Ok Hemant... I've noticed you have become a lot saltier in your writing since the move to Substack. And I have to say, salt is often used to enhance the sweetness of a dish, and the salt in that last sentence....SWEET!
I've never attended a Drag Queen Story Hour, but after all the fuss about them, I think I'd like to, if for no other reason than to hear the reaction from the kids. Somehow, I think they'd be far less upset about a man dressing (and frequently rather outrageously) as a woman than the critics have been.
I never understood the point of drag queen story hour, but never saw the harm in them either. Conservative Christians do love their gender stereotypes though, and it's all rooted in fear of the different.
Every time there's a drag queen story hour and 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 of the children go home traumatized by the experience, it undercuts the right wing lies about drag queens.
I suspect it was probably started as just a gimmick to keep the kids interested, but later was seen as a way to introduce the kids to people who are different and not scary.
I never understood why the police used to send around a guy in a dog costume to promote police to younger kids and scared half of them to death (remember McGruff?).
Salt and pepper. Peanut butter and jelly. Christian pastor and child abuse. They all seem to occur together a lot, don't they? And this isn't the first, second, or third time Hemant has reported on such things, which just makes it all the more tragic.
What else is there to say other than: "Put him in jail and throw away the key!"
Pick a denomination, Hemant has likely covered a scandal like this at least twice 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. Of course, not all Christian pastors abuse children, but when so many of them do, they should all be considered suspect.
And yet, because religious faith continues to be considered a positive trait by the general public, that level of scrutiny will likely continue to be the exception, rather than the rule.
Just from watching a lot of atheist content on TikTok and YouTube, from people who have left evangelicalism, their idea of sex is to not talk about it at all, marry the girls off as young as possible (god forbid they get out in the world and try before they buy), and the men especially have very warped views of sex. I don't know where the pedophilia is coming from, but it seems rampant.
If there is an upside to these horrors, it is that they are now being taken seriously by law enforcement because so many of these cases have made it into the news. Their children will now be free of them, and have a chance for a decent life. The public is becoming more aware of the pedophiles in the clergy all the time, and it is contributing to the demise of organized religion. I hope these two, especially the dad, are never free again.
I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here. Purity culture and fundamentalist indoctrination combine to make one hell of a drug. She may have wanted to do something and been unable to even conceive of any effective action. Of course, the protection order may also be theater to get her a lighter sentence.
I suspect that, given her relative youthfulness and the fact that she'd already popped out half a dozen offspring, she had total buy-in on the whole fundamentalist submissive-wife thing and just did whatever her husband told her to. In a way, it's like taking advantage of developmentally disable people who just don't know any better.
On that note, check out some UK crime documentaries to see the startlingly different attitude their police have towards the disabled person, who is often taken advantage of by young drug dealers in council estates and blocks.
I will not give her or any woman the "benefit of the doubt" who allows her children to be abused or helps her husband abuse other children. You know, the foul piece of garbage that is her husband had to sleep some time and if was me he'd never wake up.
My 'benefit of the doubt' doesn't come from her being a woman, it comes from the disparity in charges and the fact that she filed a protection order. Those things paint a picture of an unwilling accomplice. If things were reversed and the woman had 8-10 charges of sexual assault against her and the man had 2 'assisting' charges and filed a restarinig order against his wife, same thing.
Now you're absolutely right to be a bit skeptical about that. The protection order could just be a legal ruse and she was all-in on supporting her husband's behavior. But where that puts me, mentally, is "for him, I'll provisionally believe he's guilty unless court coverage convinces me otherwise - for her, I'll wait and see what the court coverage brings up." In no way am I making a woman = innocent assumption.
Yeah with our legal system - where prosecutors regularly 'throw the book' in order to coerce cooperation or get a better plea - it's kinda hard to tell just from the charges if she was a willing participant and the protection order is a legal move, or if the charge against her is the legal move and the protection order is a legit case of "I didn't object/prevent because he would beat me if I did." We will see what further info comes out in court, I guess.
Here's hoping their kids find a happy home. Or that the parents provide good counseling etc., if it isn't one of theirs.
I am watching a "Law and Order" series on the Menendez boys and the trial (who murdered both their parents).
Not only was their father abusing them, their mother had abused them as young boys and when they went to her about their father (who was raping both), she said she already knew about it.
They're still convinced gay (or any LGBTQ status) is contagious and gay parents will make gay kids. The reality is gay kids are mostly made by straight parents. The only difference is kids of gay parents are more likely to be open to exploring their sexuality responsibly.
So they're accused of child rape, have a van, and 'ministry' that means they're always moving around. Part of me feels like we should be asking if they've been offering candy to small kids, too.
