Category:Photographs created by Judgefloro - October-December, 2020

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Photos by Judgefloro.

If you use my photos, please use this attribution/credit: Photo by User:Judgefloro at Wikimedia Commons.



Total edit count: 1,692,741+This user has made over Total edit count: 1,692,741 contributions to Commons.
This user has been on Wikimedia Commons for
16 years, 11 months and 4 days

Categories created by User:Judgefloro - October 1-30, 2020[edit]

Categories created by User:Judgefloro - November 1-30, 2020[edit]

A fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to save uploaded photos versus i am a smart one[edit]

  • With all due respect, I humbly beg the indulgence of hard working and diligent-kind editors and administrators to help save uploaded photos versus i am a smart one who with Mass Deletion Requests (desperate attempt) to erase valued files or pictures of landmarks, national treasures, interesting points, attractions and others in the guise of FOP concerns;
  • With all due respect, i am a smart one has uploaded zero photo vis-a-vis his or her 16:15, 2 September 2020 (3 months ago) Total edit count: 8,509

Accounting history and summation of the Edits of i am a smart one : Similar fact evidence specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit to erase-delete files from Commons via conspiracy[edit]

Prefatory: i am a smart one introduced his or her Commons account with glaring: a) intentional wrong grammar and spelling errors amid b) his or her expertise in editing Commons via Mass Deletion Requests; c) his or her expertise in using JavaScript to mislead editors, a virtual moro-moro or moral Farce so to speak, d) pretending that he or she is a Newbie; e) to hide the proven fact that : i am a smart one is a Child Commons account of a disguised veteran Parent Commons account; like d) Charades[edit]

