And another one… Now ya’ll play nice.
Your Thread - May 13
May 12, 2008 · 312 Comments
Categories: All · Your threads
Tagged: drew peterson, Kathleen Savio, Stacy Peterson, your thread
And another one… Now ya’ll play nice.
Categories: All · Your threads
Tagged: drew peterson, Kathleen Savio, Stacy Peterson, your thread
312 responses so far ↓
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 6:19 am
Good morning!
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 6:46 am
Good morning back at you.
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 7:27 am
Good morning everyone. Boxing gloves on?
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 7:29 am
Serious question this morning..
What do you really think of a poster putting a half-naked pic of Drew on Stacy’s official MP site and then other posters adding bra, etc?
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 7:35 am
Completely inappropriate and disrespectful. Par for the course though.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 7:44 am
Half-naked picture of anyone doesn’t need to be on the official website for a missing person.
I said it wasn’t going to end well. And that was when there was one post after the picture. I didn’t go back after that.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 7:47 am
Need to rethink something I said yesterday about finding Stacy being the most important thing.
J13 was right; that’s not true.
I don’t know that Stacy will ever be found. Justice is the most important thing. But without a body, I don’t know if justice will be served.
luvpups // May 13, 2008 at 7:51 am
I have a legit question. Is Sharon’s son Roy the admin at FSP?
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 7:56 am
Re: Picture on website: absolutely poor taste, and totally inappropriate.
feistygurl // May 13, 2008 at 7:56 am
the pic with dp just shows they are classless & clueles over there. admin is anthony laatz. elroy is leader of search team
feistygurl // May 13, 2008 at 8:01 am
i really am gonna work on a letter to pam today. anyone have any words they want me to throw in it? im open for ideas.
luvpups // May 13, 2008 at 8:05 am
Oh, I guess I was misled thinking Roy was the admin. Thanks.
luvpups // May 13, 2008 at 8:08 am
I have only gone to that site to read up to date news, if the other things you mention are going on, then it has become a social club for all the members & is not what a missing persons site should be.
A lot of missing person sites have eliminated forums probably for the same reasons.
I remember when Laci’s site had a message board & some of the messages left for the family were horrendous!
No need to have that on a family’s site, there are many other forums on the internet where the cases can be discussed.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 8:23 am
Maybe the discussion part of it will fizzle out, and it’ll be an information only site. More credibility that way. Too many personalities to have to rein in the way it is now.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 8:58 am
feistygurl, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:56 am Said:
the pic with dp just shows they are classless & clueles over there. admin is anthony laatz. elroy is leader of search team
******************************
I’m not saying I know if it’s “right” or “wrong,” to do so, but are you comfortable using people’s last names on this blog, when that man hasn’t personally done so himself? I, myself, have never seen his name put out there, so I assume he wanted it that way. He’s not a spokesperson for anything, is he? If someone asked you to, would you divulge the last names of other members? If I asked someone who’s posting here and there to post publicly the last name of someone from the other site, merely for my own curiosity, would that make it any different?
Just recently, DP was seen in the presence of a woman and her named was thrown out there, wrongly, in my opinion, and many were outraged. I agreed it was distasteful too and went over the line. I think people’s names should not be disclosed by anyone, other than the person who belongs to the name.
JMHO.
snyder73 // May 13, 2008 at 9:04 am
Coffee talk is suddenly gone at FSP
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 9:14 am
snyder73, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:04 am Said:
Coffee talk is suddenly gone at FSP
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 9:30 am
amanda - that is a logical, doable idea. Makes sense, at least to me. Main info board, with off-shoot board for “stuff.” It’s just gotten too National Enquire-y.
car99 // May 13, 2008 at 9:57 am
This was left at I think its lavanda’s website.
Randy
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 1
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:38 am
Hi. I am new here but have been reading for some time. It is outrageous that you are accusing FSP of paying for somebody’s flight without any personal knowledge of such. They did not and have not EVER paid for anyone’s flight or given money to anyone to travel. It is absurd that you guys would trash an entire cause for Stacy to be brought home. You call this site “Angels for Stacy” but you trash her family and accuse them of doing illegal activities. Is that how people with their hearts in the right place act? Let me answer that for you-NO!!!! I know that you won’t have the courage to keep this post up and you will delete or ban me as you accuse FSP of that same thing. Lets see if you practice what you preach. I thought that this was a safe place to come without bashing but I guess that I was wrong. I am sure that Stacy’s family is disgusted by your accusations about their board, the people running the board, their family members, their friends, as they should be! How do you call yourselves “Angels for Stacy” when you have evil in your hearts? Talk is very cheap and actions speak louder than words.
If you have any evidence of your accusations then I suggest you send it to the family and you can also PM me with it. If you don’t have evidence or clear proof of what you are saying, then you should shut your mouths and be “Angels for Stacy”.
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 10:12 am
Yeah, it looks like they wisely either removed the gossip and play time thread from the forum (or else made it invisible). Great idea.
IMO, having any kind of forum attached to the official site is a bad idea.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 10:13 am
Ya know what? The family has been emailed and PM’d and mailed and phoned…and still NO ANSWERS! WHY?
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 10:13 am
facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 10:12 am Said:
Yeah, it looks like they wisely either removed the gossip and play time thread from the forum (or else made it invisible). Great idea.
IMO, having any kind of forum attached to the official site is a bad idea.
___________________________
Why can I see it then?
