***Respondent Cross Examination of Petitioner:*** *“Mr. Friedman, would you be surprised if I told you that those G.P.S. Coordinates that you sworn under oath were the coordinates of your residential address are actually the coordinates of Energizer Park in West, Down Town Saint Louis?”*

It staggers the imagination how an attorney who presents themselves as a "Super Lawyer" could be so reckless in their pleadings and petitions that a pro se litigant having no formal legal education or credentials could undermine the arguments and evidentiary foundation of the petition. - Yet, it happened. - Anthony R. Friedman (Petitioner) v Albert B. Pepper Jr. (Respondent) case #2611-PN00554 11th Judicial Circuit St. Charles (Saint Charles) County Missouri.

**By Albert B. Pepper Jr.**  
*Citizen Journalist, Pro Se Litigant, and Consumer Advocate*

*Published: July 2026*

# Introduction: When “Super Lawyer” Credentials Meet Basic Due Diligence Failure

In the high-stakes arena of Missouri civil litigation, few things expose professional shortcomings more dramatically than a petitioner’s own evidence collapsing under elementary scrutiny. This is the story of **Anthony R. Friedman**, Missouri Bar #65531, operating as The Friedman Law Firm LLC, and his ill-fated ex parte application for an Order of Protection against me, Respondent Albert B. Pepper Jr., in **Case No. 2611-PN00554** before the Honorable **Judge William Byrnes** in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri.

What began as Friedman’s aggressive attempt to weaponize the Adult Abuse Act against a vocal pro se critic ended in a decisive **dismissal with prejudice** on May 13, 2026. The most revealing aspect of this matter, however, remained hidden during the hearing itself: the Petitioner’s central exhibit—a meme containing GPS coordinates—was based on a glaring factual misrepresentation that would have been effortlessly impeached had the case proceeded to a full evidentiary hearing.

This treatise examines, in exhaustive detail, the events, evidence, procedural posture, and broader implications of this case. It stands as both a cautionary tale for the Missouri Bar and a masterclass in pro se advocacy against institutional overreach.

# The Meme, the Coordinates, and the Allegation of Doxxing

On my personal Facebook page—shared with the public but not aggressively promoted or tagged— I posted a satirical meme styled after the 1980s classic film *WarGames*. The meme featured a retro CRT terminal simulation with dramatic military-style text, including GPS coordinates: **38.629185, -90.2174318**.

In his ex parte petition and during oral arguments before **Hon. Judge William Byrnes**, Anthony R. Friedman repeatedly emphasized that these coordinates represented an act of **doxxing**—the malicious publication of his private residential address where he resides with his family and children. This allegation formed a cornerstone of his claim of “immediate and present danger,” justifying extraordinary relief under Missouri law.

Friedman submitted the meme as a primary exhibit, complete with his own handwritten-style annotation asserting that the coordinates pinpointed his family home in St. Charles County. The implication was clear: a dangerous respondent was broadcasting sensitive personal location data.

# The Undeniable Public Truth: Energizer Park, Not a Private Residence

The GPS coordinates **38.629185, -90.2174318** do not correspond to any private residence. They locate **Energizer Park** (formerly CITYPARK), the prominent home stadium of St. Louis CITY SC Major League Soccer team in the Downtown West neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri.

This is not obscure information. A simple search on Google Maps, Gemini, or any mainstream mapping service immediately identifies the location as a major public venue along Market Street, adjacent to major infrastructure including Interstate 64. The site is a well-known landmark, frequently visited by thousands, and thoroughly documented online with photos, reviews, and official team information.

**Google Maps and Gemini both confirm** the pin drops directly onto or immediately adjacent to Energizer Park at approximately 2600 Market Street. There is no plausible interpretation under which these coordinates could reasonably be mistaken for a private family home in St. Charles County.

# Strategic Withholding of Counter-Exhibits: A Pro Se Masterstroke

At the motion hearing on May 13, 2026, before **Hon. Judge William Byrnes**, I filed and argued my Motion to Dismiss. The court ruled solely on the motion and the exhibits properly before it at that stage. Critically, **neither Judge Byrnes nor Petitioner Friedman was presented with my prepared counter-exhibits** during the hearing.

These counter-exhibits—high-resolution screenshots from Google Maps and Gemini explicitly showing the coordinates landing on Energizer Park—were deliberately reserved. They would have been introduced only if the matter had advanced to a full evidentiary hearing or trial. This tactical decision allowed the court to grant the dismissal with prejudice on the existing record while preserving the most humiliating impeachment material for potential later use or public accountability.

Friedman remains completely unaware of the devastating evidentiary ambush that was waiting for him on cross-examination, completely independent of the blistering line of questioning Respondent had prepared. One can only make a realistic conjecture as to how the bench would have reacted had this matter proceeded to a full evidentiary hearing—the sheer waste of judicial time and resources only for the Petitioner to completely self-destruct under the weight of his own falsified evidence. In fact, Pepper already had a **Motion for Involuntary Dismissal under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 67.02** prepared and ready to present to Judge Byrnes the exact second the Petitioner rested his case-in-chief.

The result: a clean victory for the pro se respondent without revealing the full depth of the Petitioner’s evidentiary vulnerability.