Honestly, this feels like any number of stories ripped from the headlines episodes of some police procedural show over the last few years. It's almost too bad we can't see how the Prisoner's Dilemma works out for Mr. and Mrs. Garlick in this case. This pair makes a great argument for punishing Christians more heavily than others when they commit crimes, since they claim more morality than everybody else.
I just hope the law catches up with them properly, and we don't see some stupid slap on the write type punishment when the time comes.
"Part of me feels like we should be asking if they've been offering candy to small kids, too."
They've been doing one better - offering kids a place where they get to live forever and eat candy for every meal, and without the Garlick's having to buy a single piece themselves.
And yet the great majority of Americans are still willing to ASSUME that anyone who CLAIMS to be working on behalf of God must be pure at heart, when at a minimum they're simply deluded and more likely are run-of-the-mill con artists. And then there are fiends like these, who use their ostensible religiosity as cover. Fortunately, they are (I think) in the minority of the God-pushers, but who can fail to notice that the presumption of purity accorded to Bible-thumpers is practically an open invitation for pederasts to set up shop under that awning?
"We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid."
With so many terrible stories about folks using the Bible and/or religion as guidance for disciplining children, it is difficult to not claim that religion, Christianity specifically, is the cause of the criminal offenses rather than just an excuse for getting away with it. Maybe the folks seeing the “spare the rod” are those already inclined to beat children, but perhaps they wouldn’t be that way if their god hadn’t brought it into acceptance. Just as much folks who see the “do unto others” do kind things at times they’re tempted to be cruel to please god, the ones who see the cruelty in their holy book seek to please god and do things beyond what their nature might have suggested otherwise. And even if they’re only using it as an excuse, the behaviors are fully supported in the Bible. That goes for sexual abuse as well.
What I’m trying to get at is that the religion is setup as the reason people do shïtty things to kids and a shelter for people who do shïtty things to kids. If the Bible didn’t tell the Tarpins that the world was evil, would they have imprisoned and starved their children? They didn’t start out treating their children that way, not until they got swept up in the extreme of the religion. I think claiming good people use the good parts of religion and bad people use the bad (and that bad people will d bad without religion) is a way some folks excuse religion as a driving factor for much of the bad. It’s an age old cop out to not address the horrific history and continued crimes of religion. And a way to ignore the fact that religion has never been the force for good it claims, as it is always on the wrong side of history.
I think you may have a point when it comes to spanking (not beating) a child. I think a lot of otherwise good people are told it's alright and it was the way they were raised and how an individual was raised has a lot to do with how they raise their kids. They model their parents (some as a model of what *not* to do). I still believe we should have parenting classes in high school that teach better methods of discipline/behavior modification.
Those who beat children (worried about how not to leave evidence or go for bruising or even blood), I think would do so without the cover of the Bible, although maybe the Pearls' (Hades take them and get creative) book might not have been published.
I don't think many of them would consider themselves abused. I don't. Just that their parents used a less than ideal method of discipline based on what they knew, but there was no malice behind it.
But conservatives would fight it simply because it was different.
And who *ever* said conservatives were rational. A rational 'conservative' is called a moderate because they're open to change, they just have to be convinced it's better than the status quo.
"That's the way I was raised." I'm always amazed that anyone thinks that's a reasonable explanation for any belief/behavior of any kind at all. If someone believes the earth is flat, would anyone at all think that "I was raised that way" would be a reasonable rationale? But when people hear that as an explanation for horrible religious behavior, it rolls right off them. Yeah, humanity is a rational species, all right. Sure it is.
Kids don't come with a manual* so unless they've been taught better, people raise kids the way they were raised. (Or the opposite)
*the only thing I know of that purports to be a manual is that diabolical travesty by Mike and Debbie Pearl (may they rot in a dimension even hell dimensions call hell.)
Remember the old footage of when at the end of WWII, the Soviet troops in Berlin blew up the Swastika and Nazi Third Reich crest on the Brandenburg gate?
Let us have just one, please just one of The Rotten Orange's many tall buildings with the name TRUMP at the top be carefully cordoned off for public safety, and that hateful name BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS for all the world to celebrate.
It's too large and too close to other properties. Explosives demolition is too dangerous. It would require careful non-explosive demolition on a floor-by-floor basis to be safe.
And in a stunning development, the judge has already ordered the complete dissolution of the fabled Trump Organization–the tycoon’s pride and joy, the empire that made him famous and elevated him into the White House. The Trump Organization and its sister companies will be sent into receivership to be under the control of a court-appointed officer.
Former President Donald Trump, his top executives, and heirs were declared completely liable of “persistent and repeated fraud”—and the real estate empire was unceremoniously stripped of its business licenses in New York—after a judge’s powerful ruling Tuesday ahead of a massive trial that seeks to hit them with more than $250 million in penalties for bank fraud.
