September 17, 2017

The Body Sore Allegation that adds to the farcical nature of the Cipolla Case: Sores are too painful for any priest to molest anyone.

Pittsburgh's Fort Pitt Bridge
There are things I have not yet made known to the public.  .Of course, there are
several pieces of information that are to remain inviolably confidential.  In fact,
there are names that are to remain equally confidential.    However, there are
things that don't have the seal of confidentiality which I have not yet mentioned.

Here's an example of something not yet disclosed:

Diane Thompson claimed to a person who shall remain unnamed that Tucker
(Tommy) told her that Cipolla had sores all over his body while allegedly be-
ing molested by Cipolla.  Got it?  Thompson claimed that Anthony Cipolla
molested Tucker while having sores all over his body, thereby making Ci-
polla look like a grotesque monster.  Ladies and Gentlemen, what's deadly
wrong with this picture?

ANS:  Find me one person who has sores all over his body and who does NOT
cringe and seethe in pain while making contact with another person's body.  In
addition, Cipolla was a young man at the man, only in his thirties and he wasn't
living in the sewers.  Neither was he bedridden to the point of getting bed sores.

Do you really believe that Cipolla had sores all over his body in the 1970s?  Do
you believe he had them in 1990s or at any other time.  If he had sores all over
his body, then he would have prominently have had them on his arms.  I and a
number of others saw him in short sleeves.  No sores all over his arms where
observed by me or anyone else who talked to me about Cipolla.

Find me pain-free sores.  If Cipolla had sores all over his body, that fact would
have been in Cipolla's defense.  None the less, Cipolla needed no defense and
no defense attorney, being that he was never arrested ... only given a Summary
Notice that was only signed by Diane Thompson.  The Post Gazette disseminat-
ed a major falsehood in claiming that Cipolla was arrested.  It told a bigger lie
in stating the Thompson was harassed into dropping charges that were never
filed in the first place.

There was a hearing scheduled where Thompson had to show due cause to have
"process issued upon Cipolla," where Thompson herself would literally be the
prosecutor.  This is the way of the private criminal complaint, as it was process-
ed in the 1970s, in Pennsylvania.  None the less, she withdrew her complaint be-
fore the hearing ... shortly before.  The "shortly before" part is the give-away the
facgt that she has NOT being harassed and put under pressure.  If she were being
harassed as she stated, and if the police looked the other way as she claimed, she
would have withdrawn her complaint almost immediately.  In reality, the police
would have hauled Cipolla into jail and a judge would have recognized him as
having violated the conditions of his bail ... his bonding.

Furthermore, if Cipolla's friends smashed her apartment windows as she theatrical-
ly claimed, her landlord would have bellowed at high volume.  The police would
have intervened, and the whole thing would have been front page news.  This is
especially true, because, earlier in 1978, the Pittsburgh police already arrested a
defrocked priest, for immoral actions with minor males.  News of a priest getting
out of hand would have made the front pages.

No law enforcement officer signed Diane Thompson's Summary Notice, because
law enforcement had no probable cause with which to prosecute Cipolla.  The ab-
sence of evidence is often the sign that no crime has been committed.  In as much,
if Diane Thompson's two sons would come forth and make public statements, we
can find out, once and for all, if they had ever claimed to have been molested by
Cipolla.

And remember ... remember ... remember:  Diane Thompson allegedly accused
yet another male of raping a daughter of hers.  This would mean that she claimed
that THREE of her children were raped.  Do you believe this is even possible?

All in all, Thompson's entire story is exaggeration after exaggeration, including
her claim that masonic attorney, Douglas Yauger dropped everything, boarded a
plane to Florida, and showed-up at Thompson door step within 24 hours after she
contacted him.  She claimed that he took a police arrest report, and it is 100% ab-
solutely proven that there never was a police arrest report, being that there was
only a Summary Notice solely signed by Diane Thompson involved.  She lied.
There was never a warrant for Cipolla's arrest.

Plus, plus, plus, with all of the medical insurance provided to priests in the 1970s,
don't you think that Cipolla would have gotten the best of medical care and had
the alleged skin sores eradicated or at least neutralized .. and therefore NOT have
sores all over his body?  In fact, don't you think that Thompson lied about being
told about the sores?

For the record, Cipolla was not afflicted with multiple body sores.  Plus, the alle-
gation, as was conveyed to me was done digitally, meaning that I have physical
evidence that the allegation was made to me.  I am NOT fabricating this.

That which actually happened was this:

Tim Bendig's lawyer, the legal counselor for the local masons, didn't have any-
thing on Cipolla that could stick.  Attorney Douglas Yauger was so desperate
for evidence against Cipolla that he motioned the court for a continuance, so
that he could "find additional witnesses."  Yauger found none and then used
them during the discovery process.  Yes, he did locate Diane Thompson, but
he merely said to the press that he "would like to have used her," for whatev-
er it was worth.   So, Yauger made a big deal out of one sore on Cipolla's arm.

Yauger made such a big deal of it that John Conte's assistant lawyer coached one
of the Cipolla witnesses to say at his deposition that the one sore on Cipolla's arm
came from a spider bite.

