|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 11, 2009 15:02:07 GMT -5
The court papers were posted because everyone wanted to see some legal document to show what had been reported as being either fact or a lie. The minor children's last name should not be posted, as minor children are protected by that right. Since the last name of the minor children was the same as the two girls that were accused of a felony, those names had to be removed also. The rest of the two names was left in tack because, if you started changing the court papers, everyone would then say things were altered, and that isn't something that can be done.
When fact was presented by the papers, it was met with stiff reluctance to have it shown or to accept what the court had determined. I am sorry, but what was done was done willfully so, why would you protect people that made themselves known in the court? So, there is no way that it should be covered up.
The paper on the bondsman had a direct connection with this case. He has been involved from day one and it wasn't as though he just had an incident and someone was trying to make him look bad. It also presents how much stability and character is shown where one of the girls has been staying. She has enough problems without being taught anymore. Now, since his name is not in the court papers with the two girls, no one will accuse him or discuss anything about him.
It has been said, without verification or proof as of yet, that many of the names of innocent people accused of a false crime did come from the Wings organization. That is a problem that is hoped to be worked through and to see if it does have any merits. I hope that isn't why the papers have been removed because of intimidation from the group that was aiding and abetting the girls. Since, it would be easy to give out evidence against Wings if they did not support them. It is well known that there are names of people that Wings has, and they have not given any indication that they are licensed or are suppose to be giving out names to anyone. If they did, they would be contributors to harassment and slander. It would be nothing more than a witch hunt. So, we hope that the possibility of that isn't true. But, when you have lots of people with details, it will be hard to keep those details silent. People will tell anything to save themselves.
This fiasco will never be swept under a rug no matter how hard it is tried. It is known far and wide and if it isn't corrected, all will know who is doing wrong and has no desire to put their pride behind others hurt and disappointments. That is why they always say, be careful of what you wish on others!
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 11, 2009 15:21:07 GMT -5
I would like to state that I have very high regards for Wings ambitions to make sure that CSA is reported and nothing is left hid as the person that experience any incident with CSA has a trauma that will last a life time. So, I compliment Wings on what they are trying to accomplish and hope that they pursue that part of their organization. If there are things that are in their position, names of people that have never been charged with a crime, which would be considered a witch hunt, then someone got completely off track as what their accomplishment were suppose to be. That would need to be corrected so that they could go on with their help to those who have had to bear terrible memories and anciety from terrible actions of others.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 11, 2009 15:34:13 GMT -5
jhjmr! I am hoping as you do, that IF WINGS has anyone that has slipped beyond what is right or legal, then they will be willing to say that it was an error on their behalf and not on behalf of WINGS for this simple reason: IF it is proven that such an error did occur within the scope of WINGS then WINGS loses accountability and trustworthiness and then there will be those CSA victims who will fear to utilize WINGS for their own benefit. I'm praying that this does not or has not happened for the fact WINGS in its infancy has done some good for some victims!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2009 17:24:52 GMT -5
Does anyone know exactly why the court documents posted on this forum were removed?
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 11, 2009 18:00:18 GMT -5
Because Scott said that they contained the full names of the two ex workers. Of course we all know their names by now anyways. He was upset because the papers were posted. But, evidence is evidence no matter how you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2009 18:12:19 GMT -5
Because Scott said that they contained the full names of the two ex workers. Of course we all know their names by now anyways. He was upset because the papers were posted. But, evidence is evidence no matter how you look at it. Well, let's look at the pertinent rules: Libelous posts are strictly forbidden. Please provide news links if you are accusing someone of a criminal offense. Otherwise, don't post such articles. Not really an issue since it was not a libelous post. Although there was not a news link there was something much better - the finding of a court. We have a commitment with ProBoards that no libelous posts will be allowed. This includes posts that contain names or initials of living people about whom criminal allegations are made.Again, posting a court document could hardly be called libel. And it is certainly not an allegation - it is a statement of the facts as the court sees them. So is there an explanation as to why the posts were censored?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 12, 2009 9:28:47 GMT -5
When I read this thread last night, I was still in favor of the legal documents being posted. They are not currently against the rules. Even the document on the bondsman, relevant or not, it is a legal document.
