YOUR IP ADDRESS IS: 15.235.27.195

This site will rediret you to the Clown Page Paul Toepel the Liar in 420 seconds that’s 7 minutes for the impaired. CLICK HERE IF YOU DONT WANT TO WAIT. we suggest everything here 1st

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

This low level douche bag Paul Toepel decided to sue the elderly in the later years for $30,000,000 ($30 MILLION) only to drop the case!

To FIND OUT WHERE THE PEACEFUL PROTEST WILL TAKE PLACE CLICK HERE

In Good Shepherd Media’s Eyes Paul Toepel is as Low and Scummy as they come, like cum! We would NEVER WANT HIM LIVING AROUND US or OUR FAMILY or have such a LOW BALL HUMAN as a FRIEND. In our personal opinion he should be told by others including his neighbors what they think of a man like this.

Mind  you Paul Toepel, will SPIN IT, SPIN IT HE WILL, HIS WAY! and he will say HE DID NOTHING WRONG and ITS EVERYONE ELSE’s FAULT. Very Narcistic and sociopathic in our opinion but thats how charming manipulators work.

Public court filings show an attorney filed a $30,000,000 lawsuit that also named two elderly parents who were later dismissed. According to their counsel, defending those claims cost about $39,000. Scan to review the documents and decide for yourself. OPINION & PEACEFUL-ASSEMBLY NOTICE : This flyer expresses opinions based on disclosed facts and public records (see sources at the link). We support lawful, peaceful public assembly only—no trespassing, harassment, or disruption.

Paul Toepel has sued an 85 year old double stroke victim and a 78 year old stroke and aneurysm victim for $30,000,000 ($30 MILLION) only to drop the case costing these elderly well over $39,000 and pain of lossed time and stress.  THIS HARDWORKING ELDERLY COUPLE was FORCED to WASTE  over $39,000 to defend themselves against his WONDERFULLY CREATIVE ACCOUNTS OF HOW THINGS HAPPEN. ONLY TO REALIZE HE FUCKED UP AND DROPS THE CASE 

COME CHECK OUT A BOOK WITH GOOD MORALS SOLD ON AMAZON.COM THAT YOU CAN USE TO TEACH YOUR KIDS! CLICK BELOW TO ADD THIS BOOK TO YOU KINDLE SUBSCRIPTION FOR FREE! YOU HAVE TO SUBSCRIBE TO KINDLE TO GET IT FREE, AMAZON IS A NICE COMPANY! THANKS AMAZON! FOR PUSHING GOOD WHOLESOME BOOKS WITH AWESOME MESSAGES FOR OUR CHRISTIAN CHILDREN 

CLICK BOOK BELOW TO BE TAKEN TO AMAZON

Constitutional Protection for Leafleting and Peaceful Assembly

U.S. and California courts have long held that distributing flyers and organizing peaceful protests on matters of public concern are core First Amendment activities. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that “peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment” in traditional public forums such as streets and sidewalks supreme.justia.com. Similarly, in Lovell v. City of Griffin, the Court struck down any permit requirement for pamphlet distribution, noting that “the First Amendment… ‘necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets,’ which ‘have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty’” law.justia.com. And in Talley v. California the Court invalidated a ban on anonymous handbills, observing that “anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind…allowing criticism of oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all” constitution.congress.gov. In short, peaceful leafletting about public issues is highly protected speech supreme.justia.comlaw.justia.com.

California Law (First District and State Court)

California courts likewise extend broad protection to political leafletting and petitioning. Under Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution, even privately‑owned spaces open to the public (like shopping centers or plazas) can be treated as “public forums” for free speech. In Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (Cal. 1979), the California Supreme Court held that distributing petitions and soliciting signatures at a mall – activities analogous to leaflet distribution – is constitutionally protected speech. The court expressly “h[e]ld that…soliciting at a shopping center of signatures for a petition to the government is an activity protected by the California Constitution” law.justia.com. California courts have cited Pruneyard to underscore that visitors to generally‑accessible private property can engage in political speech if it is peaceful and not disruptive of the owner’s business.

Likewise, the California courts recognize a heavy presumption against any injunction limiting peaceful leafleting or protest. In Paradise Hills Associates v. Procel (Cal. Ct. App. 1991), neighbors had distributed leaflets accusing a homebuilder of “panic peddling” and posted large signs on model homes. The court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971), which involved peaceful pamphleteering about a broker’s practices. The court noted:

“The Court has often recognized that the activity of peaceful pamphleteering is a form of communication protected by the First Amendment…[T]hose practices were offensive to them…But so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability.”
Organization for a Better Austin, 402 U.S. at 419, quoted in Paradise Hills law.justia.com.

The Paradise Hills court further stressed that any prior restraint on such expression “comes to [the Court] with a ‘heavy presumption’ against its constitutional validity,” and no authority “support[s] the claim that the interest of an individual in being free from public criticism” justifies an injunction law.justia.com. In other words, California case law squarely protects non‑threatening leaflets aimed at informing neighbors about alleged wrongdoing.

For additional context, California legal guides note that even door‑to‑door leafleting in residential areas is generally allowed without special permits. For example, an ACLU handbook explains that “[n]o permits or advance notice can constitutionally be required for…leafleting on public sidewalks, or even door‑to‑door” aclunc.org. Thus, under California law – and especially for purely informational, peaceful protest leaflets – the freedom of speech and assembly strongly shields the activity.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

At the federal level, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed these principles:

• Leaflets and Pamphlets. As noted, Lovell v. Griffin (1938) and Schneider v. Irvington (1939) struck down broad bans on leaflet distribution, holding that simple handbilling in public is a fundamental right. These cases affirm that leaflets are protected “weapons in the defense of liberty” law.justia.com. Talley v. California (1960) extended this protection by invalidating an ordinance requiring the author’s identity on every handbill, precisely because anonymity in leafleting can be essential constitution.congress.gov.

