September 19, 2017

It was only a SUMMARY NOTICE served upon Cipolla in 1978. The handcuff arrest & post-arrest retaliation stories were two big lies.

Before anything else, if you are new here, keep in mind that the 1978
accuser of the man formerly known as Father Anthony Cipolla was re-
peatedly caught lying and changing her story numerous times.   She
even lied about me, and I was NOT in the North of Pittsburgh in 1978.

I had nothing to do with the events of 1978, yet she dedicated her web
blogs to assassinating my character, harassing me, telling lies about me
as much as the 1978 case, and bullying me from a very safe coward's
distance ( bullying a 200+ lb Chicago/Pittsburgh construction worker.

That which is now definite is that the Pittsburgh Post Gazette spent
years lying to the public, in claiming that Anthony Cipolla was arrest-
ed for molesting a male child in 1978.  He was merely served with a
SUMMARY NOTICE that was only signed by his accuser, Diane
Thompson.  If the police had evidence against Cipolla, they would
have filed the necessary paperwork that would lead to his arrest and
arraignment.  There would havebeen no need of Diane Thompson.

Now, I have spoken with lawyers involved in the Cipolla Case, and
from that world I was expressly told that "there was no police report."
Of course, the Pgh Post Gazette stated that Donald Wuerl took a copy
of the police arrest report to Rome, for his rehearing on the Cipolla
Case which had nothing to do with molestation.  The Cipolla Case
at the Vatican only involved Wuerl removing Cipolla on account of
a Depression & Suicidal Tendency diagnosis given to Cipolla at a
Maryland psychiatric institute that was founded by a rebel priest
who, in his Sodom & Gomorrah lifestyle, died of AIDS.  This was
followed by St. Michael's of NYC declaring that diagnosis to have
been a misdiagnosis.

This is in keeping with a private criminal complaint and Summary
Notice.  If there were a police report, it would have served the pur-
pose of "affidavit," and a judge would have signed-off on it, trigger-
ing an indictment of Anthony Cipolla.  If there were a police report,
as the Piitsburgh Post Gazette, Diane Thompson, and the "profession-
al Catholic" from Wilkesbarre/Scranton claimed, then there would
have been no need for Diane Thompson to sign anything.  The fact
that she signed a Summary Notice proved that there was no police
report or DA indictment .... or grand jury indictment ... or an indict-
mentn issued by the State Attorneys' General office.

Let us begin:

Diane Thompson did file the 1978 version of a private criminal com-
plaint.  Thus came the police serving a SUMMARY NOTICE upon
Anthony Cipolla.  It included the police investigating Thompson's
accusations, to see if there could be found any evidence to merit
a prosecution of Cipolla.  Thus far, up to that time, the police had
NO CAUSE to file an affidavit which would result in Cipolla's in-

Now, a priest was already arrested, charged, and arraigned earlier in 1978.
Thus, the local law enforcement officials would have had no reservations
about arresting, charging, and arraigning yet another priest.  If they had
something on Cipolla, Cipolla would have been in handcuffs.  He was
NEVER in handcuffs.

There also came with the SUMMARY NOTICE notice of a scheduled
August 28 hearing which was for Diane Thompson to show probable
cause as to why the State of Pennsylvania should prosecute Cipolla
for indecent assault and corrupting the morals of a minor.  Up to that
time, police found no probable cause.

Now, being that Diane Thompson initiated that particular process, on-
ly she could finish it.  She, for one of a few possible reasons, refused
to attend the August 28 hearing.  One very plausible reason would
have been that she and the police had no evidence.

Now, keep in mind that this process was a matter of public knowledge.
This meant that evidence was not going to being easily spoliated.  In
fact, a priest had already been arrested and prosecuted that same year.
Therefore, if there were any evidence against Cipolla, he would have
been taken through the prosecution process, all the way to conviction.

Concerning due process, the police have their own form of process.
This meant that the two detectives of which she spoke, if they really
did exist and if they were supportive of Thompson, could have filed
a police criminal complaint against Cipolla and have him taken into
custody, for due processing of the law.  If they believed in her, and if
she did withdraw her complaint out of duress, then why didn't one of
the two detectives take a form to a judge, for a signature?

