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 22:18:40 GMT -5
"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. " Something not right here? "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..." This is a different tune. You know and I know what really took place. Lets not worry about the name list, untill the civil suit, should there be one?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 13, 2009 22:41:13 GMT -5
WK wrote: ***Like whats not right? Makes perfect sense to me...In other words, since WINGS didn't give out any names and WINGS members never saw the alleged 200 name list "the law" supposedly has in their hands--that translates to: None of the names on said alleged list were given by any WINGS member. What part of that don't you understand? You dont say who made the statement... WK wrote Different tune? Where have you been. The alleged "200 name list" has been challenged more than here on this thread. I disagree - neither you or I know "what really took place"...we only know bits and pieces. And further, "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus"--so one has to figure that in when trying to interpret what the other has expressed in writing. I have found WK often misinterprets (whether or not deliberately, I do not know) what I write... What WK's statement could mean: He can't produce a copy of the the alleged "200 name list." That he possibly was the one who made up the term "the 200 name list" That he cant verify the "200 name list" exists in the hands of "the law" or even that there were 200 names, etc. That he wants others to assume he is privy to the inside workings of WINGS... Too funny! You people who think you know "something" that just isn't there!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 14, 2009 5:56:22 GMT -5
Cherie, can you tell us some of the reasons why you left WINGS? I voluntarily resigned.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jul 14, 2009 9:23:41 GMT -5
I filed a suit one time but found out that is not the way to get rid of stains. Best to take it to the dry cleaner.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 14, 2009 9:29:22 GMT -5
id10t...you sound more like justmyself then ever! HAH!
I think perhaps to stop a lot of bad feelings against the wrong people on either side of the equation, perhaps filing a lawsuit is not a bad thought! Then who is what will become known and those who were innocent or innocently supporting can get back to their useful lives wherever that might be!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 14, 2009 10:11:56 GMT -5
~~ I believe the friends and workers should file a lawsuit so this MI fiasco will not happen to the friends and workers in another states or to anyone else. Just because so and so say this person sexually molested me as a lesson to those who aid and abetting should be careful in what they say and do. They should go to prison and pay all the attorney cost not just a slap on the wrist.So, you think that the friends and workers should file a suit against the friends and workers huh? Isn't that what has been the big issue in all this lately? That there were workers and friends who were spreading this 'list' around to others? I am a bit confused on your reasoning there. I know of people who were falsely accused of CSA and pleaded guilty because they didn't have money to fight the system. The authority made their lives a living hellIt doesn't take money to plead not guilty. If one does not have money an attorney will be appointed. Might not be the BEST attorney one can get, but when all is said and done the worst thing that could happen is to be found guilty as charge, which is the same as pleading guilty. (although the sentencing may be different I would guess, although record would be the same) Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 14, 2009 10:26:18 GMT -5
~~ WK... if the 200 friends file civil suit would they charge those who aid and abetting, even though so and so voluntarily resigned from certain group which might be involved?The '200' will never file a civil suit. I am pretty sure that there are a lot of names that don't even know that they made the list. Here on the board I have seen TWO of those people who are on the list discussing this. I know that because they have stated that here on the board. It will be interesting to see just who of the '200' actually want to be a part of any civil suit being filed, and what their grounds for filing are. First off they will need to show that someone deliberately tried to harm them by their actions, and the 2 people charged in this case have already been sentenced for their actions. Second, they will have to convince the court that anyone other than those two were acting in a manner that was meant to deliberately harm them by their actions, and since no one else has been charged and convicted, that may be tough to do (and I am NOT saying it isn't possible) I am pretty sure that there are people on that list of '200' that want nothing to do with any kind of civil suit. They would like this to be over with and done as they feel that the fact that the twins were charged with filing a false report in essence has cleared their names. With the numbers involved, it is likely that very few people are going to think that everyone on the list was guilty of anything. I am not trying to say a civil suit should not be pursued as that is up to those individuals who feel that they were wrongly accused. Scott
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 14, 2009 11:01:02 GMT -5
A lawsuit would not be for pleading innocent or guilty. It would for injustice to innocent people and the harrassement and slander that followed the false allegations. As far as the case with the girls it is now over and unless someone does something wrong it will be over until they appear again in a year before the judge to state that they have fulfilled their obligations layed out by the court, There are definitely people out there, that contributed to the demise of so many people that would just like to walk away as though it didn't matter and it is no skin off their nose. No remorse or care about the hurt that has been done.