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 10:17 am
This is what I posted to Randy. Gotta get to work now…be back tonite.
http://www.angelsforstacy.hqforums.com
Hi Randy, Well..first, welcome to the site. Sorry under such circumstances. No I do not have any intentions of removing your post. I would only remove posts if you became bilegerant to other posters and/or used extreme foul language. You are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to your feelings. Please know that I did not use the word “illegal activities” in regards to the FSP fundraiser. Never. I said I’ve been deceived as well as many other posters. Please go to the thread here titled Upcoming Fundraisers and you will find more information and my personal thoughts and beliefs on what has transpired. You are free to make your own judgment on what you believe. However, let me please clarify that nobody here is evil. Nobody here is out to cause trouble or want trouble. There are legitimate conversations from many that were high level posters, moderators, and personal friends of those who manage the FSP forum and each of them has had their own experiences that have pointed the suspicions of the mismanagment of funds. Illegal? Probably not. Deceiving? YES. Very. Especially when the FSP donation page states other intentions of use. Please go to the FUNDRAISER thread and we can discuss further. Again, welcome to our site.
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 10:18 am
car99, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am Said:
This was left at I think its lavanda’s website.
Randy
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 1
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:38 am
Hi. I am new here but have been reading for some time. It is outrageous that you are accusing FSP of paying for somebody’s flight without any personal knowledge of such. They did not and have not EVER paid for anyone’s flight or given money to anyone to travel. It is absurd that you guys would trash an entire cause for Stacy to be brought home. You call this site “Angels for Stacy” but you trash her family and accuse them of doing illegal activities. Is that how people with their hearts in the right place act? Let me answer that for you-NO!!!! I know that you won’t have the courage to keep this post up and you will delete or ban me as you accuse FSP of that same thing. Lets see if you practice what you preach. I thought that this was a safe place to come without bashing but I guess that I was wrong. I am sure that Stacy’s family is disgusted by your accusations about their board, the people running the board, their family members, their friends, as they should be! How do you call yourselves “Angels for Stacy” when you have evil in your hearts? Talk is very cheap and actions speak louder than words.
If you have any evidence of your accusations then I suggest you send it to the family and you can also PM me with it. If you don’t have evidence or clear proof of what you are saying, then you should shut your mouths and be “Angels for Stacy”.
_____________________________
My response:
Hi Randy, Well..first, welcome to the site. Sorry under such circumstances. No I do not have any intentions of removing your post. I would only remove posts if you became bilegerant to other posters and/or used extreme foul language. You are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to your feelings. Please know that I did not use the word “illegal activities” in regards to the FSP fundraiser. Never. I said I’ve been deceived as well as many other posters. Please go to the thread here titled Upcoming Fundraisers and you will find more information and my personal thoughts and beliefs on what has transpired. You are free to make your own judgment on what you believe. However, let me please clarify that nobody here is evil. Nobody here is out to cause trouble or want trouble. There are legitimate conversations from many that were high level posters, moderators, and personal friends of those who manage the FSP forum and each of them has had their own experiences that have pointed the suspiciouns of the mismanagment of funds. Illegal? Probably not. Deceiving? YES. Very. Especially when the FSP donation page states other intentions of use. Please go to the FUNDRAISER thread and we can discuss further. Again, welcome to our site.
_________________
Life is fragile; handle with prayer…
Do Unto Others
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 10:20 am
Noway - maybe you have it cached? Let me poke around again and see if I can find it.
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 10:21 am
noway406, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:44 am Said:
Half-naked picture of anyone doesn’t need to be on the official website for a missing person.
I said it wasn’t going to end well. And that was when there was one post after the picture. I didn’t go back after that.
___________________________________–
I think it is disgusting to have something like that on a website that is supposed to be representing loving people wanting to help find Stacy Peterson. Very inappropriate. Hopefully, they will set their own forum for their ridiculous rants and raves….and leave the FSP site as an information site only. Poor Stacy. Poor Stacy’s children. Imagine their feelings to see such inappropriate content of their father half nude on the web with a bra on. Unbelievable.
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 10:22 am
Be back tonite. Got to get back to work. Good day all.
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 10:23 am
I checekd the stats and the coffeetalk thread used to always be at the top for number of posts, but it’s not there any more. So, my guess is either that you’ve got the pages cached on your machine or if you tend to post on coffeetalk maybe you were given access and the thread isn’t hidden for you?
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 10:32 am
I’ll reboot my computer later and try. It’s too hard for me to be two places at one time!
I will say this about the comments about whether someone paid for a plane ticket so that another person could attend the fundraiser.
This is getting old.
Nobody who has claimed to have proof that it is true has shown any proof.
Personally, I wouldn’t care if they did. If they felt it was going to be a positive thing, then it’s their call.
I will say that the person in question had PMd me and offered to show me her credit card receipt showing she had paid for her ticket. That’s more than the person who implied he/she had proof (and it was not Lavanda) has done.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 10:47 am
I agree that it is getting old. Surely the board/committee MUST be aware of the concerns. Why haven’t they said anything? Their silence speaks volumes to me.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 10:52 am
I’m not sure that silence means guilt.
How can FSP show a receipt for something they don’t have and why should anyone be asked to show personal information to satisfy bloggers?
It’s just another nonissue (IMO) that keep people focused somewhere other than where they should be.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 10:56 am
I never said that silence means guilt. I’m also not asking them to satify bloggers. I’m asking them to satisfty the donors that ultimately want her found just as much as they do.
There are MANY nonissues in this case, yet they are posted about at every turn. Again, why just not a simple answer?
