to make sure that the public doesn’t know anything about anything.


People of Exeter, We've had enough of this absurd conduct.
FIRE SCHNEE!

Chadwick Schnee of Schnee Legal Services has been caught making false statements on multiple occasions. Here are the three most significant instances, captured on video:

• On 1.21.23 - He altered facts and misrepresented information in the Supervisor Meeting Notes.
• On 8.28.23 - He provided incorrect information regarding the 2nd Class Township Code, likely due to his lack of familiarity with it.

​
And the most concerning:

• On 09.11.23 - He was recorded making not one, but two false statements in a single meeting. Given these instances, how can we rely on such an inexperienced attorney?

Lie #1: On video, Schnee claims that Hughes is suing the township. Chadwick, can you provide any specifics on that? As it appears, Supervisor Hughes has never initiated a lawsuit against the township. Schnee, instead of portraying yourself as the victim, perhaps it's time to stop spreading falsehoods and refrain from your condescending and passive-aggressive behavior.
​

Here's the audacity of Schnee's appalling game: While a right-to-know request isn't viewed as litigation, an appeal certainly is. Predictably, Schnee constantly pushes for an appeal, simply to falsely claim, "Hughes is suing the township." This is a blatant lie! All Hughes is striving to do is fulfill his duties, but Schnee manipulatively orchestrates these appeals. It's utterly reprehensible!

Here we go again with yet another baffling email from Chadwick Schnee of Schnee Legal Services. It's borderline comical how Chad consistently fires off these passive-aggressive missives, trying desperately to paint himself as some kind of martyr at the hands of Supervisor Hughes. The repeated attempts to alter the narrative - especially with the looming threat of legal repercussions - don't escape our notice. "Look at me, the innocent victim," he seems to cry.

Let’s cut through the noise: Chadwick, the evidence is overwhelming. Video after video reveals your open hostility and unapologetic condescension towards Supervisor Hughes. It's astounding how quickly you unravel when confronted by my truth-telling, revealing yourself to be less of the seasoned attorney you claim to be and more of a novice struggling to keep up. Your brazen attempts to rewrite history – particularly by misusing legal tools like attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine – are transparent.

​It's evident that you're trying to shield the Exeter public from whatever dubious dealings you're part of. And let's not forget your blatant use of board of supervisors resolutions as a weapon: propping up your shaky business, taking jabs at me, and even trying to silence and intimidate me and other Exeter residents.

Chadwick, drop the act. The curtain was pulled back on your charades long ago, and your reputation in Exeter Township - and the wider legal world - looks precarious at best.

Further, you Chad claim to have caught my latest "disparaging" post?

​Newsflash: I’ve been at the helm of exeterunited.com for years, consistently updating our residents about the happenings within our local government. Way back, I called out the blunders leading to the hikes in our sewer and water bills. While only a handful took notice, I stood firm. While my blog melds hard facts with personal opinions, you seem to believe you're the self-appointed referee of what constitutes as "disparaging".

And let's talk about that absurd clause in your contract, where you slap the township with a $1,000 fine each time you "feel" an employee or supervisor steps out of line on social media or blogs.

This isn’t legal vigilance; it’s EXTORTION.

I’m convinced that this clause emerged after I publicly rated your first-year performance as a 2nd class township solicitor with a failing grade. Did I hope for improvement? Absolutely. Did I get it? Sadly, no.

Let’s dive into the mystery that is your role, Chad. According to your oh-so-vague contract: "This firm has been retained to serve as the Solicitor for Exeter Township."

But when we reference the 2nd class township act, it clearly underlines that Schnee operates at the behest of the Board. Yet, here you are, brazenly drafting a "resolution" aiming to sidestep this very act, transferring power to the manager and yourself. Are you here trying to cure your misdeeds with Betsy McBride for the past 12 months?