• Peaceful Picketing and Public Forums. In United States v. Grace (1983), the Court struck down a total ban on expressive activity on the Supreme Court grounds, emphasizing that “as a general matter, peaceful picketing and leafletting are…speech protected by the First Amendment” in public spaces supreme.justia.com. The Court treated sidewalks and streets as “traditional public forums” where absolute bans on speech (like handbilling) would require a compelling government interest supreme.justia.com.

• Matters of Public Concern. Critically, speech on issues of public interest is given the highest protection. Snyder v. Phelps (2011) reaffirmed that “speech concerning public affairs is more than self‑expression; it is the essence of self‑government,” and that “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values”supreme.justia.com. In Snyder, even deeply offensive picketing at a military funeral was upheld because it addressed broad public debates. By analogy, criticizing an attorney’s alleged court misconduct – a matter touching public trust in the legal system – is likely viewed as speech on a matter of public concern. As Snyder makes clear, such speech warrants the strongest protection supreme.justia.com.

• Anti-Doxxing and Anonymity. The state cannot simply prohibit naming names when leafleting. In Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton (2002), the Court struck down a municipal ordinance that required door‑to‑door advocates to register and obtain a permit before handing out literature constitution.congress.gov. The Court noted a “respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes,” and held that requiring advance permission would unduly chill speech constitution.congress.govconstitution.congress.gov. Thus, even if your flyers include the attorney’s identity and address, doing so in a truthful, non‑threatening way should be constitutionally protected speech (subject to anti‑harassment laws if threats or trespass are involved, but none are alleged here).

• No Prior Restraints. In Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971), the Supreme Court refused to enforce an injunction against distributing leaflets in a residential neighborhood. There, citizens hand‑delivered flyers exposing a realtor’s practices. The Court declared that peaceful pamphleteering “is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper,” and stressed that any prior restraint on such information “comes…with a ‘heavy presumption’ against its constitutional validity” law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. If leafletting a local broker was protected speech, the same logic applies to peacefully informing neighbors about a public‑interest complaint against an attorney.

In sum, both California and federal law provide robust protection for distributing flyers and gathering for peaceful protest on public concerns. The cases above strongly suggest that handing out informational leaflets to neighborhood residents – even naming an attorney and directing people to a home address for a silent assembly – would be constitutionally protected so long as the speech is non‑violent and non‑threatening. In fact, courts have consistently rejected injunctions against peaceful leaflet campaigns about business or legal controversies law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. Any attempt to restrain such speech would bear a “heavy burden” and would likely be struck down as an unconstitutional prior restraint law.justia.comlaw.justia.com.

Sources: U.S. Supreme Court and California appellate opinions on free speech, picketing, and leafletting supreme.justia.comlaw.justia.comconstitution.congress.govlaw.justia.comlaw.justia.com, as well as constitutional commentary. These authorities make clear that peaceful, informational leafleting for assembly on a matter of public concern is protected speech supreme.justia.comsupreme.justia.com.

Protected activity.
Leafleting/pamphleteering and online publication on public policy are protected under §425.16(e)(3)–(4). The flyer advocates about not haveing “manipulative type beahvior” and bringing meritless claims against elderly to attack their sons free speech; the elderly never said a word — classic public-concern speech. (Briggs; FilmOn; Cross v. Facebook.)

Harassment statutes exclude constitutionally protected activity (CCP §527.6(b)(1); PC §646.9(k)). (Snyder; Evans; Balboa Island re prior restraints.)

Anti-SLAPP Fee-Shifting (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §425.16(c)(1))

Under California law, any defendant prevailing on an anti‑SLAPP motion is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs scocal.stanford.edu. In Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that §425.16(c) “mandates” an award of fees to a winning SLAPP defendant, to “discourage . . . strategic lawsuits against public participation” scocal.stanford.edu. Federal courts applying California law agree: a “prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike” must recover fees and costs law.justia.com. Notably, a defendant need not actually win on the merits – even a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff suffices. For example, the Ninth Circuit held that if a plaintiff abandons a SLAPP lawsuit while an anti‑SLAPP motion is pending, the defendant still “prevail[s]” and can recover fees law.justia.com. Thus, if the parents were sued in a SLAPP‑type case (e.g. as proxies for speech-related conduct), they could move to strike the complaint under §425.16 and demand fees. The statute’s fee‑shifting is mandatory and applies even if the motion is never ruled on, as long as the suit is dismissed law.justia.comscocal.stanford.edu.

Malicious Prosecution (“SLAPPback”)

Alternatively, the parents can sue the attorney for malicious prosecution (sometimes called a “SLAPPback” suit). California law requires three elements:

(1) the prior suit terminated in favor of the current plaintiff (here, the parents);
(2) the prior suit was filed without probable cause; and
(3) it was brought with malice law.justia.com. In this case, the attorney voluntarily dismissed his claims against the parents when he realized he had “no case” and faced fee liability.

A voluntary dismissal is generally treated as a legally valid termination in favor of the former defendants law.justia.com. In MacDonald v. Joslyn, the court held that even a dismissal “without prejudice” is a “favorable termination which will support an action for malicious prosecution” law.justia.com. The Ninth Circuit recently reiterated that a malicious-prosecution plaintiff must plead that the original case “was pursued to a legal termination in [their] favor” law.justia.com. Thus, the parents meet element (1) under MacDonald and Crowley v. Katleman, because the prior case ended with the attorney dropping it.

