Your Thread – May 13

And another one… Now ya’ll play nice.

Advertisements

312 thoughts on “Your Thread – May 13

  1. Serious question this morning..

    What do you really think of a poster putting a half-naked pic of Drew on Stacy’s official MP site and then other posters adding bra, etc?

  2. Half-naked picture of anyone doesn’t need to be on the official website for a missing person.

    I said it wasn’t going to end well. And that was when there was one post after the picture. I didn’t go back after that.

  3. Need to rethink something I said yesterday about finding Stacy being the most important thing.

    J13 was right; that’s not true.

    I don’t know that Stacy will ever be found. Justice is the most important thing. But without a body, I don’t know if justice will be served.

  4. the pic with dp just shows they are classless & clueles over there. admin is anthony laatz. elroy is leader of search team

  5. i really am gonna work on a letter to pam today. anyone have any words they want me to throw in it? im open for ideas.

  6. I have only gone to that site to read up to date news, if the other things you mention are going on, then it has become a social club for all the members & is not what a missing persons site should be.

    A lot of missing person sites have eliminated forums probably for the same reasons.

    I remember when Laci’s site had a message board & some of the messages left for the family were horrendous!
    No need to have that on a family’s site, there are many other forums on the internet where the cases can be discussed.

  7. Maybe the discussion part of it will fizzle out, and it’ll be an information only site. More credibility that way. Too many personalities to have to rein in the way it is now.

  8. feistygurl, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:56 am Said:

    the pic with dp just shows they are classless & clueles over there. admin is anthony laatz. elroy is leader of search team
    ******************************

    I’m not saying I know if it’s “right” or “wrong,” to do so, but are you comfortable using people’s last names on this blog, when that man hasn’t personally done so himself? I, myself, have never seen his name put out there, so I assume he wanted it that way. He’s not a spokesperson for anything, is he? If someone asked you to, would you divulge the last names of other members? If I asked someone who’s posting here and there to post publicly the last name of someone from the other site, merely for my own curiosity, would that make it any different?

    Just recently, DP was seen in the presence of a woman and her named was thrown out there, wrongly, in my opinion, and many were outraged. I agreed it was distasteful too and went over the line. I think people’s names should not be disclosed by anyone, other than the person who belongs to the name.

    JMHO.

  9. snyder73, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:04 am Said:
    Coffee talk is suddenly gone at FSP
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Interesting.

  10. amanda – that is a logical, doable idea. Makes sense, at least to me. Main info board, with off-shoot board for “stuff.” It’s just gotten too National Enquire-y.

  11. This was left at I think its lavanda’s website.

    Randy

    Joined: 13 May 2008
    Posts: 1

    Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:38 am

    Hi. I am new here but have been reading for some time. It is outrageous that you are accusing FSP of paying for somebody’s flight without any personal knowledge of such. They did not and have not EVER paid for anyone’s flight or given money to anyone to travel. It is absurd that you guys would trash an entire cause for Stacy to be brought home. You call this site “Angels for Stacy” but you trash her family and accuse them of doing illegal activities. Is that how people with their hearts in the right place act? Let me answer that for you-NO!!!! I know that you won’t have the courage to keep this post up and you will delete or ban me as you accuse FSP of that same thing. Lets see if you practice what you preach. I thought that this was a safe place to come without bashing but I guess that I was wrong. I am sure that Stacy’s family is disgusted by your accusations about their board, the people running the board, their family members, their friends, as they should be! How do you call yourselves “Angels for Stacy” when you have evil in your hearts? Talk is very cheap and actions speak louder than words.

    If you have any evidence of your accusations then I suggest you send it to the family and you can also PM me with it. If you don’t have evidence or clear proof of what you are saying, then you should shut your mouths and be “Angels for Stacy”.

  12. Yeah, it looks like they wisely either removed the gossip and play time thread from the forum (or else made it invisible). Great idea.
    IMO, having any kind of forum attached to the official site is a bad idea.

  13. Ya know what? The family has been emailed and PM’d and mailed and phoned…and still NO ANSWERS! WHY?

  14. facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 10:12 am Said:
    Yeah, it looks like they wisely either removed the gossip and play time thread from the forum (or else made it invisible). Great idea.
    IMO, having any kind of forum attached to the official site is a bad idea.
    ___________________________
    Why can I see it then?

  15. This is what I posted to Randy. Gotta get to work now…be back tonite.
    http://www.angelsforstacy.hqforums.com

    Hi Randy, Well..first, welcome to the site. Sorry under such circumstances. No I do not have any intentions of removing your post. I would only remove posts if you became bilegerant to other posters and/or used extreme foul language. You are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to your feelings. Please know that I did not use the word “illegal activities” in regards to the FSP fundraiser. Never. I said I’ve been deceived as well as many other posters. Please go to the thread here titled Upcoming Fundraisers and you will find more information and my personal thoughts and beliefs on what has transpired. You are free to make your own judgment on what you believe. However, let me please clarify that nobody here is evil. Nobody here is out to cause trouble or want trouble. There are legitimate conversations from many that were high level posters, moderators, and personal friends of those who manage the FSP forum and each of them has had their own experiences that have pointed the suspicions of the mismanagment of funds. Illegal? Probably not. Deceiving? YES. Very. Especially when the FSP donation page states other intentions of use. Please go to the FUNDRAISER thread and we can discuss further. Again, welcome to our site.

  16. car99, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am Said:
    This was left at I think its lavanda’s website.

    Randy

    Joined: 13 May 2008
    Posts: 1

    Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:38 am

    Hi. I am new here but have been reading for some time. It is outrageous that you are accusing FSP of paying for somebody’s flight without any personal knowledge of such. They did not and have not EVER paid for anyone’s flight or given money to anyone to travel. It is absurd that you guys would trash an entire cause for Stacy to be brought home. You call this site “Angels for Stacy” but you trash her family and accuse them of doing illegal activities. Is that how people with their hearts in the right place act? Let me answer that for you-NO!!!! I know that you won’t have the courage to keep this post up and you will delete or ban me as you accuse FSP of that same thing. Lets see if you practice what you preach. I thought that this was a safe place to come without bashing but I guess that I was wrong. I am sure that Stacy’s family is disgusted by your accusations about their board, the people running the board, their family members, their friends, as they should be! How do you call yourselves “Angels for Stacy” when you have evil in your hearts? Talk is very cheap and actions speak louder than words.

    If you have any evidence of your accusations then I suggest you send it to the family and you can also PM me with it. If you don’t have evidence or clear proof of what you are saying, then you should shut your mouths and be “Angels for Stacy”.
    _____________________________

    My response:

    Hi Randy, Well..first, welcome to the site. Sorry under such circumstances. No I do not have any intentions of removing your post. I would only remove posts if you became bilegerant to other posters and/or used extreme foul language. You are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to your feelings. Please know that I did not use the word “illegal activities” in regards to the FSP fundraiser. Never. I said I’ve been deceived as well as many other posters. Please go to the thread here titled Upcoming Fundraisers and you will find more information and my personal thoughts and beliefs on what has transpired. You are free to make your own judgment on what you believe. However, let me please clarify that nobody here is evil. Nobody here is out to cause trouble or want trouble. There are legitimate conversations from many that were high level posters, moderators, and personal friends of those who manage the FSP forum and each of them has had their own experiences that have pointed the suspiciouns of the mismanagment of funds. Illegal? Probably not. Deceiving? YES. Very. Especially when the FSP donation page states other intentions of use. Please go to the FUNDRAISER thread and we can discuss further. Again, welcome to our site.

    _________________
    Life is fragile; handle with prayer…
    Do Unto Others

  17. noway406, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:44 am Said:
    Half-naked picture of anyone doesn’t need to be on the official website for a missing person.

    I said it wasn’t going to end well. And that was when there was one post after the picture. I didn’t go back after that.
    ___________________________________–

    I think it is disgusting to have something like that on a website that is supposed to be representing loving people wanting to help find Stacy Peterson. Very inappropriate. Hopefully, they will set their own forum for their ridiculous rants and raves….and leave the FSP site as an information site only. Poor Stacy. Poor Stacy’s children. Imagine their feelings to see such inappropriate content of their father half nude on the web with a bra on. Unbelievable.

  18. I checekd the stats and the coffeetalk thread used to always be at the top for number of posts, but it’s not there any more. So, my guess is either that you’ve got the pages cached on your machine or if you tend to post on coffeetalk maybe you were given access and the thread isn’t hidden for you?

  19. I’ll reboot my computer later and try. It’s too hard for me to be two places at one time!

    I will say this about the comments about whether someone paid for a plane ticket so that another person could attend the fundraiser.

    This is getting old.

    Nobody who has claimed to have proof that it is true has shown any proof.

    Personally, I wouldn’t care if they did. If they felt it was going to be a positive thing, then it’s their call.

    I will say that the person in question had PMd me and offered to show me her credit card receipt showing she had paid for her ticket. That’s more than the person who implied he/she had proof (and it was not Lavanda) has done.