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 10:57 am
NOWAY SAID: How can FSP show a receipt for something they don’t have and why should anyone be asked to show personal information to satisfy bloggers?
*******************
Good thought, noway. I like what you said and how you got there. Agree, it’s getting, change that to gotten, old.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 10:58 am
Why the lie in the first place about the status? Then blame it on an attorney for not knowing what he was doing? Sorry, I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 10:59 am
Old or not, people are concerned.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 11:05 am
kimmer - I can’t speak for noway, but I assumed she was talking about personal receipt of J in CA to show flight charged to her own credit card, and not paid for by anyone other than her.
Status - it’s not my issue. I donated, I assume it’ll get to the right place, as does any donation I make. I have no clue, for example, where my money wound up through Red Cross and Hurricane Katrina. Still wondering about that, since there’s so many needy people there struggling???????
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 11:07 am
I work with many from LA, and that is one screwed up situation down there.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 11:08 am
Guess I mean to say, if I donate or contribute my money to an organization, it’s out of my hands after that. I have to assume it’s being directed to what I intended it for. I neither want to, nor feel I have to, call or write them to verify where my particular donation was placed. If it’s misappropriated, I guess I just have to assume the proper agencies will figure all of that out eventually.
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 11:09 am
My only thought on the donations disclosure issue is again, that posting about it here and asking demaning answers here is fruitless. I think if anyone has made efforts to contact them and has been ignored then the logical next step is to send a registered letter (unless you already have done so), and if that goes unanswered, call a lawyer and pursue some legal action.
Complaining here that this other party *should* do something is essentially useless. If your attempts at communication have been ignored, then it’s obvious that they don’t care what you think they should do.
I truly wish that those who have concerns would act on them in some meaningful way. Please, take action rather than loading up the conversation space with complaints - complaints that we are unable to help you with.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 11:17 am
rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:05 am Said:
kimmer - I can’t speak for noway, but I assumed she was talking about personal receipt of J in CA to show flight charged to her own credit card, and not paid for by anyone other than her.
__________________
Yes, I was talking about whether JinC’s flight was paid for, not the donations in general or the tax status.
I did read a post that said the IRS person had confirmed that FSP had applied for nonprofit status and that the process takes several months.
It was not the IRS person talking, it was a blogger saying that the IRS person had said this. The blogger also said that they could continue on until the status was granted.
It’s all just hearsay … unless I can find the actual IRS person being quoted in a good source.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 11:20 am
Facs-
It’s just another aspect of this case that should be looked at. I supposed that since this site was run by a reporter that the questions would get asked. And as a group with these concerns, I feel it’s just as appropriate a place as any to discuss.
Personally, I don’t feel I’ve (or really anyone here) has demanded answers from the posters here. We just want this information brought to the forefront.
I believe by doing so those that are currently refusing to donate, will again re-commit themselves once the questions have been answered. I know I certainly would.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 11:21 am
noway - I believe that Carol lady mentioned that on the Fox video that also had a statement from Peterson’s attorney. She said, in fact, it would be helpful to have that ID# when making purchases.
I assume she meant so they wouldn’t have to pay taxes on food purchases, etc., for events.
I used to make purchases for my son’s school when I was on the school board, and had to show them a letter with the tax ID # to avoid paying the taxes.
luvpups // May 13, 2008 at 11:24 am
facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:09 am Said:
My only thought on the donations disclosure issue is again, that posting about it here and asking demaning answers here is fruitless. I think if anyone has made efforts to contact them and has been ignored then the logical next step is to send a registered letter (unless you already have done so), and if that goes unanswered, call a lawyer and pursue some legal action.
Complaining here that this other party *should* do something is essentially useless. If your attempts at communication have been ignored, then it’s obvious that they don’t care what you think they should do.
———————————————————————-
This is the point I was trying to make here last nite, that complaining here, day after day, is non-productive.
It probably is driving away posters who would like to discuss other things, but they have to wade thru mountains of the same gripes everyday.
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 11:25 am
As of last week, the IRS had no record of anything anything anything with the name Stacy Peterson.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 11:27 am
I don’t believe any of us have told posters to not discuss other topics…that seems to be what some of you are doing to us, is it not?
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 11:35 am
amanda - do I take that to mean that they also have not applied, when you say there’s no record of anything?
I guess my question is, once a non-profit org applies for status, would that be public record?
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 11:36 am
Kimmer - thanks for the thougthful answer.
I do see a difference though in having discussions about the case here, and in airing personal grievances.
When we discuss the case (as in the suspect, the allegations,etc.) We can all be objective. We may have strong opinions about the case and the people involved but it’s mostly on a theoretical basis so we can enjoy being armchair sleuths and debating ideas, reminding each other of facts, speculating, etc. We are detached from the particulars in that we aren’t personally involved, we aren’t going to actually try to net a suspect or press charges against any of the parties. We’ve got not personal interests at stake. We might become passionate and bring personal biases to the discussion, but it’s still very abstract. We can’t actually have an impact on the facts of the case (thank heavens).
On the other hand, if you bring to the blog a personal issue that you have with another third party (or group), then it’s not something we can all debate about. We don’t all share the same acccess to the facts, and the people involved are anything but objective (and they have no reason to be). The other difference is that, being personally involved in this issue, you CAN take action and do something about your situation and really, you SHOULD. An issue that concerns your money and the way you were treated is something that only you can address, IMO.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 11:39 am
I have taken action, as have others.