  • The 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it; and 4. Previous Conduct s Evidence Section 35. Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (34a)
  • May I please respectfully submit the following detaile accounting history and summation of the Edits of i am a smart one to wit:
  • Village pump Freedom of panorama in the Philippines Hello. I just came here for some casual browsing and noticed that there are many fotos of philippine buildings and sculptures that are supposed to be for fair use only. I have knowledge on the so-called freedom of panorama, and the section at the philippines only allows photos of old sculptures and even buildings that date before 1972. Your policies state that fair use is not allowed. But i can see numerous fotos hosted here includinh:
  • Stop mass nominations You were asked several times to stop doing mass nominations like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buildings in Bacolod City. You're being disruptive so please stop for now. I already spotted several photos of buildings build before 1950 so these should be covered by Commons:FOP Philippines. Besides that: Have you edited before on any Wikimedia project using a different account? xxx 10:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC) : Reply multchill first of all, i didnt edit wikipedia using a different accouny. I just edited here at this present time, but
  • i am a smart one who remembers wikimedia help and how tos in just few days. second fyi, i am doing this on my concern that numerous fotos of phil buildings and sculptures are recent enough to be copyrightwd still. i raised the concern at ur venue which you call village pump. though im first glad at one of ur moderators response to delete edsa shrine potos, im getting impatient. hence with study on commons:dletion policy on weeks befor raising my conern to ur forum, i got a knowledge to use ur nominate for del functionality. plus the easiest way to delte severalfotos which is ur visualfilechange Has a button to let novice people like me to try. i m becoming impatient over the concern raised by me. 12:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello. I now just registered. Ill try to search for those categories and photos, and nominate relevant red-flag photos for deletion. 16:17, 2 September 2020 AFTER reading some basics on commons editing methods i will now start nominating some for deletions -
  • Ist Warning by a Commons Administrator: Stop mass nominations Rejoinder :We value quality over speed. I see you decided to ignore my request. Maybe I wasn't clear: If you do another mass nomination I will block you for disruptive editing. Please wait until at least several of your deletion requests have been closed. 08:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikimedia Commons. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges The COM:FOP Philippines, while is written fairly unusual, really can't be extended to mean "No (commercial) FOP", it does explain that many new, complex buildings are not ok, yes, but really not all, such buildings can be public domain if and when used by governments of the Philippines, diplomatic-related (e.g. United States embassy in Manila) and other public affairs related. All simple, commonly build-able buildings are also FOP-okay.
  • Here is the intentional wrong grammar no spelling check by the i am a smart one ok . you may have a point, but i think your argument is invalid. why do many bldgs deleted still at Category:Philippine FOP cases/deleted? Such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pulilan, Bulacan Municipal Hall - Interior? And fyi, the public domain claim that youre talking about is about written texts and does not cover government owned and operated bldgs and sculptures. the government itself is not obliged to force architects or sculptors to surrender their moral rights to them. does the phil gov ALWAYS FORCE archi and sculptural community to sureender their copyrights on cultural center, quezon monunent, folk arts tgeatre, and many others to them? please read the copyright law of the phils FULLY. and i disagree with claims by a and b - two of your contributors with wrong interpretations of copyright law of the phil - that the persons who created the plaques and markers surrendered their creative and artistic rights to ngcp or to any govt entity. 10:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Apology and Blocking of the i am a smart one[edit]
  • 6th Notice-warning by a Commons administrator] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrcl_lxmna#Blocked Your nominations may very well be correct. However, it is disruptive to continue mass-nominating them while discussions about this entire class of images are ongoing. Otherwise, we have to repeat the same debate across dozens of different pages. 18:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok i am a smart one reply : Im gonna stop for a while. But im always concerned about the tendency of those photos bearing copyrighted structures and works of art, most esp post 1970s or those from artists who were still alive from 1970 today - in a country that only allows fair use for photos of their bldgs sculptures and other works of art. I can still remember a facebook comment saying that philippine rules cannot be applied on wikimedia becuase both have 'different house rules' on copyright. Thats what my main point of my deletion requests. And if Wikimedia Commons discourages fair use, then hundreds of phil. Photos depicting their copyrighted architecture and artworks are not ok.
  • Alibi an alibi, is held by this Court with extreme suspicion for it is easy to fabricate and concoct. it is weakest
  • i am a smart one my responses are: 1. First of all im not a so callef duplicate account. I happen to be a person who knows the intricacies of http environments, and wiki seems a newbie friendly environment. Accusing me as an alter ego is a ground for what the judge Floro called cybercrime and cyberbullying. But my actions are not equiv. To cybercrime, but to uphold the copyright respect in the philippines as a steward of copyright. You are aware of a few complaints from some artists who saw their artworks being hosted here, with very light licensing that might make them defenseless against copyright infringements.
  • 9th Notice-warning by a Commons editor - Comment I find it rather strange that a “new” editor knows how to mass nominate and have a JavaScript. Stop socking, it is clear just going by how well you know processes work (nominating and js) and cease the disruptive mass DR nominations. 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • i am a smart one is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account of Mass Deletion Requests --specifically those with freedom of panorama issues in the Philippines 17:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC) From one of their "targeted users": considering their highly-disruptive behavior and the potential to continue their acts, may I suggest some form of disciplinary action against this xxx or whoever they are? If blocking seems "highly inappropriate," can their ability to use deletion tools be disabled? For the duration, I leave that decision to the more veteran admins. 17:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC) I note that the user has started more DR using the VFC script. I do think the user is here for disruptive reasons. In some cases making 50 edits per second, rather excessive for a newbie and the DR themselves are questionable with the nominator unable to clearly demonstrate why the FoP is restrictive in the Philippines. An administrator needs to tell the user to cease with the DR and go and open up a discussion/RfC on Village Pump/Copyright. 16:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ Suspected related users: Parent and Child : i am a smart one and Unmasked (but by damning Circumstantial and Similar acts evidence) but revealed[edit]

  • Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz Rationale, discussion and results Reason:' I have had suspicions on Mrcl lxmna being a sockpuppet, since being a relatively new account but having the experience to do mass DR (typically newbies have no idea what a DR is let alone filing multiple files into a single DR) on Philippines related photographs (mostly on the basis of no FoP) and have a VFC script (which newbies struggle to understand). It has been brought to my attention by on COM:AN/U that Howhontanozaz has been filing mass DR as well under the very same reasons as Mrcl lxmna. While the spelling used by Mrcl lxmna is sloppy shorthand the reasoning given are similar (Example) to those given by Howhontanozaz (Example). 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see my reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:9886Rizal Park landmarks attractions historical memorials 47.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Notes: Florentino Floro 's photos in Wikimedia Commons were taken, edited-uploaded by a) himself with the assistance of editor friend b) User:Judgefloro - 1,640,102 edits as of 2020-12-06 and c) ailing editor friend User:Ramon FVelasquez - 120,091 edits as of 12 February 2014‎ or a grand total of - 1,760,000 edits as of 2020-12-06[edit]

