Your Thread – July 15

And Tuesday’s thread.

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog and by our Terms of Use. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to reportabuse@mysuburbanlife.com.

Advertisements

206 thoughts on “Your Thread – July 15

  1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_15jul15,0,7940455.story

    Drew Peterson’s lawyers seek dismissal of gun charges Ex-cop accused of owning illegal weapon; attorneys want judge to drop case

    By Erika Slife | Chicago Tribune reporter
    12:39 AM CDT, July 15, 2008
    A Will County judge heard arguments Monday on whether to dismiss all felony gun charges against former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson, who is suspected in the Oct. 28 disappearance of his wife, Stacy.

    A grand jury last week indicted Peterson on two counts of unlawful use of a weapon for allegedly owning an assault rifle that was nearly 5 inches shorter than allowed by state law. The rifle was seized by authorities last fall as search warrants were executed in the Stacy Peterson case.

    Drew Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood, argued that under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, Peterson was authorized to carry and possess the weapon despite a state law that says an assault rifle must be 16 inches long. The federal law permits law-enforcement officers and retired law-enforcement officers in good standing to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the U.S., regardless of most state or local laws.

    His attorneys said Peterson used the semiautomatic assault rifle while he was a police officer, which makes him an exception under state and federal laws.

    Drew Peterson news “Mr. Peterson was qualified to use this gun by his own [department],” Abood said. “This is a very unique area of the law.”

    But Assistant State’s Atty. John Connor countered that Peterson was not charged with carrying a concealed weapon, but with possession of an illegal weapon, which he argued was not protected by the federal act. He pointed to literature from the National Rifle Association as an example of responsible gun owners knowing the difference between “carrying” and “possessing” weapons, and chastised that police officers, of all people, should know the difference.

    “The people’s position is this: The weapon as currently confiscated is illegal,” Connor said.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt said he expected to make his ruling July 30.

    After the court hearing, Brodsky produced documents for reporters that he said came from the Bolingbrook Police Department proving that it knew Peterson had the gun.

    A Bolingbrook police spokesman, Lt. Ken Teppel, acknowledged there was a department document saying Peterson had a personal assault rifle as a secondary weapon. While Peterson had qualified to shoot the gun in 2005 or 2006 at a training session, he had never received permission from the police chief to carry it on duty, Teppel said. He also questioned whether the weapon had been modified at the time of the training.

    At the news conference, Brodsky said the length of the barrel at the training session was irrelevant.

    Peterson, 54, was arrested in April shortly before he was to regain possession of his weapons from state police, who had seized them as part of their investigation into his missing wife, Stacy, who was 23 when she disappeared. A week after Peterson’s arrest, Schoenstedt ordered state police to return eight of Peterson’s weapons to his son Stephen, an Oak Brook police officer. Peterson’s firearm owner’s identification card has been revoked.

    The gun at the center of Peterson’s felony case has remained in police custody.

    Authorities also are conducting a murder investigation into the 2004 drowning of Peterson’s previous wife, Kathleen Savio. Peterson has not been charged in either case involving his spouses and maintains he has done nothing wrong.

    After the court hearing, Peterson said he was feeling “comfortable with everything that took place today.”

    When asked if he feels as though he’s a target of state police, Peterson told reporters, “You think? Oh, yeah.”

  2. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1055951,6_1_NA15_STATE1_S1.article

    State prosecutor debates Peterson weapon charges

    July 15, 2008 Recommend
    By Stewart Warren
    The Herald News

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s lawyers think a federal law allows the retired police officer to own a rifle with a shorter barrel.

    But a state prosecutor did not agree.The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 doesn’t permit officers to own weapons that would be illegal under state law, he said.

    In a nutshell, those were the topics argued during a hearing that lasted a little more than an hour Monday afternoon in Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt’s courtroom.

    Peterson, 54, of Bolingbrook, was arrested May 21 and charged with the unlawful use of a weapon. He was accused of owning a Colt Sporter Lightweight .223 Remington rifle with an attached EOTech electronic sight. By law, the gun should be 16 inches long. But prosecutors alleged that without the flash suppressor, the gun was too short.

    On Friday, a Will County Grand Jury indicted Peterson on two counts of the unlawful use of a weapon.

    Seized during October search

    Police seized that gun and 10 others from Peterson’s home late last year after the October disappearance of Stacy Peterson, 23, his third wife. That case has been called a potential homicide. Police also have reopened the investigation into the 2004 drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Meanwhile, the state revoked Peterson’s firearm owner’s identification card earlier this year. Although he had asked the court to return all of his weapons, he could no longer have them under Illinois law. So on the day after Peterson was arrested and charged, Schoenstedt found a compromise – he returned eight of the weapons to one of Peterson’s sons, an Oak Brook police officer.

    At the end of May, Peterson’s lawyers – Chicago-based Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich. – asked the court to dismiss the felony gun charge filed against their client. When police seized the rifle from their client, he still worked as a Bolingbrook police officer and had the right to use that weapon while on the job, they said.

    Under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, police officers are allowed to own guns that might be illegal under state statutes, Brodsky argued.

    “It’s a very broad grant of immunity,” he said. “When you cloak someone with immunity, they are immune to prosecution.”

    Qualified law enforcement officers who carry identification can own assault-style weapons if they aren’t machine guns, equipped with silencers or outfitted with explosive devices, Brodsky said.

    Prosecution disagrees

    But the federal law isn’t about that at all, Will County Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor said. Congress wrote that law to protect armed officers who might be traveling to other states, he said. It allows them to follow the gun laws of their own state while in other jurisdictions. Some states have laws allowing officers to carry concealed weapons, and others don’t, he said, citing an example.

    When Peterson bought the rifle, it was a legal weapon, Connor said. But altering the barrel made it too short.

    “This weapon as it currently is configured is not legal,” he said.

    At the end of the hearing Monday, Schoenstedt said he wanted time to research the issues, adding that he would announce his decision on the motion to dismiss at 10:30 a.m. July 30.

    Sun-Times News Group

  3. Thank you Hedidit for posting those articles. Interesting. I don’t remember reading anything about the GJ indictment from last week. I’m also a little confused why the GJ would issue an indictment on a weapons charge. Is that the normal procedure?

  4. I don’t think it probably is usual, cfs, but I’m sure it’s a brilliant tactic to give the lie to DP and JB’s claim that the police are just harassing him and have no case. Yay, I say……I din’t hear it either until last night. Not all of the news sources running the court story mentioned it. (our favourite bad boys probably hoped no one would notice.

  5. 7/17 is the estate matter.

    7/22 is Michael Robinson.

    POSS CANNABIS
    DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL Final
    INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL Final
    BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY Final

  6. From what I can remember, the GJ basically confirms the charges when they are not murder, i.e., capital crimes…the states attny can bring any charges BUT capital crimes, but the GJ has to confirm it. I may be remembering this totally wrong…

  7. Thanks for the reminder about M. Robinson, Rescue. I’d forgotten all about him, LOL. I hope we will hear news of what happens.

  8. Source Link: http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2008/07/15/ap-state-il/d91u1ve80.txt

    Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:45 AM CDT
    Judge says Peterson can leave Illinois on vacation

    By DANIEL YOVICH

    JOLIET, Ill. – A Will County judge modified Drew Peterson’s bond Monday, allowing him to leave Illinois on vacation with his children while the judge mulls a defense motion to dismiss felony weapons charges.

    A grand jury indicted the former Bolingbrook police sergeant Thursday on two felonies related to a semiautomatic rifle seized by authorities investigating the disappearance of his wife, Stacy. The new charges, filed Friday, supersede a single felony weapons charge filed May 21, alleging Peterson possessed an assault rifle with a barrel shorter than allowed by law.

    The new indictment alleges Peterson possessed a modified assault rifle and that he unlawfully transferred the rifle to his son, Stephen. Police seized the rifle and 10 other guns during a Nov. 1 search at Peterson’s house for clues after Stacy Peterson disappeared.

    Peterson has been named a suspect in his wife’s disappearance but hasn’t been charged. Investigators have also exhumed the body of Peterson’s third wife Kathleen. Her death was ruled a homicide.

    During the two-hour hearing Monday, Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, argued his client was immune from prosecution for the gun charges because he was still a police officer when authorities seized the weapon.

    Brodsky repeatedly referred to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, legislation passed by Congress in 2004, that Brodsky said entitled Peterson to possess a rifle not allowed for private citizens.

    The law allows police officers to carry and conceal weapons as long as they have been transported through interstate commerce. It prohibits three categories of weapons that police may not carry, including machine guns, weapons equipped with silencers and explosives.

    Brodsky did not contest that the barrel on Peterson’s rifle was too short under state law. Instead, he argued Peterson cannot be charged because federal law supersedes state law.

    “The state can’t void the cloak of immunity by charging (Peterson with) possessing but not illegal carrying,” Brodsky said. “They are manipulating the charges. Clearly, you can not conceal carry without possessing.”

    The federal law shields officers from prosecution by allowing them to carry weapons that some states may deem illegal, Brodsky said.

    Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor said the immunity does not extend to a police officer who knowingly carries or keeps a weapon that is illegal in his home state.

    The legislation was meant to protect police officers who cross state lines from being prosecuted if they have handguns that are legal in their home state but banned in another jurisdiction, he said.

    Connor noted Peterson had the rifle modified, resulting in the shorter barrel. As a police officer Peterson should have known the modification made the weapon illegal, he said.

    “Our officers are expected to know the law under which they operate,” Connor said.

    Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt scheduled a hearing for July 30, when he said he would likely give his decision.

    Schoenstedt said if Peterson leaves the state, he has to file a travel itinerary in advance with the county probation department. Peterson waived his extradition rights and agreed to be tried in absentia should he miss any legal proceedings to win the judge’s approval to travel to Florida to vacation with his children.

    A service of the Associated Press(AP)

  9. No wonder the Judge said he’d make a ruling in two weeks. Lots for him to ponder and think about.

    This is what I find interesting:

    The legislation was meant to protect police officers who cross state lines from being prosecuted if they have handguns that are legal in their home state but banned in another jurisdiction, he said.