And in a stunning development, the judge has already ordered the complete dissolution of the fabled Trump Organization–the tycoon’s pride and joy, the empire that made him famous and elevated him into the White House. The Trump Organization and its sister companies will be sent into receivership to be under the control of a court-appointed officer.
Even before the trial officially starts, the ruling handed New York Attorney General Letitia James a near total victory, meaning that next week’s trial will mostly focus on damages that could pulverize whatever is left of Trump’s many business entities and bank accounts.
In his 35-page opinion, Justice Arthur F. Engoron tore apart what he called the Trump family’s “bogus arguments” and obstreperous conduct. And he summed up the entire defense as “a fantasy world, not the real world.”
“In defendants’ world: rent regulated apartments are worth the same as unregulated apartments; restricted land is worth the same as unrestricted land, restricts can evaporate into thin air… all illegal acts are untimely if they stem from one untimely act; and square footage [is] subjective,” he wrote.
Trump, several of his heirs, and top executives will now be fighting off accusations of bank and insurance fraud at a civil trial that’s scheduled to run from early October until late December. AG Letitia James seeks to punish them all for routinely lying about property values to score better deals. At trial, it will be up to Judge Engoron alone whether the Trumps will owe $250 million-plus in penalties, be prohibited from serving as executives, and have the company charters revoked.
In a scathing statement posted to Truth Social on Tuesday night, the former president described himself, his family and supporters as victims of a “widespread, radical attack that has now devolved to new, un-American depths.” He described Judge Engoron as “DERANGED” and alleged he was simply doing James’ “bidding.”
“Today’s action is a refutation of my status as the leading Candidate for President of the United States,” he fumed. “It is a terrible reminder that the Radical Left Democrats will stop at nothing in trying to prevent me, and the American people, from winning the 2024 Presidential Election. Regardless of Party, we cannot let this happen in the United States of America!”
Trump alleged that as his lead in the polls over Biden grows higher, his enemies are becoming “more and more desperate and dangerous.”
At a court hearing last week, lawyers on both sides tried to convince the judge to grant them each a total victory to avoid much of the trial. Engoron decided against that, rejecting the Trumps’ request to dismiss the case entirely and the AG’s request to have a trial solely on damages.
On Tuesday, Engoron ripped the Trumps—and their lawyers—apart for dragging this on so long with legal arguments that wasted the courts time by repeatedly questioning whether the AG even had the authority to hold them accountable this way.
Those arguments “glaringly misrepresent” the law and trying them again and again “invoke the time-loop in the film Groundhog Day,’” the judge wrote, calling attempts to topple the case this way “pure sophistry.”
Engoron also made the pivotal decision to keep all of the AG’s lawsuit intact, concluding that all of the real estate deals in question are not too old for law enforcement to crack down on for bank fraud. He brushed off the Trumps’ attempt to whittle down the lawsuit ahead of a trial that could drain the wealthy family’s bank accounts.
The timing of this decision also throws a wrench into the Trumps’ Hail Mary play, in which they sued the judge directly and prematurely asked a state appellate court to intervene because he hadn’t yet made his decision on the statute of limitations—an oddly aggressive move that reeked of delay tactics. That higher court, the appellate division’s First Judicial Department, has yet to weigh in. Doing so now might be a moot point. As such, the trial appears to be set to start next Monday, as planned.
The judge seemed particularly annoyed at what he described as the Trumps’ inability to run their business ethically. He had previously assigned a former federal judge to oversee aspects of the Trump Organization to ensure that it did not slyly shift assets ahead of the trial—only to discover that executives wouldn't let the court-appointed monitor do her job.
“Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent monitor overseeing their compliance, defendants havecontinued to disseminate false and misleading information while conducting business,” he wrote.
The judge said that canceling the business certificate was justified.
“This ongoing flouting of this court’s prior order, combined with the persistent nature of the false [statements of financial condition] year after year, have demonstrated the necessity of canceling the certificates,” he added.
The judge struck down every defense Trump and his lawyers raised during the course of the AG’s three-year investigation and in the year since she filed her lawsuit.
For example, Engoron stopped Trump from leaning on dubious disclaimers from his longtime outside accountants at MazarsUSA, which indicated that they hadn’t actually audited his personal financial statements. In court, his lawyers kept pushing the idea that Trump wasn’t really bound by basic rules called Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known as “GAAP.” The judge was having none of it.
“These non-party disclaimers do not insulate defendants from liability, as they plainly state that ‘Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America,’” Engoron wrote.
And in what’s become a recurring theme in this case—one that has annoyed the judge repeatedly—it was clear that the Trumps were pointing to evidence that said the exact opposite of what they were trying to prove.
