§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §

 

    

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3df0cac0.519276%40news.bway.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:31:00 -0600
From: referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: The Padgett Papers -- No Contact Agreement
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:31:03 GMT
Message-ID: <3df0cac0.519276@news.bway.net>
References: <Xns92DCE32D522Fkadywwwaifnet@206.172.150.13>
<8494-3DF0C4BB-40@storefull-2278.public.lawson.webtv.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 177
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.222.148
X-Trace: sv3-xSOO96OO89ueDzl/plzA8ah2gDBWXPhoVXP8D/YaH5SSnyrCPOfVZfk3d5B
Qjuv8P0WNYEAbzb+xoUo!qW059frbrv5GoP6psLfUAamT6orZj9ReWdzzx6
Ddn0JMzkxYhOfdJTj/E8RbvtaZDNGdmgPc3g==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bway.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@bway.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1


On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:39:39 -0500 (EST), pts_2@webtv.net (Pts 2)
wrote:

>K. Katy:
>First off, when your pal Rob Clark jumps in here and starts his immature
>rants about slithering snakes, liars, and conga lines of dancing OSA
>kook posters, 2 things clearly emerge, 1) your arguments under this
>thread K, are taking on a personal attack mode,

Only after you began making comments about the kady.

If you are going to make personal comments about others, you'd
damn well better accept the fact that others will make personal
comments about you.

>and 2) right beneath the
>surface is the festering pro-Minton vs. anti-Minton genre w/ a pinch of
>anti-Gerry A. follies tossed in. Thanks for the tip-off Rob! :)

What does Robert S. Minton, Jr., Gerry Armstrong, and Tommyboy
have in common? The way I see it all three refuse to be honest
and forthcoming about their own behavior. They have all used this
newsgroup to garner sympathy and support for themselves, but they
have also refused to answer serious questions raised by people who
have read their posts.

If you were more honest about what has happened to you, more
people might not question the veracity of your tale. But any time
anyone asks you a question, no matter how sincere and justified
such questions might be, you take offense. That doesn't add to
your credibility; in fact, it's the reason why support for you on this
newsgroup has diminished.

>Secondly, you have the same obtuse beliefs as Mike Greenberg that
>longevity on ARS = credibility, and that all facts in life (and $cn
>related cases) can be found on Google Search.
>Combined, these indicate to me that you lack the ability to "connect the
>dots." Here's something that can help you there. Write to Citizens
>Against Corruption, 6045 N. 26th Street, Arlington, VA 22207 and get
>copy of the "3 STEP" flow charts on how Hubbard's "Truman Show" really
>works. They are vital tools in helping even the most dim person to
>connect the dots.

Only very dim people would depend on Arnaldo Lerma to connect the
dots for them. Lerma is a professional victim. I believe you are
doing your best to do the same.

>K, you didn't answer my question, DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN? ARE YOU A
>PARENT?

That's none of your business, Tommyboy, and it is entirely irrelevant
to the current discussion.

>I have no doubt you are a very bright young lady - with gobs of I.Q.
>However, I'd like to know more about your E.Q., P.Q., and M.Q.
>Why? Back in 1993, when I first met Dr. Ed Lottick at a CAN Conference,
>he said to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you can do as a parent to put
>yourself between your children and $cientology. His lovely wife was
>right next to him concurring. I have not lost sight of these
>advisements over the past 9 years, in spite of what's been tossed in my
>path. PLEASE answer the above questions K.

Wow, you sure are desperate to focus this discussion away from
yourself and onto kady. Are you really that frightened that people
just might find out you haven't been as honest as you might?

>Now, I am going to answer the question you asked. Did I have any
>involvement in the drafting of the no contact agreements? Re: one at
>the top of this thread, YES I DID! But was I the sole framer and
>drafter? NO WAY K!

In other words, you attempted to mislead people into making them
believe what you wrote was something your "enemies" (which has
come to include not only your ex-wife but the court system, the
government of Kentucky, and anyone who lives in proximity to
your ex-wife) wrote. That is dishonest, Tommyboy.

>Did
>I have any part in the no contact agreement at the top of the "Failure
>to Appear" thread. NO
>WAY K! That was written entirely by Laura Vannoy's neighbor, David
>Massamore. It even says so on the document..."Prepared by:____"
>
>The excerpt from the 3/8/02 KY Court of Appeals ruling, does not connect
>the dots K. Why?

Because there are no dots to connect. You have been engaged in a
nasty divorce and child custody dispute that has spanned at least a
decade. In spite of evidence to the contrary, you continue to insist
that this dispute has something to do with the Church of Scientology.
You have never provided any evidence at all to show that the CoS
is even aware of your domestic dissatisfaction.

>"Scientology is inadmissible in these proceedings." Judge Charles W.
>Boteler, Jr. 3/17/94.

Because Scientology has nothing at all to do with your dispute with
your ex-wife, Tommyboy.

>"I will not engage you in a debate with you over your claims concerning
>'scientology.' " David Massamore, 5/15/98

A wise statement from someone who sees you have consistently attempted
to divert attention away from your own refusal to support your
children by squawking about something irrelevant.

>"I do what my client(s) tell me to do." William R. Whitledge, Vannoy
>Atty 9/28/02

That's a statement that every lawyer will always say. I'm not at all
sure what you consider nefarious about the comment.

>"The respondent shall refrain from discussions of scientology, from
>inquiring about the petitioner's religious beliefs and actions, and from
>discussions regarding this action." Susan W. McClure, Hopkins Co. Atty
>& DRC. 12/21/02

That makes perfect sense to me. Your litigation had nothing to do
with the CoS, it was about paying mandated child support.

>"The court records of Padgett v. Padgett are so voluminous and so mixed
>up that it is impossible to find anything or the facts of the case."
>Clint Prow, Padgett Atty 9/10/01

I'm sure that's the case.

>"YES I AM A MEMBER [of scientology]" Laura Vannoy Padgett, 9/10/01 Video
>transcripts

Where can others view this transcript, Tommyboy? Or do you expect
others to depend upon you to decide what the transcript does and does
not say?

>There's a lot more dot-connectors for you K, but I'm short on time. I
>hope these help.

I don't know about kady, but your response to her has helped me a lot.
You are every bit as disinclined to be honest about your situation now
as you have been in the past. So be it.

>Lastly, here's a further suggestion if you are truly sincere about your
>endeavors under this thread.. Contact Laura Vannoy Padgett, (I can't by
>the signed agreements :) ), her address and tel# are in the public phone
>book and by dialing 411, and ask her the SAME pointed questions you have
>pressed here.

Your ex-wife is not the person making the claims here. You are.
If you are so pressed for time that you cannot back up your statements
here, you shouldn't be making such statements.

>IS she still a member of Scn, and can she fax you any
>forensic science testimony

"forensice science testimony"???? hunh?

>(expert or material witness) that point the
>officers of the courts to ignore or disregard Child Dianetics,
>Scientology, or any alternative mental health / religious practices.
>This would be the biggest dot-connector in this mess I believe, if you
>chose not to limit yourself to the narrow confines of Google on the
>internet. The "horses' mouth" I believe it's called....not the horses'
>bum!

You have established yourself as the "horse's mouth" here, Tommyboy.
Just because you no longer want to answer questions raised by
statements that came from your mouth doesn't change that fact.
YOU are responsible for the statements you have made here. No
matter how badly you might wish to shove that responsibility onto
others, it is still YOUR statements that have raised questions about
their veracity. It is up to YOU to substantiate your claims.

Put up or shut up, Tommyboy.


Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net

 

Thread

 

§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §