January 05, 2017

More of the Blatant falsehoods in the Engel article and the point to its importance.

Written during the second most shortest day of the year.
Let's continue:

Quick Background for those new here

Concerning the Anthony Cipolla 1978 Case, a female writer who identifies her-
self with a man's first name accused then-Bishop Vincent Leonard (of Pittsburgh)
and then-District Attorney Robert Colville of criminal conduct.  She asserted with
full confidence that Colville and Leonard provided the needed harassment, witness
tampering,  and intimidation tactics that would get Diane Thompson to drop charges.

Now,  that's very serious stuff, to the point of it being lawsuit material.  However,
it's bull crap, being that no civilian can drop charges, and therefore, harassing any
civilian will not get charges dropped.  It will only get the harasser in handcuffs.

I've previously explained how the fiction TV show concept of civilians "press-
ing charges and dropping them" is bull crap in the American legal system.  In
fact, a number of law firms explain this online, for the sake of  laymen who are
not familiar with legal procedure in America.  Therefore, Randy Engel was com-
pletely erroneous in her narration, to the point of insulting the intelligence of any
American versed in law and experienced in processing any feature of law, in the
United States.  She proved herself to be a complete pretender.

Concerning this Cipolla Case, I am more than willing to declare Anthony Cipolla
a molester.  But, the articles and emails condemning him were fact-checked and
found to contain numerous falsehoods and contradictions-of-past-testimony, as
well as the complete misunderstanding of American criminal procedure.

Plus, no evidence against Cipolla has ever been produced.  In addition, Diane
Thompson was proven to be a serial liar, even in claiming that I was Anthony
Cipolla in disguise and other things that would have gotten a person with sub-
stantial money dragged into court by me,as a defendant in a civil action.

In additon:

Tim Bendig was found to be a liar by me personally and others who knew
him on a personal basis.  Bendig was described as one who "lies 90% of the
time."  Others simply called him a pathological liar.  One called him a Huck
Finn, and another called him a con artist.  Engel bought his story, proving
the Barnum axiom, "There's one born every minute."
The Irony:  The Engel Article which proves that she knows nothing
about American law was published in Renew America Magazine
Engel's Narration of Legal Procedure ... which is blatantly NOT the
operating procedure of the Sovereign State of Pennsylvania and there-
fore didn't happen in the Cipolla Case

Randy Engel, in her damning Nov 2016 articles, asserted that Anthony Cipolla
was summoned to City Court --- at Police Station #1 --- after having been arrest-
ed and charged with molestation.   Observe how this is completely false, in that
it's not standard or even extra-special operating procedure in Pennsylvania.  In
fact, observe how, in her self-righteous, Church-Lady arrogance, Engel did no-
thing more than prove herself to be a pretender who apparently knows nothing
about law, to the point of making herself a self-inflicted buffoon in the process:

FIRSTLY,  in all reality, a defendant in the Pennsylvania Criminal Court System
is NEVER arraigned in a police station --- not even in the small-towns and rural
venues of the Keystone State.  The reality is that the defendant ... in small-town
venues ... is arraigned at the MUNICIPAL BUILDING, where within is often a
room or two is reserved for police work.  I have done construction work at such
municipal buildings, on the police sectors of said buildings.

All in all, take away the police station part of a municipal building, and the de-
fendant still gets arraigned there.  Thus, where did Engel come-off stating that
Cipolla was arraigned at Police Station #1, when city dweller's are arraigned
at the Allegheny County Courthouse?  However, most often a defendant is ar-
raigned at a Pennsylvania magistrate's office.  It depends if you're in the city
or not.  It depends where the alleged crime occurred.

SECONDLY, if Cipolla were arraigned in City Court, then the title of the case
against him would have been The City of Pittsburgh vs Cipolla.  Such a thing
is non-existent, because the City of Pittsburgh is NOT a sovereign entity that
has the constitutional right to perform the due-process which takes a person's
freedom from him/her.  Only a sovereign state can prosecute a person.  There-
fore, Cipolla would only have been arraigned at a STATE COURT of the pro-
per jurisdiction, and NOT at a CITY COURT.   Thus, Engel is the conveyer
of bull crap who knows nothing about law.  Don't waste your time with her.

In Pennsylvania, the proper jurisdictions are divided into COUNTIES.  Thus,
Antony Cipolla would have been arraigned in the Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas, in the Allegheny County Courthouse.  Engel got her narration
completely wrong.  She got a lot of other things wrong in her damning articles
that annihilate Cipolla to the depths of Hell.

So that you'll understand 

When a person is arrested and charged in the State of Pennsylvania, he is arrested
and charged BY the Sovereign State of Pennsylvania.  Therefore, all  proceedings
against the defendant are to be conducted in STATE COURT and NOT city court.