  20. I agree that it is getting old. Surely the board/committee MUST be aware of the concerns. Why haven’t they said anything? Their silence speaks volumes to me.

  21. I’m not sure that silence means guilt.

    How can FSP show a receipt for something they don’t have and why should anyone be asked to show personal information to satisfy bloggers?

    It’s just another nonissue (IMO) that keep people focused somewhere other than where they should be.

  22. I never said that silence means guilt. I’m also not asking them to satify bloggers. I’m asking them to satisfty the donors that ultimately want her found just as much as they do.

    There are MANY nonissues in this case, yet they are posted about at every turn. Again, why just not a simple answer?

  23. NOWAY SAID: How can FSP show a receipt for something they don’t have and why should anyone be asked to show personal information to satisfy bloggers?

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

    Good thought, noway. I like what you said and how you got there. Agree, it’s getting, change that to gotten, old.

  24. Why the lie in the first place about the status? Then blame it on an attorney for not knowing what he was doing? Sorry, I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe.

  25. kimmer – I can’t speak for noway, but I assumed she was talking about personal receipt of J in CA to show flight charged to her own credit card, and not paid for by anyone other than her.

    Status – it’s not my issue. I donated, I assume it’ll get to the right place, as does any donation I make. I have no clue, for example, where my money wound up through Red Cross and Hurricane Katrina. Still wondering about that, since there’s so many needy people there struggling???????

  26. Guess I mean to say, if I donate or contribute my money to an organization, it’s out of my hands after that. I have to assume it’s being directed to what I intended it for. I neither want to, nor feel I have to, call or write them to verify where my particular donation was placed. If it’s misappropriated, I guess I just have to assume the proper agencies will figure all of that out eventually.

  27. My only thought on the donations disclosure issue is again, that posting about it here and asking demaning answers here is fruitless. I think if anyone has made efforts to contact them and has been ignored then the logical next step is to send a registered letter (unless you already have done so), and if that goes unanswered, call a lawyer and pursue some legal action.

    Complaining here that this other party *should* do something is essentially useless. If your attempts at communication have been ignored, then it’s obvious that they don’t care what you think they should do.

    I truly wish that those who have concerns would act on them in some meaningful way. Please, take action rather than loading up the conversation space with complaints – complaints that we are unable to help you with.

  28. rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:05 am Said:
    kimmer – I can’t speak for noway, but I assumed she was talking about personal receipt of J in CA to show flight charged to her own credit card, and not paid for by anyone other than her.
    __________________
    Yes, I was talking about whether JinC’s flight was paid for, not the donations in general or the tax status.

    I did read a post that said the IRS person had confirmed that FSP had applied for nonprofit status and that the process takes several months.

    It was not the IRS person talking, it was a blogger saying that the IRS person had said this. The blogger also said that they could continue on until the status was granted.

    It’s all just hearsay … unless I can find the actual IRS person being quoted in a good source.

  29. Facs-
    It’s just another aspect of this case that should be looked at. I supposed that since this site was run by a reporter that the questions would get asked. And as a group with these concerns, I feel it’s just as appropriate a place as any to discuss.

    Personally, I don’t feel I’ve (or really anyone here) has demanded answers from the posters here. We just want this information brought to the forefront.

    I believe by doing so those that are currently refusing to donate, will again re-commit themselves once the questions have been answered. I know I certainly would.

  30. noway – I believe that Carol lady mentioned that on the Fox video that also had a statement from Peterson’s attorney. She said, in fact, it would be helpful to have that ID# when making purchases.

    I assume she meant so they wouldn’t have to pay taxes on food purchases, etc., for events.

    I used to make purchases for my son’s school when I was on the school board, and had to show them a letter with the tax ID # to avoid paying the taxes.

  31. facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:09 am Said:
    My only thought on the donations disclosure issue is again, that posting about it here and asking demaning answers here is fruitless. I think if anyone has made efforts to contact them and has been ignored then the logical next step is to send a registered letter (unless you already have done so), and if that goes unanswered, call a lawyer and pursue some legal action.

    Complaining here that this other party *should* do something is essentially useless. If your attempts at communication have been ignored, then it’s obvious that they don’t care what you think they should do.

    ———————————————————————-
    This is the point I was trying to make here last nite, that complaining here, day after day, is non-productive.

    It probably is driving away posters who would like to discuss other things, but they have to wade thru mountains of the same gripes everyday.

  32. As of last week, the IRS had no record of anything anything anything with the name Stacy Peterson.

  33. I don’t believe any of us have told posters to not discuss other topics…that seems to be what some of you are doing to us, is it not?

  34. amanda – do I take that to mean that they also have not applied, when you say there’s no record of anything?

    I guess my question is, once a non-profit org applies for status, would that be public record?

  35. Kimmer – thanks for the thougthful answer.

    I do see a difference though in having discussions about the case here, and in airing personal grievances.

    When we discuss the case (as in the suspect, the allegations,etc.) We can all be objective. We may have strong opinions about the case and the people involved but it’s mostly on a theoretical basis so we can enjoy being armchair sleuths and debating ideas, reminding each other of facts, speculating, etc. We are detached from the particulars in that we aren’t personally involved, we aren’t going to actually try to net a suspect or press charges against any of the parties. We’ve got not personal interests at stake. We might become passionate and bring personal biases to the discussion, but it’s still very abstract. We can’t actually have an impact on the facts of the case (thank heavens).

    On the other hand, if you bring to the blog a personal issue that you have with another third party (or group), then it’s not something we can all debate about. We don’t all share the same acccess to the facts, and the people involved are anything but objective (and they have no reason to be). The other difference is that, being personally involved in this issue, you CAN take action and do something about your situation and really, you SHOULD. An issue that concerns your money and the way you were treated is something that only you can address, IMO.

  36. BTW, I’m not trying to dictate what can or can’t be discussed, only trying to point out that I don’t feel discussion of personal issues here is going to be helpful in bringing about a resolution, whereas taking action would be.

  37. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am Said:
    I have taken action, as have others.

    **********

    Ah, good. I hope it turns out well for you.

  38. “A judge says he will decide whether Drew Peterson’s guns can go to his oldest son in a hearing May 22. “

  39. This and the above from ABC news:

    “Peterson is asking the judge to turn his guns over to his son Stephen. The judge heard arguments from both sides in Will County court Tuesday morning. They were taken from Drew’s house during the investigation into the disappearance of Stacey Peterson.

    Drew has been named a person of interest in her disappearance, but he denies any involvement. “

  40. facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am Said:
    BTW, I’m not trying to dictate what can or can’t be discussed, only trying to point out that I don’t feel discussion of personal issues here is going to be helpful in bringing about a resolution, whereas taking action would be.
    _________________________
    With all due respect…The public has donated, the public is concerned about this case. It’s no longer a personal issue when the behavior is taking moneyout of the searcher’s hands to look for this woman.

  41. just as a possible murder or missing persons case on the internet is not necessarily a personal issue, people become involved & want justice.

    same applies for any possible misleadings of collections of monies. public has the right to know, especially when its tied into another possible crime.

  42. Well, once you’ve taken action, that is reported it to the proper authorities, then why continue to gripe about the situation here ad nauseum?

    It’s like having a friend who everytime you see her all she wants to talk about is “she hates her job” and eventually you get tired of hearing it & say to her:
    “If you hate your job that much, do something about it, look for another job”..

    It’s kind of like that, once you have done something about it, it’s out of your hands, let it go & hope the authorities do their job.

    Harboring resentment only hurts you, it’s not hurting admin at FSP, it’s not hurting any of the members who are still there, it’s hurting you.

    . I’m sure they could care less what you say about them, but to stew about it takes up so much of your energy & time that you could be using for much more pleasant things in your life.

  43. I believe abc local news has an inaccurate statement on its website. It should have read:

    An Illinois State police captain said Friday that the Stacy Peterson case had gone “from a missing persons case to a potential homicide case,” and that her husband, Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson, had “gone from being a person of interest to clearly being a suspect.”

  44. luvpups
    just as no case will ever be solved here there is plenty of griping about drew, brodsky & others and so well be it. unfortunately the funds are tied to the case by people that have used the case to retain the funds. i would have no problem with questioning drew petersons funds as well. both go to credibility.

  45. I pray for them everyday, so no resentments here. I post in hopes taht they will get their acts together and do the right thing so more people will want to help bring her home.

    What I do resent is that because I mention the ways they’ve gone about reporting the funds and treating Stacy’s children and their father and donators, I’ve been accused of not wanting her found.

    Now, how much sense does that make?

  46. I never saw exactly on what grounds DP’s FOID card was revoked but it might have fallen under this:

    “A person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community;

    For the purposes of this Section, “mental condition” means a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior. ”

    That whole clause looks pretty open to interpretation.

  47. cfs7360, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am Said:
    I never heard officially, but I’m guessing it’s because he’s been declared a suspect.
    __________________________
    I’d have to look, but I don’t think that is a valid reason to revoke FOID.

  48. FOID card – I think LE’s logic in revoking his FOID has to do with WHO he associates with. Mike R??????? I think that would give them a reason to take away his FOID card.