The second element—lack of probable cause—is likewise indicated by the facts. The attorney admitted he “had no case to proceed” and dismissed precisely to avoid losing and paying fees law.justia.com. That confession suggests no reasonable grounds existed. Malice (element 3) may be inferred if the suit was “not justified by probable cause” law.justia.com. The parents were sued only as relatives who “did nothing” wrong; targeting them suggests an improper purpose (e.g. harassment or retaliation). Notably, California law views lack of probable cause as evidence of malice law.justia.com.

• Key Malicious‑Prosecution Elements: (1) Favorable termination of the prior action law.justia.com (here, a voluntary dismissal counts law.justia.com), (2) lack of probable cause law.justia.com, and (3) malice law.justia.com.

The parents can recover damages and costs from the attorney. California has long held that when a maliciously prosecuted defendant’s losses exceed ordinary court costs, he may sue for “all the damages” caused law.justia.com. In Eastin v. Bank of Stockton, the Court explained that if a malicious prosecution imposes expenses beyond standard costs, the victim has “a remedy by action on the case” law.justia.com. Here, the $39,000 attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred defending the suit would be recoverable damages. In addition, because §425.16(c)(1) was triggered by the dismissal of the SLAPP‐type claims, the parents (as prevailing “defendants”) could themselves move for an award of their defense fees as costs law.justia.comscocal.stanford.edu. (Under CCP §425.16(c), the fee award goes to the defendant in the SLAPP, which here would be the parents.)

Supporting Authority

– Ketchum v. Moses (Cal. 2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122: “[A]ny SLAPP defendant who brings a successful motion to strike is entitled to mandatory attorney fees” under §425.16(c) scocal.stanford.edu. This case stresses that fee‑shifting is intended to deter meritless, chilling litigation.
– Law Offs. of Bruce Altschuld v. Wilson (9th Cir. 2015): “Under [§425.16(c)(1)], ‘a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike’ is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs” law.justia.com. It held that a defendant may prevail even if the plaintiff dismisses first. It also restates the three malicious-prosecution elements law.justia.com and confirms Crowley’s “entire action” requirement law.justia.com.
– Crowley v. Katleman (Cal. 1994) 8 Cal.4th 666: Sets out malicious prosecution law in California, requiring (1) favorable termination of the entire prior action, (2) lack of probable cause, and (3) malice law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. The Court explained that termination on the merits is not required; a voluntary end suffices so long as it’s not on “technical grounds” inconsistent with innocence scocal.stanford.edulaw.justia.com.
– MacDonald v. Joslyn (Cal. App. 1967) 275 Cal.App.2d 282: Held that a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal (even without prejudice) is a “favorable termination” supporting malicious prosecution law.justia.com.
– Eastin v. Bank of Stockton (Cal. 1884) 66 Cal. 123: Established that when a malicious prosecution inflicts damages beyond ordinary costs, the defendant is entitled to sue for the excess (all attorneys’ fees and other damages) law.justia.com. This principle underlies the remedy here.

In summary, California law clearly authorizes awarding fees and damages to the innocent defendants in this scenario. The parents could invoke §425.16(c)(1) to recover their fees as prevailing defendants scocal.stanford.edulaw.justia.com, and they may pursue a malicious prosecution claim to recover the full $39K spent (and more) since their dismissal was “favorable” and without probable cause law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. These holdings from the California Supreme Court (and echoed by federal courts) leave little doubt that citing Ketchum and related cases is appropriate and well-founded.

Sources: California Supreme Court decisions (Ketchum, Crowley); California Court of Appeal (MacDonald); Ninth Circuit (Altschuld v. Wilson) scocal.stanford.edulaw.justia.comlaw.justia.com (all discussing §425.16(c) and malicious prosecution elements).

California Anti-SLAPP Statute (§425.16) and Fee Awards

California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16(c) mandates fee-shifting for SLAPP suits. By its terms, a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion “shall” recover “reasonable attorney’s fees” and costs law.justia.com.

Courts have stressed that a plaintiff cannot evade this penalty simply by voluntarily dismissing the case. In Liu v. Moore (1999), for example, the court held that a SLAPP defendant who filed a section 425.16 motion must still have that motion heard, even if the plaintiff dismisses the complaint first. The Fourth District explained that dismissing the case does not allow the plaintiff to avoid paying fees: “a defendant who is voluntarily dismissed… after filing a §425.16 motion to strike is nevertheless entitled to have the merits of such motion heard…as a predicate to a determination of the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs” law.justia.com. In other words, once the defendant moves to strike under the anti-SLAPP law, the court must resolve that motion (and then award fees) regardless of the voluntary dismissal.

• Liu v. Moore (CA 4th App. 1999) law.justia.com – Plaintiff dismissed a cross-complaint before the anti-SLAPP hearing. The court reversed a denial of fees and ordered the hearing: “a defendant… dismissed… after filing a §425.16 motion… is nevertheless entitled to have the merits… heard… and to attorney’s fees and costs” law.justia.com.

• Coltrain v. Shewalter (CA 4th App. 1998) law.justia.com – Plaintiff dropped its complaint in the face of a special motion to strike. The court nonetheless found the defendants were the “prevailing parties” under §425.16 and upheld an award of fees. It held that dismissing the SLAPP suit (even without a hearing) did not prevent the defendants from prevailing for fee purposes law.justia.com.

• Ross v. Seyfarth (CA 4th App. 2023) – The court emphasized that once a SLAPP defendant is deemed the prevailing party, an award of fees is mandatory. In a partially-adjudicated case, it noted a discretionary determination may be required to fix the amount, but that fees must be awarded once prevailing status is established. (See Ross, 96 Cal.App.5th 722 (2023) (distinguishing Coltrain vs. Liu approaches) ocbar.orgocbar.org.)

