Your Thread – May 12

Here’s a new one for you all.

Advertisements

436 thoughts on “Your Thread – May 12

  1. Did you see/hear the quotes from Joel Brodsky regarding the Peterson investigation this weekend?

    I find it highly ironic that he commented about the tax status of the search fund for Stacy Peterson. He was, in effect, questioning why the search fund committee had not filed for tax exempt status with the State’s Attorney General. One of the committee responded that they have filed for the exempt status but it takes time for approval.

    Don’t you find it interesting that Joel Brodsky would be so concerned about tax status for a fund to FIND A MISSING PERSON? I do…

    I also will reiterate my suspicions of a certain very small group of posters on this blog who are OBSESSED with donations to the fund and the tax status.

    A personal message to Mr. Joel Brodsky and those who think like him: Any logical thinking person would question why you are so obsessed with a fund that is solely destined to support a grass-roots effort of concerned people around the world, that has one goal: TO FIND STACY PETERSON. I would think that you would fully support such an effort in an attempt to exonerate your client, the sole suspect, Drew Peterson.

    Mr. Brodsky, to show ANY disgust with the search efforts just makes folks believe that you either have something to hide, or want the search efforts to fail.

    The search efforts will not stop…
    The search efforts will not fail…
    And person who murdered Kathleen Savio and the person(s) responsible for the disappearance and possible homicide of Stacy Peterson will be held accountable.

  2. I have a suggestion to the persons who are obsessed about the donations to the Find Stacy Peterson fund or the website findstacypeterson.com:

    Starting today, don’t think of it as a fund to find Stacy. Rather, think of it as a gift to Thomas, Kristopher, Antony and Lacy Peterson. Think of it as a gift to them, where the end result is that their mother is found. One day they will be very grateful to everyone who searched for their mom.

    I can assure you of one thing: Yesterday, Sunday, Mother’s Day, was probably not a very pleasant day for those kids. I wonder how desperately they wanted to hug their mom and tell her how much they love her. More than anything, I want them to know that their Mom would NEVER walk out on them, for all information in the media indicates that she adored them all and worked very hard to create a loving home.

  3. well i for one want sp found. & i want to see the proof they have registered for tax exempt. I havent seen but maybe 2 searches since spring for this woman. i have seen then ask to hit the donate. & if ya question it they say you will go to hell. & why would they pay for a blogger to come from ca to attend a fun raiser? that trully baffels me. I feel for them children everyday & cant imagine what their summer is gonna be like with the shrine next door. i meant what i said i would haunt someone who did this to my children & i would haunt their father also

  4. Does anyone know how long it took Joel Brodsky to file his papers? I cannot find Defend Drew Peterson listed on any charitable organization websites.

    Since he is an attorney, and he is making claims in public, I would guess his paper work would be in order.

    If not, I would suggest that people make inquiries about Joel Brodsky to this website:

    http://www.iardc.org/htr_filingarequest.html

  5. Drew said the older childen are bored of the story so I doubt it bothers them and as far as the younger children, they cannot read and all it is is flowers with pictures of their mom.

    Has Drew taken down all the pictures of Stacy in his home?

  6. I want what you’re smoking 58apache. Wait, on second thought maybe not. I’d rather be able to hear the truth about the fund.

    VERY glad a reporter had the guts to ask the elephant question.

    They are not searching, if you hadn’t heard. They are fun-raising.

    Where/how are the funds spent?

    How much is in the fund?

    How much $$ in donations to date?

    Why have they not registered with the IRS, the IL SAG, the IL SOS, why are they not listed on legit fundraiser sites?

    Last, who is allowed to have a cookie?
    I am wondering (because of the shady dealings) who’s hand is in the cookie jar.

    **IF** it is all above suspicion, it would be easy to disclose and account for every penny. If not, we hear nothing.

    It’s not like she disappeared a week or two ago. It does not take 6 months to get tax-exempt status, nor to register with legit agencys. Following the law. Or, could illegal activities be happening? Just wondering.

  7. I think I’m reading last week’s thread. Anyone care if I just copy and paste my replies from then?

    😉

  8. facsmiley, on May 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm Said:
    Here’s the thing that puzzles me regarding suspicions about the search donations. You would think that if there were any actual problems that complaints would be coming from the big-time donors like Advantage Chevrolet, who has donated over a thousand dollars.

    But they were quoted in the press today, and they didn’t express any concerns with the status of the foundation, or the use of funds. They were just happy to donate.

    In March, the foundation received $10,000 to go towards the reward fund. If there was something underhand going on, wouldn’t that donor be speaking out? But they aren’t.

    Now, do you see why this starts to sound like to some like ‘white noise’? If this problem doesn’t appear to exist for the people who have the most to lose, then it looks more and more like just another non-story detracting from the real issue of a missing woman and the man suspected of making her disappear.

  9. & you believe what dp says? i dont. of course those children are hurting. & a big difference in a few pics around the house than a shrine next door that all about getting dp to crack. its not sharons job its the LE’s. So if you went missing & were presumed dead chateu would you want it in your kids face 24 7. to me that is beyond selfish it borders on child abuse. & of course their father is probably the cause of it. still doesnt make it right on sharons part. its not about who can be more wrong

  10. www . IARDC . org

    What Is the ARDC?

    As our name implies, the ARDC is the agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois which registers attorneys and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys holding a license to practice law in Illinois.

    Our principal purpose is to assist the Supreme Court to determine a lawyer’s fitness to practice law in Illinois. If a complaint is made that an attorney, licensed to practice law in Illinois, has engaged in illegal, unethical or dishonest conduct, we will investigate and, if warranted, bring formal disciplinary charges. The Supreme Court of Illinois will then ultimately decide if a lawyer should be censured (publicly rebuked), suspended (having the law license to practice either taken away for a certain period of time or placed on a probationary period) or disbarred (having the law license taken away indefinitely).

    We cannot impose fines, imprison, obtain monetary damages, enforce remedies between the lawyer and client, or seek civil or criminal relief against a lawyer as part of the disciplinary process. We can affect only the lawyer’s ability to practice law in Illinois.

    We are not funded by taxpayers’ money. We are funded entirely by the annual registration fees paid by attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois.

    What Is a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney?

    It is a request to us that we look into the conduct of an attorney who you believe has acted improperly. We will review your request to determine if an investigation is warranted. In most cases, we will initiate an investigation where the information you provide us suggests that the attorney engaged in illegal, dishonest or unethical conduct. Filing a request accusing an attorney of unethical conduct is a serious matter to the lawyer. We recommend that, whenever practical, you try to resolve any differences or disputes that do not concern claims of unethical conduct directly with the lawyer.

    How Do I Request an Investigation of an Attorney?

    By mailing to our office, either in Chicago or Springfield, a request that you want an attorney to be investigated by our office. Your request should be in writing. No special form is necessary. For your convenience, you may download a Request for Investigation form. Please return the Request by postal mail or hand-delivery. The ARDC does not accept an e-mail transmission of a Request for Investigation.

    What Kinds of Information Should I Put in My Request for an Investigation?

    A request should include all important information that relates to your request. If possible, it should be typewritten or printed to be sure that it is legible. The request should include:

    Your name, address and telephone number, and the name, address and telephone number of the attorney whom you want us to investigate (include the lawyer’s full name, as well as the law firm name);

    Any court case names and numbers;

    A description of what the lawyer did or did not do that may have been improper; and

    Any supporting documents that you have, such as letters, agreements, or other documents involved.

    If I Have Any Questions About Filing My Request, Can I Talk to Someone at the ARDC?

    Yes. If you have questions that are not answered here, you may call us or come into either our Chicago or Springfield office to speak with a Commission representative.

    Is There a Fee or Cost for a Request for an Investigation?

    No. There is no fee or cost to you.

    Where Should I Send My Request for an Investigation?

    If the office of the lawyer involved is in northern Illinois, please send the request to our Chicago office. In central or southern Illinois, we ask that you send the request to our Springfield office.

    How is a Request Processed?

    Upon receipt of your request, your inquiry will be given a file number and assigned to a Commission lawyer who will review your request and decide whether there is a basis for us to investigate.

    How Long Will It Take Before I Hear Something?

    We will notify you in writing of our decision whether to investigate about two weeks after we received your request. If we determine that there is not a sufficient basis for us to investigate, our letter to you will explain the reasons for our decision. If you have any questions about your request, we ask that you direct your questions to the Commission lawyer who handled your request and that you refer to your file number.

    If the ARDC Decides to Investigate, What Will Happen Next?

    If we decide to investigate, our investigation generally includes sending a copy of the information that you provided to the lawyer being investigated. We will ask the lawyer to respond. Typically, the lawyer will send us his response about two to four weeks thereafter. If we determine it necessary, we will mail a copy of the lawyer’s response to you for your comment. Our investigation may also include obtaining information from other sources.

    After we have obtained the pertinent facts, Commission counsel will determine if further action is warranted. If we decide that no further action is warranted, we will send you a letter explaining the reasons for our decision. How long it will take before a determination is made varies greatly. Much depends on the complexity of the issues, the amount of information and documents we must review, and whether the lawyer or other sources are cooperating with our request for information. A determination will be made after we have obtained all of the pertinent information from the lawyer and/or other sources and you will be notified of our decision.

    Will I Be Notified if the ARDC Decides to Take Disciplinary Action?

    If we determine that disciplinary action is warranted, we will refer the investigation to the Inquiry Board. The Inquiry Board acts in panels of three persons, two lawyers and one non-lawyer. The Board reviews the investigation and decides whether to authorize us to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer. We will notify you of the reference to the Inquiry Board and of the Board’s ultimate decision.

    Can I Withdraw My Request for an Investigation?

    You may tell us at anytime that you are satisfied with the action which the lawyer has taken to resolve your concerns. We will review that information along with the rest of the investigation in deciding whether to take further action. We note that it would be inappropriate for the lawyer to enter an agreement with you which would require you to withdraw your request or refuse to cooperate with the Commission investigation.

    I think if Defend Drew PayPal Website was not properly set up by an attorney who should know better and who is throwing accusations around in public, he should be investigated.

  11. I would hope if one of my family members were missing under such suspicious circumstances that I would have a neighbor like Sharon.

  12. why in the world would you want dp to have a good lawyer.? I would want him to have the dumbest lawyer out there.

  13. DECISION FROM DISCIPLINARY REPORTS AND DECISIONS SEARCH

    Filed February 15, 2002

    BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
    OF THE
    ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
    AND
    DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

    In the matter of:

    JOEL ALAN BRODSKY,

    Attorney-Respondent,

    No. 6182556

    Commission No. 01 CH 42

    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING BOARD

    The hearing in this matter was held on November 14, 2001 at the offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Chicago, Illinois. Hearing panel members James A. Shapiro and Leonard J. Schrager were present. In the absence of the non-lawyer member of the panel, the parties stipulated to having the case heard and determined by a two-member panel. Sarah R. Masarachia represented the Administrator of the ARDC and Respondent was represented by Stuart P. Krauskopf.

    COMPLAINT AND ANSWER

    On May 8, 2001 the Administrator filed a one-count complaint against Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky alleging that he forged a signature on bank forms in order to withdraw client funds from the bank, falsely endorsed a cashier’s check issued by the bank, failed to deposit the proceeds in a separate identifiable trust account and kept the funds for his own purposes. He was charged with the following misconduct:

    conversion;

    failure to deposit and maintain client funds in a separate identifiable trust account in violation of Rule 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

    committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer by committing the

    PAGE 2:

    crime of forgery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17-3 in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3);

    conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4);

    conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

    In his answer to the complaint, Respondent admitted signing another person’s name to bank forms and to a check but affirmatively stated that he believed his actions were necessary to protect and preserve the proceeds of an estate. He further admitted that he failed to deposit client money into a separate and identifiable trust fund account but maintained that he did keep the money separate from other client accounts and did not commingle the money. Respondent denied keeping any money for his own purposes and denied each charge of misconduct.

    EVIDENCE

    The Administrator called two witnesses, including Respondent, in support of her case and introduced 17 exhibits. Respondent testified on his own behalf, presented several character witnesses and tendered 12 exhibits.

    The admitted allegations of the complaint and the evidence submitted at hearing established that Respondent is currently a sole practitioner who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1982. His practice focuses on criminal defense work, complex commercial and civil litigation, domestic relations and bankruptcy. From January 1989 to April 1997 he was a partner with Bahtiar Hoxha in the law firm of Brodsky & Hoxha. During the partnership, Hoxha handled the estate and probate matters, including the Estate of Charroon Shotivattana, deceased. Respondent never handled an estate matter and admitted to having very limited knowledge of probate matters. (Tr. 53-54, 113).

    PAGE 3:

    The administrator of the Shotivattana Estate was Herbert Shoichi Tomita. On March 1, 1990 Mr. Tomita opened an account with Bank Leumi under the name “Estate of Charroon Shotivattana, Herbert Shoichi Tomita, Administrators.” Mr. Tomita was the sole signator on the account. The address on the account was listed as “c/o Brodsky & Hoxha Atty at Law, 180 N. LaSalle St, Ste 620, Chicago, Illinois 60601.” Mr. Tomita died on April 13, 1995. (Admin. Ex. 2, 3, 11, 15).

    In 1997 the partnership of Brodsky & Hoxha dissolved and Hoxha took all of the probate matters, including the Shotivattana estate matter, with him to his new practice. After the dissolution of the partnership, Respondent and Hoxha were not on speaking terms even though their law practices were located in the same building at 180 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. (Tr. 54-55, 78).

    On or about July 19, 2000, Respondent received a letter from Bank Leumi regarding the Shotivattana account. The letter, addressed to Herbert Tomita “c/o Brodsky & Hoxha Atty at Law 180 N LaSalle St. Ste. 620,” stated that the account had been inactive since January 6, 1995 and as of June 30, 2000 the account was reclassified as dormant and therefore subject to additional monthly service charges. The letter went on to state that the account could be restored to active status by making a deposit or by signing the reactivation request at the bottom of the letter. (Admin. Ex. 5; Tr. 55).

    Victor Zezelic, Jr., a banking officer at Bank Leumi, U.S.A., explained the consequences associated with an inactive account. He stated that after an account has been inactive for five years, the bank sends a standard letter to the account holder informing that person of the inactivity in the account and the imposition of monthly service charges to dormant accounts. The letter further states that the account holder may restore the account to active status by making a deposit or signing a request for reactivation. Although not stated in the letter,

    PAGE 4:

    Zezelic testified that the deposit can be as little as one dollar and that a withdrawal of funds would also reactivate the account. If the bank receives no response to the letter, the funds in the account are turned over to the State. Zezelic confirmed that on July 11, 2000 such a letter was sent to Herbert Tomita, the Administrator of the Estate of Charroon Shotivattana, in care of the law firm of Brodsky & Hoxha. (Tr. 22-26).

    Respondent did not attempt to contact his former partner, Bahtiar Hoxha, regarding the letter he received from Bank Leumi. Respondent stated that he was irritated that Hoxha had neglected the Shotivattana estate for five years and he had lost confidence in Hoxha’s ability to finish the work. He recalled that years earlier Tomita had complained to him that Hoxha had canceled twelve appointments to discuss the estate file. (Tr. 69, 78-80).

    Respondent signed his own name to the request to reactivate the Shotivattana estate account and took the form to Bank Leumi on or about July 19, 2000. The request was rejected because Respondent was not a signator on the account. Respondent stated that the alternative method of reactivating the account, by making a deposit to the account, did not occur to him. After the request form was rejected, Respondent went directly to the courthouse to check the activity in the probate court file for the Shotivattana estate. He discovered that in the early 1990’s several claims against the estate had been approved by the court but no orders had been entered for at least five years. (Ad. Ex. 6, Resp. Ex. 3; Tr. 55-56, 83-87).

    Respondent testified that he signed Herbert Tomita’s name to a second reactivation form, took the form to Bank Leumi and gave it to Victor Zezelic. Zezelic confirmed that he received a form bearing the purported signature of Herbert Tomita and that after the signature was compared to the signator card and approved by a senior bank officer, the estate account was reactivated. (Ad. Ex. 7; Tr. 28-29, 58).

    At or about the time Respondent submitted the reactivation request, he also

    PAGE 5:

    requested that the estate account be closed. A third reactivation form bears the signature of Herbert Tomita and contains the additional handwritten notation “Please close account. /s/ Herbert Tomita 07/20/00.” The testimony conflicted as to when this added notation was made. Zezelic testified that Respondent approached him on July 20, 2000 with the request that the estate account be closed. When Zezelic told Respondent that the bank needed a signed request with Tomita’s signature, Respondent then returned on July 21 with the request purportedly signed by Tomita. Respondent recalled, however, that several days or a week after the account was closed Zezelic realized that he needed a complete record and asked Respondent to have Tomita add the notation to the form. (Admin. Ex. 8; Tr. 29-30, 38, 60-62).

    Zezelic testified that, when Respondent returned with the request signed by Tomita, he asked Respondent why Tomita was not present. Respondent told him that Tomita was “incapacitated.” Zezelic did not inquire into the nature of the incapacitation but recalled that Respondent used that particular word to describe Tomita’s absence. Zezelic admitted that he typically has as many as 24 conversations with bank customers each day but was able to recall his conversation with Respondent because they went into the anteroom of the bank. Zezelic stated that he relied upon Respondent’s statement concerning Tomita because Respondent is an attorney and because he had dealt with Respondent for one year. (Ad. Ex. 8; Tr. 30, 34, 42, 50). Respondent testified that he had no recollection of telling Zezelic that Tomita was incapacitated. (Tr. 146-47).

    Respondent testified that he believed he had authority to sign Tomita’s name to the reactivation form as well as to the request to close the account because he was listed as one of the attorneys of record for the estate in the probate court file. He admitted that he did not have a court order nor did he have authority from his former partner or from Tomita to request that the bank distribute the proceeds of the account. He further admitted that when he signed Tomita’s

    PAGE 6:

    name, he purposefully tried to make the signature look like Tomita’s signature so that the bank would believe it was authentic and release the funds. (Tr. 58-59, 63-64, 81, 137).

    On or about Monday, July 23, 2000 Bank Leumi closed the estate account and issued a cashier’s check in the amount of $23,012.91 to be paid to the order of “Herbert S. Tomita Adm. of the Est. of C. Shotivattana.” Respondent testified that he picked up the check from Bank Leumi and, before cashing it, attempted to locate Tomita. His efforts included conducting an internet people search, checking the computerized partnership files and client index cards and reviewing the archived word processing documents for the estate file. Having no success, he affixed Tomita’s endorsement to the back of the check and tendered it to a close friend, Mike Abusaad, who gave Respondent $23,013 in cash. Respondent again stated that he believed he had the authority to sign his client’s name to the check to protect the funds. He admitted, however, that he has since learned that his belief was incorrect. (Admin. Ex. 9, 10; Tr. 31, 64-67, 88-89, 98-99).

    After receiving the cash, Respondent inserted the money into an envelope marked with Tomita’s name and placed the envelope in a safe in his home in Wilmette, Illinois. Respondent did not tell anyone else about the funds in the safe. (Tr. 68, 102).

    Respondent stated that he closed the Shotivattana estate account in order to protect the funds from forfeiture to the State of Illinois and to protect himself from any malpractice action. He recalled that after his initial conversation with Zezelic on July 19, he had the impression that the funds were at risk of being forfeited in a short period of time. Zezelic testified, however, that he never told Respondent that the funds in the estate account were in danger of being forfeited to the State. Respondent denied knowing that the State would have held the funds in trust until the rightful owners came forward and denied knowing about the Illinois Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, 765 ILCS 1025. (Tr. 32, 74, 82, 99,

    PAGE 7:

    141).

    As for keeping the funds in cash rather than depositing the money in a bank, Respondent explained that he could not open an account in Tomita’s name without Tomita’s signature and he could not place the funds in an account in his own name because that action would amount to commingling. Further, he believed he could not put the funds in his client trust account because probate money cannot be commingled with other client accounts. (Tr. 91, 101-02, 138-41).

    Respondent testified that, after he placed the estate funds in his safe, he intended to contact a competent probate attorney who could finish the work on the estate. He did not have a chance to contact an attorney or conduct any research regarding the proper handling of the funds, however, because during the time period between July and November 2000 he was occupied with several criminal trials and a week-long commercial trial. He believed that as long as the funds were secure in his safe, the situation was not urgent. (Tr. 68-73, 95-97, 100).

    Respondent stated that on November 1, 2000 he received a letter from his former partner informing him that Herbert Tomita was deceased and asking him what he intended to do regarding the administration of the Shotivattana estate. Prior to his receipt of the letter, Respondent had no knowledge that Tomita had died. The letter from Hoxha further stated “I assume that you [withdrew the estate funds] to prevent the assets from going to the State of Illinois because the account has been dormant for sometime, and that said funds are currently in your client’s funds account.” Respondent replied, by letter of November 1, 2000, that he intended to handle the estate matter and requested that Hoxha forward any documents regarding the matter. (Admin. Ex. 12, 13; Tr. 75, 79).

    Zezelic testified that in November, 2000 he also received a letter from Hoxha’s office informing him that Tomita was deceased at the time the bank issued a check for the

    PAGE 8:

    proceeds of the Shotivattana estate account. In light of the improper endorsement of Tomita’s name on the check, Hoxha demanded that the bank immediately replenish the funds to the estate account. Upon receipt of the letter, Zezelic contacted Respondent and requested that the funds be returned. The following morning, Respondent appeared at the bank with the full amount of cash to redeposit into the estate account. Although Respondent stated that he returned the full amount in the exact same $100 bills he had received when he cashed the check, Zezelic testified that, from his vantage point at another teller window, he saw that Respondent had deposited $20 bills. Zezelic further stated that to his knowledge Respondent did not return the funds with interest even though the estate account was an interest bearing account. Respondent denied spending any of the estate money. (Ad. Ex. 14; Tr. 32-33; 92-93, 143-44, 149).

    Respondent expressed his regret that he did not act differently with regard to the Shotivattana account and admitted that he was guilty of bad decision-making. He apologized for any damage done to the legal profession. (Tr. 133-35).

