January 13, 2017

I had another conversation with yet another Pittsburgh Police Officer ...


. . .  concerning the accusations and narrations written by Randy Engel in her
        Nov/Dec 2016 article and in a certain October 1995 Pittsburgh Post Ga-
        zette article, as well as in Diane Thompson's own web log posts.  So, we
        once again begin:

Yes, I return to Pittsburgh every once-in-a-while, to do a piece or two of legal
work, or infrastructure maintenance work, or even paper-chase work.  In the
process, I get the opportunity to speak with a police officer here and then a
constable there.

This time, our main company email account was hacked and the hackers tricked a
bank into sending them account docs.  Now, we already underwent the forging and
cashing of our checks in 2016.  So, we have to take care of matters without much
delay.  Plus, it's tax paperwork time, meaning that I have limited time for other
things, such as writing.  So, this post is being done one step at a time.

None the less, I did have time to speak with a city police officer and it was confirm-
ed by him that the procedural aspect of everything I wrote on the Cipolla Case was
correct.  Therefore, It is 100% certain that Anthony Cipolla was NEVER arrested
and NEVER charged for any crime in 1978.  Therefore, there was no case to be ex-
punged, meaning that Engel told a whale's tale in her narration of a crooked DA
forcing a poor poor Diane Thompson into signing a sheet of paper that would get
an arrest that never happened in the first place expunged.

Ladies & Gentlemen, you need to understand that Diane Thompson performed a
tort offense known as Invasion of Privacy in a False Light, in her ever-changing
theatrical exaggeration of 1978 her private criminal complaint which did NOT
result in the arrest of Anthony Cipolla.  In as much, Randy Engel has become
nothing more than the Messenger of Lies, as well as an embarrassingly incom-
petent buffoon, on account of her arrogantly telling a tale of legal procedure that
the most remedial law student in Pennsylvania could easily recognize was a total'
fiction.

In addition, there is also the matter of responding to Engel's narration of physical
molestation, being that there are huge impediments to the credibility of those nar-
rations.   The great deception here is that people are lead to believe that Engel is
an expert of the various modes of child molestation.  Apparently she is not.  In
fact, I have alreadyposed a test question to the public, asking anyone to guess
what the #1 act upon a child that a child molester typically yearns to perform on
a child whom they lust.  There is one specific thing these guys yearn to do with
a child.  If Engel answered the test question, then no one informed me about it.
even at that, if she answered it, did she answer it correctly.  Plus, if she did not
answer it, then it shows that she's not as informed as she leads one to believe.

All in all, I am more than willing to declare Cipolla the most sick and twisted of
molesters who earned a place in the deepest recesses of Hell.  But, the damning
accusations against him, agaisnt former DA Bob Colville, and against former
bishop, Vincent Leonard keep getting fact-checked with the results turning out
to be falsehoods.



Now, the notably athletic African American off-duty officer who gave me his time
added one piece of procedural info, and then he told me the philosophy behind the
use of this  thing known as the Private Criminal Complaint.  It helped my under-
standing on the subject.

For those of you who are unaware, Cipolla accuser Diane Thompson and writer
Randy Engel  asserted that Diane Thompson "pressed  charges" against Cippolla
and got him arrested.  False.  Thompson was only a Stage One, in an attempt to get
Cipolla criminally indicted.  She then backed-out, shortly before she was to present
her "probable cause" before a judge, in the attempt to get the judge to sign the paper-
work which actually does constitute an indictment.

At the time of this writing, Friday the 13th, I am literally on call to be sent back to
Chicago, all the while needing to get income docs together and needing to give info
to law enforcement personnel in charge of bank fraud..  So, I don't have the luxury
of time, right now.  None the less,  I'll at least post something, even as unfinished
as it will be..  Throughout the day and/or night, I'll add to this post, sentence by
sentence.  And there is a significant amount to convey to you, the public.
A Fountain Truth Randy Engel is NOT.
Her stubbornness is now startling.
The Actual Starting Point:

It is 100% confirmed by yet another active officer of the law ... of the sovereign
State of Pennsylvania ... that the man formerly known as Father  Anthony Cipolla
was NEVER arrested and NEVER charged for any crime in 1978, as the less than
honest Randy Engel asserted, in her utter arrogance and ignorance.

The evidence is in the fact that, in late July of 1978, Cipolla was merely served
with a SUMMARY NOTICE that was only signed by Diane Thompson..  That
notice informed Anthony Cipolla that he was to appear in court, at a city court,
for a "probable cause hearing," by which Diane Thompson was to provide the
presiding judge with CORROBORATIVE WITNESS ACCOUNTS and/or the
evidence to show probable cause that a crime was committed by Cipolla upon
her son, Tucker.