BUT What limits should there be?
If the civil case goes to trial there will be more documents. To prove damage the original names and charges will have to be recorded by the court (and then can be posted here??)
And who decides what is a valid story? A valid document? Some of the 200 named may have had other days in court. Can/should those be posted also?
Is any/all criminal charges valid to be posted?
Are other 'legal documents' valid to be posted? Such as the assesed or sale value of the convention grounds? How about the value of the homes that the "trusted caretakers" of the 2x2 funds?
Birth certificates showing the names of the parents of illegitimate children?
Or should all 'legal documents' have to hosted on private sites such as TLT, VOT, TTT, Wings, etc and no documents being posted here?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 12, 2009 9:33:31 GMT -5
My guess is the documents were removed due to complaints that we haven't seen here.
Usually when the mods/admin decide to do remove something it is done with hours. These documents stayed online long enough for someone no readying the TMB (regularly) to have gotten word and complained.
IMO Mods/Admin should always post a reason for any edits removal.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 12, 2009 9:55:32 GMT -5
The court documents were posted because they were asked for over and over to prove what was transpiring. They were asked for by the moderator over and over. But, because of the names of two people being on the documents, it was met with great opposition from the moderator and the names were to be altered in a 24 hr. period. That would then have people crying, altering documents. So, when the names weren't changed in the 24 hr. period, the documents were removed. That would be censoring legal documents. The moderator complained about the documents as soon as they were posted.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 12, 2009 10:13:37 GMT -5
"The minor children's last name should not be posted, as minor children are protected by that right. Since the last name of the minor children was the same as the two girls that were accused of a felony, those names had to be removed also. The rest of the two names was left in tack ..."
IMO, if legal documents are allowed (and so far they are) the only 'altering' should be the removal of minor's names and adults names if they are directly linked to the minor's involved in a/the case. Which seems to be the same standard the news media uses.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 12, 2009 14:45:11 GMT -5
IMO, if legal documents are allowed (and so far they are) the only 'altering' should be the removal of minor's names and adults names if they are directly linked to the minor's involved in a/the case. Which seems to be the same standard the news media uses. The documents are all public record. That being the case, one could scarcely be accused of libel, the major noted reason for not allowing a post. If this is a cut and dry case and there are some reasons, according to the rules listed, why are they not explained? I have asked the moderator who removed them as well as the administrator, both in private and in public, for an explanation but so far - nothing. This would seem to fly in the face of open communication.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 12, 2009 19:25:54 GMT -5
Wow, wonders are possible!!!!! Thank you Bandtroll. We actually are coming to terms with each other for a change. All things are possible.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 12, 2009 20:58:40 GMT -5
(but now I likely have someone else upset with me, I just can't seem to win)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 12, 2009 22:04:49 GMT -5
It has been said, without verification or proof as of yet, that many of the names of innocent people accused of a false crime did come from the Wings organization. I just spent about an hour typing up a response to this thread, and then realized I have typed much the same response several times providing links to WINGS regarding what WINGS does and what WINGS does NOT do. Feel free to read about this on the WINGS site: www.wingsfortruth.info/database.htmScott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 13, 2009 9:48:44 GMT -5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The court papers were posted because everyone wanted to see some legal document to show what had been reported as being either fact or a lie. The minor children's last name should not be posted, as minor children are protected by that right. Since the last name of the minor children was the same as the two girls that were accused of a felony, those names had to