I have no evidence to the contrary. Paul will walk and the take the matter to civil court(s) where he and his family should be made whole for this avoidable and unfortunate incident. pardon the pun, but Paul should take the offender(s) to the cleaners!

Paul is just fortunate he had many friends and witnesses at the arrest scene. It was fortuitous that his ex showed up at the scene. The police wanted to impound the vehicle (after they ransacked it and found nothing). The car was about 50 ft. from its normal parking spot. She is one tough woman. She knew her and her husbands's rights and forced their hand. What were they thinking?

Where's the proof, it's one man's word against
the other's. Like Johnny said at Simpson's trial,
'if the bull$h!t doesn't fit, you must acquit.'
Or something like that.(Grin)

Where's the proof, it's one man's word against
the other's. Like Johnny said at Simpson's trial,
'if the bull$h!t doesn't fit, you must acquit.'
Or something like that.(Grin)

=====
They always make a much larger issue out of the empty claims versus cases with proof. If Paul had hard evidence on Eddie's (so-called) Quality Cleaner's, they'd say they couldn't view it, and quickly make an excuse in short order.

People always want to see hard evidence someone has on liars sides until you can produce. Then they will drop you like a hot-potato (no peanuts) unless on Topix.(laughs)

If you ever have video evidence and go to Pittsburgh, call the DA first or else the video may not be seen. They will smile and play games with you in the matter, including the judge when you have a valid, provable case against someone.

That comment you made up top is also like Judge Judy, and yes managers and so-called expected to be credible people lie too. Judge Judy states:
" Baloney!", and she is also convinced that "If something doesn't make sense, it's not true."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy

Of course, a neighbor full of baloney, but her lies and "playing the victim" are very highly over-rated while she yells and hollers death threats to people like a maniac up and down the street.(Video footage available,) or is it plague to be able to prove something when they are highly favored, and for any reason?

I once had the links to such on here, but they were taken down, but I know a lot of people and obtained a full, true copy. Now she's off to lying about people going to he manager. Did you know you could be convicted of a crime if speaking to a manager of a place after the same person points to someone yells out name as per the video evidence prior to prove?

If she claims calling names prior in a court transcript, then evidence by valid court records of her own admission?

She's credible later as to disclaiming name calling then, but before?

Hey, I speak the truth - by paying very close attention and actual documentation and records which is valid, Freedom of Information as is other ways to prove.

Now what I am getting at: Eddie (lie and take you to the cleaners) is the same as her no different a fraud based on the very intent to call Paul a liar - no evidence to show.

If a piece of paper from a manager which known to be commonly referred to as hearsay by Judge Judy: Judge Judy refuses 'hearsay ... and won't even accept notarized documents.
Reason:
On the daytime small claims court program, Judge Judy refuses 'hearsay' evidence (what someone is supposed to have said). She demands witnesses and won't even accept notarized documents. She says she wants to examine the witness and "look into their eyes", inspect their demeanor to determine if they are credible.

And also to her husband: Defendant: Your honor, I have a letter to prove what I am saying is true!
Judge: I don't want to see your letter madam, I don't know who wrote that letter!
... Don't tell me what people told you, that's hearsay!
http://www.geocities.com/judgemilian/sheindli...

(Even signed, its hearsay and cannot prove anything nor who claims to have signed it - even if on business letterhead - and still prove to be a lie, even superiors can lie.)

Example:
A lady ends up dead beneath a lawn of a service person, the person then files to Mexico after killing her. The superiors wrote letters and stated the lady, their officers girlfriend was crazy and made statements to them to the effect and their service man would never do to her as she claims. Result by facts: She is dead underneath the serviceman's lawn, DNA proves he is the killer yet the letter is acceptable still and not hearsay?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/t...
Remember, she was called the "crazy lady," but later found dead as she warned people was going to happen. Perhaps the boss of the man who killed her should have written a letter with official letterhead to say the lady tried to make him lose his job, slandered him, and caused grief would be accepted in Pittsburgh if could be? A manager, or a boss of anyone can lie for anybody, doesn't make it court worthy. She was right all along to her own peril, who believed her, took her seriously? The real victim was her, not the killer as they stated prior to her (the true victims, death).

In hindsight, she had a truthful reason for approaching her boyfriends boss, and should never be counted as slander or otherwise. Especially if the other person has been known to have faulty behavior of their very own, gloating, laughing, and generally finding taunting the "real victim" funny. There are actual cases.
Unfortunate result, in stark contrast:
The victim so-called can be the problem, and the defendant can be the actual victim.

Lower courts, no transcripts in Boroughs and Mckeesport:
You should, within your rights be able to hire a professions to type a transcript, then it becomes priceless, and a Judge sympathizing with a so-called victim by name could be evident in the higher courts. Or allowing the so-called victims name calling in court and told she were in contempt to be evidenced in the higher courts!
http://www.virginia-appeals.com/scv_opinion.a...
See #3. on the web page, and I question the lower courts such as in Mckeesport to close them to the public since the current judge has been in office also. By rights of the United States Citizens: All the public is to have rights to court hearings, as a general rule and realization.