Council members atop initial vote counts in West Covina

[John Scheuplein]

"Peace" to show how factual you are, I have only entered these blogs during the election, a month or so max. But again you people have nothing better to do then make stuff up. But then again you can hide behind anonymity. No guts, no integrity.

And if anyone wants to know who my lead attorney was, if they can read, it's the name at the top of the form.

[Peace]

John Scheuplein wrote:

"Peace" to show how factual you are, I have only entered these blogs during the election, a month or so max. But again you people have nothing better to do then make stuff up. But then again you can hide behind anonymity. No guts, no integrity.
And if anyone wants to know who my lead attorney was, if they can read, it's the name at the top of the form.

Chicken Little, I don't believe for a second that you only started blogging a month ago. But hey, you are just too delusional to speak any truth anyways. You still haven't responded to one simple question other than to say look it up. Well I have and here it is. Please review the last link. It's unrefutable.

http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2008/02/sui...

http://www.sgvtribune.com/autos/ci_13448578

http://www.westcov.org/council/agenda/staff08...

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B...

As stated in the last link, your attorneys were Oldman, Cooley, Sallus, Gold, Birnberg & Coleman, Ronald Gold, Jamie N. Gonzalez, and Julia S. Berkus; Law Offices of Norman Hoffman and Norman Hoffman; Capital Advocates and Ravinder Mehta for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Judge Oki stated "At the outset, we note that Scheuplein’s complaint is virtually indistinguishable from the cross-complaint filed by Ziad Alhassen in the city’s tax collection action against Alhassen and his related business entities.(City of West Covina v. Hassen Imports Partnership (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. KC048157 (Hassen Imports))." He also goes on to state, "In the present action, Scheuplein’s complaint, which was drafted by Alhassen’s attorneys, is almost identical to Alhassen’s dismissed cross-complaint."

"And fourth, Scheuplein’s primary motives for bringing this litigation included his expectation of being compensated for filing this action as Alhassen’s proxy."

How in the world can you ever contend that anything you say regarding the City of West Covina and its City Council is unbiased? How can you say you don't hate anyone after filing a lawsuit and losing? Any normal person would admit it. Oh I am sorry, you did it for money. That's why you don't hate?

[John Scheuplein]

Boy, talk about obsessed!

I understand how the determination was made, but I have gone to extreme lengths to explain the true meaning of what I said and meant, not how it was conveyed and used out of context.

It is evident you will hang on to your view because you appear obsessed and eaten up inside about it, so be it.

And your non-response to my factual denial of a year of blogging is indicitive of your lack of objectivity, truth and candor.

I hope you can find peace.

[Peace]

John Scheuplein wrote:

Boy, talk about obsessed!
I understand how the determination was made, but I have gone to extreme lengths to explain the true meaning of what I said and meant, not how it was conveyed and used out of context.
It is evident you will hang on to your view because you appear obsessed and eaten up inside about it, so be it.
And your non-response to my factual denial of a year of blogging is indicitive of your lack of objectivity, truth and candor.
I hope you can find peace.

What are you talking about Little? You are really a true mental case and you would fail logic or a debate class. Remember, if A = B and B = C, Then A = C. But you can't just make the statement A = B and not prove B = C. You didn't go to great length to explain how your email got misconstrued. But it really doesn't matter. The court said that you expected to be compensated for filing the lawsuit. That has to be based on facts and evidence. And I think in your case, it sounds like your own admissions. Chicken Little file a lawsuit, Chicken Little wanted to be compensated for filing the lawsuit, Chicken Little filed the lawsuit to be compensated. As a result, Chicken Little lost the lawsuit and now owes a LOT of money. It is that simple. Why else would you file the lawsuit? You never answered that one and you never will. Why did your lawsuit mirror Ziad's lawsuit? you never answered that one. Are your attorney's, Ziad's attorney's? You never answered that one either. So you can scream like Chicken Little all you want, but you can't get away from the facts. I proved all my statements, you haven't proved one and tried, unsuccessfully to displace attention somewhere else. But you stink at it as you have no depth and no where to go.