It is terrible when the police use such tactics as to have a person plead to anything just to be away from the interrogation. People went through hours of being accused and stating that the police have the evidence, so you might just as well own up to the allegations. And all along the police know they have no evidence what so ever. So, that is why people end up in court because no one has to be put through such a process.
Also, aiding and abetting is a serious allegation!! What was the purpose for it? What was accomplished from all of this? And how many was surprised by the end result? How about the people working on behalf of the ministers? Not just fun and games after all.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 14, 2009 11:38:54 GMT -5
"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. " Something not right here? "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..." This is a different tune. You know and I know what really took place. Lets not worry about the name list, untill the civil suit, should there be one? ~~ WK... if the 200 friends file civil suit would they charge those who aid and abetting, even though so and so voluntarily resigned from certain group which might be involved?tsk tsk... such irony. nathan is harping against false accusations, yet here he has posted a false accusation, albeit somewhat veiled. Maybe nathan isn't man enough to state precisely what he's trying to say, or he doesn't want anyone to think he is posting a false accusation... I'll go with the former.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 14, 2009 11:38:48 GMT -5
I believe the twins thought it was fun just to name names And I think they were mentally ill at the time. Others think ... Unfortunately a dirty/nasty court case is the only way that anything is going to see the light of day and even that may not bring this to a close. Anyone who could have willing shown more light on this topic prior to a civil case being filed so far has chosen not to. I fail to see how/why anyone at this point is going to cover the other sides court costs when no one has admitted/been prove guilty (other than the twins, which this case no longer seems to be about) Something that you have been pushing.
|
|
|
Post by cheechette on Jul 14, 2009 13:46:03 GMT -5
Cherie, Since you work for lawyers you should know the list of names should not be shown to anyone (unless charged by the police and you would know your name was on the list but would not know who else's name is listed) and is to be in file under lock and key from the Michigan State Police and the Prosecutor. Problem is...... when the list of (Over 200 NAMES) was written and to be turned over to the police, someone also kept a copy before turning over the list. People involved with this case should not see the list either but that didn't turn out to be true neither. That would probably come back to haunt the Prosecutor. This will come out as time goes on and guess you moderators will then know something. "SOME OF US REALLY DO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND MOST OF YOU DO NOT KNOW.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 14, 2009 14:26:03 GMT -5
And I believe that they were forced into a breakdown by pressure from overbearing adult church leaders and leading them to these wild charges. Often I hear people say that ___ was fine until ... (marriage/breakup/job loss/vacation). The illness seems to be easier to accept of we can 'blame' it on something. Someone I knew growing up recently committed suicide, when the person told me of the death, they said "He'd always been fine until he got married." My $.02 Edited to addLikely stress does play a role as do other things, but it is very likely that if the stress from one thing hadn't happened, some other event would have caused a similar amount of stress and with similar results.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 14, 2009 15:04:04 GMT -5
Cherie, Since you work for lawyers you should know the list of names should not be shown to anyone (unless charged by the police and you would know your name was on the list but would not know who else's name is listed) and is to be in file under lock and key from the Michigan State Police and the Prosecutor. Problem is...... when the list of (Over 200 NAMES) was written and to be turned over to the police, someone also kept a copy before turning over the list. People involved with this case should not see the list either but that didn't turn out to be true neither. That would probably come back to haunt the Prosecutor. This will come out as time goes on and guess you moderators will then know something. "SOME OF US REALLY DO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND MOST OF YOU DO NOT KNOW. Wow. This is getting interesting for sure!! So now it comes out that there was ONE master list that contained OVER 200 names that was written up and turned over to the police all at one time? My understanding of this has been way off for sure. I had thought that names were being added as time progressed. I guess I have been really misled about all of this. I am thinking that the way to go about finding out the truth is to use the Freedom of Information act to get to the bottom of all this. I am sure what needs to be sealed will not be given out, even though Michigan law under FOI states: [edit] Features of the law [edit] How is "record" defined? The Michigan law defines "public record" to mean a writing which encompasses "handwriting, typewriting, printing, photographing, photocopying, and every other means of recording, and includes letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, or other means of recording or retaining meaningful content) prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body in the performance of an official function, from the time it is created." MCL §15.232(e) & (h) (2001). Computer software is not included in the definition of what a public record is. [edit] Who can request records?Any person other than incarcerated felons may request public records in Michigan. "It is the public policy of this state that all persons, except those persons incarcerated in state or local correctional facilities, are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government". [5] MCL 15.232 defines a "person" as an "individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, firm, organization, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity." "Person", for the purposes of requesting access to public records, does not include "an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state or county correctional facility in this state or any other state, or in a federal correctional facility." This law was challenged in Proctor v. White Lake Police Dept. in 2001 as being an unconstitutional deprivation of rights. The law was upheld. For requester residency requirements in other states, see the list of who can make public record requests by state. [edit] Are oral requests permitted? No. However, oral requests were permitted up until 1996, when the law was altered to exclude them. [edit] Must requestors state their purpose? No. A person who asks for access to public records is not required to justify his or her request. The purpose of the request is irrelevant and the requestor is not required to reveal it. From: sunshinereview.org/index.php/Michigan_Freedom_of_Information_ActSo it looks like any of us are allowed to file for this information. I think that the postings by White Knight probably have any relevant case numbers/information needed to request information under the FOI in Michigan. Scott
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 14, 2009 15:06:40 GMT -5
Boy is this a cover someones butt answer. Are you trying to open a whole new can of worms? BTW, I do think that 'something' did trigger the accusations. Was it the change of lifestyle, was it 'unwanted attention,' (but something short of criminal), or??