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 11:39 am
BTW, I’m not trying to dictate what can or can’t be discussed, only trying to point out that I don’t feel discussion of personal issues here is going to be helpful in bringing about a resolution, whereas taking action would be.
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 11:41 am
kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am Said:
I have taken action, as have others.
**********
Ah, good. I hope it turns out well for you.
cfs7360 // May 13, 2008 at 11:50 am
Has anybody heard whether Drew’s guns were released this morning?
cfs7360 // May 13, 2008 at 11:51 am
whether or not I meant to say, sorry
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 11:52 am
“A judge says he will decide whether Drew Peterson’s guns can go to his oldest son in a hearing May 22. “
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 11:53 am
This and the above from ABC news:
“Peterson is asking the judge to turn his guns over to his son Stephen. The judge heard arguments from both sides in Will County court Tuesday morning. They were taken from Drew’s house during the investigation into the disappearance of Stacey Peterson.
Drew has been named a person of interest in her disappearance, but he denies any involvement. “
cfs7360 // May 13, 2008 at 11:54 am
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6139593
Just saw this as you all posted. Guess he’ll have to wait another week to find out is Stephen gets them.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 11:56 am
facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am Said:
BTW, I’m not trying to dictate what can or can’t be discussed, only trying to point out that I don’t feel discussion of personal issues here is going to be helpful in bringing about a resolution, whereas taking action would be.
_________________________
With all due respect…The public has donated, the public is concerned about this case. It’s no longer a personal issue when the behavior is taking moneyout of the searcher’s hands to look for this woman.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 11:56 am
Did we ever hear why they revoked his FOID card?
cfs7360 // May 13, 2008 at 11:58 am
I never heard officially, but I’m guessing it’s because he’s been declared a suspect.
theoriginalsami // May 13, 2008 at 11:59 am
just as a possible murder or missing persons case on the internet is not necessarily a personal issue, people become involved & want justice.
same applies for any possible misleadings of collections of monies. public has the right to know, especially when its tied into another possible crime.
luvpups // May 13, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Well, once you’ve taken action, that is reported it to the proper authorities, then why continue to gripe about the situation here ad nauseum?
It’s like having a friend who everytime you see her all she wants to talk about is “she hates her job” and eventually you get tired of hearing it & say to her:
“If you hate your job that much, do something about it, look for another job”..
It’s kind of like that, once you have done something about it, it’s out of your hands, let it go & hope the authorities do their job.
Harboring resentment only hurts you, it’s not hurting admin at FSP, it’s not hurting any of the members who are still there, it’s hurting you.
. I’m sure they could care less what you say about them, but to stew about it takes up so much of your energy & time that you could be using for much more pleasant things in your life.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I believe abc local news has an inaccurate statement on its website. It should have read:
An Illinois State police captain said Friday that the Stacy Peterson case had gone “from a missing persons case to a potential homicide case,” and that her husband, Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson, had “gone from being a person of interest to clearly being a suspect.”
theoriginalsami // May 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm
luvpups
just as no case will ever be solved here there is plenty of griping about drew, brodsky & others and so well be it. unfortunately the funds are tied to the case by people that have used the case to retain the funds. i would have no problem with questioning drew petersons funds as well. both go to credibility.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I pray for them everyday, so no resentments here. I post in hopes taht they will get their acts together and do the right thing so more people will want to help bring her home.
What I do resent is that because I mention the ways they’ve gone about reporting the funds and treating Stacy’s children and their father and donators, I’ve been accused of not wanting her found.
Now, how much sense does that make?
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I never saw exactly on what grounds DP’s FOID card was revoked but it might have fallen under this:
“A person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community;
For the purposes of this Section, “mental condition” means a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior. ”
That whole clause looks pretty open to interpretation.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm
cfs7360, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am Said:
I never heard officially, but I’m guessing it’s because he’s been declared a suspect.
__________________________
I’d have to look, but I don’t think that is a valid reason to revoke FOID.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Did any of you see Nancy Grace last night … talking to Kathleen’s sister?
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 12:13 pm
FOID card - I think LE’s logic in revoking his FOID has to do with WHO he associates with. Mike R??????? I think that would give them a reason to take away his FOID card.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm
kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pm Said:
cfs7360, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am Said:
I never heard officially, but I’m guessing it’s because he’s been declared a suspect.
__________________________
I’d have to look, but I don’t think that is a valid reason to revoke FOID.
__________________________
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/6-181.pdf
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm
1. Reason for application (new, renewal, lost, damaged card; name or address change)
2. Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
3. In the past 5 years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility
used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for
mental illness?
4. Are you addicted to narcotics?
5. Are you mentally retarded?
6. Are you subject to an existing order of protection which prohibits you from possessing a firearm?
7. Within the past 5 years, have you been convicted of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of
an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in which a firearm was used or possessed?
8. Have you ever been convicted of domestic battery or substantially similar offense (misdemeanor or felony)?
9. Have you ever been adjudicated a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony?
10 Are you an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Under the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card Act, a card may only be revoked for specific reasons, such as a conviction for a felony or domestic battery within five years, admittance to a mental health facility, providing false information on an application for the card and being subject to an existing order of protection.
A card also may be revoked if the cardholder’s mental condition is found to present a clear danger to the person or other people.
#################################
I don’t think he exercised sound judgment in continuing to associated with Mike R, especially since he’s been charged with battery against two women, I believe. That would be a possible reason?
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm
From the questions, I don’t know see anything that would keep him from getting one (of course having one revoked is probably stopping him now, but don’t see anything that would revoke card).