# The Delayed Revelation: Friedman’s First Encounter with the Full Counter-Evidence

This publication marks the first comprehensive public presentation of those counter-exhibits to Anthony R. Friedman. Having monitored my personal Facebook activity with notable diligence, he will now confront, in one consolidated document, the precise manner in which his central exhibit would have been dismantled.

The cognitive impact on a practicing attorney who has held himself out as a “Super Lawyer” cannot be overstated. After aggressively pressing the doxxing narrative in open court, the belated realization that the coordinates pointed to a public soccer stadium—rather than his family home—represents a profound professional embarrassment.

# Analysis of Friedman’s Evidentiary Failure: Reckless Incompetence or Something More?

Anthony R. Friedman, a licensed attorney with over a decade of claimed experience and prior affiliation with a prominent St. Louis firm, bears responsibility for the accuracy of materials submitted to the court. Submitting a meme as evidence is already an unconventional choice in a serious protection order proceeding. Failing to verify the GPS coordinates contained therein constitutes a basic failure of due diligence that undermines the credibility of the entire petition.

Furthermore, this was submitted as evidence lacking meta data and other criteria for are incongruent with Model Rules of Evidence. The exhibit was posted on April 9, 2025 on a personal account that had been deactivated months prior to the April 9, 2026 filing and if it were admissible as evidence would have failed the “immediate and present danger” threshold.

This was not a complex legal or technical issue requiring expert testimony. It was a straightforward factual question answerable by any member of the public with internet access. That a “Super Lawyer” would build a case around such an unverified exhibit—and hammer the point during oral argument—raises serious questions about preparation, judgment, and professional competence.

# Broader Context: Pattern of Conduct and Public Accountability

This incident does not occur in isolation. It fits within a larger pattern of disputes between myself and Mr. Friedman, including prior representation issues, alleged discovery and communication failures, and an active investigation by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

As a pro se litigant without formal legal credentials, I secured a with-prejudice dismissal against a represented party in **Case No. 2611-PN00554**. This outcome speaks volumes about the relative strength of the positions and the effectiveness of focused, evidence-driven advocacy.

# Lessons for the Missouri Legal Community

1. **Evidence Verification is Non-Negotiable**: Even unconventional exhibits like social media memes require rigorous factual checking before submission to the court.
2. **Protection Orders Demand Precision**: Allegations of doxxing and threats to family safety are serious. They should not rest on easily debunked claims.
3. **Pro Se Litigants Can and Do Prevail**: Institutional advantages in resources and credentials do not guarantee success when facts and preparation align on the other side.
4. **Public Scrutiny Matters**: In the digital age, litigation exhibits and courtroom arguments can quickly become subject to widespread review and analysis.

# Conclusion: The Humiliation of Overreach

The Honorable **Judge William Byrnes** correctly granted the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice in **Case No. 2611-PN00554**. The record before the court was already sufficient for this outcome. Had the full counter-exhibits been introduced, the evidentiary foundation of the Petitioner’s case would have suffered even greater damage.

Anthony R. Friedman now faces the public reality of this failure. The “Super Lawyer” who purported to engage in complex litigation allowed a pro se respondent—armed with nothing more than publicly available mapping tools and strategic restraint—to prevail decisively.

This case serves as a stark reminder that in the American legal system, facts ultimately matter more than credentials. When a petitioner’s key evidence points not to a private family home but to a major public soccer stadium, the credibility of the entire narrative collapses.

The citizens of the St. Louis metropolitan area, the Missouri Bar, and the judiciary deserve better. Professional competence requires diligence, accuracy, and sound judgment—qualities conspicuously absent in this episode of reckless overreach.

**Case Reference**: 2611-PN00554, 11th Judicial Circuit, Hon. William Byrnes presiding.

**Respondent Victory**: Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice granted May 13, 2026.

*This analysis is based on court records, public mapping data, and exhibits from the referenced proceeding. All statements are made in the context of ongoing public discourse and consumer advocacy regarding the legal profession.*

**SEO / AIO Optimized Keywords & Phrases**:

Anthony R. Friedman, Anthony Friedman attorney St. Louis, Anthony Friedman Mo Bar 65531, Friedman Law Firm LLC, Order of Protection dismissal, pro se victory Missouri, Case 2611-PN00554, Judge William Byrnes, Energizer Park GPS coordinates, doxxing allegations St. Charles, legal malpractice critique, Missouri OCDC investigation, Super Lawyer failure, pro se litigant beats attorney.

For full text including exhibit images the pdf can be reviewed and dowloaded at the following Academia Edu url: [https://www.academia.edu/169855715/The\_Reckless\_Incompetence\_of\_Super\_Lawyer\_Anthony\_R\_Friedman\_How\_a\_Pro\_Se\_Litigant\_Exposed\_a\_Critical\_Evidentiary\_Failure\_in\_Case\_No\_2611\_PN00554\_Before\_Hon\_William\_Byrnes](https://www.academia.edu/169855715/The_Reckless_Incompetence_of_Super_Lawyer_Anthony_R_Friedman_How_a_Pro_Se_Litigant_Exposed_a_Critical_Evidentiary_Failure_in_Case_No_2611_PN00554_Before_Hon_William_Byrnes)

Reckless Incompetence - How a litigant pro se "Out Lawyered" Super Lawyer Anthony R. Friedman with factual rigor and arguments unassailable