  49. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pm Said:
    cfs7360, on May 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am Said:
    I never heard officially, but I’m guessing it’s because he’s been declared a suspect.
    __________________________
    I’d have to look, but I don’t think that is a valid reason to revoke FOID.
    __________________________
    http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/6-181.pdf

  50. 1. Reason for application (new, renewal, lost, damaged card; name or address change)

    2. Have you ever been convicted of a felony?

    3. In the past 5 years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility
    used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for
    mental illness?

    4. Are you addicted to narcotics?

    5. Are you mentally retarded?

    6. Are you subject to an existing order of protection which prohibits you from possessing a firearm?

    7. Within the past 5 years, have you been convicted of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of
    an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in which a firearm was used or possessed?

    8. Have you ever been convicted of domestic battery or substantially similar offense (misdemeanor or felony)?

    9. Have you ever been adjudicated a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony?

    10 Are you an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?

  51. Under the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card Act, a card may only be revoked for specific reasons, such as a conviction for a felony or domestic battery within five years, admittance to a mental health facility, providing false information on an application for the card and being subject to an existing order of protection.

    A card also may be revoked if the cardholder’s mental condition is found to present a clear danger to the person or other people.
    #################################

    I don’t think he exercised sound judgment in continuing to associated with Mike R, especially since he’s been charged with battery against two women, I believe. That would be a possible reason?

  52. From the questions, I don’t know see anything that would keep him from getting one (of course having one revoked is probably stopping him now, but don’t see anything that would revoke card).

    That we know of.

  53. Perhaps … A card also may be revoked if the cardholder’s mental condition is found to present a clear danger to the person or other people.

    I don’t know what “is found to present” means. Would a doctor have to say that Drew’s mental condition presents a clear danger to … other people or would the stress level of his personal situation be enough.

    It just isn’t clear to me. I think they must know something the public does not. I’m not sure why JB isn’t pushing this unless they are within their rights to have done so.

  54. “For the purposes of this Section, “mental condition” means a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior. ”

    I think a judge could have considered the incident with Sharon threatening behavior’.

    I have no idea.

  55. Mims – do you mean that information about Mims telling ISP DPeterson kept a small folding gun? I don’t think they recovered it, though, prior to them revoking his FOID. Yes, they have it now, but his card had already been revoked.

  56. Just because you think somebody is bad or crazy, doesn’t make it so. It’s an opinion. As of now, Drew has not been declared mentally incompetent. So, I would wonder what real reason they have for denying his guns back.

    Not that I care either way, I don’t.

    But– seems like Brodsky would have a valid arguement in this one.

  57. I think the card was revoked before the incident (garage door?) with Sharon. I need a timeline of events that I can keep at my computer. 😀

  58. True Noway, it does appear to me that if they are going to court to try to put the guns in the hands of DP’s son, rather than DP, they probably ceded that there is justifcation for revoking the FOID and they aren’t going to fight that.

  59. noway – yes, they know something the public does not, I’d say. How else could they clearly call him a suspect in a murder investigation? They usually dance around with words when they’re investigating someone when it’s reported in the news.

    The catch phrase these days is “person of interest.” He’s not just a “person of interest,” he’s a suspect in a murder investigation. Big leap, I’d say.

  60. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Said:
    The incident with $haron was reported to the papers inaccurately.

    And Sharon has gone along with the scenario reported all this time.

  61. Have any of you seen that picture of the cadaver dog with the look of a “howl” standing in front of the garage door of DPeterson? It’s chilling. Absolutely chilling.

  62. The judge at the first hearing to release Drew’s property also released the guns, but then ISP revoked his FOID card for whatever reason, so they weren’t released. I’m sure ISP has their reasons whatever they are. I don’t have a clue, and just my reason as guessing. Not from Illinois, and things are different in my state.

  63. Kimmer what really happened with the Sahron incident? You’re talking about the day little Anthony went over on his bike aren’t you?

  64. Here’s another paragraph from a November 9 report (just a couple of weeks after SPeterson’s reported disappearance). It specifically notes that he was notified of a suspension due to a pending “internal affairs” investigation. Maybe they used a job related investigation to zap it.

    #################################

    Late Friday two Bolingbrook, Ill. police officers came to the Peterson house with written notice that Drew Peterson is no longer one of them, that pending an internal affairs investigation he is suspended from the force without pay. Peterson never came to the door.

    That happened just a few hours after a dramatic announcement from the state police captain heading up the investigation into the disappearance of Peterson’s wife, Stacy.

  65. Hmmm. Thinking about this wording. He was suspended pending an internal affairs investigation. I guess that means he was suspended “due” to the internal affairs investigation, not suspended while it was “pending.”

  66. Does anyone know if the reason for the revoking of the FOID was made public or if it has to be part of public record? If it isn’t then we could all guess until the cows come home…

  67. I remember a reporter asking him a question, it was something about if they came to arrest him would their be trouble or gun play or something and he said probably. Anyone one else remember that? That would be enough to revoke.

  68. 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…………

  69. I remember DP making an off-color remark, yes, having to do with guns. A reporter asked him something having to do with the police coming to his door and if he had his guns, could that be a problem, and he said yes, it could be. Maybe I can look it up. Guess he was just trying to be “cute.”

  70. Maybe that picture Mary2 and Mia posted of Drew half

    naked should have never been posted. I wonder if

    Mary2 or her husband are in LE.

    Mary2 and Mia are still active on FSP.

  71. Do you think maybe it was revoked because the police thought they removed all the guns from the house & then he showed Mims one he said “they missed”?

    I wonder if he should have turned that over to LE when they confiscated the other ones?

  72. Rescueapet, that would be enought I bet for the SP to

    revoke his card since they will be doing the arrest.

  73. There is absolutely a video where he made a remark that was clearly a comment made about the police coming to his door. Again, I remember him answering the reporter, when asked if it could be a problem them coming to his door, “it could be.”

  74. “it could be” a problem because of the guns or becuase he would be served search warrants, arrested? Any of those could be seen as a “problem”

  75. I remember enough of the video to know that he was being sarcastic – making a sick comment one could draw the conclusion he was saying if the cops came to his door, him having his guns could be a problem for them.

    I know that’s how he came across, because that’s the way he worded it.

  76. I thought the Mims thing was when Drew supposedly asked Mims if he could use him as a hostage if he were arrested. Is that the statement you are talking about, Kimmer?

  77. threatened the cops? anyone know where that video is? his butt should have been arrested right there on the spot if thats true.

  78. It was true but he would have just said he was joking and blah blah, but it is plenty to revoke his card on.

  79. Facs- yes.

    Rescue- So, you are telling me that DP make a quote on video that there would be a problem with the police coming to his home becuase of his guns. Seriously?

  80. Interesting reading this again. From April 2 (regarding the revocation of his FOID):

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, appealed the decision and said he is still working to get his client’s gun card back.

    “I should be hearing from the Illinois state police any day now,” Brodsky said, maintaining they had no grounds to pull Peterson’s FOID.

    “The guy had a gun card since he was 17 years old,” Brodsky said. “He never had an incident.”

    ######################

    That was a month and a half ago that he was waiting to “hear from the state police any day now.”

    Wonder what reason they gave Brodsky, and wonder why he’s not saying?

  81. truthisthere, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Said:
    It was true but he would have just said he was joking and blah blah, but it is plenty to revoke his card on.
    ______________________
    Give me as close to the direct quote as possible. Did he refer to his guns and the cops coming to his home and problem?

  82. can not remember what was said at first, but remember i went something likes this, reporter, are you saying there could be trouble if the cops try to arrest you and he said yes.

  83. kimmer: words I recall are:

    problem
    police
    door
    guns
    could be

    LOL, I know it sounds weird, but that’s about the gist of it. Good luck. I’m trying too.

    Oh, and, again, the reporter asked him if it could be a problem for the police if they came to his door, and he said “it could be.”

    Or words to that effect.

  84. if memory serves, drew was going to be under an internal investigation of sorts, then stacy went missing and he took an earlier retirement. i do remember drew stating that it was just earlier than he had planned…then there was a time when some thought that he shouldn’t get the full amount , but after the powers that be had met, it was decided that he would get full retirement. perhaps the suspension of the FOID was pending the outcome of that investigation. i was more focused on finding stacy alive and well than i will ever be about drew recieving yet more money.

  85. READ THIS IF YOU GAVE THEM MONEY:
    ********************************************************
    Last week, I called the IRS.
    (877) 829-5500

    No record, nothing.

    When you call, this is the direct line for Tax-exempt Business and Political Funds.
    You will be given the name and badge number of the worker.

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

    Truly, I hoped it would pop up, but here it is for today:
    It was last Tues that I called IRS. Today I went for SAG.

    Today is May 13, 2008

    IL Attorney General:

    As of today, there is no record of Friends of Stacy Peterson, not any organization with Stacy Peterson’s name in it.

