|
Post by cheechette on Jul 16, 2009 22:18:11 GMT -5
Scott..... In reply to #117. You and I have never e-mailed concerning the Wings list to the Sex abused list in MI. You list me with two other people. Guess I can say, two times and out. Would you like to try for three times. My e-mails to you are mostly about that Honda you keep riding and I keep trying to get you to buy "Class" since you seem to believe you are "classy". Geez! did you get bent a little by the 200 name list? Why? you haven't gotten to see it? I am sure the ministers that are involved could fill you in with that information. Suppose if you lived in Michigan you would know more information than living out in Minnesota and trying to take care of information going on in Michigan. Hey - maybe you should be a cop and then you could find out all that information. Not only that... they ride HARLEYS.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jul 16, 2009 22:53:48 GMT -5
Keep on egging the idea of a civil suit, nate. You are going to bleed them dry till they shrivel. Your little 'unknown perfect' church will disintegrate. Instead of watching the kids at convention stand in circles kicking the dust, the scene will be of the followers kicking the dust of what was once a 'perfect little church that started in 1888'. Har! Too funny.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 16, 2009 23:18:51 GMT -5
Hey there cheechette! Scott..... In reply to #117. You and I have never e-mailed concerning the Wings list to the Sex abused list in MI. Sorry if you took it that way. My post simply said: AND.... I have also been in email contact with cheechette on some occasions.Most of my emails with jhjmr have been about 'other' stuff also. A lot of just regular chatting. You list me with two other people. Guess I can say, two times and out. Would you like to try for three times. My e-mails to you are mostly about that Honda you keep riding and I keep trying to get you to buy "Class" since you seem to believe you are "classy". Hmmm... don't really think I am all that classy, but I do like my Hondas!! Geez! did you get bent a little by the 200 name list? Why? you haven't gotten to see it? No. I just find it interesting that this is the only place I have heard that there were 200 names on a list. I have yet to have anyone else say that they have seen the list. The names on the list are of no interest to me actually. I doubt if I would know too many of them. With that many names maybe mine is there too!! It will be interesting to read the whole report though. Have you seen the list? I am sure the ministers that are involved could fill you in with that information. Suppose if you lived in Michigan you would know more information than living out in Minnesota and trying to take care of information going on in Michigan. I've heard plenty about the goings on over there. Kinda glad I live over here, although I may be over there soon picking up some paperwork and meeting with a few people. Good chance for a road trip ya know!! Hey - maybe you should be a cop and then you could find out all that information. Not only that... they ride HARLEYS. Well.... I don't think I need to be a cop to get the information. That good ol' Freedom of Information works pretty well. Kind of interesting to find out that the 'sealing' hasn't really been all that official in this case after all.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 16, 2009 23:36:23 GMT -5
I have told you over and over, I have not seen the names, but I know of many that are on the list. I told you that many men are not from Michigan. They are from all over the country or countries. I am estimating when I stated that I would assume 10% did not belong to the F & W. So, lets not hedge on estimates. The importance of everything is where did all the names come from. Do you still have a list? Let's not hedge on that answer. Since the twins were with ex workers, do you think that the most of the names would be F & W, What do you estimate that to be most likely. Of course, remember these were not ex workers until the frying pan got to hot. So, if you were a worker and you were aiding a couple of young girls, I would assume you would aid them with people you knew about that were alleged or suspects of sexual abuse. Because the facts they stated were fiction, the only satisfaction that could be gotten was from giving out names to humiliate a person. So, I will estimate that you can figure out what I have said and you can estimate about how people wonder where the names came from since a very good source said it did not come from the twins. Only a fraction did. Does that estimation meet your fancy?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 16, 2009 23:47:47 GMT -5
Keep on egging the idea of a civil suit, nate. You are going to bleed them dry till they shrivel. Your little 'unknown perfect' church will disintegrate. Instead of watching the kids at convention stand in circles kicking the dust, the scene will be of the followers kicking the dust of what was once a 'perfect little church that started in 1888'. Har! Too funny. ~~~ Wow! Where did you get the information the 2x2 started date in 1888? That's VERY interesting and funny. William Irivine did resigned the Faith Mission group until 1899. The 2x2 church starting date is keep on changing all the time.
