The Great Pretender
IRI...@aol.com
In a message dated 96-05-25 15:57:31 EDT, you write:
>DeLores Wilson has nothing to do with the city of Lakewood. She lives in
>the Pacific Northwest. I know she is who she says she is. It is
Sharon, I'm sorry you and possibly others fell for "Delores" phony attacks.
She is NOT an attorney, or she would be registered with Martindale
Hubbell's. I don't have to prove myself to you, my ministry work is
continuing, and I have won my case against the city of Lakewood. Too bad you
didn't take the time to check with the right sources. Rev Jim
DeLores
Denver Fox
I in particular have a real desire to know the true story of Rev. Jim, as
I spent some 60 hours last year and about $100.00 in postage, stationery,
etc., writing letters to ovr 90 newspapers, the City of Lakewood, et al.
When "Rev Jim" signed back onthe listjust recently, (after his miraculous
cure) I sent him a private email asking for info, to which he NEVER
responded.
So how about it, Rev Jim, you OWE me a lot. Not one word about where you
have been, etc. And, you owe many others some sort of PUBLIC explanation.
I did at one time talk with you wife on the phone, so I guess she and you
are real. But, I am confused
--
<<<------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>
Denver C. Fox, Ed.D., President
Rocky Mountain Job Opportunity Brigade, Inc.
6187 S. Locust Street
Englewood, CO 80111-4452
<bb...@Freenet.Hsc.Colorado.Edu>
<df...@csn.net>
(303) 220-1523
Dianne
Rev. Jim,
At 02:16 PM 5/25/96 MST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 96-05-25 15:57:31 EDT, you write:
>
>>DeLores Wilson has nothing to do with the city of Lakewood. She lives in
>>the Pacific Northwest. I know she is who she says she is. It is
>
>Sharon, I'm sorry you and possibly others fell for "Delores" phony attacks.
> She is NOT an attorney, or she would be registered with Martindale
>Hubbell's. I don't have to prove myself to you, my ministry work is
>continuing, and I have won my case against the city of Lakewood. Too bad you
>didn't take the time to check with the right sources. Rev Jim
>
Martindale Hubbell's is a registry of attorneys who are members of
the Bar Association(s). Not all attorneys are listed with them because not
all of them are members of the Bar..........
Rev. Jim, we all "hear" you, but given the situation, the
circumstances and the number of people you attacked prior to your surgery,
which was supposed to be a transplant, not an angioplasty, you offered proof
to all inquirers.
Denver Fox is asking for that proof in light of his substantial
investment in advancing your cause (which is in fact a personal one when it
could have been made into a class action).
You stand to gain from the efforts and financial expenditures of
members of this list. It seems only right that you answer the many
questions that have been raised without stooping to sniping at those who are
asking.
Accusations have been made on both sides. Proof is what is needed
to end this dispute. You are now in the unenviable position of having to
either prove or disprove what you and others have said and are saying.
It is unfortunate that all of this has to be happening at all, but
it might have been smarter for you to change your screen name with AOL and
not tell us that you were back at all........ AOL does allow you to have up
to five different names on one account.
As the saying goes.... "Put up or shut up!"
IRI...@aol.com
In a message dated 96-05-26 03:43:55 EDT, you write:
>>
> Martindale Hubbell's is a registry of attorneys who are members of
>the Bar Association(s). Not all attorneys are listed with them because not
>all of them are members of the Bar..........
>
> Rev. Jim, we all "hear" you, but given the situation, the
>circumstances and the number of people you attacked prior to your surgery,
>which was supposed to be a transplant, not an angioplasty, you offered proof
>to all inquirers.
>
> Denver Fox is asking for that proof in light of his substantial
>investment in advancing your cause (which is in fact a personal one when it
>could have been made into a class action).
>
> You stand to gain from the efforts and financial expenditures of
>members of this list. It seems only right that you answer the many
>questions that have been raised without stooping to sniping at those who are
>asking.
>
> Accusations have been made on both sides. Proof is what is needed
>to end this dispute. You are now in the unenviable position of having to
>either prove or disprove what you and others have said and are saying.
>
> It is unfortunate that all of this has to be happening at all, but
>it might have been smarter for you to change your screen name with AOL and
>not tell us that you were back at all........ AOL does allow you to have up
>to five different names on one account.