    Resources to check it yourself:

    Office of Lisa Madigan, Secretary of State, IL
    http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/charities/search/index.jsp
    (to search the website)

    The webite states:
    Building Better Charities

    Charitable Database Search

    ——————————————————————————–

    The Charitable Database is a list of public charities and private foundations which are registered with the Attorney General’s Office and in compliance with the reporting requirements imposed upon them by Illinois law. You can search by charity name, charity number, FEIN number, city, state and/or zip code.

    By using this search engine you can obtain financial details on those charities listed in the Charitable Database. Such details include the charity’s address and county, as well as its assets and income.

    In addition, the Charitable Database includes scanned images of current complete annual financial reports filed with this Office after March 31, 2004. A complete annual financial report generally includes a charity’s Form AG990-IL and its IRS Form 990 or 990PF. A public charity’s annual financial report should include an audited financial statement if its annual gross receipts exceed $150,000 or if the charity used a paid professional fund raiser and raised contributions in excess of $25,000.

    In reviewing these reports you must remember that the charity — not the Attorney General — prepares the reports. The Attorney General does not control the information contained on the report, and consequently this Office cannot guarantee the accuracy, quality, or validity of such information.

    Please note that if a charity is not registered with this Office or has not timely filed its financial reports as required by Illinois law, information on that charity will not be available using this Charitable Database. However, the Illinois Attorney General does maintain a record of every charity ever registered with this Office. If you cannot find information on a particular charity using the Charitable Database, email us or you can call 312-814-2595 (TTY: 312-814- 3374) to find out if that charity was ever registered with this Office.
    ************************************************

    After searching the database, and no record found, I called.

    I just talked to Deborah at the number above.
    She said:
    They have not filed with the IL Attorney General.

    *********************************************************
    *********************************************************
    NEXT:
    *********************************************************
    I checked the IL Secretary of State Jesse White’s website for anything registered with them. Nada again.

    Quote:CORP/LLC – CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING

    ——————————————————————————–

    Your search for friends of stacy peterson, did not match any records in the Corporation/LLC-GS Search database.

    Please try again.

    Return to Search

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

    Quote:
    LP/LLLP/LLP/RLLP – CERTIFICATE OF EXISTENCE
    ——————————————————————————–

    Your search for friends of stacy peterson, did not match any records in the LP/LLLP/LLP/RLLP Search database.

    Please try again.

    Return to Search

    To search yourself, please go to:
    http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/home.html

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

    If you call these agencies, your calls may be monitored.

    As far as turning them in… who would you turn them in to???

    Now, the FoSP has lied, it is on record. NOW a news source needs to ask the question.

    THE PROOF IS A CALL AWAY.

    I just now spoke to Wendy, Business Services.
    312) 793-3380

    She said: There is no record, they are not registered.

  86. Well, hello, if the police come to the door of a man who’s wife is missing, then yes, I could see a problem.

    Res – I guess what my question to you is…did he threaten the police?

  87. Oh, no, he did not specifically “threaten” them. No. It was a direct question (not verbatim) – regarding his guns – could it be a problem for the police if they showed up at your door, and he said “it could be.” I just wish I could find the video or transcript.

    I remember thinking that was a chilling response, and wondered how officers might react to that kind of a statement.

  88. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Said:
    The incident with $haron was reported to the papers inaccurately.

    Kimmer is this Just Your Opinion or do you have information you would care to share??
    What were the inaccuracies??

  89. Thinking – if and when the day comes to arrest him, would they come with their guns drawn, not knowing how he might react? I don’t know what they’d do, but I’m sure they’d have to be mindful the pressure on him has to be overwhelming. You just never know.

    Like college kids that just decide to end it all, and take as many as they can with them. You just never know what someone is thinking……….

  90. lookingforthetruth, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pm Said:
    kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Said:
    The incident with $haron was reported to the papers inaccurately.

    Kimmer is this Just Your Opinion or do you have information you would care to share??
    What were the inaccuracies??
    ______________________
    I was told a totally different story by someone who was there.

  91. Here’s a further explanation I found regarding FOID revocation:

    However, Gutierrez said there is a process under which law enforcement authorities, medical personnel or family members can submit a request “with supporting documentation” asking that an individual’s FOID card be revoked.

    In the case of a request made by law enforcement “it would be based upon believing that an individual was an imminent danger to either himself or to the community,” Gutierrez said.

    Each request is considered on a case-by-case basis, Gutierrez said, and there is no set timeline for requests to be handled.

  92. Amanda, I don’t think it’s an issue that they are not registered. Would they be registered by simply filling out the application or would they only be registered when they were approved?

  93. rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm Said:
    In the case of a request made by law enforcement “it would be based upon believing that an individual was an imminent danger to either himself or to the community,” Gutierrez said.
    _________________________
    I guess Drew must fall into the “imminent danger to the community” category. Even if his comments about taking hostages and that the police at his door would be a problem.

  94. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:12 pm Said:
    I shouldn’t say totally. I’d say vastly different.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Did you or the other person notify LE?? Or the Press??

  95. Looking was too fast for me.

    My sentence should have read: I guess Drew must fall into the “imminent danger to the community” category. Even if his comments about taking hostages and that the police at his door would be a problem were said as a joke.

  96. Had he been arrested for what she told police, then yes I would have contacted them. As for the press, they too were notified, but of course we know they would NEVER report anything to upset $haron.

  97. There was no application on file.

    Now there is the ugly truth.

    TRULY, I wish someone could show me something different, but I just spent the last half-hour on the phone and searching online.

    It seems to me, that by the answers I got today from the STATE OF IL that the fund is a scam.

    And, I will be happy to say I am wrong, but this is exactly what I was told today, and I have included websites, phone numbers and names.

    Knowing this is a sick feeling. Way worse than the anger I had yesterday. Now, just sick.

  98. Yeah, I’d call being a suspect in your wife’s disappearance an imminent danger to the community.

  99. amandareckonwith, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Said:
    There was no application on file.
    ________________________
    Now that is a very interesting can of worms . . .

  100. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Said:
    Yeah, I’d call being a suspect in your wife’s disappearance an imminent danger to the community.
    _______________________
    If the police arrived at his door to arrest him, he might be.

  101. We don’t know the actual reason why the FOID was revoked though, do we. Is it a judge who made that decision? Is the decision made based on testimony by ISP?

  102. id say amandar just gave out more information than the people begging for money have been willing to do. now i know why. they have something to hide, amandar doesnt.

  103. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pm Said:
    Thought it was revoked due to something Rick Mimms said he said?
    ________________________________________

    Here are our thoughts. (my husband is an retired officer) There are two concerning events surrounding Drew Peterson and misuse of handguns which is enough to have his license revoked.

    1) is that he did not report the gunshot in his home (the one where he shot through floor and barely missed stacy in the garage/ or if you believe his story…the one that stacy accidentally fired his firearm.
    and
    2) the fact that it was stated at the GJ that Drew told Rick Mims that he may have to “pretend” to hold him hostage with his fold up gun should the cops come in and try to arrest him. He wanted to “buy team” by putting a “fake” hostage situation together in order for his son to get to his home timely to remove the children so that the Cales/Savio’s wouldn’t take them.

    Also, it’s possible because he was in possession of the fold up gun during the presentation of the search warrant and did not “offer it up” that could be a 3d reason.

    Basically, the courts have fears that he has already mismanaged the use and want to prevent further potential problems. It’s also possible if Sharon has an existing order of protection, that in itself could bring about the termination of his card.

  104. Cool ! So is my father. He was the Chief. My husband was able to retire early as he had years of military, as well. Boy do I wish I could retire early! Especially days like today! YIKES!

  105. amandareckonwith, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Said:
    There was no application on file.

    Now there is the ugly truth.

    TRULY, I wish someone could show me something different, but I just spent the last half-hour on the phone and searching online.

    It seems to me, that by the answers I got today from the STATE OF IL that the fund is a scam.

    And, I will be happy to say I am wrong, but this is exactly what I was told today, and I have included websites, phone numbers and names.

    Knowing this is a sick feeling. Way worse than the anger I had yesterday. Now, just sick.
    _________________________________–

    All I can say is that I sure hope that you are wrong. Perhaps the app was completed but it is not on file until they go to review it? Hence if it is still “pending” maybe having it “on file” isn’t in the system?

  106. lavandadolce, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm Said:
    amandareckonwith, on May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Said:
    There was no application on file.

    Now there is the ugly truth.

    TRULY, I wish someone could show me something different, but I just spent the last half-hour on the phone and searching online.

    It seems to me, that by the answers I got today from the STATE OF IL that the fund is a scam.

    And, I will be happy to say I am wrong, but this is exactly what I was told today, and I have included websites, phone numbers and names.

    Knowing this is a sick feeling. Way worse than the anger I had yesterday. Now, just sick.
    _________________________________–

    All I can say is that I sure hope that you are wrong. Perhaps the app was completed but it is not on file until they go to review it? Hence if it is still “pending” maybe having it “on file” isn’t in the system?
    _________________________________
    I sure hope it is because the application is sitting in the Inbox at someone’s desk.

    This certainly doesn’t look good.

    I just hope there is some mistake and it’s not what it appears to be.