These cases make clear that a plaintiff’s dismissal does not relieve him of fee liability under the Anti-SLAPP Act if the lawsuit was meritless. In practical terms, if the elderly defendants had moved to strike under §425.16, they would be presumptively entitled to fees once they prevailed. Even without a formal motion, courts will treat an unjustified dismissal against innocent defendants as a victory for the defendants. As one appellate court phrased it, if a SLAPP defendant “gets the plaintiff to go away with its tail between its legs,” the defendant ordinarily “will be the prevailing party” and thus entitled to fees law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. In sum, California law expressly provides that SLAPP defendants who succeed (even by dismissal) recover their attorneys’ fees as of right law.justia.comlaw.justia.com.

Malicious Prosecution and Fee Recovery

Another avenue is the tort of malicious prosecution. If a plaintiff’s case is brought “without probable cause” and “maliciously,” and it terminates in favor of the defendant, the defendant may sue the plaintiff (and attorney) separately for damages law.justia.comscocal.stanford.edu. A key element is a “favorable termination” of the underlying proceeding. Under Jaffe v. Stone (1941), a termination is favorable if it indicates the defendant’s innocence, plaintiff dismissing them is just that.

In a criminal context, for example, dismissal for lack of evidence at a preliminary hearing was held a favorable termination because it shows no case against the accused scocal.stanford.edu. By analogy, a civil case voluntarily dropped when confronted with proof of no liability would likely qualify. Once the defendants establish the prerequisites (favorable termination, lack of probable cause, and malice), California law permits them to recover all consequential damages. Critically, Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) – a decision of the California Supreme Court – specifically recognized that such damages include the cost of defending the prior suit, “including reasonable attorney’s fees” law.justia.com. In Bertero, the court explained that settled law allows a malicious-prosecution plaintiff to recover attorney fees and court costs spent on the baseless suit, as well as reputational and emotional harm law.justia.com. Thus, if the elderly defendants can show the original claims were baseless and dismissed favorably, a malicious-prosecution judgment would obligate the plaintiff to reimburse their $39,000 in legal fees (along with any other proved losses) law.justia.comscocal.stanford.edu.

Other Fee-Shifting Authorities

Beyond these, California courts have recognized few other fee-shifting mechanisms. For example, Code Civ. Proc. §128.5 sanctions truly frivolous pleadings (after a safe-harbor notice) with attorney fee awards. And certain statutes (e.g. in defamation or constitutional cases) contain fee provisions. But absent such statutes, California follows the American Rule. (In federal court, the analogous principle is confirmed by Alyeska supreme.justia.com, and fees can only be shifted under rules like Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 or 28 U.S.C. §1927 upon a finding of bad faith or frivolous multiplication of proceedings.) None of these general rules, however, override the Anti-SLAPP statute or the malicious prosecution remedy.

Conclusion: California law provides clear support for shifting fees to a meritless plaintiff. An anti-SLAPP motion (if made or deemed made) entitles a prevailing defendant to fees law.justia.comlaw.justia.com, and dismissal of a baseless suit does not defeat that entitlement law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. Alternatively, a subsequent malicious-prosecution claim allows recovery of fees as part of damages law.justia.com. Together, these authorities furnish definitive legal grounds for holding the plaintiff responsible for the $39,000 in defense fees paid by the innocent elderly defendants.

Public court filings show an attorney filed a $30,000,000 lawsuit that also named two elderly parents who were later dismissed. According to their counsel, defending those claims cost about $39,000.
Scan to review the documents and decide for yourself.

OPINION & PEACEFUL-ASSEMBLY NOTICE:
This flyer expresses opinions based on disclosed facts and public records (see sources at the link). We support lawful, peaceful public assembly only—no trespassing, harassment, or disruption.

Best bet is to admit you lied in court against the father in a personal apology letter to all 4 of your victims!

Father
Grandparents
And the child

THIS EX FAMILY LAW JUDGE HANDLED A CIVIL CASE THAT HAS HANDLED FAMILY LAW CASES AGAINST THE FAMILY WAS MIRACOUSLY CALLED TO JUDGE A CIVIL CASE FROM A FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY PAUL TOEPEL

Judge Theodore R Howard

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

This guy in the video below reminds us of someone special

he are more heart warming verses to enlighten anyone

• Matthew 18:6 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
• Mark 9:42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
• Luke 17:2 “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.”
• Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
• Psalm 127:3-5 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
• Proverbs 31:8–9emphasizes speaking up for the voiceless and defending the rights of the poor.
• Isaiah 5:20warns against distorting truth by calling evil good and good evil.
• Psalm 101:3 expresses a refusal to tolerate evil.
• Luke 10:18 in the Bible states, “And he said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”
• Proverbs 24:11–12urges the rescue of those in peril, warning that ignorance is no excuse before God.
• Psalm 82:3–4calls for the defense of the weak, fatherless, poor, and oppressed.
• Isaiah 1:17instructs believers to seek justice and defend the oppressed.
• 1 Corinthians 5:6–7uses the analogy of leaven to show how allowing sin can negatively impact the whole community. This is in the context of the deciple Paul (not this Paul Toepel) addressing the Corinthians’ tolerance of unrepentant sin.
• Romans 1:32 condemns not only those who commit sin but also those who approve of such actions.
• The story of Eli in 1 Samuel 3:13shows how God judged him for not restraining his sons’ wicked behavior, holding him accountable for his inaction.
• Romans 12:21advises overcoming evil with good.
• 1 Peter 3:9instructs not to retaliate with evil or insult, but to respond with blessing.
• Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’
• Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.