>
> As the saying goes.... "Put up or shut up!"
>
>
>
>
Actually, I just finished sending a private email to Denver (the way we
*should* be doing this) asking him to resend his earlier questions, I never
got them, for whatever reason. Additionally, I have been asking Sharon Cohen
and Delores Wilson for the US Mail addresses, so that I can send them
documentation to substantiate my claims, but they both refuse. They have
both taken previous statements and twisted the words around to suit their own
agenda. Delores Wilson has mentioned certain facts in her malicious email to
me that she could only know if she has been talking with Lakewood's ex-law
director, that's why I have turned over all of her posts to my ADA attorney.
It may be construed as evidence that the city is violating their agreement
to stop the mudslinging. One would think the fine levied on the city by
Magistrate Bartuunek would have taught tem a lesson, but this seems to
indicate otherwise.
P.S. The Bar association and three private attorneys have told me that *all*
attorneys have to register with the Bar. I am certainly not an attorney, so
I have to go on what real attorneys tell me.
Imagine my disappointment, however, when, after returning home from 3 1/2
months in a hospital a looooooong ways from home, and finally signing a
settlement agreement with Lakewood, I return to this list and about 40% of my
email is maliscious and slanderous. Whatever doubts anyone has about me, the
indisputable fact remains that I was able to get the City of Lakewood,
considered one of the largest cities (by population) in Ohio, to agree to
become accessible. THAT is what we should be concentrating on, and how to
use THAT to convince other cities to honor and obey the ADA. These personal
attacks are really petty and immature. I have asked Delores and Sharon to
take them to private email, and for the most part, they refuse. What a waste
of this lists' time.
At least there are some people who have sent private messages of
congratulations; and the AADP is pleased enough with my work that their CEO
this past week honored me by asking me to join their Board of Trustees. As
I've told most others, though, the bickering, criticism and retaliation I
have suffered through my advocacy work has helped me decide that I will be
spending less than 10% of my future efforts on advocacy. I spent many, many
years working to convince Lakewood business and administration to become
accessible, and all I've gotten for it is headaches. I am revamping my
volunteer efforts to spend much more time in my ministerial duties, as my
efforts there are always appreciated, by God, my bishop, and usually my
clients. Rev Jim
William R. Wheeler
That's it. I've had enough. I'm unsubscribing today.
Patri...@aol.com
I was a user of and occasional contributor to this mailing list when the
"Rev. Jim Sutter" joined it. Occasionally he posted very pertinent answers
to questions regarding ADA and related disabilities issues. His background,
whatever it may be, allowed him to provide useful insights.
More often he posted personal details and issues which tended to give him
stature or renown in the fields of medicine, law, and religion. Yet he
remains an anonymous person, perhaps a transparent person.
Efforts by many to give him support in January failed when *something*
happened to him. None of the available personal information allowed anyone
to actually locate or identify him as a real person. Our collective wisdom
by February was that he had used his apparent condition as an excuse to
disappear from a web of deceit that was strangling him.
Unfortunately, the "9601E" section of the ADA-LAW archives covering that
period seem to be flawed, for I cannot access that file: the download always
aborts at about the same point.
In a private communication to me last month, "Rev Jim" *implied* that Denver
Fox could vouch for his existence and reality, by telling me that Fox had his
unlisted home phone number. It now turns out that Fox only spoke to a woman
at that phone number, and even he has joined the quest here for some
validation of Jim's existence.
I do not recall seeing any independent resource yet admitting that they have
seen Rev Jim in the flesh. Independent queries to hospitals and religious
groups all come to dead ends. The only references I have seen are those
provided by the Rev Jim himself.
If there is a real Reverend James Sutter, I do not believe it is our "Rev
Jim". Whoever Rev Jim is, he has long had the effect of sowing dissention in
our ranks despite the value he sometimes gives. If our Rev Jim wants to
properly use his knowledge to our benefit, it may be better for him to
mysteriously disappear again, and then to return as just plain John Smith
with *no* personal agenda.
OR ... if the Rev Jim wishes to start establishing some measure of
credibility, let him not ask for your address. Rather, let him post here his
street address through which you can send him a self-addressed envelope.
I do not object to the continuation of this discussion. It may be that some
of us will learn something. BUT, I do object to the endless quoting of
others. Please let your posts stand by themselves for themselves. Thank
you.