  107. According to the news article it quotes Sharon as saying it was applied and it’s the IRS who has a backlog:

    <<<<<>>>

  108. Bychowski said the group has also reimbursed boat operators for fuel and privately-owned cadaver dog groups for their services.

    To help organize funds raised, Bychowski said Friends of Stacy Peterson applied for non-profit status in January. The group has received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service confirming receipt of the application but has not received an approval or denial, she said.

    Attempts to reach IRS officials to verify the application’s status were unsuccessful Tuesday but the IRS Web site says there is a backlog of applications, which is causing delays in processing.

    Bychowski said the group, with the help of an accountant, has also begun keeping inventory of donations, Stacy Peterson T-shirts, signs and other items. The group will also begin listing quarterly reports on http://www.FindStacyPeterson.com next quarter.

    “We already sat down with an accountant before we spent a dime of that money,” Bychowski said. “There sure is a lot more to this than I ever thought there would be.”

  109. “Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky, though, said the judge’s comments “indicate very strongly” that he plans to order the weapons be released to Peterson’s son.

    “Based on what the judge said, I’m fairly certain,” Brodsky said after the hearing.”

  110. lavandadolce, on May 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm Said:
    Bychowski said the group has also reimbursed boat operators for fuel and privately-owned cadaver dog groups for their services.

    To help organize funds raised, Bychowski said Friends of Stacy Peterson applied for non-profit status in January. The group has received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service confirming receipt of the application but has not received an approval or denial, she said.

    Attempts to reach IRS officials to verify the application’s status were unsuccessful Tuesday but the IRS Web site says there is a backlog of applications, which is causing delays in processing.

    Bychowski said the group, with the help of an accountant, has also begun keeping inventory of donations, Stacy Peterson T-shirts, signs and other items. The group will also begin listing quarterly reports on http://www.FindStacyPeterson.com next quarter.

    “We already sat down with an accountant before we spent a dime of that money,” Bychowski said. “There sure is a lot more to this than I ever thought there would be.”

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

    lavanda and everyone, I am afraid I have bad news then. I just got off the phone.

    No one is going to like what I have to say:

    I just spoke with Laura Botkin Badge #1757017, IRS.

    The FoSP is not registered, has no application, and does not qualify under US law for Tax-exempt status.
    She told me that the Federal Government is the only entity that regulates 501(c)(3) and they do not have it, nor will have it.

    I asked if I should then check regularly with a state agency.

    She said: “You can do what you want to do ma’am, but they do not qualify as a tax-exempt organization.”

  111. I invite anyone and everyone in doubt to do what I did today. I verified it myself. An effort finding the info you can skip…

    I provided all the numbers. Upthread a few posts.

    Pathetic, sad, and most of all — sickening.

  112. amanda – I don’t dispute for a minute what you say, or what you were told. I have to deal with the IRS for matters pertaining to my elderly mother, and I got 5 different people, with five different answers as to how I should handle something.

    They don’t know any more than the man on the moon. I’m not criticizing you or what you did, I’m just saying that the people who answer the phones use computers to decipher what they want to tell you as an answer.

    In other words, you pick the answer you like the best. The next one might not fit the question!

  113. were these specially trained boat owners or professionals on those boats lavonda? cadaver dogs? what organization came in with their dogs? the last anyone was told lately is that no dog team had come in. nobody has seen these dog teams either. very strange.

  114. Oh, and to boldly make a statement on on video, on tv, that they have, in fact, filed for non-profit status, that is an out and out lie is just incomprehensible.

    What I don’t understand is why, if you were able to find this out in the course of an afternoon, for free, Brodsky didn’t have his hired goons do it and run to the news agencies with it. That defies logic.

  115. And if this is, according to Laura Botkin Badge #1757017, IRS, why in heaven’s name didn’t she tell you who to call to start the process rolling about shutting them down immediately?

    In fact, why isn’t the IRS and the Illinois Dept of Revenue shutting them down?

  116. #
    truthisthere, on May 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Said:

    Word is ILY is banned from FSP
    ############################

    What does that mean? Who is ILY

  117. Yeah, I wish if people wanted to *bleep* and moan about othr websites they could just start up their own website to do it…

  118. Was tickled pink that DiP didn’t get his guns back…

    Not so tickled about the fact that his son Stephen might end up with them, though…

  119. Don’t have much to say about the tax exempt status- except that I hope it all gets straightened out soon…

  120. rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm Said:
    And if this is, according to Laura Botkin Badge #1757017, IRS, why in heaven’s name didn’t she tell you who to call to start the process rolling about shutting them down immediately?

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

    In fact, why isn’t the IRS and the Illinois Dept of Revenue shutting them down?

    I don’t think there is anybody who’d shut them down, or want to.

    I don’t even know that what they’re doing is illegal. It is just dishonest to say they are this that and the other when it is not true and never will be true.

    As far as why Brodsky doesn’t do something, c’mon, just think of the bad press.

    Plus, he’s a lawyer, he knows if it’s legal. I bet it is legal, just a scam when they say the applied for___whatever.

    They lied. My faith is now totally lost. Before today I thought they were liars, now I know for a fact.

    rescue, I am tired of it. Discouraged, disheartened, sick really.

  121. I thought the main point was to find Stacy alive or not, and prosecute the guilty party for her, and Kathleen’s, murders?

    That IS still the point of this reporter’s blog, right?

  122. amanda – I know you’re tired of it. I think we can all say we’re tired of a lot of things, really. Everyone here is united in wanting to see justice done. Yes, it is disheartening to me, too, to see a lot of things said or done that I don’t agree with, and makes me even cringe sometimes. That’s always going to be the way it is, because this is just such a passionate circumstance.

    I think it’s just that as more times passes, it gets harder and harder to stay focused on the issues at hand.

    Don’t worry, if there’s something going on and it’s not according to the rules/guidelines/laws of the State or Government, it’ll get dealt with.

    I don’t want to believe that anyone is intentionally trying to deceive anyone, and I certainly don’t want us bloggers to be at each other’s throats over it.

    I’d much rather get in a heated discussion over why cameras won’t be in the court room when Brodsky fires up his line of defense, then over a tax-exempt filing, or lack of it.

    Your fellow blogger.

  123. How ’bout I break the ice and post OT for just a fraction of a minute? Who’s gonna get kicked off DWTS tonight?????

    🙂

  124. IMO, it sounds as if the application has still not been processed yet. I can see why you are concerned Amanda, but I’m still not convinced of wrongdoing. Time will tell…

    Just for fun I went to the IRS site and dug around. OMG. There must be a circle in hell where people endlessly attempt to file for tax-exempt status. Just looking at what is involved gave me hives.

  125. I hate the IRS. I hate the letters they stand for, I hate to say those letters in succession, I hate to dial their numbers, and I think anyone that works for the IRS is a traitor, LOL. In fact, I think anyone that works for the IRS should grow warts all over their face and turn green!

    Think I’ve made myself clear?

  126. i agree with amandar that noone wants them shut down just be forthcoming & let people decide if they want to donate based on the truth not on deception.

  127. rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm Said:
    Oh, and to boldly make a statement on on video, on tv, that they have, in fact, filed for non-profit status, that is an out and out lie is just incomprehensible.

    What I don’t understand is why, if you were able to find this out in the course of an afternoon, for free, Brodsky didn’t have his hired goons do it and run to the news agencies with it. That defies logic.
    _______________________________
    The media will not touch this story. They would be cut off immediately from FSP.

  128. LOL, looing, the IRS apparently can do anything they want. Did you ever make a math mistake on your Tax Return? They’ll chew you up and spit you out. Under report income – they’ll take you away in handcuffs!!!!

    They’re evil, the IRS is.

  129. luvpups, on May 13th, 2008 at 6:13 pm Said:
    Sure will be quiet around here if FSP is gone. What will they talk about???
    _____________________________
    We’ve also discussed other aspects of this case. You sound bitter?

  130. We are going to turn this board into the

    SEARCH FOR FSP

    We will take donations to just for greeds sake.

  131. I keep hearing they turned away professional teams, but where does this info come from? Are the professional teams themselves telling this to people?

    Bitter, no, just tired of the harping on the same subject day in & day out. Glad someone finally went to IRS about it & did something.

    Maybe now we can all discuss other things about the CASE, than the FSP board.

  132. Excuse me while I run around waving my arms in the air. It’s ALL about FSP. Everything. EVERYTHING!

    No, I don’t just mean what we talk about here. I mean EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!

    CHINESE EARTHQUAKES. TERRORISTS IN JAIPUR. CHEMTRAILS. BALLOTS. PROSTITUTION RINGS.

    Sorry. Lost it there for a minute.

  133. I was told first hand that a professional SAR team was prepared to come out and at the last minute was told no by. When she asked why, offered credentials, etc…she was banned. Why would a committee do that?

  134. I had posted earlier that a site for a missing person should not even have a forum or message board. There is always trouble.

    Most people find that out & eliminate them and make it an informational site only.

    Sounds like that forum has had problems from day one & should have shut down a long time ago.

    I had read somethings at another site early on & was afraid to go near it, honestly!!