“In sum, the Mazars disclaimers put the onus for accuracy squarely on defendants’ shoulders,” Engoron wrote.
(Mazars dropped the Trump Organization as a client last year and disavowed their previous work by pointing to his untrustworthy personal financial statement.)
In his decision on Tuesday, Engoron also decided to impose sanctions on the Trumps’ lawyers over the AG’s accusations that they have acted unprofessionally by raising ridiculous arguments and delaying the case this long. AG investigators have been digging into the Trumps’ finances for more than three years and have been slowed down at every turn by a company that has refused to turn over documents and Trump family members who wouldn’t show up for official interviews. The family’s procrastination and obstruction efforts forced the judge to intervene several times, at one point ordering the former president himself to pay $110,000 in fines.
“Unfortunately, sanctions are the only way to impress upon defendants’ attorneys the consequences of engaging in repetitive, frivolous motion practice after this court, affirmed by the appellate division, expressly warned them against doing so,” he wrote.
He ordered the entire Trump legal team—Michael Madaio, Clifford S. Robert, Michael Farina, Christopher Kise, and Armen Morian—to each pay $7,500, a punishment that will also serve as a blemish on their professional records.
Trump's lawyers argued that anything other than complete exoneration of Trump is a "miscarriage of justice". Judge slaps them with a contempt of court fine that goes into their permanent records.
Defendants' respond that: the documents do not say what they say; that there is no such thing as "objective" value; and that, essentially, the Court should not believe its own eyes.
=========
Seriously, are these actually lawyers or are they 7-year-olds that Trump kidnapped from preschools?
My offhand guess is that they are good lawyers who are perfectly happy to write longshot legal defenses to slow-roll the system so long as they are getting paid good money to do so. If they get yelled at by the judge, well taking that abuse is just part of why they charge a lot.
As far as I can tell, Trump's general legal strategy consists of slow-rolling prosecutors into a reasonable deal. Given that this is a *pre-trial* ruling, he could still drag out all the penalties, and the state could end up cutting a deal to get some things right now.
Also keep in mind that he or his businesses have filed for bankrupcy 11 times before. #12 is very very unlikely to end his power.
Ok Hemant... I've noticed you have become a lot saltier in your writing since the move to Substack. And I have to say, salt is often used to enhance the sweetness of a dish, and the salt in that last sentence....SWEET!
Sooooooooooooooo sweet! That is beautiful writing!
More and more of stories like this makes the notion of Drag Queens harming children a total, absolute lie.
I've never attended a Drag Queen Story Hour, but after all the fuss about them, I think I'd like to, if for no other reason than to hear the reaction from the kids. Somehow, I think they'd be far less upset about a man dressing (and frequently rather outrageously) as a woman than the critics have been.
I never understood the point of drag queen story hour, but never saw the harm in them either. Conservative Christians do love their gender stereotypes though, and it's all rooted in fear of the different.
Every time there's a drag queen story hour and 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 of the children go home traumatized by the experience, it undercuts the right wing lies about drag queens.
"Every time there's a drag queen story hour and 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 of the children go home traumatized by the experience..."
A Hell's Angel gets it's wings.
Yup. The next time a drag queen beats a half dozen school children to death with a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird, they might have a point.
I suspect it was probably started as just a gimmick to keep the kids interested, but later was seen as a way to introduce the kids to people who are different and not scary.
I never understood why the police used to send around a guy in a dog costume to promote police to younger kids and scared half of them to death (remember McGruff?).
Salt and pepper. Peanut butter and jelly. Christian pastor and child abuse. They all seem to occur together a lot, don't they? And this isn't the first, second, or third time Hemant has reported on such things, which just makes it all the more tragic.
What else is there to say other than: "Put him in jail and throw away the key!"
Pick a denomination, Hemant has likely covered a scandal like this at least twice 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. Of course, not all Christian pastors abuse children, but when so many of them do, they should all be considered suspect.
And yet, because religious faith continues to be considered a positive trait by the general public, that level of scrutiny will likely continue to be the exception, rather than the rule.
Just from watching a lot of atheist content on TikTok and YouTube, from people who have left evangelicalism, their idea of sex is to not talk about it at all, marry the girls off as young as possible (god forbid they get out in the world and try before they buy), and the men especially have very warped views of sex. I don't know where the pedophilia is coming from, but it seems rampant.
If there is an upside to these horrors, it is that they are now being taken seriously by law enforcement because so many of these cases have made it into the news. Their children will now be free of them, and have a chance for a decent life. The public is becoming more aware of the pedophiles in the clergy all the time, and it is contributing to the demise of organized religion. I hope these two, especially the dad, are never free again.