    Thus, Peterson was in violation of the law in his home state, but the Federal law would have protected him if he crossed the State line into another state where the gun was legal. My problem with that is he was in violation of the law to begin with. He wasn’t charged with being in possession of an illegal weapon in another state; he was charged in his home state.

    So, doesn’t that mean the Federal law doesn’t apply in this instance?

  10. I think the other thing that the Federal Law protects them from is carrying a concealed weapon as well.

    I think this is why the judge has to think this through. He probably has to really research the federal law and see if it does create a loophole that Drew’s defense is saying it does.

    It was quite interesting too though that they changed it from having a gun that was too short – to just having one that was modified. Maybe they are going to say they knew about the gun but that Drew modified it after getting approval to use it??

    And how did he transfer the gun to his son if they found it in his home? There must be more information out there than we have seen reported in the news.

  11. I should have said Brodsky’s argument is:

    …..the Federal law would have protected him if he crossed the State line into another state where the gun was legal.

  12. Rescue, it sounds like it when you put it like that, but this whole thing isn’t making much sense to me this morning, starting with the GJ indictment from last week. The article Think posted clears it up a little better, since it does actually address the indictment, but this whole thing just looks like a temporary diversion until the GJ concludes on the other matters. JMO.

  13. CFS – I agree, it does look like a diversion. Nonetheless, they charged him with a crime, and it’s up to them to prove he’s in violation of the law.

    Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor said the immunity does not extend to a police officer who knowingly carries or keeps a weapon that is illegal in his home state.

    So, my reading of this (it’s very confusing, at best) is:

    1) Brodsky is not contesting the fact that the weapon is “illegal,” in the client’s home state;

    2) Brodsky says because Peterson is a p.o., he’s immune from prosecution because he’s allowed to carry weapons civilians are not;

    3) Brodsky says that even though the weapon is illegal in his client’s home state, it may be legal in others, thus, the Federal law protects him.

    As to #3 above, the SA says the law protects p.o.’s who have a LEGAL weapon in their home state, but may be in violation in another state with the weapon, just the opposite.

    Wow, very, very interesting. What comes first – the chicken or the egg?

  14. “But Assistant State’s Atty. John Connor countered that Peterson was not charged with carrying a concealed weapon, but with possession of an illegal weapon, which he argued was not protected by the federal act. ”
    **********************************

    This is what I noticed from the start when Joel dragged out that law and told us to look at it. How does a law that allows officers to carry ‘concealed weapons’ excuse an officer from carrying an ‘illegal weapon’.

    It’s gonna be interesting!

  15. I’m hoping Mike Robinson finds some reason to spill everything he may know about DP.

    But the day I’m waiting for is the one when DP and Carcerano have a falling out, and C goes to LE with some tasty tidbits.

  16. Rescue – thank you for your summary. Much easier to understand than the news articles.

    May I ask, what bearing does the weapon being legal or illegal in another state have to do with anything if he is in this state.

    😕

  17. teneleven – IMO, I don’t understand why a weapon that is legal in another state applies to Peterson in this instance. I think Brodsky says it does because the Federal law should protect him, and that’s his argument.

    So, doesn’t ‘the Judge have to decide whether or not Peterson is in violation of the law in his home state and is NOT protected by the Federal law, or whether he IS protected by the Federal law, even though he’s in violation of the law in his home state?

  18. I’m lost! What is M. Robinsons court date regarding?
    I know he was DP’s friend but can’t remember anything about that court case.

  19. He beat up two women and threatened them not to say anything about Drew, best I can remember. Plus he was caught with cannabis.

  20. grandam – some think that Mike Robinson is very close to DPeterson, in a way that he may have even been involved with things DPeterson is suspected of. With that in mind, since Robinson has some serious legal issues and may do some prison time if he’s convicted, some think he may try to save his butt by spilling the beans as to what he knows about DPeterson.

    Maybe yes he has information, maybe not, but that’s the thinking as far as his relationship with DPeterson. Robinson isn’t exactly someone a police officer should have associated with over the years, and maybe some are hoping it’s his downfall.

  21. Hey Facsmiley and CFS – I wouldn’t dare call you by what you’ve been accused of being, LOL, even though I think you’re avatars do make quite the statement!

    How do you make an IGNORE avatar? I think I might like that one.

  22. Here’s Joel’s account of yesterday’s court proceedings as posted at SYM:

    “Yesterday in Court Drew Peterson’s legal team, Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood, presented three motions. However, prior to that Mr. Peterson was formally arraigned on the weapons charges. The matter proceeded to arraignment because no preliminary hearing was needed because the grand jury had returned an indictment on the weapons charges. The State and the Defendant agreed and informed the court that the indictment contained the same basic charges as the complaint that Mr. Peterson was arrested on, so that the fact that an indictment was returned did not changed the nature of the case. At the arraignment Mr. Peterson entered a plea of not guilty.

    The first motion was to allow Mr. Peterson to be able to leave Illinois for vacations this summer. The motion was granted on condition that Mr. Peterson provide to the Court an itinerary of his travel plans in advance. Also, Mr. Peterson had to sign a document waiving any rights he had to fight extradition if he didn’t return and was arrested, and further had to agree that if he didn’t return he could be tried in absentia.

    The next motion was supposed to be a hearing on the states objection to the subpoenas that we had served on the Bolingbrook Police Department for records regarding the AR-15. The State withdrew its objections and we received approximately 50 pages of documents. A brief review of these documents show that the AR-15 was Mr. Peterson’s “secondary” weapon for the SWAT team, and that he was “authorized to use” that weapon.

    Finally, we had arguments on Mr. Peterson’s motion to dismiss the weapons charges which are based on an allegation that Mr. Peterson possessed an AR-15 .223 cal., rife with a barrel length of less than 16 inches between October 28, 2007 and November 1, 2007. The motion is based on 18 USC 926B, which is known as the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, (LEOSA), which grants “qualified law enforcement officers” immunity from state firearms laws. First, the State and the Defense submitted a stipulation to the Court, which the Court approved, which stipulated that Mr. Peterson, on the dates in the complaint, had complied with the six (6) requirements which where necessary for him to be a “qualified law enforcement officer”. (QLEO) As it was agreed that Mr. Peterson was a QLEO during the period in question, the argument presented to the court concerned the scope of LEOSA and the intention of congress in enacting LEOSA. These arguments lasted about an hour. The court asked about a half dozen questions of the State and the Defense and then indicated that he would take the matter under advisement as he wanted to do some research on some issues, and that he would rule on the motion on July 30, 2008. In what the Defense considers a good omen, (which is kind of like reading tea leaves), the Judge indicated that he was holding off on setting a discovery schedule and a pre-trial motion deadline (which is the typical procedure after an arraignment).”

  23. After reading the above, one thing is SO OBVIOUS. Now that Brodsky has presented his defense in a serious legal matter in Court, notice how he explains precisely what took place, but didn’t get sidetracked by name calling, finger pointing, bad mouthing and/or blaming? He merely laid out precisely what happened in Court, what matters were before the Judge, and what the Judge decided to do as far as rendering a decision.

    Isn’t that refreshing for a change?????

  24. It’s a refreshing read as long as you make sure to note his biased interpretations of the proceedings.

    I don’t begrudge him that – after all it’s his job to be biased – but I think it’s interesting to note.

    I don’t think the prosecution would have worded things precisely the way he did. They may not see the court’s delay as a good omen for the defense.

  25. I certainly don’t see the Court’s delay as a good omen for the defense, or for the prosecution, for that matter. I merely see it as the Judge taking all of the arguments into consideration, doing some research as to the law, and rendering a decision in-between the hundreds of other cases he has to deal with.

  26. Facsmiley – oh, of course, his take on the day’s proceedings is biased. I don’t know why he thinks because the Judge is taking into consideration both sides of the argument, which is quite fair, is favorable to his side, but, I don’t see much of what he does as making any sense.

  27. Does anyone know if the prosecution has publicly posted their interpretation of yesterday’s proceedings?

  28. CFS – no, unless there’s a quote in one of the news articles. That’s the only time there’s anything from them, since they don’t blog on SYM.

  29. Thank you Rescue. Actually didn’t expect an answer to my question, and I see you detected my sarcasm. 😀

  30. However, for what it’s worth, I really do think Joel made an excellent post……direct, concise, and very informative.

  31. Grandam, I think it’s the attorney in him finally showing through. He’s getting down to business now, which is probably a good thing. 😀

  32. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear an “unbiased” opinion about what happened yesterday? I mean, it’s been reported on thoroughly and all the details given about the day’s proceedings, but I wonder what an objective party thinks of the indictment and charges, and the legal arguments presented by both sides? That would be interesting to hear. Not the involved parties’ interpretations. Of course, they’re going to slant it to reflect their opinions.

  33. “So we’re back together in one firm,” said Andrew. “Now my brother Joe and I are partners, and my father works with us, and my brother Jim works with us. So essentially all the Aboods that are practicing law in Lansing are here,” he said.
    Two sisters in the family are also attorneys. Ellen Abood-McCabe offers her expertise on occasion while Teresa Abood-Hoffman focuses on estate planning in her home of Miami, helping out the Lansing law firm when her schedule allows.
    ***********************************

    Goodness, that’s a lot of Aboods!

  34. I wonder….Anyone know where “Ashley” disappeared from ? She seems to have vanished this week anyway…..Afternoon Ladies and Gent’s….So many things to wonder about….hmmmmm

  35. iwonder – she said earlier that she had the day off and was going to be working on her forum.

    You might try PMing her there.

  36. If anyone has the link to Lavanda’s chat, could you test it for me? I can’t get in there. Maybe I’ve been banned. 😀

  37. I wonder….why it’s so quiet lately…..Is it the calm before the storm…I tend to think so..well time will tell…BBL Happy Blogging

  38. cfs7360 // July 15, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Noway, I can even get it to come up, much less get in.
    ***************
    I wonder…Is it just me or does this read kinda funny ?? LMAO

  39. rescueapet // July 15, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    LOL, something Superman would say, huh?
    ************

    Someday maybe….Not yet..thank goodness…lol…BBL ..Happy Blogging all…:)

  40. Hello All! Where is Amanda? I am ducking as I post this. Please don’t shoot the messenger! I come in peace. Yesterday, Danya confimed that FoSP has not provided her with the information as they previously stated. I don’t know about this one? Noway, Cfs and Rescue-let me know when it’s safe to return.