There even could have been a grand jury convened.  If Cipolla were
as guilty as sin, then where was the grand jury?

The DA could have taken matters into his hands and filed on Cipolla.
Why did he not do so?

All in all, the idea that Cipolla was blatantly guilty and got away with
murder was total bull crap.  Diane Thompson is one of the most irritat-
ingly obnoxious and feisty hags on this Earth.  She would have only
not shown up to the August 28 hearing if she had no evidence against
an Anthony Cipolla whom she seethingly hates ... or if the police were
considering to file on her for lying to the police.  She didn't refuse to
continue the process she started out of the kindness of her heart.

As far as went her claim of having been harassed and pressured into
dropping charges, if she were vandalized and harassed as she claimed,
then she would have become financially solvent in a lawsuit against
those whom she claimed did violence to her.  She would have had a
treasure trove of evidence.

If Cipolla's friends really did vandalize her landlord's property and slit
her tires ... and if parishioners did sent her hate mail ... then she also
would have had the needed fuel to get Cipolla prosecuted, but for a
couple of criminal charges different than indecent assault.  And it can
be reasonably assured that, if Diane Thompson could get Cipolla on
anything, she would have done so.

You have to understand how filled with hatred toward him she is, and
you doubly have to understand that her hatred for him was reduced to
a word that she used to describe Cipolla one of her harassing emails
to me.   Thompson called Cipolla a LEECH ... nothing but a leech ...
despite his diligence in studies and managing youth groups which
never resulted in anyone in those groups accusing him of molesta-
tion, etc.  Of course, Cipolla told Thompson that the Saint Vincent
de Paul Society didn't have the money to pay her rent.  Shortly
afterwards came her accusation.

You know, in her harassing emails to me, she didn't accentuate her
allegation of Cipolla molesting "Tommy."   She harped on Cipolla
taking the older son to Michigan with other lads.   She said that
Cipolla molested her eldest son there.  But, why didn't Cipolla
molest other lads whom he drove to Michigan.  I located one
such individual.  He was quoted as having said that the only
thing that Cipolla did out of the ordinary in Michigan was
put an M&M in front of each door, saying, "ET was here."
No lad was touched in the process of him making sport of
the ET movie..

Concerning Thompson asking for Saint Vincent de Paul dollars to
pay her rent, didn't she ever hear of HUD and welfare?

This is confusing, especially in light of the fact that she did admit
in her web log that she was getting a humble measure of aid from
the parish where Cipolla was assigned.  Okay then, she beseeches
the church for money.  Uhhhhm, what about welfare, food stamps,
and Section 8 housing vouchers, as well as child support payments
and even alimony?  Add energy and heating assistance.

 And why couldn't she find work in a city that was the king of steel,
where steel workers had ample disposal income to buy the various
products and services for sale throughout the city?  Did she never
hear of daycare?  Was she merely lazy?  Did she have a criminal
record?  Was she declared mentally incompetent?  Where was this
guy whom she said intermittently returned to her life?  When you
analyze the whole scenario, her presence at that parish was bizarre
at the threshold ... at the outset ... from the beginning.

In fact, Diane Thompson's two sons never accused Cipolla of molesta-
tion in any public forum, and we don't know what they aid to hte po-
lice in 1978.  Molested youth eventually come forth, even as John Does
in civil cases and in criminal prosecutions.  Those two gentlemen remain
invisible & silent. Why?

The fact that she didn't file a private criminal complaint for being harassed,
vandalized, and tampered-with is the reason why she is plausibly believed
to be a pathological liar.

As I previously mentioned, she was also thought to have been a deliberate
liar in her claim of having been harassed into dropping the case, because
the protective instinct of a mother is so great that not even the pope could
get a mom whose child was actually molested to drop charges.  The fact
that Thompson gave in so quickly was the red flag in the minds of a couple
people with whom I spoke.  After all, this is a woman who was endlessly
harassing me, until I cut off her ability to send me those emails.

None the less, I still more evidence.  I need to talk to Diane's two sons.