The use of social media is helping to get these stories out into the general public, too.
I've said for some time that organized religion is not going to survive the internet with its influence intact.
𝑁𝑒𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑗𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑠.
Perfect!
No wonder vampires hate Garlic(k). They know Christians are the real bloodsuckers.
(sorry. somebody had to go after that name)
We both have the same thoughts. Mine is a uptop
Just saw it. :)
Abusers go where the kids are. Stories like this are why no one should blindly trust religious people.
It seems a person's capacity for immoral, unethical, and downright criminal behavior is proportional to their performative religiosity.
That's a very intellectual way of saying that the religious are evil. 😁
Yeah I gave that one a lot of thought
Maybe that's why DeSantis doesn't like math being taught in schools?
Or history. Or civics. Or literature. Hell, he'd get rid of that whole inconvenient education business altogether, if he thought he could swing it.
Kids would still learn things from the Internet. Let's see DeSanitarium try to get rid of the 'Net.
You think he won't try? That's why conservatives oppose net neutrality. Step by step, inch by inch...
He'll have to do better in his bid for POTUS if he wants to ever get the chance. He's stumbling.
Shoulda scrolled down before replying. :)
Shhhh! Don't give him any ideas. You just know that tin-pot dictator wannabe would try it.
Hell, that's damned near axiomatic!
😝
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑡. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑, 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ, 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑊𝐺𝑁𝑆 𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑠, 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛 𝑂𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 ℎ𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑠𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑. (𝑊𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑒.)
I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here. Purity culture and fundamentalist indoctrination combine to make one hell of a drug. She may have wanted to do something and been unable to even conceive of any effective action. Of course, the protection order may also be theater to get her a lighter sentence.
I suspect that, given her relative youthfulness and the fact that she'd already popped out half a dozen offspring, she had total buy-in on the whole fundamentalist submissive-wife thing and just did whatever her husband told her to. In a way, it's like taking advantage of developmentally disable people who just don't know any better.
On that note, check out some UK crime documentaries to see the startlingly different attitude their police have towards the disabled person, who is often taken advantage of by young drug dealers in council estates and blocks.
I will not give her or any woman the "benefit of the doubt" who allows her children to be abused or helps her husband abuse other children. You know, the foul piece of garbage that is her husband had to sleep some time and if was me he'd never wake up.
My 'benefit of the doubt' doesn't come from her being a woman, it comes from the disparity in charges and the fact that she filed a protection order. Those things paint a picture of an unwilling accomplice. If things were reversed and the woman had 8-10 charges of sexual assault against her and the man had 2 'assisting' charges and filed a restarinig order against his wife, same thing.
Now you're absolutely right to be a bit skeptical about that. The protection order could just be a legal ruse and she was all-in on supporting her husband's behavior. But where that puts me, mentally, is "for him, I'll provisionally believe he's guilty unless court coverage convinces me otherwise - for her, I'll wait and see what the court coverage brings up." In no way am I making a woman = innocent assumption.
Yeah with our legal system - where prosecutors regularly 'throw the book' in order to coerce cooperation or get a better plea - it's kinda hard to tell just from the charges if she was a willing participant and the protection order is a legal move, or if the charge against her is the legal move and the protection order is a legit case of "I didn't object/prevent because he would beat me if I did." We will see what further info comes out in court, I guess.
Here's hoping their kids find a happy home. Or that the parents provide good counseling etc., if it isn't one of theirs.
Hoping their kids find a happy home and that any children they harmed get good counseling.
I am watching a "Law and Order" series on the Menendez boys and the trial (who murdered both their parents).
Not only was their father abusing them, their mother had abused them as young boys and when they went to her about their father (who was raping both), she said she already knew about it.
But gays adopting kids is bad, according to kristers.
They're still convinced gay (or any LGBTQ status) is contagious and gay parents will make gay kids. The reality is gay kids are mostly made by straight parents. The only difference is kids of gay parents are more likely to be open to exploring their sexuality responsibly.
They flunked biology.
Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Sam Cooke version, Herman's Hermits or Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel with James Taylor?
I like em' all.
Don't think I've heard the last one, I'll have to do a search.
Either way, they're ignorant of everything.
Thank you. That man was incredible.
I'm as shocked about this as I am about finding out there's gambling going on at Rick's.
Here are your winnings, sir.
Oh, thank you very much.
So they're accused of child rape, have a van, and 'ministry' that means they're always moving around. Part of me feels like we should be asking if they've been offering candy to small kids, too.
Honestly, this feels like any number of stories ripped from the headlines episodes of some police procedural show over the last few years. It's almost too bad we can't see how the Prisoner's Dilemma works out for Mr. and Mrs. Garlick in this case. This pair makes a great argument for punishing Christians more heavily than others when they commit crimes, since they claim more morality than everybody else.
