Frugal Gourmet's Jeff Smith-Molestor??
LaGuardia
I recently heard thet the award winning PBS series "The Frugal Gourmet" was
pulled because its star chef, Jeff Smith was convicted on charges of having
sex with underage boys. Yuk...please tell me it ain't true.
Barbara Mikkelson
LaGuardia (daM...@deadguys.com) wrote:
Okay, I will. He is the target of a lawsuit, and those bringing the suit
allege he had sex with teenage boys who worked at his restaurant back in
the 70's. It's too soon to tell if there's anything to this for I believe
the suit is still in the affidavit stage, nowhere yet near a courtroom.
It's a civil suit though. Even if there is fire underneath the smoke, it
won't result in a conviction -- that happens only in criminal cases. As
for his show being pulled, I find no evidence of that. And I would think
that at least a few newspapers would make mention of it if this action had
indeed been taken.
It's interesting to note how things mutate -- the original poster heard
that Smith had been "convicted" (which says a lot about what we think
*should* happen to anyone who messes with the underage) and that his show
had been "pulled" (which again says a lot about us wanting to see
punishment meted out that involves society turning its back on the
wrongdoer). What's also interesting to note is the immediate presumption
of guilt -- whoever first mutated this story into the "conviction" and
"show pulled" form had made the quantum leap from a lawsuit being filed
to a pedophile in need of punishment and had then filled in the gaps with
what logic would have dictated. This again reflects what I think are
current societal mores -- pedophilia isn't just bad, it's *very* bad, and
therefore it becomes "right" to immediately convict someone in your mind
when so much as the first whisper is heard.
Barbara "a man of conviction" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | If you don't see the connection between eggs standing
bmik...@best.com | on end and seasonal divisions, I'm not going to waste
| my time explaining it to you. - snopes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
View a random urban legend --> http://www.snopes.com/cgi/randomul.cgi
David Thompson
Barbara Mikkelson <bmik...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
: LaGuardia (daM...@deadguys.com) wrote:
: > I recently heard thet the award winning PBS series "The Frugal Gourmet" was
: > pulled because its star chef, Jeff Smith was convicted on charges of having
: > sex with underage boys. Yuk...please tell me it ain't true.
: Okay, I will. He is the target of a lawsuit, and those bringing the suit
: allege he had sex with teenage boys who worked at his restaurant back in
: the 70's. It's too soon to tell if there's anything to this for I believe
: the suit is still in the affidavit stage, nowhere yet near a courtroom.
: It's a civil suit though. Even if there is fire underneath the smoke, it
: won't result in a conviction -- that happens only in criminal cases. As
: for his show being pulled, I find no evidence of that. And I would think
: that at least a few newspapers would make mention of it if this action had
: indeed been taken.
<snip>
I checked the Seattle Times web site, and found that the alleged incidents
happened in the 1970's. The statute of limitations has run out, so he
can't be criminally charged in this instance. According to the story:
"Yesterday's filing is the culmination of more than a year of
speculation--much of it aired on talk radio--about potential legal action
against Smith. The Seattle Times had investigated claims by the man now
suing and others that Smith had molested them years earlier. The
newspaper did not publish a story at that time because people making
allegations were unwilling to go on the record and could not provide
sufficient corroborating material."
I found these stories by going to the Times web site (www.seatimes.com)
and searching on "Jeff Smith". I was in Seattle when this story
originally ran; it was front page news. I came home to Washington DC the
following day, picked up the Post, and all I found was a paragraph in the
"People" column in the Style section. Location, location, location, I
guess.
--Kelly Thompson
using my husband's account
Doug Reade
LaGuardia wrote:
>
> I recently heard thet the award winning PBS series "The Frugal Gourmet" was
> pulled because its star chef, Jeff Smith was convicted on charges of having
> sex with underage boys. Yuk...please tell me it ain't true.
Not much of a UL. And not quite correct.
This is getting a lot of play in the Seattle papers lately. Mr. Smith
has been *accused* (notice the difference) of molestation by a couple of
young men, who say the incidents occurred a number of years ago. Smith
has issued a complete and total denial. Wait until the trial's over
before you convict him, OK?
AFAIK, the show is still being produced.
Doug "nolo contendere" Reade
Sig wanted a career in law, but then he found out he was supposed to
*uphold* it.
D. Michael Heywood
Barbara Mikkelson wrote:
>
> LaGuardia (daM...@deadguys.com) wrote:
>
> > I recently heard thet the award winning PBS series "The Frugal Gourmet" was
> > pulled because its star chef, Jeff Smith was convicted on charges of having
> > sex with underage boys. Yuk...please tell me it ain't true.