The fact that Cipolla was summoned to appear is City Court, after having been
served a Summary Notice, proves that Engel was wrong in stating that Cipolla
was arrested.  Cipolla was being put through the Private Criminal Complaint
Process, but was not yet arrested, being that the burden of proof to show due
cause was upon Diane Thompson.  She refused to appear at the August 28,
1978 hearing where she was to show due cause for convincing a judge into
"issuing process" upon Cipolla upon which he would then have officially
been arrested.  Thompson withdrew her criminal complaint and therefore
refused to  show due cause.  The question is why Thompson withdrew her

Now, she claimed that charges were already filed and that she was harassed
into dropping them.  NO civilian can drop charges in America.  With that be-
ing the case, how could Diane Thompson have been harassed into dropping
charges that were not yet filed?  Furthermore, only a judge can  drop charges,
as was previously explained.  Thus, the retaliation, harassment, and witness
tampering story must be declared the gross exaggeration of something else
that might have happened or else it must be declared a complete lie by which
Diane Thompson tricked Randy Engel into making a jackass out of herself.

There's a difference between telephone gossip and journalism.
Sometimes, you have to go to the depths, in person.
Concerning the jackass factor and the non-reality of assertions appearing 
in Engel's Nov 2016 articles, observe:

Engel told a falsehood in claiming that a "Tommy Thompson" was severely
injured at "the military base of Spartansburg SC in 1965, when there has not
been one there since 1945.

Engel also conveyed a falsehood when she said that Diane Thompson courage-
ously saved-up for the "$45 admission fee" for Frank Labieaux to go to an East-
ern Michigan Seminary's Summer Retreat, being that an individual who actually
did go to a retreat there paid Zero dollars and Zero cents to get admitted.

Plus, Engel thought that we were stupid enough to believe that young Tucker
was wearing a halo at the kitchen table while virtuously doing his homework
on July 30, 1978 ... during SUMMER VACATION when there was no school
and therefore no homework to be done.

Engel also contradicted allegations of Diane Thompson's as were published in
the October 13, 1995 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  Therefore, how are
we expected to believe anything that Engel wrote in her extremely damning Nov
2016 articles?  Do you really believe that a 70 year old man working at a conven-
ience store within the Pittsburgh city limits slapped young Tucker in the face for
accusing Cipolla of criminal conduct, even though  the names of Tucker & Diane
Thompson were NEVER revealed by the Post Gazette, and being that the accusa-
tions were never reported on TV or the radio.  So, how was this guy supposed to
know who accused Cipolla?

This type of thing is something that a person doesn't want to advertise to anyone.
So, Cipolla wouldn't have been rattling-on about it to anyone.  Moreover, mention
of this accusation was NEVER in the Church bulletin.  So, can you really believe
that a whole bunch of parishioners telephoned Diane Thompson, sent her damning
letters, etc, when the thing was NOT on TV news or on the radio or in the church
bulletin?  Even in the newspaper, it was a very short article that did NOT mention
Diane Thompson or Tucker by name?

One might suspect that Cipolla went forth with harassing her, so that she would
not show up at the August 28, 1978 hearing.  Well, he would have done this if
there were compelling evidence to indict him.  HOWEVER, if compelling evi-
dence existed, then the police would have filed a POLICE CRIMINAL COM-
PLAINT and then gotten a judge to sign it, upon which Cipolla would have
been in the criminal court system without having Thompson lift a finger.


Absorb into you mind how asinine is the presumption that only the adult victim
or minor victim's mother of the crime can "press charges."  What if the victim of
the crime was an adult murder victim?  Perhaps you would say, get the next of
kin to "press charges."  But, what if the family member did the murdering?  You
know there are a number of cases where family members did the murdering.
In America, police usually initiate the process that gets a person indicted, ar-
rested, arraigned, etc.

All in all

Engel simply believed whatever Diane Thompson and her conflict-of-interest
children said, even though a statement of Thompson's daughter contradicted
a statement of her mother.  Furthermore, Thompson was repeatedly caught
lying, and that fact did NOT stop Engel.  Plus, why didn't she think that the
children of Diane Thompson weren't coached by her.  Engel was never an
insurance adjuster, apparently, and she obviously was never in the construc-
tion industry.  She let herself be gullible.  None the less, there was a number
of contradictions in her article.

Engel simply believed whatever Tim Bendig said, without requiring Bendig
to provide evidence to support his damning allegations.  Yet, Tim Bendig is a
well-known pathological liar who lied to me four times in a matter of moments.

More than one person who personally knew Bendig contacted me to to let me
know that Bendig is nothing but a liar.  One even said that Bendig lies about
90% of the time.

Engel obsessively accentuated her assertion of conspiracy, harassment, and
intimidation to the point of making her three-part article a lawsuit waiting to
happen.  She happens to be one of those Latin Mass Only types who want to
prove that all that is Novus Ordo (the new Mass of 1967) is evil.

The other thing was her obsession is calling almost every bishop gay, includ-
ing Benedict XVI, on account of red shoes that were also worn by the very
pope who gave the order to have all gay priests turned over to civil authori-
ties during the era when homosexual actions literally got the death penalty.

None the less, I would ask ... via email ... Engel about this bishop and that
bishop.  In every case, she said, "He's gay."  I then asked her about a cardi-
nal whose cause for canonization is well underway.  He was a cardinal who
was said to be very moving.  In fact, a priest who would his confession once
said that this cardinal's sacramental confession was so moving that he was
almost in tears and was so moved that he was never quite the same.  Well,
concerning this very moving cardinal, Engel told me, "He's gay."  Okay
then, who isn't gay?  Isn't Engel going overboard with the accusations?

There's more.  I have to go, right now.