Titles and Documents Hosted on Scribd

Profile: https://www.scribd.com/user/959069180/Albert-B-Pepper-Jr?_gl=1*181sxxz*_up*MQ..*_ga*OTU5MTQ2NDE3LjE3ODIwNzQ3OTQ.*_ga_Z4ZC50DED6*czE3ODIwNzQ3OTMkbzEkZzEkdDE3ODIwNzQ4NTIkajEkbDAkaDA.*_ga_8KZ8BV0P5W*czE3ODIwNzQ3OTMkbzEkZzEkdDE3ODIwNzQ4NTIkajEkbDAkaDA.

Uploads: https://www.scribd.com/uploads?_gl=1*181fu40*_up*MQ..*_ga*OTU5MTQ2NDE3LjE3ODIwNzQ3OTQ.*_ga_Z4ZC50DED6*czE3ODIwNzQ3OTMkbzEkZzEkdDE3ODIwNzUzMTYkajYwJGwwJGgw*_ga_8KZ8BV0P5W*czE3ODIwNzQ3OTMkbzEkZzEkdDE3ODIwNzUzMTYkajYwJGwwJGgw

 Ex-Parte - Respondent Motion To Dismiss - Friedman V Pepper - Case # 2611-PN00554 

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1042743664/Ex-parte-Respondent-Motion-to-Dismiss-Friedman-v-Pepper-Case-2611-PN00554

Respondent Albert B. Pepper Jr. seeks to dismiss the Petition for Order of Protection filed by Petitioner Anthony R. Friedman, arguing that the petition is based on omitted material facts and lacks evidence of immediate danger. The Respondent claims that the allegations are retaliatory and that the evidence presented by the Petitioner is stale and lacks credibility. Alternatively, if the Court does not dismiss the petition, the Respondent requests a 20-day continuance to gather necessary evidence.

Original Description

St. Charles Court Case 2611-PN00554: Order of protection completely dismissed with prejudice. Summary This public court document contains the official legal filings and final judicial disposition for Case No. 2611-PN00554, heard in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri (Division 12) (p. 1). The matter involved a petition for an Ex Parte Order of Protection filed by St. Charles attorney Anthony R. Friedman against respondent Albert B. Pepper Jr. (p. 1)On May 13, 2026, the Honorable Judge William Byrnes entered a final judgment granting the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice (pp. 1, 11). The court dissolved the temporary ex parte order of protection, concluding the proceedings in favor of the respondent (p. 11). Core Legal and Factual Context The enclosed Motion to Dismiss details the respondent's affirmative defenses and structural legal arguments under Missouri law, which the court sustained (pp. 1, 6): Statutory Exclusion for Legitimate Advocacy: The motion establishes that the petitioner’s allegations of harassment and stalking lacked factual foundation and statutory merit (pp. 2, 4). Under RSMo § 455.010, the respondent's public reporting and consumer journalism regarding professional conduct serve a legitimate purpose and are statutorily protected from being characterized as civil harassment (pp. 5-6).Rule 4-3.3(d) Professional Candor: The filings outline the respondent's arguments regarding the duty of candor in ex parte proceedings, noting the omission of an active regulatory complaint with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC File #25-2531-X) opened on February 17, 2026 (p. 1). Objective Physical Impossibility: The text provides verified logistical records demonstrating that the respondent—a 64-year-old disabled individual residing in a supervised care facility in Doe Run, Missouri—maintained a 95-mile geographic separation from the petitioner, rendering claims of an immediate physical safety threat a physical impossibility (pp. 2-3). Document Contents Respondent's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (Filed May 5, 2026) (pp. 1, 12). Judicial Order of Dismissal (Entered May 13, 2026) (pp. 5, 11).This record is uploaded for public archiving, legal research, and consumer advocacy transparency regarding civil litigation procedures in St. Charles County, Missouri (pp. 1, 5). Scribd Metadata Tags (Keywords)Anthony R. Friedman, Anthony Friedman Attorney, The Friedman Law Firm LLC, Albert B. Pepper Jr, Case No 2611-PN00554, St. Charles County Court, Dismissed with Prejudice, Order of Protection Dissolved, RSMo 455.010, Rule 4-3.3, OCDC File 25-2531-X, Missouri Civil Litigation

 Anthony R. Friedman (Petitioner) V Albert B. Pepper Jr. (Respondent) Master - Respondents Motion To Dismiss Case # 2611-PN00554  

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1039133796/Anthony-R-Friedman-Petitioner-v-Albert-B-Pepper-Jr-Respondent-Master-Respondents-Motion-to-Dismiss-Case-2611-PN00554 

This document is a Master Compilation of a Motion to Dismiss a Petition for Order of Protection filed by Respondent Albert B. Pepper Jr. against Petitioner Anthony R. Friedman. The motion argues that the petition is based on retaliatory motives, lacks credible evidence of immediate danger, and violates professional conduct rules. The Respondent seeks dismissal with prejudice or, alternatively, a continuance for further preparation.