“I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you”(Luke 6:27-28) We love you enough to help your help your soul and allow Jesus and correcting your malfeasant behavior that let to harm of an innocent child and father, fatherhood is not yours to harm with lies!

Terms of Service

Site Policy & Notices & Privacy Policy

The Value of Telling the Truth – Speaking Upright

This Site is owned and operated by GoodShepherdMedia.net and corporate entity and is not for sale. Finders Keeperes Losers Weeperes property of Good News Media LLC 

Paul Toepel Criminal Lawyer (LIAR)

Paul Toepel Attorney

PEACEFUL PUBLIC ASSEMBLY IS REAL AND LET THE MAN PAUL KNOW THAT SEX OFFENDERS SHOULD NOT BE NEXT TO CHILDREN AND USING HIS LAW DEGREE TO LIE IN COURT AND HELP A WANTED FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER AROUND A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROTECTING THE MINOR VICTIM IS OK TO LET HIM KNOW PEACEFULLY our rights to be vocal WE DO THIS THROUGH PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND LETTING HIM KNOW, MAYBE HE WAS NEVER TOLD AND THAT IS OK, WE ALL DO NOT GET GREAT PARENTS

To FIND OUT WHERE THE PEACEFUL PROTEST WILL TAKE PLACE CLICK HERE

https://sexualdeviantsoforangecounty.com/gregory-nigel-robertson-nudity-indecent-exposure/

To FIND OUT WHERE THE PEACEFUL PROTEST WILL TAKE PLACE CLICK HERE

 Jude 1:11

(11) Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.The video above is about genius’, the video is not about Paul Toepel, it has nothing to do with him just an entertaining video of genius’

WANT TO SEE ALL OF PAUL’S VIOLATIONS IN THAT IN OUR OPINION HE HAS COMITTED IS HERE 

Paul Toepel Criminal Lawyer (LIAR) IS OUR OPINION

This man has no relationship with the truth and that is provable by callus blatant lies to Garden Grove Police, Judges and Courts

HAVE YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH SCUM? READ THIS Quotes for Those Strong and of Good Nature 

Honest Opinion Paul Toepel is Criminal Lying Attorney – 

Soon to be Sued and should and must be Disbarred fight aint over cheating liar!

he abuses elerly people with lawsuits they are not responsible for he is a chump lil bitch a reject

HIS OWN WORDS & DOINGS AT GARDEN GROVE POLICE STATION POINT THIS WAY

How to Sue and Take Care of A Malicious Lawyer – Use His Actions, Use His Words AGAINST HIM

“He put a gun to his sons head, I think!“ once said the lying Paul Toepel

These are only some of the lying words out of this mans mouth that he has said about me

He comfortably defames a mans fatherhood in open court with straight up lies! Tells lies about me while also lying about the whereabouts of a wanted fugitive sex offender in my sons mothers house (against a Judges orders)! He has told the judge himself Nigel is never is with Michael and has moved out!
yet check out the photo proof Click here to see all the proof of what Toepel helped keep around children The toepel doings

In my opinion Paul Toepel has no conscience! He definitely manipulates the truth!

Gun to his sons head is one of his greatest lines (click here to read his own words via transcript and here him say another opposite verbally 2 faced lying snake)! another is that Mr. Zullo and his Mother were arrested at one of his cleints work… Kaiser Los Angeles… these lies he speaks are in trnascripts! all under penalty of perjury liar! lying (click here) as a laywer is a crime, Penal  Code 118PC Perjury and California Penal Code 126 states that perjury is punishable by imprisonment for two, three, or four years under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 making it a criminal offense when he is finally prosecuted one day for this felony

yet check out the photo proof Click here to see all the proof of Toepel’s Doing

Paul Toepel has no conscience! He definitely manipulates the truth!

 Check out a Child Friendly read about LYING

WINNERS ARE TOO BUSY WINNING TO NOTICE YOU! Check out  creative way to deal with morons ! Creative writing !

https://goodshepherdreading.com

The Streisand Effect: Why Hiding Information Backfires

hey big fellow play the video below so you can figure life out lawyer boy!

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

are you all slow or just easily conned by this lying defamatory man Mr. Paul Toepel Jr.
HINT! the rabbit hole will not conceal the lies he has told, it reveals them!

DEFFEND YOUR PERJURY TO THE BAR ASSHOLE

NEXT WILL BE A TORT CLAIM TO  YOU AND YOUR LAW FIRM THE WHACKED LAW OFFICES OF PAULD TOEPEL JR.  PUNK BOY

Zullo has been known to recruit the assistance of his mother. On or around June 22, 2022,

Zullo’s mother, Theresa Zullo, was arrested for trespassing at a Kaiser mental health facility

in downtown Los Angeles. At the time of her arrest, Theresa was caught trying to access the

building with the intention of passing out hundreds of flyers she had in her possession.

The flyers contained derogatory content against and Zullo’s ex-wife, who at the time, worked at

that Kaiser facility. did not have a police report number to reference at the time of this interview.

This never happened like dozens of his claims and false statements and here is a copy of my mother’s criminal record for the last 12 years! So, what is it that he is doing in a police station giving false statement in paperwork (perjury) that will lead to a court proceeding, this is rule 8.4misconduct He literally filed charges that I robbed his bank account for $7500 as well in the same report! He should be arrested in court today for all he has caused to my freedoms!

A SIMPLE ARREST SEARCH ON THAT TIME FRAM FOR BOTH PERSONS WOULD HAVE SOLVED THAT LIE, DUMB LOW IQ POLICE WITH NO DETECTIVE SKILLS, NO FORETHOUGHT, JUST EATING UP PAULY’S LIES, and writing them down, NICE PERJURY PAUL!