That we know of.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Thought it was revoked due to something Rick Mimms said he said?
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Perhaps … A card also may be revoked if the cardholder’s mental condition is found to present a clear danger to the person or other people.
I don’t know what “is found to present” means. Would a doctor have to say that Drew’s mental condition presents a clear danger to … other people or would the stress level of his personal situation be enough.
It just isn’t clear to me. I think they must know something the public does not. I’m not sure why JB isn’t pushing this unless they are within their rights to have done so.
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“For the purposes of this Section, “mental condition” means a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior. ”
I think a judge could have considered the incident with Sharon threatening behavior’.
I have no idea.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm
It was revoked before they located the folding gun wasn’t it? I just can’t remember.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The incident with $haron was reported to the papers inaccurately.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Mims - do you mean that information about Mims telling ISP DPeterson kept a small folding gun? I don’t think they recovered it, though, prior to them revoking his FOID. Yes, they have it now, but his card had already been revoked.
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Just because you think somebody is bad or crazy, doesn’t make it so. It’s an opinion. As of now, Drew has not been declared mentally incompetent. So, I would wonder what real reason they have for denying his guns back.
Not that I care either way, I don’t.
But– seems like Brodsky would have a valid arguement in this one.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I think the card was revoked before the incident (garage door?) with Sharon. I need a timeline of events that I can keep at my computer.
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 12:27 pm
True Noway, it does appear to me that if they are going to court to try to put the guns in the hands of DP’s son, rather than DP, they probably ceded that there is justifcation for revoking the FOID and they aren’t going to fight that.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 12:27 pm
noway - yes, they know something the public does not, I’d say. How else could they clearly call him a suspect in a murder investigation? They usually dance around with words when they’re investigating someone when it’s reported in the news.
The catch phrase these days is “person of interest.” He’s not just a “person of interest,” he’s a suspect in a murder investigation. Big leap, I’d say.
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 12:27 pm
kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Said:
The incident with $haron was reported to the papers inaccurately.
And Sharon has gone along with the scenario reported all this time.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Have any of you seen that picture of the cadaver dog with the look of a “howl” standing in front of the garage door of DPeterson? It’s chilling. Absolutely chilling.
theoriginalsami // May 13, 2008 at 12:30 pm
did they charge him with anything concerning the garage door opener?
cfs7360 // May 13, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The judge at the first hearing to release Drew’s property also released the guns, but then ISP revoked his FOID card for whatever reason, so they weren’t released. I’m sure ISP has their reasons whatever they are. I don’t have a clue, and just my reason as guessing. Not from Illinois, and things are different in my state.
cfs7360 // May 13, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Kimmer what really happened with the Sahron incident? You’re talking about the day little Anthony went over on his bike aren’t you?
cfs7360 // May 13, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Maybe not….I reread the prior post, sorry.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Here’s another paragraph from a November 9 report (just a couple of weeks after SPeterson’s reported disappearance). It specifically notes that he was notified of a suspension due to a pending “internal affairs” investigation. Maybe they used a job related investigation to zap it.
#################################
Late Friday two Bolingbrook, Ill. police officers came to the Peterson house with written notice that Drew Peterson is no longer one of them, that pending an internal affairs investigation he is suspended from the force without pay. Peterson never came to the door.
That happened just a few hours after a dramatic announcement from the state police captain heading up the investigation into the disappearance of Peterson’s wife, Stacy.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hmmm. Thinking about this wording. He was suspended pending an internal affairs investigation. I guess that means he was suspended “due” to the internal affairs investigation, not suspended while it was “pending.”
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Does anyone know if the reason for the revoking of the FOID was made public or if it has to be part of public record? If it isn’t then we could all guess until the cows come home…
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I remember a reporter asking him a question, it was something about if they came to arrest him would their be trouble or gun play or something and he said probably. Anyone one else remember that? That would be enough to revoke.
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Oh Bloody Hell, now they have deleted Coffee Talk!!
Wonder if it had anything to do with posting that picture
of Drew. Hope that cat crew doesn’t come over
here…………
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I remember DP making an off-color remark, yes, having to do with guns. A reporter asked him something having to do with the police coming to his door and if he had his guns, could that be a problem, and he said yes, it could be. Maybe I can look it up. Guess he was just trying to be “cute.”
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Maybe that picture Mary2 and Mia posted of Drew half
naked should have never been posted. I wonder if
Mary2 or her husband are in LE.
Mary2 and Mia are still active on FSP.
luvpups // May 13, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Do you think maybe it was revoked because the police thought they removed all the guns from the house & then he showed Mims one he said “they missed”?
I wonder if he should have turned that over to LE when they confiscated the other ones?
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Res- thought he made that comment to Rick Mims.
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Rescueapet, that would be enought I bet for the SP to
revoke his card since they will be doing the arrest.
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Kimmer, he made one to Ric Mimms and a reporter.
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 1:05 pm
There is a video of the one when he tells the reporter.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 1:15 pm
There is absolutely a video where he made a remark that was clearly a comment made about the police coming to his door. Again, I remember him answering the reporter, when asked if it could be a problem them coming to his door, “it could be.”
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“it could be” a problem because of the guns or becuase he would be served search warrants, arrested? Any of those could be seen as a “problem”
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I remember enough of the video to know that he was being sarcastic - making a sick comment one could draw the conclusion he was saying if the cops came to his door, him having his guns could be a problem for them.