Florentino Floro 's photography is in accordance with the philosophy and sharing of wisdom of Wikimedia Commons: "Ahead of my times, my photos are now global treasures vis-à-vis the COVID-19 pandemic COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines[edit]

7 Questions on FOP vis-a-vis i am a smart one and co-conspirator (the Parent-Child Sock accounts orchestrating via Similar acts as evidence)[edit]

  • Fervent 2nd Appeal to Intervene (Ex Abudante Cautela) : I respectfully ask the users and administrators to look into and review my standpoint that a Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests or Related Sock Deletion Requests must demonstrate his or her Standing - Locus standi or legal standing (distinguish it from real party-in-interest or has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions - Lis Mota or crux of the controversy) in Tagging Deletion Requests in My and User:Ramon FVelasquez talk Pages;

Retroactivity of Philippine RA 8293 for FOP-reliant works I am quoting this from the above URL Discussion: "Please Like and Follow the IPOPHL-BCRR Page for more information on Copyright and Related Rights or if you have questions, email us at copyright@ipophil.gov.ph" Thank you very much!" — Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines; with this, I respectfully submit the following questions:

  • Question 1: Estoppel pais - I was made to believe that a draft letter by Ian Lopez or yourself would be filed or emailed with the IPO Director or to the Bureau of Copyright; I relied and waited until now but I have not seen any letter nor any Reply by the former 2 and present IPO Director or Bureau of Copyright head; ?
  • Question 2: Assuming ex gratia argumenti that both IPO Director or Bureau of Copyright head would issue or release and not decline a Reply to only 2 Issues of : a) Whether or not Uploading of photos in Commons (FOP matters) violate Copyright infringement rules inter alia and b) whether or not a Nominator-User in Commons has locus standi to tag my or User:Ramon FVelasquez talk pages and photos with Mass or even few Deletions Requests ?
  • Question 3: Is a Reply on the above questions of present IPO Director or Bureau of Copyright head appealable or reviewable by the DOJ Secretary?
  • Question 4: If the DOJ Secretary replies and not decline the Commons user Request or Letter, is his DOJ Opinion as secondary authority almost on par with American Jurisprudence or our Court of Appeals decisions have impact or persuasive force in Commons Policies review or revision on FOP?
  • Question 5: Are the Mass Deletions Requests by i am a smart one and co-conspirator (the Parent-Child Sock accounts orchestrating via Similar acts as evidence) cognizable by the NBI Cybercrime division and or DOJ for determination of probable cause of violation of the 2012 Cybercrime for issuance of John or Jane Doe warrants of Arrests: ?
  • Question 6: Can a check user in Wikipedia and Commons unmask the parent-child or co-conspirator and or Principal of i am a smart one ?
  • Question 7: Assuming that the NBI and the NTC - DOJ can determine the IP Address addresses or log ins in Commons and Wikipedia of i am a smart one and co-conspirator (the Parent-Child Sock accounts orchestrating via Similar acts as evidence) - when is the time ripe for the unmasking of the i am a smart one and co-conspirator (the Parent-Child Sock accounts orchestrating via Similar acts as evidence) ?

Categories created by User:Judgefloro - December 1-31, 2020[edit]

Categories created by User:Judgefloro - January 1- December 31, 2021[edit]

Categories created by User:Judgefloro - February 1- 28, 2021[edit]

  • [[: | ]]
  • [[: | ]]
  • [[: | ]]
  • [[: | ]]
  • [[: | ]]
  • [[: | ]]
  • [[: | ]]
  • [[: | ]]
  • [[: | ]]

The very Lis mota or Crux of New FOP discussions is: Get a written Reply from the IPO director and DOJ Secretary towards the Executive Secretary[edit]