    Evidence was submitted concerning Respondent’s financial situation during the time period prior to November, 2000. Respondent testified that his 1997 divorce strained his financial situation and approximately one year after the divorce he filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Although his debts were discharged in bankruptcy, Respondent has paid some of those debts and intends to pay the remainder as well. He stated that his financial status has improved, he has a good credit rating and his checking account was never overdrawn during the time period involved in this matter. He pays all of his bills on time, including the mortgage on his home and child support for his two children. During the summer and fall of 2000, his investment account had a balance of between $10,000 and $14,000. Respondent stated that his law practice was in good financial condition throughout 2000 and there were no shortfalls or overdrafts in his client trust account. He estimated that his gross

    PAGE 9:

    revenue for fiscal 2000 was $175,000. (Resp. Ex. 6-11; Tr. 107-21).

    Respondent has made charitable contributions to various organizations, including his synagogue and the Hebrew Theological College. He attends regular services and study groups at his synagogue. (Resp. Ex. 13; Tr. 122-24).

    Respondent’s pro bono endeavors have included bankruptcy work for a disabled attorney, criminal defense work and an immigration case in which a Chicago mother was reunited with her child from Romania. He has worked with the clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County on the relocation of the traffic court and on establishing a system for reporting felony DUI’s to the Secretary of State’s office. He co-chaired a committee that reviewed the status of the civil division of the circuit court and made recommendations for improvements to the division. (Tr. 125-131).

    Several witnesses, including a judge and a Chicago police officer, testified to Respondent’s upstanding reputation for truthfulness and veracity. Two additional witnesses discussed work that Respondent had done for them on a pro bono basis. Donald Utrosa believed that Respondent was single-handedly responsible for bringing his wife’s son to the United States from Romania. Robert Kleinberg credited Respondent with negotiating a reduced sentence for Kleinberg’s son in a substance abuse matter and with providing continuous support and assistance to the Kleinberg family.

    Victor Zezelic testified that Respondent had a good relationship with Bank Leumi and that Respondent had just made a mistake. Zezelic believed that Respondent should be shown some leniency. He admitted that he had not discussed Respondent’s reputation for truth, veracity or honesty with anyone in the legal community. (Tr. 50-51).

    A final witness, Judge Melvin Cole, was called as a character witness on behalf of Respondent. Upon examination, Judge Cole acknowledged that he had not spoken to anyone

    PAGE 10:

    regarding Respondent’s reputation in the legal community and any opinion as to Respondent’s reputation would be based solely on his own personal experience and observance. Judge Cole did state that he had referred two matters to Respondent and he did speak to those clients and knew their opinion of the quality of Respondent’s work. The Administrator objected to any testimony concerning Respondent’s performance in other cases, arguing that such testimony is inadmissible. The hearing panel took the objection under advisement.

    FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

    Respondent was charged with conversion of client funds; failing to deposit and maintain client funds in a separate identifiable trust account; committing a criminal act (forgery) that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute. In attorney disciplinary proceedings the Administrator has the burden of proving the charges of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Ingersoll, 186 Ill. 2d 163, 710 N.E.2d 390, 393 (1999). Clear and convincing evidence constitutes a high level of certainty, which is greater than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Williams, 143 Ill. 2d 477, 577 N.E.2d 762, 765 (1991).

    We find, based upon the admitted allegations of the complaint and the evidence adduced at hearing, that the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent converted funds belonging to the Estate of Charroon Shotivattana. Respondent’s assertion that he did not “use” the funds and simply kept them in his home safe does not preclude our finding. Conversion has been defined by the Supreme Court as “any unauthorized act, which deprives a man of his property permanently or for an indefinite time.” In re Rosin, 156 Ill. 2d 202, 620 N.E.2d 368, 370 (1993). Conversion may occur in numerous ways and does not require a

    PAGE 11:

    dishonest motive. See In re Timpone, 157 Ill. 2d 178, 623 N.E.2d 300, 309 (1993). When an attorney holds money for another, it is essential that it be held in “such a manner that there can be no doubt that the attorney is holding it only for another and that the money does not belong to him personally.” See In re Clayter, 78 Ill. 2d 276, 399 N.E.2d 1318, 1321 (1980).

    During the time Respondent held the funds in his home, without the knowledge or consent of any representative of the estate, the estate was deprived of the use of those funds. Moreover, the funds were in jeopardy of being lost to the estate in the event of Respondent’s death because he did not maintain adequate documentation of the ownership of the funds nor did he provide any record of his transaction to the estate file, to his former partner or to the bank. In essence, funds that belonged to the client were turned into funds to which Respondent had sole access and which he could use freely without the client’s knowledge or approval. This is conversion of funds.

    The Administrator referred us to cases in which the Court rejected claims that client funds were protected where those funds were kept in the form of cash and locked up for safekeeping. In In re Ashbach, 13 Ill. 2d 411, 150 N.E.2d 119, 123 (1958), the attorney cashed the settlement checks of three clients and retained the proceeds in a filing cabinet. In finding that the attorney engaged in conversion the Court stated: “[t]he claim of respondent that he segregated the proceeds of these settlements in cash in a steel filing cabinet, and made disbursements therefrom without any written record or account, an assertion which is common under such circumstances (citation omitted), taxes our credulity.” Ashbach, 150 N.E.2d at 123.

    In In re Simpson, 41 Ill. 2d 562, 268 N.E.2d 20, 22 (1971), the Court stated that even if the attorney’s account of safekeeping his client’s funds in a safe without a receipt or record was accepted at face value, the “slip-shod” safekeeping, coupled with the attorney’s failure to return the client’s money on request and his retention of the money until after

    PAGE 12:

    disciplinary hearings began, was “tantamount to a designed fraudulent conversion.” Simpson, 268 N.E.2d at 22. See also In re Wallis, 96 SH 589 (1998), M.R. 15549 (1999) (case dismissed upon death of Respondent) (Hearing Board and Review Board found that conversion occurred when attorney held client funds, in the form of a cashier’s check and currency, in a locked office). We adhere to the reasoning cited in the foregoing cases and reject any notion that keeping client funds in a locked safe is a defense to a charge of conversion.

    We also find that the Administrator established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to deposit and maintain client funds in a separate identifiable trust account in violation of Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent’s own admissions that he kept the Shotivattana estate funds in the form of cash in his home establish a clear failure to comply with Rule 1.15. The fact that the funds were not commingled with his own or any other funds does not preclude a finding that the rule was violated.

    In In re Johnson, 133 Ill. 2d 516, 552 N.E.2d 703 (1989) the Court was confronted with an attorney who also served as consul general for the Republic of Iceland. The attorney deposited client settlement funds into a consular account in order to protect the funds from his client’s creditors. The Court rejected the attorney’s argument that the “separate identifiable” provision of the rule was satisfied and noted that while there was no evidence of a technical commingling, the rule is intended to “guard not only against the actual loss of the funds but also against the risk of loss.” Johnson, 552 N.E.2d at 710. The Court pointed out that failure to comply with the express mandate of the rule often leads to the commingling of client funds which, in turn, often leads to the conversion of the client funds to the attorney’s personal use or benefit. See Johnson, 552 N.E.2d at 710.

    In In re Lingle, 27 Ill. 2d 459, 189 N.E.2d 342, 344 (1963) the attorney cashed a

    PAGE 13:

    settlement check and, after withdrawing his fees and expenses, placed the balance of the funds in an envelope which he marked and put into his safety deposit box. When he eventually removed the cash from the safety deposit box, he did not save the marked envelope. The Court described the attorney’s actions as “a covert method of handling a client’s funds” which was “highly unprofessional and one which can only create suspicion and harmful inference.” Lingle, 189 N.E.2d at 344.

    We further find that Respondent’s acts of conversion and failure to deposit client funds into a separate identifiable account have brought the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771. See In re Lingle, 189 N.E.2d at 346 (“The loose, careless and dilatory practices followed by respondent in matters entrusted to him, his failure to follow court orders, and his unorthodox methods of handling and accounting for funds entrusted to him, all were such as to bring the legal profession, the courts and the administration of justice into disrepute”); In re Lewis, 118 Ill. 2d 357, 515 N.E.2d 96, 98 (1987) (commingling and conversion places the entire legal profession in disrepute).

    As to the remaining charges set forth in the complaint, we find that the Administrator did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the criminal act of forgery as that offense is set forth in the Illinois Criminal Code, 720 ILCS 5/17-3. The Code defines forgery as follows:

    Forgery. (a) A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he knowingly:

    (1) Makes or alters any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such manner that it purports to have been made by another or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority; or

    (2) Issues or delivers such document knowing it to have been thus made or altered; or

    PAGE 14:

    (3) Possesses, with intent to issue or deliver, any such document knowing it to have been thus made or altered.

    A key element of forgery, an “intent to defraud,” is the element we find to be missing in the present case. Respondent admitted that he signed Tomita’s name on three separate occasions — twice on bank forms and once as an endorsement to the cashier’s check made payable to Tomita. His testimony reveals, however, (and we believe his statements) that his intent in signing another person’s name was not to defraud the bank or his client. He repeatedly stated that he was worried about the imminent forfeiture of the funds to the State and wanted to act quickly to protect those funds on behalf of his client. Moreover, he believed that as an attorney of record for the Shotivattana estate, he had the authority to sign Tomita’s name to release the estate funds. His actions, as he came to learn at a later time, were fraught with mistaken assumptions. While we clearly do not excuse Respondent for his failure to investigate his authority to sign another person’s name or his lack of thoroughness in researching the law applicable to dormant accounts, his misguided actions and lack of research alone are not sufficient to establish an intent to defraud. Nor can we infer a fraudulent intent from any other conduct or circumstances. See In re Stern, 124 Ill. 2d 310, 529 N.E.2d 562, 565 (1988) (motive and intent are rarely proved by direct evidence and must be inferred from conduct and circumstances.) Here, the Administrator offered no proof that Respondent actually spent any of the estate funds, that he had a plan for the funds, that he was in dire financial straits, or that he attempted to cover his tracks to avoid any detection.

    The conflicting testimony concerning the denomination of the bills returned by Respondent does not disturb us. Although Mr. Zezelic recalled seeing Respondent deposit $20 bills, he admitted that he viewed the transaction from a distance. While we have no reason to doubt the trustworthiness of Zezelic, we recognize that the likelihood of his being able to clearly

    PAGE 15:

    recollect and distinguish Respondent’s transaction from the dozens of others he probably witnessed during that day is marginal. Respondent, on the other hand, described the type of bills he received from his friend Abusaad and testified convincingly that he redeposited the exact same bills to the estate account.

    The testimony that does trouble us is Respondent’s admission that he purposely attempted to sign Tomita’s name so as to replicate Tomita’s actual signature. If Respondent sincerely believed he had authority to sign Tomita’s name, there would be no reason for such a subterfuge. Having observed Respondent, however, and listened to his explanations and concerns over the funds, we believe that his purposeful attempt to mimic Tomita’s signature was predicated upon his belief that time was of the essence in securing the funds from forfeiture to the State. He apparently sincerely believed that his action was necessary to quickly protect his client’s funds. In light of our observations and conclusions regarding Respondent’s testimony and demeanor, we find that Respondent did not possess the requisite intent to commit forgery and therefore did not violate Rule 8.4(a)(3).

    For similar reasons we find that Respondent did not engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4). We believe that the element of intent is inherent in that rule and that the Administrator did not prove that Respondent acted with the necessary intent to deceive anyone. Rather, Respondent’s greatest mistake was acting in haste without seeking appropriate information or advice. His decision-making was further clouded by the ill will that existed between himself and his former partner.

    In In re Howard, 96 CH 531 (Rev. Bd. 1998), appr’d M.R. 15103 (1998), an attorney who signed the names of hospital employees on birth history forms without the authorization of those employees was charged with engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4). The Review Board expressed some doubt as to

    PAGE 16:

    whether “the purpose of Rule 8.4(a)(4) was intended to cover situations where an attorney’s questionable completion of a form may have been simply the result of a misunderstanding on her part”. Howard, Rev. Bd. Rpt. at 15. After noting that the attorney should have been cognizant of the impression she gave to anyone who might read the form, the Board stated that “without any evidence of dishonest intent, however, we view any misrepresentation as simply an exercise in poor judgment and, at most, a technical violation of the rule.” Howard, Rev. Bd. Rpt. at 15. See also In re Johnson, 133 Ill. 2d 516, 552 N.E.2d 703, 709 (1989) (attorney who signed co-counsel’s name to check did not engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation with respect to his co-counsel where attorney’s purpose was to quickly deposit settlement check); In re Witt, 145 Ill. 2d 380, 583 N.E.2d 526, 534 (1991) (no violation of Rule 1-102(a)(4) (predecessor to Rule 8.4(a)(4)) where judge failed to disclose loan on “Declaration of Economic Interest” but had no intent to deceive).

    RECOMMENDATION

    Having concluded that Respondent engaged in wrongdoing, we must determine the appropriate discipline warranted by the misconduct. In determining the proper sanction, we consider the purposes of the disciplinary process. The goal of these proceedings is not to punish but rather to safeguard the public, maintain the integrity of the profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach. See In re Timpone, 157 Ill. 2d 178, 623 N.E.2d 300, 309 (1993). Another factor for consideration is the deterrent value of attorney discipline and the need to impress upon others the repercussions of errors such as those committed by Respondent in the present case. See In re Discipio, 163 Ill. 2d 515, 645 N.E.2d 906, 912 (1995).

    We also take into account those circumstances which may mitigate and/or aggravate the misconduct. See In re Witt, 145 Ill. 2d 380, 583 N.E.2d 526, 535 (1991). In mitigation, the evidence established that Respondent has acknowledged his wrongdoing,

    PAGE 17:

    expressed remorse for his actions and cooperated in these proceedings. Further, the evidence did not indicate that Respondent’s actions resulted from any dishonest or pecuniary motive and there are no prior orders or opinions imposing discipline upon Respondent. See In re Clayter, 78 Ill. 2d 276, 399 N.E.2d 1318, 1321 (1980); In re Samuels, 126 Ill. 2d 509, 535 N.E.2d 808, 816 (1989).

    We note that Respondent returned the estate funds to Bank Leumi promptly upon request and before any complaint was filed in this matter. Restitution, while not a defense to charges of misconduct, can be taken into consideration as a factor in mitigation. See In re Rolley, 121 Ill. 2d 222, 520 N.E.2d 302, 307 (1988).

    We also consider Respondent’s charitable and pro bono activities as well as his reputation for truth and veracity. We decline to give any weight to the testimony of Judge Cole, however, since his opinion of Respondent’s reputation in the legal community was confined to knowledge of Respondent’s reputation for competence rather than to his reputation for truth and veracity. Judge Cole’s knowledge of Respondent’s performance on other cases is not relevant to our determination of discipline in this case. See In re Samuels, 126 Ill. 2d 509, 535 N.E.2d 808, 816 (1989) (Court refused to consider question of whether respondent’s other clients were well-served).

    In aggravation, we consider Respondent’s disturbing failure to adequately research various issues relevant to his actions in this case. Had he investigated the repercussions of leaving the funds in the estate account, researched his authority to sign Tomita’s name, contacted his former partner when he received the initial letter from the bank, or consulted any competent probate attorney for advice, he may have avoided a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and eliminated the necessity for the present proceeding.

    Further, we consider in aggravation the fact that Respondent’s conduct caused a

    PAGE 18:

    serious risk of harm to his client. During the three months that the estate’s $23,000 sat in Respondent’s home safe with no written record of its whereabouts, the funds were at risk of being lost to the estate. The death or disability of Respondent, coupled with the continued failure by estate heirs or creditors to pursue their claims, could have caused the funds to be mistaken for property belonging to Respondent. See In re Saladino, 71 Ill. 2d 263, 375 N.E.2d 102, 107 (1978) (discipline should be “closely linked to the harm caused or the unreasonable risk created by the [attorney’s] lack of care”).

    The Administrator, assuming that we would find all of the charges in the complaint proved, suggested that we recommend a suspension of three years or, in the alternative, a suspension of three years until further order of court. Respondent proposed a censure.

    Because we have found that significant charges of the complaint were not proved by clear and convincing evidence, we reject the Administrator’s suggestion, and the cases she offered in support of that suggestion, as being too harsh. We look for guidance instead to those cases involving a single instance of conversion involving no dishonest motive. We also keep in mind the aggravating circumstances present in this case.

    Discipline imposed in conversion cases involving a first offense with no dishonest motive has ranged from censure to short suspensions. See In re Young, 111 Ill. 2d 98, 488 N.E.2d 1014, 1017 (1986) (attorney censured for holding $3,209.04 of escrow funds in his personal account, the balance of which several times dropped below the amount being held in escrow and at one point was overdrawn); In re McLennon, 93 Ill. 2d 215, 443 N.E.2d 553, 556 (1982) (attorney censured for commingling $6600 of his client’s money and using part of the funds for his personal purposes); In re Sherman, 60 Ill. 2d 590, 328 N.E.2d 553, 555 (1975) (attorney who deposited $5500 in escrow funds into his personal checking account which was

    PAGE 19:

    subsequently overdrawn on several occasions censured); In re Cheronis, 114 Ill. 2d 527, 502 N.E.2d 722, 726-27 (1986) (three-month suspension where conversion was aggravated by Respondent’s serious financial condition); In re Merriwether, 138 Ill. 2d 191, 561 N.E.2d 662, 667 (1990) (three-month suspension for conversion of funds owed to lienholder where Respondent made misrepresentations to claimant); In re Bauerle, 98 SH 21, M.R. 16712 (2000) (attorney suspended for twelve months with all but four months stayed in favor of probation for conversion of $43,000 of estate funds).

    Although we glean some guidance from the foregoing cases, the situation before us is not an instance where Respondent’s mere inattention to bookkeeping resulted in an unintentional use of client funds. Respondent purposely and recklessly withdrew his client’s funds from a financial institution and subjected those funds to a risk of loss. We believe the aggravating circumstances of the present case and the considerably large amount of money involved make Respondent’s misconduct inappropriate for a recommendation of a mere censure.

    In fashioning a recommendation in this case, we consider the foregoing facts as well as our responsibility to safeguard the public and the reputation of the legal profession. In light of our findings regarding Respondent’s lack of dishonest motive, we do not believe that he poses a threat to his future clients. We accept his testimony that he now has a full realization of his errors and therefore we do not anticipate that a similar situation will arise again.

    Nonetheless, Respondent’s actions have damaged the integrity of the profession. For this reason, and because we wish to once again alert other attorneys to the repercussions involved in the failure to properly maintain client funds, we conclude that a short suspension is warranted.

    Accordingly, we recommend that Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.

    PAGE 20:

    DATED: 15 February 2002

    James A. Shapiro, Chair, with Leonard J. Schrager, concurring

  14. well not me chateu i wouldnt like someone inflicting daily pain on my child just to dig at my husb whos probably guilty of my demise.

  15. Filed August 21, 2003

    IN RE JOEL ALAN BRODSKY,
    Respondent-Appellee

    No. 01 CH 42

    Synopsis of Review Board Report and Recommendation
    (August 2003)

    Respondent-Appellee, Joel Alan Brodsky, was charged with conversion, failing to deposit and maintain client funds in a separate identifiable trust account, committing a criminal act, i.e. forgery, that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, and engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation and conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute. Brodsky admitted most of the facts of the complaint, but denied misconduct. He alleged that he acted with intent to secure and preserve the client’s funds, not to convert them to his own use.

    After a hearing, the Hearing Board concluded that Brodsky converted funds, failed to deposit client funds in a separate identifiable trust account, and engaged in conduct that tended to bring the legal profession into disrepute. The Hearing Board found, however, that Brodsky did not act with a dishonest intent, but rather intended to obtain the client’s funds in order to safeguard them against a perceived risk of imminent forfeiture to the State. The Hearing Board believed Brodsky’s testimony and noted that his demeanor was important in its determination of his credibility. Given its conclusions as to Brodsky’s intent, the Hearing Board determined that the Administrator had not proven that Brodsky committed forgery or engaged in conduct involving dishonesty. The Hearing Board recommended that Brodsky be suspended for three months.

    The case was before the Review Board on the Administrator’s exceptions. The Administrator objected to the Hearing Board’s failure to find that Brodsky committed forgery or engaged in dishonest conduct and its recommendation as to discipline. Brodsky sought a lesser sanction, such as censure.

    The Review Board affirmed the Hearing Board’s findings as to the charges of misconduct. The Review Board relied on the applicable standard of review and the deference given to the Hearing Board’s determinations on factual issues, particularly witness credibility.

    The Review Board also upheld the Hearing Board’s sanction recommendation. The Review Board agreed with the Hearing Board that the seriousness of Brodsky’s misconduct and the amount of client funds involved merited suspension, but a short suspension was warranted, given the lack of dishonest intent and the other mitigating factors present.

    Filed August 21, 2003

    BEFORE THE REVIEW BOARD
    OF THE
    ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
    AND
    DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

    In the Matter of:

    JOEL ALAN BRODSKY,

    Respondent-Appellee,

    No. 6182556.

    Commission No. 01 CH 42

    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REVIEW BOARD

    The Administrator-Appellant charged Respondent-Appellee, Joel Alan Brodsky, with misconduct concerning an account belonging to a decedent’s estate. The one-count complaint charged Brodsky with conversion, failing to deposit and maintain client funds in a separate identifiable trust account in violation of Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (188 Ill. 2d Rd. 1.15(a), 1.15(d)); committing a criminal act, specifically forgery, that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) (188 Ill. 2d R. 8.4(a)(3); and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) (188 Ill. 2d R. 8.4(a)(4)) and conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771 (134 Ill. 2d R. 771). FN1

    Brodsky admitted most of the facts alleged in the complaint, but denied misconduct. He argues that he acted with the intent to secure and preserve the estate’s funds, not to convert them to his own use.

    The Hearing Board found that the Administrator proved some, but not all, of the misconduct charged. Specifically, the Hearing Board found that Brodsky converted funds, failed to deposit client funds in a separate identifiable trust account, and engaged in conduct that tended

    PAGE 2:

    to bring the legal profession into disrepute. The Hearing Board found that the Administrator did not prove that Brodsky violated Rules 8.4(a)(3) or 8.4(a)(4) by committing the crime of forgery or engaging in conduct involving dishonesty. The Hearing Board recommended that Brodsky be suspended for three months.

    The case is before the Review Board on the Administrator’s exceptions. The Administrator challenges the Hearing Board’s failure to find violations of Rules 8.4(a)(3) or 8.4(a)(4). Both parties challenge the sanction recommendation.

    The Hearing Board’s report and recommendation describes the facts in detail. The facts are summarized here only as needed to understand this opinion.

    Brodsky, a sole practitioner, has been licensed to practice law in Illinois since 1982. He has no prior discipline. Brodsky presented favorable character evidence.