Permission to quote this message in its entirety is NOT granted.
Pat Skelly <Patri...@AOL.com>
ADA Consultant, Bourne MA
Patri...@aol.com
Because it is a matter of public record on America Online, I am posting for
the benefit of all the AOL "Member Profile" given by "IRI...@AOL.COM":
----
Screen Name: IRISH38
Member Name: Reverand James M. Sutter, D.D.
Location: CLEVELAND, OH, USA
Birthdate: 12/55
Sex: Male
Marital Status: Married
Computers: DELL 466/M 486 with the full package
Hobbies: reading, cyberspace, advocacy, religion
Occupation: Ordained Minister
Quote: Why me ?
----
This is information provided by IRISH38. It may, or might not, reflect the
official AOL member registration data. There is no way for me (or you) to
make such a determination.
- Pat Skelly <Patri...@AOL.com>
Pamela A. Kazem
To all who question Rev Jim,
I do not know if people on this list is giving an accurate =
identification or history of themselves, but I do know as a disabled =
individual, and advocate, that rev. Jim had some good, information and =
discussion topics. Is that what this list is for? Yes to communicate =
among ourselves the material that applies to ADA law=20
Thank you, =
Pam
jwsm...@dimensional.com
Patri...@AOL.COM wrote:
Since my name really is John Smith, and I'd rather not get embroiled
in this controversy, I'd suggest he use some other name... perhaps Pat
S. Kelly?
John W. Smith
jwsi...@dimensional.com
Matthew Vance
Dear Subscribers,
I was one of those who enjoyed Rev. Jim's contributions to the list.
Fraud or not, he provided a clinical aspect to the discussions. And my
choice to read his posts and learn from them was MY choice.
Rev. Jim's detractors have now gone ahead and replaced my choice with
their choice. They made the environment so hostile and unforgiving for
him that he left. And now I no longer have the choice to read and judge
his posts for myself.
Of course, Rev. Jim left the list on his own volition. But ideas have
consequences and words can hurt. And the consequence of his detractors'
words has hurt those who enjoyed the choice of reading or deleting.
Respectfully,
Matthew Vance
ed chilton
I'm sorry Matthew. Hi, my name is Elmer Gantry and my claim for SSD has
been rejected by a lady wearing spoolies. Write to everybody in my town
to complain about that especially all you lawyers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
: ComputerLink Online (416)233-5410 104 lines, SLIP, 9600 - 28,800 bps :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Otten
You, sir, are in the minority. Personally, if you both left, that would
be fine with me. But do it on your own volition. Perhaps you could be
clinical on your own list?
Ken
******************************O...@Pacifier.com*********************************
******************************************************************************
Matthew Vance
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Ken Otten wrote:
> You, sir, are in the minority. Personally, if you both left, that would
> be fine with me. But do it on your own volition. Perhaps you could be
> clinical on your own list?
>
> Ken
Ouch!
SUQKRT
Ken,
Regardless of Rev. Jim behavior, you have no right to suggest that
someone leave the list because he expresses support. This is a list that
is supposed to be supporting Civil rights, yet you feel you have the right
to deny the right of free speech to someone who disagrees with you. There
seems to be an inconsistancy here.
Sue
Jhupf
Sue
Your comments are just as inappropriate as his, especially considering he
is voicing his opinion and while he can "suggest" that someone leave the
"list" he has no control over the list so he can do it till he is blue in
the face and the suggestee doesn't have to leave.
BTW, I find read and access this "list" as an unmoderated newsgroup,
which is available to anyone who has a provider who subscribes to the
group - something anyone who is "forced" form the "list" could do anyway.
Ed Falkner
J
I weigh in with Sue, and I think her comments were highly appropriate.
She chose to rebuke another poster for inappropriate behavior, which was
to indicate that the poster's enemy (and that is not too strong a word
given what I saw on this list during the Rev. Jim controversy) should not
post on this group. She *did not* suggest that the poster leave the
list.
Your comments were, in that sense, "appropriate" too, though wrong (at
least IMHO).
May all us posters left on this list *never* get treated as Jim got
treated, Reverend or not. May the debate, such as it is, remain fervent,
impassioned, reasonable, appropriate, *and courteous.*
Regards.
Ed.