>
> allege he had sex with teenage boys who worked at his restaurant back in
Jeff's hometown papers, the Seattle Post-Intelligence and Seattle Times
(which has a web site) have covered the dickens out of this story, which
has lately featured another supposed victim coming forward every two or
three days. Each new vic requires a rehash of the whole yarn. Smith's
attorney keeps on saying that it is all the work of one man who has been
making the charge for a number of years.
Mike
TJ
Barbara Mikkelson wrote:
This again reflects what I think are
> current societal mores -- pedophilia isn't just bad, it's *very* bad, and
> therefore it becomes "right" to immediately convict someone in your mind
> when so much as the first whisper is heard.
>
> Barbara "a man of conviction" Mikkelson
> --
group). Smith has been accused by more than teenage boy of undesired
sexual advances and perhaps non-consensual intercourse (I haven't read
the actual documents). My question: is sex with a 15 year old
paedophilia. A boy of 15 has many secondary sexual characteristics. Some
places marriage is legal at this age (or at least used to be). Why is
everyone yelping paedophile when the alleged object of his desires had
facial hair, pubic hair and ruggated testicles?
t 'at least a Tanner 4' j
D. Michael Heywood
Here's what the Times (http://www.seattletimes.com/) had to say last
week. Note that it is under copyright. I observe, by way of fair
comment, that Eric Nalder is a particularly adept reporter whose stories
deserve credulity. I have not, however, independently checked any single
fact or assertion in the following:
Copyright © 1997 The Seattle Times Company
Local News : Jan. 24, 1997
Man claims TV chef raped him as a teen
`Frugal Gourmet' denies suit alleging molestations
by Eric Nalder
Seattle Times staff reporter
A 36-year-old man is suing popular television chef Jeff Smith,
"The Frugal Gourmet," alleging that Smith
sexually molested him and other teenage boys in the 1970s.
The suit, filed yesterday in Pierce County Superior Court,
alleges that Smith "pursued a pattern and practice of
grooming high-school-age boy employees for sexual intercourse"
when he ran a Tacoma food-service business.
Smith denies the allegations in a response also filed in court
yesterday. He offered no public response, but his
lawyer, Ed Winskill, said, "The allegations of this lawsuit are
denied absolutely and categorically" and the suit
should be dismissed.
Yesterday's filing is the culmination of more than a year of
speculation - much of it aired on talk radio - about
potential legal action against Smith. The Seattle Times had
investigated claims by the man now suing and others
that Smith had molested them years earlier. But the newspaper did
not publish a story at that time because people
making the allegations were unwilling to go on the record and
could not provide sufficient corroborating material.
No criminal charges have ever been brought against Smith in
relation to such allegations.
The story goes on at considerable length. Subsequent stories have named
other men and cited several people who say they saw Smith touch or
fondle or otherwise misbehave toward teen-aged males.
Mike "From just down the interstate" Heywood
F Andrew McMichael
Barbara Mikkelson (bmik...@shell2.ba.best.com) wrote:
: Okay, I will. He is the target of a lawsuit, and those bringing the suit
: allege he had sex with teenage boys who worked at his restaurant back in
: the 70's. It's too soon to tell if there's anything to this for I believe
: the suit is still in the affidavit stage, nowhere yet near a courtroom.
The local paper here in Nashville reported last week that he had
made a payment to this same person about 15 years ago in order to
keep this under wraps.
Fron the Washington Post online archive, w/o permission, portions
excised under 'fair use':
---begin excerpt---
-- compiled from staff and wire reports by Michael Farquhar
Saturday, January 25 1997; Page B03
The Washington Post
Chef in Hot Water
Jeff Smith, the popular TV and cookbook chef known as the
"Frugal Gourmet," may be in for a real grilling. A lawsuit filed
Thursday accuses him of sexually assaulting several teenage boys in
the 1970s.
The suit was filed by an unnamed 36-year-old man who said Smith
used alcohol, threats and physical force to get him and other boys
to engage in sex. At the time, he was a 15-year-old student in a
vocational education program at Smith's restaurant and catering
business in Tacoma, Wash.
[...]
Smith denied the allegations in a response also filed in court
Thursday. He offered no public response, but his lawyer, Ed
Winskill, said, "The allegations of this lawsuit are denied absolutely
and categorically." No criminal charges have been filed.
---end excerpt---
And from the AP wire, again, w/o permission, portions excised
for 'fair use':
---begin excerpt---
By HUNTER T. GEORGE
Associated Press Writer
Friday, January 24, 1997 9:15 pm EST
TACOMA, Wash. (AP) -- Jeff Smith, TV's ``Frugal Gourmet,'' is
accused in a lawsuit of molesting a teen-age boy back in the
1970s.