    From January 1989 until April 1997, Brodsky was in partnership with Bahtiar Hoxha. Hoxha handled all matters relating to estates and probate cases. When the partnership ended, Brodsky and Hoxha were not on speaking terms. Hoxha took all the probate files with him.

    During the partnership, Hoxha represented the Estate of Charroon Shotivattana, deceased. On March 1, 1990, the estate administrator, Herbert Shoichi Tomita, opened a bank account for the estate. Tomita was the sole signatory on the account.

    Unbeknownst to Brodsky, Tomita died in April 1995.

    On or about July 19, 2000, Brodsky received a letter from the bank, addressed to Tomita, in care of Brodsky & Hoxha. The letter stated that the estate account, which had been inactive since January 1995, had been reclassified as dormant. The letter stated that the account could be restored to active status by making a deposit or signing an accompanying reactivation

    PAGE 3:

    request form.

    Absent a response to the letter, the account funds would have been turned over to the State. Brodsky incorrectly believed that the funds could be forfeited within days or a week.

    Brodsky claims he did not contact Hoxha, because he assumed that Hoxha had neglected the estate and would not properly complete the work. Instead, Brodsky signed the reactivation request, in his own name, and took it to the bank. The bank rejected the request because Brodsky was not a signatory on the account. Brodsky did not think of making a deposit to the account.

    After checking the court file and learning that there had been no activity for at least five years, Brodsky decided to submit a second reactivation form. Brodsky signed Tomita’s name to the form, attempting to make the signature appear like Tomita’s. Brodsky delivered this form to the bank, on July 20, 2000. The bank accepted the signature and reactivated the account.

    While at the bank, Brodsky asked that the account be closed. A banker, Victor Zezelic, told Brodsky that he needed a signed direction from Tomita, to do so.

    Brodsky returned to the bank with a handwritten note, asking that the account be closed. There was conflicting testimony as to when this occurred. The note purported to be from Tomita; in fact, Brodsky prepared the note. On June 23, 2000, Zezelic closed the account and gave Brodsky a cashier’s check for $23,012.91, the account proceeds. The check was made payable to Tomita, as administrator of the estate.

    Brodsky wanted the bank to believe that the signatures were Tomita’s, but he testified that the purpose behind his actions was to get the money out of the account, in order to avoid having it forfeited to the State.

    PAGE 4:

    Brodsky did not have express permission from anyone for his actions. He believed, however, that he had implied authority, because he was one of the attorneys of record for the estate in the probate proceeding. Brodsky acknowledged that he since had learned that his belief was incorrect.

    After picking up the cashier’s check, Brodsky attempted to find Tomita, without success. He then endorsed the check, in Tomita’s name. At Brodsky’s request, a friend gave him cash in return for the check. This occurred the same day that Brodsky received the check.

    Brodsky placed the cash in a safe in his home, testifying again that his purpose in doing so was to protect the funds. Brodsky testified that he kept the funds in cash because he could not open an account in Tomita’s name without Tomita’s signature and could not place the funds in his own account because to do so would constitute commingling. Brodsky believed that he could not put the funds in his client trust account because the funds were from a probate estate and such funds could not be commingled with other client accounts.

    Brodsky did not seek advice from a probate attorney at that time. He testified that he intended to find Tomita and take Tomita and the money to a probate attorney to complete the matter.

    The cash remained in Brodsky’s safe between July 2000 and November 2000. Brodsky testified that, because he was extremely busy during that time, he did not have an opportunity to follow up regarding the funds. Brodsky was not in any financial trouble during that period and did not use any of the estate’s money.

    In early November 2000, Brodsky and Zezelic each received letters from Hoxha, notifying them of Tomita’s death. Hoxha demanded that the bank replenish the funds. Upon Zezelic’s request, Brodsky promptly returned, to the bank, the full amount of cash he had

    PAGE 5:

    received.

    Zezelic believed Brodsky had made a mistake and had not acted with any dishonest motive.

    Brodsky testified that his judgment was affected by his opinion of Hoxha. He expressed remorse and recognized that he had handled the matter incorrectly.

    In a disciplinary proceeding, the Administrator has the burden of proving the misconduct charged, by clear and convincing evidence. In re Ingersoll, 186 Ill. 2d 163, 168, 710 N.E.2d 390, 237 Ill. Dec. 760 (1999). While less stringent than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the clear and convincing evidence standard requires more than a simple preponderance of the evidence. Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 647 N.E.2d 273, 207 Ill. Dec. 311, 314 (1995); People v. Williams, 143 Ill. 2d 477, 484, 577 N.E.2d 762, 160 Ill. Dec. 437 (1990). Clear and convincing evidence means a degree of proof that, in light of all the evidence, produces a firm and abiding belief that it is highly probable that the proposition at issue is true. Cleary & Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence, ?301.6 (7th ed. 1999). Clear and convincing evidence requires a high level of certainty. In re Stephenson, 67 Ill. 2d 544, 556, 367 N.E.2d 1273, 10 Ill. Dec. 507 (1977). This standard of proof is not one in which the risk of error is allocated equally between the parties, but rather one that requires a greater level of proof, qualitatively and quantitatively, from the Administrator. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 764-66, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1400-01, 71 L.Ed. 2d 599 (1982). The record must be free from doubt, and the Administrator’s burden is not met merely by proof of suspicious circumstances. In re Donaghy, 402 Ill. 120, 83 N.E.2d 560 (1948); In re Mitgang, 385 Ill. 311, 52 N.E. 2d 807, 813 (1944).

    The Hearing Board’s report demonstrates that it weighed the evidence in light of

    PAGE 6:

    this standard of proof. Based on its analysis of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses, and after thorough consideration of the evidence, the Hearing Board concluded that, while he engaged in misconduct, Brodsky did not have a dishonest motive and lacked the necessary intent for the crime of forgery.

    The Review Board reviews such factual findings deferentially. The Hearing Board’s factual findings are to be affirmed unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Spak, 188 Ill. 2d 53, 66, 719 N.E.2d 747, 241 Ill. Dec. 618 (1999). This standard of review does not permit the Review Board to reverse simply because another conclusion is possible, or because the Review Board might have reached a different conclusion if it had been called upon to find the facts in the first instance. Bazydlo, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 647 N.E.2d 273, 207 Ill. Dec. at 314-15. Rather, a finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or the fact found appears unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence. Leonardi v. Loyola University, 168 Ill. 2d 83, 106, 658 N.E.2d 450, 212 Ill. Dec. 968 (1995).

    The Hearing Board believed Brodsky’s testimony and referred to its observations of Brodsky while testifying. The Hearing Board’s findings regarding the credibility of witnesses and the resolution of conflicting testimony in particular deserve great deference because the Hearing Board can observe the witnesses’ demeanor and assess their credibility. Spak, 188 Ill. 2d at 66, 719 N.E.2d 747, 241 Ill. Dec. 618.

    The Hearing Board expressly found that a key element of forgery, intent to defraud, was missing. The Hearing Board believed Brodsky’s testimony that his intent was to secure and protect estate funds for their lawful owner, against a perceived risk of forfeiture. The Hearing Board also accepted Brodsky’s testimony that he believed that he had to act quickly to

    PAGE 7:

    protect the estate funds from forfeiture and that his attempt to mimic Tomita’s signature was predicated on this belief.

    While noting that Brodsky admitted signing Tomita’s name, three separate times, the Hearing Board credited Brodsky’s testimony that his intent in doing so was not to defraud the bank or his client or to misappropriate estate funds. While Brodsky signed Tomita’s name to documents, the Hearing Board found that, in doing so, he did not intend to defraud the owner of the money and was not acting out of any improper purpose. FN2 These are significant considerations in analyzing evidence of alleged forgery. See In re Johnson, 133 Ill. 2d 516, 528-29, 552 N.E.2d 703, 142 Ill. Dec. 112 (1989).

    The Hearing Board also observed that Brodsky:

    “repeatedly stated that he was worried about the imminent forfeiture of the funds ? and wanted to act quickly to protect those funds on behalf of his client. Moreover, he believed that, as attorney of record for the Shotivattana estate, he had the authority to sign Tomita’s name to release the estate funds. His actions, as he came to learn at a later time, were fraught with mistaken assumptions. While we clearly do not excuse Respondent for his failure to investigate his authority to sign another person’s name or his lack of thoroughness in researching the law applicable to dormant accounts, his misguided actions and lack of research alone are not sufficient to establish an intent to defraud.”

    The Hearing Board declined to infer fraudulent intent from the other circumstances of the case.

    The Hearing Board expressly found that Brodsky did not act with an intent to defraud the bank or the estate. Thus, contrary to the Administrator’s position, the Hearing Board did make a factual finding on the issue of intent to defraud the bank.

    The Administrator contends that the undisputed facts establish intent to defraud as a matter of law. Unlike its factual findings, the Hearing Board’s legal conclusions are reviewed

    PAGE 8:

    de novo. In re Discipio, 163 Ill. 2d 515, 527, 645 N.E. 2d 906, 206 Ill. Dec. 654 (1991).

    Intent to defraud is an essential element of the crime of forgery. 720 ILCS 5/17-3 (2002); People v. Bailey, 15 Ill. 2d 18, 23, 153 N.E.2d 584 (1958). Based on the facts presented, the Hearing Board might have found, or presumed, intent to defraud. See generally People v. Muzzarelli, 331 Ill. App. 3d 118, 121-22, 770 N.E.2d 1232, 264 Ill. Dec. 536 (3d Dist. 2002); People v. Gawlak, 276 Ill. App. 3d 286, 657 N.E.2d 1057, 212 Ill. Dec. 712 (1st Dist. 1995); People v. Carr, 225 Ill. App. 3d 170, 176, 587 N.E.2d 543, 167 Ill. Dec. 274 (1st Dist. 1992); 720 ILCS 5/17-3(b) (2002).

    Issues of intent, however, are issues of fact. See e.g. Spak, 188 Ill. 2d at 66, 719 N.E.2d 747, 241 Ill. Dec. 618; Bailey, 15 Ill. 2d at 20, 153 N.E.2d 584. Any presumption of intent arising from circumstances such as the signing of another’s name on a document is rebuttable. See People v. Bokuniewicz, 160 Ill. App. 3d 270, 273-74, 513 N.E.2d 138, 111 Ill. Dec. 892 (2d Dist. 1987). Whether or not the circumstances of any given case show fraudulent intent is a matter for the Hearing Board. Compare Spak, 188 Ill. 2d at 66, 719 N.E.2d 747, 241 Ill. Dec. 618; In re Stern, 124 Ill.2d 310, 315, 529 N.E.2d 562, 124 Ill. Dec. 581 (1988).

    The cases on which the Administrator relies are all criminal cases in which the trier of fact found that intent was proven. See e.g. Bokuniewicz, 160 Ill. App. 3d 270, 513 N.E.2d 138, 111 Ill. Dec. 892; People v. Hackbert, 13 Ill. App. 3d 427, 300 N.E.2d 777 (2d Dist. 1973); People v. Merchant, 5 Ill. App. 3d 636, 283 N.E.2d 724 (5th Dist. 1972).

    This factor cannot be ignored. In a criminal appeal, the convicted defendant has a very heavy burden of persuasion. The standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence is very deferential, i.e. whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

    PAGE 9:

    reasonable doubt. See People v. Kunce, 196 Ill. App. 3d 388, 391, 553 N.E.2d 799, 143 Ill. Dec. 92 (3d Dist. 1990).

    Thus, criminal cases in which a conviction is upheld show only that, in a case in which the trier of fact found intent to defraud, the evidence was sufficient to support that determination. See Kunce, 196 Ill. App. 3d at 391, 553 N.E.2d 799, 143 Ill. Dec. 92. Such cases do not demonstrate that the trier of fact in this case erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that intent to defraud was not proven.

    The Hearing Board based its conclusion that Brodsky did not engage in conduct involving dishonesty on similar reasons. The Hearing Board observed that Brodsky acted in haste, without seeking appropriate information or advice, and that his decision-making was clouded by the ill-will between himself and Hoxha. As the Hearing Board legitimately found that Brodsky did not commit forgery, it also legitimately found that he did not engage in conduct involving dishonesty. See Johnson, 133 Ill. 2d at 529, 552 N.E.2d 703, 142 Ill. Dec. 112.

    The facts here might have permitted a different result. They do not, however, compel an opposite result. The Hearing Board, as the trier of fact, determined that Brodsky acted without an intent to defraud and did not commit the crime of forgery. This is a determination within the province of the Hearing Board, as trier of fact, and its findings are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

    The remaining issue concerns the Hearing Board’s recommendation of a three-month suspension.

    The Hearing Board’s recommendation as to discipline is advisory and does not bind the Review Board; however, it can provide guidance for determining the appropriate sanction. Ingersoll, 186 Ill. 2d 163, 178, 710 N.E.2d 390, 237 Ill. Dec. 760.

    PAGE 10:

    The Administrator seeks a longer suspension. Brodsky suggests that a censure would suffice.

    The purpose of discipline is not to punish the respondent, but to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach. In re Timpone, 157 Ill. 2d 178, 197, 623 N.E.2d 300, 191 Ill. Dec. 55 (1993). Predictability and fairness require consistency in the sanctions imposed for similar misconduct; however, each case must be resolved on its own unique facts and circumstances. Ingersoll, 186 Ill. 2d at 177-78, 710 N.E.2d 390, 237 Ill. Dec. 760.

    Brodsky converted substantial client funds. As the Hearing Board observed, by doing so, Brodsky exposed the client to a substantial risk of loss. Further, Brodsky’s actions were purposeful, rather than the result of sloppy bookkeeping. These factors support the recommendation of a suspension, rather than censure. Compare In re Young, 111 Ill. 2d 98, 488 N.E.2d 1014, 94 Ill. Dec. 767 (1986); In re Mayster, No. 99 CH 59 (Review Board Dec. 28, 2001), petition for leave to file exceptions denied, No. M.R. 18008 (May 24, 2002).

    Brodsky, however, acted without a dishonest motive. This is an important mitigating factor. Spak, 188 Ill. 2d at 68-69, 719 N.E.2d 747, 241 Ill. Dec. 618. The lack of any dishonest motive, and the finding that Brodsky did not engage in forgery or dishonest conduct, distinguish this case from the cases on which the Administrator relies in seeking a longer suspension. Compare e.g. In re Turner, 75 Ill. 2d 128, 387 N.E.2d 282, 25 Ill. Dec. 626 (1979); In re Garside, No. 98 CH 105 (Hearing Board March 27, 2001), motion to approve and confirm denied, No. M.R. 17527 (June 29, 2001); see also In re Passman, , No. 93 CH 573 (Review Board Dec. 27, 1995), approved and confirmed, No. M.R. 12249 (March 26, 1996). Less severe discipline is generally imposed where the respondent has not acted with a dishonest purpose or

    PAGE 11:

    for personal gain. See e.g. In re Levy, 115 Ill. 2d 395, 504 N.E.2d 107, 105 Ill. Dec. 238 (1987).

    The existence of a bona fide legal concern in the matter in which the respondent acted is another mitigating factor. See Young, 111 Ill. 2d at 105, 488 N.E.2d 1014, 94 Ill. Dec. 767. Additionally, Brodsky promptly returned the funds, before any complaint was filed with the ARDC. He expressed remorse and fully recognized his misconduct. Brodsky also presented favorable character evidence, engaged in pro bono and charitable activities, and has no prior discipline.

    Given all the circumstances, we concur in the Hearing Board’s recommendation of a three-month suspension.

    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Hearing Board’s findings of fact and findings as to the misconduct charged and recommend that Respondent-Appellee, Joel Alan Brodsky, be suspended for three months.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Leonard F. Amari
    James E. Caldwell
    Kevin M. Forde

    Dated: 21 August 2003

    FN1: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to Rules are to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

    FN2: We do not imply that Brodsky was authorized to sign on behalf of Tomita; attorneys do not have such blanket authority. See Johnson, 133 Ill. 2d at 527-28, 552 N.E.2d 703, 142 Ill. Dec. 112; In re Walner, 119 Ill. 2d 511, 524-25, 519 N.E.2d 903, 116 Ill. Dec. 688 (1988).

  16. Out of the thousands of people who have donated money to the organization, seems like there are about five who are very concerned about the tax status of the money they gave.

    Meanwhile, there’s a murder and a missing woman. I can tell you which is the more compelling case to me.

    It’s hard to understand why those people with the beef about the tax status can’t see how their obsession with this (non?)issue comes off looking either like sour grapes or an attempt to detract from the real issue.

    Yes, you few people are vey concerned about the $20 you donated. We get it. The rest of us are very concerned over what happened to the dead woman and the missing woman.

    Please, by all means pursue your investigation through any civil and legal means available to you, but accept that most people don’t share your concerns and are not going to rally around you.

  17. DECISION FROM DISCIPLINARY REPORTS AND DECISIONS SEARCH

    M.R. 19007 – In re: Joel Alan Brodsky. Disciplinary Commission.

    The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for leave to file exceptions to the report and recommendation of the Review Board is denied. Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months, as recommended by the Review Board.

    Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky shall reimburse the Disciplinary Fund for any Client Protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.

    Order entered by the Court.

  18. DECISION FROM DISCIPLINARY REPORTS AND DECISIONS SEARCH

    M.R. 19007 – In re: Joel Alan Brodsky (January 20, 2004)

    Disciplinary Commission.

    The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for leave to file exceptions to the report and recommendation of the Review Board is denied. Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months, as recommended by the Review Board.

    Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky shall reimburse the Disciplinary Fund for any Client Protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.

    Order entered by the Court.

  19. well i could care less but when they outright lie about getting the number when you hit the donate. have any of you seen the number? no cuz there isnt one. i dont care if ya gave $10 or a million its wrong. but dont ask cuz u will go to hell. yeah right. oh i think you are wrong about not many concerned have ya looked at fsp stats lately. & i also think alot of donators arent to thrilled about paying for some1 to come from ca for a funraiser

  20. www . iardc . org

    & look up Joel Brodsky – sorry, the links will not post.

    It would appear that according to the above disciplinary actions, Mr. Brodsky had difficulties in handling funds before.

  21. chateau, please stop posting such long articles, just give the synopsis.

    That is beyond annoying.

  22. Just want to post the proof, as in the facts. Public record as it were.

    Posts that are annoying are subjective.

  23. Oh but he did pimp for money.

    Brodsky claimed that their site received over 1 million hits and that there had reached their goal.

  24. According to the news story yesterday, they bought a boat. Why did they not just use the boats people have?

    (add the “h”):
    ttp://tinypic.com/player.php?v=rc52xx&s=3

  25. ya but you just filled the whole page. * i still dont get why you think he should get another lawyer

  26. That’s old news Amanda, where have you been? You should try reading the news a little more often and check the CBS archives where Sharon stated that on an interview probably over 2 weeks ago.

  27. anyone know when the next search is there is no postings that i can find. will it be after the girl in ca goes home?

  28. Oh I don’t think he should get another lawyer, I think the lawyer who casting out accusations should be subject to the same scrutiny.

  29. If the website was up, with one million hits, one could only guess how much money was raised.

    It should not matter if it was a day or a minute, if Defend Drew website was asking for public funds, they had better also be licensed to do so.

  30. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:15 am Said:
    were you told youd go to hell if ya asked about your donation

    _____________________________________

    Were you?

  31. I just feel that since one is being called on the carpet, so too should the other.

    Or do we just let Drew and Brodsky slide on that one?

  32. not i personnaly but i read it want me to go get ya the quote where the person who asked that was told just that?

  33. chateauofdoubt, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:18 am Said:
    I just feel that since one is being called on the carpet, so too should the other.

    Or do we just let Drew and Brodsky slide on that one?

    _________________________________________

    Chateau, I’ve brought that up before as well. Nothing has ever been said to substantiate any amount collected, except what Brodsky said about meeting their short term goal, so who knows?

  34. i cant stand dp or brodsky. i just think sp deserves much more than she is getting from there. & so do her children that noone over there ever seems to think about.

  35. Exactly CFS7360, nobody is questioning an attorney with documented track record (refer to my annoyingly long post of facts above) of mismanaging funds for a client.

  36. chateau, anyone can ask for money. It isn’t illegal at all. You just have to pay taxes on it.

    The purpose of tax-exempt is so that the donators as well as the recipient both win. See?

    Under the guise of tax-exempt, they raised funds. Let’s just say I tried to write it off for 2007. Now I would have to file an extension, or forego the deduction. It is important for lots of people whether you like it or not.

    Not to mention someone at FoSP is going to have to pay taxes on the fund if they linked that to their ssn. The false number on the first funraiser posters may be someone’s ssn.

  37. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:18 am Said:
    not i personnaly but i read it want me to go get ya the quote where the person who asked that was told just that?

    _______________________________________

    No thanks. Not if you have to post it from FSP. If it wasn’t you, then why be concerned about it? Let whoever that person is deal with it.

  38. Well, what do I do about the guy I hand cash off to on the street with a sign? He never gives me a receipt.

    What should I do about that guy?

  39. For the record, I think Drew did it, I think Brodsky is not a very good lawyer, just in this for fame.

    So there you have it.

    That said, I question the fund, the searches, the whole mess circus they have made in Stacy Peterson’s name.

  40. well its there for everyone to read. as far as the guy on the street you probably just bought him a 12 pack

  41. facsmiley, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:55 am Said:
    Out of the thousands of people who have donated money to the organization, seems like there are about five who are very concerned about the tax status of the money they gave.

    Meanwhile, there’s a murder and a missing woman. I can tell you which is the more compelling case to me.

    It’s hard to understand why those people with the beef about the tax status can’t see how their obsession with this (non?)issue comes off looking either like sour grapes or an attempt to detract from the real issue.

    Yes, you few people are vey concerned about the $20 you donated. We get it. The rest of us are very concerned over what happened to the dead woman and the missing woman.

    Please, by all means pursue your investigation through any civil and legal means available to you, but accept that most people don’t share your concerns and are not going to rally around you.
    _______________________
    _______________________
    Facsmiley, it’s not about “how some people may have donated $20. ” You know that everyone, including those who are questioning this fund, is VERY concerned over Stacy and the search for her. It’s about possible mismanagement of the funds….and it is certainly about MISLEADING what the donation page stated the money would go towards.