Your contract further states: "The scope of our representation does not include advice or services regarding accounting, tax, personal financial matters, business management, and related non-legal matters and advice..."
And yet, you seem unable to resist meddling in areas way beyond your purview. Case in point:
​
Unsanctioned Acts:

1. Giving a legal opinion on Supervisor Bell's vendor donations during the primary election exceeding $1,000.
2. Voicing a legal stance on Supervisor Vollmer's vendor donations during the primary election overstepping the $1,000 mark.
3. Drafting an unauthorized legal opinion on "agendas".

Mr. Schnee, perhaps it's time to reacquaint yourself with your job description and act accordingly.


​

Here's the unsettling story of an inept, greenhorn attorney whose only experience is clerical work, exploiting attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine to conceal the extensive harm he's inflicting on our community, democratic values, and the legal profession itself.

To clarify, attorney-client privilege is a legal safeguard that keeps communications between a lawyer and their client confidential. This rule is intended to protect the client, whether they're in court or just seeking legal advice. Any use outside of these contexts is not legitimate.

The work-product doctrine operates similarly, shielding documents or notes generated by an attorney in preparation for legal proceedings. This protection is only applicable within the scope of a legal case. Any other use is out of bounds.

Yet Schnee categorizes every interaction with him, whether digital or otherwise, as falling under attorney-client privilege, and deems any document he lays a finger on as work-product — regardless of whether it's even related to a legal issue. It's a blatant attempt to monopolize control over the township's actions and, more critically, to dictate the public narrative. In simple terms, he wants to control what the people of Exeter should and shouldn't know.

We find these tactics not just objectionable but egregiously manipulative. We've had enough of this absurd conduct, so we took it upon ourselves to give him a crash course in legal ethics. Not because we think he's capable of learning, but to publicly expose and dismantle his deception.

And let's just say, we hit the mark spectacularly.

Our game plan was straightforward: we filed a right-to-know request with Exeter Township for specific documents that we knew existed, were not part of any litigation, and that Schnee was desperate to keep under wraps. These documents reveal Schnee's inappropriate meddling in township management and politics, which is absolutely not the role of a contractor funded by Exeter's taxpayers. 

The documents also expose how Schnee is picking sides, tipping the scales in favor of the Gardella-Bell-Volmer supermajority. He's doing everything in his power, even breaching the Attorney's Code of Conduct, to ensure this supermajority stays in place come the November elections, all to secure his cushy $15,000-a-month job.

We simply asked for a letter Schnee sent to me on June 28th of this year—something I wanted to share openly with you, the citizens of Exeter. What followed was 65 days of utterly pointless back-and-forths with Schnee, culminating in a ruling from the Office of Open Records—the Pennsylvania authority on public record transparency—confirming what we had argued all along.

So what transpired over those excruciating 65 days? Schnee kept hiding behind his bogus "attorney-client privilege" claim to repeatedly deny the release of the document. We argued that there was no privilege attached to the document because its content was neither seeking legal advice nor part of any ongoing litigation. But hold on, there's more! Upon close scrutiny of Schnee's denials, he even had the audacity to claim — an outright lie — that the letter didn’t even exist! Can you fathom the sheer arrogance of this man, lying to the Office of Open Records? It's outrageous! How can the people of Exeter tolerate this?


Ultimately, the Office of Open Records agreed with us: No attorney-client privilege existed.


Above are my requests for information. Below, you'll see Schnee's initial refusal to comply. I'll spare you the multitude of back-and-forth digital exchanges with the Office of Open Records in the interim. This pattern of behavior is indicative of what our solicitor is primarily engaged in: an internal crusade aimed solely at undermining me. Astonishingly, around 20% of his billable hours are dedicated to generating conflict and muddying the waters, costing our township both valuable time and money.

The email Schnee sent me reveals his blatant political agenda, showing he's an integral part of the Gardella-Bell-Volmer supermajority clique, actively working against the interests of Exeter Township's citizens and taxpayers.

If you've endured the train wreck that Supervisor Bell orchestrated twice a month for a full year during board meetings, you'll know their latest claim that I disrupted a public meeting is an absolute farce and an outright lie.
​
See the nonsense for yourself!