  135. This is the FIRST time I’ve seen the State’s Attorney’s Office refer to “two 1st degree murder charges” during any court proceeding regarding Drew Peterson. Wow.

    Assistant State’s Atty. John Connor argued Thursday it would be inappropriate to relinquish the firearms in the middle of an investigation into “possibly two 1st degree murder charges.”

  136. Wow, they really referred to it a possibly two 1st degree murder charges?

    Is that on the homepage here?

  137. I’m not believing for one minute that professional search teams were turned away. I would have to see some proof of that. It is hard enough to find volunteers for searching, and then to say that professionals are turned away??? Nope, there must be more to that story, for sure.

  138. Danya was given the information to confirm about the search teams. That is the only one I’ve actually confirmed.

    Why did TX Equisearch leave again?

  139. Apache – would you believe that many that asked about donations were accused of not wanting Stacy found?

  140. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Said:
    The incident with $haron was reported to the papers inaccurately.
    kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 6:32 pm Said:
    I was told first hand that a professional SAR team was prepared to come out and at the last minute was told no by. When she asked why, offered credentials, etc…she was banned. Why would a committee do that?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Kimmer78 you sound like you are very closely involved in this case.
    Perhaps you are LE?? A neighbor??

  141. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm Said:
    Apache – would you believe that many that asked about donations were accused of not wanting Stacy found?

    ********

    I can totally see why they might accuse you of that. Not that it was valid. They might have suspected that you were just trying to get dirt on them so that they could be discredited – kind of like Brodsky is trying to do now.

    They have a lot to fear from Brodsky. Until his client his charged, his only job is to dicredit and spread rumors about the people who can hurt his client.

    You understand that I’m in no way saying that you might be doing that. But I can see how they might perceive it that way.

  142. BTW, Huge, incredible news. FSP is back online and JulieinCA is still on the memebership list.

    Man, the BS that floats through this place….

  143. You know what I have to say about Brodsky today? I hope this “news” about the guns drops like a lead balloon. Otherwise, he’ll be booking himself all over the tv shows again like a peacock strutting it’s feathers.

    I’m more interested in the Court’s decision regarding the teens and the GJ. Now, that’s important.

  144. I wonder what would happen if the kids couldn’t plead the 5th and they still refused to testify.

  145. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:49 pm Said:
    Asking why stickers were being sold out of village hall is collecting dirt?

    ********

    They might see it that way if they thought that your asking was an attempt to discredit them.

  146. facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:50 pm Said:
    kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:49 pm Said:
    Asking why stickers were being sold out of village hall is collecting dirt?

    ********

    They might see it that way if they thought that your asking was an attempt to discredit them.
    ____________________________
    Why are they so paranoid? I just don’t get it.

  147. nothing can discredit anyone if a person answers truthfully. in other words, if theres nothing to hide, no discredit there.

  148. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:51 pm Said:

    I wonder what would happen if the kids could plead the 5th and they still refused to testify.
    #########################

    I’m not sure if this is correct, but I think the atty DP hired would actually be instructing them how to testify before the GJ, when they finally do so. If they’re granted immunity, then I assume the atty would guide them beforehand on what they need to do as far as answering questions.

  149. If they’re given immunity, then I guess they can be held in contempt just as any other witness. Seems like those kids can’t win for losing, huh?

    Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?

    In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.

    What happens if a witness is found in contempt?

    A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury. A witness who testifies falsely may be separately prosecuted for perjury.

  150. I am wondering how they were able to delay the boys’ testimony for so long. I’ve heard the term, ‘continuance’, and think it’s typically used as a stall tactic. But I can’t see how they’ve stalled for this long.

    But, believe me, I have NO desire to place stress and anxiety on those two boys. They have lost two mothers in their lives, and that makes me very sad. I just hope that they have the perseverance to overcome.

  151. My understanding is that defense lawyers are not allowed in the courtroom during grand jury testimony, nor are they allowed access to the transcript.

    My concern is that the two boys will be grilled by Brodsky on what questions were asked and their answers.

    That is, in my book, a lose-lose situation for those boys. It makes me sick.

  152. Honestly, I think about when I was their age. After learning so much about Drew’s personality, I can tell you that if I were in their shoes, I would just innocently have ‘forgotten’ the details. Living with Drew, I suspect those two boys walk around on eggshells. I can envision myself as just not wanting to be involved, as bad as that sounds. The repercussions would not be worth the testimony, if there were a lengthy time between their testimony and his arrest.

  153. 58apache. It’s very sad about the boys. I don’t care how many times I hear JB saying they’re well adjusted, honor students, and DP saying they’re “bored” with the news reports, when all is said and done, they have to face every birthday, every Mother’s Day, every Christmas without a mother. That is just not right when you’re 13 and 15, and you’ve been through it twice. Just not right!

    And, no matter what happens, they lose. If their father is charged and goes away, their lives will change even more. They’ll, most likely, have to move away from their home, their friends, everything.

    If Drew’s son and DIL are going to take in those four children, what a responsibility for them, not even being 30 years old, newly married, and having four minors to raise.

    Whew. What a mess.

  154. Apache- maybe I missed it, but I asked you a question earlier and you didn’t answer. I know I’ve asked previous questions to you without answers. Are doing hit and run posts and then ignoring my questions. I’m sure that’s not it, I’m sure it’s that there is alot to read here.

  155. I agree. I am very concerned for the children. There is so much nurturing that needs to be occuring for the younger two. With all the stress of building a defense case, I just can’t see how Drew can give them what they need at this time in their lives.

    I sit here and shake my head because I can’t imagine what those kids are going through. What bothers me the most about the younger two is that they were told their mom went on vacation.

    Then I envision them going to the window to see if she is driving up in the driveway, home from her vacation. That bothers me the most — the anticipation that she will return. I don’t wish that on any child.

  156. Wow … lots going on while I was gone. I have to say that as far as I know, not everyone was banned for asking about coffee talk.

  157. I did not see the question previously as I was talking to my mom on the phone.

    I don’t know anything about those who asked about donations. Since I was not involved I can’t answer nor respond. Sorry.

  158. No worries, I understand. My mom calls at the most in-opportune times too…LOL.

    I’m telling you, when I questioned the sale of stickers at village hall and asked for the tax id number, I was personally accused of not wanting SP found.

  159. This is a post on another thread. No, not the one you are thinking:

    Kathleen Savio stated that within 5 yrs of her marriage to DP (in 1992), she began receiving letters about DP having an affair. The article I read said that the letters referred to Stacey. Five years would have been 1997. Stacey would have been 13 yrs old. I wonder who sent those letters to Kathleen.
    ________________________
    So, was Stacy dating Drew when she was 13 or was he seeing another 16-year old?

  160. No, no, no…

    Stacy was supposedly 17 when DiP started dating her- which would have been back in 2001/2002.

  161. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 8:50 pm Said:
    I’m telling you, when I questioned the sale of stickers at village hall and asked for the tax id number, I was personally accused of not wanting SP found.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Is it legal for a Public Employee to be selling items from a Municipal/Goverment building, on work time??
    Work time payed for from Public funds??

  162. Found this on acandyrose:

    12/00/2001 Anonymous Letter sent to Kathleen Savio Peterson (AS IS TRANSCRIPT)
    Transcribed by “dethead”

    “Kathy,

    This letter is being sent to you for your benefit. At this point and time you are probably well aware that your husband is having an affair. The girl’s name (and she is just that, a girl) is stacy Yelton born 7/17/1984, resides at Preston Apt-129 Bolingbrook,Il.

    You may already have all of this information but if not, you will need it to prevent andy further embarrassment and disgrace to you and your family. This affair has been going on for several months and several people have been aware of this situation. Because of her age (17) and the fact that she is an employee of the village and because of Drew’s age and his occupation, he holds a position of authprity over her. drew could be charged criminally for his intimate involvement with this minor.”
    ________________________
    Looks like the poster in my post above had the date wrong. 1997 versus 2001?

  163. FYI, they are deleting posts faster than a blink at FSP. If you had anything over there you’d like to save, go get it now.

    I smell a cover up!

  164. So never mind. The person was trying to link Christie Cales’ disappearance with disapproval of Stacy dating Drew. Moving onto something else.

  165. lookingforthetruth, on May 13th, 2008 at 8:56 pm Said:
    kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 8:50 pm Said:
    I’m telling you, when I questioned the sale of stickers at village hall and asked for the tax id number, I was personally accused of not wanting SP found.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Is it legal for a Public Employee to be selling items from a Municipal/Goverment building, on work time??
    Work time payed for from Public funds??
    ________________________________________
    I never questioned the legalities of it, as I’m not an attorney and don’t know. As a tax payer, I had valid questions as I do pay those salaries.

  166. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm Said:
    FYI, they are deleting posts faster than a blink at FSP. If you had anything over there you’d like to save, go get it now.

    I smell a cover up!
    ____________________
    How do you know they are deleting posts?

  167. noway406, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:05 pm Said:
    kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm Said:
    FYI, they are deleting posts faster than a blink at FSP. If you had anything over there you’d like to save, go get it now.