    However, I will tell you that I also believe something is amiss with HOW the funds are distributed and WHAT the funds are going towards. According to FSP’s website, this is what they say the money is for: (the spelling error is how it is presented in the FSP Donation link)

    *Donations received will be use to pay the exspenses of the search efforts to find Stacy. Donations will cover the cost of the equipment that is used, fuel for the equipment used and lodging as needed for the search teams. Thank you for your support!*

    Some of us donated much more than $20.00. My actual monetary donations from the raffle tickets, entry, SP items, Printing costs (I made cards that were distributed in Bolingbrook), & Silent Auction, was well over $300.00. Additionally, I spent over $600 out of my own pocket for an airfare to Chicago, hotel and meals. (not considered donations, of course) So yes. I have had a vested interest in the FSP Fund and how my money was managed. I was led to believe the quote above. All I know is that I feel used. I’ve already decided I will NEVER make another donation to any other “worthy” cause unless it is about somebody I personally know.

    You may diss this off as “disgruntled folks”, however, I know many people who are whacking that donate button are not in the financial position to donate even the $20 that you stated…and it really troubles me to learn that money has been spent to fly a Julie In CA to Chicago, and possibly to Bolingbrook on Mothers Day…spent on sending volunteers to hotel rooms, meals, and other out of the city expenses, and who knows what “beverages” were purchased with Find Stacy funds…to get a certification in searching…YET…WHERE ARE THE SEARCHES?

    You mentioned the car dealership and the money they invested. Well, that was a new investment. I don’t think the car dealership themselves would approve to know that money was spent by a bunch of 25 year olds to party it up on these “events” the night before and the day of. It’s not necessary for them to have gotten hotel rooms out of the city. Sorry. One could have driven home the same day. We are talking a few hours drive. You tell me what company would authorize their employees to invest in hotel stays with a couple hours of driving? Let alone hotel stays that were RIGHT in the surrounding town of Bolingbrook? What gives? Most companies do not allow hotel expenses nor meals unless a minimum of 3.5 hour drive to ones destination.

    So yes. I question all of it. As well as anyone else who has seen that professional search teams were turned away. YES…there is proof of that. YES there is proof that a dog team was also turned away. ALL we ask is WHY????

    Why can other missing loved ones conduct searches WITHOUT all this kind of money involved and DO MORE searching? I didn’t see a fundraiser club for Laci Peterson? I didn’t see wine parties in hotel rooms? We’re all on the same side…however, I know personally some of those that have donated money are being felt like they were pressured and didn’t have the money. And guess who does the pressuring? Who do you see in FSP that constant was posting “hit the donate” button over and over again…as she stated she wasn’t going to the Fundraiser and then shows up …not once, but twice? Julie in CA. Well, as the spokesperson (a spokesperson, who by the way does not allow her photograph to be published, yet appeared on every media video with only her first name posted…that’s not shady in itself? Why? Why does she not want her name in the media and only goes by “Julie”….and yet is deemed a “spokesperson” in the FSP fund to authorize her flight paid out of the “search for Stacy” fund?

    I sure hope she is ready to go in front of whatever committee investigates her encouragement of folks to hit the donate button so that she could spend time smooching up with the Adm of FSP while HE authorized her payment to the Friends of Stacy Committee for her attendance. Last I knew nobody is going to find Stacy in the corner of a hotel room surrounded by bottles of wine. Eh?

  42. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:25 am Said:
    maybe you should read up on childhood trauma. might learn a few things.

    ________________________________________

    Not sure who this was directed to, but if it was me, I am a psychology major so I am well aware of the effects of “childhood trauma.”

  43. chateauofdoubt, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:24 am Said:
    Well, what do I do about the guy I hand cash off to on the street with a sign? He never gives me a receipt.

    What should I do about that guy?
    ______________________

    That “guy” is not deceiving you. You know where that money is going…or at least have a good idea. The FSP has deceived people. You go look yourself. Go and read the DONATION link at the site. Read what they say your donations are going for.
    Where does it say they are using the money to fund hotel rooms, meals and flights for bloggers? Where does it say they will use that money to send a crew out of town for hotel, meals and what have you when they could have easily car pooled it and came home the same night? It’s one giant party crew running that entire fundraiser and headed up with the encouragment of the Anthony and Julie in CA.
    (who of course I understand are “in it” together.)

    All I can say is that KERRY, SHARON, and CAROL need to get a real grip on what is going on. Perhaps they would know more if they REALLY paid attention to what is going on the nights before the events …and the nights of the events. THEN tell me that money was used for searching for Stacy. Stacy is not in a hotel room chugging down the wine. But they are.

  44. yr before last my family bought 3 $100 dollar tickets to the st jude dreamhouse giveaway. now that is 300 dollars that we scraped for cuz its a charity we all believe in (having a nephew who passed away from leukemia when he was 12. ) so it did help that we could tax deduct it. lots of ppl dont have extra money that they can just give away. now if st jude had lied to us i wouldnt donate to them again. now with that post saying the hell thing & the lie that you would get the number when you hit the donate button how many ppl do ya think they have seen it as i lie & just dont donate cuz of it. i would think lots

  45. I donated a tad more than $20. I did plan to write it off, but now I just consider it a waste of my money.

    I also gave a week to search and help.

    So, you can shove that whaaaaa about $20.

    Besides, $20 is PRECIOUS to a person on a limited income, so don’t disrespect the size of the donation.

  46. I feel like since this is not an endeavor untaken by a group of professionals, there are probably some learning experiences as they proceed. It’s not every day a loved one goes missing.

    I think they are doing the best they know how under the circumstances.

  47. Oh, and lavanda is generous and sweet to use the word “misleading”.

    I say it worse. I say “LIARS”.

    I am right at the teetering point of saying CHEATERS, because I really do have hope that they will do the right thing and disclose.

    That is, unless they need more time to cook the books.

  48. How exactly did you deduct that $300?

    I deducted all of my charitable commitments without the need of a tax #.

  49. chateauofdoubt, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:37 am Said:
    I feel like since this is not an endeavor untaken by a group of professionals, there are probably some learning experiences as they proceed. It’s not every day a loved one goes missing.

    I think they are doing the best they know how under the circumstances.
    __________________________

    Funding an online love affair IS NOT DOING the best under the circumstances. Sorry to be so blunt…but that is what it comes down to. NOR is drinking parties. Even my 13 year old could manage a fund better than this.

  50. So, can I ask why any of you who think that the forum administrators/supporters are scamming the donations and purchasing/using the funds for personal gain have not been hampered from doing so by the IL Department of Revenue and the Internal Revenue Service?

    Both have agents specifically assigned to investigate just those things. I find it highly unusual that the latest fundraiser wasn’t immediately shut down for just those reasons.

    For all the accusations that I have seen for weeks on end, and with Brodsky acknowledging that he is questioning the fund raising, how is it that they are allowed to continue to do so under the guidelines of the IL Department of Revenue and the Internal Revenue Service?

    You mean to tell me that Brodsky hasn’t made one phone call to bring heat on them and have them investigated? He’s just leaving it to a bunch of bloggers to do so and hoping for the best? Because, since Brodsky hasn’t had to wage a defense of his client in a courtroom of law for the purpose of any major crimes, he does have a lot of time on his hands to investigate wayward fundraisers who say they’re looking for his client’s missing wife!

    Um, what a stretch of the imagination.

  51. tehy gave me the recipt as soon as i bought the tix. one was in my husb name 2 i bought in my daughters name. the number was right on each ticket. gave it to H& R block. 300 off my adjusted gross income

  52. Oh puh-leeese chateau. Stop it. Look at other families of missing. Look at their websites.

    You will NOT see a circus.

    You just WON’T.

  53. They are still doing it because no one has reported them yet.

    But how close do you think it is until someone does??????

    Geez, we are trying to give them a chance to make it RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  54. Danya,

    If you or one of your co-workers has a chance to interview Drew Peterson, I have several questions I think you should ask him:

    “Based on the fact that Kathleen Savio’s death has been ruled a homicide, what do think the punishment should be for the person(s) involved with her death?”

    “Since the case of your missing wife is labeled a missing person case, potentially a homicide, what punishment would you think reasonable for the person(s) responsible for her disappearance? What if it is determined she was murdered, would you advocate the death penalty or life in prison for the responsible person(s)?”

    I think it would be interesting to hear his perspective on punishment for the person(s) responsible for these crimes. Note that I did not even mention a penalty for Stacy, basically, because I do not believe for one minute that she is alive, nor do I believe she would ever just up and walk away from her children.

  55. Amanda, I stand by my earlier posts. Unfortunately, you still come off sounding like someone with a personal issue with FSP, especially given the amount of speculation about the use of funds peppered throughout your last post.

    Again, the only places I’ve ever seen the issue about funds being raised is in these blogs (by one handful of people who are already known to have personal issues with the organization) and now from Drew’s lawyer, since he’s been crawling the blogs.

    I’ll reserve my indignation until I see concerns raised by disinterested parties via a reputable news service. Frankly, even if that were to happen I still wouldn’t find it very compelling. I’d still be much more interested in finding out what happened to Stacy and Kathleen than in someone bungling donations. It’s just not as important.

    Still confused as to why you think this concern of yours trumps the real story.

    Can we stop talking about FSP now, since it’s technically not allowed here?

  56. so, that’s what this is all about? SOME funds are being used to fly-in people, house people, feed them and contribute to them having a good time with wine and fun?

    Where do you get your information from? Not being sarcastic, just asking.

  57. uhmmm the childhood trauma thing was directed to anyone who believes the posters in all the windows & the shrine next door is good for the kids. nowhere does it say to keep the trauma in the childs face 24 7. really it says the opposite. children deserve happy days & happy thoughts. sharon should wait till hes arrested * away from the kids then do her digging

  58. chateauofdoubt, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:37 am Said:
    I feel like since this is not an endeavor untaken by a group of professionals, there are probably some learning experiences as they proceed. It’s not every day a loved one goes missing.

    I think they are doing the best they know how under the circumstances.
    ________________________

    Ok. I’m going to say something that is going to really rally up folks and just know it is only my opinion.

    I have a real problem that Sharon is an adult and I do not question her love and pain of Stacy…..however, I do question why she is allowing all this to go on as if it’s one big party mode. She should know by now that her garden IS not normal to be found on a residence front lawn and it is NOT normal for pictures to be posted all over every window. I supported the one sign…but it’s gotten way out of hand. It is clearly a “legal way” for her to “get back” at Drew and the children are being totally overlooked in the process. It’s not right. I clearly came to this conclusion when I read her post about people buying signs for $10 (WHY BUY THEM? WHY NOT GIVE them out with the money collected from Stacy’s fund? Why is everything with a price tag?) and her comments of ESPECIALLY people in the neighborhood. That was a clear indication that even her statements are not about “getting the word out far and wide”…it’s about distaste for the scumbucket next door to her. She really has to get a grip on her emotions and more importantly on the title she is holding for this fundraising. It’s not looking good. I’ve always been the most optimistic and positive person and if I’m being able to start raising eyebrows over all this…what is the mere public who do not know all the facts of what is happening thinking? ITS NOT DOING STACY’S CAUSE any good. Not at all.

    Forget all the fancy t-shirts , buttons and dog tags. For heavens sakes…who is going to walk up to you in the store and reach for a dog tag to read it anyhow?? GET SEARCHING. Get the dogs, get the boats that you all talked about doing.

    Forget the parties…the hotel rooms….and for heavens sakes…forget the flying in of 24 hour bloggers ! YIKES

  59. they have made it a circus. they should join the circus. they demeanor sp everytime they say dp is ugly hes got pee on his pants hes gay hes so old. all of this he may very will be but sp married him & had his children. it was asked once to quit the bashing cuz they wanted to show it to the kids. what kid wants to read that crap about their mom or dad

  60. If you think about past missing person’s cases and murders by a spouse, I cannot think of one case that compares to the cases of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson.

    I recall Joel Brodsky indicating that he feels it important to keep his client in the media. I also recall the attorneys that were interviewed indicated that it was essentially a ‘suicide’ for a defense case to parade a client in front of the media as has been done. Interestingly, even Brodsky’s partner, Odeh, reported in the media her disagreement of keeping Drew in front of the camera. I find that to be a major blow to Brodsky’s credibility when your partner goes public with a complaint of how you are handling a case.

    Everytime Joel Brodsky or Drew Peterson appears on TV or in print, they provide more fodder for the prosecution, and yet, there’s not even been any charges filed. And they both bash every potential witness, claiming the witness is mentally off or owes child support, or is hormonal, or details medical procedures and calls them ‘repairs’.

    Instead of logically projecting reasonable doubt, both Brodsky and Drew have solidified opinions of guilt.

    I bet they are sure wishing today that Stacy were found. It would be the right thing for the children. It’s too bad that Drew has shown no concern for Stacy, whatsoever.

    Oh, and one other thing, Drew, I think you should be more discreet with your encounters with other women. I think some people would have an issue with you going out on dates and ‘rescuing’ 22 year old, non-related young ladies, when you are technically still married to Stacy. Honestly, just how many mommies are you planning for your kids to have?

  61. & amanda your are bang on also its not the amt of the donation. be it 1$ or a million no one should be told they are going to hell if they ask for a tax #

  62. facs, the real story has been hashed and rehashed. Please don’t try to deflect a real issue.

    That is what has been done for months and months. Anyone who asked is immediately banned. I know this for a fact and so do many people. I’m sure you have seen posts removed.

    The only posts allowed to remain are those that do not question, or bash Drew Peterson.

  63. chateauofdoubt, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:11 am Said:
    If the website was up, with one million hits, one could only guess how much money was raised.

    It should not matter if it was a day or a minute, if Defend Drew website was asking for public funds, they had better also be licensed to do so.
    __________________________________

    The DP site was not being touted as a non-profit and telling people to donate and THEN you’ll get the number.

    Really…a village clerk should know better. Especially with all the problems her own village has had with their accounting.

  64. What wedding or engagement party?

    I thought this was about a murdered ex-wife, and a missing and possibly murdered wife.

    Brodsky gets spoon fed this crap from this blog as well as others. Obviously, either he can’t think for himself and has to rely on others to stir up this controversy, or he’s got people here to email back to him what’s going on.

    Congratulations to all those who insist on bring the misuse of another forums fundraising to this blog for Brodsky’s fodder.

    Instead of calling the proper authorities with your concerns and allegations, you hash it all out here for the sake of winning a point.

    Where’s the proof? Got it? Don’t share it here. Share it with the Illinois Dept of Revenue and the IRS.

    Tell me WHY that is not the proper approach, and maybe I’ll listen.

  65. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:21 am Said:
    wow facs you are fast on them rules.
    ________________
    Gatehouse has had to repost them so much, I think we all have memorized the rules!

    As far as what donations are used for: Is there a law that says they can’t be used for any of the things you say they’ve been used for? I don’t think so.

    As far as the tax status: For those people for whom this is an issue, they should get an answer from FSP. I’ve read that they applied in January and are waiting for approval. How hard is that to say? If there is some recourse for those who donated with nonprofit in mind, they could let them know that. Not addressing the issue or glossing over it only makes them look guilty in the eyes of the public.

    That JB would express any interest in that is crazy … unless he donated. His ONLY concern should be finding his client’s wife so that his client can resume his life.

    Maybe JB would do better asking the private investigators where the money that Drew is paying THEM is going and what the status of finding Stacy safe is.

  66. Are you kidding here? Claiming over and over and over that the funds raised on behalf of locating Stacy Peterson are misused, for the most part?

    I just don’t understand one thing. I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m just stating a question/opinion.

    If any of this is true, and knowing that Brodsky would expose them in a heartbeat to slam dunk his questioning the use of these funds, what in the world is he waiting for? I don’t get it. Of all the people with the most to gain for exposing this “fraud,” why isn’t he running with it? Would SOMEBODY please explain that to me? Anybody, somebody, everyone. What isn’t Brodsky waving his proof like he did with that Morphey picture?

  67. Well, Fox Chicago removed the video story. Someone DID try to report it.

    ttp://tinypic.com/player.php?v=rc52xx&s=3

    All the reporters know this story is a hot button and looks real bad to say it out loud.

    Imagine the backlash if a reporter says or intimates that the FoSP is a scam? Remember Amy Jacobsen, anyone? Yeah, she is now a pariah.

  68. Amanda, I can watch the Fox video on one computer and not on the other in my house. Unfortunately, the one I can watch it on is really choppy.

    I don’t know if it’s that exact link. I’ll try to find.

  69. No, feisty, he’s not. He’s airing allegations only. In fact, he’s repeating what has been posted here in the last week or so, almost word-for-word. He’s not offered any explanation as to how he arrives at that allegation. None. Zippo. Just repeating what a number of bloggers are saying, yet, the Revenue agencies are allowing them to continue on the course they’ve been following.

    Doesn’t that give you some pause for doubt in the other direction?

    Don’t you think he’d be the first one to scream “foul” if he had the muscle to back up what he’s saying? Come on.

  70. Amy Jacobson was removed from her job because she exercised poor judgment by showing up at a homicide suspects house in her bathing suit, with her kids.

    She was allegedly taking information and bringing it back to the law authorities. She was not reporting the news, she was acting in a capacity outside of her profession.

    If you think she was fired for any other reason, I’d love to hear it.

  71. no i think you have to go thru a lot of red tape to get teh questions answered like a few of them have here. does anyone know if this boat was purchased in CA. i just read something that states that but it might just be rumor. i am curious though

  72. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am Said:
    no i think you have to go thru a lot of red tape to get teh questions answered like a few of them have here. does anyone know if this boat was purchased in CA. i just read something that states that but it might just be rumor. i am curious though
    __________________
    And what the heck does it matter WHERE the boat was purchased? It was probably MADE in China. Raise a fuss about that too.

  73. I lost my decoder book.

    Is the issue misuse of funds on behalf of a group searching for Stacy Peterson?

    Or is the issue about disgruntled ex forum members saying they were banned for asking questions about tax status?

    I can’t keep it straight anymore.

  74. Rescue, I think you are right. If Joel had something substantial, it would have been the lead story, not as part of a story about the fundraiser for Stacy Peterson.

  75. Rescueapet, you are correct. Joel Brodsky is the only person who wants to find something wrong with the search fund as well as the actual search for Stacy Peterson. Well, he’s not the only one. I guess Drew has a tiny bit of interest in seeing the searches and public support fail.

    I would be disappointed if there are any shady dealings with the search funds, yet, I have seen no evidence of any wrong doings.

    Yet, Brodsky was quick this weekend to question the tax status of the fund. An answer was given that the application had been filed. That should have satisfied the question on tax status. But no, this blog is a daily repeat of the same tired accusations. With all due respect to the dissenters, I do not trust that this is the real issue.

    I am convinced that Joel Brodsky and his team will go to every effort to stop the searches for Stacy or anything that shows progress in the cases against Drew Peterson.

    And, I am convinced that every one of those attempts will backfire, and will generate more and more support for the search for Stacy, which is the proper thing to happen.

  76. Rescue, if it helps, look at the top of this page every once in awhile.

    That’s how I remember what this blog is about. 😀

  77. How thick of sculls do some of you have? Seriously?

    I AM HOLLERING ABOUT WHY THEY ARE NOT SEARCHING.

    Not just about the bannings, not just about the scam, oops errr fund.

    I have not reported them, although I am thisclose.

    Someone will. Call the numbers, do a search. They, after SIX MONTHS, not six weeks, still are collecting with misleading statements.

    SEARCH.

    SEARCH.

    SEARCH.

    FIND. STACY. PETERSON.
    Don’t just collect and buy a boat and pay for dogs but yet turn away free help professional searchers.

  78. For the Fox videos, they are typically ‘shaky’ when you first try to view them. It has to do with the volume of video data being transmitted to your computer. Just turn the volume down and leave the window open and come back to it in a few minutes. After the video loads, it will play with no problems. It happens on my computer all the time.

  79. Here is the thing………..We all think Drew is guilty. Why do you care what kind of lawyer he has???

    So you honestly think if he went out and got a high profile bulldog lawyer with no past disciplinary actions, that it would be better for Stacy’s case?

    Who is being called on the carpet? FoSP?

    I would think that since they are not an LLC or Incorp they would be begging the public to look at their financial information. They are soliciting donations NATIONWIDE as an Unincorporated Association ( according to Kerry) ………………………..

    I have done a little reading at: http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/il/law/assocnon.html#30

    (snipped)
    Not-for-profit corporate status, discussed below, tends to be advantageous to larger groups with activities and relationships external to the organization. SMALL CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, such as family trusts, DO NOT SEEK PUBLIC FUNDS OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH PEOPLE OR ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE ASSOCIATION.***
    (snipped)
    There is NO GENERAL ILLINOIS STATUTE THAT MANDATES REGISTRATION or internal procedural requirements for associations, unless they become not-for-profit corporations.***

    (snipped)
    Historically, an unincorporated association was not liable for actions of its members because it was not a legal entity subject to suit. However, the trend in the law is to allow even unincorporated associations to sue and be sued. ILLINOIS specifically allows such actions by statute. FURTHERMORE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR ACTS OF OTHER MEMBERS UNDER THE TRADITIONAL LAW OF AGENCY.***

    ***BOLD TYPE USED FOR EMPHASIS!

    The way I see it …. As an unincorporated association FSP cannot seek public funds or deal with anyone outside the organization.

    In Illinois, as an unincorporated association, they are NOT required to register the association.

    Because they are not a Limited-Liability Corp or Incorporated, they are personally legally liable for the actions that go on within that organization! AND each member of the FoSP board is legally liable for the actions of the other board members!

    I AM JUST SAYING………….Since Mr. Anthony has libeled and slandered a former member of his forum, as a BOARD MEMBER of FoSP, he and all the other board members can be held accountable.

    Just because you ban and ignore someone that you have wronged doesn’t mean that it is erased and forgotten. NO public apology has been made!! In fact, those that requested an apology were also banned from the forum.

    IT IS ABOUT TIME THAT THE HARD QUESTIONS ARE BEING ASKED. SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT ASSOCIATION AND IT’S DEALINGS!

  80. Amanda, what makes you think they are not searching?

    I know there were no searches because of training for the searchers and because they attended a fundraiser for Lisa Stebic.

    They are searching this weekend but do not announce publicly where they will be searching.

    As I suffer from concussions easily, my skull is not thick at all.

  81. I am puzzled here.

    Brodsky now goes to the press and questions the tax status of his client’s missing wife’s forum supporters. To the best of my knowledge, he has not uttered a word about saying his paid investigators turned up evidence to prove that. Maybe they did investigate it, and there’s nothing to throw out to the press!!!!! If they didn’t investigate it, then he’s full of hot air, once again. All attorneys look for dirt to throw at people that are detrimental to their client. Who, in their reasonable way of thinking, would allow themselves to believe that Brodsky would scream it to the press that this group is playing in the dirt.