I did respond to your unfactual denial of blogging all the time. I said you flat out lie just like every other time. How is that not a response. If I want, I could go back a year and prove it. By why waste my time as just like I proved everything I stated before and you still denied it. You are the type of sociopath that either does not know right from wrong, or you do and just are a pathological liar.

You are so obessed with this blog that you can't even stop eventhough you know true in your heart that I am 100% right. Nothing you can say can fix your name and reputation Little. So don't even try. However, you can prove me wrong that you are not obsessed with this blog by not responding. Or prove me right by responding.

[Just the facts]

Once again Scheuplein you and your lying candidates said there message and the voters decided once again no. Remember the Super Majority you call are voted in by the people. The people have spoken loud and clear. I don't agree with everyone at the Federal level but they were put there by the people. The people decided to elected these individuals to represent them at the City of West Covina. They had a chance to switch the majority to that of Roger Hernandez and they decided no.

[John Scheuplein]

"Peace" you either lack the intelligence to understand, or can't read. It's all been truthfully addressed and explained, you just won't accept my explanation, but that will have to remain your problem.
And that's in addition to your being a prolific, unabashed, blind, pathological and obsessed prevaricator. Put up those so called older posts numbnuts. Let's see who's telling tall tales. No integrity, no guts, just a hidden snipe.

And once again "Just the facts" get your facts straight, I only marginlly supported ONE candidate with ONE vote. And I voted NO on "D".

Ever supported a candidate that didn't prevail?

I have defended people on various election blogs here, both running and not, against very unfair and unnecessary character assasination, that doesn't mean I "supported" their candidacy, or their issues necessarily.

[Peace]

John Scheuplein wrote:

"Peace" you either lack the intelligence to understand, or can't read. It's all been truthfully addressed and explained, you just won't accept my explanation, but that will have to remain your problem.
And that's in addition to your being a prolific, unabashed, blind, pathological and obsessed prevaricator. Put up those so called older posts numbnuts. Let's see who's telling tall tales. No integrity, no guts, just a hidden snipe.
And once again "Just the facts" get your facts straight, I only marginlly supported ONE candidate with ONE vote. And I voted NO on "D".
Ever supported a candidate that didn't prevail?
I have defended people on various election blogs here, both running and not, against very unfair and unnecessary character assasination, that doesn't mean I "supported" their candidacy, or their issues necessarily.

LOL! I knew you couldn't resist to squawk Chicken Little. You had to prove me right that you are in deed obsessed. Again, you can't answer one question but to say you already have. That's BS.

It is so apparent that you can't see or comprehend the truth even when its right in front of you. Thats a sickness that no one can rationalize with you. So whats the point of trying. But instead, I'm going to keep telling you that everything you say, is a bunch of rubbish. Why, because you are all over the place. How can you not support Measure "D" but support the candidate that initiated it? If there is a fundamental and major belief that you disagree with, how in the world can you still support his platform? I think its because that you agree with their dislike (saying mildly)for others, especially those on City Council.

To say, "I have defended people on various election blogs here, both running and not, against very unfair and unnecessary character assasination, that doesn't mean I "supported" their candidacy, or their issues necessarily." There are two things I must say. First off, you don't need to defend anyone. They are adults and can defend themself. You are not a superhero in West Covina. Thats what we are tired about. Who cares about your nonsense opinions. I've been saying that I am just tired of you and your nonsense discussions and quite frankly, no one is listening to you. Ask around. Second, when you say you do not support them "necessarily," that means that you really do! SO again, you make no sense. That's you again saying I don't necessarily blog, ever. You are talking out of the other side again.

So since I lack the intelligence to understand or read, show me your responses to the following questions which I will state one more time.

1. Is your attorney the same attorney as Ziad Alhassen?
2. Isn't it true that your lawsuit was teh same lawsuit as Ziads, except for the name change of the plaintiff?
3. Isn't it true that a court of law has determined that you filed your lawsuit out of personal gain?
4. What was your motivation for filing the lawsuit? Was it your of hate for the City Council?

Now show me in your responses, where you answered any one of those questions! I answered them myself. But you haven't. All you do is try to say you already answered them! Which we all know is not the truth!!!