    I smell a cover up!
    ____________________
    How do you know they are deleting posts?
    _____________________________________
    Post count numbers have changed for several members between yesterday, today and now. Also, the deleting of posts is a regular occurance there.

  168. And how are you paying their salaries, kimmer, when you don’t live in Bolingbrook? You’re full of it. It had nothing to do with tax money and everything to do with trying to cause trouble for anyone and everyone connected to FSP. Why don’t you try telling the truth for once? All I’ve ever seen you post here is lies.

    And coffee talk is gone. So all of the posts in it are gone. That would probably drop the post count of quite a few members drastically.

  169. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm Said:
    Post count numbers have changed for several members between yesterday, today and now. Also, the deleting of posts is a regular occurance there.
    __________________________________
    Mine have but I thought that was because the off-topic coffee talk was removed.

    And, yes, offensive posts are removed.

    Same as here.

  170. And maybe removed from the public viewing is a better description. They are not deleted. I don’t have any fact to back that up, it’s just my opinion.

  171. wewillfindstacy, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm Said:
    And how are you paying their salaries, kimmer, when you don’t live in Bolingbrook? You’re full of it. It had nothing to do with tax money and everything to do with trying to cause trouble for anyone and everyone connected to FSP. Why don’t you try telling the truth for once? All I’ve ever seen you post here is lies.

    And coffee talk is gone. So all of the posts in it are gone. That would probably drop the post count of quite a few members drastically.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    How do you know where I do or don’t live? Do or don’t own property? Do or don’t pay taxes?

    What lies have I told…come on, I’ll play…whatcha got?

  172. Hurm, my post count changed too, but none of the important ones I made are missing, so it’s all good. A little weird, but no biggie. It IS their board, so no complaints from me.

  173. wewillfindstacy, i dont believe that kimmer is lying. as for the monies, amandar showed absolute proof of the lies but still it’s debated. when someone stated drew threatened police on video, no proof yet we’re suppose to accept that as fact.

  174. theoriginalsami, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm Said:
    . . . as for the monies, amandar showed absolute proof of the lies but still it’s debated.
    __________________
    None of us want to believe it’s true. We want there to be an explanation like ‘the application is in Joe Smith’s Inbox, and he’s been on medical leave for the last 4 months.’

    The sky is always blue in my world. 😉

  175. Well, since I can only assume that was a hit and run post, I’m not going to hold my breath for a response. Sleep time for me…nite all.

    I’ve said it time and time again, I’ve got nothing to hide. But I’d be weary of posting personal information on the internet.

    Pray for a resolution.

  176. noway406 i went on that site looking to support them not to take them down. as time went on & the behavior got out of hand, i started to pull back. then i saw the way they treated people that asked about searches and money so i asked myself. was screamed at like i just committed murder & banned in a new york minute.

    noone went in looking for them to lie, it just happened. we all wished it wasnt that way.

  177. Yes, t.o.sami, I understand what you’re saying. This is such an emotional issue (domestic violence, missing woman, accused husband) that many of us did not have our finest moment on that site. And that includes me. Very much so.

  178. theoriginalsami, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm Said:

    wewillfindstacy, i dont believe that kimmer is lying. as for the monies, amandar showed absolute proof of the lies but still it’s debated. when someone stated drew threatened police on video, no proof yet we’re suppose to accept that as fact.
    #######################

    First of all, some ASKED if the reference to a video a couple of us remember seeing about DPeterson making snide remarks about guns and the police coming to his door, was a threat. YOU said threat. I NEVER said threat, so we’re clear on that. If and when I can find the video, I will post it. But NO ONE said he threatened the police, okay?

  179. This was my post after another blogger first mentioned it. I think it was truthis. Can’t remember. But was mentioned first, and then I said yes, I remember seeing that video:

    #######################
    rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Said:

    I remember enough of the video to know that he was being sarcastic – making a sick comment one could draw the conclusion he was saying if the cops came to his door, him having his guns could be a problem for them.

    I know that’s how he came across, because that’s the way he worded it.

  180. . kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm Said:
    So, you’re saying he threatened the police?

    facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Said:
    I thought the Mims thing was when Drew supposedly asked Mims if he could use him as a hostage if he were arrested. Is that the statement you are talking about, Kimmer?

    theoriginalsami, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm Said:
    threatened the cops? anyone know where that video is? his butt should have been arrested right there on the spot if thats true.

    rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:40 pm Said:
    it’s true.

    ———————————————————————–

    looks as though this was confirmation of saying he threatened.

  181. truthisthere, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm Said:
    Kimmer, he made one to Ric Mimms and a reporter.

    truthisthere, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm Said:
    There is a video of the one when he tells the reporter.

    rescueapet, on May 13th, 2008 at 1:15 pm Said:
    There is absolutely a video where he made a remark that was clearly a comment made about the police coming to his door. Again, I remember him answering the reporter, when asked if it could be a problem them coming to his door, “it could be.”
    ___________________
    It’s hard to quote all of it because there were other topics being discussed.

    I don’t know that any of us said he threatened the police but Drew has a way of saying something and claiming he was joking. Saying it with a laugh … IMO

    I do want to see the video but am too tired to look tonight and don’t have much luck with video on this computer anyway.

    You all have a nice night …

  182. I just want it clear that I NEVER said what was insinuated by sami, who said:

    when someone stated drew threatened police on video, no proof yet we’re suppose to accept that as fact.

    ##############
    No, you’re not supposed to accept anything. I was answering another blogger about remembering a video.

    Just want to set the record straight, okay?

  183. Sami and Kim – I’m sorry but I was actually already laughing back when you were repeatedly posting the “So are you saying he was threatening the police”? It was an absolutelylaughable attempt. After Rescue had CLEARLY stated that he was being sarcastic.

    You guys are so transparent. If you aren’t being paid by Brodsky you truly should be.

    THAT’s why people suspect you. You deserve every suspicion flung in your direction.

  184. personally i would have pause to go to anyone’s door suspected of murder if they had guns. i just wanted to see the video.

  185. Rescue, everyone here who isn’t delusional and can read understnads that you never stated that Drew was threatening the police in that video.

    BTW, I could almost see the drool when one of these people asked you if you could “quote it as closely as possible”. My, that was rich.

  186. Trust me, I’ve been going thru tons of videos. It’s very hard, there’s a lot of them, and I don’t remember which news station it was. I try to back up something I bring out whenever I can. I know if someone mentions something, I would like to see it to. I was not the only blogger here who remembers that smart ass making an off-color remark about police coming to his door and him having his guns! But, I was not the one to bring it up first either, so I know there is such a video!

  187. sure facsmiley, anything you say. it’s perfectly allright for u or others to hound kimmer about proof of search teams or of the monies but when someone makes a clear innuendo about drew threatening, whoa, back off, huh?

  188. theoriginalsami, on May 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm Said:
    ok, ill bite facsmiley. would that mean that you’re sharon? same thing.

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

    Let’s see, if a = b and b = c, then a = c.

    Therefore, if you’re laying down a load of crap, and I catch you out in a load of crap, then I must be Sharon. Bingo!!!

    It’s a master stroke of logic. I think it actually may have brought a tear to my eye.

    No wait, I was laughing again.

  189. Sami, I’ve never asked for proof of anything at all. I’ve only urged those with concerns to pursue the civic and legal avenues open to them to resolve those issues.

  190. as much as i hate to leave the two of you, i do work in the morning. maybe you two can have some alone time to gear up & make some more accusations of us being paid by drew, being drew, being brodsky or hey, maybe we’re paid by brodsky. yea, that sounds like a good debate when all else fails.

  191. bye the way facsmiley, i was making a point in saying you must be sharon, just a point. i dont believe it for one minute but just wanted to point out that as foolish as that sounds, so is accusing kimmer or i as being drew, brodsky or being paid by them. just a point. good night.

  192. oh, sami, get off it. no one pays any attention to you. They humor you. What other choice do they have. Go take a valium. Ooops, that wasn’t nice. Gotta play nice.

  193. oh, and when you’re not around, I’ll be sure and bring it to the attention of truth is that you insinuated she made unfounded allegations, when all we were doing was discussing a video, that YOU turned into a threat, and now YOU are ragging me about.

    Get your head on straight and quit trying to be such a hard ass. I actually tried to get along with you today, and you start your usual ice queen crap!

  194. Actually, I might just take up having a nip or two when “that one” gets on (it’s my own private jab). I think it goes “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em!

  195. Who knows. For now I’m off to bed. I’m annoyed with the set ups that I see happening here every day.

    Like, asking about Steve C, hoping people will bash him and then they can compare him to Stacy and how it’s OK to bash him and not her.

    Like, asking about Drew’s FOID card as a way to fish for what’s perceived about him.

    It’s not conversation about the people or the case, it’s being set up. It’s especially apparent when someone throws out a question and if they don’t get an answer, they complain and then usually end up exposing that they already knew the answer. A la,

    Anyone know why Drew’s FOID card was revoked?
    *cricket* *cricket*
    Wasn’t it something to do with something Ric Mims said?
    *cricket* *cricket*
    Wasn’t it because he said he’d need Mims as a hostage?
    Wah!! Stop bashing Drew!!!