I know that’s how he came across, because that’s the way he worded it.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 1:30 pm
So, you’re saying he threatened the police?
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I thought the Mims thing was when Drew supposedly asked Mims if he could use him as a hostage if he were arrested. Is that the statement you are talking about, Kimmer?
theoriginalsami // May 13, 2008 at 1:39 pm
threatened the cops? anyone know where that video is? his butt should have been arrested right there on the spot if thats true.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 1:40 pm
it’s true.
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm
It was true but he would have just said he was joking and blah blah, but it is plenty to revoke his card on.
theoriginalsami // May 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm
threatened the cops on video & they did nothing?
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Facs- yes.
Rescue- So, you are telling me that DP make a quote on video that there would be a problem with the police coming to his home becuase of his guns. Seriously?
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Interesting reading this again. From April 2 (regarding the revocation of his FOID):
Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, appealed the decision and said he is still working to get his client’s gun card back.
“I should be hearing from the Illinois state police any day now,” Brodsky said, maintaining they had no grounds to pull Peterson’s FOID.
“The guy had a gun card since he was 17 years old,” Brodsky said. “He never had an incident.”
######################
That was a month and a half ago that he was waiting to “hear from the state police any day now.”
Wonder what reason they gave Brodsky, and wonder why he’s not saying?
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm
truthisthere, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Said:
It was true but he would have just said he was joking and blah blah, but it is plenty to revoke his card on.
______________________
Give me as close to the direct quote as possible. Did he refer to his guns and the cops coming to his home and problem?
theoriginalsami // May 13, 2008 at 1:48 pm
can anybody find the video of drew threatening the cops? wow, if its true.
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm
can not remember what was said at first, but remember i went something likes this, reporter, are you saying there could be trouble if the cops try to arrest you and he said yes.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 1:55 pm
kimmer: words I recall are:
problem
police
door
guns
could be
LOL, I know it sounds weird, but that’s about the gist of it. Good luck. I’m trying too.
Oh, and, again, the reporter asked him if it could be a problem for the police if they came to his door, and he said “it could be.”
Or words to that effect.
sleuthimer // May 13, 2008 at 1:56 pm
if memory serves, drew was going to be under an internal investigation of sorts, then stacy went missing and he took an earlier retirement. i do remember drew stating that it was just earlier than he had planned…then there was a time when some thought that he shouldn’t get the full amount , but after the powers that be had met, it was decided that he would get full retirement. perhaps the suspension of the FOID was pending the outcome of that investigation. i was more focused on finding stacy alive and well than i will ever be about drew recieving yet more money.
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm
READ THIS IF YOU GAVE THEM MONEY:
********************************************************
Last week, I called the IRS.
(877) 829-5500
No record, nothing.
When you call, this is the direct line for Tax-exempt Business and Political Funds.
You will be given the name and badge number of the worker.
********************************************************
********************************************************
Truly, I hoped it would pop up, but here it is for today:
It was last Tues that I called IRS. Today I went for SAG.
Today is May 13, 2008
IL Attorney General:
As of today, there is no record of Friends of Stacy Peterson, not any organization with Stacy Peterson’s name in it.
Resources to check it yourself:
Office of Lisa Madigan, Secretary of State, IL
http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/charities/search/index.jsp
(to search the website)
The webite states:
Building Better Charities
Charitable Database Search
——————————————————————————–
The Charitable Database is a list of public charities and private foundations which are registered with the Attorney General’s Office and in compliance with the reporting requirements imposed upon them by Illinois law. You can search by charity name, charity number, FEIN number, city, state and/or zip code.
By using this search engine you can obtain financial details on those charities listed in the Charitable Database. Such details include the charity’s address and county, as well as its assets and income.
In addition, the Charitable Database includes scanned images of current complete annual financial reports filed with this Office after March 31, 2004. A complete annual financial report generally includes a charity’s Form AG990-IL and its IRS Form 990 or 990PF. A public charity’s annual financial report should include an audited financial statement if its annual gross receipts exceed $150,000 or if the charity used a paid professional fund raiser and raised contributions in excess of $25,000.
In reviewing these reports you must remember that the charity — not the Attorney General — prepares the reports. The Attorney General does not control the information contained on the report, and consequently this Office cannot guarantee the accuracy, quality, or validity of such information.
Please note that if a charity is not registered with this Office or has not timely filed its financial reports as required by Illinois law, information on that charity will not be available using this Charitable Database. However, the Illinois Attorney General does maintain a record of every charity ever registered with this Office. If you cannot find information on a particular charity using the Charitable Database, email us or you can call 312-814-2595 (TTY: 312-814- 3374) to find out if that charity was ever registered with this Office.
************************************************
After searching the database, and no record found, I called.
I just talked to Deborah at the number above.
She said:
They have not filed with the IL Attorney General.
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
NEXT:
*********************************************************
I checked the IL Secretary of State Jesse White’s website for anything registered with them. Nada again.
Quote:CORP/LLC - CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING
——————————————————————————–
Your search for friends of stacy peterson, did not match any records in the Corporation/LLC-GS Search database.
Please try again.
Return to Search
**********************************************
Quote:
LP/LLLP/LLP/RLLP - CERTIFICATE OF EXISTENCE
——————————————————————————–
Your search for friends of stacy peterson, did not match any records in the LP/LLLP/LLP/RLLP Search database.
Please try again.
Return to Search
To search yourself, please go to:
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/home.html
*********************************************************
If you call these agencies, your calls may be monitored.