When it came time for Thompspon to give the court the reason as to why Cipolla
needed to be indicted and arraigned, she backed-out.  Thompson then spent the
next 38 years committing what is known in legal parlance as "the invasion of
privacy in a FALSE LIGHT, providing  an ever-changing story of theatrical
exaggerations of an arrest and retaliation that even a remedial law student
could instantly disprove, simply by showing that the legal procedure de-
scribed by Thompson was utter fiction.

At this point, if there is a sheet of paper presented to you as "evidence" which
shows that criminal charges were filed against someone, and if  there is not
found at the bottom of the paper a court's jurisdiction number, and if there is
no judge's signature, approving that sheet of paper's content, then you are be-
ing conned by a liar.  That which Randty Engel did, in asserting to you that
proof of Cipolla's arrest existed was equivalent to her stating that a person's
application for admittance into Notre Dame University is\ proof that the per-
son made the Dean's list there.

I previously explained how the Private Criminal Complaint works.  I also ex-
plained, even by providing a law firm's link, that there is no such thing as a
private cirizen filing or dropping charges, thereby showing to you the elabor-
ately theatrical tale of Randy Engel and Diane Thompson was total fiction.

Two points that the police officer of the other night made and which need to be
mentioned are:

1} Firstly, very very very few private criminal complaints result in indictments.
The vast majority of complaints come from Police Affidavits.

Secondly, when you file a private criminal complaint, and if it does get approved,
you literally become a temporary -- deputized -- ad hoc ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY,.  Yet, the present District Attorney is still in charge of the case.

Plus, when you are at the stage when charges have not yet been filed, you can
walk away from the proceedings.  Thus, Diane Thompson dismissed her private
criminal complaint before any charges against Cipolla were filed.  Thus, Randy
Engel lied to you.

2} Furthermore, a police officer resorts to getting a private citizen to file a pri-
vate criminal complaint when the citizen sounds so out of wack that the officer
cannot make sense out of the allegation.

MORE SPECIFICALLY, the private criminal complaint is used the most often
when two people are accusing each other of a crime.  It's at that point where the
police officer, proverbially throws up his hands in exasperation and says, "Okay,
that's enough.  Tell it to the judge."  The police officer will even dictate what to
write on the form, just to get rid of the annoying citizen.

What does this mean?

Q:  When the police officer cannot make heads or tails out of what you are
saying, and if the police officer has zero evidence to substantiate anything
you have said, then he cleverly passes things on to the local magistrate who
will then pass things on to an assistant DA and make you his problem.

In other words, if the police see any viable evidence or hearing any witness
account that does not contradict known truth or other testimony, then the law
enforcement officer files his own affidavit and signs it, for the purpose of get-
ting a criminal indictment filed on the accused.  Thus, Diane Thompson had
zero evidence and zero credibility in her damning accusations against Cipolla,
and this resulted in the police having her sign a private criminal complaint.
Of course, her and Randy Engel lied about the actual procedure, claiming
that Cipolla was arrested in very little time after a young Tucker was taken
to a hospital.

TAKE NOTE:   Randy Engel confidentally asserted (without ever using the
lawsuit-prevention word, alleged, that Cipolla molested young Tucker on
July 25, 1978 and that Tucker was taken to the hospital pronto.  In the pro-
cess, the medical lab at the hospital found "traces" of the molestation lub-
ricant mentioned in Engel's writings.  This, according to Engel resulted in
the arrest of Anthony Cipolla three or so days later.  Got it.?

Let us review:  Engel boldly and assuredly asserted that, within one, two, or
three days of time, a lab inside a hospital found Trace Evidence that warrant-
ed Cipolla's arrest.  Woooooo doggie.  Stop here for a decisive moment.

Q:  What is deadly wrong with this picture, ladies and gentlemen?

ANS:  The average amount of time that it takes to process a "Trace Test" in
police forensic work is . . . 56 days.  Plus, such testing needs to be done in a
police forensic lab ...not in a hospital ... due to the phenomenon of "tainted
and/or contaminated evidence."   Such a thing is an element of FORENSIC
TESTING TURN AROUND TIME.  Thus, Engel told you yet another lie.

For info on Forensic Lab Turn Around Time, in order to show you how much
of a lie is the first two parts of Randy Engel's three part article,, refer to the
following:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0086.htm

I'm in construction.  We repeatedly encounter con artist after con artist after
liar after liar after fraud after fraud.   The experience of such a thing, alone,
gives you the instinct and reflex action to be a bloodhound in detecting a liar.
You then go through the fact-checking process and voila; your case becomes
viable for a court.

I was also in insurance, and you encounter con artists in that field, too.  I'm the
one  with the experience ... and the evidence.  Not Engel.  She's too sheltered.

Now, there is a lot more to convey to you.  I have to go, right now.  Be patient.
After all, I had to be.  I will return as soon as I can ... if there is a next-time.

Remember, I'm the one who has been in the city and  NOT in the
Podunk of Export PA, where telephone gossip replaces
investigative research and personal experience.