  • I strongly disagree and I am submitting hereunder my point by point discussions with proof that the New discussion on PHL FoP is not finished yet or may be re-opened, since my legally valid queries submitted thereat were not yet resolved: in short, the valid legal issues I raised on FOP were not yet resolved but simply evaded leading to temporary or even false conclusions or theories: a) I relied - Estoppel in Pais - on the supposed fiing of the letter by IanLopez vis-a-vis the supposed IPO and DOJ Replies on FOP uploading in Commons but there was no explanation why it was not filed; in fact, the cited IPO letter contains direct and unequivocal invitation to Email FOP questions, but until now, the IanLopez letter was not emailed; b) the twin legal issues I raised on the i) Locus standi to file Mass Deletion Requests by the i am a smart one and the Principal Accounts of co-conspirator: vis-a-vis the Check-user issue, which as it stands is not ended buy put on hold ii) the very clear commission of Cybercrime-squatting per Mass Deletion Requests by the Co-conspirators - were unanswered
  • I Dissent with reasonable doubt vis-a-vis mood swing stance on the FOP discussion on the following groundCategory:Crazy Dont's skateboarding mini skate contest (fundraising in Baliwag Performing Arts Center construction site "Lumang Municipio")s - I strongly disagree with the statement "The two-month discussion at Commons concluded just before the end of November"
  • ":: Appreciate that this was brought to my attention. In my opinion, getting a legal opinion from the Justice Department concerning freedom of panorama may be a option worth exploring in lieu of a decision from the Supreme Court but I cannot be certain if that option was previously attempted or considered (either at Commons or at the Wikipedias) plus other possible drawbacks. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There was an attempt to get an opinion from the Intellectual Property Office but they decided that the courts should decide on the matter, so... *shrugs* --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sky Harbor, I'm aware that there was an attempt to get an opinion from IPOPHL but that doesn't mean that the DoJ option shouldn't be used. Who knows, maybe the DoJ opinion would be different from IPOPHL's and not require the use of case law or amendments to current legislation in order for this to be resolved. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright: This therefore solidifies freedom of any content contributor, whether in Commons or Wikipedia that taking photograph of any subject and upload it on commons does not violate copyright unless there is valid evidence that the subject possesses intellectual property. --exec8 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Responses from Judgefloro about FoP matter Letter from Judgefloro
  • Please Like and Follow the IPOPHL-BCRR Page for more information on Copyright and Related Rights or if you have questions, email us at copyright@ipophil.gov.ph Thank you very much!" — Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines

Category:Pizza Hut pizzas in the Philippines

  • Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat; I found time to write a little Clarification why I wrote long, incoherent and winding discussions on FOP; this is not my Ateneo and Judge style of legal writing (short, direct and straight to the point - beginning with yes or no, and not letting the reader guess); it was intentional on my part, because I am faced (my talk page and of my photos in User:Ramon FVelasquez) with floodwater of Mass Deletion Requests by the i am a smart one; he or she with co-conspirators carefully planned and spent tons of man hours to erase my photos, inter alia; basically i am a smart one in disguise edits with wrong grammar and no spelling check but using expertise via JavaScript and other high tech tools; his or her alibi of parent and child sock or alternate account is hard to prove; but now, i am a smart one is virtually stopped by Kept Kept Kept; I am not at this moment complacent for i am a smart one will come back and I say there are many ways to skin a cat; I am sure that: a) Commons editors allowed i am a smart one to go on with MDRs; some of i am a smart one MDRs were even granted; i am a smart one thought that i am a smart one was able to succeed via disguise; this is called Dama, that is, Commons veteran editors and hard working administrators are very able and ready to protect Commons photos from this historical (only this time in Commons) MDRs; I am beginning to see Light, for most of my Long, incoherent copy paste Discussions in i am a smart one entries were successfully Granted lately; I cannot respond, discuss or submit better arguments and replies against this multi-talented i am a smart one than my tons of CODED riddle long replies with multiple headings; I deeply note that I am understood by editors and administrators who already Noticed that i am a smart one is not a single account but a grand Conspiracy to erase my and User:Ramon FVelasques my photos from Commons; very sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would like to suggest that as veteran editor, as suggested by User:Ianlopez1115 please draft, finalize and file a Formal FOP Definitive Opinion for Commons Uploading - Letters to both new IPO director Rowel Barba and DOJ Secretary Menardo Ilasco Guevarra - Request for Opinion of Secretary of Justice vis LBC mail and or Email, to settle once and for all the matter of Deletion, or Undeletion of FOP uploaded photos pending hereat Commons; I do not want to be the one since I repeat Category:Menardo Ilasco Guevarra is my classmate and I might be favored with subjectivity; for I believe in Commons founders' philosophy of objectively and neutrality of myself in dealing with my photos nominated for deletion, thanks and very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Judgefloro: I think that Ianlopez1115 is formulating a draft for the request for formal opinion of DOJ on the Commons:FOP Philippines matter, based on his reply at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. You may want to reach out to his talk page at User talk:Ianlopez1115. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Letter of Judge Florentino V. Floro to Wikimedia Commons editors - users Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan; I state with Faith, that this Letter to you may enlighten upon the Legal finer points on the matter of FOP in the Philippines, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Judgefloro: I will post these two photos at the most relevant forum, at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ResolvedThis discussion has been concluded. The eventual consensus is that there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines, and none of the acts under Section 184 of the Republic Act No. 8293 can be applied. The three near-FoP acts, listed at d., e., and j., are not free enough for Wikimedia Commons. A law change (amendment of the said copyright law) could change this. See also the section #Comment with Query, for the last extension of this discussion.– JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • But after November 28, the Discussions continued - xxx When a new copyright law comes out, the new law will define the contours of copyright for any acts going forward. us. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Clindberg: There is now a reply from IPOPHL about my query (the second one actually) on that post. To quote below (also paging @Patrickroque01: who made the first query). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Please Like and Follow the IPOPHL-BCRR Page for more information on Copyright and Related Rights or if you have questions, email us at copyright@ipophil.gov.ph
  • Pre-1951, correct -- we do not think architecture was protected at all. The notice requirements would be for sculpture and other works before 1951. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat; I found time to write a little Clarification why I wrote long, incoherent and winding discussions on FOP; this is not my Ateneo and Judge style of legal writing (short, direct and straight to the point - beginning with yes or no, and not letting the reader guess); it was intentional on my part, because I am faced (my talk page and of my photos in User:Ramon FVelasquez) with floodwater of Mass Deletion Requests by the i am a smart one; he or she with co-conspirators carefully planned and spent tons of man hours to erase my photos, inter alia; basically i am a smart one in disguise edits with wrong grammar and no spelling check but using expertise via JavaScript and other high tech tools; his or her alibi of parent and child sock or alternate account is hard to prove; but now, i am a smart one is virtually stopped by Kept Kept Kept; I am not at this moment complacent for i am a smart one will come back and I say there are many ways to skin a cat; I am sure that: a) Commons editors allowed i am a smart one to go on with MDRs; some of i am a smart one MDRs were even granted; i am a smart one thought that i am a smart one was able to succeed via disguise; this is called Dama, that is, Commons veteran editors and hard working administrators are very able and ready to protect Commons photos from this historical (only this time in Commons) MDRs; I am beginning to see Light, for most of my Long, incoherent copy paste Discussions in i am a smart one entries were successfully Granted lately; I cannot respond, discuss or submit better arguments and replies against this multi-talented i am a smart one than my tons of CODED riddle long replies with multiple headings; I deeply note that I am understood by editors and administrators who already Noticed that i am a smart one is not a single account but a grand Conspiracy to erase my and User:Ramon FVelasques my photos from Commons; very sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Conclusion and query: as you stated that you are pro FOP, are you afraid to loose (that is, if you or any editor like IanLopez would file the supposed and promised FOP letter that I requested to IPO and DOJ)? For the Letter might erase not only my FOP files but tons in Commons; it is my philosophy that all my photos here were donated to Commons absolutely, and I do not need to be acknowledge; as an act of liberality, I the donor-giver am Not Afraid, if any or all my photos will be deleted; I am not afraid to be stopped from taking photos of FOP or Copyright valued and heritage sites or monuments; right now, the Pandemic invited me to take photos of Food and Cuisine of Bulacan ... I conclude this piece by exhorting you and all editors to go straight by emailing IPO director and DOJ secretary, for it is the only way to ease the tensions and stress including the burden of work loads in Deletions Requests;
  • Serendipity Important Note: When I dined at Jovy's Pancit Malabon my Grade VI St. Mary's classmate Thelma from Longos, Pulilan stated that since she the lights on my palms when I healed her at Waltermart 10 years ago, she and my classmates had been looking for me but faild; so happy, she invited me to a) next day's St. Mary's Academy of Meycauayan Class 1964 Elementary Union (headed by my seatmate, classmate and friend with whom I sat beside for years from 1963- 1964, who for 50+ times walked with me from the school to our Calvario house where we were Grade 4 at age 10; as history, I did top the classes - as Salutatorian and Valedictorian of Kinder and Grade I, until I was dislodged to 2nd and 3rd honor because I was the most naughty in the school; in Grade 4, a new seatmate, classmate and friend enrolled from Malhacan public school with F. Pagsanjan; by commencement exercises I was dislodged to 5th then 6th place any seatmate, classmate and friend got the 4th honor or place); and co-led by our classmate Ricardo Sales of Zamora, Meycauayan Thelma stated plainly that in the Group Chat seatmate, classmate and friend told them that I am Strong b) I was invited by them to join the FB Nightly Chat begun and led by our 2 above-classmates and c) she asked me my cell phone number; I replied that I have no power to grant their 3 requests since I am under extreme Seclusion and even Solitude being eternally a Hermit the highest Ermitaño than William of Maleval as Mystic; last month my sibling whose Adoption case was handled by seatmate, classmate and friend sent me a message saying "Kamusta na sa Kuya (me) mo!" by my seatmate, classmate and friend; however, on 12 July 2020, 08:27:22 San Isidro-San Roque Parish Church of Malhacan I waived my hand too close to call upon seatmate, classmate and friendand I left; there are many things I cannot write here, for they will be burried in the depths of Secrecy;
  • I deeply note that many of Commons editors, mainly Pinoys could not comprehend what I am saying; I state that I write in Codes and riddles here, which is not my legal style of writing; My name precedes all the incumbent SC Justices and all of the above-mentioned top officials not because of my Gifts as Mystic but by my Academic Ateneo Unbroken by 10 Valedictorians in Criminal Law Review;