    If he’s just throwing it out there to get those bloggers favorable to him to do his legwork, well, then, maybe he’s on to something. Makes no difference to me. If I donate, it’s my business. If I believe Brodsky and his sympathetic bloggers, then I don’t donate. Simple as that. Since when does the IL Dept of Revenue and the IRS run from collecting tax money from anyone, including the Stacy fundraisers? Are you kidding me?

    Brodsky was suspended for signing his name to a check on behalf of a deceased individual. I’m supposed to believe anything he says about misuse of funds? You know why he signed a name to a check that wasn’t his?

    “Brodsky said he was trying to prevent a client’s money from being turned over to the state of Illinois.”

    Now, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? He made a claim as to why he did what he did, and only received a three month suspension. Someone else handles funds the way they deem fit, and he gets his sarcastic puss in the press, whining as usual.

  82. The way you see it? Brodsky hasn’t thought of any of this and run with it? Why the heck not. He’s in charge of Peterson’s defense. It’s his “job” to make his client’s naysayers look unsavory.

    So, why is it that the bloggers sympathetic to his plight have uncovered all of these tax code violations, but it still goes on, and all Brodsky does is “question” the fundraising? Huh?

  83. I think the focus should be to find Stacy and then deal with FSP and any mishandling of funds.

    IMO
    JB wants there to be questions … to perhaps freeze the donations collected. No funds, no searches. No finding Stacy.

  84. QUOTE FROM iamserious

    IT IS ABOUT TIME THAT THE HARD QUESTIONS ARE BEING ASKED. SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT ASSOCIATION AND IT’S DEALINGS!

    Who, may I ask, is responsible for getting down to the nitty gritty of this whole issue?

  85. Well folks, it is quite apparent that you are not going to get your questions regarding funding and tax status answered on this blog. Correct?

    So, why aren’t you talking to the authorities right now?

    For two weeks, a small group of bloggers have been on here from dawn till late night with the same old issues:

    – funding tax status
    – fund raisers
    – Sharon
    – a garden honoring Stacy Peterson, missing, presumed dead

    Nobody on this blog can help you with your concerns. Yet, hours upon hours are dedicated to coming onto this blog to complain.

    If you have an issue, go to the SOURCE of the issue. Go to the authorities with your complaints and evidence. But don’t bring it here. We can’t help you here.

  86. 58 – Let me be the first to say I have blogged my last word about funds related to another forum. I’ve made it clear I think Brodsky picks up these bloggers’ comments and uses them as his own dirt. If not, then he’s got others doing his dirty work for him by trying to pound the same issues over and over.

    Like when he finally got someone to post a picture on his behalf of Mr. Morphey, supposedly showing him doing drugs. The only “drug” I saw in that picture was a Pepsi bottle.

    If Brodsky’s on to something, then I am more than confident, if he hasn’t already, he’ll expose it all. Whatever.

  87. Rescue said: … I’ve made it clear I think Brodsky picks up these bloggers’ comments and uses them as his own dirt.
    ________________
    I’ve no doubt that Brodsky’s peeps get on these blogs and try to goad others into a certain line of thinking.

    Then when that poster says it in his/her own words, JB can use it without implicating his own peeps.

    “Look at what this poster says … noway says that blah blah blah.

    JB makes it sound like there are people all over the country asking whatever question he wants raised.

    While everyone is looking at Joel Brodsky make a fool of himself on national television, I’m sure DP has other lawyers actually working to defend their client.

    Because unlike Brodsky, they think their client is going to be arrested. That there is a case against him.

  88. Rescueapet, yes, the issue regarding Tom Morphey is going to be very damaging to Drew Peterson’s case.

    First, he went to the media saying that his brother was suicidal and had mental problems, insinuating that Tom is/was a total mental crisis. I don’t believe any of it, and I highly doubt any of the public do either.

    Then he goes on Larry King Live to say he doesn’t want to say anything bad about Tommy (Tom Morphey). I’m sure the PR agent had something to do with that comment.

    Then, Brodsky and Drew go on Abrams to once again try to exploit Tom Morphey with accusations of drug use.

    This is like watching a couple of guilty 3rd graders who try to implicate every kid in the school when the two complainers are the most guilty of anyone.

    It is sad, although, rather entertaining to watch them destroy their defense.

  89. I’m sure the “Tommy” was used to make it seem that he was very close with his stepbrother. A term of endearment.

    “Goofy guy” is how he referred to him too, so I think 58apache is right that the PR agent had something to do with it.

  90. noway406, on May 12th, 2008 at 9:20 am Said:
    Amanda, what makes you think they are not searching?

    I know there were no searches because of training for the searchers and because they attended a fundraiser for Lisa Stebic.

    They are searching this weekend but do not announce publicly where they will be searching.

    As I suffer from concussions easily, my skull is not thick at all.
    *************************************

    Noway, there was no fundraiser for Lisa Stebic. On Sunday, 4/27 there was Lisa’s Walk. The funds donated were given (ALL OF IT) to Guardian Angels Community Services.

    Who do you think, from FoSP was there? I could name them for you here, but it was maybe about 10-12 people. Mostly not searchers. 2 search team members that I saw. 3 committee members that I saw.

    There is absolutely NO excuse searches could not have gone on this spring, considering they solicited donations for it.

    No excuses. It’s too late for that $500/day airplane fuel. Unless somebody thinks Stacy is in a treetop.
    Above the leaves.

    It’s a sham, a pathetic waste.

  91. 58apache, as I see it you don’t get to say what is posted here at this site.

    Therefore, until I am told otherwise, I will discuss what I please. You are free to ignore my posts.

    But please do not presume to tell posters what to post about.

  92. Amanda, I meant that the fundraiser was sponsored by Lisa’s family. I could not remember the name of the organization they donated to. Thank you.

    As far as where and when they search, I’m not privy to what they know and how they decide where to search, so I’m not going to try to second-guess them.

    Yes, I agree that searching from a plane would have been much easier when there were not leaves on the trees. But do you really think they’d be able to spot a body or grave from the air?

    I’m just not sure what good any airplane would be in a search like this.

    I would think (since the family says they are looking for a body) that a ground search with dogs would be more a better way to spend the money.

  93. Amandareckonwith, I was not telling you what you can or cannot post.

    My point was that it does no good to come to this forum complaining to people who cannot help you solve whatever issues you or anyone has with fund raising or the searches.

    Do the smart thing and go to the source of the issue. Sitting back and complaining to this blog will not answer your questions.

  94. Amanda – just so I’m clear. Your allegations are that they’ve collected funds for searches, but they are not searching?

    If not, then you’re allegations are that the money is being wasted on flying in out-of-town supporters, wining and dining them?

    Or is it that they’re using search techniques that you do not agree with?

    I’m lost here.

  95. I see no reason to speculate on when and/or where the searches occur.

    The search teams follow the guidance of the Illinois State Police and FBI, to my understanding. This is not just a bunch of people picking a spot on a map and searching. It is an effort which is is under the oversight of law enforcement.

    I trust that searches will occur when and where appropriate. We do not have a clue what is going on behind the doors at law enforcement, so we have no information to speculate their plans/strategies.

  96. Does ANYONE here think that the fundraising efforts/techniques/use of funds on behalf of finding Stacy Peterson should NOT be investigated.

    Because, I certainly think that if anything said here is true, then, by all means, it should be investigated. I assume EVERYONE here agrees with that. Maybe not. I don’t know.

    But, for the sake of argument, then, why is this issue being debated ad naseum. Isn’t the point to get it out in the open and have it looked into?

    Or, are some insinuating that the press, Brodsky, Peterson, and all of the governing agencies involved with fundraising are hiding this all and sweeping it under the rug, so a group of forum administrators can have a good time on our donations?

  97. The sad thing is to think that some people could be so intent on pursuing their personal gripes with a couple of people on another web site that they are willing to go to Brodsky with their delusions, effectively aiding him in his efforts to defend his client and discredit anyone working to find Stacy.

  98. Rescue, didn’t you know it’s all part of a big government cover-up? 😉

    That’s just the mindset of some people – that when something doesn’t go their way or if they don’t understand it, then it must be part of some larger conspiracy to silence them. It’s classic.

    Don’t you have a friend or two like that? I’ve got a friend who swears that anytime there is an emergency-preparedness drill in a large city, it’s in order to get all the emergency personnel in one spot so that the government can fake a terrorist action somewhere else. 🙂

  99. …and no planes hit the World Trade Center, and we shot Kennedy, and Stacy is on an island somewhere, dancing in her bikini.

  100. I am not the poster who tlked about flying people in.

    I do want to know what has been collected to date and a general idea of what it has been spent on.

    I do not know what boundaries even I would put on the fund. For example, I am fine with them using parts of it to help Cassandra out. But just say so. I doubt there are more than a handful of people who’d begrudge that girl. I wouldn’t.

    However, if it is being misused, it is wrong.

    THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS RANT IS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE RIGHT, IT HAS BEEN LIED ABOUT.

    Buying a boat when hundreds of boats are available for asking?

    Paying to train dog teams when trained professional dog teams K-9 SAR groups have been turned away?

    Saying you need $500/day for airplane fuel when they lost the opportunity to do aerial searches because they had to do funraising?

    I could go on, but what good would it do?

    And as for why do I rant it here? Because, people who have raied these same questions have been shut out and banned at the very website that has the answers.

    They chose to post endless cat pictures and say “troll” to those with questions. That was the decision of the admin, and he is an irresponsible person.

    You cannot treat donors this way. Unless you want a backlash.

    You think it’s only me, or a handful of ballbusters who are against Stacy and want to defend DP???????
    HELLO………….. think again.

    It isn’t. Unfortunately most in my situation are not part-bulldog like me. They walked away. Didn’t want to deal with the garbage any more.

    Can’t say I blame them. Don’t know why I still care.

  101. Amanda and others who have concerns about the fundraising, I urge you to pursue every civil and legal avenue available to you in order to being about some resolution.

  102. You think it’s only me, or a handful of ballbusters who are against Stacy and want to defend DP???????
    HELLO………….. think again.

    *******************

    It would certainly appear to be only a handful. I have eyes. I have ears. I keep informed and yet I only see this little trio of troubled folks posting over and over…and now Brodsky.

  103. You have every right to gripe and air your opinions, Amanda, as long as it’s done according to the rules of the bosses of this board. Obviously, you, I and most of the others have followed those rules.

    My point is I have heard this so many times, well, let’s just let it go at that.

    However, my opinion is that what they do with the funds should, obviously, be done according to the guidelines/rules/laws of the governing agencies. Period. I think you believe that too. I think, though, you go beyond that and want to hammer home the idea that you have issues with certain people over there, and you refuse to let it go.

    That’s just my opinion. It has nothing to do with what you believe is the fate of Kathleen Savio and/or Stacy Peterson. It”s how those funds are being appropriated in the search for Stacy Peterson. I got it, Amanda. I got it.

  104. A quote from Peterson’s defense attorney:

    Asked what makes him proud professionally, Brodsky said: “When I’m able to protect people who are innocent and charged with a crime.”

    He paused to reconsider his answer.

    “Innocence is a strange word,” he continued. “People who the government can’t prove did the crime, or did something bad or committed an offense, and they take them to trial anyway and I win. That’s my proudest accomplishment.”

    *************************************

    You talk about bazooka busting. The Peterson team insists there’s not enough evidence to charge him, solely because six months has passed. Yet, Brodsky makes a statement like this, insinuating that he’s proud of his accomplishments of getting his clients cleared of criminal charges when the government rushes them to trial. Or, at least that’s the way I read his statement.

    Why, then, does he question why LE is holding off charging his client? Why does he THINK it’s because they DON’T have any or enough evidence? Maybe they read his stupid remarks just like everyone else, ya think? Could it be that they’re STILL gathering evidence, and there’s a whole lot of it to sort out? Maybe, huh?

    Isn’t that what he’s advocating? Wait until you have something substantial to charge him with, and enough evidence to do so? Then bring it on?

    Ah, what lawyering. Isn’t he special?

  105. I agree that Brodsky could have chosen his words better.

    It has always disgusted me that many defense lawyers will verbally attack, accuse and berate victims and witnesses for the one goal of seeing their client walk — regardless of the crime.

    To some of them, it’s all just a game. And they keep a very detailed list of their wins/losses. Unfortunately, many ‘wins’ are accomplished by every deceitful and mean tactic in the book.

    To me, a defense lawyer should have one goal: To protect the rights of his/her client and ensure they have a fair trial, when charged.

    This quote from Brodsky just proves where his heart lies. He has publicly stated, in effect, that he will virtually destroy any person, place or thing in order to see that he wins the case, regardless of guilt or innocense.

    I honestly do not see how some defense lawyers sleep at night.

  106. Yeah, interesting that Brodsky is stating not that he gets the most satisfaction from getting acquittals for innocent clients, but that he’s proudest of winning against opponents who haven’t prepared a good case.

    So, he probably isn’t questioning that his client hasn’t been charged yet when he speaks out about ‘6months and no charges’. He’s just goading LE to try to get them to charge Drew now, before they have completed their investigation or have enough evidence to get a conviction.

  107. 58apache, on May 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am Said:
    Amandareckonwith, I was not telling you what you can or cannot post.

    My point was that it does no good to come to this forum complaining to people who cannot help you solve whatever issues you or anyone has with fund raising or the searches.

    Do the smart thing and go to the source of the issue. Sitting back and complaining to this blog will not answer your questions.

    ————————————————————————-
    and it does no good for anyone to come on here & complain about drew peterson or brodsky, so whats ur point?

  108. Actually, Sami, it is two different things. Some of us are discussing the case of Stacy Peterson and/or Kathleen Savio and commenting on what we see in the media. Opinions are generated as a part of that discussion. I think it is only fair to discuss that which has been recorded in interviews on TV and in newspapers.

    The ranting about funding and tax status has nothing to do with the case of Stacy Peterson and is not based upon or substantiated by anything in the press.

  109. FACSMILEY SAID:

    So, he probably isn’t questioning that his client hasn’t been charged yet when he speaks out about ‘6months and no charges’. He’s just goading LE to try to get them to charge Drew now, before they have completed their investigation or have enough evidence to get a conviction.
    *****************************

    Bingo!!!!!!!!! It’s just a matter of him insinuating “bring it on already.” Give it what you got.

    No charges, no need for a defense attorney. Simple as that. Brodsky has no client to defend at the moment, is that not correct?

  110. 58apache

    my point is the same as urs. complaining to people who cannot help solve your problem with drew peterson serves no purpose. its amazing how only your concerns need to be addressed. any others if they dont comply to ur standard of drew bashing r smashed. when in a case, family & friends make statements about a suspect or others, people need to know if they r credible. by credible, that would mean all aspects of their lives. that, 58apache, would include begging for money, saying its for one thing, but using it for another. that to me, makes me question everything that has come out of their mouths concerning supposed “facts” about drew. so yes, it all comes round circle & does apply to the validity of their statements.

  111. by the way 58apache, these people have made numerous statements in the media concerning these funds-begging for more. since u mentioned u comment on statements in the media, hence allowed here, “fundraising” for stacy is all over the media, hence, a discussion.

  112. Of course the fundraising is in the media. That’s how it works. You get the word out that there is a function to raise money and invite folks to attend.

    Yet there is not anything, anywhere, reported that there are misappropriation of funds regarding the effort to find Stacy Peterson.

    If there is such evidence, take it to someone who can do something about it.

  113. Truth – is that an issue we should be discussing here? What are getting at now? Did you come here solely to bring up the personal relationships of two people that are affiliated with the other forum? If so, what exactly are we to take from that, please?

  114. Low and disgusting. Gets worse by the minute.

    You girls should be proud of yourselves. You have so much to add and offer here.

    See ya.

  115. Point taken Sami, about discussions and what people want to discuss.

    I think it veers from a discussion when the posts turn into one or two people just kind of venting or ranting, throwing out questions that no person here is in any position to answer. Toss is some insults and name-calling and then it’s like the board is just getting blasted with someone’s anger and it’s not a conversation anymore.

    Same thing with the snide comments about people who, again, belong to another site and aren’t here to defend themselves. No one here can speak for them so what’s the point of asking questions about their personal lives here? All anyone could do is speculate or gossip and I’m not here for that, the blog isn’t here for that. It just derails conversation and leads it off into a bashing session.

  116. Well, I’ll let gatehouse delete the appropriate posts and I’ll return later. You all have a great afternoon!

  117. Get on your feet & join in the fun!

    Jitterbug Fun Raiser is next.

    Good Bye
    Gene Gene
    The Dancing Machine

  118. feisty it looks as though the children here are going to tell daddy on us. this is way too childish. if u guys can dish out ur bashing of drew peterson which is fine, then we can dish out our beliefs on what others in this case are doing. not one of us has run to daddy yet.

  119. Body Language is the key 2 making WEDDING DANCING stand above the rest.

    Good Bye
    Gene Gene
    The Dancing Machine

  120. Oh the wedding dance will be so cute…. ILY looking way down at that cute little head of Cat Man……… there won’t be a dry eye in the yard……….

  121. 58apache, on May 12th, 2008 at 11:25 am Said:
    Actually, Sami, it is two different things. Some of us are discussing the case of Stacy Peterson and/or Kathleen Savio and commenting on what we see in the media. Opinions are generated as a part of that discussion. I think it is only fair to discuss that which has been recorded in interviews on TV and in newspapers.

    The ranting about funding and tax status has nothing to do with the case of Stacy Peterson and is not based upon or substantiated by anything in the press.
    ____________________________________
    The media doesn’t have the guts to cover it for fear of being cut off from the rest of the story. Hosey asked the questions in private and there was a writing campaign put up against him. Danya’s had the info for awhile now and ….NOTHING.

  122. Why are you wasting your time going to the media then? Go to the authorities who can do something about it?

    The media is not the authorities.

  123. 58apache, on May 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm Said:
    Why are you wasting your time going to the media then? Go to the authorities who can do something about it?

    The media is not the authorities.
    ______________________________
    We have and it is being investigated. We also want the public aware! The title of this blog is “petersonstory”. To me, this is also part of the story.

  124. Oh, please, you can do better than that. You take your issue to the authorities and let them handle it.

    To then go beyond that is nothing more/less than absolute proof that you want to shut down the fund raising and the efforts to search for Stacy. Any logically thinking person can see right through your complaints.

  125. but kimmer, the petersonstory is only supposed to be one sided. they cant handle the truth or the story in its entirety.

  126. You 2 can be a part of the hottest craze in culdisac!

    I am personally teaching the Wedding Party the Catboy Polka.

    Good Bye
    Gene Gene
    The Dancing Machine

  127. 58apache, on May 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pm Said:
    Oh, please, you can do better than that. You take your issue to the authorities and let them handle it.

    To then go beyond that is nothing more/less than absolute proof that you want to shut down the fund raising and the efforts to search for Stacy. Any logically thinking person can see right through your complaints.
    ____________________________________
    So, you are saying that I don’t want this woman found? Anyone else that has asked for a tax id number doesn’t want this woman found?
    Sounds like the same thing Carol Penning said to me when I questioned the idea of her selling the stickers from the village office.

  128. 58apache, on May 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pm Said:
    Oh, please, you can do better than that. You take your issue to the authorities and let them handle it.

    To then go beyond that is nothing more/less than absolute proof that you want to shut down the fund raising and the efforts to search for Stacy. Any logically thinking person can see right through your complaints.
    ___________________
    Just wonder if you are calling the authorities every day (the equivalent of posting here every day).

    If the authorities you’ve contacted are not getting back to you, go over their heads. And make a pest of yourself. Call that person every day.

  129. Also, kimmer, it’s not that I don’t care about your issue with the fundraising status, it’s just that I don’t think I can do anything about it. Let me know if you think there is something the rest of us CAN do.

  130. You guys need to be careful what you wish for regarding challenging people to go to authorities.

    EVERYONE wants Stacy found, and justice for KS.
    Well, I’d say almost everyone.

  131. U 2 can tear up the town and look like a professional on the dance floor!

    Word is out that their is a backer 4 the Mid Coa$t Culdi$CAT $wing or Indian Money Dance.

    Good Bye
    Gene Gene
    The Dancing Machine

  132. noway406, on May 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm Said:
    Also, kimmer, it’s not that I don’t care about your issue with the fundraising status, it’s just that I don’t think I can do anything about it. Let me know if you think there is something the rest of us CAN do.
    _____________________
    The more people that know, the more that will be done. Eventually if the gravy train stops, answers will be given.

    People filled out matching dontation forms that their companies still want answers for.

  133. noway
    i dont think kimmer is asking for ur help just as u r not asking for anybodys help as such as far as peterson is concerned. this is a blog about the story.

    tell u what. i believe drew killed kathleen. i also believe that stacy either participated & or at the very least, she gave drew the alibi to get away with it FOUR years ago, not just informing the pastor, but when it actually happened. i believe stacy & drew reaped the rewards of kathleens death.

    stacy apparently got tired of drew, hence the text messages. what happened after that, im not sure but i wont just say shes dead. yes i believe she could have also taken off.

    now for credibility. both sides suck. drew peterson is a liar & i believe so is sharon & the family. the money issue is huge to me & others as far as credibility.

    now for wanting stacy home. everyone does. one way or another, rather alive. some of us out here that u have been angry at just want to point out we dont believe for one minute that the family is doing what they say they are doing. whether with the money or searches. hence, again, the suspicions.

  134. genegene, on May 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm Said:
    U 2 can tear up the town and look like a professional on the dance floor!

    Word is out that their is a backer 4 the Mid Coa$t Culdi$CAT $wing or Indian Money Dance.

    Good Bye
    Gene Gene
    The Dancing Machine
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I for one will put that on catatube.com

  135. As long as FSP people keep donating the Gravy Train Dances will never stop!

    Instead of sending Sharon flowers for her Revenge Dance DONATE that wasted money 2 a good cause in Stacy’s & Kathleen’s name.

  136. I have a hard time listening to a point of view from someone who calls a missing and presumed dead woman, “trailer trash.” In fact, should I go back and put those inhumane remarks you made about her?

    What could you possibly have to say anymore after that? You’re obsession with your dislike for her cancels out anything you say or believe about her husband.

