June 13, 2012 email for Hoge Fenton

June 13, 2012 email for Hoge Fenton

This is part of an email message sent to Hoge Fenton staff circa June 13, 2012. A petition mentioned in the message is omitted and may be posted separately. Note to attorneys: The petition was sent based on the advice of an attorney who felt that it might not be treated as ex parte. However, court clerks classified it as ex parte regardless.

A handwritten petition will be delivered to the Court by courier on June 14, 2012. The Court has been asked to make the petition available to your firm. For preliminary review purposes a transcribed version is included below in the second half of this letter. However, the official version is the one that should be relied on. The transcribed version should be either the same as the original or very close but there may be inadvertent errors.

To explain the terse wording in some places, it is difficult for me to write long documents by hand. You'll understand if you read the petition. Well, actually, I'll explain now. Some of my fingers are sometimes swollen or bend backwards. So it's loads of fun writing lengthy petitions by hand.

As a side note the petition below mentions other points that the Kiralys and Michael Bonetto have brushed aside. This is perfectly reasonable, of course. It would be pointless of me to inquire as to whether or not they are proud of themselves. Why in the world should this not be so? If one does the right thing one must be proud.

People may wonder about the verbal communication issue mentioned in the petition. For example, the voicemail message I left where I discussed Michael's verbal slip-up the other day regarding my date of service was worded pretty well. But to explain I only talk like that if I am well-prepared.

Most of you could run circles around me otherwise. That's what went wrong when I called Mr. Bonetto the other day. I was physically and emotionally exhausted from trying to find attorneys after the illegal service.

I thought I'd check to see if Michael was interested in a voluntary agreement. I should have slept about 12 hours first. And it was probably a bad idea to remind him that I'd promised to turn his use of my grandfather's books into an Internet Meme called "Bonetto's Brainless Books". The books issue really was an inane strategem, though; it lowered the quality of the entire case. More is not always better.

To paraphrase the Bonetto's Books strategem: "The sky is blue and this is indicative of an attempt to travel back in time and wreak havoc on history or otherwise do unspecified things in some manner that is unspecified but most likely inappropriate."

Brilliant. Sure, this approach adds luster to the firm's reputation.

As a related note, I made my grandfather cry over those books. I asked him to autograph them for my brothers and he was overcome with emotion. If you're curious, do a web search for Ivan Kmeta Writer. Ivan was one of the leading writers and religious figures of his generation. He lived a life of pure service and was one of the few truly great men I've known. And Thomas, my brother, has dragged Ivan's books with Mr. Bonetto's assistance through the dirt. Did Thomas tell Grace, our mother and Ivan's only daughter, what he did? Surely he made haste to carry the news.

While I'm at it, there's something I'm wondering. Isn't one of the very first things attorneys are taught that you shouldn't raise questions in Court unless you know the answers? So why did Michael risk embarrassing the firm with some of the other stuff that must have struck him as fishy? Shouldn't have taken the gamble. Whatever happens next, I'm going to make sure that a non-trivial portion of the civilized world learns more about this case.

The "child abuser puts his son in the database for writing a book" thing is an interesting starting point. But it's the parts that were never checked or that don't even parse that make this story.

BTW The number cited towards the end of my current master document is accurate. So is the part about the Shanghai China mirror and any other mirrors that I mentioned; I need to go back and see if that is up to date. As a side note I see that one of you is a tech guy. If he uses IRC he should feel free to drop by sometime.

At any rate, I honestly intended to establish a temporary but cordial personal connection with Mr. Bonetto. Well, as cordial as it could be under the circumstances. Enough to bring the case(s) to a conclusion in as sensible a manner as possible. But I became frustrated. I think I implied I'd go to the Bar Association. That can *not* have gone over well. I assume it doesn't exactly say "Let's Be Friends" to attorneys.

The Bar Association might be an appropriate venue regardless. And by now it might be clear that I have at least a slight chance of making that action work. Mr. Bonetto's verbal slip-up the other day was helpful and I'd like to explore it further.

To clarify things, I can't talk like a normal person without concentration, but due to the "Rain Man" (autism) issue my native talent at perceiving oddities in information patterns most likely matches the learned abilities of at least part of your firm. I've got a feeling I wouldn't want to take on your Emeritus Counsel, though.

Again, I know this doesn't seem friendly. But do you people understand what it's like to work for multiple days straight on finding attorneys, a hopeless task without time, and have somebody be smug about the fact that he has cheated and broken the rules? Oh, throw in the fun stuff you'll read about my health below. Gee thanks, guys.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License