  41. Okay – here’s Danya’s post from yesterday. She said she got something from the IRS stating the application is being reviewed, but no confirmation one way or the other regarding it’s approval. She’s trying to confirm that, according to her post to you. Maybe you mean something else?
    *****************

    gatehousechicago // July 14, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    ducky –
    Danya here. I have received copies of a document from the IRS stating their application is being reviewed. It does not give any sort of timeline for approval/denial. And attempts to reach the IRS to confirm all other information usually entails being put on hold for two hours.

  42. rescueapet // July 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Hi Ducky. No, I believe Danya posted something that said she DID get the paperwork from FoSP.
    ———————————————–
    Hi Rescue! Thanks!

    The IRS application has been submitted, not approved. They have NOT registered with the Attorney General. They do not the proper papers to continue to collect funds. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

    I REALLY do hope that they get someone else to handle this as it’s a very poor reflection on FOSP. Fuzz represented that the process was finished (maybe I read it wrong), it’s clearly not finished. What happens if they are denied? It makes no sense that they continue to collect funds without the proper Federal Tax ID.

    In addition, we all collected money for a specific billboard. We had to mark that our donations were for this billboard and it was going to be on a specific highway. We did it as a surprise for Cass. Roy and Carrie didn’t take care of it in time and the billboard was lost. This is exactly what I was told. The money was never accounted for nor returned. Seriously! We raised that money for a specific reason and it never happened. Why? I had forgotten about this until someone reminded me last night. DON’T GET ME WRONG, I WANT TO DONATE AND HELP! I want FOSP to get their chit in order and get it out to the public! This has gone on for a very long time. It shouldn’t be this way. IMO

    What does everyone think of a PokerRun to benefit Stacy?

  43. rescueapet // July 15, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Oh, sorry, can’t answer to that. I was just responding to your original post.
    ——————————————-
    I didn’t expect that you would be able to answer those. I wish that they would make this stuff their top priority and get it completed.

  44. Duckyone, can you please tell us your source for stating this “fact”. Thank you. And why are you ducking. This is a public thread that is supposed to be open to all topics of discussion related to this.
    ———————————————————–

    The IRS application has been submitted, not approved. They have NOT registered with the Attorney General. They do not the proper papers to continue to collect funds. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

    I REALLY do hope that they get someone else to handle this as it’s a very poor reflection on FOSP. Fuzz represented that the process was finished (maybe I read it wrong), it’s clearly not finished. What happens if they are denied? It makes no sense that they continue to collect funds without the proper Federal Tax ID.

  45. teneleven-which part do you want me to confirm or reference?

    The reason that I said that I was “ducking” is because every single time this subject gets brought up, all heck breaks loose. Drama is not my thing. I was sent the new flyer for the upcoming Poker Run For Stacy and thought that it might open a new can of worms or the same ones that haven’t yet been answered.

    I wish that they would do a “walk for Stacy” or something like that, not a poker run. But, that is JMO.

  46. duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    What does everyone think of a PokerRun to benefit Stacy?
    **********************************

    Why do you have to ride a motorcycle? Can’t you just sit at a table and play?

  47. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Who’s Fuzz?
    ———————————————
    Fuzz/Fuzzymouser is a search leader. She is on the board of FOSP. The other night she claimed that all the proper paperwork was given to all the media outlets. I asked Dayna if she had received the proper paperwork from FOSP. This issue has been going on for months and months. Fuzz (I don’t want to give out her real name) and Seppy were working on it months ago, the Tax ID number and/or the Non-profit number has never been released. It should (IMO) be posted on the findstacypeterson.com website.

  48. Ducky, I guess this part:

    The IRS application has been submitted, not approved. They have NOT registered with the Attorney General. They do not the proper papers to continue to collect funds. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

  49. Oh I get it it – it’s like those snowmobile things where they go from place to place.
    I assume it involves motorcycles because Stacy liked to ride as do her family and friends

  50. Pokers runs are very popular for fundraising events. I’ve been seeing signs around for various ones lately. But, yes, they go from place to place.

  51. rescueapet // July 15, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    I was wondering that too. Also, who “confirmed” all of this to ducky.
    —————————————————-
    Rescue-which part do you want me to confirm. The billboard information? I have saved all of the information regarding funds as I have donated a lot of money. I have PM’s from the FSP board. Is this what you are asking? One thing is for sure, I am telling it like it is.

    Again, I want them to get this fix NOW so that others will begin to donate again.

  52. Well Ducky not to make a pig of myself but I’d also appreciate your confirming/source regarding the billboard. Please

  53. duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Who’s Fuzz?
    ———————————————
    Fuzz/Fuzzymouser is a search leader. She is on the board of FOSP…Fuzz (I don’t want to give out her real name) …
    *******************************

    Ah, OK. I didn’t know anyone by that name posted here. I don’t want to know her real name.

    🙂

  54. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Who’s Fuzz?
    ———————————————
    Fuzz/Fuzzymouser is a search leader. She is on the board of FOSP…Fuzz (I don’t want to give out her real name) …
    *******************************

    Ah, OK. I didn’t know anyone by that name posted here. I don’t want to know her real name.
    —————————————————-
    She’s on the board of FOSP. The list in on Findstacypeterson.com.

  55. No part, ducky. Just that the way you emphatically stated this is all fact, I thought you were given confirmed information directly.

    It’s not an issue for me, I don’t believe anyone is intentionally doing anything illegally, so I am backing away from this.

  56. I still don’t know why people post about their issues with FOSP here. Ducky, why is that?

    This isn’t FOSP. They have their own website.

    It’s just that it always disrupts things and no one here has the answers that people want.

    I’m not on the board of FOSP and I don’t know anyone who is. I’ve never donated anything and I’ve never attempted to set up a not-for profit organization.

    I can only shrug when people bring their concerns and post them here. I don’t have a clue about your problem or what you can do to take care of it. I’m sorry because I know for some people it seems like they are very very concerned.

    If you are hoping to contact someone from Suburban Life Publications, I would email them. I dont’ think they spend a lot of time reading the comments here.

  57. teneleven // July 15, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    Well Ducky not to make a pig of myself but I’d also appreciate your confirming/source regarding the billboard. Please
    ——————————————————–
    Hang on. I will go through my PM’s from FSP. I’m not trying to stir up trouble. There are others that will confirm the billboard stuff and they may beat me to it.

    Rescue-I only state facts. Whether it’s intentional (which I don’t believe) or whether it’s gross negligence on their part, they do not have the proper items completed. FOSP should hire a professional to immediately handle this!

  58. duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Who’s Fuzz?
    ———————————————
    Fuzz/Fuzzymouser is a search leader. She is on the board of FOSP…Fuzz (I don’t want to give out her real name) …
    *******************************

    Ah, OK. I didn’t know anyone by that name posted here. I don’t want to know her real name.
    —————————————————-
    She’s on the board of FOSP. The list in on Findstacypeterson.com.
    **********************************

    OK. You already said that she’s on the board at FOSP. I saw it and understood it. Thanks.

  59. facs-sorry. I was posting the new flyer. I didn’t mean to ruffle your feathers. So, we aren’t allowed to talk about this stuff here. I just looked in the rules and I must have missed that one 😉

    In regards to your statement to contact FOSP, I have done that many times and shockingly, I have not received an answer.

  60. amandareckonwith // July 15, 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Thanks, Ducky.

    They’d have tarred and feathered me if I told it.
    ———————————————————
    HAHA! I know but it looks like my popularity just went down. Did you see the new fundraiser event? You play cards don’t you? lol

  61. duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    facs-sorry. I was posting the new flyer. I didn’t mean to ruffle your feathers. So, we aren’t allowed to talk about this stuff here. I just looked in the rules and I must have missed that one

    In regards to your statement to contact FOSP, I have done that many times and shockingly, I have not received an answer.
    ***************************************

    Sorry ducky. You didn’t ruffle my feathers. I just sincerely find it frustrating to have people ask constantly be asking questions about FOSP stuff here as if we’re equipped to answer.

    I just don’t have a clue. And if the people you need to talk to won’t talk to you, I still don’t have answers for you.

  62. well guess what Ducky, today’s your lucky day, cause a popularity contest isn’t what wins a cookie.

    I am upset that you are hesitant to talk about this issue and if we “aren’t” allowed to, I too missed that memo.

    If this was something/sort of issue that came from the “other” camp, that was not copacetic, people would be ALL OVER IT.

  63. Ducky, watch what you post in a henhouse, they peck really really hard.

    Laugh, people, it’s just a joke.

    You seriously cannot expect this to keep coming up.

    FoSP is not doing what they say they are doing.

    They are not searching, the weeds are too high.

    ISP says she isn’t in water.

    Still, money must be needed. For what?

    I know, I know! TAXES when the IRS hands them a big bill because somebody used a fake TIN. It is someones sn, and that someone has to pay the taxes on money collected.

    FoSP doesn’t qualify for tax exempt status. They don’t.

    Even IF they did, the first step is ALWAYS, IN IL, gonna be the Atty General.

    I have said it for so many months now, I can type it with my eyes closed.

  64. While you’re in the barn make sure to watch out for the old two-faced cow, she changes her demeanor depending on where she looks and with two mouths eating she generates a LOT of…you know.

    Heh, it IS good to laugh, isn’t it. 🙂

  65. teneleven // July 15, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    well guess what Ducky, today’s your lucky day, cause a popularity contest isn’t what wins a cookie.

    I am upset that you are hesitant to talk about this issue and if we “aren’t” allowed to, I too missed that memo.

    If this was something/sort of issue that came from the “other” camp, that was not copacetic, people would be ALL OVER IT.
    —————————————————-
    It was a joke about popularity! What the heck to you want me to give to you regarding the billboard? The funds? Trust me, I have everything. As far at the “other camp”, I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. I am on one CAMP and that is to help find a missing Mom. In doing that, I hope that there is JUSTICE for Stacy and KATHLEEN!