Disintegrate? Nah! that's what many people like you want to happen as soon as possible... that's SAD. Nah, nate. You're just too rockheaded to realize that WI was in the FM at the time he started setting up the 2x2 church, and he didn't leave the FM until after the 2x2 church had been established. This was determined using actual research (something you are totally clueless about... just like "argument from silence").
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 17, 2009 0:05:01 GMT -5
Nah, nate. You're just too rockheaded to realize that WI was in the FM at the time he started setting up the 2x2 church, and he didn't leave the FM until after the 2x2 church had been established. This was determined using actual research (something you are totally clueless about... just like "argument from silence"). ~~ Right... WI started the 2x2 church in 1897... When he was a full pledge Faith Mission group. He even tried to recruit John Long to Join Faith Mission group in 1898 or 99.
Did you actually get your WI founder 1897 from Cherie's research before?
Ilylo, stick with your one liners jab and stab. You're the best. You have NO competition in this department.Sorry. I realize that you don't need my help proving your rock-headedness. And yes, I agree that you are no competition... in any department. I see you are in desperate need of homework time, so I'll let you get back to your so-called research.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 17, 2009 6:17:48 GMT -5
The erroneous 1888 date came from your own website, Nate. Maybe you need to clean your own house/website up and get your dates straight yourself and not spread false information on your website--and then shame on you--mocking others when they use the erroneous date/info you provided??? Tsk tsk! Check it out... www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_early/gill-hughes-1888.phpKeep on egging the idea of a civil suit, nate. You are going to bleed them dry till they shrivel. Your little 'unknown perfect' church will disintegrate. Instead of watching the kids at convention stand in circles kicking the dust, the scene will be of the followers kicking the dust of what was once a 'perfect little church that started in 1888'. Har! Too funny. ~~~ Wow! Where did you get the information the 2x2 started date in 1888? That's VERY interesting and funny. William Irivine did resigned the Faith Mission group until 1899. The 2x2 church starting date is keep on changing all the time.
Disintegrate? Nah! that's what many people like you want to happen as soon as possible... that's SAD.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 17, 2009 9:15:24 GMT -5
Nope - IMO 1897 is the start date and I'm not changing anything.
Your site has the wrong date of 1888...not TTT.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 17, 2009 9:48:00 GMT -5
You dont need to bother starting a new thread - this date has already been hashed out, and I'm not about to waste time hashing it with YOU, who I generally ignore. Nope - IMO 1897 is the start date and I'm not changing anything. Your site has the wrong date of 1888...not TTT. ~~ Well, it wasn't me who wrote or came with the starting date 1888 so I leave where it is.
On the other hand, Cherie... Can you pointed out to me who said the 2x2 starting date is 1897? Can you give me some documents which worker the 2x2 church started in 1897 again, thanks.
Let me start on a new thread so I don't get accused of Hijacking this thread.
|
|
|
Post by cheechette on Jul 17, 2009 10:05:00 GMT -5
Hey Scott...... "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION" is on your agenda as you state. Well, when you get the list of 200+ names through your Freedom of Information please make sure you let everyone know how well the police and prosecutor kept everything in "secret" and watch the "Fireworks" start. Perhaps the "Claimant" (as you know who that is) will be making the Freedom of Information available to you. I am sure the Claimant has the list since that is who gave the police the list or should I say drove the girls to the police with the list. Guess the Claimant forgot the phrase.... "Still mouth, Wise head". The Freedom of Information is not as FREE as you state. As a matter of fact, it could be a very costly Freedom of Information.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 17, 2009 11:48:08 GMT -5
Hey Scott...... "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION" is on your agenda as you state. Well, when you get the list of 200+ names through your Freedom of Information please make sure you let everyone know how well the police and prosecutor kept everything in "secret" and watch the "Fireworks" start. Perhaps the "Claimant" (as you know who that is) will be making the Freedom of Information available to you. I am sure the Claimant has the list since that is who gave the police the list or should I say drove the girls to the police with the list. Guess the Claimant forgot the phrase.... "Still mouth, Wise head". The Freedom of Information is not as FREE as you state. As a matter of fact, it could be a very costly Freedom of Information. I really am not interested in the names. I am interested in the investigation into them. From what WK posted it appears there are over 40 pages in just that one group. There are the other documents related to the other parts of the case which I would like to see. It should be pretty interesting to see just where this all went during the investigation. What are you referring to as being costly in using the FOI act to obtain information? It appears that there are copies of these reports already floating around some of the various posters here, so I am a bit confused by your statement. I am thinking that Gabe G or Suzanne Y will be able to pull some of these documents fairly easily, as they are used to doing so on a regular basis. Not sure if either of them will be doing a follow up report or not yet. It will be interesting to see if they do, although probably not as newsworthy as the start of the whole investigation.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 17, 2009 12:32:49 GMT -5
Probably not done yet, as you stated because it is not as newsworthy as the start. Turned out totally different than anyone expected. And the news only likes excitement not just boring, the kids are home and happy, the twins were accused of lying and then admitted to it. They were aided and abetted by ministers. Sounds like a boring story. If you investigated the ministers it might get a word or two in a story. I would love to see a follow up story done. But, who ever thought it was important to do the first definitely isn't persuading anyone to do the second. And everyone likes a happy ending, what a shame. Well, almost a happy ending.
