September 08, 2016

In re: Diane Thompson's claim that her two sons were deposed in Florida, while she drove to Pennsylvania to be deposed.

I post the line itemization of Thompson's fact-checked falsehoods, as a way
of keeping track of them, without losing the paperwork or digital file detai-
ling them.  In construction, there is a ton of paperwork to keep organized,
and something like Diane Thompson's fact-checked allegation results can
get lost in this desk or on the drafting board behind me.  So, they get put
online, for safekeeping purposes.

Let us resume:

In her 2015 online posts, Diane Thompson alleged that she contacted the
Attorney Douglas Yauger known for his services to the Masonic guilds,
and that this was the first time Yauger ever heard of the 1978 accusations
leveled against the late Anthony Cipolla.

Thompson said that the accusations resulted in an arrest.  She furthermore
stated that her proof was a police report that had marked on it the badge
numbers of the arresting officers.  At this point, know that police reports
do NOT contain the badge numbers of police officers.  Neither do the
Arrest Affidavits or police officers' Complainant Affidavits.  An initial
police report will contain a CCR number, for referencing purposes.  So,
at the outset, Diane Thompson was caught lying.

Then Thompson went on to state that Yauger instantly dropped everything
he was doing, took a flight to Eastern Florida and knocked on Thompson's
door within 24 hrs after she telephoned him.  She claimed that this occurred
in October of 1992.  Thus, her allegation is that Bendig's law team had no
idea that Anthony Cipolla was arrested for molestation for three and a half
years.  Plus, she stated that time was running out and that Yauger had to go
to Florida immediately.

Thompson finally stated that her two sons were deposed at a law firm's
office located at Merritt Island, as if they were too young to travel.  She
also stated that she drove up to Pittsburgh, at her own expense, and then
made a deposition for the Bendig lawsuit there.

The responses:

1}  As was previously stated, Cipolla was NEVER arrested or indicted.

At the beginning of August 1978, he was served (handed) a copy of a
SUMMARY NOTICE signed solely be Diane Thompson.  Cipolla was
NOT put in handcuffs.  He was simply told to attend an August 28th
hearing at the City Court venue.  By that time, Thompson withdrew
her private criminal complaint.  That complaint did NOT constitute
an indictment.

Until a judge puts his signature on an  affidavit --- or a complaint ---
there has been no indictment and no "issuing of the process of  the
law."  Thus, there was nothing to expunge in the 1978 accusations
of Diane Thompson. The case never reached the stage of "issuing

Thompson claimed that the Cipolla arrest of 1978 (which never happen-
ed, in the first place) was expunged by the police.  Uhhhhm, the expunge-
ment process begins at the DA's officer and NOT at any police office.

2} On November 22, 1988 ... the 25th anniversary of the JFK assassina-
tion ... the Post Gazette erroneously reported that Cipolla was arrested
in 1978.  Thus, Thompson dropped NO bombshell over the telephone
in  1992.  That which she claimed to be the newest of news was old\
news. erroneously reported as such.  Douglas Yauger had access to
the Pittsburgh Post Gazette articles, including the November 22,
1988 article.  Thus, Thompson lied again.

3} Do you really believe that Yauger dropped everything, in order to be
in Florida within 24 hours after a phone call?  Firstly,  the trial was still
five calendar months away.  Plus, there is no such thing as a police re-
port "with the badge numbers of the arresting officers" or any other
officer.  There is, instead, the number of the court of jurisdiction on
affidavits police submit to judges, for the sake of "issuing process,"
thereby indicting the accused..  Thompsonmight have succeeded in
deceiving us all, if she used the legal term, "Arrest Warrant" and then
stated that it was served by a constable.

4} In stating that her two sons were deposed in Florida, for the sake of
the Bendig lawsuit ... which they were NOT deposed at all ... Thompson
she inferred that her sons were too young to drive to Pennsylvania with
her, to be deposed.  Well, a person can be easily deceived into thinking
that her sons were still 8 and 12 years old at the time.  In 1992, they were
exactly or approximately 22 and 26 years old.  Thus, there were a lot more
able to travel long distances than Thompson.

Of course, her other fatal error was in her stating that she went to her deposi-
tion .... which never existed, in the first place ... at her own expense.  The law
requires that each witness to be compensated for all travel, lodging, and food

Plus, she did NOT mention that an attorney for Cipolla was at her two sons'
imaginary deposition.  Unless attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant are
present, there is no deposition.

In addition, she could have been deposed long distance, and did NOT have
to go to Pittsburgh.  But, this is a moot point, being that there was NO Diane
Thompson deposition reported to exist in the file of depositions in the Tim
Bendig lawsuit.  If there were a Thompson deposition, then it's news to me.
If you have a copy, you can always send a copy or digital file to me.

Plus, Douglas Yauger told the press that he located Thompson, while keep-
ing her name concealed, stating that he would like to have used her, "for
whatever value it had."  This means that he did not yet employ the use of
her as witness.  The contradiction to this is that Wuerl did NOT settle the
case out of court until the weekend before jury selection.  This means that
all depositions were already taken.  This means that the witness list was
already written.

Again, if I am in error, and if there actually was a Diane Thompson deposi-
tion taken, simply send my a digital copy of it.

Ironically, Yauger never mentioned that he would like to have used the
testimony of her two sons.  They were adults in 1992, and they are the
ones said to have been molested.  So, why ignore the main sources who
could tell the world once and for all if whether or not Cipolla molested
them ... or if Diane Thompson fabricated the whole story.

To this day, we do NOT know what they claimed or not claimed to have
happened.  They need to come forth and make public statements.  Do they
claim to have been molested?  Did they claim so in 1978?  Or did they not
claim to have been molested and their mother make-up the entire story?

Fact-checking repeatedly proved her to be a liar.  Even that which she wrote
about me, in stating that I do not exist, but am Cipolla in disguise, was a de-
liberate lie.  This is because she sent me a series of harassing emails, fully
knowing that I existed.

It's interesting that the Post Gazette sought to interview her and NOT her two
sons and NOT the two (imaginary) police officers who signed (the imaginary)
police report which contained their (imaginary) badge numbers.  The Post Ga-
zette writers never quoted this police report which was supposed to have con-
tained the badge numbers of two officers,, even though police reports instead
contain a CCR number, and police affidavits contain the number of the court
of jurisdiction.  The Post Gazette didn't even seek to interview anyone from
the DA's office who served in 1978.  Only Diane Thompson was consulted.
That was the dead give-away.  Think!!!   Don't be so gullible.