    Facs-billboard!? I already bought that space. It like buying one of those stars in the sky. I do have a bridge for sale, you interested? LMFAO!

  66. Rescue-the mudslinger? Maybe I should take a break. I really, really didn’t mean to piss off people. I got that flyer today and we had all these discussions regarding the $ over the past couple of days. I thought that it might be a good discussion. Wrong on my part.

  67. Poker Runs are fun. Wiki has a pretty good description for those who are not familiar with them:

    h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_run

    😉

  68. ducky, I would like whatever you have. You state fact about stuff and there no one here will take you on your word. I actually do believe it or not.

    As far as the cookie that too was a joke.

    I also want justice for KATHLEEN and Stacy.

    The other camp, well it ducky, i say that because it appears that it would be ok to discuss it, rip it to shreds, question it, poke fun at it etc. if it were something that came from Brodsky or Drew in response to an inquiry.

    So you see, this does not seem to be fair playing ground.

  69. Ducky – It was a joke about putting all the FOSP concerns on a billboard since people claim that their emails aren’t returned.

    Step back a bit, hon. I don’t want you to feel you’re being attacked. I just feel frustrated because the concerns seem to be brought to this forum when people can’t get answers. And I don’t have the answers either.

  70. Ducky, I absolutely do not think you are slinging mud and I appreciate you addressing these issues.

    I am all for a poker run

  71. My remark wasn’t intended for you, Ducky. You are considerate and civil. I was referring to another poster who makes it personal, makes crude, rude and insulting remarks.

  72. These 2 posts were on Ashley’s site from a concerned supporter for Stacy! I don’t think that anyone could have said it better. Sorry Gatehouse. Delete if you want, but this person summed up the $$$ situation perfectly!
    —————————————————

    The simplest way to put nefarious rumors to rest is to simply and conclusively show verifiable information that proves the rumor/s to be untrue/true.

    In this particular case, FOSP has been repetetively asked for their tax exemption ID number and status- by those who have actually made donations to the fund, no less!- and were only given vague, unverifiable assertions that everything was on the “up and up”, were outrightly told off for asking for the info, were banned without explanation for posting/pming a query about the information, and/or ended up being a righteously exasperated contributer when FOSP tried to pull an obviously and embarrassingly transparent bait-n-switch by posting/pming their supposed Tax Exempt ID number, only for the ruse to be up when the number turned out to be the SSN of an unidentified member of FOSP.

    So, in a nutshell- if FOSP believes that it is Drew Peterson’s/Joel Brodsky’s/anyone else’s intention to damage FOSP’s reputation by insinutating nefariousness on FOSP’s part, regarding their tax exempt status and lack of a public accounting of their use of donated funds, so that people will no longer hit that “donate” button, the easiest, simplest and quickest way to prove the nasty rumors are nothing but pure bullshite is to provide the proof to the PUBLIC at large that they DO have Tax Exemption Status, providing the TE ID Number, and submitting a professional accounting for PUBLIC perusal of the allocation of all donated funding they have received.

    So… may I ask what on earth is going on in the minds of the FOSP board members that suggests to them that it is much *better* to further the cause of these outrageously effective, credibility damaging rumors by their decision to deliberately and pointedly *REFUSING* to publicly release verifiable, documented proof that donations to their fund are, indeed, tax exempt, as well as *REFUSING* to provide an verifiable, independent forensic accounting of all monies that have been donated to their organization??? If they believe their lack of actions will aid their reputation, they are sadly and delusionally mistaken. In this regard, they are actually giving the rumors *more* veracity by their inaction to decisively and publicly prove them false. Why do they insist shooting FOSP in the foot this way? Why not nip it in the bud? Why not put a stop to the innuendo by providing proof that they are, and are doing, exactly what they claimed they were whenever that “donation” button was clicked on?

    When you consider the vicious “mis-usage of donation funds” rumors that went around after the disappearance of Christie Cales, you’d think that quite a few of the family members of Stacy would have learned to be much more vigilant accounting-wise their second time around a similar block. This is not rocket science, and it costs foundations MUCH less in the long run when they take the time in the nascent stage of the development of their organization to get all the financial details seen to and set up so that they will be properly maintained. Much less messy and less of a headache to do it then- long *before* all the thousands in donations and withdrawals have been haphazardly made by various people whose only accounting experience is possibly having a bank account and/or possibly doing their own taxes once a year.

    No, I’m afraid that the elongated and unexplained silence on the part of FOSP regarding their financial status and affairs is extrememly damning. And, no matter whether the intentions of those asking for the financial/tax details of FOSP be good or ill-willed ones, the fact of the matter is that you cannot help or hurt FOSP unless they are willing to take it.

    This provebial ball has been in the FOSP court for so long now, I’m afraid that they have put it from their minds to even be looking for it anymore. Much easier to say that they are so busy looking for Stacy’s body that they simply don’t have the time to deal with the fund finances- when in reality, they simply cannot afford *NOT* to do just exactly that.

    Does their silence on these matters help find Stacy? No.

    Since it does not help find Stacy, then why bother to keep silent about it at all?

    Accountability in accounting will only help FOSP. Hopefully, it will not take yet another almost 9 months before they finally figure that truth out.

    July 13, 2008 10:29 PM

    ———————————————————–

    A concerned supporter of stacy’s said…
    Addendum to my 10:29PM post:

    FOSP stated that they had tax exemption status and that their TEN would be provided at the time a donation was made.

    That disclaimer has since been removed from their donation site.

    If they had *NOT* claimed to be a tax exempt organization, and had NOT claimed that people/companies/organizations who donated to their fund would receive their TEN with confirmation of their donation, this topic would most likely *not* be being discussed as emotionally ferverent and heatedly as it has unfailingly been.

    FOSP made those statements in black and white on their own website forum- therefore, it is up to them to provide proof.

    *THEY* need to back those statements up with verifiable documentation as being accurate, OR show verifiable documentation that they applied for tax exemption status, but are still waiting for approval or that they were denied, OR admit that the statements were false or made in error.

    PROOF of any one of the above answers should have been publicly produced when the first queries about their status were raised.

    Instead, they variously chose to either respond arbitrarily and vaguely with no documented proof, and/or avoid answering the query entirely and slurringly question the intentions of the person doing the asking, and/or accuse the person of being Drew or a Drew supporter, and/or ban the person from their forum.

    If I would certainly not accept this behavior and lack of credible actions to remedy the situation if it were DREW’S donation fund, why on earth would I accept it from FOSP? Just because their organization’s credo is to find Stacy, alive or not, and bring her home, does *NOT* give them carte blance to negligently and defiantly fail to (1) disclose their tax exemption status,
    (2) provide their TEN on donation receipts or on request,
    (3) disclose the financial records relating to the amounts and uses of the donated funds-
    ESPECIALLY since FOSP previously and publicly stated IN WRITING that they *did* have TE status, that they *would* provide the TEN when a donation was made and/or if a request for the number was made, and that they *would* be providing a full, comprehensive financial disclosure of the donated funds forthwith. FOSP stated this MONTHS ago- and yet we are now almost to the one year anniversary of Stacy’s disappearance/probable homicide, and they STILL have not provided ANY of the information they claimed that they *would*.

    I made a donation to FOSP, and as such, damn it, I DEMAND that they provide the financial information they said they would disclose and that I have repeatedly asked for.

    I want to KNOW their TE ID number.
    I want to KNOW their TE status.
    I want to KNOW that my money is safe in a financial institution, or what it is being spent on and by whom.

    Until provided with that information, their silence gives credence to the rumors that they are NOT tax exempt, that they do NOT have a TE ID number, if they even bothered to APPLY for one, or that they were rejected for TE status but choose not to disclose that publicly, and that they have NO intention of ever publishing a complete financial report of ALL of the fund’s activities.

    FOSP is making themselves look guilty as charged by keeping their silence, and I, for one, find that inconceivably irresponsible, frustratingly incompetent and incredulously self-defeating of them to do so. They have had *repeated* chances to prove their innocence of the accusations by disclosing the proof, and STILL they stay silent.

    NO evidence of innocence = GUILTY.

    What a sordid legacy they leave behind in the minds of those very same people FOSP asked for help from, who donated and/or searched for her… and how sad that it was all done in her name. I am much aggrieved that this situation has been allowed to fester for so long that it has come to this particularly damning point.

    YOU have the power and responsibility to provide this information, FOSP- so please do so. Time is of the essence now, before donations for such a just cause cease altogether.

    July 14, 2008 12:20 AM

  73. I wish the whole gun matter was clearer. I originally thought that the state charged him because he owned an illegal weapon PERIOD. Cop or not – The weapon was illegal.

    I’m just not sure what to make of it after reading some of these reports. 😕

  74. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    Ducky – It was a joke about putting all the FOSP concerns on a billboard since people claim that their emails aren’t returned.
    ——————————————————
    NO-you have me freaking cracking up!!! LOL!

    That is NOT my post above. I don’t write novels, but this person deserves an award! 😉

  75. Hi HJ. The gun issue is certainly confusing. No wonder the Judge took it under advisement and said he’d rule in two weeks. Makes it fair all the way around.

    This is just the issue on whether or not the charges should be dismissed. If they’re not, then it’ll be another round.

  76. Ducky, thank you for taking the time to address the donation/tax exempt matter and I am only asking again because maybe my earlier request got passed by, but can you please state source or how you have come to know for fact that:

    The IRS application has been submitted, not approved. They have NOT registered with the Attorney General. They do not the proper papers to continue to collect funds. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

    Thank you

  77. Teneleven,

    The other camp, well it ducky, i say that because it appears that it would be ok to discuss it, rip it to shreds, question it, poke fun at it etc. if it were something that came from Brodsky or Drew in response to an inquiry.

    So you see, this does not seem to be fair playing ground.
    *****************************

    That doesn’t really seem like a fair statement. I don’t think that it has to do with any ‘camps’ at all.