be removed also. The rest of the two names was left in tack because, if you started changing the court papers, everyone would then say things were altered, and that isn't something that can be done.Actually, the document that showed the children's names probably shouldn't have been posted with their first names listed, although that is just my opinion. I would guess that the last name wouldn't be an issue in the case of the twins as they have each received sentences in this matter, and without the first names of the children there wouldn't have been a problem with their full names posted here. Now that the children's names have been removed, it would be OK for the twins full names to be posted. Some time ago WK had posted some paperwork concerning the twins case, and I let him know what would be allowed on the board. He complied with that request and the documents were posted. The court documents have now been edited and reposted for reading. Also..... I am not mod3 as has been said elsewhere. professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=members&action=display&thread=13844&page=25Scott
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 13, 2009 10:12:42 GMT -5
Also..... I am not mod3 as has been said elsewhere. So you are saying you are not editing threads on the TMB via your Blackberry as you are cruising down the highways on your bike?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 13, 2009 10:18:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 13, 2009 11:12:24 GMT -5
So you are saying you are not editing threads on the TMB via your Blackberry as you are cruising down the highways on your bike?I was having enough of an issue riding one-handed with a passenger on the back while filming the others 30 or so motorcycles in our group as I was passing them at 80mph. Gotta have at least one hand on the throttle ya know!!! Scott
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 13, 2009 11:14:30 GMT -5
Gotta have at least one hand on the throttle ya know!!! So many snappy comebacks... so little time.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 13, 2009 13:36:28 GMT -5
Parking lessons:
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 13, 2009 16:37:43 GMT -5
Thanks Scott for your info, but you do have a list of alleged and suspected persons. All Wings member have access to the list. Now, how easy is it to get names from someone? Not hard at all. There is a problem when more than one person guards the chicken coop. So, if things were done as they were suppose to be done, then you would allege no one gave out any names. That is something that may have serious consequences. Also, if you are not legally organized, are you not guilty of the 5th amendment and the Bill of rights? Keeping names of alleged or suspected person's is no different than a witch hunt. You are protected against those actions with the constitution. Also, there is an abuse of process law. Definition, improper use of a criminal or civil procedure, unintended, malice or perverse reason. How can a list of suspected or alleged sexual abusers not be protected by the abuse of process law? You are innocent until proven guilty. If my name was on that list, we'd have our day in court. So, you can see how there can be a big problem if names were given out and then innocent victims harrassed and falsely accused and humiliated by improper use.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 13, 2009 16:43:48 GMT -5
Keeping names of alleged or suspected person's is no different than a witch huntSo are you saying that White Knight is guilty of a witch hunt? It appears he has far more names than WINGS has. None of the names on that list of 200 were given by any member of WINGS, nor has any member of WINGS seen that list. Not sure how many times I need to point that out, but that is just the way it is. If WINGS is contacted by the authorities, we will be more than willing to cooperate with them as always in providing information asked for. Scott
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 13, 2009 17:58:18 GMT -5
After all this talk, I have yet to see evidence that this much referred to (as tho it were fact) "200 name list" has ever existed anywhere...
Who came up with that figure first? What is there to substantiate it? Has this information been verified by legal officials?
Why are so many just accepting that this was the case? (That the girls turned in 200 names--) Where's the proof? How do we know someone else didn't just make this number up out of the sky and start using it as tho it was true? Where did the number come from?
I CAN tell you this...When I was still a WINGS member, the WINGS list didn't contain anywhere near 200 names...