I BELIEVE HE HAS COMMITTED SOME SERIOUS CRIMES BELOW BUT WE ARE NOT LAWYERS SO YOU CAN DECIDE IF LYING TO POLICE SAYING A CLIENT OF YOURS HAD A SPECIFIC MAN COME TO HIS CLIENTS WORK (A HOSPITAL) WITH SPECIFIC MANS MOTHER AND GOT ARRESTED TRYING TO GET INTO THE FACILTIY ! THIS FALSE SCENARIO THAT IS EASILY RESEARCHED WITH ANY ARREST SEARCH, HE USED THS TO FRAME A MAN AS A STALKER TO ONE OF HIS CLIENTS THEN USED THIS SCENARIO TO SAY THIS SPECIFIC MAN IS NOT STALKING HIM USING A FALSE PATTER OF AN EVENT THAT NEVER HAPPENED WHICH LED TO SPECIFIC MAN RECEIVNG A FALSE CHARGE OF STALKING ON SPECIFIC MAN DUE TO PAUL TOEPELS PURJURY! Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law, Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California, Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence, Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence, Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath, Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California , Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California, WHICH THEN LED TO PC 146 Penal Code – False Arrest Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170 , Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties , Penal Code § 236 PC – False Imprisonment

WE at Good Shepherd BELIEVE HE HAS COMMITTED SOME SERIOUS CRIMES BELOW BUT WE ARE NOT LAWYERS SO YOU CAN DECIDE IF LYING TO POLICE SAYING A CLIENT OF YOURS HAD A SPECIFIC MAN COME TO HIS CLIENTS WORK (A HOSPITAL) WITH SPECIFIC MANS MOTHER AND GOT ARRESTED TRYING TO GET INTO THE FACILTIY ! THIS FALSE SCENARIO THAT IS EASILY RESEARCHED WITH ANY ARREST SEARCH, HE USED THS TO FRAME A MAN AS A STALKER TO ONE OF HIS CLIENTS THEN USED THIS SCENARIO TO SAY THIS SPECIFIC MAN IS NOT STALKING HIM USING A FALSE PATTER OF AN EVENT THAT NEVER HAPPENED WHICH LED TO SPECIFIC MAN RECEIVNG A FALSE CHARGE OF STALKING ON SPECIFIC MAN DUE TO PAUL TOEPELS PURJURY! Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law, Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California, Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence, Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence, Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath, Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California , Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California, WHICH THEN LED TO PC 146 Penal Code – False Arrest , Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties , Penal Code § 236 PC – False Imprisonment

still comunicating with a person represented by an attorney 2/3/2025 this occured to an elderly 77 year old lady  victim of 1 stroke and 2 aneurysms

still comunicating with a person represented by an attorney 2/3/2025 this occured to an elderly 84 year old man victim of 2 strokes

CLICK CLOWN VIDEO ABOVE TO HEAR WHAT HE REALLY WAS UP TO!

NOW WATCH THIS SCUM BAG DELLUSIONALLY OR INTENIONALLY LYING ABUOT HIS INTENT OF THE CALL ABOVE!

still being unfair to oppoing party below!

Will You Matter to me? Never! Will I matter to you? Everyday it seems!

Who has free rent inside your little weasel mind ? That you voluntarily give up due to lacking of control of you and your mind, your greed, your selfishness Paul it seems so sad to see you abuse elderly for things they made and you you still have no house from what i see! and with the traffic EPGR gets you all eat top ramen maybe not sure but their aint much moving on the net!

aside from perjury,

WE BELIEVE HE HAS COMMITTED SOME SERIOUS CRIMES BELOW BUT WE ARE NOT LAWYERS SO YOU CAN DECIDE IF LYING TO POLICE SAYING A CLIENT OF YOURS HAD A SPECIFIC MAN COME TO HIS CLIENTS WORK (A HOSPITAL) WITH SPECIFIC MANS MOTHER AND GOT ARRESTED TRYING TO GET INTO THE FACILTIY ! THIS FALSE SCENARIO THAT IS EASILY RESEARCHED WITH ANY ARREST SEARCH, HE USED THS TO FRAME A MAN AS A STALKER TO ONE OF HIS CLIENTS THEN USED THIS SCENARIO TO SAY THIS SPECIFIC MAN IS NOT STALKING HIM USING A FALSE PATTER OF AN EVENT THAT NEVER HAPPENED WHICH LED TO SPECIFIC MAN RECEIVNG A FALSE CHARGE OF STALKING ON SPECIFIC MAN DUE TO PAUL TOEPELS PURJURY! Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law, Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California, Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence, Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence, Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath, Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California , Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California, WHICH THEN LED TO PC 146 Penal Code – False Arrest Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170 , Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties , Penal Code § 236 PC – False Imprisonment

click here to read the council minutes

Paul Toepel NO fireworks FUN FOR ANYONE is his request ban fireworks! its our opinion he thinks that adults are not comptetant and can NOT handle fun FIREWORKS safely

Non compos mentis “having control/mastery of one’s mind.”  – meaning nothing can harm or influence ones mind that is sound and strong – if a man has a real mans personality one should re-read this line and call themself a man only after………. Non compos mentis “having control/mastery of one’s mind.”

Marriage of Willis v. Costa-Willis

IN RE: the Marriage of RICKY ALLAN WILLIS (2023)

That portion of the DVRO modifying the judgment’s joint legal and physical custody provisions to award Shauna sole legal and physical custody is reversed

The method used in my opinion by Paul D. Toepel is to SECURE DVRO against FATHER, then STRIP FATHER of visitation and rights to fatherhood.