Notes: Florentino Floro 's photos in Wikimedia Commons were taken, edited-uploaded by a) himself with the assistance of editor friend b) User:Judgefloro - 1,640,102 edits as of 2020-12-06 and c) ailing editor friend User:Ramon FVelasquez - 120,091 edits as of 12 February 2014‎ or a grand total of - 1,760,000 edits as of 2020-12-06[edit]

  • EN BANC AM NO. RTJ-99-1460, Aug 11, 2006 OCA v. JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO

Florentino Floro 's photography is in accordance with the philosophy and sharing of wisdom of Wikimedia Commons: "Ahead of my times, my photos are now global treasures vis-à-vis the COVID-19 pandemic COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines[edit]

Judgefloro Wikimedia Commons Photos Used by the World Planet Earth[edit]

Letter and spirit of the law Legal technicality Additional comment on Notability: a) mayroon po akong katabing kwarto na foreigner ; tuwing umaga kumukuha siya ng larawan sa Bulacan at Binebenta niya ang kanyang mga litrato ng napakamahall; maramot, di ako pinagpigyan; b) itong COM spam, COM educ at Com FOP - "Time and time again WE have emphasized that the Rules of Court should not be interpreted to sacrifice substantial rights of a litigant at the altar of technicalities to the consequent impairment of the sacred principle of justice (Alonzo vs. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315; Case & Nantz vs. Jugo, 77 Phil. 517, 522). WE ruled that the Rules of Court frown upon hair-splitting technicalities that do not square with their liberal tendency and with the ends of justice (Case & Nantz vs. Jugo, supra)." c) Manigong Bagong Taon Poe at ito po ang Buod ng aking Saysay : many international professional photgraphers, books, magazines and sites use my photos; they have a right due to Knowledge, Information and Education, to select photos in my Album: I have read the long discussions on Admin pages about my redundant and duplicate photos; one has even counted dollars - ergo, if I buy a paid domain like Flick photobucket etc. to host my photos, they weighed these Total edit counts: 1,651,305 plus 120, 000 of my Ramon FVelasquez photos contributions to Commons to eat great part of a collection freely usable; mathematics: 67,288,314 divided by 1,651,305 plus 120, 000 equals, I cannot sum up; many editors here defended me and did not notify me out of protocol since I may not be able to intelligently reply at age 67 Senior Citizen of Commons planet; Here are some of the World's ... citation of my : Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Judgefloro image

  • Moran family Image by Judgefloro via Wikimedia Commons (CC0 1.0) runs one of the most successful automotive empires in the southern United States – JM Family Enterprises, a nearly $15 billion-dollar business.

Florentino Floro Flickr

Judgefloro Wikimedia Commons

This category is hidden and not shown on its member pages unless the appropriate user preference is set.

Media in category "Photographs created by Judgefloro - October-December, 2020"

The following 3 files are in this category, out of 3 total.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Photographs_created_by_Judgefloro_-_October-December,_2020&oldid=706935558"