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 14, 2009 19:17:51 GMT -5
There was no just one list. But names were given in sequence. So, when it is said that the list was given and someone else had a copy it is of one of the sequence that names were turned in. It started out like a faily tale and ended a horror story. Others have been notified that the names were given to the police by someone other than the girls and their two dark horses. So, yes, names were past out to others, not just the police. Now everyone thinks big deal. It is a big deal. This is not just a little crime like stealing a candy bar. These are jail time charges and they will forever remain. So, who ever thought it was fun, needs to be put in a straight jacket at the least. Being stomped on by the courts for passing out names or repeating those names turned in has already been recorded. And showing that someone was trying to harm an innocent person is so easy to show. How could you claim such abuse without thinking you didn't want to harm someone. That is about the worst song and dance excuse I have ever heard. This is slander and having a record of this forever is a libel circumstance. There will much more coming out, but you sure don't let your enemie know your intentions.
Anyone that thinks this is just nothing, will you prosecute me if I go to the police and claim that you sexual abused me? It doesn't matter if I know you or not. Just need your name. Are there any takes for that offer?
So, if you think this is a matter of no interest, do all a favor and comment on an other post. Do not add to insult by being so callous and prudent and trying to make a loop hole for a couple of aiding and abetting people plus the associated ministers that were up to their neck in scandel. Those who were on a high horse just have further to fall.
Scott, if you need the Lapeer county court house phone number for your information of freedom papers, I will gladly give it to you. We don't care if you justify your reasons, just get them and let us know everything you find out. And if you don't get them, please be kind enough to tell us why. Better yet, ask your friend Kelly, for a copy of the papers, she has them and if you are her friend, she'll gladly furnish those to you. Of course we surely seem to think you would be very timid to cross her the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 14, 2009 19:29:30 GMT -5
Now since we are all looking up court laws and etc., how about answering for once whether Wings is licensed or an organization. All organizations have a registered board which is public information. It would be nice to try and persuade anyone that is thinking of a civil suit, that it is a waste of time. Do you think for one minute that Wings will not be involved and I'm sure not voluntary either. The picture becomes clearer by each bit of information that is found out. Blasting peoples names because of a hunch is definitely a libel suit. So, for once, lets see Wings come clear on their status and how they operate and with who. It is harder pulling something out of the mud than picking it off the ground but after this ordeal, nothing seems like it is to complicated. Wings is suppose to be helpful and have the back bone to help innocent victims. Not hide their identity and have a smoke screen. So, clear up the big secret and let everyone know how sincere Wings is and how clean their actions are.