    I think the Drew/Brodsky conversations go better because everyone has the same kind of involvement with those issues. For the most part people care but they aren’t personally involved. We can debate and discuss and share knowledge, but it’s not personal.

    The FOSP tax stuff gets hot because some people have personally given money and their concerns are very personal in nature. Their concerns aren’t just conjecture and theory. They are close to the issue and need to find their answers.

    For those of us who aren’t close, who aren’t involved with FOSP or who either didn’t donate, or aren’t concerned with the funding, then it’s like getting whomped with all this personal stuff when people come in here fired up.

    Obviously, it would be rude to just say ‘go away’ or ‘I don’t care’. But at the same time, personal issues like this need to be resolved between the two parties involved.

    Posting your concerns in a public forum for case discussion just seems pointless to me. It’s not going to solve your problem.

    I hope you DO find the answers you are seeking, I just don’t think that posting here about them will ever be the solution.

  78. teneleven // July 15, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Facs: to some people the cloud over the donations causes reason to question many things.
    *******************************

    Then I’d say get your answers to the donation questions and it should clear up or confirm those other issues.

    How about getting a group togther and hiring a lawyer? If FOSP won’t respond to you individually, I’m sure that would be a good step.

  79. One good tthing about the funding concerns , the people who have the questions actually have legal recourse to finding out what you want to know.

  80. harley-
    Just wanted to clear up a few things on the gun hearing yesterday (this is Danya btw). I know most of the reports we reporters put out were a bit confusing. The arguments themselves were complex. But, I’ll try to give a rundown of the issue.
    The state is charging Drew for owning/possessing/using (however you want to put it) an illegal weapon. They are arguing that because it was in an illegal form, the gun is illegal regardless of whether or not he’s a cop. Brodsky, on the other hand, is arguing that this federal law, LEOSA , protects all officers from such charges as long as the weapon involved is not a machine gun, silencer, or explosive.

    LEOSA, however, does not go into detail about what types of guns are allowed, and what charges it protects officers from. Many of the arguments on Monday, from both sides, centered on each side’s belief of what Congress’ intent was in passing the law.
    Brodsky says the intent was to protect all officers, from any weapons charge, regardless of the weapon, and regardless of a state’s particular gun laws.
    State says the intent was simply to prevent officers who carry their handguns across state lines from being arrested (say when they move to a new state).
    Each side gave the judge evidence (case law, transcripts of Congress’ debates when passing the law, etc…) to consider. That, in essence, is what he’s mulling over now until July 30.

    Does any of that make sense.

  81. Uh, didn’t mean the little emoticon up there, that was just supposed to be a )

    Also, forgot to mention, the tax-exempt status will likely be the first Q&A. Don’t have a timeline on when we’ll get those rolling out though. Other news has been breaking at a fairly consistent rate recently so there’s not as much free time to look into the other questions. We will get them out though.

  82. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    *cluck*
    ——————————————-
    You are quacking me up again! Your above post (ssshh) about the funds is very accurate. I really didn’t mean to stir up trouble. I hope that you all know me by now and respect that I don’t do that on purpose.

    Ten-I have seen the letter that they have applied to the IRS but they are waiting approval. I have personally contacted the Attorney General and they have NOT (as of last week) registered with their office. I have asked for an accounting of funds, the Tax ID number because I HAVE DONATED quite a bit of money. I have received no response. The TAX ID number that was on the “original” business donation letter is not valid. The billboard is easy to clear up as the letter from Roy’s girlfriend is somewhere on my computer. This was going to be a SURPRISE for Cassandra, surprise-they took the money and never bought the billboard spot that they told us that we were all purchasing.

    Please don’t get me wrong. I WANT FOSP to be on the up and up and have all their “ducks” in a row. I wish that it were now. I hope that it’s backdated. It’s a sore subject because FOSP refuses to respond to the very people that have donated thousands of dollars.

    This “cloud” should be their first priority. People are turned off by the way that they have handled this situation. It’s immature, unprofessional and they need to hire someone with legal experience to take care of this situation. I’m sure that an attorney would have done it pro-bono if they had asked. But, they are keeping it all a secret. WHY?

  83. Well, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t want to predict anything. But many of the arguments came down to differing interpretations of that law. As for what the judge will actually base an opinion on, have to wait until July 30.

  84. duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    *cluck*
    ——————————————-
    You are quacking me up again! Your above post (ssshh) about the funds is very accurate. I really didn’t mean to stir up trouble. I hope that you all know me by now and respect that I don’t do that on purpose.

    Ten-I have seen the letter that they have applied to the IRS but they are waiting approval. I have personally contacted the Attorney General and they have NOT (as of last week) registered with their office. I have asked for an accounting of funds, the Tax ID number because I HAVE DONATED quite a bit of money. I have received no response. The TAX ID number that was on the “original” business donation letter is not valid. The billboard is easy to clear up as the letter from Roy’s girlfriend is somewhere on my computer. This was going to be a SURPRISE for Cassandra, surprise-they took the money and never bought the billboard spot that they told us that we were all purchasing.

    Please don’t get me wrong. I WANT FOSP to be on the up and up and have all their “ducks” in a row. I wish that it were now. I hope that it’s backdated. It’s a sore subject because FOSP refuses to respond to the very people that have donated thousands of dollars.

    This “cloud” should be their first priority. People are turned off by the way that they have handled this situation. It’s immature, unprofessional and they need to hire someone with legal experience to take care of this situation. I’m sure that an attorney would have done it pro-bono if they had asked. But, they are keeping it all a secret. WHY?
    ********************************

    What she said.

  85. Amanda, on a serious and peaceful note – did you see my comment above? It looks like there are at least three of you here who have a personal interest in the tax situation (donated but no ID #). Why not get together and talk to a lawyer about getting some answers.

    The thing about the homicide and missing person case we’ve been discussing, is that all we can do about that. It’s in the hands of the law and we’re observers.

    But your concerns with FOSP are something you can act on, and I think you should.

  86. Oh come on, not the tax exempt status stuff again!!!!

    I can’t believe people can’t let it go!

    It was hot & heavy here in May, I left to go on vacation in June & here it is July & people still can’t get over it!

    Suggestion, those who have SUCH a problem with it, PLEASE do not ever donate to anything ever again!

  87. Amanda – when you come on here, what’s your beef? Is it that we don’t give you notice of your concerns about FSP fundraising/tax status? Is it because you feel we “support” Ashley? Is it because we pick apart Drew and Joel and you don’t like it? Is it because you feel we are “stressing” Drew out and he may do something bad to his kids?

    Because, you are all over the place with this stuff, and, to top it off, you use horrible, cruel and crude names and innuendos to get your point across. Anyone can go back over your posts, the ones that don’t violate rules and get deleted and see that.

    No one has ever called you a horrible, cruel name as you have done.

    Not to mention we have to sit here and read your name calling of Danya, who you have personal issues with.

    Do what you want, spew your rhetoric, but you are one of the cruelest, meanest bloggers I’ve come across in a long time.

    Now go back to Kimmers and vent. Hmm.:)

  88. luvpups // July 15, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Oh come on, not the tax exempt status stuff again!!!!

    I can’t believe people can’t let it go!

    It was hot & heavy here in May, I left to go on vacation in June & here it is July & people still can’t get over it!

    Suggestion, those who have SUCH a problem with it, PLEASE do not ever donate to anything ever again!
    ————————————————
    I DID donate, I DO want answers. If you don’t like what I say, then skip over my post. Did you see the very articulate post above by a concerned supporter of STACY. You don’t like it, take a hike! Would YOU like to return MY money that I can’t WRITE OFF? It’s a valid question and when you take people MONEY then you have the right to ask. I know a woman that gave her freaking GROCERY money and couldn’t afford anything for a MONTH because she gave to this CAUSE. How DARE you tell me, her and others that we don’t matter. We certainly mattered when we were giving it to them.

    Again, don’t like it, skip it over or extend your vacation! Better yet, REFUND ME MY MONEY!!

    (my first mean post-sorry guys)

  89. Adding to Amanda, why is it that EVERY other topic is picked apart and discussed here, but as soon as a topic is brought up that you “regulars” are not interested in (the money), you shoo people away? Ever think there is more to discuss that just what YOU are talking about?

  90. YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ducky!!!!!!!!!!

    Good to see outrage.

    rescuapet. This is the 4th time you told me (that I saw) to go away, get out of this forum.

    Danya and I know each other. We disagree. However, she will ban me when she pleases, or she will let me stay.

    YOU DON’T GET TO. OK??

  91. Just like to remind everyone that taxes can be amended so when, not if, the paperwork comes out (and it will), you can certainly amend your taxes.

    I would also like to state that I did not need to have any ID # when I filed my taxes this year.

  92. Well, Amanda, Idiot, Hens comes to mind, but as long as you’re in denial, I guess we’ll just have to let that issue go.

    Every, single time you blog here, you throw the place up for grabs. People here have tried to extend olive branches to you, and you take it to the max when you can’t someone to go along with your way of thinking. Which then deteriorates to your name calling tactics.

    It’s no secret that when someone brings up the fundraising, all of a sudden you “appear.” Ducky happened to start a post today, and there you were, with your “hen house” remarks.

    Even if someone wanted to have a civil debate, you turn it into a ruckus.

  93. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Amanda, on a serious and peaceful note – did you see my comment above? It looks like there are at least three of you here who have a personal interest in the tax situation (donated but no ID #). Why not get together and talk to a lawyer about getting some answers.

    The thing about the homicide and missing person case we’ve been discussing, is that all we can do about that. It’s in the hands of the law and we’re observers.

    But your concerns with FOSP are something you can act on, and I think you should.
    _________________________________

    I believe there are a group of people that are getting together with an attorney.

  94. BTW…I had big money donation lined up, multi-million dollar company, family, and friends. Can’t do anything without that tax id#. Oh and yeah, I donated. Then was told I was becoming a problem when I questioned the tax status and was banned.

  95. Why is the discussion ditated and controlled by a few here? You have flooded the governors office wanting the hearsay law passed. What is the difference here?

  96. I am always here rescueapet. Always. I don’t appear suddenly. Oftn I don’t post. You should try it when you don’t have anything to cluck about.