I just hope the law catches up with them properly, and we don't see some stupid slap on the write type punishment when the time comes.
In his case, if he's convicted he faces life w/o the possibility of parole, so there's that.
"Part of me feels like we should be asking if they've been offering candy to small kids, too."
They've been doing one better - offering kids a place where they get to live forever and eat candy for every meal, and without the Garlick's having to buy a single piece themselves.
"𝘉𝘦𝘯𝘫𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘢 𝘷𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺."
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qev-i9-VKlY
I know something they should be making amends for. And it ain't wheels.
My mom listened to a LOT of the Statler Brothers. They did a version, which always made me wonder, but I suppose it could be a female name too.
Kris Kristofferson wrote it.
"The titular character was named for a studio secretary, Barbara "Bobbie" McKee, but Kristofferson had misheard her surname."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_and_Bobby_McGee
Died way too young (27).
I still can't believe that Buddy Holly was only 22 when he died. Tragic loss for the music world.
Thanks for the ear worm. Not!
Hey, a traveling rape show disguised as a ministry. Who'da thunk it?
Just about everyone here. 😁
And yet the great majority of Americans are still willing to ASSUME that anyone who CLAIMS to be working on behalf of God must be pure at heart, when at a minimum they're simply deluded and more likely are run-of-the-mill con artists. And then there are fiends like these, who use their ostensible religiosity as cover. Fortunately, they are (I think) in the minority of the God-pushers, but who can fail to notice that the presumption of purity accorded to Bible-thumpers is practically an open invitation for pederasts to set up shop under that awning?
"We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid."
-- Christopher Hitchens
With so many terrible stories about folks using the Bible and/or religion as guidance for disciplining children, it is difficult to not claim that religion, Christianity specifically, is the cause of the criminal offenses rather than just an excuse for getting away with it. Maybe the folks seeing the “spare the rod” are those already inclined to beat children, but perhaps they wouldn’t be that way if their god hadn’t brought it into acceptance. Just as much folks who see the “do unto others” do kind things at times they’re tempted to be cruel to please god, the ones who see the cruelty in their holy book seek to please god and do things beyond what their nature might have suggested otherwise. And even if they’re only using it as an excuse, the behaviors are fully supported in the Bible. That goes for sexual abuse as well.
What I’m trying to get at is that the religion is setup as the reason people do shïtty things to kids and a shelter for people who do shïtty things to kids. If the Bible didn’t tell the Tarpins that the world was evil, would they have imprisoned and starved their children? They didn’t start out treating their children that way, not until they got swept up in the extreme of the religion. I think claiming good people use the good parts of religion and bad people use the bad (and that bad people will d bad without religion) is a way some folks excuse religion as a driving factor for much of the bad. It’s an age old cop out to not address the horrific history and continued crimes of religion. And a way to ignore the fact that religion has never been the force for good it claims, as it is always on the wrong side of history.
I think you may have a point when it comes to spanking (not beating) a child. I think a lot of otherwise good people are told it's alright and it was the way they were raised and how an individual was raised has a lot to do with how they raise their kids. They model their parents (some as a model of what *not* to do). I still believe we should have parenting classes in high school that teach better methods of discipline/behavior modification.
Those who beat children (worried about how not to leave evidence or go for bruising or even blood), I think would do so without the cover of the Bible, although maybe the Pearls' (Hades take them and get creative) book might not have been published.
Yes, but how many kids would suddenly realize they were abused if there were HS parenting classes. Consewertives would never allow it.
I don't think many of them would consider themselves abused. I don't. Just that their parents used a less than ideal method of discipline based on what they knew, but there was no malice behind it.
But conservatives would fight it simply because it was different.
"Change is inevitable. It is therefore irrational to work against it." --First Officer Spock
And who *ever* said conservatives were rational. A rational 'conservative' is called a moderate because they're open to change, they just have to be convinced it's better than the status quo.
"That's the way I was raised." I'm always amazed that anyone thinks that's a reasonable explanation for any belief/behavior of any kind at all. If someone believes the earth is flat, would anyone at all think that "I was raised that way" would be a reasonable rationale? But when people hear that as an explanation for horrible religious behavior, it rolls right off them. Yeah, humanity is a rational species, all right. Sure it is.
Kids don't come with a manual* so unless they've been taught better, people raise kids the way they were raised. (Or the opposite)
*the only thing I know of that purports to be a manual is that diabolical travesty by Mike and Debbie Pearl (may they rot in a dimension even hell dimensions call hell.)
Humanity is rational thought overlaid on an irrational animal and many times when those come into conflict the animal wins.