Smith, a 58-year-old married man and ordained Methodist
minister, denied any wrongdoing, and county prosecutors said no
criminal charges ever have been filed against him.
``Jeff Smith maintains his innocence. He absolutely and
categorically denies these allegations,'' said his lawyer, Ed Winskill
of Tacoma.
A 36-year-old man filed the lawsuit on Thursday, accusing Smith
of using alcohol, threats and physical force to get him to engage in
sex when he was a 15-year-old high school student in a vocational
education program at Smith's restaurant and catering business in
Tacoma in 1976.
[...]
[...]
``It's important that the media step back, be objective. Look at
what happened to Cardinal (Joseph) Bernardin,'' Winskill said,
referring to the 1993 case in which a man accused Chicago's
Catholic leader of molesting him as a child. The accuser later
recanted.
The lawsuit actually is an amended version of an August complaint
that accuses Smith of molesting two other teen-age boys. They
were dropped from the amended suit.
[...]
Copyright 1997 The Associated Press
---end excerpt---
Hope this helps to clear things up.
Andrew "no research assistant" McMichael
rg1...@88net.net
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 12:09:48 -0800, Doug Reade <read...@wolfenet.com>
wrote:
>LaGuardia wrote:
>>
>> I recently heard thet the award winning PBS series "The Frugal Gourmet" was
>> pulled because its star chef, Jeff Smith was convicted on charges of having
>> sex with underage boys. Yuk...please tell me it ain't true.
>
>
>Not much of a UL. And not quite correct.
>
>This is getting a lot of play in the Seattle papers lately. Mr. Smith
>has been *accused* (notice the difference) of molestation by a couple of
>young men, who say the incidents occurred a number of years ago. Smith
>has issued a complete and total denial. Wait until the trial's over
>before you convict him, OK?
>
>AFAIK, the show is still being produced.
>
>Doug "nolo contendere" Reade
>
>Sig wanted a career in law, but then he found out he was supposed to
>*uphold* it.
ABC news radio reported that Jeff had either paid or offered to pay
the accusers out of court for their dropping the case.
rmark...@earthlink.net
In article <5dco9g$5...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
bmik...@shell2.ba.best.com (Barbara Mikkelson) wrote:
>
> LaGuardia (daM...@deadguys.com) wrote:
>
> > I recently heard thet the award winning PBS series "The Frugal Gourmet" was
> > pulled because its star chef, Jeff Smith was convicted on charges of having
> > sex with underage boys. Yuk...please tell me it ain't true.
>
> allege he had sex with teenage boys who worked at his restaurant back in
> the 70's. It's too soon to tell if there's anything to this for I believe
> the suit is still in the affidavit stage, nowhere yet near a courtroom.
>
According to USA Today, 4 more men have claimed they were abused by Smith
and a judge has signed an affadavit claiming he witnessed an incident of
abuse during the 1970s. Maybe they see a quick buck, but then again,
that's a hell of a way to make a buck.
> It's a civil suit though. Even if there is fire underneath the smoke, it
> won't result in a conviction -- that happens only in criminal cases.
So, he could be found liable. Very little difference in terms of public
impact.
> As
> for his show being pulled, I find no evidence of that. And I would think
> that at least a few newspapers would make mention of it if this action had
> indeed been taken.
>
And it shouldn't be pulled unless there's evidence that he ever settled
with any minors (or onetime minors) in the matter. In that case, the
producers have the right to protect their interests.
> It's interesting to note how things mutate -- the original poster heard
> that Smith had been "convicted" (which says a lot about what we think
> *should* happen to anyone who messes with the underage) and that his show
> had been "pulled" (which again says a lot about us wanting to see
> punishment meted out that involves society turning its back on the
> wrongdoer).
Well, it's Usenet, after all. Everythiing out here is rumor. But the
"legitimate" media often jump the gun, as everyone knows. It's not just
child molesting - Richard Jewell is the best example.
> What's also interesting to note is the immediate presumption
> of guilt -- whoever first mutated this story into the "conviction" and
> "show pulled" form had made the quantum leap from a lawsuit being filed
> to a pedophile in need of punishment and had then filled in the gaps with
> what logic would have dictated. This again reflects what I think are
> current societal mores -- pedophilia isn't just bad, it's *very* bad,
It *IS* "very bad"! I think everyone should be clear about that.
> and
> therefore it becomes "right" to immediately convict someone in your mind
> when so much as the first whisper is heard.
>
Same thing happens with rape, murder, arson, and other serious crimes
against persons. It's up to the media to exercise some self-control.
Which they have done in this case, incidentally. Nobody wants this to be
true.
Robin
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
rmark...@earthlink.net wrote previously:
*}According to USA Today, 4 more men have claimed they were abused by Smith
*}and a judge has signed an affadavit claiming he witnessed an incident of
*}abuse during the 1970s. Maybe they see a quick buck, but then again,
*}that's a hell of a way to make a buck.
Hmmm... let's try to THINK about this: A JUDGE, during the 1970s was an
eyewitness to child sexual abuse, but did not think to mention it to
anyone for 20 years! Does this assertion seem a little incredible to
anyone else?
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP 2.6 key available by finger <qui...@oitunix.oit.umass.edu>
LJ Skaggs
rg1...@88net.net wrote
> ABC news radio reported that Jeff had either paid or offered to pay
> the accusers out of court for their dropping the case.
This is an allegation made in the lawsuit. Smith's lawyers have publicly
denied any molestation, and also deny there have been any payoffs.
BTW, the lawsuit also names Smith's *wife,* saying she knew about the
alleged molestation and did nothing to stop it.
-- L.J. "Get Away from Me with that Spatula" Skaggs
MHL
Unfortunately, it IS true. Is this a crazy world or what?
--
Still Water Runs Deep.
http://home.xl.ca/mpd
LaGuardia <daM...@deadguys.com> wrote in article
<01bc1420$a41b68e0$62c4abc7@default>...
Andrew Gore
>> I recently heard thet the award winning PBS series "The Frugal Gourmet" was
>> pulled because its star chef, Jeff Smith was convicted on charges of having
>> sex with underage boys. Yuk...please tell me it ain't true.
>Okay, I will. He is the target of a lawsuit, and those bringing the suit
>allege he had sex with teenage boys who worked at his restaurant back in
>the 70's. It's too soon to tell if there's anything to this for I believe
>the suit is still in the affidavit stage, nowhere yet near a courtroom.
As I understand it, Smith is some kind of minister as well. That, to my mind,
is evidence enough for me!
Andrew "Know how to get a nun preggers?" Gore
---------------------------------------
Check out my ultimate Las Vegas and gambling web site!! >>> http://www.primenet.com/~dice/
bu...@animal.blarg.net
In article <01bc1519$f6d2b120$53752299@loren-at-home>,
LJ Skaggs <ljsk...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>rg1...@88net.net wrote
>> ABC news radio reported that Jeff had either paid or offered to pay
>> the accusers out of court for their dropping the case.
>
>This is an allegation made in the lawsuit. Smith's lawyers have publicly
>denied any molestation, and also deny there have been any payoffs.
Well...no. It's not just an allegation made in the lawsuit. The
assertion that Smith has offered to pay off other complainants has been
verified as late as last week, when a letter Smith's lawyer sent to one
such complainant, offering him two million dollars to settle, was given to
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Smith's lawyers have not come out and
flatly denied that they sent the letter.
--
Bunny
MojoBabe1
Mike Heywood filled us in on the Jeff Smith controversy by posting the
following report from The Seattle Times:
<snip>
> A 36-year-old man is suing popular television chef Jeff Smith,
> "The Frugal Gourmet," alleging that Smith
> sexually molested him and other teenage boys in the 1970s.
>
> The suit, filed yesterday in Pierce County Superior Court,
> alleges that Smith "pursued a pattern and practice of
> grooming high-school-age boy employees for sexual intercourse"
> when he ran a Tacoma food-service business.
He's not just a chef, he's a hairdresser.
Carrie "grooming myself" Weiner
Carrie Weiner d/b/a Mojo...@aol.com
"Nothing is so fatal to a maidenly vocabulary as the run of a good library." -- Robertson Davies
Dave Wilton
An offer to settle does not indicate guilt or liability. Smith,
or more likely his insurance company, could have done some
calculations and determined that the cost of defending against the
suit would be greater than the cost of a settlement. Also, if
the matter were settled quickly, they might avoid bad publicity
and people spreading rumors about Smith, which is a major
consideration for a public figure like Smith. Even if innocent
he may have wanted this settled quietly. Obviously the latter did
not work in this case.
--
Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/homepage.htm
Hartmut Schmider
bu...@animal.blarg.net writes:
> Well...no. It's not just an allegation made in the lawsuit. The
> assertion that Smith has offered to pay off other complainants has been
> verified as late as last week, when a letter Smith's lawyer sent to one
> such complainant, offering him two million dollars to settle, was given to
> the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Smith's lawyers have not come out and
> flatly denied that they sent the letter.