    I never called YOU idiot, directly.

    When I did say IDIOT it was a generic term, I can’t help who saw themselves in that word.

    I have never called danya a name, you woe me an apology there, missy.

    Oh, and fyi… hens is not a bad name. Not terrible. Not frightening. Silly, maybe. Some of you hens have o idea when someone is actually joking.

    I am often hen-like. I also love chicken.

    I never knew what an awful human I am. Maybe the next missing mom I want to search for, I should just sit here and cluck instead. How would that be?

  97. car99 // July 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Amanda, on a serious and peaceful note – did you see my comment above? It looks like there are at least three of you here who have a personal interest in the tax situation (donated but no ID #). Why not get together and talk to a lawyer about getting some answers.

    The thing about the homicide and missing person case we’ve been discussing, is that all we can do about that. It’s in the hands of the law and we’re observers.

    But your concerns with FOSP are something you can act on, and I think you should.
    _________________________________

    I believe there are a group of people that are getting together with an attorney.
    *****************************

    Bravo! Finally people who want to solve their problems instead of whine. Good for them making use of our legal system. I salute them!

  98. hedidit-with all due respect, when I am given a Tax ID number and told that it is valid, I expect it to be valid. It wasn’t valid. There were plenty of business’s that donated and do not have a valid Tax ID number. So, you suggest that we all go back and ammend our taxes? I believe that FOSP should pay for all of us to have to do that. They should have been honest, I would have still given to help find Stacy but I would have used different funds. BTW, do you have any idea the kind of audits that people suffer when they “ammend” their taxes. RED FLAG to the IRS.

    I guess that we should all take the flyer for the NEW fundraiser and have to turn them in. The thought of that makes me sick. I WANT TO GIVE TO STACY AND I WANT HER FOUND. I don’t believe that Anthony Laatz should be the one handling these legal matters. Do you? There was an attorney doing this for them but they fired him to save money. Huh? I shouldn’t do this-but, maybe they wanted more flowers and needed the extra money. Hotel parties? Sorry, I shall send myself to the corner.

  99. Ducky. Thank you.

    I really applaud you, as a member in good standing here (one that doesn’t ever broach anything out of the box or what is acceptable here) to have the nerve, spine, backbone whatever you want to call it, to address these things.

    What I can’t understand is why the people who think it should not be discussed would not do their best to get the media or FSP or someone/anyone to address and answer these questions, totally and completely.

    The avoidance and not wanting to even broach the subject just makes it seem very strange.

    And Amanda, you stay and what will be very interesting is how much of this thread is left and how much is gone tomorrow.

  100. duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    hedidit-with all due respect, when I am given a Tax ID number and told that it is valid, I expect it to be valid. It wasn’t valid. There were plenty of business’s that donated and do not have a valid Tax ID number. So, you suggest that we all go back and ammend our taxes? I believe that FOSP should pay for all of us to have to do that. They should have been honest, I would have still given to help find Stacy but I would have used different funds. BTW, do you have any idea the kind of audits that people suffer when they “ammend” their taxes. RED FLAG to the IRS.

    I guess that we should all take the flyer for the NEW fundraiser and have to turn them in. The thought of that makes me sick. I WANT TO GIVE TO STACY AND I WANT HER FOUND. I don’t believe that Anthony Laatz should be the one handling these legal matters. Do you? There was an attorney doing this for them but they fired him to save money. Huh? I shouldn’t do this-but, maybe they wanted more flowers and needed the extra money. Hotel parties? Sorry, I shall send myself to the corner.

    ________________________________

    Yeah what Ducky said. Way to go Ducky

  101. giveitarest // July 15, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Why is the discussion ditated and controlled by a few here? You have flooded the governors office wanting the hearsay law passed. What is the difference here?
    *********************************

    The governor has the power to pass the hearsay law. So it makes sense to contat the governor.

    The people who post on this blog have no control over the decisions made by FOSP. So it’s pointless to spam donation concerns here.

  102. Two guesses.

    One will be the right one. LOL, I won’t hold my breath.

    I am not in good standing at the moment.

    I was fine and dandy when I agreed with anything clucked previously, but I am the evil hated one when I say the same things many others know is the truth.

    People have tried to shut out the truth from the beginning of time.

    It usually only works for a little while.

    Goodnight all.

  103. Facs – you have no control over Joel Brodsky or his typos but that is all you want to discuss? What is the difference, nothing other than your lack of interest on the issue.

  104. I just mowed the front lawn and came back. Anyone doing anything about their problems yet or are they still telling the sob story here?

    It’s like getting a wrong number from some person who wants to vent about their terrible relationship with their boyfriend, despite you telling them that you can’t help them. Then they get off the phone and go back to the crappy boyfriend.

    Two days later they call you again with the same story…

  105. giveitarest // July 15, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Why is the discussion ditated and controlled by a few here? You have flooded the governors office wanting the hearsay law passed. What is the difference here?
    *********************************

    The governor has the power to pass the hearsay law. So it makes sense to contact the governor.

    The people who post on this blog have no control over the decisions made by FOSP. So it’s pointless to spam donation concerns here.

  106. giveitarest // July 15, 2008 at 8:33 pm

    Facs – you have no control over Joel Brodsky or his typos but that is all you want to discuss? What is the difference, nothing other than your lack of interest on the issue.
    ********************************
    Exactly – it makes sense to discuss Drew, Brodsky etc. because we are all on an equal footing – all equally invested. We don’t have personal involvement in the crimes (at least I hope not). It’s perfect fodder for idle discussion. We are all removed enough to be able to do that.

    On the other hand, the people with the donation concerns have very real, very personal concerns about their money and how it was handled. Idle chatter with strangers is a goofy way to take care of an issue that you actually have a stake in. There is legal recourse if they would only choose to take it.

  107. Ten-Do you want me to find the PM’s about the billboard from Carrie-Roy’s girlfriend? I’m sure that I have it somewhere. I had forgotten about this until another member brought it up to me last night. This poor lady gave her GROCERY money to donate for the billboard. She works TWO jobs to survive. I am outraged that they took her money and never put up the billboard and it was never heard about again. FSP better not come back with the revolving one that they say they have-two different situations.

    I have a question for Carrie (Roy’s girlfriend). There is a Carrie Taylor on the FOSP committee, is this her? They are not legally married and that is not her name. I hope that this is a different Carrie.

    Ten-thanks for the compliments. I applaud the woman that wrote the posts that are way up there and very long. I don’t know who it is but she really nailed it.

    I believe that all subjects should be talked about if that is what everyone agrees on. I hope that I haven’t offended anyone by speaking honestly. There are so many wonderful people here and I really don’t want anyone upset with me.

    Stacy needs to be brought home, with dignity, respect, honesty, class and integrity! I’m sure that she would want that for her memory and for her children. KATHLEEN is long overdue to receive the same things.

    OMG-my posts are enormous tonight. Sorry.

  108. duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Ten-Do you want me to find the PM’s about the billboard from Carrie-Roy’s girlfriend? I’m sure that I have it somewhere. I had forgotten about this until another member brought it up to me last night. This poor lady gave her GROCERY money to donate for the billboard. She works TWO jobs to survive. I am outraged that they took her money and never put up the billboard and it was never heard about again.
    **********************************

    Sounds like she needs to talk to a lawyer.

  109. I bought a house last year and the seller never disclosed that the plumbing was shot. The sinks backed up three times in two months.

    Let me tell you about this over and over and over again.

    Oh wait, never mind. I just remembered that I called a lawyer and worked it out.

  110. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 8:33 pm

    I just mowed the front lawn and came back. Anyone doing anything about their problems yet or are they still telling the sob story here?

    It’s like getting a wrong number from some person who wants to vent about their terrible relationship with their boyfriend, despite you telling them that you can’t help them. Then they get off the phone and go back to the crappy boyfriend.

    Two days later they call you again with the same story…
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Why not then take it upon yourself to get the answers to prove them wrong?

    Seriously.

    All anyone wants is the truth.

    I am not sure if anyone has given any thought to what the circus’ are offering to the defense. Seriously.

    I have no idea if Word Press considers themselves “investigative reporting” or not, but the best way to put and end to the mud slingers or the heathens who question things is to state, cold, hard, unreputable facts.

  111. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Ten-Do you want me to find the PM’s about the billboard from Carrie-Roy’s girlfriend? I’m sure that I have it somewhere. I had forgotten about this until another member brought it up to me last night. This poor lady gave her GROCERY money to donate for the billboard. She works TWO jobs to survive. I am outraged that they took her money and never put up the billboard and it was never heard about again.
    **********************************

    Sounds like she needs to talk to a lawyer.
    ——————————————————
    So, my friend that has NO money, can barely survive, that donated out of her grocery money should talk to a LAWYER to get a refund on the money put out for a fake billboard. How about FOSP do the right thing, put out an accounting, get the correct numbers or return the money that has been donated.

    Facs-I usually agree with you but it’s ludicrous that this is your answer. Have a heart-she DID!

  112. Hey wait-we have been talking about Drew Peterson for months, in your opinion, is it time to stop that too? We have talked about Ashley for a long time, is that off limits too? Oh my, we talk about Fundraisers, a missing Mom and a dead Mom, is it time to stop talking about them.

    Who is the topic police? I ONLY brought it up because they are AGAIN having a fundraiser in Stacy’s name and they don’t have a TAX ID number or NON-PROFIT status.

  113. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Exactly – it makes sense to discuss Drew, Brodsky etc. because we are all on an equal footing – all equally invested. We don’t have personal involvement in the crimes (at least I hope not). It’s perfect fodder for idle discussion. We are all removed enough to be able to do that.

    On the other hand, the people with the donation concerns have very real, very personal concerns about their money and how it was handled. Idle chatter with strangers is a goofy way to take care of an issue that you actually have a stake in. There is legal recourse if they would only choose to take it.

