Kenneth Love faces a Class 1 misdemeanor as a result of threatening his ex-roommate with a shovel

ex-roommate, shovel, maricopa
Kenneth Love threatens his ex-roommate with a shovel.

Kenneth Love faces a Class 1 misdemeanor as a result of threatening his ex-roommate with a shovel. From reading the PDF in the link below, you will see that the prosecuting Phoenix attorney Michele Gamez will allow Love to dismiss the case without entering any type of plea whatsoever. Basically Love, will complete a few diversion group classes and the case will go away without any type of fine.

Ken Love Class 1 Misdemeanor


Kenneth Love is accused of threatening his ex-roommate with a shovel and sues him over rent

Kenneth Love didn’t feel he received his desired rent so he is accused of threatening his ex-roommate with a shovel. His ex-roommate then was forced with getting a restraining order against Kenneth Love.

The following is a copy of the resulting restraining order as well as a copy of the judges order.

https://www.kennethloveaz.net/pdfs/kenneth_love_threaten_shovel_restraining _order.pdf

The following is also a copy of the lawsuit that Kenneth Love filed against his ex-roommate.



Hannah Love of Planned Parenthood Oregon receives no fine, diversion or community service for underage drinking

During a break from Reed College in Portland, Hannah Love is ticketed for underage drinking.

The following is a copy of the case against Hannah Love




Alice Brown vs Matthew Brown – Maricopa


Download Higher Resolution PDF



\342\200\230 FAX 2770!\342\200\234

By: ‘uelVi/n Sternburg Arizona State Bar N04 001310

Auomey forgetitioner


lo. DI 94-06764 ALICE H. BROIIN,

Petitioner , V mam-cl: 0\” sauce ‘and MATTHEW [4. BROWN, Respondent.


STATE OF ARIZONA ) – _ ) ea. County of Hericope )

STEVEN K. LARSON, being first duly sworn upon oeth,

deposes and says:

That he is the Attorney for the Respondent in the foregoing action, that he acknowledges receipt of true copies of the Petition for Dinsolution of Herriege, Su-ons, Preli-inery

V Injunction, and Notice of Right to Convert Health Insurance, and

grees that this action may proceed as if Respondent had been

\342\200\230 rsonell served with these documents in the State of Arizona, his M day of 11117. 1994. \342\200\231


2800 South Rural, Suite A Telpe, Arizona 85282

MW\342\200\234 13′

XCCL s\342\200\230mmiJJlax\357\254\202n\357\254\202 Ii! !:

\302\253m .M 1. .5. E \342\200\234.3 \357\254\201rim mm. .w m m m fT: =13.\342\200\235 DDESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENT:\nSex: Male\nHeight: 6′ 0\”\nHair: Brown\nRace: Caucasian\nWeight: 160\nSocial Security Number: Unknown\nDate of Birth: 05-16-60\nEyes: Green E

o .w B. Molest, harass, disturb the peace of, or committ an assault and battery on your spuse (petitioner or respondent) or any natural or adopted child of the petitioner and/or respondent. 5.. I. 2. A. Transfer, encomber, conceal, sell or otherwise dispose of any the joint, common, or community property of petitioner and/or respondent except in the usual course of business of for the necessities of life, without written consent of both petitionerand respondent or permission of the court. C. Remove any natural or adopted child of petitioner and/or respondent presemtly residing in Arizona from the State of Arizona without the prior written consent of both petitioner ans respondent or the permission of the court. It is Further ordered that this injunction is effective against both parties to this action. If you are the petitioner, the injunction is effective upon filing the petition for the dissolution or legal speration. If you are the respondent, this injunction is effective upon being served with, or accepting service of a copy of this injunction upon you. Issued under my hand and the seal of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the county of M<aricopa this date. _ _ It is Further ordered that this injunction has the same force and effect of an Order of the Superior Court signed by a Judge and is enforceable by all remedies made available by law, including contempt of court.

DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONER:\nSex: Female\nHeight: 5′ 3 1/4’\nHair: Brown\nRace: Caucasian\nWeight: 115\nSocial Security Number: 524-25-0663\nDate of Birth: 07-31-64\nEyes: Blue LIZ\342\200\234: \357\254\201rm?!\342\200\234

\342\200\230,.1.\342\200\230.y-.muuuunnunnnuE E

\302\247 .l ‘E g

g S a

\302\2433 E is

i 9 \302\247 3



10 II



M 15 !6 I7 18 19 20 2| 22 23 24 25 26 27 23

m cm to before

, 1994. \342\200\230

Hy Cami-lion1kpir3u

n. this. [1 [g \342\200\234any o: Hay,1 STERNBERG a: snag. uro. . – . ATTORNEYS AT L I ‘

80 EAST COLUMBUS AVENUE! . 2 , PHOENIX, ARIZONA 55012 TELEPHONE (602) 264-4965 FAX 277-0!\342\200\234

. 3 By: Helvin Sternberg’

‘ 4 Arizona Statemm 5 _ Attorney for: Petitioner 6 IN.m SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 7_ m m roe was com or Human I

8 In re the Marriage of: _ lo. DR 94-061\342\200\234 9 ALICE H. BROWN, ‘ TV – Inn’s P08!!!\342\200\234 mm: 10 Petitioner, l ‘


_ . I (Assigned to. the Honorable \342\200\2302\342\200\234 MATTHEW H. BROWN,

Barry C. Schneider)


13 Respondent. 14 \342\200\231 \342\200\2305 cuss so\302\273 the Petitioner, ALICE 1!. BROWN, hereinafter

\342\200\23017, hereby sub-its her Position statenent in the above-referenced

‘8 utter.

_,,I_9 .,

16 referred to es \”Wife\”, by and through her undersigned ettLorney, and I \302\253 L V 20 \342\200\230 1. What constitutes an i: equitable division of the

21 parties ‘ assets .

22 2. What constitutes an equitable divisicxn of the 23 psrties’ liabilitieu. \342\200\235 24\”; g 3. Is Husband entitled \342\200\234to retain am his sole end

5253 separate property, \357\254\201his funds prior to the nrriage, or h\303\251ye 25 the funds been sufficiently copingled or spent so as to be non-\342\200\224 V 27 existent or non-identifiable. L

28, 4. Has Husband co-itted waste of community sssetsa;W

interest in Husband\342\200\231s retire-ant plan. In an effort to reduce the


., 1. WW: \Wife propon- the 3 sfollowing as an equitable division of \342\200\230the community assets of the 4 parties: 5 mm: wife proposes that she be 6 awarded the narital residence located at 5134 East Keresan street, 2 V Phoenix,.,hrizona, as her sole and separate property, subject to all 9 – liens and encumbrances thereon. Since there is\342\200\230no equity in said w v residence, there should be no offset to Husband. H m: Each party should retain the vehicle a. \342\200\2302 currently in his or her possession, subject to all liens and gi\303\251\357\254\201g 13 encunhrances thereon. \342\200\230 15 Each party should retain those items of furniture, furnishings, \357\254\201g\357\254\201\357\254\201u 16 appliances, and personalty currently in his or her possession or E s k n control. 18 , W: Wife proposes that Husband retain 19 the gun collection, and that Wife be given an offset for the value 20 thereof. 2\342\200\230 W: Each party should retain all 22 accounts in banks, savings and loan associations, thrift 23 \342\200\230 associations, brokerage institutions and credit unions standing in 24 the name of that party. _ . V . 25 26 \342\200\230 m: \342\200\230Hife\342\200\230 proposes that she receive one\342\200\224half of the co-uni’ty 5 n i I,nu-ber of \342\200\230qualified domestic relations orders \” prepared, Wife

proposes that her one-half interest be offset against Husband’s interest in her retirement plan with Penna-ore Craig, P.C. ,_!!.E,I! !.E g. Ecvll. ! \357\254\202an: wife proposes that Husband receive one-half of the co-unity interest in her retirement plan which has accrued in connection with her .enployaent at Fenneaore Craig, P.C. , my, Wife \”s one-half interest innit-band\342\200\231s retirement plan. Husband should \342\200\230receiye his interest therein pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, which shall be prepared and paid for by Husband. 2. KW: wife proposes that she be

Egg\357\254\201 responsible for the balance due and owing S’l’H Mortgage, so long as Eggg\303\251i 14 she is awarded the marital residence herein. In the event Husband 15 is awarded the marital residence, Wife proposes that ‘ he heI Egg? 16 responsible for this obligation. Wife further proposes that each E \342\200\2307 party be responsible for any and all liens against the vehicle

awarded to that party. ~ In addition, Wife proposes that each Mgr-noun be responsible for. any debt or obligation incurred by that party since the date of separation. The party awarded a particular asset should assume allvresponsibility for paying any debts’in connection with that asset , holding the other party harmless fro: such’a’debt, and from attorneys\342\200\230!\342\200\235:fees and costs of any litigation in; donnection therewith. ‘ ‘ ‘ \342\200\230- 3- , It\342\200\231i- Wit:- position that the monies which were held in the cos-aunity

hr\342\200\235! (.4

3accounts, were conunity in nature in their entirety. lli’he parties

have previously divided these accounts, giving Husband .approxiaately r $31,000 , and wife approxisately $20,000, , the difference being used to offset the variance in the values of the

yehicles, furniture/furnishings, and personal property,

\342\200\230- -W= \”if. 811-90- that Husband has, co-itted waste of co-unity assets by the

following actions: A) During the, pendency of these proceedings, Husband has failed and refused to obtain full-tine enployaent.