Don't you think that it's quite strange that they have been entirely invis-
ible throughout this entire period.  I am assuming that what I wrote about
Thompson is regarded as insults tossed into her face, even though the in-
tention was to show that Wuerl and Ann Rodgers used a surrogate liar to
make Wuerl look caring and protective.  Therefore, one would assume
that the woman's two sons would be outraged and in my face, talking to
me with gritted teeth, if not physically taking swings at me ... with a base-
ball bat in each one's hands.  But, they have been entirely invisible and
unheard.  There is some very con artsy about that picture, too.

Cipolla's testimony of the August 28 hearing goes as follows:

He said that he went to the hearing with his pastor, only to hear the magi-
strate say,  "She dropped the charges."  Then, within a shorr time span,
the same judge allegedly said to Cipolla:

                            "Watch out who you try to help."

(Proper English would be:  "Beware of whom you chose to help."

                                         Then Cipolla left,
                            according to Cipolla's testimony.

I'm tired of this Diane Thompson atuff, but I made a promise.  I would
like to end this research now and make the correct conclusion with effec-
tive evidence.  Please help, especially if you can explain to me the 1978
process of the SUMMARY NOTICE:

The two Cipolla-related news articles pertaining to 1978 were too vague
to decipher, in relation to today's language on the same subject.  Today, a
person files a private criminal complaint at the local magistrate's office
of the proper jurisdiction.  The complaint is then assigned to an assistant
DA, for investigation.  The assistant DA then approves of the complaint
or he/she doesn't do so.

If the complaint is approved, then a notice is sent to the magistrate's office
and the clerks there "issue process," beginning with a warrant for the accus-
ed person's arrest.

If the complaint is NOT approved, then notice of denial is sent to the magi-
strate, anyway.  The complainant then has the option of filing an appeal in
the PA Court of Common Pleas, asking the court to review the complaint
and to order the issuing of process.

In the August 1, 1978 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the article refer-
ring to Anthony Cipolla stated that the police served him with a SUMMARY
NOTICE.  The accusation pertained to only one alleged event in July, and
a hearing on the matter was scheduled for August 28th of that same year.
There was NO report of Cipolla being taken into custody, aka arrested.
And there most certainly was NOT mention of an arraignment or bail.

The pending charges were 1} corrupting the morals of a minor & 2} indecent
assault.  That was it.  No details into the procedural aspect of the case were
given.  None the less, being that Cipolla was not arraigned meant that he was
not in the criminal court system.  He was still in the inquest phase of his case.
Once again, for those of you who gossip, keep in mind that the news article
did NOT state that Anthony Cipolla was arrested.  He was simply served with
a notice and a court appearance date, as if he were being sued in civil court.
However, the pending charges were NOT civil court issues.  They involved
prison time.

Then, the August 29, 1978 edition of the same Post Gazette had an equally
short article that was too vague to decipher.  It simply stated that the Chief
Magistrate of City Courts dismissed the pending charges:against Cipolla,
because  the mother "refused to prosecute."   Apparently Thompson did
not show up for the hearing.  But, I need more details to this.

"... because she refused to prosecute.:  What did that phrase mean? What did
it mean light of the fact that she is such an obsessive bully who doesn't back-
down to anyone?  What is for sure is that the narration she described in the
October 13, 1995 edition of the Post Gazette was filled with easily proven
lies ... even with contradictions of what she said at other times?

In the name of truth, justice, and the American way, can somebody please
tell me what the Hell happened in 1978?  Can somebody give me the truth?
Please come forth, even if it's to be in confidentiality and secrecy.  I can
dress up like Humphrey Bogart and meet you under one of Pittsburgh's
446 bridges.

Technically, only the prosecutor does any prosecution, and even if a mom
dismisses her own private criminal complaint, the prosecutor can pick up
the ball and start running with it, in terms of doing the filing of charges.
Even a grand jury could have been convened and intervened in Cipolla's
1978 case which never made to the status of a case.

Yes, it sounds as if she stepped-back, because she didn't want to get caught
contradicting herself.  After all, she is a complete liar.  But, writing her off
as a liar still doesn't answer the question convincingly.  Why did she back-
down?  I need more than circumstantial evidence and her history of being
a pathological liar on this one.  Something is wrong here.  Something does
not check-out in this August 28 default.