    ****

    To the people that have invested time and money are ALSO on equal footing. It may not be a concern for you, but it is for others. Not everyone may be informed as to their rights, but to bring it up here, you are shooed or told you are being irrelevant. This is an open blog, about Stacy Peterson. Money that I donated was supposed to go to that cause. I have not filed a complaint for one reason. HER KIDS. If there is any chance the money I gave would in any way help, then I don’t want to cause trouble. The FoSP are hurting themselves because majo corporations will not give if they can not claim it. I for one want to see it corrected and I will continue to keep it fresh until it is resolved. I care enough to keep asking the question only because I want Stacy found. Period.

  114. HI,

    here is the , bill that was signed into law ……

    http://www.aele.org/hr218specimen.html

    here is part of it , it is long but read the hole thing very interesting, I think joel is wrong…
    I. Restrictions

    1. The Rangemaster or designee’s determination will be final as to all issues of safety and equipment. Any weapon, holster, ammunition, or related equipment found unsafe for qualification and carry will be prohibited on the range and noted in writing and of record. The retired officer will be notified and required to sign a statement acknowledging the unsafe condition of the equipment and the reason for such removal and prohibition.

    2. The Law Enforcement Officers Act does not authorize the retired officer to:

    a. Carry a machine gun, silencer, or other destructive device.

    b. Act in the capacity of a law enforcement officer of the [Name of agency].

    c. Carry a firearm on any government property, installation, facility, building, base or park with laws or regulations prohibiting or restricting the carrying of firearms (such as airport boarding areas, courthouses, etc.).

    d. Carry a firearm on any other public or privately owned property, facility, building or area, where the carrying of firearms is prohibited or restricted (such as private schools, commercial aircraft, etc.).

    III. Content of liability waiver and release by a qualified retired officer

    A. The “Waiver and Release Form” shall be titled, and provide:

    I am a retired officer of the [Name of agency] who is eligible to attempt to qualify to carry a concealed firearm, pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (18 U.S. Code §926C).

    I recognize that the [Name of agency] is not legally required to provide me with firearms instruction or a firearms qualification course.

    I understand that to do so, I will be required to fire my weapon under the direct supervision of the [Name of agency] instructors.

    I agree to indemnify and hold harmless the [Name of entity and agency], or its agents and employees, for any injury caused by my participation in this qualification process. I further waive any claim for damages against the [Name of entity and agency], or its agents and employees, for any injury suffered by me while participating in this qualification process.

    Further, I hereby specifically agree to indemnity and hold harmless the [Name of entity and agency] and/or its officers and employees, from any and all liability resulting from my carrying and/or use of any weapon allowed under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, including, but not limited to, civil litigation.

    ……………………………………….. ………………………………………….

    Name of retired officer Signature

    ……………………………………….. ………………………………………….

    Name of witness Signature

    ……………………………………….. Doc. No. ………………

    Date

    IV. Qualifying checks of current and retired officers

    A. Before issuing or renewing [Name of Agency] photo identification cards, the [Personnel Division] shall review the officer’s or retired officer’s firearms qualification record and updated criminal history record.

    B. [Pertinent internal operating procedures].

    V. Verification of LEOSA status of active and retired officers in field situations.

    A. Current and retired officers of the [Name of Agency]

    l. A list of all current and retired officers shall be kept in the [dispatch office]. It is the responsibility of the [Personnel Division] to promptly furnish a roster, whenever it is updated.

    2. [Pertinent internal operating procedures to verify status].

    B. Current and retired officers of other agencies

    1. Requests for verification of the credentials of active and retired law enforcement and corrections officers shall be directed to the [dispatch office shift supervisor].

    2. [Pertinent internal operating procedures to verify status].

    Commentary

    Prepared by AELE

    I. Text of the Statute (click link)

    II. Preliminary comments on the LEO Safety Act:

    Nothing in the commentary, links or attachments should be considered legal advice!

    There is fundamental disagreement among law enforcement legal advisors as to what restrictions management can lawfully impose on active officers, and what legally enforceable rights inure to retired officers.

    Most states have a concealed weapons permit law and many former and retired officers have a permit to carry concealed firearms. H.R. 218 creates a second, overlapping circle of weapons authority. For example:

    • A qualified and credentialed active or retired officer can carry a weapon in Illinois, but CW permits are not issued to anyone, and there is no reciprocity for residents of other states who visit Illinois.

    • Some states do not have a state law imposing a continuing firearms qualification requirement, and it is up to each employing agency to adopt a standard. What standard, if any, does a retired officer have to meet?

    • A qualified and credentialed active or retired officer might not be authorized by his or her current or former employer to carry a firearm that is not on a list of approved weapons, or to carry a weapon that he or she did not qualify with. But that weapon could be lawfully carried in a state that has issued the officer a CW permit, as well as in other reciprocal states. Whether current officers who also have a valid CW permit can be disciplined for carrying an agency unapproved weapon is another unanswered question.

    To qualify for the exemption, retired officers must:

    1. At their own expense and in the past 12-month period, meet “the State’s standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms. [§926C(c)(5)] – and –

    2. Possess a [Name of Agency] identification card

    (a) “that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm” [§926C(c)(7)(d)(1)] – or –

    (b) photo ID issued by [Name of Agency} and “a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.” [§926C(c)(7)(d)(2)]

  115. here is the other part of that from above that caught myeye…

    3. Even if a retired officer satisfies the internal requirements imposed by his or her former agency, he or she can never qualify for the exemption, because the state has not adopted a minimum standard.

  116. Can anyone tell me why the Grand Jury indicted Drew on the weapons charge? He was originally charged by the police, right? Why the change?

  117. facs

    “So it’s pointless to spam donation concerns here.”

    Spam?

    You seem to have a personal problem regarding questions about donations. I am not sure why. You are coming across as the queen who deigns to reign. Why?

    Why is it that you cannot just not participate in these discussions about the donations? You have to interject your platitudes, thereby trying to insure your loyal following of posters.

    “Many charity watchdog groups have created tips for individuals to ensure that their donation goes directly to the organization of their choice. Some of the recommendations include visiting that organization’s website directly; don’t be fooled by names that closely resemble the name of a well-known charity; research the charity that you plan to donate to; be wary of telephone solicitations. For more tips on this topic, visit http://www.give.org or http://www.charitynavigator.org.”

    Now, if a charity like the Red Cross advocates warnings like the one above, then you should keep your not so thinly veiled irritation at questions, or maybe it is not the questions but the poster, to yourself and reply to what you deign to perceive as “within” your personal guidelines.

  118. FYI: I do believe that I don’t need a lawyer, but the FOSP committee might want to get one. This is only one portion and they really do need someone familiar with the non-profit, corporation laws.

    Ok…I heard and I am searching that all fundraisers must be approved by the Attorney General’s office if the organization hasn’t received their Non-profit number. Anyone?

  119. giveitarest // July 15, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    To the people that have invested time and money are ALSO on equal footing. It may not be a concern for you, but it is for others.

    That’s exactly why we are NOT on equal footing. Some people here have a legitimate legal issue that they should pursue. Others here (like me) just have to listen to them cry about it instead of acting on it.

    Wah, wah, wah, please do something about YOUR problem.

  120. Ducky – GJ indicted because: according to Joel: After formal arraignment, The matter proceeded to arraignment because no preliminary hearing was needed because the grand jury had returned an indictment on the weapons charges. The State and the Defendant agreed and informed the court that the indictment contained the same basic charges as the complaint that Mr. Peterson was arrested on, so that the fact that an indictment was returned did not changed the nature of the case. At the arraignment Mr. Peterson entered a plea of not guilty.

  121. facsmiley // July 15, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    giveitarest // July 15, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    To the people that have invested time and money are ALSO on equal footing. It may not be a concern for you, but it is for others.

    That’s exactly why we are NOT on equal footing. Some people here have a legitimate legal issue that they should pursue. Others here (like me) just have to listen to them cry about it instead of acting on it.

    Wah, wah, wah, please do something about YOUR problem.
    *******

    LOL, bless your heart.

  122. deeeny // July 15, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    facs

    “So it’s pointless to spam donation concerns here.”

    Spam?

    You seem to have a personal problem regarding questions about donations. I am not sure why. You are coming across as the queen who deigns to reign. Why?

    Why is it that you cannot just not participate in these discussions about the donations? You have to interject your platitudes, thereby trying to insure your loyal following of posters.
    ****************************************

    Why don’t I just sit back and enjoy the show?

    Because the people who like to spam this stuff tend to arrive ‘en masse’ and derail any other actual conversation that’s taking place.

    They take any disinterest as an offense and claim that they are being ‘ignored’.

    I don’t even know who they are trying to talk to. It’s not like it comes up in conversation. They just freaking… descend…in a pack and then here comes the deluge of super long tirades that are NOT conversation and appear to be aimed at FOSP. But this site…read closely…this site is NOT FOSP.

    It’s just rude. And I’m really tired of rude.

    And you might want to find out what a platitude is.

  123. Facs – with all due respect, since it is not in your makeup, I read here EVERYDAY. I constantly read this blog. I don’t participate in most discussion because I am bored with it. In your words: people who like to spam this stuff tend to arrive ‘en masse’ and derail any other actual conversation that’s taking place.

    Did you ever happen to think that we are always here, we are simply giving you the respect to discuss your concern?

  124. Giveitarest-Thank you! I asked a question and I actually got an answer. LOL!

    Facs-What is wrong with you about the donations/fundraisers? This is a ongoing issue as the board of FOSP are continuing to solicit funds and donations. I don’t get why you can’t either skip it or be civil. I’m not complaining and I never have. I’m trying to get answers. Many people need answers. The philosophy that if we ask about where OUR money went, then we don’t want Stacy found is ridiculous. The FACT that they flat out refuse to acknowledge our questions is wrong. The first fundraiser made $11,000.00, then another $10,000.00 given to the reward fund, then the next FUNraiser received almost $10,000.00. These donations are usually in small increments and thus, there are MANY people involved.

    Why is the TAX ID number that they put on their original flyer fake? You would think that after the previous dealings with donations and what happened with Anthony Cales, they would be above board and would LOVE to answer their contributors questions.

