http://ourcriminaljusticesystem.blogspot.com/2018/02/better-presentation-of-what-allowed.html
My life since Kimberly Colangelo first walked into my business on lunch leave from the psych hospital up the street has been filled with anti-social to criminal types taking advantage of my state of mind, PTSD or PRESENT TSD...caused by Kimberly Colangelo, Charles Perkins (AKA SHADOW) John Simon and his wife Lori Simon PhD who used her school counseling degree to convince a police officer to have me arrested as my arrest was mandatory for the Simons to even have a chance at possessing my assets in a seasonal venue, a $60,000 building and much inventory. To clinch that promise by Kimberly Colangelo they had to make certain I was found GUILTY...which was hard to do, for them, as they felt the need to go so far "over the top" that the jury found them not credible, to say the least.
It is my opinion that the very revengeful Kimberly Colangelo, (she took her revenge on some people in general for what some one in specific did to her in early childhood.) alienated my mother's accountant from me. Janet Simpkinson used to be fond of me. Then all of a sudden when Laub and Colangelo got to Simpkinson I was doomed, apparently, to die impoverished.
That's when the questioned document my mother and a witness signed went bot "missing" and "never existed"
Early this year I posted the above link.
Days later the "document" in question SUDDENLY APPEARED....go figure...but ....my, my...something had gone amiss, I recognized when I looked over the document that Simpkinson first provided (and then Laub had in her possession before I had the magistrate put it in her evidence book). WHAT!....no signature of the witness! HOW did that happen?....hmm.... i believe there was a rumor that I knew NOTHING at all about how to contact the witness...no witness then why not NO WITNESS Signature, eh?
Now the question, for me anyway, was how the hell did the witness signature disappear like it never exited. Well, I had stimulated the NEVER EXISTING document to appear with a post (see above) surely I can make the signature speak to its whereabouts, no? I don't know yet...bit I am doing all that is necessary...until NOW....two forensic tests showed no answer. Process of elimination left only one more test to run and Patricia Dillon Laub Esq, Taft et al, Frost et al. the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, Frost Brown Todd, The Lebanon Citizens National Bank (that would include chess master's Bobbie Fisher's favorite caricature, Banker J.Shapiro) are demanding the magistrate to strike my motion for this one last forensic test. ...again...go figure....
NOW...might there be a reason for me to doubt the illustrious well respected names I just named?
Or might I just be, as accountant Janet Simpkinson told me, delusional?
If you look up The Exception Proves The Rule, you might as I was (an apparently many others), be a little confused.
On further contemplation I think I get it.
The rule..THE RULE HERE is that Patricia Dillon Laub Esq, Taft et al, Frost et al. the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, Frost Brown Todd, The Lebanon Citizens National Bank are EPUTABLE AND WELL RESPECTED.
The exception(s)....ME....my mother, Jonathan Zell Esq and his mother are THE EXCEPTIONS....that prove just how respectable and wonderful are Patricia Dillon Laub Esq, Taft et al, Frost et al. the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, Frost Brown Todd, and The Lebanon Citizens National Bank....hmm...maybe not ....on further research....have a go at this example;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
from link :"
"The exception proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning has been interpreted or misinterpreted in various ways. Its true definition, or at least original meaning, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule). A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."
An alternative explanation often encountered is that the word "prove" is used in the archaic sense of "test".[1] Thus, the saying does not mean that an exception demonstrates a rule to be true or to exist, but that it tests the rule. In this sense, it is usually used when an exception to a rule has been identified:[clarification needed] for example, Mutillidae are wasps without wings which cannot fly, and therefore are an exception that proves (tests) the rule that wasps fly. The explanation that "proves" really means "tests" is, however, considered false by some sources."
OK then, are we all CLEAR on this now?
The shock value of what these people are doing to a holocaust family see below links.
Courtesy of the Holocaust Museum
https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn517852
https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1003910
https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn517852
https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1003910
proves that blah blah blah et al are extremely reputable.
What, not enough exceptions?
Try these on for size
Actually I would prefer more ao that all the exceptions do become the new rule as Jonathan Zell Esq succinctly states in
Sorry about the formatting caused by copy and paste of the PDF in above link. Best to just read the three pages. They are enlightening of the reputation of Frost Brown Todd and Laub
___________________________________________________________________
Thus, if Mr. Goldwasser’s argument is accepted by the courts, then
Zell v. Frost Brown
Todd
is destined to become a landmark legal case, providing a roadmap for Ohio’s
attorneys on how to defeat claims
for legal malpractice committed during trial litigation
.
However, as an unintended side effect, the brand of Frost Brown To
dd might then
forever be tied to legal malpractice, and this case might also provide the necessary
impetus to get Ohio’s legislature to extend what is now the shortest statute of limitations
on legal malpractice in the nation.
______________________________________________-
Ok where are we?
Those who I have named are hoping the last forensic test for which I made a motion is struck down.
No witness signature on the DOCUMENT that purports to be that which my mother signed and the witness signed....paper was only produced after I posted
http://ourcriminaljusticesystem.blogspot.com/2018/02/better-presentation-of-what-allowed.htmlIt is that which you will find at the very end but before this....that made the paper that the journalist heard Patricia Dillon Laub Esq tell the magistrate, never existed, appear with a very lame excuse.;
"Four possibilities, Patricia Dillon Laub Esq THE WELL RESPECTED LAWYER.
Which is it? Pick one.
Actually.... the reality of the signed paper could be TWO of the four possibilities. That you shredded the original I have no doubt."
Actually I wonder if the original from which a forgery was likely made still exists. I have no idea. Too nefarious for my mind to navigate. Time will tell.
SO... Patricia Dillon Laub Esq THE WELL RESPECTED LAWYER.
WHICH IS IT THIS TIME? Are you truly concerned about me wasting time on a test that has, at most, a 7 day turn around when we have about three weeks to go....or are you concerned about a felony arrest for forgery to deprive an elderly person of the finances his mother dearly meant for him to recover from the HUGE financial loss caused by Kimberly Colangelo, Charles Perkins, John Simon and Lori Simon PhD in school counseling?
No comments:
Post a Comment