NATIONAL SEARCH for missing child and her mother - Santerian "priest"
Karl Denninger
Please look at the web site http://genesis.denninger.net
You will find there a $10,000 reward offered for information leading to
the arrest and conviction of the abductor(s) of my daughter.
Sarah was apparently abducted by her mother about a week ago; her mother
is a known Santera by the name of Kim Bucemi and may be in Miami, FL.
I'm sure some of you here can use the money - or just turn her in because
its the right thing to do. Your choice. :-)
Please tell your friends and associates in the religion about this woman
and what she has done.
Thanks.
--
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://genesis.denninger.net
*****$10,000 REWARD***** PLEASE HELP ME FIND MY DAUGHTER! See the above web
address for more information.
Karl Denninger
Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote:
>Hi folks.
>
>Please look at the web site http://genesis.denninger.net
>
>You will find there a $10,000 reward offered for information leading to
>the arrest and conviction of the abductor(s) of my daughter.
>
>Sarah was apparently abducted by her mother about a week ago; her mother
>is a known Santera by the name of Kim Bucemi and may be in Miami, FL.
>
>I'm sure some of you here can use the money - or just turn her in because
>its the right thing to do. Your choice. :-)
>
>Please tell your friends and associates in the religion about this woman
>and what she has done.
>
>Thanks.
Sarah has been recovered in Seattle, Washington.
Thank you for your efforts.
E. C. Ballard
otherwise have to do with her involvement in African or any other
religious traditions? I'm sure you wouldn't be posting the same way to say
that "her mother is a known Presbyterian."
I'm glad the child has been found. Whether she'll be any better off where
she now is is anyone's guess. I certainly am not going to assume it.
Eoghan
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nsambiempungo l'acutara
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ebal...@sas.upenn.edu
Karl Denninger
E. C. Ballard <ebal...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>And what the hell does her personal actions as a parent misguided or
>otherwise have to do with her involvement in African or any other
>religious traditions? I'm sure you wouldn't be posting the same way to say
>that "her mother is a known Presbyterian."
In a Presbyterian newsgroup? I certainly would have posted precisely that,
especially if said person's religion required them to make contact with
others of like faith at their eventual destination.
>I'm glad the child has been found. Whether she'll be any better off where
>she now is is anyone's guess. I certainly am not going to assume it.
Ah, so the fact that someone has had a warrant issued for their arrest for
child abduction is irrelavent if they have the right "worldview" according
to you?
Or, to be more blunt, society (and you) would excuse snatching a child if it
was done in or with the blessing of a particular religion?
I think I got it....
Boy, am I glad that I live in a country that considers all people to be
equal under and before the law, and doesn't grant dispensation based on
someone's religious beliefs.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
a plan to do exactly that!
BStuartM
Both parents, Kim and Karl, are Santeros. I don't know why Karl, in his
post, made it seem that he is not. I met both of them years ago while still
dating Afolabi, aka Clayton Keck. Their godfather is Ordun, of the "Sabean
Religious Order."
Just thought I would pass that information along.
Stuart
E. C. Ballard <ebal...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:eballard-020...@dialin0442.upenn.edu...
> And what the hell does her personal actions as a parent misguided or
> otherwise have to do with her involvement in African or any other
> religious traditions? I'm sure you wouldn't be posting the same way to say
> that "her mother is a known Presbyterian."
>
> I'm glad the child has been found. Whether she'll be any better off where
> she now is is anyone's guess. I certainly am not going to assume it.
>
Eoghan
Denninger) wrote:
First, let me state, as I should have more clearly in my first posting,
that I am truly sorry such a thing happened at all. I am sorry for you and
for your ex. Mostly though, I am sorry for your child. You may be a bit
touchey about the situation, Karl. Frankly, I don't blame you if you are.
I did not mean to imply that I think any particular religious affiliation
gives or should give sanction to criminal actions. I was in fact taking
exception to what appeared to be a derogatory tone in your post. It may of
course have been unintentional, as Stuart suggested.
My further point, and it really wasn't intended to offend, although if it
did, I publically appologize to you Karl, is that in situations like this,
both parents can claim a measure of responsibility for the situation. I am
no stranger to hostility with an ex-spouse over offspring. Even though I
still feel some hard feelings over the issue, today they have more to do
with how the situation affected my son, than any differences with his
mother. At the time however, it was pretty ugly.
In fact, whatever the situation you would be well advised to consider that
your daughter may later remember things a good deal differently than you
do, and you may receive a measure of the blame from her (especially when
she's a teenager) that you do not feel you deserve. This is an observation
that comes from personal experience, by the way. While I would not presume
to tell you how to proceed, I would suggest you keep that in mind no
matter what course of action you take.
Allow me to close my remarks, and hopefully this thread with a sincere
expression of hope that you all experience some healing and closure in the
situation and especially for your daughter's well-being.