I would think Scott, in all your conversations with whoever, someone would have shared a good document to post if they had any. And, believe me, the lawyer has documents. That is the lawyer hired for Stephanie and now John, the bondsman.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 17, 2009 13:08:19 GMT -5
I dont want to dash your hopes, but have any of you ever seen info given out from the Fof Info act?
There is more blacked out than left in--in the papers I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 17, 2009 19:56:54 GMT -5
Working for a lawyer doesn't make you a know it all. First, we don't care if you believe 200 or 10,000. Second, you are trying to say you don't know how many names but you won't say one word about your list of names. Now, let's ask for facts: 1. How many names did you have on your list
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 17, 2009 20:00:46 GMT -5
Working for a lawyer doesn't make you a know it all. First, we don't care if you believe 200 or 10,000. Second, you are trying to say you don't know how many names but you won't say one word about your list of names. Now, let's ask for facts: 1. How many names did you have on your list So... are you a know it all? Why does she have to say anything about her list to you?
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 17, 2009 20:16:17 GMT -5
No one needs a personal mental counselor. Just answers, upfront answers, recoginized and reliable answers. Responsible answers, humble answers, truthful answers, and caring answers. No one wants vengence or hate. People who were judgmental and fault finding and liars are why it is the way it is. Ugle rumors are still circling. Those who want to destroy will try anything. So, the way to stop it is to stand up to them and fight back with the same vigor and determination that they have. It must be made known that this will not be tolerated, it will not be dismissed and it will only be forgotten when it is corrected. No matter how far up the chain in the meetings you are, you still fall just as hard as the little guy. In fact you fall harder because you fall farther. Don't hide behind the mask of a minister. Learn what a minister is. Act like a minister. Love like a minister. Care like a minister. Then you may prefer to your self as a minister, when the people accept you as a minister.
Court papers are available only for the actions and discussions in court. False allegations, lies and etc. are not in the court papers. So, on top of that if there are people, such as minors to be protectedf, or actions of minors and etc., that is blacked out. So, anyone can get court papers. They are not hid, How do you think the court papers were posted. But, if evidence that is turned in is copied and given to others, then the evidence becomes well known, because who do you think can keep such things quiet. If it wasn;'t good, you wouldn't pass it out. Lawyers get copies for their clients. Clients get copies from their lawyers. So, evidence gets well known and people involved get well advised. What is known is facts. If someone doesn't know the facts and don't want to believe it, so be it. As they say, WHAT EVER!!
a
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 17, 2009 20:25:13 GMT -5
Well, one way to find out who knows who's on the list and who's got a copy of that list...is to have a court case where the defendant's lawyers as who is on th elist, where did you get your copy of the list, etc. Under oath...maybe the penalty will work?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 17, 2009 21:12:14 GMT -5
Well, one way to find out who knows who's on the list and who's got a copy of that list...is to have a court case where the defendant's lawyers as who is on th elist, where did you get your copy of the list, etc. Under oath...maybe the penalty will work? So.... is it illegal to have the list? In fact, is it illegal to show others the list? As far as I know, the only one who has the list is WK, and that is because he is the one that has been talking about the 'list of 200'. I have been curious as to how he got it, and who all he has shared it with since he got it. I have yet to hear anyone else say they have seen the 'list of 200', and in fact there are some people pretty skeptical of that number. Personally, I don't think it is any different legally if it is a list of 10 or a list of 500. It is a matter if it can be proven that someone is using/has deliberately used the list (or rather the names on it) in a way that it causes harm to those who are on it if they are truly innocent of any wrongdoing. I doubt if WK feels he is doing so by sharing some of the names that are on it with others he corresponds with. Scott
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jul 17, 2009 22:09:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I hate those lists. Someone sent me a letter one time not so long ago with some names and addresses on it. Chaps my rear. They wanted me to send them money in exchange for more names and to pay for the ones they sent me. I did not send them one red cent or blue nickel. I suppose I could tell you how many were on that list and maybe publish it to this thread, but then again, you can sit there and wonder and stew. Speaking of which, it is that time again - eat stew and create lists of your favorite workers and all the wise things they say from the platform. Watch them list from one side to the other as they walk to their bunks. Lack of sleep, gossip in their favorite fancy homes on wheels, and stewing stew cause the older ones to list as they walk from the cocoa house to their air conditioned bunks for one more nip before beddy-bye.