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 13, 2009 18:34:05 GMT -5
Yes Cherie, the law has definitely verified that there were that many names turned in. Some were turned in by the girls, but many were names that the girls never ever met or knew. How many names Wings has, we do not know nor care. We just care about the fact that it has been stated that some names came from Wings. As I have said, it has not been verified but particular names have even been said as to have given the names. The source of this information does raise concern. So, if Wings has a list of people that they alleged may have a shady past or if someone is suspected, then to have their name given as a sexual abuser, is a terrible incident to encounter. After all of the false allegations that has just been submitted and the ordeal that has happened because of it, you can see what happens if someone wants to accuse someone on just a whim. People make accusations all the time, but no one keeps record of it unless it is substantiated by the law. People can't be harrassed and offended just because someone has a beef. If wings has a list of names of people that were accused but not found guilty, then they are not guilty, court ordered. If someone just doesn't like someone or has an overactive mind, how terrible to even put that person's name on any paper or give it to even one person to keep for what? How about just plain vindicative to some person. That is where your 5th amendment and bill of rights comes into play. No one can destroy someone else without due process.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 13, 2009 18:55:31 GMT -5
They started out accusing Brother Workers who had been in their parent's home in the past, then starting adding names of men they had been in meeting with, and toward the end of this fiasco, they named elders of mtgs, their family Dr., postman, practically any male they ever came in contact with. It didn't take authorities long to realize their claims were not true, but they were encouraged by some to continue in their claims. Many Friends and Workers were deceived by them. Cherie, The above is the post that makes the most sense to me (But, I have no way of knowing if it or anything else that is posted here is true) It does follow the pattern that I watched play out first hand. At first the stories are surprising but believable, because the first stories are 'within reason,' believable because of the content, surprising because of the people named. The person telling them is not known to lie and the person listening is in shock. Then more names are added (in the case I watched, the names were added without prompting). And yes, there were names that I/we didn't know, nor knew how this person knew them. And by "the end," it seemed they had named every person of the opposite sex of some type of crime (except one person). In the case I watched play out, it was about 36 hours from the time the first accusations were made until the person doing the accusing was in the hospital. (All of that said, "we" don't know for sure that the twins are mentally ill or to what extent if they are.) In the MI case it sounds like the accusations were made over a period of time, and the names were not turned in all on one list. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) Not sure where the number of 200 first came from, but I'm guessing it is a "round number" but likely very close.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 13, 2009 19:01:33 GMT -5
When I posted Not sure where the number of 200 first came from, but I'm guessing it is a "round number" but likely very close. I had not yet read Yes Cherie, the law has definitely verified that there were that many names turned in. (Don't want people to think I was disagreeing with jhjmr)
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 13, 2009 21:45:18 GMT -5
There have been replies...but STILL, no one has given any particulars or provided proof... about the 200; i.e. "not sure where the number of 200 first came from, but I'm guessing it is a round number." Pardon my skeptcism, but personal guesses, feelings, assumptions or assurances aren't sufficient as evidence. This claim has not been shown to be verified by a reliable source or document. You say "the law has verified..."WHO comprises is "the law" you speak of? There must be a person behind the "the law" or "the law" simply sits in a book. Simply tell us exactly how we can verify this statement from an outside source--thats all we are asking. Why should we believe what "peaceandjoy" wrote in Sept, 2008? Where is P&J's proof? Few if any of you who are making the 200 name claim are willing to stand behind your real names--and it seems you think we're supposed to take you at your word? Give me a break! Quite frankly, (0bviously) I simply dont buy the 200 figure. Saying it 10,000 times doesn't make it true... I suspect it was a gross exaggeration coined for the shock value... But I could be wrong... Again I ask: Where is the documented proof that "the law" OR the twins compiled a list of 200 names they accused of abusing them which were turned in to the law--in connection with this case? Without documented or verified proof, this claim is worthless; utter rumor and hearsay. Some are accusing WINGS of providing a list/names--and yet, they cant/haven't even proved that there WAS a list of 200 names. Not one legal shred of evidence can be produced against WINGS... Just saying it is so doesnt make it so...not that naive. Yes, I'm quite skeptical...I have worked for several attorneys in my lifetime...and I've been working under three at my current job of 11 years.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Jul 13, 2009 21:53:32 GMT -5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The court papers were posted because everyone wanted to see some legal document to show what had been reported as being either fact or a lie. The minor children's last name should not be posted, as minor children are protected by that right. Since the last name of the minor children was the same as the two girls that were accused of a felony, those names had to be removed also. The rest of the two names was left in tack because, if you started changing the court papers, everyone would then say things were altered, and that isn't something that can be done.Actually, the document that showed the children's names probably shouldn't have been posted with their first names listed, although that is just my opinion. I would guess that the last name wouldn't be an issue in the case of the twins as they have each received sentences in this matter, and without the first names of the children there wouldn't have been a problem with their full names posted here. Now that the children's names have been removed, it would be OK for the twins full names to be posted. Some time ago WK had posted some paperwork concerning the twins case, and I let him know what would be allowed on the board. He complied with that request and the documents were posted. The court documents have now been edited and reposted for reading. Also..... I am not mod3 as has been said elsewhere. professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=members&action=display&thread=13844&page=25Scott Thank You.
|
|