Rather, Husband has worked either interlittently or not at all.

, Historically, Husband earned approxilately $2,400 per nonth. Wife. r , alleges that for those aonths Husband has refused to work, Husband .1 has omitted waste of this community asset at the rate of $2,400 per month, and she should be entitled to an offset therefor. 81′. r B) At the time of the filing of the Petition for,

Dissolution of Harriage, the, com-unity had an interest in a life ‘ insurance policy with Allstate. Upon information and belief, during the pendency of theee_,proceedings, Husband ceaased naking pay-ants on said policy, allowing the cash surrender wslue to be i _. depleted in its entirety. wife alleges that Husband’s actions| constitute waste, and Wife should be entitled to an offset for the: – i value of this policy, prior to Husband’s dissipation of the value\302\273

thereof . ‘ – I . g?




\357\254\201r\”: N\342\200\235ATTORNEYS AT LAW I0 I\342\200\235? W AVENUE PHOENIX, AMIDNA m2 TELEPHONE (ml 2\342\200\234~M5 FAX 277-Ol\342\200\234

STERN\342\200\234 & SINGER. LTD.



11 12\342\200\230

.3\342\200\231 \342\200\2304 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


25 26 27 28

mm! 3mm this 20th day of Junc, 1995. smmnzne s smsnn, mo.

\342\200\23080 East Columbus \342\200\230 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 ‘ _, Attorney for Petitioner


PM L.\342\200\230,\342\200\235\342\200\230I

ivy-ma m0 e


It is nueband’e position that he had $16,735.00 that was his sole and separate property froa the beginning of the narriage. $13,000.00\342\200\234 these funds were transferred to another account in both parties\” names, but was not sufficiently coolingled with conunity funds,\”so that the identity of the separate funds were lost; The\302\273 separate funds were placed in an account that included the name of the win as an accouodation only. It was not a gift to the conunity, but rather Husband desired that, the event of his untiaely\342\200\231dea’th, that Wife would then have the funds inlediately available toylher. \342\200\230

Regarding the division of conunity property, it is evident from the list of the division of conunity assets that Husband has received, or hae’in his possession, exclusive of the liquidation of the investnent and bank accounts, property having a present value of W; wife has, exclusive of property received fro. the division of investeent and bank accounts, conunity property in the anount of W. payment fro: wife in the a’nount of W.

V Husband has a right to one-half (is) of Wife’s retire-ant fund

Husband should receive an equalization

free her \302\253player as of the date of dissolution. not as of the date of the last infatuation provided by wife, which is noticurrent.

In my opinion, the Arizona State Bar is a supporter of domestic violence.

Kenneth Love threatens his ex-“roommate” with a shovel and faces criminal prosecution. Seems the Arizona State Bar could careless about domestic violence committed by an attorney licensed in the state of Arizona.

Arizona State Bar’s response to Kenneth Love threatening his ex-“roommate” with a shovel

Kenneth Love or Brenda Church house is foreclosed costing the bank 200K dollars

You can see in the following deed that the house was bought at the top of the market. The issue probably isn’t about the money but since it was no longer a good investment it was decided to let the bank foreclose thus sticking the bank with over a 200K loss.




Not surprisingly, Brenda Church was a probate attorney in Arizona who ended up receiving some bad press which resulted in her letting her attorney registration lapse.


Again, not surprisingly, she ended up with a few lawsuits against her.


John Greene Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue has campaign finance issues from past election and his son Richard Greene had his home foreclosed

John Greene ran for Attorney General back in 2002 and he ended up almost being disqualified for campaign finance issues. Luckily, he still lost the election.


Acorns don’t fall far from the family tree. His son Richard Greene had his house foreclosed. No wonder the housing economy is shot in Arizona. It appears Richard Greene is an accountant but has failed to pass his CPA test.



Georgia Hudak sues her employer, Arizona Department of Revenue, due to overtime pay

Georgia Hudak sues her employer, Arizona Department of Revenue, due to overtime pay since she felt she didn’t get her proper overtime pay.