|
|
|
Post by cheechette on Jul 14, 2009 22:25:50 GMT -5
Scott, Reply #51.... The list that was accumulated over time and became a master piece is NOT public information. You will not be able to get the list from anyone unless it is a copy of the names before turned into the police. The list is suppose to be kept locked up so the innocent people don't have this information tarnishing their own record. If you were able to see the list then you would be able to know every name on the list accused which is not a legal practice. The only way that this can be on your record is if you go to court and have your name cleared and even then your name will always be on the list even though you were found innocent. Otherwise, this is a skeleton list and does not show on your personal record and is to be kept as secret information forever. (Quoted from a highly experienced lawyer)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 15, 2009 8:02:23 GMT -5
Scott, Reply #51.... The list that was accumulated over time and became a master piece is NOT public information. You will not be able to get the list from anyone unless it is a copy of the names before turned into the police. The list is suppose to be kept locked up so the innocent people don't have this information tarnishing their own record. If you were able to see the list then you would be able to know every name on the list accused which is not a legal practice. I must be confused on another issue then. It appears from the postings that I have read from White Knight that he has this list. If so, then did he somehow get it illegally? The only way that this can be on your record is if you go to court and have your name cleared and even then your name will always be on the list even though you were found innocent. Otherwise, this is a skeleton list and does not show on your personal record and is to be kept as secret information forever. (Quoted from a highly experienced lawyer) So.... if nothing is done, no court appearance at all then the list means nothing? (I am probably misunderstanding what you are saying as it appears that you are saying that the only way it ends up on any record is by going to court and THEN it becomes part of your record??) Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 15, 2009 8:29:01 GMT -5
There seems to be this big misunderstanding concerning the list of names which is in Michigan, and how it somehow crosses over to the names which are turned in to WINGS. We have a reporting method for providing information concerning abuse issues. Just because a name is turned in to WINGS, does NOT mean it is placed into any sort of database. An interesting statistic, (and not something normally given out, but might clear up some misunderstandings) is that a search of the WINGS database shows that: there are only 3 names that are in the WINGS database that are people known to be residents of Michigan. One of those 3 has been deceased for several years. (Of the other 2, I am not sure if they still live in Michigan.) These 2 names are individuals with past issues unrelated to the current Michigan case. I have no idea if these names are on the 'list of 200', as I have never seen that list. Now I doubt if that information is going to make a whole lot of difference to those who wish to think WINGS was into supplying names on the 'list of 200', but for those others who were wondering about this issue maybe it will make a difference. Scott
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 15, 2009 10:21:51 GMT -5
Scott, first we know that you said you knew of at least 30 different names that were alleged. So, how did you know that?
So how wonderful that there are only three names from Michigan on your database. The names that were accused came from all over the place. Even Russia. So, how does that make a difference in this issue of Wings having a database and using those names with anyone. So, I quess a fair answer would be, how many names do you have in your database? That has never been given out, but as you stated it would help clear up matters. How many of those names were discussed with the law? Were those names referred to as a suspect or alleged person of misconduct? How many people have the list of the database? Names were established, confirmed by Cherie, before Wings was started. Apparently those names were given to Wings. So, who else has in their position those names? Still no answer, is Wings licensed to have a database? Are they incorporated? Who all do they give information to in regards to their database? Who is head of Wings? Who is on the board to keep information given to them? Are there rules as to who can talk to who? Anything that is given to the police is to be recorded by the police in their records. That is evidence that then is turned in to the prosecutor to determine whether someone is charged with a crime.
So, lots of questions and as of yet, Not ONE answer as to the legality of Wings and if it is legal or a witch hunt. A scenorial to think about. I'll call one member of Wings, give them information that one of your family is a suspect of a crime, let them keep that in your database and then someone talks and names the member of your family. Would you be upset or would you just say, being investigated or having your name on a abuser list is nothing? Better yet, how about the person that made the accusations, kept your name and repeated to others. Would that get your attention yet? Would that issue make a difference?