OT, yay!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-basically-just-lost-the-new-york-bank-fraud-case-before-it-even-started?ref=home?ref=home
Remember the old footage of when at the end of WWII, the Soviet troops in Berlin blew up the Swastika and Nazi Third Reich crest on the Brandenburg gate?
Let us have just one, please just one of The Rotten Orange's many tall buildings with the name TRUMP at the top be carefully cordoned off for public safety, and that hateful name BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS for all the world to celebrate.
Why stop at just the name? It would be cheaper to demolish the whole building than to try to rid it of the Trump stench.
It's too large and too close to other properties. Explosives demolition is too dangerous. It would require careful non-explosive demolition on a floor-by-floor basis to be safe.
One can dream.
All of them. To the 1812 Overture.
ooooooooooooh, yeah!
I learned a new word today, ob·strep·er·ous [əbˈstrep(ə)rəs], ADJECTIVE, noisy and difficult to control.
Paywall, but I saw the headline.
He's so eager to call others "loser," yet he keeps losing.
And in a stunning development, the judge has already ordered the complete dissolution of the fabled Trump Organization–the tycoon’s pride and joy, the empire that made him famous and elevated him into the White House. The Trump Organization and its sister companies will be sent into receivership to be under the control of a court-appointed officer.
===============
HOLY SHIT!!
https://imgur.com/gallery/XeDGfMl
Full text:
======
Former President Donald Trump, his top executives, and heirs were declared completely liable of “persistent and repeated fraud”—and the real estate empire was unceremoniously stripped of its business licenses in New York—after a judge’s powerful ruling Tuesday ahead of a massive trial that seeks to hit them with more than $250 million in penalties for bank fraud.
And in a stunning development, the judge has already ordered the complete dissolution of the fabled Trump Organization–the tycoon’s pride and joy, the empire that made him famous and elevated him into the White House. The Trump Organization and its sister companies will be sent into receivership to be under the control of a court-appointed officer.
Even before the trial officially starts, the ruling handed New York Attorney General Letitia James a near total victory, meaning that next week’s trial will mostly focus on damages that could pulverize whatever is left of Trump’s many business entities and bank accounts.
In his 35-page opinion, Justice Arthur F. Engoron tore apart what he called the Trump family’s “bogus arguments” and obstreperous conduct. And he summed up the entire defense as “a fantasy world, not the real world.”
“In defendants’ world: rent regulated apartments are worth the same as unregulated apartments; restricted land is worth the same as unrestricted land, restricts can evaporate into thin air… all illegal acts are untimely if they stem from one untimely act; and square footage [is] subjective,” he wrote.
Trump, several of his heirs, and top executives will now be fighting off accusations of bank and insurance fraud at a civil trial that’s scheduled to run from early October until late December. AG Letitia James seeks to punish them all for routinely lying about property values to score better deals. At trial, it will be up to Judge Engoron alone whether the Trumps will owe $250 million-plus in penalties, be prohibited from serving as executives, and have the company charters revoked.
In a scathing statement posted to Truth Social on Tuesday night, the former president described himself, his family and supporters as victims of a “widespread, radical attack that has now devolved to new, un-American depths.” He described Judge Engoron as “DERANGED” and alleged he was simply doing James’ “bidding.”
“Today’s action is a refutation of my status as the leading Candidate for President of the United States,” he fumed. “It is a terrible reminder that the Radical Left Democrats will stop at nothing in trying to prevent me, and the American people, from winning the 2024 Presidential Election. Regardless of Party, we cannot let this happen in the United States of America!”
Trump alleged that as his lead in the polls over Biden grows higher, his enemies are becoming “more and more desperate and dangerous.”
At a court hearing last week, lawyers on both sides tried to convince the judge to grant them each a total victory to avoid much of the trial. Engoron decided against that, rejecting the Trumps’ request to dismiss the case entirely and the AG’s request to have a trial solely on damages.
On Tuesday, Engoron ripped the Trumps—and their lawyers—apart for dragging this on so long with legal arguments that wasted the courts time by repeatedly questioning whether the AG even had the authority to hold them accountable this way.
Those arguments “glaringly misrepresent” the law and trying them again and again “invoke the time-loop in the film Groundhog Day,’” the judge wrote, calling attempts to topple the case this way “pure sophistry.”
Engoron also made the pivotal decision to keep all of the AG’s lawsuit intact, concluding that all of the real estate deals in question are not too old for law enforcement to crack down on for bank fraud. He brushed off the Trumps’ attempt to whittle down the lawsuit ahead of a trial that could drain the wealthy family’s bank accounts.