As the footage clearly shows, I'm not some random audience member; I'm an elected supervisor doing my job by asking crucial questions. Unlike Bell, who was appointed rather than elected, I was put in this position by the very taxpayers and citizens you'd expect me to represent.

This letter lays bare Schnee's deep involvement with this Gardella-Bell-Volmer cabal, actively colluding to spread outright lies and defamation about me and my family.

I could dissect Schnee's ludicrous letter line by line, but I'll just point you to my handwritten notes. The guy is meddling in township management and has the audacity to inquire about my plans, as if he's genuinely offering help? This is nothing but a sham. He's laying down fake olive branches in our communications, probably to use them as supposed evidence of his "proactivity" should there be litigation against him. 
To top it off, he's giving an elected official—me—unsolicited personal and political advice, coupled with veiled threats about my family. These are mob-like tactics, and let me make one thing abundantly clear, Schnee: you're messing with the wrong Marine.


Listen up, Exeter—Schnee is the root problem here. He's the architect of the discord and dysfunction we're seeing on the Board of Supervisors, and he's doing it to line his own pockets. Schnee is supposed to focus solely on legal matters as directed by the board. At this point, there are zero justifiable issues to warrant his obscene $15,000 monthly salary, nor his utter incompetence, malice, and abject failure to maintain professional impartiality.

Fire Schnee! 

It would almost be laughable if it weren't so outrageous that this is happening at the taxpayer's expense. Schnee seems to have forgotten that his role is exclusively to execute tasks assigned by the Board of Supervisors—nothing more, nothing less. Yet he continues to shamelessly bill taxpayers for actions not sanctioned by the board, actions that, incidentally, amount to very little of substance.

Isn't it simply marvelous when our inept solicitor decides to produce an unsolicited piece, trumpeting his marketing prowess? A piece so riddled with glaring falsehoods and dripping with hypocrisy, it lacks even a shred of self-awareness or humility. It's an affront that demands the full attention of our citizenry.
​
Before we dissect this travesty in detail, let's first expose Mr. Schnee's pompous communication sent to the Board of Supervisors just a few weeks ago.

Legal costs can indeed be unpredictable, but it's generally the case that for a township of our size, legal representation and associated costs are minimal under normal circumstances, typically involving the review of bids and contracts. Yet Schnee is not only distorting the legal costs but also audaciously claiming that he is saving us money. This is a gross deception.

To clarify, in 2019, the township was embroiled in an exceptionally unusual and incredibly expensive litigation with Viva, resulting in a million dollars in legal fees. This was a one-off situation, not anticipated to recur. Schnee, however, persists in his attempts to deceive us by ignoring that the subsequent year also involved additional, non-recurring legal fees.

In 2021 and 2022, we made a concerted effort to rein in legal fees, even though it necessitated a change of solicitors.

​Schnee then expects us to buy into his fiction that he is currently billing us for only 17 hours a week. This is patently untrue, and it is exceedingly difficult for me to ascertain the extent to which the township is incurring costs above his $15,000 monthly salary. Schnee is going to great lengths to obstruct my access (and by extension, the access of the people of Exeter) to his itemized time sheets. 

Despite our best efforts, we have only managed to secure the sheets for April and May. Schnee is vehemently resisting the release of the June records and beyond. What, one must wonder, is he so desperate to conceal? Overbilling? Undertaking unauthorized work? Both?

For clarification, Schnee's existing contract—crafted by himself and approved by the supermajority of Gardella, Bell, and Vollmer—claims a flat monthly salary of $15,000, while deceptively implying unlimited billable hours.

Let's dispel that illusion right now. Numbers can be twisted to serve deceptive narratives, and Schnee is doing precisely that. His self-constructed graph is an outright fabrication. I managed to secure time sheets for his work in April and May (he's stonewalling the release of June and July records), and these documents strongly suggest the likelihood of overbilling—echoing his previous tenure working alongside Tucker Hull.