The way she described the 1978 event was a fact-checked lie.  But, there
is something too disturbing about this scenario, for anyone researching it
to chalk it off to an unstable liar who ever-so-coincidentially filed against
Cipolla when she was desperate for rent money and was told that the Saint
Vincent de Paul Society didn't have the money to spare on her.  If it turns
out to be the case, then fine.  But, I need more evidence.

There was no credibility in Thompson overly theatrical presentation, as
was published in October of 1995.   So, we have to look elsewhere.

And remember, we also know that she's a liar in what she stated about me,
being that she never spoke with me, never got a letter from me, never saw
me act in public or in private, etc.  She didn't address my writings.  She
simply attacked my character from A to Z, mocking me, damning me,
disrespecting someone close to me who wasn't even in the fight, as a
diversionary tactic designed to make you so repelled of me that you
would refuse to read my writings or view my photography works.
Well, that was a couple million pageviews, ago.  I haven't gotten
the torch and pitchfork lynch mob at my door, yet.

Instead of mocking me, marketing fear of me, and playing expert psycho-
logist, all that she had to do was disprove my writings.  She never produced
one shred of evidence and she brought forth no corroborative witnesses.
This begs the question:  Where are her two sons?

Keep in mind that this newspaper's language is nothing more than colloquial
English, and the 1978 articles definitely weren't law school tutorials.

There is still unfinished business in this case, as to convincingly ascertain, be-
yond all reasonable doubt what the truth actually was.  Of course, those people
with deeply imprinted prejudices need to be put aside, because they are not at
all unbiased.  There are people who want priests dead, per se.  And the New
Jersey Conspiracy Theory Brawler wants to see Cipolla buried in four yards
of concrete, simply because he dyed his hair and squirmed at the mention of
the name of the cleric who destroyed his life.  Let only the unbiased come
forth, simply for the sake of what is right, descent, and honest.

Thus far, all evidence and corroboration gathered points to the innocence of
Anthony Cipolla.  But, I'm not satisfied.  Diane Thompson is an unmitigated
liar, without doubt.  But, I need more evidence, observations, witness corro-
boration on this matter to regard this case as closed in the Court of Public
Opinion and ready for a report to the Papal Nuncio.

Can anyone get Diane Thompson's two sons to speak with me.  Even if they
do, it doesn't guarantee that I will feel convinced of my findings.  What ac-
tually did happen that made her back-down in August of 1978?  Her being
caught lying?  Okay.  I'll accept this if I can get more facts on the issue.
Her description of what happened didn't happen, at least the way in
which she described.

If Thompson weren't such an immature brat who spent most of her time
attacking me ad hominid, all the while marketing fear of me so much
that it seemed that she was trying to get me criminally indicted, I could
have spoken with her at length and in detail and found the truth.  The
problem is that Thompson has been repeatedly tested and found to
only tell lies.

As far as goes Tim Bendig, him being a con artist is fully ascertained,
being that he tried to con me more than once.  Originally, he did so by
making me think that I was going to be criminally indicted for calling
him  a liar in a public forum, when such a thing is addressed in civil
court where there are not jail cells outside of those reserved for con-
tempt of court charges.  Then Bendig tried to con me by acting like
the nicest guy in the world.  In the end still came the lies ... from
Bendig's mouth.  So, I have to reconstruct what actually was go-
ing on in the Diane Thompson segment of this case.  It's like a
pea and shell game, where more shells are added.

Oh, and concerning any former child star who made or still makes money
off of Bendig's services, such a person is locked in a conflict of interest
and must be dismissed as a credible witness.

None the less, is there anyone out there with a sense of maturity and honesty
who can help find the final answers to this case?   Even giving me a tutorial
on how the SUMMARY NOTICE process worked in 1978 would be mag-
nanimously helpful.  So, if you believe in Truth, Justice, and the American
Way ... or if you simply have a sense of compassion in your heart and can
answer my final questions, please do so.  724-709-4716