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 15, 2009 11:02:14 GMT -5
Everything makes a full circle!!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 15, 2009 11:20:48 GMT -5
Scott, first we know that you said you knew of at least 30 different names that were alleged. So, how did you know that?The names came from a variety of people. I would imagine at least 15 different people over there in Michigan. I have no idea where they all heard the names. As I mentioned, just getting a name does not make them a part of any database. The names were not reported to WINGS, but shared with me by people by email and phone. They had nothing to do with WINGS when I heard them. How many names have you heard or read? What have you done with that information? Have you shared those names with anyone other than the authorities? Have you discussed any of them with anyone else? So how wonderful that there are only three names from Michigan on your database. The names that were accused came from all over the place. Even Russia. Hmmm... So now you also are privy to the list that I have never seen huh? How did you get the list? Was it given to you by the authorities? If it is a sealed list why are you having access to it? What are you going to do with the names you have read? If the list is given to people then what difference does it make if it is sealed? Are you licensed to have such a list? So, how does that make a difference in this issue of Wings having a database and using those names with anyone. Well, you are the one saying that we are 'using the names' with people. You can read on WINGS what the names are used for. One thing they are not used for is simply handing them out. So, I quess a fair answer would be, how many names do you have in your database? Less than 100 That has never been given out, but as you stated it would help clear up matters.Now you know. How many of those names were discussed with the law? Were those names referred to as a suspect or alleged person of misconduct? Just a guess, but probably less than 20. Of those (less than) 20 less than 10 in the United States.. As you can see as posted on WINGS, we will cooperate with the authorities when contacted. How many people have the list of the database? There is one individual that maintains the list. It isn't me. And a question for you. How many people that you know of have the 'list of 200' names? Names were established, confirmed by Cherie, before Wings was started. Apparently those names were given to Wings. Not sure what you are referring to. WINGS is just one of the places that keeps track of this information. There are others that have nothing to do with WINGS that have been keeping track of these issues for decades. There is information going back to the 1930's I think concerning abuse issues. So, who else has in their position those names? I have no idea who else would have the names. WINGS does not share info with any other group. If contacted by the authorities we put them in contact with the one that made the report if that is possible. Still no answer, is Wings licensed to have a database? Are they incorporated? I have no idea what you are referring to. Anyone can collect names. There are several organizations that collect names, license plate numbers, take pictures of people etc in case they are ever needed for reporting to authorities. Neighborhood watch programs are an example of this. Who all do they give information to in regards to their database?It is listed on WINGS and as I mentioned above. Who is head of Wings? No one. I am the administrator, but do not control the web site. that is done from outside of the US. Who is on the board to keep information given to them? Any information is either posted (in the case of those convicted) or simply placed in the storage maintained separate of WINGS. Are there rules as to who can talk to who? Listed on WINGS. Anything that is given to the police is to be recorded by the police in their records. That is evidence that then is turned in to the prosecutor to determine whether someone is charged with a crime.Well.... the authorities sure wouldn't be doing their job now would they if they didn't record where they got information from.... There are specific laws regarding whether information is being given falsely. So, lots of questions and as of yet, Not ONE answer as to the legality of Wings and if it is legal or a witch hunt. Of course we are legal. Anyone can make up a web site. There is no witch hunting going on at all. I think there are some really paranoid people out there who are worried that their name may be on our site. Even if WINGS got a name that had nothing to do with CSA it wouldn't matter as it probably would never come up again. We know what hearsay is, and so do the authorities. That is why if we are contacted we try to put the authorities in contact with the one that reported the information to us. Pretty hard to get in trouble for providing information to the authorities when they contact us ya know.... A scenorial to think about. I'll call one member of Wings, give them information that one of your family is a suspect of a crime, let them keep that in your database and then someone talks and names the member of your family. My brother's names are Rocky and Larry and my sister is LeEllen. Feel free to report to WINGS using the questions there, and we will get back to you with further questions to decide whether your information is something that we would keep. Would you be upset or would you just say, being investigated or having your name on a abuser list is nothing? Being investigated is often the only way a person gets their name cleared in these situations. One of the problems I have seen is that people who have been accused but not reported to the authorities have their reputations ruined without anyway of clearing the matter up and proving their innocence. There is a fairly recent case of this happening. What we have (other than those who have been convicted) is nothing more than a list of people who are alleged abusers. In most cases these are issues from several years ago, and in many cases the one named has since passed away. When the same name is reported by different people in different sates with different victims, it can be an indication that their is an issue that was never investigated. Better yet, how about the person that made the accusations, kept your name and repeated to others. Would that get your attention yet? Would that issue make a difference? Not to me. That is human nature to gossip. We don't give out the names that we get to just anyone. I am pretty sure that any names I have heard must have already been on the 'list of 200' in the Michigan case as they came from Michigan after all this was already going on. Like I mentioned, WINGS never furnished any names which were given to the twins in this whole mess over there. NOW..... I am sure that you have a lot more questions, but I am getting a bit tired of answering you. I did so because you seem to have an agenda against either WINGS or myself and feel the need to try and discredit what our purpose is. WINGS came about by several people getting together who felt that there was a need for such a site to be put together. The purpose is to make sure people have a place to go to for information and resources for what to do when affected by CSA issues. These people were for the most part those who have been victims themselves in the past. From the website: WINGS has been created by victims/survivors who have suffered sexual abuse within the "Truth" Fellowship along with individuals who have been both directly and indirectly impacted by CSA.