Toodles.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 17, 2009 22:17:01 GMT -5
Working for a lawyer doesn't make you a know it all. First, we don't care if you believe 200 or 10,000. Second, you are trying to say you don't know how many names but you won't say one word about your list of names. Now, let's ask for facts: 1. How many names did you have on your list So glad you asked, and in such a nice manner too. They say "Honey catches more flies than vinegar!" I absolutely ADORE lists! I am lost without one. I have many many folders of lists--lists of all kinds. So if there a particular workers list you're wanting a count of, just give me the state and year you're interested in, and I will count the names on the list and let you know the number.
|
|
|
Post by cheechette on Jul 17, 2009 22:26:24 GMT -5
Answer to #153.... YES, it is illegal to show the list if you have one. YES, it is illegal to share a name on the list if you happened to know one. YES, if the name was said and people started to hear it, rather innocent or not, your name can be tarnished in the future. NO, the State Police will not show the list and NO, the Prosecutor will not show the list. Hey, why don't you ask a good lawyer for that answer instead of guessing. Cherie Kropp works for lawyers and perhaps she could find out the answer.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 17, 2009 22:30:37 GMT -5
Wheee.... all these false accusations just zinging all over the TMB. Why... it reminds me of Michigan.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jul 18, 2009 0:14:56 GMT -5
It's just another mish again. Aim, fire, mish; aim, fire, mish. Hate when that happens.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 18, 2009 10:24:13 GMT -5
It isn't the list, it is what is stated on the list. Funny funny, you are named a sexual abuser. When these kinds of accusations become humorous, it is then time to look at whois humored. Keep your files, doubt any names, just keep the dry humor and amuse yourselves. Nothing will change the real purpose of knowing where the names came from. Trying to side track the whole issue, just makes people more aware of who is doing the side tracking and you just wonder why. Condemnation without investigation is ignorance. Remember?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 18, 2009 10:31:08 GMT -5
Condemnation without investigation is ignorance. Remember? Do you?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 18, 2009 12:12:17 GMT -5
Well, one way to find out who knows who's on the list and who's got a copy of that list...is to have a court case where the defendant's lawyers as who is on th elist, where did you get your copy of the list, etc. Under oath...maybe the penalty will work? So.... is it illegal to have the list? In fact, is it illegal to show others the list? As far as I know, the only one who has the list is WK, and that is because he is the one that has been talking about the 'list of 200'. I have been curious as to how he got it, and who all he has shared it with since he got it. I have yet to hear anyone else say they have seen the 'list of 200', and in fact there are some people pretty skeptical of that number. Personally, I don't think it is any different legally if it is a list of 10 or a list of 500. It is a matter if it can be proven that someone is using/has deliberately used the list (or rather the names on it) in a way that it causes harm to those who are on it if they are truly innocent of any wrongdoing. I doubt if WK feels he is doing so by sharing some of the names that are on it with others he corresponds with. Scott No, Scott, I didn't say it was illegal...that isn't my place...I was just saying IF it was needful to know all of who is what, take it to court and let the lawyers duke it out....no need to guesstimate at all! It is true should it be taken to court, then who is on the list and who has the list will become public knowledge....Now I think those who are on the list should move first to protect themselves, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 18, 2009 12:14:49 GMT -5
Condemnation without investigation is ignorance. Remember? Do you? I'm very busy investigating which has a few people excited including you, that is obvious.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 18, 2009 12:45:31 GMT -5
I'm very busy investigating which has a few people excited including you, that is obvious. No, seriously? You are investigating? Wow! I'm so excited that I just can't hide it.
|
|