Sala maleko,
Eoghan
Eoghan Ballard
Center for Folklore & Ethnology
University of Pennsylvania
Karl Denninger
--
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
a plan to do exactly that!
In article <#rmNEfg9#GA.305@cpmsnbbsa02>,
Karl Denninger
Eoghan <ebal...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <7qnbja$1n0$0...@dosa.alt.net>, ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net (Karl
>Denninger) wrote:
>
>First, let me state, as I should have more clearly in my first posting,
>that I am truly sorry such a thing happened at all. I am sorry for you and
>for your ex. Mostly though, I am sorry for your child. You may be a bit
>touchey about the situation, Karl. Frankly, I don't blame you if you are.
>I did not mean to imply that I think any particular religious affiliation
>gives or should give sanction to criminal actions. I was in fact taking
>exception to what appeared to be a derogatory tone in your post. It may of
>course have been unintentional, as Stuart suggested.
Actually it does appear that such things (criminality) are routinely sustained
and even encouraged in some religious paths.
>My further point, and it really wasn't intended to offend, although if it
>did, I publically appologize to you Karl, is that in situations like this,
>both parents can claim a measure of responsibility for the situation. I am
>no stranger to hostility with an ex-spouse over offspring. Even though I
>still feel some hard feelings over the issue, today they have more to do
>with how the situation affected my son, than any differences with his
>mother. At the time however, it was pretty ugly.
Perhaps. On the other hand my position on such things is well known,
published, and in fact is what I spend my life promulgating and lobbying
for these days. Further, I put both my money and my time where my mouth is.
The bottom line is that there is only one correct position in these kinds of
situations. I have done my damndest to promote that, only to have it pissed
on as if it was completely irrelavent.
If you think I'm angry at that, you're right. I am. I am angry at someone
who would deny a beautiful little girl TWO parents.
That someone is not me.
The things we are forced to do as a consequence of someone ELSE'S actions
are not our responsibility. The responsibility must correctly fall upon
the person who prompted the required action. I say *required* because that
is precisely what it is when it comes to your duty to protect those who are
unable to protect themselves. That's just how things work in the real,
non-magical world.
>In fact, whatever the situation you would be well advised to consider that
>your daughter may later remember things a good deal differently than you
>do, and you may receive a measure of the blame from her (especially when
>she's a teenager) that you do not feel you deserve. This is an observation
>that comes from personal experience, by the way. While I would not presume
>to tell you how to proceed, I would suggest you keep that in mind no
>matter what course of action you take.
Such was the reason for my willingness to go far beyond any call of duty
originally, and up until now.
But there comes a time where doing so constitutes endangerment, and that I
cannot and will not permit.
Yes, I've made my share of mistakes in life. So have we all.
This isn't one of them.
E. C. Ballard
Denninger) wrote:
> The things we are forced to do as a consequence of someone ELSE'S actions
> are not our responsibility. The responsibility must correctly fall upon
> the person who prompted the required action. I say *required* because that
> is precisely what it is when it comes to your duty to protect those who are
> unable to protect themselves. That's just how things work in the real,
> non-magical world.
You're completely wrong there. You always have choices and no matter what
choice you make, you have responsibility for it. you'll see if in the long
run your daughter thanks you. There's no guarantee she will.
BStuartM
Then why did you go to Clay, you and your wife, to receive Dada? Did you
leave the religion?
Stuart
Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote in message
news:7qq87i$leq$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> Karl is a Roman Catholic and attends mass regularly. Sorry Stuart.
>
> --
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
> Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
> a plan to do exactly that!
>
>
> In article <#rmNEfg9#GA.305@cpmsnbbsa02>,
> BStuartM <BStu...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >Eoghan:
> >
> >Both parents, Kim and Karl, are Santeros. I don't know why Karl, in his
> >post, made it seem that he is not. I met both of them years ago while
still
> >dating Afolabi, aka Clayton Keck. Their godfather is Ordun, of the
"Sabean
> >Religious Order."
> >
> >Just thought I would pass that information along.
> >
> >Stuart
> >
> >E. C. Ballard <ebal...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> >news:eballard-020...@dialin0442.upenn.edu...
> >> And what the hell does her personal actions as a parent misguided or
> >> otherwise have to do with her involvement in African or any other
> >> religious traditions? I'm sure you wouldn't be posting the same way to
say
> >> that "her mother is a known Presbyterian."
> >>
> >> I'm glad the child has been found. Whether she'll be any better off
where
> >> she now is is anyone's guess. I certainly am not going to assume it.
> >>
> >> Eoghan
> >>
E. C. Ballard
blowhard he was the last time he spammed us. I'm putting his name back on
ignore, which is where it belongs.
BStuartM
Now I remember what you're talking about; after his comment about being a
Roman Catholic, I now remember all the awful posts that he put on here
before. I put him on ignore once as well, so why the hell am I seeing posts
from him now? He must have changed his ISP.