Consider this glaring example: in April, Schnee billed for nine emails sent to an individual who filed an ADA complaint, at a minimum charge of $21.50 per email. Yet there were zero responses. Why persist in a futile endeavor? The answer is that the individual couldn't respond—something Schnee was fully aware of. That's because when an ADA complaint is in mediation and a confidentiality agreement hasn't been finalized, the defendant's attorney—Schnee, in this case—is prohibited from directly contacting the complainant. He should be communicating with the mediator. This is just one of several instances of unwarranted charges incurred, thanks to a slipshod contract that doesn't even include page numbers.

So what's the supermajority of Bell, Vollmer, and Kirscher doing about this egregious situation? Absolutely nothing. In their eyes, Schnee can do no wrong—we even have this absurd sentiment documented. But let's not forget: the quality of work should matter, Chadwick!

More fabrications from Schnee—it seems deception is second nature to him. Contrary to his public claims and communications, I never put forth Cornerstone as a prospective township solicitor. What I did say was that Cornerstone would represent me personally should the township, under Schnee's guidance, decide to take legal action against me. And let's be clear: Schnee would never dare do that; he's fully aware he'd face yet another humiliating loss, akin to when he recklessly sued a journalist and was forced to withdraw his lawsuit in shame within a fortnight.

To set the record straight, Cornerstone was never in the running when we were searching for a solicitor firm and chose Tucker Hull. Schnee's comparison is utterly baseless; we never even negotiated rates with the firms he's contrasting with his own.
​
Moreover, Schnee conveniently overlooks that he runs a one-man operation—without support staff, with a mere three months' existence, and led by an inexperienced, self-employed attorney. He has no paralegals; he works from home; his limited experience lies in Right-to-Know (RTK) law as a clerk. Approximately 30% of his billings stem from RTK because he routinely rejects requests and obscures his correspondence under the guise of attorney-client privilege—a blatant ruse enabling him to rack up thousands of dollars in additional billings. Rest assured, Schnee's tactics will be progressively exposed, both to the public and, eventually, to disciplinary authorities.

When it comes to RTK requests—often straightforward to process—other, more reputable firms utilize paralegals at significantly reduced rates, around $80 an hour. And let's not forget that Exeter Township already employs an RTK officer. So, what is Schnee actually doing? The answer is clear: inflating his billings!
With a fully staffed law firm, not only would we benefit from greater service availability, but we'd also undoubtedly enjoy a markedly higher standard of quality, AT A FRACTION OF SCHNEE LEGAL SERVICES COST! 

Buckle up folks, it's time to dive into the intriguing world of Schnee Legal Services! This is a place where subtlety takes a backseat as direct and indirect bullying, intimidation, and retaliation become the flavor of the day, especially against those bold enough to voice opinions they don't fancy. The irony? This negatively impacts the open conversation between citizens and their government, all while the spotlight-hogging, Chadwick Schnee plays the victim card, despite being the main instigator. Oh, and let's not forget, all of this drama unfolds while your hard-earned tax dollars keep his pockets lined.

The image you see above is a screenshot from Facebook, illustrating an event as commonplace as posting a review about Schnee Legal Services on Google - an activity within the right of every citizen. However, it appears that any review expressing an unfavorable opinion towards Schnee Legal Services triggers an immediate impulse in them to silence differing perspectives. This persistent trend is omnipresent, whether it pertains to a Google review or ensuring the citizens are adequately informed about their local governance. Schnee Legal Services seem to exert extraordinary effort, even working beyond regular hours, to suppress any content they deem as contrary. Such actions are inappropriate for a public forum and shouldn't be financed by Exeter taxpayers.

And now, for the pièce de résistance (drumroll, please)... below you'll find a message from Mr. Schnee himself, dated August 4th, 2023, served to you verbatim, fresh and unedited!

I'll hold my peace for now, choosing not to comment on his bewildering and erratic allegations.

It's important to highlight that Mr. Schnee appears to overlook the fact that his role is within a local government, not a private entity. As such, Mr. Schnee should be aware that the standards and scrutiny applied to an average law practitioner and his firm are indeed high, extensively shared, and aimed to inform the public, who are footing the bill for his lackluster services. Needless to say, the bar is set much higher, Chadwick... And that's without intending a pun.