Now, how would the witness know how Cipolla got that one sore?  This parti-
cular witness was NOT a medical professional who treated Cipolla.  Secondly,
because of that lawyer coaching that one witness, the witness being coached
assumed that Cipolla was as guilty as sin.

That one witness then decided to do some investigating on his own, he said.
Well, all that he did was talk to Diane Thompson.  He did NOT seek to fact-
check anything she said, and he was so gullible that he believed her tale of
Cipolla having sores all over his body.  To this day,  he didn't sit back and
take note of the failure of plausibility in anything that Thompson claimed.
He didn't catch all of Thompson's contradictions.  This is why the circus
master, P.T. Barnum once said, "There's one born every minute."

Concerning that one sore, what was Yauger trying to do in mentioning it?
ANS:  He, in my opinion, wanted the jury to think that Cipolla might have
had AIDS.  That one sore might put the thought of an infected sexual maniac
into the minds of the civil court jury.  Well, it has been 20 years since the
discovery phase of the Bendig lawsuit, and neither Bendig nor Cipolla
manifested any signs of AIDS.

This obsession with one mere sore on an arm showed how desperate Bendig's
attorney was to find any evidence in support of his client ... of his client who
lied to me four times in a row in a matter of minutes.


Now, do you know what it's like to give a deposition?  I do.  It involved a case
that had nothing to do with any bishop, priest, or church employee.  It was a
Title 42 federal civil rights case.  My deposition was for the plaintiff party.

In that case, the defendant didn't have a chance.  Thus, I did NOT need to be
coached as to what to say.  After all, I was the one with the needed info in my
memory bank, like in a computer's data base.  I knew exactly what to say, with-
out any coach.  Well . . .

During the deposition, it got to the point where I almost cried out, "Don't you tell
me when to shut up," to the attorney sitting next to me.  You see, during the depo-
sition, the lawyer sitting next to me kept hitting me on the knee with his knee, in
order to get me to stop talking during certain answers.  There was no need to keep
silent , because the adversary in this cause had no defense.  I kept talking longer
than he wanted me to speak, and the guy let me know.  There was nothing to hide,
even though the attorney was acting as if there was.  None the less, the defendant's
insurance company promptly offered an out of court settlement, not after my depo-
sition, but after one of the two defendant's deposition.

This one witness for Cipolla should have asked others if lawyers coach witnesses
as a matter of habit. Someone needed to say to this offended witness, "Welcome to
the American legal system, kid.   It's not what you see on TV."  The court system is
a money-making industry.  It's a system, and not a vocation.

Remember that Thompson did NOT accuse Cipolla of any wrongdoing until Ci-
polla told her that the Saint Vincent de Paul Society did NOT have the money to
pay Diane Thompson's rent.

Now watch . . .

Then came another witness who spent time in Michigan with Cipolla and Tim
Bendig and who said that nothing suspicious between the two ever happened,
as well as having stated that Cipolla never tried to molest him.  Well, that par-
ticular witness said that he was NEVER coached by any lawyer on John Con-
te's staff.

For those unaware, John Conte was Cipolla's defense attorney in the Bendig law-
suit.  He charged Cipolla  $25,000 for his law firm's services.  That lawyer was
my neighbor for years.  I even went to Canada, on vacation, with John Conte's
son.  I went to the same schools as did his children, including his son.  I knew
the Conte family for years ... for decades.


One more thing:  Why would Attorney John Conte's assistant act as if Cipolla were
guilty?  ANS:  It was because the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stated that Cipolla was ar-
rested for molestation back in 1978, and because Americans did NOT have ready
access to newspaper archives at that time.  If you go to the Post Gazette archives,
you will find that, in 1978, Cipolla was NEVER arrested.  He was merely served
a SUMMARY NOTICE which instructed him to show-up for a hearing 28 days
hence.

In review:

The Summary Notice was only signed by Diane Thompson, meaning that neith-
er the police nor the DA nor the State Attorneys General office had any evidence
against Cipolla to warrant prosecution of him.  Thompson was taking it upon her-
self to be the prosecutor of the case, but needed the City Court judge's approval for
her to proceed, in her private criminal complaint.  Thompson withdrew her private
criminal complaint before the hearing.

According to Cipolla, after the judge told him that Thompson dropped the case, the
same judge said, "Watch you who you try to help."  And of course, simply from what
Thompson wrote about me ... about a person 900 miles away from her and who held
three simultaneous security clearances ... she is a pathological liar.  John Conte called
her an "adroit liar."

She alleged that Tucker (aka Tommy and now in his 40s) is dysfunctional and that
the dysfunctionality was caused by Cipolla.  She also stated that she is raising a 12
and 14 year old, both of whom are Tucker's children.  Wooo.  Stop.  If Tucker is so
so dysfunctional from molestation, then how did he manage to beget two children?

None the less, how much government funding does she get for these two youths,
under the claim that their father was made dysfunctional by molestation?  If there
is any government check involved under such a claim, then she gets into severe
legal trouble if it is found that her son was never molested.  All in all, lie after lie
after lie has been found to come from Diane Thompson,   How would you like it
if she incessantly lied about you?