Our objective is to provide information, support and guidance to every individual on every aspect of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA), and to shed light on the prevalence of these abuses within the fellowship. Our ultimate hope is to encourage change within the group in order to protect others from the devastation that occurs when CSA is minimized and or ultimately ignored. wingsfortruth.info/Interestingly enough, all of your questions have increased the visits to WINGS and to the Breaking The Silence Board located at: wingsbts.proboards.com/index.cgi?Scott
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 15, 2009 12:35:31 GMT -5
If your name, some of your family members or your friends were on that list.... what would you do? Those investigated from the list were never charged, those turning in the list have been charged with lying. Hopefully those who have the list and have been showing it to others will be seen for what they are. (As far as my name being on the list, I wouldn't worry too much about it. All court doc's point to it being lies, due to the high number accused and the wild accusations I doubt too many/if any actually believe the accusations.)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 15, 2009 13:03:31 GMT -5
~~ How do you know that whoever has the list will erase your name from the list which they keep? So if your name came up again then you're mud. You will a tougher time to get your name clear again the second time. Right now that would be jhjmr, cheechette and White Knight. They are the only ones I have heard talk about having knowledge of the 'list of 200'. I didn't see it in any of the court papers posted by White Knight in regard to the charges against the twins, and so it is only their word that the list even exists at this point. Of the three, only one goes to meetings, and that person doesn't live in Michigan. How about it you professing folks there in Michigan that read here. Have any of you seen this 'list of 200' that is supposedly being passed around among the professing folks over there? From what I am reading, it has been shown to a bunch of professing folks in Michigan, but no professing person in Michigan has said that they have seen it. Hmmmm....... Wonder how these other people got their hands on it ..... So..... Maybe we should be asking them what they are going to be doing with that list they have? Scott
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 15, 2009 13:10:38 GMT -5
~~~ WK, others and their families on here have gone through a lot of pains, sufferings, sorrow for been falsely accused... this is no fun and games to them. Agreed, I don't think anyone here has dis-agreed with this. (Have been falsely accused) In the MI case, justice has been served, the charges against them were investigated, found to be false and those making the accusations were charged and pleaded guilty/no contest. At what point does it go beyond just wanting 'justice?' In general yes, but IMO, WINGS and Cherie should be the least of anyones worries. You've stated this before. What are the guidelines for prison time now, and what should they be? (NOTE: No one has yet been charged with 'aiding and abetting' so so far it is a non-issue.) ~~ How do you know that whoever has the list will erase your name from the list which they keep? So if your name came up again then you're mud. You will a tougher time to get your name clear again the second time. The names will never be erased from the court list and I doubt all the 'copies' (if there are any) that the general public have will be destroyed either. Those named on the MI list now have the court on their side, investigated, not charged. If there are other lists floating around naming others, those people have never had any investigation to clear there name.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 15, 2009 14:08:34 GMT -5
Nate is giving out false information and is (maliciously?) attempting to discredit my name with his lies. You really have it in for me, dont you Nate, and its showing. "Bearing false witness" against me again, Nate? Let the record show: WINGS does NOT and never has had what Nate refers to as "Cherie's list of names." I never gave WINGS a list of names. This is not the first time I have had to make this statement for clarification on TMB. Sniffing flour again, Nate? Maybe you should stick to baking bread? And stick to things you know something about... UK01, I am talking about WINGS and Cherie's list of names which they possess. The names Scott's have on the data base. About 100 names. How about Cherie? Doesn't she have list of names for herself? Is this the list since 1930's to now? Nate wrote Nate: Others and their families on here have gone through a lot of pains, sufferings, sorrow for believing false information promoted on your website...this is no fun and games to them. Try to put yourself in their shoes. ALL they want is truth--and you give them truth mixed with lies. This shouldnt happen to anyone... so WINGS, Cherie um Nate, please be VERY careful with the information you post on your website--especially in giving out dates like 1888 for the date when your church started. You hold a big responsibility. Also for stating certain people wrote accounts on your website, when they, in fact, did not.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 15, 2009 14:37:01 GMT -5
Sniffing flour again, Nate? Maybe you should stick to baking bread? And stick to things you know something about... Forgive my ignorance, but what would that be? I can't think of anything which fits that description.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 15, 2009 14:40:24 GMT -5
Sniffing flour again, Nate? Maybe you should stick to baking bread? And stick to things you know something about... Forgive my ignorance, but what would that be? I can't think of anything which fits that description. Possibly (hopefully) baking bread..., since he's a baker?
|
|