    I’m not stupid, I’m not blind and I’m honestly just tired at the fishing and baiting attempts. And that’s another way that they cast suspicion upon themselves. They don’t want to be the ones to have the ‘bashing’ quotes attached to their names, so they try to bait someone else into actually making the post.

    Now, THAT’s trashy.

    I’m tired and I have a headache and now I’m going to bed.

    Sleep well.

  196. I have a legitimate question. I hope those posting are willing to answer me.

    While some are willing to accuse others of being “spys” or what-have-you, why is it that many are posting here AND at FSP under different names? If what you are posting is merely your opinions, then why can’t you use the same names from forum to forum? The only ones here that I am aware that speak their opinions and have no problem in representing themselves, from forum to forum, is the following:
    Amanda
    Fiesty
    Kimmer
    Me (lavanda)
    basherette
    Noway

    Sorry for asking but right now I’m a bit concerned over a lot of pettiness and the pretending has to stop. What I mean by pretending is that if one cannot use the same screen name that represents their opinions from forum to forum, then it says to me they have something to hide. At least that is my perception since last night.

    Call me naive. However, those of you who have frequented my boards have asked to remain “anonymous” on my board for fear of being banned. I understood. I didn’t care. But since I started getting emails with “cryptic” messages that “You ought to be ashamed”…without any adult conversation to state WHAT I should be ashamed of…I’ve decided that I am only responding to people who have no agenda’s, do not care if they are found to “associate with me, or my site”. If one has to keep me as thier “secret friend”….then something is not right after all. I learned that when those same friends call me and/or email me and are upset with me…..and I find it very hard to believe it’s because I questioned where the fund money is going. Why are there no divers, professional boat searches, professional SAR teams. Sorry but I can’t help having those feelings. All those were around when Stacy first went missing and there certainly was not the funds in the FSP donation link then as there is now.

    One thing about me. I have no secret agenda’s. I don’t change my opinions from forums to forums to get people to “like me”. I am who I am and my opinions are my opinions. Just like everyone else, I’ve a right to question what I believe….and I’ve a right to question what I find puzzling.

    That’s all I have to say. I’ve never deceived anyone.

    I’ve nothing to feel ashamed of. Enough said.

  197. By the way, If I left your “screenname” out above…it’s only because I am not aware if you do use the same name from forum to forum because I only know you from this one. So please do not think that I am suspect of you. Fact is, right now the only ones I am suspect of….are the ones who supposedly say they are my friend but want to keep me secret. I can’t help feeling that after the “you ought to be ashamed” email I received last night…………with no reference as to what on earth I should be ashamed of? I don’t have time in my day to decipher lies that may have been stated about me………..I really don’t care anymore. I am who I am. My thoughts are consistent from board to board because they are my thoughts and true opinions. What more can I say?

  198. kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 10:56 am Said:
    I never said that silence means guilt. I’m also not asking them to satify bloggers. I’m asking them to satisfty the donors that ultimately want her found just as much as they do.
    _____________________________

    Kimmer, I’ve come to find out that I now lean towards “silence is guilt”. Shame, isn’t it? Why once being banned have the ADM refused to respond to email inquiries? Why the silence? Why when questioned regarding the funds…..silence? What else is there to think when “silence” is the response? Maybe I’m wrong, but to me ….silence by the committee and no return emails to inquiries certainly is a heads up. At least in my book of communications.

  199. rescue sry i must have missed the questioning of me putting admins name out there. he put it out there on his board , in the newspapers. he advertised his myspace(which is private now) for good reasons cuz it was filled with going to raves, doing estacy, djing ect & a whole lot of cats, the bank he works at ect. so really its common knowledge

  200. Just to set it straight, I asked for as close to the quote as possible, since I did not see or hear anything about what was supposedly said. Hardly baiting anyone. Paranoia, yes?

  201. kimmer – I realize that. No problem with you either.

    Sami threw out one of her usual digs, and I was offended by her accusation, as I usually am. In all honestly, she doesn’t play nice with the other kids. It gets old. Oh, well.

  202. what exactly was the dig rescueapet? i was responding to wewillfindstacys accusations about kimmer lying. if u read correctly i pointed out that the innuedoes of drew threatening the cops without proof of video. u need to take that & make it some sort of dig then have had it. im getting very tired of ur baiting.

  203. wewillfindstacy said:

    wewillfindstacy, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm Said:
    And how are you paying their salaries, kimmer, when you don’t live in Bolingbrook? You’re full of it. It had nothing to do with tax money and everything to do with trying to cause trouble for anyone and everyone connected to FSP. Why don’t you try telling the truth for once? All I’ve ever seen you post here is lies.

    And coffee talk is gone. So all of the posts in it are gone. That would probably drop the post count of quite a few members drastically.
    —————————————————————————
    i answered:

    theoriginalsami, on May 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm Said:
    wewillfindstacy, i dont believe that kimmer is lying. as for the monies, amandar showed absolute proof of the lies but still it’s debated. when someone stated drew threatened police on video, no proof yet we’re suppose to accept that as fact.

    —————————————————————————how is my post a dig & wewillfindstacy legit?

  204. facsmiley, on May 13th, 2008 at 10:01 pm Said:
    Rescue, everyone here who isn’t delusional and can read understnads that you never stated that Drew was threatening the police in that video.

    BTW, I could almost see the drool when one of these people asked you if you could “quote it as closely as possible”. My, that was rich.
    _________________________________
    I was referring to this incendiary when I made my remark. Just one more hit and runner.

  205. Lavanda, I am a Bear of Very Little Brain.

    Too many usernames and I would not be able to function. One is enough … and having to add the 406 here keeps throwing me! 😀

  206. Coffe talk maybe gone, but there is a very high poster wiht ZERO posts now. Lavanda, I’m not a member there and this is the only place I blog, but I do go over to read updates on things of interest to me. I just saw too much “unrelated” stuff going on there and didn’t want to join.

    I also remember Drew saying that it could be a problem if the police came to get him or whatever the exact words were, and I’m trying to find that video as well. So many are no longer available for viewing now though.

    One other thought about the teens and the GJ…..I thought maybe they were waiting for the boys to get out of school since this would probably be very unsettling for them and they may have a difficult time dealing with it afterwards. Just thought it might impact their school work and whatever else they may be involved in at the moment. Only my opinion, since the GJ may be in session for several weeks longer. I’m sure Drew is trying to come up with any excuse to keep them from testifying that the GJ might accept.

    Curious about the tax exempt status too. Looks like someone “in the know” from FSP would come forward to lay all of this speculation and innuendo to rest about whether an application has been made or not, and if they were refused tax exempt status.

  207. BTW, yes I’ve seen Sharon and Carol on interviews stating application has been made and they’ve not been assigned tax exempt status yet, so I guess in effect they have stated that.

  208. That’s a good thought on waiting until the kids are out of school to testify.

    I really can’t imagine why Drew would not want them to testify if he is innocent. Any thoughts on this? I mean what would be more traumatizing: Testifying before the GJ if your Dad is innocent OR having your Dad go to prison because you didn’t testify on his behalf? (An assumption on my part that Drew will go to prison.)

  209. According to the IRS, Sharon and Carol lied.

    I know I am not the only person who called, same results. The IRS says they are not eligible for 501(c)3) and the feds are the ones who regulate it, not the state.

    Now, for the state, I called SAG, went to site. Called SOS, went to site. Same deal. No records of anything regarding the name of Stacy Peterson.

    If an app was made, who’s name was used? It wasn’t our Miss Stacy.

    If they keep the silence, then there it is.

    If they have an explanation, let’s hear it.

  210. cfs7360, on May 14th, 2008 at 8:36 am Said:
    BTW, yes I’ve seen Sharon and Carol on interviews stating application has been made and they’ve not been assigned tax exempt status yet, so I guess in effect they have stated that.
    ______________________
    But we cannot discount all the information that amandareckonwith had. She gave phone numbers and names of the people she talked with.

    I do wish that someone from FSP would address that (assuming they’ve read it here or someone has sent it along to them).

  211. Amanda, good point, and I’m just wondering if they may have been denied and are still trying to obtain it. Don’t really have a clue and I don’t know how long the approval normally takes, even with a backlog as Sharon said. I’m also wondering if there is an application in a name or title of which we aren’t aware.

    Noway, exactly! Why wouldn’t he want them to testify if he was inoocent?? That speaks volumes to me. I can understand, only to a point, about him wanting them to have an attorney, but the truth is the truth. If he has nothing to hide, then let them tell it!!

  212. IMO TES left because they prefer to do cases where they can get another notch in their belt – quickly. This particular case did not play out well to their favored plan.

  213. The abovepost refers to this earlier post:

    kimmer78, on May 13th, 2008 at 7:29 pm Said:
    Danya was given the information to confirm about the search teams. That is the only one I’ve actually confirmed.

    Why did TX Equisearch leave again?

Comments are closed.