[Cream of wheat]

John Scheuplein wrote:

"Peace" you either lack the intelligence to understand, or can't read. It's all been truthfully addressed and explained, you just won't accept my explanation, but that will have to remain your problem.
And that's in addition to your being a prolific, unabashed, blind, pathological and obsessed prevaricator. Put up those so called older posts numbnuts. Let's see who's telling tall tales. No integrity, no guts, just a hidden snipe.
And once again "Just the facts" get your facts straight, I only marginlly supported ONE candidate with ONE vote. And I voted NO on "D".
Ever supported a candidate that didn't prevail?
I have defended people on various election blogs here, both running and not, against very unfair and unnecessary character assasination, that doesn't mean I "supported" their candidacy, or their issues necessarily.

You do realize that "peace" is John Shewmaker? He has several aliases and there are several ways to tell that its him.

[John Scheuplein]

1. The firm is the same. My particular attorneys represent me.
2. NO!
3. Unfortunate, but NOT in reality, factually true.
4. NO!

Whoever you are, you ARE manipulative, twisted and deceitful! And as such, you may be who some say you are. There is a definite pattern there, but in reality, it matters not to me.

[Peace]

You would say that to anyone that doesn't mindless agree with you. I am actually flattered that you guys would compare me to or think I am John Shewmaker. He must also be a voice of reason and truth. Everything I have said is the truth. You can argue different, but like I said, it doesn't change the facts of truth.

The pattern you speak of, is that the pattern of speaking the truth? I think so. When you have the truth behind you, supporting you, you will always prevail at the end. The truth will set you free! Then Shewmaker must also be a truthful person as well.

And when you don't have the truth behind you, you will eventually lose, especially you as a human person. And there have been so many losses lately that you all know what I am talking about.

In the end, we all will meet our maker. The ultimate judgement will be cast upon us. I for one, will pass for everything I have said is the truth. You and others, with your lies and hate will have to answer for your actions. Good luck and may God be with you.

[John Scheuplein]

OMG, now you're going to use religion as a device for justification, deceit, deception and manipulation?

I think I have now seen and heard it all!

[Peace]

What are you talking about? I didn't used religion as a device for justification, deceit and deception! I use facts behind everything I said. Now focus John, I know its a little tough, but focus. Did I not list all the links to prove my points of you? They are unrefutable and there is no deceit or deception. What all also said, and I know its difficult to understand, but when you have the truth behind you, you win! The truth will set you free! My gosh, its not that difficult! But easy for you to TRY to deflect it as being sommething else.

You want to talk about deceit and deception? Remember when you said you didn't run? I just learned from another blog that you help and supported Collen Rozatti in her council election campaign. If that is true, yes you did lose in the election and everything you have been saying is in result of such loss. You are therefore unbiased in your negative comments as you had a stake in this last election.

So is there any truth you help Collen Rozzati in her campaign?

A simple yes or no will do. No need to try to deflect attention by responding with other nonsense comments.

[John Scheuplein]

"Peace", all of your comments are nonsense, but here goes.

Marginally supporting someone, and voting for them is not "running"! I had no dog in this hunt, except possible change that I feel is needed.

The links you posted supposedly supporting your false claim that I had been blogging here for s year were primarily of articles, and the appeal decision, not any references to my illusioned blogging here.

Who is deceitful, manipulative and confused? Certainly not me!

I have been straightforward, ansd used my name ot front, unlike you, hiding in the shadows of insideous anonymity.

And you did invoke religious consequence to justify and cloak yourself with. No doubt about it!

[grrrrrrrrrrrrrr]

You guys need to get a room already

[Loolie]

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr wrote:

You guys need to get a room already

Did that work for you and Sharrp Shooter?

[grrrrrrrrrrrrrr]

Loolie wrote:

<quoted text>
Did that work for you and Sharrp Shooter?

I waited for hours at the Roadway Inn and he never showed. I was wearing leather chaps and all, what a waste.

[Loolie]

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr wrote:

<quoted text>
I waited for hours at the Roadway Inn and he never showed. I was wearing leather chaps and all, what a waste.

He deserves better. Maybe a date at the Red Roof Inn in San Dimas? If it's good enough for Tony Zendejas, it should be good enough for your man.