|
Yesterday I received a 5-page PDF file from Joseph by email. The PDF is a scan of the hard copy of the "documentation" recently mailed to a number of key people in the online exer community, by a supposed "Researcher," to support his/her claims of what was charged with and subsequently had to appear in court for, in 1988.
The complaint is 1 page, and the actual court documents are only 3 pages long. The 5th page is meant to look like what is supposedly copied from a law book, a page showing the definitions of subdvisions of California Penal Code 647.
Here are my comments on the 5 pages:
Page 1 looks authentic, and is derrived from a standardized complaint form. It is signed by a complainant accusing a of being guilty of breaking the law according to California Penal Code 647(a).
As this page follows standardized filing and complaint routines used by clerks, it quotes the exact wording of California Penal Code 647(a) and thus specifies exactly which law it is that was being charged with breaking:
"647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view."
(NOTE: There is NO mention of "molest," or "child," or "minor," etc)
Page 2 - 4 are routine court records showing: the filing of the charge, the appearance of the defendant, the schedule, the call for arraignment, the defendant being advised of his rights, names of parties involved including legal workers and judges, the pleas entered, a court decision that the defendant is to be fined the total sum of $150.00 (plus $187.50 fee for fund assessment) for disturbing the peace and placed on probation, a record that the fine was collected, and the termination of the case.
This record looks authentic. There are no transcripts or details of spoken or written exchanges. It shows the defendant initially pled nolo contendre to the lesser charge of disturbing the peace. It concludes with the original charge - PC 647(a) - being vacated, and the court being very lax (defendant not even present) and dropping the case altogether. The case was dismissed and terminated in 1990.
There are no indications the matter was settled out-of-court, which by law would have to be duly noted.
Page 5 is supposed to be a photocopied (several generations down) page showing the sub-divisions of California Penal Code 647 -- 647(d), 647(f), 647(g), 647(h), 647(i). However, there is a clear and obvious falsification of this page. It shows an obviously pasted paragraph with a different font and size, out of context with the rest of the page (which consists of standardized form guides), and which attempts to redefine and falsify what Penal Code 647(a) actually states.
What the page shows is not and to the best of our information never was what California Penal Code 647(a) states. *
The manufactured replacement text is derrived (not even properly quoted) from a whole other section of the law, cut and pasted onto the page to create the false idea that Penal Code 647(a) has something to do with the molestion of children. It suggests that molesting a child is punishable by a maximum fine of $500.00.
* The exact wording of this Penal Code and any amendments can be found on the official site for the State of California's Legislative Information, provided by the Legislative Counsel of California. Please see:
- http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=17512418461+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
- http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=639-653.1
exFamily.org is hereby declaring the rehashing of these unfounded charges against Sam A. off limits.
- Being charged with Penal Code 647(a) can simply mean you gave someone the finger and he got mad enough to make a formal complaint against you.
- Anyone can file a complaint. It doesn't automatically mean the defendant is guilty of the charge.
And in this case, the defendant pled nolo contendre to disturbing the peace, paid a fine of $150; and in 1990, the original misdemeanor charge was vacated, and the complaint was ordered dismissed in its entirety. In other words, the case was dropped..
- If the allegations made about Sam A. through "Angelo" (in 2003) and "Researcher" (this past week) are indeed true, we certainly did not find any of it supported or documented in the package "Researcher" sent to Joseph.
- Child molesters do not get their charges reduced to disturbing the peace and being fined the mere sum of $150.00
(Our legal expert explains: "If that were the case, it would either have to have been thrown out by a higher court, or be forced to make it all the way to the supreme court and become a legal precedent, and would be invoked by all defendants in any and all trials involving the sexual abuse of children since 1988.")
- Not only is this subject beyond our site's stated mission and stated responsibility (it is not our duty to "coax" anyone to post on our boards, and we are not investigative journalists), but appears to be a clear target of vengeance and defamation.
- Also to be considered, as pointed out by Joseph (with the threats of "outing" coordinators and calling in the IRS, etc) is the clear undertone that people can be threatened for daring to be activists against The Family, or for failing to submit to demands that we join along and unlawfully malign Sam A. with fabricated evidence. exFamily.org has never and will not yield to such threats.
- We regret the atmosphere of fear and intimidation these parties are trying to create, and will delete and bar anyone using such intimidation tactics.
- Anyone posting such rumors which cannot hold up in a court of law, or anyone naming names and making such claims of abuse which has not been perpetrated on themselves personally, is in violation of our site policies. They will be considered malicious visitors, and we will not hesitate to pass on any information we have to law enforcement authorities and 3rd party investigative agencies.
- We are hereby deleting all posts by and spawned by Researcher, who can now be charged with quite a few crimes according to the same California Penal Code he/she attempted to falsify, plus Penal Codes in the country from which his/her posts originated, and the Penal Codes of just about any other country -- falsifiying legal information and misrepresenting the law is taken very seriously in most countries.
- "Researcher" is by all counts, not a well-informed or well-connected ex-member, and has repeated information we know to be circulated amongst current Family circles.
- We now have it on record, that these false charges against Sam A. were first pushed not by "Angelo" (in 2003) nor by "Researcher" (this last week), but originally started several years ago by a top-ranking Family member whom Sam A. had exposed. This top-ranking Family leader is known by many SGs to be a sexual molester, and has a motive and known vendetta against Sam A.
P/S: For the record, I haven't spoken with or written to , nor had any kind of contact with him; not even had messages passed to or from via other sources, since he stopped showing up on the boards last year. |