  137. I suppose if I gave money and cared about whether they were nonprofit, I’d keep bringing it up too.

    I suppose if I cared how they spend the money they do collect, I’d keep bringing it up too.

    Are there actual laws that dictate how monies raised in a missing person case are spent?

    I really don’t know.

  138. In fact, let me take that further. I think you’re about the only one here, sami, that has gone so far as to use that term “trailer trash” and raged and lashed out at Stacy.

    For whatever it’s worth, there’s many differing opinions here. Yes, attacks are going on, and they by some here who have issues with others who run a forum.

    But, so far as my knowledge goes, you are the only one that continues to attack the missing woman and call her “trailer trash.”

    And what does that make you, sami?

  139. Whatever a person has done in their life, do they deserve their life to be taken at the hands of another without judge and jury?

    No.

    I would hate for the bad things I’ve done in my life to completely negate what little good I’ve done.

  140. noway406, on May 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm Said:
    I suppose if I gave money and cared about whether they were nonprofit, I’d keep bringing it up too.

    I suppose if I cared how they spend the money they do collect, I’d keep bringing it up too.

    Are there actual laws that dictate how monies raised in a missing person case are spent?

    I really don’t know.
    _________________
    Not speaking of the laws. I’m concerned that they said one thing, and it wasn’t. Then said something else, and ooops, it’s not that either. Tell the truth, that’s all I want.

  141. Here you go, sami. You’re so proud of yourself. This is how you finally let out your true feelings about a missing mother on Mother’s Day. Like her or not, couldn’t you at least take Mother’s Day off from your rages against her?
    **************************************************

    theoriginalsami, on May 10th, 2008 at 11:41 pm Said:

    lavanda u need a valium. maybe your constant novel lengthed posts could be cut short to just a few pages.
    bash? you are a hypocrite dear lavanda. who gives u the right to bash anyone? or do we go by lavanda on who can question. now read carefully:
    I dont give a crap about the pastor. now read on, ur lovely angel stacy gave the cops drews alibi, FOUR years ago. way before the pastor of which u cant seem to get ur head out of.

    circles rescueapet? give it a break. when someone wont conform to ur ideaology of who should be bashed, then we’re conversing in circles. just because someone went missing does not make them a saint & no matter how much ur cult like actions try to make people think,

    stacy peterson was trailer trash.

    there, u wanted my true feelings. u got them. lavonda, i never bashed kathleen. never. so dont try lumping my feelings about stacy as the same for kathleen. facts that are facts in this case dont make stacy peterson look good. the only halos put on her is from a bunch of family members & their fanatics but if u took all that “talk” away, the facts look bad about her. kathleen on the other hand was much more of a class act. i don’t go around promoting pinatas but u do lavonda, don’t u? yea, real nice for the kids. not only drews but all the kids that were at the fundraiser. dont even have the smarts to keep that stuff away from kids yet u want me to swallow ur nonstop posts on every forum in the sky? lavonda, get off ur high horse & check ur posts out before u accuse me of talking trash. i took the liberty of checking out some of ur posts on different forums & some r downright disgusting. including the pinata. rescueapet i like horses too. hmmmm.

  142. rescue
    ive seen worse said about drew, brodsky & even the woman he might be seeing on here. those “bashings” are their opinion, i have mine. i think theyre all trailer trash except for kathleen & the children.

  143. noway406, on May 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Said:
    Whatever a person has done in their life, do they deserve their life to be taken at the hands of another without judge and jury?

    No.

    I would hate for the bad things I’ve done in my life to completely negate what little good I’ve done
    __________________________

    The same can be said for DP. He has not even been charged yet. Granted he’s no good, but he’s not been convicted.

    Still the “busters and bashers” keep right on his case. Reporting his every move, when he’s left the children at home, posters in his face, reporting who he’s with and for how long, threatening to poison food, carrying bats to fundraisers, etc. Look at all sides, you’ll see alot more that way.

  144. rescue, shall i go & retrieve ur posts? i have no problem. not to mention i stand by mine. u concentrate alot of attention to me. ill take that as a compliment.

  145. Now, I’ve seen some off-color taunting here, and I’ve seen some play on words, and I see today we have one particular individual trying to get personal satisfaction by ridiculing two members of another forum, but I have not seen anyone call a missing mother, especially on Mother’s Day, “trailer trash.”

  146. then maybe u should look on the internet a little more. many people have the same opinion as mine.

    were those text messages “classy” or what? was taunting kathleen “classy”? just checking.

  147. kimmer78, on May 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm Said:
    The same can be said for DP. He has not even been charged yet. Granted he’s no good, but he’s not been convicted.

    Still the “busters and bashers” keep right on his case. Reporting his every move, when he’s left the children at home, posters in his face, reporting who he’s with and for how long, threatening to poison food, carrying bats to fundraisers, etc. Look at all sides, you’ll see alot more that way.
    _________________
    Drew is not missing. Drew will have his time before judge and jury. Unless maybe if someone makes good on those death threats (why go out in public if you think these people are serious?).

    I cannot for one second believe that Stacy’s family, along with a number of other people, including ISP and FBI are part of a scheme to garner donations for a search for a woman who is not missing.

    That they claimed to be a nonprofit group when that status was not yet approved I find a little more believable.

  148. I think it’s pretty much in the open now, so if there’s any misappropriation of funds, none of us is going to have to take the punishment for it, the people handling the funds will. It’s not our problem. It’s theirs.

  149. Whether U have “2 left feet” or a skilled dancer, the dancers shows the real moves & the style & grace necessary 4 the blogs/forums/boards.

    Good Bye
    Gene Gene
    The Dancing Machine

  150. The fundraising does not interest me … and that includes rhe donations … how they get it … how they spend it.

    Where is Stacy Peterson.

    That’s what I want to know.

    What happened to Stacy Peterson?

    That woudl do too.

  151. rescueapet, on May 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pm Said:
    I think it’s pretty much in the open now, so if there’s any misappropriation of funds, none of us is going to have to take the punishment for it, the people handling the funds will. It’s not our problem. It’s theirs.
    ______________________
    It’s also the problem of people that still need to give their employer the proper information.

  152. I do not, for one minute, believe that people are being honest when they say they are convinced that Drew is guilty of murder and then in the same paragraph trash his current wife, her family, friends, and concerned people around the world concerned for her return.

    That makes absolutely no sense. I have read the blogs where people say Drew is no good, guilty, and then say, BUT, look at Sharon or Cassandra or Tom Morphey, or anyone who has testified at the grand jury. All of the sudden, according to these bloggers, the witnesses have no credibility.

    That just does not make any sense.

  153. I don’t believe any of this diatribe about employer matching funds issues. Give me the names of the companies that need to be contacted and I will see that it happens. It’s not rocket science.

  154. lets be fair. i question any donations that were given to drew peterson per his website also. i dont believe for 1 minute he should gain money on this at all. i see people have questioned his funds as well they should.

    i also give equal treatment to stacys family. the parties are rampant, the answers are not forthcoming & in fact, u get insulted when asking. not one of these characters should gain one single cent & that included stacy & drew gaining from kathleens death. .

  155. 58apache

    take it as u will, im not trying to impress u when i state that i think drew murdered kathleen but not sure about stacy. as far as stating opinion of her actions, as well as his, it is what it is.

  156. I think kimmer is talking about people who got donations from their employer on the basis that FSP was a nonprofit.

    The employer needs the tax info for their taxes and is hounding the employee to get it.

  157. I can see why people would think that Drew murdered Kathleen but question whether he did anything to Stacy simply because there is no body.

    IMO, he got smarter this time. He didn’t leave a body to be discovered by his neighbors (really that would have been just a little too much of a coincidence).

    And sorry kimmer for speaking for you.

  158. amandareckonwith, on May 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm Said:
    You guys need to be careful what you wish for regarding challenging people to go to authorities.

    *************

    Now that’s just an unfair blanket statement. Are you implying that people here are guilty of misdeeds that they don’t want disclosed? How rude.

    I and some others here have urged you pursue your complaints through whatever civil and legal avenues are available to you. I truly hope that you get the answers to your questions and whatever satisfaction is coming to you.

    Just because I get tired of the rants, the name calling and the nonsense posts, doesn’t mean that I’m not interested in justice across the board. I don’t think the money issues are in any way as important as finding out the truth about a murder and a disappearance, but I do hope you get your answers.

  159. kimmer78, on May 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pm Said:
    It’s also the problem of people that still need to give their employer the proper information.
    _____________________________________

    Kimmer, most larger companies have an attorney on retainer that could write a letter to the FSP Board of Directors to request the “proper information” you said they needed. I don’t understand why this seems to be such an unsolvable issue. If/since FSP doesn’t have “it” yet, they should at least have a copy of their application forms showing the date they were submitted. If they can’t provide that, then I guess there truly is a problem. Howver, I have seen, read and heard that tax exempt status has been applied for and they are waiting………

  160. Emails and letters have not been answered. Questions on the site to Admin (who we have been told is the person to email) have been deleted and the user banned.

  161. 58apache, on May 12th, 2008 at 1:49 pm Said:
    I don’t believe any of this diatribe about employer matching funds issues. Give me the names of the companies that need to be contacted and I will see that it happens. It’s not rocket science.
    ________________________
    Are you a committee member? It’s been stated by Admin that ONLY committee members are able to release this information.

  162. Noway406, I disagree. I have not seen or heard anything that would make me believe that Drew did not kill Stacy.

    I do not think the gun shot through the master bedroom floor was an accident. Thirty year cops do not make those kinds of accidents.

    When Kris relayed to Ric Mims that Drew and Stacy were fighting and then there was silence — I do not believe for one minute that she just left. She has 4 kids in that house and I have NEVER, EVER, heard one credible person indicate that she EVER would leave her family/kids.

  163. 58apache, considering the gunshot thru the floor, we r taking the word of cassandra & sharon. im not sure i am quite ready to put all my pennies in that basket.

  164. Drew Peterson has told multiple wives that he could, “…kill them and make it look like an accident”.

    What husband would EVER tell their wife that?

    Have you read the letter that Kathleen Savio wrote to the prosecuting attorney? It’s on AMW.com

    Based on Drew’s history of controlling his wives, girlfriends and fiances, I have no doubt of his involvement in the death of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson.

    I am also very suspicous that he is, in fact, a serial killer and killed multiple other people that he thought needed to be removed from the situation.

  165. kimmer78, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm Said:
    Emails and letters have not been answered. Questions on the site to Admin (who we have been told is the person to email) have been deleted and the user banned.

    _________________________________________

    Whose emails and letters? Company attorneys, or yours?

  166. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pm Said:

    one reason of suspicion that its a possibility of her being alive is the lack of real searches by the family who is collecting a whole lot of money
    _______________________________________

    Sami, they aren’t searching for Stacy alive. They’re looking for a body, which requires a totally different type of search.

  167. TheOriginalSami:

    So what you are saying is that “Trailer Trash” (your reference) can outwit the ISP and FBI?

    O-kay.

  168. LOL, apache, cfs. Ever hear of the term “dragging you in?”

    Does “trailer trash” sound familiar?

    Just askin’

  169. cfs7360, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm Said:
    That’s exactly why an attoney should request the information.
    _______________

    Rescueapet – First of all, I did not call her trailer trash.

    Also, it shouldn’t take an attorney to get a response for someone that has donated money.

  170. By the way, I would like to hear Sami’s definition of “trailer trash.” Merriam-Webster doesn’t seem to have it their dictionary.

  171. I wouldnt’ try to conduct any legal business over email or a blog. Registered mail, hand delivery by a courier, use a lawyer wherever and whenever possible. If you can’t afford a lawyer, make sure to document everything and get witnesses if it makes sense to do so.

  172. Kimmer, if your efforts failed, it MIGHT just take an attorney. No offense to you, but sometimes they are good for things like that.

  173. cfs7360, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm Said:
    theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pm Said:

    one reason of suspicion that its a possibility of her being alive is the lack of real searches by the family who is collecting a whole lot of money
    _______________________________________

    Sami, they aren’t searching for Stacy alive. They’re looking for a body, which requires a totally different type of search.

    ———————————————————
    are u saying that pros arent needed then? amateurs only for dead people?

  174. You could always contact a lawyer for a consultation – most will give them free over the phone. If the lawyer thinks that this situation is as huge as you think it is, and that there could be multiple litigants, they might be very eager to represent you.

  175. cfs
    i specifically stated that its suspicious that they are not searching that much & when they do they are not bringing in the pros like they should with all that money.

    u stated that its a different kind of search. one for a dead body therefore requires a totally different type.

    i ask then, what type of search does not need pros? what type has more parties than searches? just curious.

  176. I agree that Joel Brodsky and Drew will try to associate the murder of Kathleen Savio with Stacy. But I don’t believe it for a second. I am hoping that the phone records for the night of February 28/29, 2004, are secured by investigators.

    Drew Peterson had a very high interest, in my opinion, to remove Kathleen Savio from completing a financial transaction in court, whereby, he would have to shell out a chunk of change every month for alimony and child support. Isn’t it sickening that he would be more worried about his money than his two teenage boys?

    For anyone to believe he is innocent is absolutely mind boggling.

  177. nobody here has said hes innocent of kathleens death. i agree that both he & stacy put the money before the teenage boys, both of them put money first.

  178. Sami, you know what? I don’t believe Stacy will ever be found. Some people do, but I’m one of the ones who believe Drew put her where no one will ever find her. I’m not one of the people who is searching for her, but the ones that are want to believe that she will be found and brought back home. It’s their hope, and they cling to it with ther whole hearts. They truly believe, and want to believe that these searches are not in vain. They don’t want to give up, and some of them never will, but I don’t believe Drew put her anywhere that she will be found. I pray I’m wrong, but I just don’t believe Drew left her anywhere she could be found.

  179. TheOriginalSami:

    I am still curious about your theory that “Trailer Trash” can outwit the ISP and FBI. Can you elaborate on your theory please?

  180. I hate the idea that Stacy Peterson’s body will never be found. I think every person deserves a proper burial.

    I can, however, accept the reality that a person could go to extremes to desecrate a body such that it will not be found.

    Logic tells me that Drew will be first held accountable for the death of Kathleen Savio, both criminally, and in a civil trial. I am fine with that. I would also be fine with life in prison. It would be rather comforting to know that the folks at Tailgaters and Gibson’s would not have to worry about Drew causing issues for their establishments.

    I think it will be more difficult, but not insurmountable, for the prosecution to also find Drew guilty of Stacy’s murder.

    The circumstantial evidence and history of Drew’s dealings with wives, girlfriends and fiances will put him in a bad light with any logically thinking jury.

  181. Sami, I agree that professional searches will get better results. I was dismayed to hear that some were turned away for whatever reasons. My questions was WHY? Why would they turn professional help away, especially if it was gratis? However, I was told on a blog it was because they were reporting to Drew what they were finding and where they were searching. I guess they were afraid that if Drew got too much information, he could move the body or whatever. Sorry, I know that sounds crass, but that’s what I was told. I agree…….search, search and search ! That’s what they’re raising money for, for use it for that!! No argument from me on that at all. Maybe I misinterpreted your post, and if I did, I’m sorry.

  182. chateauofdoubt, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm Said:
    TheOriginalSami:

    I am still curious about your theory that “Trailer Trash” can outwit the ISP and FBI. Can you elaborate on your theory please?

    ————————————————————————-

    bothers u doesnt it? well again thats my opinion. why so sensitive? lets see, drew has been called the most vial things but is still accused of being quite the mastermind of 2 murders.

    id say any person, female or male that go along with a murder, reap the rewards of the money for four years is not exactly a class act. either one of them.

  183. cfs

    i & others have heard much differently. at least on a few of the searchers turned away were not reporting to drew. but that sounds like a wonderful cop out by them but not the truth.

  184. YOU SAID:
    theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm Said:

    bothers u doesnt it? well again thats my opinion. why so sensitive? lets see, drew has been called the most vial things but is still accused of being quite the mastermind of 2 murders.

    id say any person, female or male that go along with a murder, reap the rewards of the money for four years is not exactly a class act. either one of them.

    MY REPLY:
    No, it actually intrigues me. I am quite interested to hear your thoughts on how this can be pulled off.

    See, when I hear the term “trailer Trash,” it invokes not the image of some super stealth CIA Operative, but rather an uneducated, unpolished, uncouth individual.

    So since we are all here trying to find Stacy, I am curious as to how this theory bangs around in your mind.

    By the by, a vial is a container, the word you are looking for, which describes some of your postings is “vile”.

    Dazzle me with more of your brilliance.

  185. cfs
    there were pro search teams & k9 teams that had volunteered but turned away by the admin. if u search back u will see numerous people talking about it & even giving gatehouse here an invite to speak to some of them to verify.

    if gatehouse did or not i dont know.

  186. That is an absolute lie. An absolute lie, that the K-9 SARS that were turned away would report back to ANYONE, least of all Drew Peterson.

    But why does it not surprise me?

    There are several people who know exactly what happened with this group, and two of them are committee members. I will not post names here.

  187. gosh chateu i wasnt aware the spelling police was here. shall we proof read all posts or just mine? is that the best u can do?

  188. No, TheOriginalSami, I am not the spelling police but nice try on changing the subject.

    I want to know how “Trailer Trash” (YOUR WORDS REFERRING TO A MISSING MOTHER), can outwit the ISP and FBI.

    I want to know your theory, thats all. I want the BEST THAT YOU CAN DO. I want to see you display your intelligentsia.

    You just keep yammering on for shock value, now, I want to see if you have an actual theory or if you just like parroting the rhetoric of others.

  189. chateu, what part of my answer did u not understand? i stick by my opinion. u feel the need to repeat, have at it.

    seems to me ur the one yammering on & on. im having a civil convo with cfs though we disagree, it is still civil. wanna try it? if not, yammer away but itll be u talking to urself (i spelled this wrong on purpose).

  190. Amanda said: “There are several people who know exactly what happened with this group, and two of them are committee members. I will not post names here.”

    ******

    So why don’t you tell us without naming names?

  191. chateauofdoubt – ah, chateau, you are a wise person. You see things very clearly. Dodging those bullets, are you?

  192. TheOriginalSami:

    Oh, but I am being civil. I am asking you for your opinion or theory but you have not yet posted it.

    Here is what I do not understand:

    – You called Stacy Peterson Trailer Trash.
    – Then you alluded to her not being missing at all.

    You have not answered my question. I will ask it again.

    How is it that “Trailer Trash” (again, your words referring to a missing mother) can outwit the ISP and FBI?

    I am curious if you have an actual theory to go along with your post. If you have no theory, then fine, just tell me, “Hey, I like to call missing people names, but I actually do not have any working theories that make any sense.”

    We can all move on.

  193. By the way, FoSP as of today is not a tax-exempt entity, no record of them with SAG or IRS.

    Checked also on:
    Money donated to Stacy went to:
    “Friends of Stacy Peterson”
    Money donated to Drew went to:
    “Drew Peterson Defense Fund”

    Neither is registered with any agency I could find, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3), nothing at all.

  194. amandareckonwith, on May 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Said:
    FoSP committee members.
    ******

    Oh I thought YOU knew what happened and could tell us. I kind of assumed that committee members would know the truth about what happened with the searchers. Never mind.

  195. yea, sure do call a woman who helps cover or participates in a mother of two kids trailer trash. i could call her worse but thats the best i can do. i also think drew is trailer trash.

    keep yammering chateu, the more u write trailer trash, the more my point gets out.

  196. facs, I’m sorry. It might seem like I am hinting at things to make people crazy, but no, I’m not really.

    I know what happened, but it is not for me to tell someone else’s experience.

    I can say with absolute honesty that FoSP has turned search teams away.

    Why? I cannot say.

    But I do know 1000% that it isn’t because it’d get back to Drew Peterson.

    Volunteer searches are open to all volunteers. DP himself could come. SC, RM, any of them could join those searches (that is, if they actually had more than a once-in-a-blue-moon search.

    I am disappointed as all hell that they chose to do it like this. I know more than a few people who will not go back to help. That blame lies directly on the doorstep of FoSP.

  197. YOU SAID:
    theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm Said:
    yea, sure do call a woman who helps cover or participates in a mother of two kids trailer trash. i could call her worse but thats the best i can do. i also think drew is trailer trash.

    keep yammering chateu, the more u write trailer trash, the more my point gets out.

    MY REPLY:
    I still await your answer, TheOriginalSami.

    How can “Trailer Trash” outwit the ISP & FBI, in your mind anyway?

    I am trying to illustrate, yes, the more your point gets out, that there isn’t one actually

  198. Many have asked others, including yourself to give it up, Amanda. But I shan’t be giving it up. As long as you are here and TheOriginalSami with her untold theory of how Trailer Trash can outwit the ISP and FBI. I will be here.

    When people cannot reply with an intelligent response, they resort to insults. It’s juvenille, but seems to be the MO around here.

    I may be lame in your opinion, but, it is certainly my “right” to be so.

  199. amanda – you were be civil and answering other posters with considerate responses. May I ask why, then, you felt it necessary to call chateau “lame,” when, in fact, chateau was not engaged in a debate with you, but with sami?

    Again, with the name calling and making it personal. What is it with you guys, anyway?

  200. I’m not sure Chateau’s moves are any lamer than saying you know facts but won’t share them, whining about suspected illegal activity but refusing to take legal action, making libelous comments/threats about the people who post here or mocking the private lives of strangers.

  201. hmmm, libelous? quite an accusation. maybe u should take legal action yourself then.
    i wasnt aware that anyone knew drew peterson personally that posts here. how about his supposed new girlfriend? anyone know her personally?

  202. I’ve found it’s best to ignore you, sami, as most come to realize after watching your rants for a while.

    Drew’s new girlfriend? You must be running out of garbage. Is she “trailer trash” too? Or, don’t you know her either?

  203. Oh, RescueAPet, how can one ignore such a clever hypothesizer as TheOriginalSami?

    She has this theory that Stacy is “Trailer Trash” and that she has somehow, for 6 months, managed to effortlessly avoid detection by the ISP, the FBI, her family, her friends, a team of private investigators and her stalker husband – a 30 year police veteran.

    I can’t ignore that! It’s a Tom Clancy novel waiting to be written.

  204. haha its kind of fun to watch u repeat what i say chateau. kind of like driving my point home for me. thanks.

  205. You know, every board, chateauofdoubt, needs it’s own ice queen. One that has ice running through their veins. One who can’t carry on a civil and respectful conversation with others unless it’s agreed from the start that it’s the same way of thinking. And over and over and over and over and over again way of thinking.

    It’s a dirty job, being the blog ice queen. Means you have to be disrespectful to your fellow bloggers and call them names, tell them they need to take valium, insinuate you have a “thing” for them. Have a fixation for “horses” and cryptically mention that in posts. But, a dirty job, nonetheless has to be done by someone.

    I bow to the ice queen.

  206. TheOriginalSami, you are equally as entertaining, except the funny part is we are not laughing with you, we are laughing AT you.

    I’m still waiting for you to drive a point home, that is why I am here.

  207. rescue u r so very, very respectful here. not really but u & chateu need to get a thicker skin. rescue u launched ur attack on me awhile ago, im just returning the favor. u throw a punch, expect one back.

    i see u still cant get me off ur mind. kisses to u too.

  208. Seriously. chateau, I think you are getting off on the words trailer trash.

    Respectfully, I ask you to please consider that if you think she is not, then to please stop repeating the phrase.

    That is what I meant buy lame. The repeating the phrase again and again, enough to make people think it is your own opinion.

  209. awww chateu but i already have driven my point home & u keep helping me. thank u from the bottom of my heart. i think u used trailer trash more than i.

  210. I can stop using the phrase that TheOriginalSami used, yes, however I am still left to wonder what her theory is since she is essentially calling Stacy name that is not usually associated with having the ability to stealthfully avoid contact with friends, family and law enforcement.

    I am truly interested.

  211. Oh, but TheOriginalSami, you have repeated yourself so many times!

    I didn’t think it would take much effort for you to simply type out your theory, if not just for me, for anyone else here that may be interested.

  212. Just to change the subject, and in case anyone is interested and unaware it will be showing………….
    Nancy Grace will have a segment on Drew Peterson and the Savios tonight.

  213. Nancy Grace is going to have something about the Peterson case tonight. That’s always interesting.

  214. Why doesnt Sami or Amamnda stop the games and actually do what they need to do?
    They are constantly not staying on topic and throwing a awesome board down the tubes..
    They should be banned already. They blantently are saying ,I do not need to follow gatehouse’s rules..
    Gatehouse, why are they still here?

  215. Because you are not the boss, cow.

    I will say what I want to say.

    So will you.

    It’s as it should be.

  216. moo cow? Cute name. Warning. You might have to answer to that.

    I get cryptic messages from a certain ice queen about horses. Only problem is, the ice queen is the only one that knows what that’s about. I guess that happens when you strum your lips and try to figure out something stupid to say.

  217. rescue, there is a poster with a similar nic who rescues horses. Maybe that’s it? I dunno.

  218. amanda – come on. You have a problem with that “certain term” and hate it as do I, but you don’t have a problem with the author of that term? If you’re going to ask a blogger to quit repeating it, why don’t you ask the ice queen to quit throwing it out there, and maybe this would be a more peaceful place to blog.

    Heh?

  219. Everyone is passionate here, everyone. The ice queen is the only one of late that is so disrespectful to anyone and everyone, it’s a challenge to keep from stooping to her level. I think she’s worn out her welcome, and if this board get shut down, I think SHE is the one to blame.

    JMHO.

  220. Oh geez. Everyone here can fend for themselves. I am not Sami. My opinion on some things is the same as hers. On some things, it’s the same as yours.

    So what?

    Why come here and bother to post if we don’t get a little give and take. Oh sure we could post about hummingbird feeders, and maybe even gardening.

    But up top, it says Stacy Peterson.

    Lots of opinions about Drew, Stacy, Kathleen. Good opinions. The people who stand for what they write have a just cause. No matter who you call ice queen or who I called lame.

    I have a feeling we’ll all get over it.

    This case though– this is reality, it is not some novel or murder mystery.

    When the WHOLE truth is out, then somebody someday might get to find the one up there at the top of the forum.

  221. Well I just ignore them.
    So how is everyone doing?
    Ive met Danya on the searches, and she is so nice, and what a trooper on the searches..

  222. Me too, cow. She sure is.

    Good to ignore. That is good advice. Hard to take, easy to give.

    Sort of like “we don’t want you here, why are you here, this isn’t your kind of forum”

  223. I’m surprised no one asked Mary if she was Drew’s new meat.
    How did she get him to take off his shirt?

  224. they are disgusting now they have him with a bra on. & yes i think dp is guilty & his lawyer sux

  225. I see the same people are still here, still obsessing about FSP! OMG, get a life!

    If you give a donation, willingly, no one forced you, no one coerced you, then you should not care how it is used.

    If your only motive was to have a tax write-off then your motive was the wrong one in the first place.

    God help you if you ever find yourself in this situation or one where you need to depend on the kindness of strangers, if the strangers who help you all have a motive like you people!

    As for the searches, they are ongoing. WHO EVER SAID THEY HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THEM & WHERE THEY ARE???????????

  226. They are so dim. Don’t they know people watch them?
    It just gives DP’s defense more ammo. Maybe they secretly want Drew to never be charged.
    That would be ironic.

  227. God help you if you ever find yourself in this situation or one where you need to depend on the kindness of strangers, if the strangers who help you all have a motive like you people!

    I agree with you pups!

  228. well i think the searches have been volunteer & if they dont announce them how are any volunteers gonna find her. how many have they postponed already this spring as of today it is may 12th

  229. next they will have that pic of dp with a bra on in the garden, but it will only be to help find sp

  230. rescueapet, on May 12th, 2008 at 9:06 am Said:
    I lost my decoder book.

    Is the issue misuse of funds on behalf of a group searching for Stacy Peterson?

    Or is the issue about disgruntled ex forum members saying they were banned for asking questions about tax status?

    I can’t keep it straight anymore.
    ————————————————————————
    Rescue, this forum is hopeless, just a bunch of disgruntled people who were banned from a site & can’t GET OVER IT!

  231. moocow08, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:09 pm Said:
    I agree with you pups!
    ________________________________________
    Thanks, a few sane people here, not many, but a few!

  232. im still a member. i think dp is probably guilty & his lawyer sux & i still think they are scamming people

  233. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:28 pm Said:
    im still a member. i think dp is probably guilty & his lawyer sux & i still think they are scamming people

    ————————————————————————-
    If you believe that, have you contacted the IRS?

  234. i do believe it & no i havent. but i know many ppl have & they arent registered as of yet. you can read it there. they tell you when you hit the donate button you will get the tax number that is a blatant lie.

  235. amandareckonwith, on May 12th, 2008 at 5:58 pm Said:
    I’m surprised no one asked Mary if she was Drew’s new meat.
    How did she get him to take off his shirt?

    feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 5:59 pm Said:
    they are disgusting now they have him with a bra on. & yes i think dp is guilty & his lawyer sux
    ______________________-

    Did I miss something here? Hunhhhh?

  236. amandareckonwith, on May 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm Said:
    rescue, there is a poster with a similar nic who rescues horses. Maybe that’s it? I dunno.
    _____________________________-

    Swampy rescues horses and she is an awesome woman! She used to post at FSP too. And a few other sites. She’s taken time away as she is very busy with her horses and work. She’s a good woman. If someone is insituating that you’re Swampy, well that would be an honor.

  237. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:38 pm Said:
    i do believe it & no i havent. but i know many ppl have & they arent registered as of yet. you can read it there. they tell you when you hit the donate button you will get the tax number that is a blatant lie.

    ———————————————————————-
    There is definitely a group here who believes or says they believe that people are being scammed.
    Coming here & griping day in & day out is not productive.
    If you (the group) are that upset with this & feel it’s true, then why not contact the States Attorney & report them.

    Griping on a message board is not productive unless it just makes you feel better. The bitterness you harbor is not productive either. Do something or get over it!

  238. lavandadolce, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:49 pm Said:
    amandareckonwith, on May 12th, 2008 at 5:58 pm Said:
    I’m surprised no one asked Mary if she was Drew’s new meat.
    How did she get him to take off his shirt?

    feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 5:59 pm Said:
    they are disgusting now they have him with a bra on. & yes i think dp is guilty & his lawyer sux
    ______________________-

    Did I miss something here? Hunhhhh?
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Lavanda, boot scoot on out of here. LOL LOL

  239. luvpups, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm Said:
    I see the same people are still here, still obsessing about FSP! OMG, get a life!

    If you give a donation, willingly, no one forced you, no one coerced you, then you should not care how it is used.
    ________________________–

    Wrong. If you’re asked to give a donation for specific purposes and you donate….and that money is used for ridiculous purposes…of which you do not approve…you are telling me THAT wouldn’t bother you? If the Make A Wish Foundation broadcasted for a beautiful child who is terminal to enjoy disneyworld and you donated…only to find that the money was used to help fund an online affair between the CEO of MAWF and some blogger….THAT wouldn’t bother you? Or that they used the money designated to getting that child to disneyworld by adding 15 non essential people to hotel rooms , meals, party’s and left merely enough to get the child to the gates of the park…and nothing left to enter? THAT wouldn’t bother you? Well, this is no different, imo. We were led to believe that money was for boats, gasoline (FOR PHYSICAL SEARCHES AND BOATS), for professional teams (such as the guy from Texas Equisearch of which I understand some kind of “fall out” occured and he is no longer assisting.) For hotel rooms to place people like the man from Equisearch….NOT to place 24hour bloggers to fly from California to smootch up to the ADM with whatever they have going. Sorry….but YES….I take offense that people were deceived.

  240. umm pups i don’t think you are my boss. so you get over it. & you never answered if you got a tax number when you hit the donate button

  241. Thanks lavanda. Then I will take that as an honor.

    What did you miss? Well, it’s the usual tax/donation/anti-fsp kind of day. What more can I say? OS is tipping the stuff again?????????

    Apparently, a picture was posted of DP on the other forum, in poor taste. and the dissenters are mocking it up here.

    Anything else you want to know?

  242. moocow08, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:09 pm Said:
    God help you if you ever find yourself in this situation or one where you need to depend on the kindness of strangers, if the strangers who help you all have a motive like you people!

    I agree with you pups!
    ____________________________

    And you hit the nail on the head for me. Because of the FSP and their antics and their unprofessionalism….I’ve already made a committment that I will NEVER donate to another cause for anyone ever again…unless I personally know the person/family. You can thank the FSP Friends of Stacy Peterson for that one. Never again. This is the second time I got burnt in doing something good that I thought was going to be of help to bring Stacy home to her loving sister for a proper burial….and now I found it that the money was improperly used. So THAT is a reason that people are upset, MooCow….how can we trust ever again? Ever been duped?

  243. Did I miss something here? Hunhhhh?
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Lavanda, boot scoot on out of here. LOL LOL
    ________________________–

    I’m TOTALLY LOST. Maybe it’s the medication my doc put me on? AND nooooooo Sami, it wasn’t valium. LOL.

  244. OS is tipping the stuff again?????????

    Apparently, a picture was posted of DP on the other forum, in poor taste. and the dissenters are mocking it up here.

    Anything else you want to know?

    _____________________

    Yes. What is “OS” ?

  245. lavandadolce, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm Said:
    moocow08, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:09 pm Said:
    God help you if you ever find yourself in this situation or one where you need to depend on the kindness of strangers, if the strangers who help you all have a motive like you people!

    I agree with you pups!
    ____________________________

    And you hit the nail on the head for me. Because of the FSP and their antics and their unprofessionalism….I’ve already made a committment that I will NEVER donate to another cause for anyone ever again…unless I personally know the person/family. You can thank the FSP Friends of Stacy Peterson for that one. Never again. This is the second time I got burnt in doing something good that I thought was going to be of help to bring Stacy home to her loving sister for a proper burial….and now I found it that the money was improperly used. So THAT is a reason that people are upset, MooCow….how can we trust ever again? Ever been duped?

    ———————————————————————
    Lavanda, do you have proof you were duped? If so, you can always contact Jim Glasgows office & report it.

  246. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 6:59 pm Said:
    umm pups i don’t think you are my boss. so you get over it. & you never answered if you got a tax number when you hit the donate button
    ————————————————————————-
    I never said I was your boss, but was simply pointing out to you that griping on an internet forum is non-productive. Unless you get some kind of thrill out of all this!

    I donated to Equusearch in the very beginning, so I don’t have a problem! They DO have a tax # !!!!

  247. And you hit the nail on the head for me. Because of the FSP and their antics and their unprofessionalism….I’ve already made a committment that I will NEVER donate to another cause for anyone ever again…unless I personally know the person/family. You can thank the FSP Friends of Stacy Peterson for that one. Never again. This is the second time I got burnt in doing something good that I thought was going to be of help to bring Stacy home to her loving sister for a proper burial….and now I found it that the money was improperly used. So THAT is a reason that people are upset, MooCow….how can we trust ever again? Ever been duped?

    ———————————————————————

    And how do we know youre not lying?
    Keep it where it needs to be Lavonda!
    Your word is 0 to me!
    You have no proof , so when you get it , people will debate then and listen to you…NO HEARSAY BS.
    You were banned were you not?
    Yea ,let me take your word and run with it….

    This is nothing but gossip of FSP and slanderous accusations here..PROVE IT ON PAPER LAVONDA.

  248. I am sickened by you using a blog for Stacy for your own bitterness,and your own beef Lavonda.
    You must be the bookeeper now for FSP?

  249. Once more, in re the fundraising and donations:

    I and some others here have urged you pursue your complaints through whatever civil and legal avenues are available to you. I truly hope that you get the answers to your questions and whatever satisfaction is coming to you.

    Just because I get tired of the rants, the name calling and the nonsense posts, doesn’t mean that I’m not interested in justice across the board. I don’t think the money issues are in any way as important as finding out the truth about a murder and a disappearance, but I do hope you get your answers.

  250. Well i totally believe lavanda. she is very sincere. even has her own website for stacy & other missing ppl. Everyword i have read about Lavanda has been positive. She made a long trip( sry Lav forget where you are from) to attend 1 of the events never knowing sp. she paid for her trip herself plus raffles ect at the event. just remembered i think NH .

  251. I agree with moocow08, how do we know this isn’t anything but bitterness for being banned.

    _________________________________

    Oh brother. Being banned causes no harm to anyone. To each their own. So let me clarify for you that I could give a flying hoot about being “banned”…you seem to forget that I left the board on my own accord and cancelled my account. That was being banned. It was when I came back after a month that I was banned due to the histrionics of the 24hr blogger. Evan at that…no love lost here. No bitter feelings. Don’t know why you can’t see that the funds are not being used appropriately? For one, where are the searches? I’m not talking about the “lets get all those that blog to show up at the aquarium and off to the fields we’ll look”, either. I’m talking the SEARCHES. The boats in the water, the searches that somehow were done in the beginning before any fundraisers were in place. THOSE kind of searches. Where are they? How much does it cost to have people all drive themselves with thier own gas to march through the fields? NOTHING. Costs Nothing to the FSP. So what is it they are spending it on? Why the professionals turned away? Why has Equisearch backed off? Are these people writing themselves up with a paycheck? Does sharon get paid to be the board member? What about Ray her son? What about ADM? Are they getting paid to do this? These are legit questions that had their been searches all through this spring…nobody would even have begun to suspect…but to put of searching for Stacy because a “walk for Lisa” was transpiring doesn’t make sense either? Couldn’t 3 or 4 reps of FSP gone on the Lisa walk and the rest of the volunteers make thier searches on the same day? Weekends just keep going by and by and by…and more money is asked….and NO costly searches are being performed. Sorry. But if that does not say something is not right…then I don’t know what else to say.

    Also…this thread is about FINDING STACY…so the fact that nothing is transpiring is indeed on topic. The Search For Stacy…..is the title of this thread….and THERE IS NO SEARCHES FOR STACY. Where is the next listed search? Do you know? Where/when will it be held? Why does the Jaliek Rainwalker group have search dates already scheduled for the entire month? Why not for Stacy? Jaliek’s group has not thrown big wine parties…fact is, they collected a lot more at a bake sale in front of a store a few weeks ago then most fundraisers I’ve seen without all that overhead of “formal get togethers.” However. I’m done with the conversation. My feelings are known. I’ll shut up now and quit going on about “how things should be”. I know the old saying “If you’re not the one with the authority to make the changes, then deal with it.” Hence, I chose my position. I do not donate anymore. This is my last post about bitchin’ about the funds. Water under the bridge for me.

  252. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:52 pm Said:
    luvpups & others, i can return the favor. u also dont have to prove a thing to any of us here. u can show ur proof of drew petersons guilt to the illinois state police.

    contact info is right here:
    http://www.isp.state.il.us/
    ————————————————————————
    OOOOO KKKKK, I didn’t mention DP or guilt or anything like that, now DID I????

    NO!!

  253. rescueapet, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:39 pm Said:
    Seems I have lost my way amongst the people here. I am sorry for that.

    I guess I have nothing to blog with most of you anymore. I don’t want to hear you guys fight over the money issues, the banned peole issues, the name calling, who dating who, and who’s going to get married in front of the plants at Sharon’s house; don’t want to stoop to calling anyone else names anymore, and I don’t want to hear another word about fsp.

    What can I say? Good night everyone.
    __________________________

    I still like you rescueapet 🙂 Bunches:)

  254. no luvpups but most of the ones complaining about the subject that some of us have taken r the same that want us to take our proof elsewhere. I chose to give you & them the same option u have kindly provided us.

  255. I think highly of you too, lavanda. You’re first class, no low blows.

    Seems that can’t be said of others.

  256. I am not here griping about DP or his innocence or guilt, I have given LE information.

    But, if there truly is proof that people are being scammed out of money, then what good does coming here griping about it do??

    Why not stop it before others get scammed. Why not take it to the proper authorities?

  257. feistygurl, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:44 pm Said:
    Well i totally believe lavanda. she is very sincere. even has her own website for stacy & other missing ppl. Everyword i have read about Lavanda has been positive. She made a long trip( sry Lav forget where you are from) to attend 1 of the events never knowing sp. she paid for her trip herself plus raffles ect at the event. just remembered i think NH .
    ______________________

    Yes, Feisty, I live in NH. And thank you for your kind words. This has been quite an emotional topic…and not just because of what occured…but because on a personal level, this happened to me once before. There was a family in need, one that I did not know but learned of her special needs son through my son’s special need support group. Long story short…it broke my heart when the mom said her 22 year old son has not been out of the house NOWHERE as they did not have a conversion van. The only time he could go out was on a rental ambulance to doc appts. She said she would give anythign for him to feel the breeze of the ocean flying through his hair. It broke my heart. I wrote to every conversion van website online and asked if they could tell me how to go about a donation site/fund to help this woman and her husband and son.

    Finally, long story short (yeah right)…I located a family 2 hours away that had a 1999 Ford Conversion van they were willing to donate to the family in North Carolina! I was exstatic. My husband and I drove to pick it up and we were so thankful to the husband and wife who gave it to us at no charge. It was hunter green and even had a television set inside it. Beautiful cabinets…and a hydraulic lift!

    The only thing wrong was it needed new tires, a battery and had some rust on the wheel well on the passenger side. Nothing else. We bought 4 new tires and a new battery. We felt dumping $500 into it was worth the joy of helping this family. Problem now was how to get it to NC from NH.

    We offered to fly the husband to our home and he could drive it back. Well his work schedule did not work out. Ended up they paid $500 for some trucking company to get it and bring it to them. Well…they got the van.

    I waited and waited and finally emailed and asked How they liked it? Do you know what happened? I got reemed out. YEs….screamed at! She (the mom) was upset that she spent $500 to have it delievered to them and that it was not what she wanted. She was appalled to see some rust around the wheel well. She was ticked off she spent $500 and would not “risk” putting her son in a death trap! THAT is what she called it! I was soooooooooo hurt. By the way, our mechanic checked it thoroughly and said it was in very good condition…even the hydraulic lift was working. She then said I was a “liar”…that I lied about it being beautiful and I lied in the newspaper thank you write up. (Which I did lie there. Why? Because I wrote a letter to the editor to thank the dealership that went out of their way to locate a family willing to donate a conversion van and the wonderful family that was ever so thankful that when they found out they got a van for thier son they cried!)………..well, they didn’t cry. I would have cried. FACT is I DID cry. I cried to learn so many good and caring people existed that rallied together for a stranger.

    My husband told them if they are that unhappy we would reimburse them the $500 and come and get the van. Things would be back to where it started. Know what she told us? “NO THANK YOU we don’t care to ever see or hear from you again.” Course not. The book value on that conversion van w a hydraulic lift was $5600. That is when my husband said “never again”…………..however, I did do it again. With FSP. Almost a grand it cost me out of my pocket total…due to my caring heart and wanting to be a part of helping to find Stacy Peterson. Dumb dumb dumb. Never again. And for the record? No way does my husband know about what is occuring with the “no searches”. No way. He would probably unplug my computer for fear that I would find another cause to move towards. And could I blame him? Right now….I can’t help feeling taken.

  258. Search – Saturday & Sunday -May 17th & 18th, 2008

    Volunteer searches will resume, please keep your eye on this site for meeting location and time. Thank you!
    ___________
    Is it possible that they don’t announce the areas to be searched beforehand because they don’t want people there possibly screwing up evidence found?

    Has announcing searches in advance helped find anyone? If there is evidence of that, then it would certainly make sense to announce searches beforehand.

  259. luvpups, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm Said:
    I am not here griping about DP or his innocence or guilt, I have given LE information.

    But, if there truly is proof that people are being scammed out of money, then what good does coming here griping about it do??

    Why not stop it before others get scammed. Why not take it to the proper authorities?
    __________________________

    It has been taken to the authorities and to the IRS and a few others. I personally have not because I was hoping they would have the class to step up to the plate and give their side of the story….and mainly, because if you read my novel post, you will see….I don’t want my husband to know. He already gets nervous when I give money to homeless people and says they could jump in my car, blah blah blah…I’m sorry…it’s just me. I believe God has said to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves…and to do unto others….and if it means skipping that expensive latte and getting a decaf coffee instead but knowing someone else got two bucks in their pocket for a burger or whatever…well then I feel good. I’m not out to cause trouble for anyone. I just want what’s right to be right…….or at least I try.

