Land cases. Person in default:- Almira Sarmiento Absin / Johnson for Bonbon (3 land sites) and Pueblo de Oro’s development site in Phil-am Life. Judge was Gil Bollozos. Court is……civil case. Further: Court case number started as 2009 – 199 for Land cases. Persons in default:- Hesiquinto Absin in Bonbon. Judge was ….Michelia O. Capadocia Court was…Civil Case. Judge now is Judge Abbu Florencia Sealana.
This a copy of part of the judgement order, lets have a look at just one statement for now. The plaintiff has never had a serious heart complaint. However, the statement clearly says: “Defendant however later worked as English teacher in Seoul, Korea from year 2001-2003 earning substantial amount. (The defendant a Mrs Almira Absin / Johnson)
First, we note that Filipino’s are not allowed to teach English in Korea. It’s against Sth Korean law. How was this statement verified?
The second thing we note is of course where did the defendant work? What’s the name of the company? There can be no company to verify this.
Thirdly, it is quite universally known that a teacher’s pay, or indeed any pay in Sth Korea is regretfully, for a Filipino not substantial. It should be, but it isn’t. Certainly not enough to purchase the said properties, and in any case did the court say that in this couples married life the plaintiffs money was family money, and in the defendant’s case the money belonged only to her and wasn’t family money? It appears so.
Fourth. Notice the student (defendant’s) name. That’s right. Why is it the defendant’s maiden name? Why isn’t it her married name? Further proof shows that she never married for a family, (There was no sex. The husband genuinely believed she had a medical challenge and remained truthful and supported her because of this.) Did she therefore marry to get the wealth? The obvious conclusion is yes.
Fifth. The defendant doesn’t even use her correct name in the law-courts! We wonder why? (Maybe difficult, 2 husbands?)
Sixth. More-so the defendants lies meant that the statement in the judgement order is a lie. The judge did not pursue the truth. (fact because if she had allowed the defendant to talk he would have stated this and proved it, in any case she should have asked for terms of contract, proof that she the defendant was in Korea, proof of E2 VISA, bank statements/book showing income etc.) The defendant (Mrs Almira Absin / Johnson) was never in Sth Korea for three years 2001-2003. At the longest maybe 1 year, which would have been 2001. and, the plaintiff was not allowed to talk. (We wonder why?) Let’s have a look at just 2 of the evidences to support that this is a lie.
This is a copy of the husbands passport stamp. They traveled together! Now. Just in case you say it isn’t proof, what about this >>>>> NOTE** the certificate below.** Center Number is AU004. This center number is the center in Melbourne Australia. There are also other surprising proofs that Mrs Almira Absin / Johnson was elsewhere during the period 2001-2003.
There are also other facts and proofs of lying under oath. Can the defendant be charged with perjury? The answer of course is YES. This woman did totally ruined an Innocent persons life. Even more. She lied to the Judge Abbu Florencia Sealana on many occasions to do this. (Did the defendants lawyer, Atty Jay Frances Bago know about this?) More!!! Did the Judge know? Many have guessed yes, presuming she is a mature and wiser judge. Some have said no. she is not competent. In either case, whatever she was made to look a fool by the defendant. That is a fact mainly due to the lack of truthful information on the judgement order. Many have said the judgement order is more than likely produced by two people. We will see whether Judge Abbu Florencia Sealana calls the defendant back or not? Its the only way that she will be believed that she acted correctly some say. In either case it is obvious that the judge didn’t want the plaintiff to speak otherwise she wouldn’t be ignorant to many facts. (If she was)
I appears in fact very unprofessional In fact (improper, unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, disreputable, unseemly, unbecoming, unbefitting, indecorous, unworthy, and negligent.) Worse, it could reflect a disgusting acceptance by the court of appeal. At the opening trial, the plaintiff was addressed on what he would say, wouldn’t say etc. We believe he was ‘gagged’ from day one.
We love the Philippines and Filipinos. We hate liars, cheaters and thieves.