4/16/2008 Emergency Petition for Relief
Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Expression. Didn't they cover that in elementary school? in high school? in college? Surely the topic had to have been raised to those who attended law school.
A classic argument for protecting freedom of speech as a
fundamental right is that it
is essential for the discovery of truth.
Perhaps that explains a petition with misinformation, chaotic
sentence structure, fraudulent statements and flawed logic.
When discussing this petition while trying to hire a lawyer
recently, the lawyer kept indicating to me that I had it wrong.
That I was misreading the document. That what I was telling
him was crazy. LOL! Welcome to my nightmare.
A place where the adjective crazy is overused. Where one must
accept that the situation is crazy, NOT the
individual dealing with the craziness.
It would seem that someone has an unlimited budget for legal fees - or perhaps is receiving services at a substantially reduced rate. Unless the rate is commensurate with the knowledge, reputation and experience of undersigned legal counsel in the area of matrimonial law, in which case a truthful statement might have been accidentally included in this petition. An obvious oversight.
- THIS SECTION OF THE WEB SITE IS DEDICATED TO YOU AND YOUR TWISTED JURISPRUDENCE. -
I'm sure you are too proud to display your handiwork, permit me to highlight your remarkable efforts.
| Entire paragraphs and sections of petitions previously submitted have been recycled in their original format with no regard to prior indications that they were false, indicated as false, and documented as false. |
What is gained with this type of omission?
(They may read the document and notice the number in the Exhibit.)
#4 As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Denied as stated. Petitioner voluntarily vacated the marital residence on May 23, 2007, after having established residence in a two bedroom, 1 bath carriage house located on the property owned by her business partner, Kate Schaeffer, where she is living Rent free. On May 25, 2007, Petitioner filed for Divorce. Her divorce complaint does not contain a count for exclusive possession of the marital residence. In addition, when she vacated the marital residence, Petitioner took all her personal belongings with her and it was agreed that respondent, who has no other place to go, would remain in the marital residence.
#5 As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Denied. It is believed and therefore averred that Petitioner had been planning her divorce and move from the marital residence since at least January 2007, when she began systematically withdrawing funds from the parties’ joint accounts and opened accounts in her name alone, joint accounts opened with the parties’ son and joint accounts opened with her parents (all of which occurred on January 8 and 9, 2007). The incidents alleged as the reason Petitioner was unable to continue to reside in the marital residence occurred at the end of May, when Respondent discovered what Petitioner had been doing.
A) As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Denied as stated. I never stole anything from my wife's purse.
B) As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Denied as stated. The day planner is a wealth of information. I
only wish I knew to look for the surveillance software details.
C) As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Denied. I secure the laptop as it had a considerable amount of financial account information and if lost or stolen could have resulted in theft and identity theft.
D) As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Denied. How can you take an event that happened to me, and present it as happening to you? She closed the bank account and wondered why the debit card stopped working. Simple cause and effect.
E) As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Denied. It did make it a little easier to find out about all of her bank accounts by reviewing the transactions in the accounts I knew about. She should tell the tale about the Sheriff and the $5000 fine for taking checkbooks.
F) DENIED. NOW you indicate I confiscated the email account, in August 2007 I closed it. Perhaps if you told the truth, presented the facts, and backed up your allegations you wouldn't look so stupid.It did make it a little easier to find out about all of her bank accounts by reviewing the transactions in the accounts I knew about. She should tell the tale about the Sheriff and the $5000 fine for taking checkbooks.
Why do they even bother to sign the forms and include the Pa C.S. Section 4904 paragraph???
G) As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Denied. Do you realize that the lies you are swearing to are contradicted by the telephone records? And I have the telephone records?
6A) As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Get the quote correct otherwise it will look like another lie. LOL, it's not like it matters to you that it's all lies, your lawyer writes it down, you sign it, and they won't prosecute for the falsification of sworn documents.
Maybe when you hit 10, 25, 50, 100 the Judge would consider marking the perjury
milestones with a penalty?
6B) As previously indicated in Respondent’s response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition dated August 13, 2007…
Do the lies ever stop in this petition? Produce the phone records, you can't indicate that i am saying things to the kids WHEN YOU WON'T LET THEM COMMUNICATE WITH ME.
6C) Admitted with qualification. The reward, which has not yet been offered or published, was available to anyone who could provide information which lead to the prosecution of the person, or persons responsible for the illegal surveillance. The text message was an update with regard to the status of the investigation into the surveillance software.
6D) Denied. The information presented on the web site includes some divorce issues, but is focused on the illegal surveillance software and the chaos caused by it use.
6E) Denied. Denied. The website does not appeal for assistance in the Divorce. There is little information regarding the divorce as there has been no activity with regard to the divorce since November 28, 2007.
She is still trying to pretend this is about divorce, and she better because it
makes people forgive her bad behavior, and her illegal actions, and the illegal
actions of her friends also.
Denied. Respondent uses his web site to communicate with his clients, and advertise his services, demonstrate the diversity of his resume, and additionally as a remote location for storage of information related to the continuous, chaotic and unnecessary legal actions of the Petitioner.
The cast and crew of Jesus Christ Superstar numbers over 100 people and presents an opportunity to communicate and network with a wide variety of business professionals and business owners in the Southeastern Pennsylvania and Central New Jersey regions.
At the time of this document’s filing, $2000 had been paid towards Child Support. Since that date an additional $5000 has been paid towards the balance. The Child Support Order is based on incomplete and fraudulent information provided by Petitioner and her attorney. It is the subject of an Appeal.
Since September 2007, when savings were exhausted, respondent has borrowed over $40,000 from family to maintain the residence and pay a mortgage of over $2500/month for which Petitioner is also 50% responsible but does not contribute. Respondent has no regular source of income.
| My Lawyer said, "it would hinder you financially." On September 14, 2007 at 4:54 PM during a phone conversation Respondent asked Petitioner why she sought Child Support at the current time as Custody had not yet been worked out and there was no reason to believe that custody would not be shared equally. Petitioner indicated that her attorney had informed her that “it would hinder you financially.” Those words clearly and accurately summarize the motive for every action of Petitioner since planning for ‘divorce’. |
Denied. The information presented on the web site includes some divorce issues, but is focused on the illegal surveillance software and the chaos caused by it use.
It would appear that this petition filed in an attempt to keep the situation confidential was filed electronically.
It is clearly indicated in the instructions for electronic filing that
the system should NOT be used for filing petitions or responses of a confidential nature.
When you petitioning with the haste of Angst & Angst,
you don't waste time with verification of facts;
you disregard the liabilities of PA CS 4904;
you dismiss basic rights granted by the US
Constitution;
you don't have time for the rules for the electronic filing system.