The timing of this decision also throws a wrench into the Trumps’ Hail Mary play, in which they sued the judge directly and prematurely asked a state appellate court to intervene because he hadn’t yet made his decision on the statute of limitations—an oddly aggressive move that reeked of delay tactics. That higher court, the appellate division’s First Judicial Department, has yet to weigh in. Doing so now might be a moot point. As such, the trial appears to be set to start next Monday, as planned.
The judge seemed particularly annoyed at what he described as the Trumps’ inability to run their business ethically. He had previously assigned a former federal judge to oversee aspects of the Trump Organization to ensure that it did not slyly shift assets ahead of the trial—only to discover that executives wouldn't let the court-appointed monitor do her job.
“Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent monitor overseeing their compliance, defendants havecontinued to disseminate false and misleading information while conducting business,” he wrote.
The judge said that canceling the business certificate was justified.
“This ongoing flouting of this court’s prior order, combined with the persistent nature of the false [statements of financial condition] year after year, have demonstrated the necessity of canceling the certificates,” he added.
The judge struck down every defense Trump and his lawyers raised during the course of the AG’s three-year investigation and in the year since she filed her lawsuit.
For example, Engoron stopped Trump from leaning on dubious disclaimers from his longtime outside accountants at MazarsUSA, which indicated that they hadn’t actually audited his personal financial statements. In court, his lawyers kept pushing the idea that Trump wasn’t really bound by basic rules called Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known as “GAAP.” The judge was having none of it.
“These non-party disclaimers do not insulate defendants from liability, as they plainly state that ‘Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America,’” Engoron wrote.
And in what’s become a recurring theme in this case—one that has annoyed the judge repeatedly—it was clear that the Trumps were pointing to evidence that said the exact opposite of what they were trying to prove.
“In sum, the Mazars disclaimers put the onus for accuracy squarely on defendants’ shoulders,” Engoron wrote.
(Mazars dropped the Trump Organization as a client last year and disavowed their previous work by pointing to his untrustworthy personal financial statement.)
In his decision on Tuesday, Engoron also decided to impose sanctions on the Trumps’ lawyers over the AG’s accusations that they have acted unprofessionally by raising ridiculous arguments and delaying the case this long. AG investigators have been digging into the Trumps’ finances for more than three years and have been slowed down at every turn by a company that has refused to turn over documents and Trump family members who wouldn’t show up for official interviews. The family’s procrastination and obstruction efforts forced the judge to intervene several times, at one point ordering the former president himself to pay $110,000 in fines.
“Unfortunately, sanctions are the only way to impress upon defendants’ attorneys the consequences of engaging in repetitive, frivolous motion practice after this court, affirmed by the appellate division, expressly warned them against doing so,” he wrote.
He ordered the entire Trump legal team—Michael Madaio, Clifford S. Robert, Michael Farina, Christopher Kise, and Armen Morian—to each pay $7,500, a punishment that will also serve as a blemish on their professional records.
======
Trump is slipping. In that unhinged rant of his, he forgot scream WITCH HUNT!
How much more can Trump's blood pressure takes before he pops his clogs?
Trump's lawyers argued that anything other than complete exoneration of Trump is a "miscarriage of justice". Judge slaps them with a contempt of court fine that goes into their permanent records.
I believe that the technical legal term for what the judge did is "rip him a new asshole"
Trump in a Jumpsuit! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNNoqeAlnrM
here's my own much shorter composition: "Trump in a jump suit -two bits!"
It's a bit derivative, of course, but I'm also a bit giddy hearing this news!
Loving this! Please tell me it's not just a wish-fulfillment dream!
Mostly. Everything is correct except for the closure order, as reported at MotherJones.
That one only states all assets, properties, and businesses in New York. That's still a not-insignificant chunk of his holdings, though.
Word of the day, obstreperous.
Sweeeeeeeeeeet!
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23991885-452564_2022_people_of_the_state_of_v_people_of_the_state_of_decision___order_on_1531
The document. PDF download link on the right side of the page.
Oh WOW...
From page 21:
=========
Defendants' respond that: the documents do not say what they say; that there is no such thing as "objective" value; and that, essentially, the Court should not believe its own eyes.
=========
Seriously, are these actually lawyers or are they 7-year-olds that Trump kidnapped from preschools?
My offhand guess is that they are good lawyers who are perfectly happy to write longshot legal defenses to slow-roll the system so long as they are getting paid good money to do so. If they get yelled at by the judge, well taking that abuse is just part of why they charge a lot.
As far as I can tell, Trump's general legal strategy consists of slow-rolling prosecutors into a reasonable deal. Given that this is a *pre-trial* ruling, he could still drag out all the penalties, and the state could end up cutting a deal to get some things right now.
Also keep in mind that he or his businesses have filed for bankrupcy 11 times before. #12 is very very unlikely to end his power.