As far as turning them in… who would you turn them in to???
Now, the FoSP has lied, it is on record. NOW a news source needs to ask the question.
THE PROOF IS A CALL AWAY.
I just now spoke to Wendy, Business Services.
312) 793-3380
She said: There is no record, they are not registered.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Well, hello, if the police come to the door of a man who’s wife is missing, then yes, I could see a problem.
Res - I guess what my question to you is…did he threaten the police?
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I hit enter too soon. Was there a threat made with regard to the police and the guns?
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Oh, no, he did not specifically “threaten” them. No. It was a direct question (not verbatim) - regarding his guns - could it be a problem for the police if they showed up at your door, and he said “it could be.” I just wish I could find the video or transcript.
I remember thinking that was a chilling response, and wondered how officers might react to that kind of a statement.
lookingforthetruth // May 13, 2008 at 2:06 pm
kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Said:
The incident with $haron was reported to the papers inaccurately.
Kimmer is this Just Your Opinion or do you have information you would care to share??
What were the inaccuracies??
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Thinking - if and when the day comes to arrest him, would they come with their guns drawn, not knowing how he might react? I don’t know what they’d do, but I’m sure they’d have to be mindful the pressure on him has to be overwhelming. You just never know.
Like college kids that just decide to end it all, and take as many as they can with them. You just never know what someone is thinking……….
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm
lookingforthetruth, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pm Said:
kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Said:
The incident with $haron was reported to the papers inaccurately.
Kimmer is this Just Your Opinion or do you have information you would care to share??
What were the inaccuracies??
______________________
I was told a totally different story by someone who was there.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I shouldn’t say totally. I’d say vastly different.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Here’s a further explanation I found regarding FOID revocation:
However, Gutierrez said there is a process under which law enforcement authorities, medical personnel or family members can submit a request “with supporting documentation” asking that an individual’s FOID card be revoked.
In the case of a request made by law enforcement “it would be based upon believing that an individual was an imminent danger to either himself or to the community,” Gutierrez said.
Each request is considered on a case-by-case basis, Gutierrez said, and there is no set timeline for requests to be handled.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Amanda, I don’t think it’s an issue that they are not registered. Would they be registered by simply filling out the application or would they only be registered when they were approved?
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 2:16 pm
rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm Said:
In the case of a request made by law enforcement “it would be based upon believing that an individual was an imminent danger to either himself or to the community,” Gutierrez said.
_________________________
I guess Drew must fall into the “imminent danger to the community” category. Even if his comments about taking hostages and that the police at his door would be a problem.
lookingforthetruth // May 13, 2008 at 2:16 pm
kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:12 pm Said:
I shouldn’t say totally. I’d say vastly different.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you or the other person notify LE?? Or the Press??
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 2:16 pm
… were said as a joke.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Looking was too fast for me.
My sentence should have read: I guess Drew must fall into the “imminent danger to the community” category. Even if his comments about taking hostages and that the police at his door would be a problem were said as a joke.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Had he been arrested for what she told police, then yes I would have contacted them. As for the press, they too were notified, but of course we know they would NEVER report anything to upset $haron.
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 2:19 pm
There was no application on file.
Now there is the ugly truth.
TRULY, I wish someone could show me something different, but I just spent the last half-hour on the phone and searching online.
It seems to me, that by the answers I got today from the STATE OF IL that the fund is a scam.
And, I will be happy to say I am wrong, but this is exactly what I was told today, and I have included websites, phone numbers and names.
Knowing this is a sick feeling. Way worse than the anger I had yesterday. Now, just sick.
kimmer78 // May 13, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Yeah, I’d call being a suspect in your wife’s disappearance an imminent danger to the community.
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 2:23 pm
amandareckonwith, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Said:
There was no application on file.
________________________
Now that is a very interesting can of worms . . .
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 2:26 pm
kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Said:
Yeah, I’d call being a suspect in your wife’s disappearance an imminent danger to the community.
_______________________
If the police arrived at his door to arrest him, he might be.
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 2:29 pm
We don’t know the actual reason why the FOID was revoked though, do we. Is it a judge who made that decision? Is the decision made based on testimony by ISP?
theoriginalsami // May 13, 2008 at 2:30 pm
id say amandar just gave out more information than the people begging for money have been willing to do. now i know why. they have something to hide, amandar doesnt.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 2:32 pm
facsmiley - I believe the ISP is the boss of the FOID, hence, they revoke it.
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 2:35 pm
kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pm Said:
Thought it was revoked due to something Rick Mimms said he said?
________________________________________
Here are our thoughts. (my husband is an retired officer) There are two concerning events surrounding Drew Peterson and misuse of handguns which is enough to have his license revoked.
1) is that he did not report the gunshot in his home (the one where he shot through floor and barely missed stacy in the garage/ or if you believe his story…the one that stacy accidentally fired his firearm.
and
2) the fact that it was stated at the GJ that Drew told Rick Mims that he may have to “pretend” to hold him hostage with his fold up gun should the cops come in and try to arrest him. He wanted to “buy team” by putting a “fake” hostage situation together in order for his son to get to his home timely to remove the children so that the Cales/Savio’s wouldn’t take them.
Also, it’s possible because he was in possession of the fold up gun during the presentation of the search warrant and did not “offer it up” that could be a 3d reason.
Basically, the courts have fears that he has already mismanaged the use and want to prevent further potential problems. It’s also possible if Sharon has an existing order of protection, that in itself could bring about the termination of his card.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 2:39 pm
lavanda - mine is a retired officer too.
