Victor Barnard pleads guilty

[waysider]

Thank you, modcat5. Your concern and diligence does not go unnoticed.

[DontWorryBeHappy]

I totally agree with waysider. Take your time. In pseudo-legal and legal questions such as these, I certainly have no desire to see any victim, witness, or whistleblower be injured in any way. Neither have I enough legal accumen to know if and when I’m saying anything “wrong”, or other than what I know to be factual and true. However, I remain indignant, (hopefully righteously so), whenever the scumbags I KNOW are guilty as sin of harming the flock of the True Shepherd, live and continue to breed their perverted evolving mutation of wierwille’s self-serving, sociopathic MOGism, as if nothing THEY ever DID was as bad as what their MOG du jour did! Lying, thieving, grifting cultist weasel bastids! LOL! It irks me terribly!

That being said, I don’t think that either of the Mods here want to go against one of the primary missions of this great old Spot, by maliciously withholding the “other side of the story” regarding TWIt or any of it’s ridiculous and annoying splinters, offshoots, and blunders! Both are meticulously honest and respected men in their respective professions, neither of which is The Law. They do what they do here, spending their most valuable asset, their time, volunteering here to keep the Old Joint open and the coffee fresh. They do a heckuva job imho, and I think both pay due props to the soul of this place as Pawtucket formed it out of TWIt’s earliest fugees, and boldly, fearlessly, HONESTLY, and repeatedly TELLING THE TRUTHS AND FACTS about the other side of the TWIt monstrosities we had all been a part of and come out alive!

I trust that the issues can be justly and properly resolved so that legal and pseudo-legal matters will not preclude the free, open, and honest telling of the REAL TWIt story!................peace.

[Rocky]

4 hours ago, modcat5 said:

 

We suppose there is a place for healthy discussion about the second and third tiers of cult leaders, those who enable the leaders, the aiders and abettors of their abuses. But it's a fine line between identifying someone as VB's right hand man and accusing him of participating in criminal behavior.

 

The line isn't necessarily as fine as one might think. The essence, in one sense, comes down to whether one can rightfully be associated with VB (for example) as opposed to actually proving allegations of actual wrongdoing (criminal or tortious (civilly liable) conduct). And whether only being associated with him makes the associate liable for anything other than having made extremely poor judgment in having that association.

We can and do rightfully infer that VB, besides his acknowledged criminal conduct, was a master manipulator and deceiver. That inference makes it impossible to, absent actual evidence, make any inferences as to what criminal conduct his associates may have committed. Who of us has never been conned? I have been. Besides falling for VPW's BS, I can cite a couple of examples of when I fell for things when I should have known better.

The fact that a lawsuit alleged harmful conduct against VB's associates is one thing. That the court dismissed the lawsuit means we cannot rely on those allegations to make any reasonable inferences that VBs associates committed the alleged acts or omissions. 

As far as I know, we do not have any such actual evidence at this time.

Heresay -- in the form of I heard or read that she or he said _________ is NOT actual evidence. 

However, when one has a mental framework in which that one views any such associate, it can be extremely difficult to discern that what one believes as a result of heresay or as a result of prior observation of said associate is NOT actual evidence.

That said, I personally know NONE of VB's associates. 40 years ago, I KNEW one person who subsequently became an associate of VB. But I do not now know and have not seen or spoken with that associate of VB since the 1970s. And I cannot vouch for or against that person.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Rocky

[Grace Valerie Claire]

1 hour ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

I totally agree with waysider. Take your time. In pseudo-legal and legal questions such as these, I certainly have no desire to see any victim, witness, or whistleblower be injured in any way. Neither have I enough legal accumen to know if and when I’m saying anything “wrong”, or other than what I know to be factual and true. However, I remain indignant, (hopefully righteously so), whenever the scumbags I KNOW are guilty as sin of harming the flock of the True Shepherd, live and continue to breed their perverted evolving mutation of wierwille’s self-serving, sociopathic MOGism, as if nothing THEY ever DID was as bad as what their MOG du jour did! Lying, thieving, grifting cultist weasel bastids! LOL! It irks me terribly!

That being said, I don’t think that either of the Mods here want to go against one of the primary missions of this great old Spot, by maliciously withholding the “other side of the story” regarding TWIt or any of it’s ridiculous and annoying splinters, offshoots, and blunders! Both are meticulously honest and respected men in their respective professions, neither of which is The Law. They do what they do here, spending their most valuable asset, their time, volunteering here to keep the Old Joint open and the coffee fresh. They do a heckuva job imho, and I think both pay due props to the soul of this place as Pawtucket formed it out of TWIt’s earliest fugees, and boldly, fearlessly, HONESTLY, and repeatedly TELLING THE TRUTHS AND FACTS about the other side of the TWIt monstrosities we had all been a part of and come out alive!

I trust that the issues can be justly and properly resolved so that legal and pseudo-legal matters will not preclude the free, open, and honest telling of the REAL TWIt story!................peace.

DWBH,