Original Description
Litigant Pro Se Albert B. Pepper v "Super Lawyer" Anthony R. Friedman and Prevails With Full Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice, 2026 Abstract: Motion to Dismiss Retaliatory Order of Protection | Case # 2611-PN00554Overview This legal compilation presents the successful "Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice" filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri, in the matter of Anthony R. Friedman v. Albert B. Pepper. - Motion hearing held May 13, 2026 11th Judicial St. Charles

 He Is Brought As A Lamb To The Slaughter - Albert B. Pepper Jr. V The Simon Law Firm P.C. 

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1023692495/He-is-Brought-as-a-Lamb-to-the-Slaughter-Albert-B-Pepper-Jr-v-The-Simon-Law-Firm-P-C 

Albert B. Pepper Jr. recounts his experience during a medical malpractice trial where he felt betrayed by his own legal counsel at The Simon Law Firm P.C., particularly after lead counsel Anthony R. Friedman shared privileged information with opposing counsel. He describes a series of misconduct and failures by his attorneys, including lack of preparation and ex-parte communications with the opposing side, leading to a detrimental trial outcome. Pepper plans to file a legal malpractice complaint against the firm due to their actions and the impact on his case.

Original Description
When the legal counsel into whose hand you deposit your trust turns out to be your adversary what is an unsophisticated plaintiff litigant to do? The "dream-client" has now become the "Franken-Client". The Simon Law Firm P.C. created me. The Simon Law Firm P.C. Anthony R. Friedman - The "Proto-Malfeasor" Elizabeth C. McNulty - "Successor-Malfeasor" Elizabeth S. Lenivy - "Associate-Malfeasor" John G. Simon, Managing Partner of The Simon Law Firm P.C. as the - "Vicarious-Malfeasor" #saintlouis

 Clients Beware - Simon Law Firm P.C.  

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1021517894/Clients-Beware-Simon-Law-Firm-P-C 

This document critically analyzes the Personal Injury Retainer Agreement between Albert B. Pepper Jr. and The Simon Law Firm, highlighting significant imbalances that favor the law firm at the client's expense. Key issues include the absence of a 'Client-First' clause, the firm's right to withdraw representation unilaterally, and a 40% fee taken from the gross recovery before expenses, potentially leaving the client with nothing. The analysis warns clients to demand more protective terms before signing similar agreements to avoid financial pitfalls.

Original Description
Critical Analysis of Gross Recovery Contingency Fee Agreements in Personal Injury litigation

 R.A., Sarah, Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital - Dr. Daniel McNeive | Case #21SL-CC03944 | Trial Court Transcript - Plaintiff Counsel Amy Collignon Gunn Opening Statement / Arguments  

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1021497862/R-A-Sarah-Blake-Anyan-v-Mercy-Hospital-Dr-Daniel-McNeive-Case-21SL-CC03944-Trial-Court-Transcript-Plaintiff-Counsel-Amy-Collignon-Gunn-Op 

 R.A., Sarah, Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital - Dr. Daniel McNeive | Case #21SL-CC03944 | Trial Court Transcript - Plaintiff Counsel Amy Collignon Gunn Opening Statement / Arguments 

 $48.1M Anyan v. Mercy Trial Transcript: The Simon Law Firm Ethics Investigation & High-Low Agreement Exposed  

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1016526411/48-1M-Anyan-v-Mercy-Trial-Transcript-The-Simon-Law-Firm-Ethics-Investigation-High-Low-Agreement-Exposed  

 This document contains critical highlights extracted from the full case record (3,000+ pages) for R.A., Sarah, and Blake Anyan v. Mercy Hospital East (Case #21SL-CC03944). While the public narrative focuses on a $48.1 million verdict, this archive exposes the confidential $18M high-low agreement signed minutes before the verdict, triggering ongoing legal ethics investigations into The Simon Law Firm and Gunn | Slater regarding Missouri Rule 4-7.1 (Misleading Communications). 

 Clients Beware - A Critical Analysis of Personal Injury Retainer Agreements The Simon Law Firm P C Saint Louis  

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1015692911/Clients-Beware-A-Critical-Analysis-of-Personal-Injury-Retainer-Agreements-the-Simon-Law-Firm-P-C-Saint-Louis 

This document critically analyzes the Personal Injury Retainer Agreement between Albert B. Pepper Jr. and The Simon Law Firm, highlighting significant imbalances favoring the law firm that could leave clients with zero recovery. Key issues include the absence of a 'Client First' clause, a high 40% fee taken from gross recovery before expenses, and the firm's unilateral right to withdraw from representation. The analysis warns potential clients to seek more equitable terms, such as expenses-first calculations and sliding-scale fees, to protect their financial interests.

Original Description
A comprehensive legal audit of a standard personal injury retainer agreement from The Simon Law Firm P.C.. This document examines the "Gross Recovery" fee model, litigation expense hazards, and professional ethics through the lens of the Albert B. Pepper Jr. v. Vladimir Gelfand, M.D. case. Includes a word-verbatim rendering of the 2019 Simon Law Firm contract and a comparative analysis using scholarly criteria from the Hofstra Law Review. - This is presented as a primary document for criticism

 She'S An Imposter - A Conversation With Gemini With Regard To Elizabeth C. Mcnulty Attorney With The Simon Law Firm P.C  

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1011466468/Performance-Assessment-of-Elizabeth-C-McNulty-a-k-a-Net-Zero-McNulty-Mo-Bar-72026-A-Case-Study-in-Legal-Ethics-Net-Zero-Verdicts-and-Prof

Elizabeth C. McNulty, an attorney at The Simon Law Firm, has received accolades for her professional involvement, yet her record shows limited financial success for clients, raising concerns about her effectiveness as lead counsel. Current scrutiny involves allegations of misconduct and misleading advertising related to her handling of cases, particularly the Pepper v. Gelfand trial, which resulted in low financial awards. The assessment suggests that McNulty's professional reputation is more a product of firm branding than a proven track record of client success.

Original Description
This comprehensive assessment provides a critical analysis of Elizabeth C. McNulty, a.k.a. "Net-Zero McNulty" Mo. Bar # 72026 a personal injury attorney at The Simon Law Firm, P.C. in Saint Louis, Missouri. The report examines a significant disparity between McNulty’s institutional branding—including her 2024 "Up & Coming Award" and "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch" recognition—and her actual litigation performance for clients. Assessment Date: March 10, 2026 Albert B. Pepper Jr. - Phoenix Rising

Original Title
Performance Assessment of Elizabeth C. McNulty a.k.a. "Net-Zero McNulty" (Mo. Bar #72026): A Case Study in Legal Ethics, "Net-Zero" Verdicts, and Professional Misconduct Allegations at The Simon Law Firm, P.C. March 10. 2026

 American Inns of Court _ Elizabeth C. McNulty - Mo - Bar - 72026 - Barrister Nominee _ Member_Unfit - Simon - Law - Firm - Saint - Louis  

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1008247264/American-Inns-of-Court-Elizabeth-C-McNulty-Mo-Bar-72026-Barrister-Nominee-Member-Unfit-Simon-Law-Firm-Saint-Louis 

 Elizabeth C. McNulty Missouri Bar Number 72026 an attorney with The Simon Law Firm P.C. in St. Louis, Missouri is unfit to be a barrister member of the American Inns of Court, the Theodore McMillian Chapter - Notice, arguments and polemic whereas McNulty has no credible achievement per her own merits as an attorney, plaintiff litigator but rather her presentation is a result and a product of The Simon Law Firm P.C. public relations work. 

 Remington - Blake - Sarah - Anyan - Mercy - Hospital - Mcneive - Simon - Law - Firm - PC - Gunn - Slater - Birth - Injury  

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/1008161618/Remington-Blake-Sarah-Anyan-Mercy-Hospital-Mcneive-Simon-Law-Firm-Pc-Gunn-Slater-Birth-Injury 

The document discusses the medical malpractice case Anyan v. Mercy Hospital, highlighting the discrepancies between the advertised jury verdict of $48.1 million and the actual high/low agreement of $8 million to $18 million established before the jury's decision. It critiques the Simon Law Firm P.C. for promoting the inflated verdict while potentially misleading the public about the actual compensation plaintiffs may receive. The case is currently under appeal, with ongoing debates about the validity of the high/low agreement and the potential impact on the plaintiffs' net award.

Original Description
With regard to the medical malpractice, birth injury case of Remington, Blake, Sarah Anyan v Mercy Hospital and Dr. Daniel McNeive the criticism herein is how the Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater Law Firm in St. Louis Missouri rushed to submit press releases citing the 48.1 million dollar jury verdict as though they were successful in obtaining this gross recovery for their client when in fact, minutes before the jury verdict was rendered. plaintiff counsel and defense counsel entered into a