  260. For the posters who are not regulars here, there are some of us who have not been banned from the “other” site because we are not members there by choice, but do visit to read the foum and even make donations. I am one of those people, and I also believe Drew is responsible for Stacy’s disappearance. Even though I don’t believe, as I stated in a earlier post, that Stacy will ever be found, I still support those who love her and want her home, and can only imagine their suffering. This search is what keeps a lot of them going, and has become a mission for them. However, because of all of the questions and arguments being raised about the donations and how they are being possibly “mismanaged,” current lack of tax exempt status, no disclosure of any kind regarding expenditures, and various search issues (pros turned away, fewer searches, etc) I believe it’s only hurting the the fund raising efforts by that particular site. Many people I’m sure have questioned what their donation is being used for, and I personally would like to know that mine is being, or has been, used to help search for Stacy instead of frivolous things like air fare, trips, motels, and anything else that has been mentioned that won’t help find the missing mother. If they want donations and support to continue, then it looks like someone needs to do a little public relations work on behalf of the site. Otherwise, not only will donations go down, so will membership, and then the site will probably follow as well. Just my opinion, but a lot of posters on here have some valid points, whether they are popular or not. Don’t mean to offend anyone, and I’m sorry if I have.

  261. as much as i havent completely agreed with lavonda on many issues, what i think shes trying to say is that people want stacy found, period. they dont want to bring a site down, just make it legit. giving them a chance to come clean without making a mess. anyone who donated under the guise of paying professional search teams has a right to know why, with all the money they collected, arent swimming with pros.

  262. cfs, nobody wants to “hurt” them, only that they come clean. what irks some of us is that a simple question or questions are refused an answer. when i donated, i was donating to bring the experts in, not people like julie. its really ironic that we seem to be the ones that want to have the best way to find stacy, the professional way, not a party, not only amateurs, but real professionals.

  263. oh, can it sami. One minute you’re telling lavonda to take a valium and the next you’re calling Stacy trailer trash. Now you’re back to praising lavonda because you think she’s agreeing with something you believe in.

    Haven’t you noticed half the people here don’t even pay any attention to you? There’s such a collective sigh of relief when you warn us you’re leaving the board for a while, it’s deafening.

  264. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm Said:
    lavanda
    what did happen to equusearch? would u have any info on that?
    ____________________-

    No. I don’t know. Only rumors. Which is why I don’t understand why FSP can’t squash the rumors and tell the truth as to what occured? I don’t get it. Equisearch is strong on helping find Jaliek Rainwalker and I can tell you they do not come for just any group. One must really plead their case in order for them to donate their time….so for them to actually come and NOT do the search is puzzling. Here is what was announced on Greta right before they came out:

    Just Spoke to Producer Covering Sgt Peterson / Stacy Peterson
    by Greta Van Susteren
    I just spoke to Steph Watts, producer on the ground in Illinois covering the Stacy Peterson disappearance story. It has been exactly one week she has been gone and still no sign. He said Tim Miller and EquiSearch is due there tonight. EquiSearch is very experienced at organizing searches. As you might know, organization is key to avoiding duplicate searches or even contaminated evidence.

  265. moocow08, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm Said:
    I am sickened by you using a blog for Stacy for your own bitterness,and your own beef Lavonda.
    You must be the bookeeper now for FSP?
    ———————————————————————
    luvpups, on May 12th, 2008 at 7:35 pm Said:
    I agree with moocow08, how do we know this isn’t anything but bitterness for being banned.
    __________________________________________

    You don’t know for a fact about Lavanda’s concerns, but she’s not the only one with those concerns, and she’s got every right to post them.

    For those of you who complain about what’s being discussed, I say….. instead of complaining each time you’re on here…. bring something new to the table.

    For those who are SOOOOO self righteous to say things like “This isn’t helping to find Stacy Peterson!” Then don’t bother reading these types of blogs, ‘cuz she ain’t here! And, those types of high and mighty statements are just made to antagonize.

    Your complaints about Blogs don’t help find her either.

    If you don’t like what’s posted… start up a new subject.

  266. knock it off rescueapet, either get some thick skin or just swallow it. lavonda gave me a good hit back & u dont see me crying. as amandar said, in a case like this people are gonna disagree & sometimes a smack down might happen. its life, live with it. you wanna keep it coming with me, well bring it on, u & i can go all night. however, i will post to who i want & if they choose not to post back, thats their business. you need to stop obsessing with me. seems its really u that wants to keep it heated.

  267. While all of us seem to agree that finding Stacy is the most important issue, it’s how to go about it that we seem to disagree on.

    I can’t remember who posted this, but it’s not as if they are randomly running around Bolingbrook. They get advice from ISP and the FBI. So I think in that respect, the professionals are in charge of the searches.

    As far as the donations an the tax status, the authorities have been notified. Now I think we sit back and wait. If some time passes (or has passed) and you’ve heard nothing, make contact again. And again.

  268. i heard little rumors as u probably did too lavonda. not sure which is true but equusearch usually from what ive read, stay longer & make repeated comebacks.

    u mentioned an east coast SAR team. did they come out & do any search at all?

  269. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm Said:
    as much as i havent completely agreed with lavonda on many issues, what i think shes trying to say is that people want stacy found, period. they dont want to bring a site down, just make it legit. giving them a chance to come clean without making a mess. anyone who donated under the guise of paying professional search teams has a right to know why, with all the money they collected, arent swimming with pros.
    _____________________-

    Thank you. That is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. I just don’t have the skills to make a long story short. Doesn’t help I’m hyperactive, type 75wpms and my fingers fly as fast as my brain. Then I see I wrote another novel. lol. Sorry. It’s just me.

  270. chill out? rescueapet, i was having a convo with lavonda until YOU decided to come swinging. your obsessiveness with me is obvious. ice queen? oh my, should i give u a little nicky name too?

  271. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:25 pm Said:
    knock it off rescueapet, either get some thick skin or just swallow it. lavonda gave me a good hit back & u dont see me crying.
    _____________________________

    I did? I’m sorry if it came across as a “hit back” I didn’t intend it to. I don’t mind a good debate…and I’m not afraid of those who have differing beliefs, either. I have thick skin. I was raised with 5 brothers and the only girl….and now live with 2 teenage sons and a husband….the only girl for the past ten years since my daughter married. Trust me. I’ve seen and heard it all. lol

  272. noway406, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm Said:
    While all of us seem to agree that finding Stacy is the most important issue, it’s how to go about it that we seem to disagree on.

    I can’t remember who posted this, but it’s not as if they are randomly running around Bolingbrook. They get advice from ISP and the FBI. So I think in that respect, the professionals are in charge of the searches.
    ___________________________

    See Noway? This is the part I was talking about. You said “the professionals” are in charge of the searches. Who are the professionals? It’s not Equisearch? It’s not the other SAR group that left? Seems to me it is comprised of a lot of volunteers and that is wonderful………………..if they start doing it again and every weekend.

  273. then u & I can agree on disagreeing at times. sometimes frustration builds up & shoots out. probably a little harsh on u lavonda & for that i apologize. i too have a couple of brothers & some very tough sisters. thick skin here too.

  274. naw, no need for that. The other night you called me pompous. Do you have a problem swinging in and out of reality? Seems so. One minute you’re slinging crap at everyone, and the next you’re asking civil questions. What is it about you.

    yeah, I have it in for you. I’m sick and tired of your uncivil, crude, sarcastic, disrespectful ways of blogging. I’ve seen the mods delete your posts too.

    yeah, I have it in for you. You’re one of the rudest, biggest name callers I’ve ever seen on a blog.

    Call me whatever you want. You’re good at that.

  275. Hey Sami, I’m sure nobody really wants to hurt them. My point is that they seem to be hurting themselves with not disclosing, possible mismanagement and all the other stuff I wrote. If they don’t get a PR person or someone to help put them in a better light, they MIGHT be a lost cause if the donations don’t keep flowing. JMO.

  276. Lavanda, by “in that respect, the professionals are in charge of the searches” I meant ISP and the FBI.

    The FSP searchers are not throwing a dart at a map and running off to see what they find.

  277. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm Said:
    i heard little rumors as u probably did too lavonda. not sure which is true but equusearch usually from what ive read, stay longer & make repeated comebacks.

    u mentioned an east coast SAR team. did they come out & do any search at all?
    _____________________________

    From what I understand, they had their flight tickets ready in hand and their dogs. They were told to not come out. As for Equisearch, I can only surmise that Tim Miller who heads it has a professional way of conducting searches that have been very successful. I believe they would have wanted to “TAKE OVER” the actual searching….and they were denied. The group did not want them to “take over” how the searches were conducted. That is what I understood. So they left. They didn’t conduct or orchesterate the searches.

  278. noway i think alot of us are wondering who the pros are. not supervising from a phone but really out there with & without dogs. thats what most of us when donating had been told-that the monies were for the professionals coming in, paying for their lodging, food & so on. some were literally turned away. why do that & put inexperienced people in there when u can have experienced people.

    im not saying that there shouldnt be amateur volunteers but the monies were suppose to be for the professionals.

  279. i heard the same thing lavonda. i can only say that since i dont know much about searching, i do know id step aside & let Equuisearch tell me or show me what, how & when. its sad if its true that maybe some egos got in the way.

  280. noway406, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:40 pm Said:
    Lavanda, by “in that respect, the professionals are in charge of the searches” I meant ISP and the FBI.

    The FSP searchers are not throwing a dart at a map and running off to see what they find.
    __________________________

    Ok. Gotcha. Sorry. I misunderstood. Well, early to bed here…doc started me on a new muscle relaxant for my fibromyalgia and it is one that just is not going to make it , in my book. Makes me too darned relaxed…tired…foggy. On the positive note, this new doc believes me and feels the fibromyalgia diagnosis is still possible…but something else is transpiring. (I didn’t like the other doc’s “fibromyalgia” diagnosis”. Seems that is a “tag” to use when they don’t know whats up.) Anyhow…enough w the personal stuff…going to bed. Take care all. No arguing. Ok? Life is too short. TOOOOOO short. Be good. Hugs.

  281. t.o.sami, I can’t begin to think of a reason the search teams were turned away but it doesn’t seem that any of you have facts that they were.

    I see a lot of “from what I understand” and “I believe” and “I think” …

    Nothing that says “XYZ Searchers were told not to come. Here is their website. You can ask them yourself.”

    I understand that the monies were raised for professional searchers, but if you get what you need from the FBI or ISP, do you need to pay professionals?

  282. rescueapet, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:37 pm Said:
    naw, no need for that. The other night you called me pompous. Do you have a problem swinging in and out of reality? Seems so. One minute you’re slinging crap at everyone, and the next you’re asking civil questions. What is it about you.

    yeah, I have it in for you. I’m sick and tired of your uncivil, crude, sarcastic, disrespectful ways of blogging. I’ve seen the mods delete your posts too.

    yeah, I have it in for you. You’re one of the rudest, biggest name callers I’ve ever seen on a blog.

    Call me whatever you want. You’re good at that.

    ————————————————————————-
    you want to keep this going? lets go. i said it, i meant it, now move on. grow some skin & get over it. as i recall u were swinging quite alot at alot of folks out here. move on. sounds like your mad that we’re talking civilly. almost jealous. maybe u can complain to gatehouse that im having civil discussions out here.

  283. noway406, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm Said:
    While all of us seem to agree that finding Stacy is the most important issue, it’s how to go about it that we seem to disagree on.

    _________________________________________

    Okay… now you’re really gonna hate me BUT. At this point I disagree with you about finding Stacy being the most important issue…… at least not for bloggers who can’t help in the searches. Although it would be great if they could find her body as it would make it easier to convict the suspect. But we bloggers are going to find her.

    It’s my opinion that what these blogs about Stacy are about is a bit of Gossip with a heap of amateur detective going on. I love all of it…:) well, except maybe the trolls.

  284. noway i recall that one of admins from another forum gave the invite to gatehouse to come to her forum & speak with one of the teams that got turned away. i havent heard if gatehouse took her up on that or not.

  285. LOL Don’t worry Juror13, I don’t hate you.

    But IMO finding Stacy is the most important aspect of this case.

    Even for those armchair detectives like me. And you. 😉

  286. Yes, t.o.sami (and I call you this each time because I’m never sure when the other sami will come back) … I remember the invitation as well.

    It would be interesting to know whether gatehouse spoke with one of the teams that was turned away.

    It does make me nervous about the people I contacted about helping out by offering the use of their ATVs.

  287. cfs that is what i have been trying to say why hasnt someone stepped in & really helped cass? She may be of age but in my eyes she is still a hurting child. who has lost so many ppl in here life. why doesnt someone step in & fire the admin that would be my 1st step. & get a real pr person or something. pam seems like a very nice person why doesnt she step up. its hard to get our true feelings out there. get called trolls trouble makers workers for brodsky dating dp on & on. maybe my hope is someone here will take it over there. & get someone to listen. noway if you are the same noway over there i have seen your effort to do so on some of the things. i have did the same also but they are so quick to bite ppl heads off & name calling that it seems impossible. i also believe that there isn’t one person here that doesnt want justice for sp.

  288. Feisty, I am the same noway. Just had to add the 406 because “noway” was taken here.

    You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

  289. Not to derail, because I feel the denial of FREE professional search teams is a BIG BIG BIG issue….but just to reply, as I’ve been off for a few…
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    facsmiley, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm Said:
    I wouldnt’ try to conduct any legal business over email or a blog. Registered mail, hand delivery by a courier, use a lawyer wherever and whenever possible. If you can’t afford a lawyer, make sure to document everything and get witnesses if it makes sense to do so.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    WHY should I have to hire a lawyer when they should just be able to plain and simple tell the truth, unless there is something to hide?

  290. Feisty, I surely don’t know, but these rumors and doubts sure aren’t helping their cause. I don’t know anything about anyone who has the authority to do anything, but you’re right about Pam…..she seems to be a very sharp lady as well.

  291. noway406, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm Said:
    Yes, t.o.sami (and I call you this each time because I’m never sure when the other sami will come back) … I remember the invitation as well.

    It would be interesting to know whether gatehouse spoke with one of the teams that was turned away.

    It does make me nervous about the people I contacted about helping out by offering the use of their ATVs.
    __________________
    I personally forwarded the information to Danya. I have not heared or confirmed contact as of today.

  292. i agree pam bosco seems to want it done right & if given the chance she might be the hope that the site needs.

  293. Sami, time will tell. I bet it will be nearly impossible to dethrone some of the people over there, you think?

  294. Also, what I don’t understand, if it’s not about Drew or he’s not spoken about at the fundraisers…as $haron was quoted as saying, etc…why is there derogatory, ignorant photots of him on the forum? Why are there pinatas and bats?

  295. cfs, for the sake of the children, i hope something happens to turn things around.

    maybe another rumor but i had heard that bosco did try to shut the site down but was fought. she seems to know right from wrong but apparently was overruled.

  296. i read a plea by a blogger asking for someone to plz step up for cc. it was so heartwrenching i thought about it for days. cried over it. she just did such a wonderful job of summing it all up. i thought now there is something that needs to be printed on the front page of the paper. i really wish i had contact with the writer of it i would ask her to mail it to pam at her work. tomorrow is election day here so i dont have to work maybe i will go look for this blogger or maybe i just will write one myself.

  297. Hmmm Sami, that’s interesting. Not heard that before. As long as Stacy is missing and Drew is free, there are going to be sides and controversy because of the many varying opinions. I would just love for all of this to be settled, but I think the worst part may be coming for the children if they have to watch their father go to prison.

  298. can you imagine 2 moms 1 dead 1 presumably dead & your dad goes to prison for it. tragic!! wonder how these children will grow up. i hope they know their moms loved them. i really did do lots of reading on the childhood trauma thing. it isnt looking good for these kids & in my reading there wasnt anywhere to factor in that the father was more than likely resposible .

  299. what i remember hearing on a newcast was that pam had stepped away from it. wasnt long after that that cc posted to plz quit the bashing

  300. kimmer78, on May 12th, 2008 at 9:11 pm Said:
    Not to derail, because I feel the denial of FREE professional search teams is a BIG BIG BIG issue….but just to reply, as I’ve been off for a few…
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    facsmiley, on May 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm Said:
    I wouldnt’ try to conduct any legal business over email or a blog. Registered mail, hand delivery by a courier, use a lawyer wherever and whenever possible. If you can’t afford a lawyer, make sure to document everything and get witnesses if it makes sense to do so.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    WHY should I have to hire a lawyer when they should just be able to plain and simple tell the truth, unless there is something to hide?

    *************

    What other recourse do you have, if they are telling the truth?

  301. Feisty, no I can’t EVEN imagine!! That’s what I meant when I said the worst part might be coming for the children if they have to watch their father go to prison. That means he will have been convicted for one or both of their mothers’ deaths. It’s just so sad and breaks my heart that these children can’t help who their parents are, good or bad. But it’s a very likely possibility that they will lose all three one way or another. Just heart wrenching!

  302. I”ve not seen that facs, but what I have seen has been referencing gatehouse. Think someone was confused maybe??

  303. Feisty, I also meant to add that I think it’s great that you’ve been concerned so much about the children that you’ve been reading about childhood trauma. A lot of people may not stop to think how they will be psychologically scarred for life because of this. I wish Drew would do a little reading on it also!!

  304. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 9:27 pm Said:
    kimmer can u get the search team to come on here to answer questions?
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    She is currently on searches, FREE of charge and
    I think that is somewhat inappropriate.

    The story is there, if the reporter has the guts.

  305. No guts No glory………

    BTW, Sharon, Avon stinks.

    They have the most inferior products on the market. My dermatologist advised me to stay faaaaar away from avon.

  306. This is so completely off-topic, but I like the little paper cutout designs we have for icons on the home page.

  307. Those are actually formed mathematically. They’re based on your emails/locations. Learned that from the account page.

  308. Can’t identify a person’s IP address by the Identicon, but, if you’ll note at the end of this explanation, a graphic is unique to a computer’s IP address. Therefore, it seems that if a person has the same IP address but different screen names, apparently, they’ll get the same Identicon. At least, that’s the way I read it.
    *************************************

    In summary, an Identicon is a privacy protecting derivative of each user’s IP address built into a 9-block image and displayed next the user’s name. A visual representation is thought to be easier to compare than one which uses only numbers and more importantly, it maintains the person’s privacy. The Identicon graphic is unique since it’s based on the users IP, but it is not possible to recover the IP by looking at the Identicon. Another useful aspect of an Identicon is that similarly shaped Identicon icons may suggest that peoples’ IP addresses are related.

  309. I like that it was pointed out that it also sounds like a transformer – the anti-deceptacon, I presume!

  310. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pm Said:
    rescue
    ive seen worse said about drew, brodsky & even the woman he might be seeing on here. those “bashings” are their opinion, i have mine. i think theyre all trailer trash except for kathleen & the children.
    ———————————————————————-
    Kathleen was the “other woman” too, so what does that make her in your eyes?

  311. luvpups – multiple personalities. You never know which one is going to show up. Morning is one, afternoon is another, evening, well, you get the idea. Makes your head spin.

    What’s the name for that? Cybil?

  312. nomore – well, you didn’t exactly find a safe haven here. Dodging the darts and bullets is a common thing.

    Hopefully LE will shake everybody up with their findings. So long as justice is done, that’s all that matters.

    Good evening to you.

  313. rescue…thanks for the warm welcome. As I’ve seen from reading here before I joined, dodging is not going to be an easy issue!

    You are right, as long as justice is served, that IS all that matters.

  314. nomore – well, sometimes some very heated discussions go back and forth, and it can get very interesting. But, I guess you already know that.

  315. Hi rescue – Yeah I have noticed that just a LITTLE lol. It does get interesting though like you said, because when people get “heated” they tend to bring up valid points. That is what makes it interesting in my book. Just wish it could be kept to a civil manner without the bashing but….oh well!

  316. Well, tomorrow may be an interesting day. DP will be back in court to see if the judge will finally turn his guns over to his son, and end the court proceedings finally.

    If he does, it may get everyone all hotted up. We shall see.

    As to the kids court hearings regarding the GJ issue, don’t know when that’s next to come up. Again, another interesting aspect.

  317. Wow…see rescue, I care about SP and would like to follow her story through FSP but its become such a joke that I don’t even go over there anymore so the only way I’m able to keep up with things is through other people. I don’t have a TV…well I do, but no cable so I can’t watch even the news. The internet is the only “media source” of information I can get information from. So, DP is asking that his son have possessions of the guns…or? What do you mean by GJ? I know most chat abbreviations but not that one! I’m sorry….

  318. GJ – Grand Jury. DPeterson has hired an attorney to represent his teen sons, and is fighting the subpoena to testify before the GJ. Don’t understand why, if they could help clear up his whereabouts beginning with the time his wife went missing, but, I think we can figure out the reason on our own. At least I have my thoughts on that.

    The last court hearing regarding his guns had the judge delaying the return of the guns to his son. DPeterson cannot take possession of them because the State of IL revoked his Firearms Owner ID card. When he last went to court to get the judge to release them to his son, the judge denied it, and told Brodsky to put in writing the reason his son should be allowed to receive the guns.

    So,that court hearing is tomorrow. The reporters from this site attend court hearings,when allowed, so they will post tomorrow evening or so what happened at the hearing, if you’re not able to hear it on tv.

  319. Hey bash. Yeah, it’s safe. Cybil went back into her cave.

    You know, bash, I know it’s best to have thick skin here, but, I swear, I’ve never seen so many personalities as I have with that one. One minute she’s telling lavanda to take a valium and calling SP “trailer trash,” and the next she’s absolutely civil and logical. I just don’t get it.

    It’s quiet now. The tone today was mostly about the fundraising, and a few are mocking Julie in CA, and saying the funds are being used to fly her in, and wine and dine her. I just stay out of that stuff b/c it’s something I am not privy to and have no knowledge of.

    That’s about it in a nutshell.

  320. Tomorrow (or should I say today) should be an interesting day, what with DP going back into court to get his guns. Means Brodsky will be yapping it up on tv again, huh?

  321. theoriginalsami, on May 12th, 2008 at 8:37 pm Said:
    then u & I can agree on disagreeing at times. sometimes frustration builds up & shoots out. probably a little harsh on u lavonda & for that i apologize. i too have a couple of brothers & some very tough sisters. thick skin here too.
    ________________

    No problem. I didn’t take it personally. As for the valium…well, couldn’t we all use one now and then? LOL (fact is, the last time was after childbirth…and I don’t recall the happenings the whole day. Thus, no valium for me!) 😉

  322. My apologies, as well if I offended anyone. I certainly did not mean it intentionally. Gotta get back to work. Be back later tonite…Good day all.

  323. 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…………

  324. If there is one thing I may say…..

    All of the searches up to this point have generally been “local” (within 10 miles or so).

    And not knocking the searchers, their organization or efforts, but……………..

    There is just as much chance (if not more) that Stacy is not around here.

    And this isn’t new intelligence.

Comments are closed.