A man named Philip is another one of his victims of this exact behavior.

in our opinion its a pattern

learn MORE:

These laws are permissible under the First Amendment if drafted in a way that meets the high bar set by the Supreme Court in a series of cases, starting with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 

Learn what the Supreme Court View and Decision reagarding threats is True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment and their decision to create a TRUE THREAT TEST Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

also hating an individual is not illegal Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is “NO HATE SPEECH’ exception to the First Amendment

and literature that has words that may bother you, the lines of threats are drawn here Counterman v. Colorado – Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment

Paglia & Associates Construction v. Hamilton – Public Internet Posts & Public Criticisms – Bad Reviews

The Consumer Review Fairness Act – What It Is & Why It Matters

Publius v. Boyer-Vine – 1st Amendment- Posting Police or citizens private real Address

 Salinas v. Cruz; The 2nd Court of Appeals of California Reverses Restraining Order Because Cross-Examination Was Barred

Right to Record Government Officials Engaged in the Exercise of their Official Duties

​

Those were Bar and Business Code Violations
(with Penal attachments for code violation)

Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions

Rule 1.1 Competence 

Rule 5-100 Threatening Criminal, Administrative, or Disciplinary Charges Caitly had her CHUMP PUNK PIG ABUSE BRUCE BLANK (BRAIN DEAD MORON)

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
(1) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others I HAVE ATTACHED ALL HIS LIES
Truthfulness in Statements to Others also covers the duty of candor. He actually tells statements he knows to be false which is not allowed even when protecting confidentiality

Rules 1.2.1 [Advising or Assisting the Violation of Law) HE HELPED NIGEL STAY IN HOME

Rule 8.4 Misconduct

• To bring an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or
• To present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of such existing law.
  Id. at Rule 3-200; see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.Subsection (c) provides that an attorney must counsel only just actions or defenses except if the client is charged with a public offense. Subsection (d) embodies the duty of candor and provides that may only do such things that are consistent with the truth. A violation of these rules could subject the attorney to suspension or disbarment. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103.
• California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200, Trial Conduct, states that in presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
  • • • Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member, such means only as are consistent with truth; told the court Nigel has moved out even though I had emailed him surveillance and I presented to the court evidence contrary to his statements he denied my claims and mislead the court and bold face lied to them
      • Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; told through suggestion to the judge by not returning my son who fears moms home that I am kidnapping my son, even though I have police incident reports I show up to each exchange and the child refuses to go even after speaking with the sheriff and he said I put a gun to my sons head
      • Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute or decision; he did this by telling the court flat out lies on several instances including misleading by misquoting the tribunal decision previously  the CONTENTS OF THE JUDGES ORDER TO PROTECT MY SON. Mr. Toepel also told the courts this with vexatious litigant told the court I fit the criteria which is lying and misleading the Tribunal. Mr. Toepel had the court make an erroneous decision and declare me a Vexatious litigant. I NEVER FIT ANY CRITERIA! Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b) clearly states – Vexatious litigant requires in a 7-year period maintained in propria persona at least 5 litigations other than small claims court that has been finally determined adversely to the person. I have exactly 0 cases that fall into this classification. I have testimony from Mr. Toepel via transcripts of numerous attempts to mislead the judge to declare me a vexatious litigant
      • he used this order to criminally cause issues for me and still completely lock me out of communication and the ability to fight for my rights to fatherhood he helps take from me by grossly misleading to the court on every occasion he attended
      • Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and he tried to seek a restraining order against flyer distribution which is my 1^st amendment rights to send out regarding information that is factual news about members of the community (judge denied him)
        He attempts to get restraining orders one for himself and one for his client he received both under a complete lie and false pretenses. He misleads the court about the physical danger he and his client were in. Never once did I threaten their physical safety however I did exercise my 1^st amendment rights, my freedom of speech allows me to complain on Google Reveiws, Yelp, and any supervisory person incharge of either their license of them if they are in commission of a violation of their sworn duties. I cannot be prevent or punished from complaining unless they are fake or false.  He also told the court that he will communicate with me, as I am PRO PER, for legal matters only if the judge issues the restraining order, he issued it and I tried communicating over 50 times via email and voice message to no avail. He lied to the issuing judge and used this order to criminally cause issues for me and still completely lock me out of communication and the ability to fight for my rights to fatherhood he helps take from me by grossly misleading to the court on every occasion he attended
        Rule 5-200 provides that an attorney will present in front of the court using only those means that are consistent with the truth and shall not act to mislead the judge, judicial officer or jury through a false statement of the law or fact, nor shall the attorney intentionally misquote a source or knowingly cite invalid authority.
        Cal. Rule of Prof. Conduct 5-200 provides that “[i]n presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (b) shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” See also Mendez v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. App.4th 827 (2009) (observing that “‘“ [c]ounsel should not forget that they are officers of the court, and while it is their duty to protect and defend the interests of their clients, the obligation is equally imperative to aid the court in avoiding error and in determining the cause in accordance with justice and the established rules of practice.”’”)
        Id. at Rule 5-200. For a discussion of the duty of candor, and its application in questions about witnesses, client perjury, and citing authority, see Wendy Patrick Mazzarella, Lawyer’s Duty of Candor: Zealous representation can lead attorneys down a slippery slope right up to the ethical edge, CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL (April 2007), available at https://archive.calbar.ca.gov/archive/Archive.aspx?articleId=84844&categoryId=84645&month=4&year=2007If you are reading this in print and the link is too hard I have shortened it with a link shortening service by TINYURL in which will redirect you too the actual CALBAR link above  https://tinyurl.com/truthcalbarCal. Rules Prof. Conduct, 5-200.
        People v. Davis, 48 Cal.2d 241, 257 (1957); In re Branch, 70 Cal.2d 200, 210-211 (1969); Cal. Penal Code § 127. “Every person who willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury. . . .” and may be punished as if he had perjured himself, which includes a prison term of two, three or four years. Cal. Penal Code §§ 126-27. 475 U.S. 157 (where defendant, in presenting claim of self-defense shortly before trial that he’d seen something metallic in the victim’s hand and told his attorney that “[i]f I don’t say I saw a gun, I’m dead”, the defendant did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when he told his client he would tell the court and withdraw as his attorney if the client so perjured himself; the client did not present the perjured testimony as was convicted).
        Nix, supra 475 U.S. at 169-70.
        People v. Johnson, 62 Cal.App.4th 608 (1998) (finding it error when attorney told court he had an “ethical conflict” calling him as a witness and the court prevented the defendant from testifying).
        Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct 3-310(B)(4) provides that an attorney can’t accept or continue representation of a client without providing written disclosure when has or has had legal, business, financial or professional interest in the subject matter of the representation.
        ABA Model Rules 4.1(a) (2008).
        ABA Model Rules 4.1 cmt. 2 (2008).
        Cal. Evid. Code § 1126. 17 ABA Model Rules 3.3(a)(2) (2008).