Anyway, like I said earlier, both he and his wife have Ocha done, and if I
remember correctly, he has Obatala and she has Shango -- but it has been a
long time since I've seen the two of them, and that information might be
incorrect. Neither of them impressed me much (like that matters, huh?), and
I tolerated the two of them because in the beginning, Afolabi seemed to like
them both. That, however, was only in the beginning. Remember how I told
you once that I was awful with names but never forget a face? If I had
never seen the photographs of he and his wife on the web site, I would have
never remembered who either of them were. Remember folks: no matter how
obscure you are, in this religion everybody knows someone that knows
somebody and it is only a matter of time before "links" are made to your
house and to you. That's why it's so hard to fake or deny one's lineage in
this religion. It's one of community, and everthing is to intimately
entwined.
Afolabi and Karl originally met through the internet; they were having
problems with their godfather, Ordun, and made some of the most ridiculous
accusations about that man. They came to meet us (actually, him, I was just
"living there" at the time <grin>) and received Dada, and I believe one or
two other Orishas from Clay. All this was sometime between January of 1996
and July of 1996 -- I can't remember the exact date. They brought their
Dada's that they originally received from Ordun to our home, and Clay opened
them up to see what was inside. None of the items that were supposed to be
there were there, so it was determined that their Orisha was fake; they
received it again properly from Clay. They were also there when several of
Clay's godchildren received Babaluaiye, but that doesn't really mean
anything in itself.
They also "followed" us to Miami when Afolabi received Nana Buruku from
Wille Ramos, and they were there in the same house, present at the mat when
the Oriate read the guardian angel (that Oriate was Willie Ramos) for one of
Afolabi's godchildren's daughters. I believe Kim was also read as well --
she was pregnant at that time with their daughter, and wanted to know about
the child that she was about to have. There was some question over who the
guardian angel of the baby was to be. I believe something was said about
the birth of their first child in Kim's Ita, and they wanted to follow up on
it. But, on that I could be wrong.
So, in spite of what Karl may or may not be now, he was, which means he
still is, a Santero. The only way to remove an Orisha from one's head after
it has been put there is to cut that person's head off. Oh, I feel so bad
for that Orisha in his head. :(
As an added note, not long after meeting the two of them and discovering
what a pain in the butt Karl could be, we found a web-site (I can't remember
who made it, but it was either someone from his house or someone from the
Orisha mailing list) that was titled the "I hate Karl Denninger Web Site;"
it was all about Karl, of course, and they listed all the reasons they
couldn't stand him. While I feel such a site was uncalled for (like my
opinion matters, huh?) it was rather funny and informing. It told us a lot
about Karl that we didn't know, and the creators of that site swore that
everything was true.
Now that I remember some of his vile, previous postings, it's no wonder that
site was created. I wonder if it is still around?
And, I wonder what happened that not only made Karl convert to Catholicism,
but also made him vehemently deny his association with this religion and his
crowning? Perhaps he is using his new-found status as a Roman Catholic in
the divorce and child custody proceedings? That is just terrible!
Oh well, back to the ignore list you go, Karl.
! Ochareo everybody ! I hope this has been an enlightening post in regards
to one of our favorite (god help me) members. ROFLMAO
Stuart.
E. C. Ballard <ebal...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:eballard-040...@dialin0198.upenn.edu...
Karl Denninger
E. C. Ballard <ebal...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <7qq8uv$nlg$0...@dosa.alt.net>, ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net (Karl
>Denninger) wrote:
>
>
>> The things we are forced to do as a consequence of someone ELSE'S actions
>> are not our responsibility. The responsibility must correctly fall upon
>> the person who prompted the required action. I say *required* because that
>> is precisely what it is when it comes to your duty to protect those who are
>> unable to protect themselves. That's just how things work in the real,
>> non-magical world.
>
>
>
>You're completely wrong there. You always have choices and no matter what
>choice you make, you have responsibility for it. you'll see if in the long
>run your daughter thanks you. There's no guarantee she will.
You're right about being thanked, but one does not do what is right because
they will get accolades for it.
On the contrary. You do what is right knowing full well that you might get
rocks thrown at you - because your motivation is to do what is right, not
what is EXPEDIENT.
That is the difference between doing what is right, and what is easy.
It is, unfortunately, also something many people have forgotten about.
miss bee
uptight and rude? Maybe it's because you intellectualize too much.
Get it together, people!
>
> Eoghan Ballard
> Center for Folklore & Ethnology
> University of Pennsylvania
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Martin
No matter what your romantic (or otherwise) relationship was, I think you
shuold excercise a self-censoring mechanism. I do not want to speak on
behalf of anybody else, but I for one would not like details posted about my
religous movements on a public forum!! Especially without consent. It is
unseemly.
Regards,
Martin
BStuartM <BStu...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eGCmnvx9#GA.270@cpmsnbbsa03...