  125. duckyone // July 15, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    How about FOSP do the right thing, put out an accounting, get the correct numbers or return the money that has been donated.
    ************************************

    Luckily the country isn’t run that way, where you just hope that everyone does the right thing and that your only recourse is to complain and cry on a streetcorner when you feel you’ve been wronged.

    The fact is, there are laws to make sure that people do the right thing, and when you think you have a legitimate beef with someone you take legal action and take care of your issues.

    You should try it.

  126. “Wah, wah, wah, please do something about YOUR problem.”

    What?

    Why do you think they are voicing their opinions? They have inquired…over and over. They have called the IRS, State of Illinois, etc. to ask about this.

    You do not have to listen to them “cry” about it.
    There is an “X” up in the right hand corner. You can exercise your right. Just use it.

  127. PLEASE READ THIS THROUGHLY!! FOSP, PLEASE GET SOMEONE TO HELP YOU!! “Before soliciting or holding charitable funds”……….the last two paragraphs are critical. Where is the Attorney General’s number?

    Registering With the Charitable Trust Bureau
    Can we seek funding now?
    Before soliciting or holding charitable funds, the organization must register with the Illinois Attorney General’s Charitable Trust Bureau.

    What form do we use to register?
    To register with the Illinois Attorney General’s Charitable Trust Bureau, go to the Illinois Attorney General’s website or click on the titles below to complete and print the forms for submission to the Illinois Attorney General’s office.
    Charitable Organization – Registration Statement – Form CO-1 – charity organizations
    Charitable Organization – Financial Information Form – Form CO-2 – new organizations
    Charitable Organization – Registration Statement – Form CO-1 and Illinois Charitable Organization Annual Report – Form AG990 – organizations that have been in existence for more than eight months
    Instructions

    Here are some important facts to remember about registration:

    Charitable organizations that solicit funds and hold funds, in excess of $4,000.00, must register under both the Charitable Trust Act and the Solicitation for Charity Act. At least a $15.00 registration fee is required.

    Failure to register prior to soliciting funds in Illinois may subject the organization to late registration fees.

    If the organization is going to begin soliciting or holding charitable funds before receiving its determination letter from the IRS, when it files its application with the Illinois Attorney General, it must submit an explanation of why it does not yet have recognition of exemption.

    After the organization registers it will receive a letter from the Illinois Attorney General with a CO (Charitable Organization) number. It must maintain this number and every year will have to file AG990 with the Illinois Attorney General.

  128. Facs-you really shouldn’t wish my attorney on FOSP. LOL. BTW-I don’t sit around and “cry” about anything, the law firm that I work for has received all the proper documents 😉

    I believe that many people share the same thought, they DON’T want this to happen, they want to see FOSP do the right, legal and moral thing to do. Should Stacy and Kathleen’s name be further damaged by the mismanagement of funds on their behalf?

  129. Sadly enough if people stop donating because they don’t trust the operation, then the search will eventually stop. ISP has stated there will be no further water searches, it takes money to search, they need donations to get money. I publicly post because I know they are reading. I am hoping that if it is seen as a concern, they will act on it and clear up everything. If people want to view it as MY problem, then so be it, but it isn’t going to shut me up, or make me feel out of line for bringing it up.

  130. “ISP has stated there will be no further water searches, it takes money to search, they need donations to get money.”

    Then I would think that the family would turn over what they have collected so far to them. Cause the rounding up of blue barrels on the newly acquired boat is going nowhere.

  131. It’s way past my bedtime. Thank you to everyone that participated tonight and lets pray that FOSP gets their “ducks” in a row. I really hope that the conversations weren’t taken personal. I believe that all topics regarding Kathleen and Stacy should be front page news. If the board of FOSP needs some help to fix this problem, I hope that one of us can help them. There are so many good people here, and just because you inquire about the “sore” subjects, doesn’t mean that you don’t want justice for both of these beautiful Mom’s. It would be a shame to have their memories tainted by people that seem to “proud” to ask for help to put things in order. We all share a similar bond, to bring justice for both of these women.

    I’m jumping off my soap box, into my jammies and hitting the sack.

    Facs-I really hope that you understand where I am coming from tonight. I like everyone here and I hope that everyone’s opinions and ideas, even if you don’t agree, aren’t disregarded as retoric.

    Have a peaceful night.

  132. Good Evening All –

    Just got back in from out of town, and trying to catch up with the postings.

    Will be interesting to see how the Judge reads the law about the guns.

    Ducky, I’m with you and a few others, they (fosp) simply need to, and by law, should give you any information requested.

    My personal opinion is Sharon is shady. I have thought that from day one. It wont be popular, but it’s my opinion.

    They are just constantly hurting themselves, and their cause, that is the saddest part of this all.

    I also find it so hard to believe they don’t have some advisor that is helping them out. With all the questions, the website being shut down etc, it would be smart of them to seek legal advise and let the attorney’s handle to the matter.

    In the meantime, we just wait. Wait to see what the ISP has or doesn’t have, how the Judge will rule on the gun charges.

    Everyone stay cool, and drink lots of fluids. Its suppose to be icky the next few days.

  133. Has anyone viewed the flyer for the upcoming fundraiser/biker event? Where in the hell is Stacy’s picture? This is a cartoon, done very poorly and it’s classless. Oh, I wonder who designed it? Stacy is/was a beautiful woman and this is the BEST that you could do for her and her memory. Digrace. It’s time for FOSP to get someone to help them, the trailor park residents aren’t being very helpful if you wish this mother and Kathleen to be remembered with class and respect.

  134. Why does everyone bash FOSP, and their capabilities, and their efforts?
    What is the matter with some?
    Do you not have any thing better to do than sit here, and bad mouth? Apparently not! LOL!
    Now that is disgraceful.

    Go to Kimmers board for your bashing , cut throat ,TAX hype, and designing capabilities that are so much better than.

  135. ducky, amanda, deeeny, & giveitarest – Bravo!

    I have no “dog” in this hunt, I did not donate. However, I DO have very strong feelings relative to the shoddy way the FOSP have conducted the financial aspect of their organization (if you can call it that)! Please do not allow the “three musketeers,” who are under the impression this is their blog, to silence you! Perhaps they can roll over to yahoo and “chat” with each other since they are a mutual admiration society who think they know everything and are the boss of everyone!

  136. I just ask one more time, for those who are so adamant that the questions about issues that they feel are not part and parcel of this case i.e. the tax exempt status.

    I am just curious why you would not encourage the media (word press) to get to the bottom of it all so that you can prove em all wrong and put and end to what you view as “mud slinging”.

    I ask that with no sarcasm.

    Please I implore you, Danya Hooker, Word Press, Facsmiley, Rescue, CFS, even if it is not something that matters to you – answer the questions, prove the nay sayers wrong. Please.

  137. Please I implore you, Danya Hooker, Word Press, Facsmiley, Rescue, CFS, even if it is not something that matters to you – answer the questions, prove the nay sayers wrong. Please.

    _________________________________

    I meant to say ASK the questions, prove the nay sayers wrong

  138. Please I implore you Danya, WP, Facs, Rescue, CFS….can we just ignore this once and for all?

    Teneleven et al…..make your complaint to officials and/or shut up.

  139. Duckyone

    They’re doing their best. What’s “classless” is your crticism. Looks rilly rilly MEAN. It’s not unlike turning up at a wake and throwing furniture around and insulting the mourners. Shame on all the FSP haters.

  140. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1058153,6_1_NA16_STATE2_S1.article

    Wow. So that’s what the 2nd gun charge is about.

    July 16, 2008Recommend

    By JOE HOSEY The Herald News
    BOLINGBROOK — Friends of Drew Peterson’s family say they held on to the embattled ex-cop’s folding gun after the state police missed it during a search of his home three days after his wife vanished.

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has denied the existence of any “folding gun,” and even mocked Peterson’s former friend Ric Mims on the “Nancy Grace” show after Mims accused Peterson of flashing the gun to him and saying, “Hey, (the police) didn’t find this one.”

    Mims said Peterson then started “chuckling.”

    On the show, Brodsky called the claim “simply another fabrication of slick Ric Mims” and said, “He’s trying to sell another story to the National Enquirer now that he’s run out of money.”

    Another gun claim

    But other friends of Peterson, husband and wife Paula Stark and Len Wawczak, say the folding gun does exist and that Peterson signed it over to Stark the day after the state police pulled Peterson’s firearm owner’s identification card.
    Stark and Wawczak made the admission after being confronted with a state police evidence receipt for a Ruger .357 Magnum revolver and a North American Arms .22-caliber revolver seized from their home March 19. Stark’s name is on the receipt.

    The couple said the .22 is the folding gun Mims spoke of on “Nancy Grace.”

    “It was the same gun Ric Mims identified,” Stark said.

    Handwritten contract

    Stark also produced a handwritten contract for the “Transpher of 1 North American Arms Corp. S.S. .22 cal revolver” from Drew Peterson to Paula Stark dated Feb. 28 – shortly after the state police revoked Peterson’s FOID card and right after he returned from New York City, where he was appearing on the “Today” show. Stark and Wawczak watched Peterson’s children while he was in New York.
    Wawczak said Peterson wrote out the transfer for Stark while sitting at the desk in his home office.

    Stark and Wawczak say they took the gun home but lost it less than a month later when state cops stopped by their Meadowbrook Drive home to seize Stark’s Ruger after her FOID was suspended for listing an inaccurate date of birth and an outdated address.

    The police also found a .22, which folds into its own handle, and pegged it as Peterson’s, Wawczak said.

    Peterson said he’s done nothing wrong, as he simply “signed (the gun) over to them after they took my gun card away.”

    Claims disputed

    Brodsky said he was under the impression Peterson transferred a “derringer” “some time” before losing his FOID card.
    “He never had a gun after they took away his FOID card,” Brodsky said, while insisting Peterson never possessed the “folding gun” Mims spoke of.

    Sun-Times News Group

  141. Paul and Lenny! The folding gun … and a contract to transfer ownership.

    And for the inaccuracies on Paula’s FOID card … this never would have been found?

    Very interesting article … thanks, bucketoftea. If I’m going to be suffering from insomnia glad there was something to read!

Comments are closed.