• 26 U.S. Code § 7206 – Fraud and false statements learn at Cornell Lawhere
• perjury when Paul Toepel attorney of law perjured himself in court  Perjury – California Penal Code 118 PC describes perjury as knowingly providing false testimony while under oath, which is a felony offense punishable by up to four years in jail.
• CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT LAW
  State Bar Court decision, In the Matter of Maloney and Virsik:
  “[The attorneys] committed acts of moral turpitude in wilful violation of section 6106 by knowingly making repeated misrepresentations to the Superior Court. It is well established that acts of moral turpitude include an attorney’s false or misleading statements to a court or tribunal…The actual intent to deceive is not necessary…Acts of moral turpitude include concealment as well as affirmative misrepresentations…
  [N]o distinction can be drawn among concealment, half-truth, and false statement of fact…Also, it is not necessary that [the attorneys] actually succeeded in perpetrating a fraud on the court…These [court] pleadings were permeated with half-truths, omissions, and outright misstatements of fact and law. The Supreme Court has denounced such misleading conduct and has not hesitated to impose discipline in such cases.”
  Lawyers have always had a duty to be honest and truthful pursuant to general ethical principles, as well as the State Bar Act. The newest version of the Rules of Professional Conduct, effective November 1, 2018, provides more specific guidance to lawyers relative to this duty. Rules 1.2.1, 1.6, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,7.1 through 7.5, and 8.4 are all implicated in this duty, as well as Business & Professions Code (“B&P”) sections 6068(d), 6106, and 6128, among others. This discussion will focus on the B&P Code sections, violations of which constitute cause for disbarment or other State Bar sanction, including but not limited to suspension, fines, and re-taking the Professional Responsibility examination.
  Lawyers are required to be truthful not only in dealing with the court and parties in litigation, but also in transactional matters and document preparation. Violations by a lawyer of these requirements can result in not only liability in tort — to one’s own client as well as opposing parties and counsel — but also in State Bar discipline.
  The B&P Code is the source that allows the State Bar to prosecute lawyers for violations of ethical requirements, and section 6068 contains a long list of an attorney’s duties: “It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: …

(d) to employ, for the purpose of meeting the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judgeor any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. (Emphasis added.)
Opposing lawyers, as “officers of the court”, are duty-bound to not only tell the truth, but not to omit information that would cause the court or opposing counsel to be misled. This applies not only to litigated matters, but to “all causes confided to him or her”. See Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, et al. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4^th 54 for a lengthy discussion of attorney misrepresentations which were determined to be fraudulent, including statements made by counsel during settlement negotiations. These are opinions based on reading the bar ruless

WE BELIEVE HE HAS COMMITTED SOME SERIOUS CRIMES BELOW BUT WE ARE NOT LAWYERS SO YOU CAN DECIDE IF LYING TO POLICE SAYING A CLIENT OF YOURS HAD A SPECIFIC MAN COME TO HIS CLIENTS WORK (A HOSPITAL) WITH SPECIFIC MANS MOTHER AND GOT ARRESTED TRYING TO GET INTO THE FACILTIY ! THIS FALSE SCENARIO THAT IS EASILY RESEARCHED WITH ANY ARREST SEARCH, HE USED THS TO FRAME A MAN AS A STALKER TO ONE OF HIS CLIENTS THEN USED THIS SCENARIO TO SAY THIS SPECIFIC MAN IS NOT STALKING HIM USING A FALSE PATTER OF AN EVENT THAT NEVER HAPPENED WHICH LED TO SPECIFIC MAN RECEIVNG A FALSE CHARGE OF STALKING ON SPECIFIC MAN DUE TO PAUL TOEPELS PURJURY! Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law, Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California, Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence, Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence, Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath, Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California , Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California, WHICH THEN LED TO PC 146 Penal Code – False Arrest Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170 , Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties , Penal Code § 236 PC – False Imprisonment

Quick Links

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

Counterman v. Colorado – Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Crimes Against Public Justice

Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

PC 146 Penal Code – False Arrest

Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code § 236 PC – False Imprisonment

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

What is Abuse of Process? 

What is a Due Process Violation? – 4th Amendment & 14th Amendment

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

discipline is a state of mind that starts with core values not a closed mouth!

a disciplined man mind and body is strong and fit

they control cravings wether drugs or food or sex or gambling

vices are for no man

YOU SUCK DUE TO THE FOOD YOU FEED YOUR MIND AND THE KARMA THAT FOLLOWS LYING MANIPULATORS.. a NON-FAMOUS man said! THAT MY OPINION

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

REMEMBER THIS OPINION SHOULD BE READ TO ALLOW YOU TO THINK