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Cool ! So is my father. He was the Chief. My husband was able to retire early as he had years of military, as well. Boy do I wish I could retire early! Especially days like today! YIKES!
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm
amandareckonwith, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Said:
There was no application on file.
Now there is the ugly truth.
TRULY, I wish someone could show me something different, but I just spent the last half-hour on the phone and searching online.
It seems to me, that by the answers I got today from the STATE OF IL that the fund is a scam.
And, I will be happy to say I am wrong, but this is exactly what I was told today, and I have included websites, phone numbers and names.
Knowing this is a sick feeling. Way worse than the anger I had yesterday. Now, just sick.
_________________________________–
All I can say is that I sure hope that you are wrong. Perhaps the app was completed but it is not on file until they go to review it? Hence if it is still “pending” maybe having it “on file” isn’t in the system?
noway406 // May 13, 2008 at 2:56 pm
lavandadolce, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm Said:
amandareckonwith, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Said:
There was no application on file.
Now there is the ugly truth.
TRULY, I wish someone could show me something different, but I just spent the last half-hour on the phone and searching online.
It seems to me, that by the answers I got today from the STATE OF IL that the fund is a scam.
And, I will be happy to say I am wrong, but this is exactly what I was told today, and I have included websites, phone numbers and names.
Knowing this is a sick feeling. Way worse than the anger I had yesterday. Now, just sick.
_________________________________–
All I can say is that I sure hope that you are wrong. Perhaps the app was completed but it is not on file until they go to review it? Hence if it is still “pending” maybe having it “on file” isn’t in the system?
_________________________________
I sure hope it is because the application is sitting in the Inbox at someone’s desk.
This certainly doesn’t look good.
I just hope there is some mistake and it’s not what it appears to be.
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 3:02 pm
According to the news article it quotes Sharon as saying it was applied and it’s the IRS who has a backlog:
<<<<<>>>
lavandadolce // May 13, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Bychowski said the group has also reimbursed boat operators for fuel and privately-owned cadaver dog groups for their services.
To help organize funds raised, Bychowski said Friends of Stacy Peterson applied for non-profit status in January. The group has received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service confirming receipt of the application but has not received an approval or denial, she said.
Attempts to reach IRS officials to verify the application’s status were unsuccessful Tuesday but the IRS Web site says there is a backlog of applications, which is causing delays in processing.
Bychowski said the group, with the help of an accountant, has also begun keeping inventory of donations, Stacy Peterson T-shirts, signs and other items. The group will also begin listing quarterly reports on http://www.FindStacyPeterson.com next quarter.
“We already sat down with an accountant before we spent a dime of that money,” Bychowski said. “There sure is a lot more to this than I ever thought there would be.”
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Judge: No guns for Drew Peterson
But his son probably will get them
May 13, 2008
BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter/drozek@suntimes.com
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/946735,boling051308.article
facsmiley // May 13, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky, though, said the judge’s comments “indicate very strongly” that he plans to order the weapons be released to Peterson’s son.
“Based on what the judge said, I’m fairly certain,” Brodsky said after the hearing.”
truthisthere // May 13, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Word is ILY is banned from FSP
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 3:56 pm
lavandadolce, on May 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm Said:
Bychowski said the group has also reimbursed boat operators for fuel and privately-owned cadaver dog groups for their services.
To help organize funds raised, Bychowski said Friends of Stacy Peterson applied for non-profit status in January. The group has received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service confirming receipt of the application but has not received an approval or denial, she said.
Attempts to reach IRS officials to verify the application’s status were unsuccessful Tuesday but the IRS Web site says there is a backlog of applications, which is causing delays in processing.
Bychowski said the group, with the help of an accountant, has also begun keeping inventory of donations, Stacy Peterson T-shirts, signs and other items. The group will also begin listing quarterly reports on http://www.FindStacyPeterson.com next quarter.
“We already sat down with an accountant before we spent a dime of that money,” Bychowski said. “There sure is a lot more to this than I ever thought there would be.”
*************************************************
lavanda and everyone, I am afraid I have bad news then. I just got off the phone.
No one is going to like what I have to say:
I just spoke with Laura Botkin Badge #1757017, IRS.
The FoSP is not registered, has no application, and does not qualify under US law for Tax-exempt status.
She told me that the Federal Government is the only entity that regulates 501(c)(3) and they do not have it, nor will have it.
I asked if I should then check regularly with a state agency.
She said: “You can do what you want to do ma’am, but they do not qualify as a tax-exempt organization.”
amandareckonwith // May 13, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I invite anyone and everyone in doubt to do what I did today. I verified it myself. An effort finding the info you can skip…
I provided all the numbers. Upthread a few posts.
Pathetic, sad, and most of all — sickening.
rescueapet // May 13, 2008 at 4:00 pm
amanda - I don’t dispute for a minute what you say, or what you were told. I have to deal with the IRS for matters pertaining to my elderly mother, and I got 5 different people, with five different answers as to how I should handle something.
They don’t know any more than the man on the moon. I’m not criticizing you or what you did, I’m just saying that the people who answer the phones use computers to decipher what they want to tell you as an answer.
In other words, you pick the answer you like the best. The next one might not fit the question!
theoriginalsami // May 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm
were these specially trained boat owners or professionals on those boats lavonda? cadaver dogs? what organization came in with their dogs? the last anyone was told lately is that no dog team had come in. nobody has seen these dog teams either. very strange.
rescueapet //