It is a common fallacy to assume that settlements of this kind imply an
admission of guilt. One might argue with as much justification that, with
an allegation as serious as this, by agreeing to a settlement of any kind
the accuser admits (s)he was only in it for the money. The simple fact of
the matter is that, just seing the usual (pre) court drama bullshit in
newspapers and on TV, the average person doesn't have a clue as to if the
guy is guilty or innocent. The average person with anything but warm air
between their ears therefore assumes he's innocent.
Hartmut "legal gourmant" Schmider
--
Hartmut Schmider ~ Remember there's a big difference
Dept. Chem. Queen's University ~ between kneeling down and bending
Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6 CANADA ~ over. FZ
ha...@ct3a.chem.queensu.ca ~
bu...@animal.blarg.net
In article <3301D4...@sprynet.com>,
Dave Wilton <dwi...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>bu...@animal.blarg.net wrote:
>>
>> In article <01bc1519$f6d2b120$53752299@loren-at-home>,
>> LJ Skaggs <ljsk...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >rg1...@88net.net wrote
>> >> ABC news radio reported that Jeff had either paid or offered to pay
>> >> the accusers out of court for their dropping the case.
>> >
>> >This is an allegation made in the lawsuit. Smith's lawyers have publicly
>> >denied any molestation, and also deny there have been any payoffs.
>>
>> assertion that Smith has offered to pay off other complainants has been
>> verified as late as last week, when a letter Smith's lawyer sent to one
>> such complainant, offering him two million dollars to settle, was given to
>> the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Smith's lawyers have not come out and
>> flatly denied that they sent the letter.
>
See my response to Hartmut. You guys can take some comfort that you at
least have company in completely missing the point. I can understand your
wanting to infer something in defense of someone, but it really had
nothing to do with what I posted.
--
Bunny
bu...@animal.blarg.net
In article <udybcsw...@ct3a.chem.queensu.ca>,
Hartmut Schmider <ha...@ct3a.chem.queensu.ca> wrote:
>bu...@animal.blarg.net writes:
>
>> Well...no. It's not just an allegation made in the lawsuit. The
>> assertion that Smith has offered to pay off other complainants has been
>> verified as late as last week, when a letter Smith's lawyer sent to one
>> such complainant, offering him two million dollars to settle, was given to
>> the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Smith's lawyers have not come out and
>> flatly denied that they sent the letter.
>
>admission of guilt.
That has nothing to do with what I said or was responding to. Read the
above. It does not say that the offers to settle imply guilt, does it?
No offense, but you're the one inferring a non-existent implication. The
original comment I was responding to was this:
"ABC news radio reported that Jeff had either paid or offered to pay the
accusers out of court for dropping the case." Then another person said,
"This is an allegation made in the lawsuit."
That is what I responded to, not the guilt or innocence of Smith. Hope
that refreshes your memory a bit. :)
--
Bunny
Hartmut Schmider
bu...@animal.blarg.net writes (citing me):
> >It is a common fallacy to assume that settlements of this kind imply an
> >admission of guilt.
>
> That has nothing to do with what I said or was responding to. Read the
> above. It does not say that the offers to settle imply guilt, does it?
No, you're right, it doesn't. I assumed on the grounds of the word
"allegation" (which does not even originate with you) and the expectation
that the lawyers would come out and flatly deny the sending of the letter,
that an offer of settlement is viewed as a sign that there is something to
hide. Obviously I was wrong.
> No offense, but you're the one inferring a non-existent implication. The
> original comment I was responding to was this:
>
> "ABC news radio reported that Jeff had either paid or offered to pay the
> accusers out of court for dropping the case." Then another person said,
> "This is an allegation made in the lawsuit."
>
> That is what I responded to, not the guilt or innocence of Smith. Hope
> that refreshes your memory a bit. :)
Yep. Too god-damned quick with the F key.
Hartmut "love the smell of strawmen in the morning" Schmider
Charles Lieberman
Dave Wilton (dwi...@sprynet.com) jebgr:
| consideration for a public figure like Smith. Even if innocent
| he may have wanted this settled quietly. Obviously the latter did
| not work in this case.
ESPECIALLY if innocent. If it had gone/goes to trial, and he was/is
acquitted, the assumption would be that he has a sharp lawyer.
--
Charles A. Lieberman http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/index.htm
Brooklyn, New York, USA
"Well I have walked/Over miles/And under a stone wall/Across the fields
of snow"--For Squirrels
ReluctantMessiah
In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.970218...@mole.uvm.edu>,
Jeffrey Nelson/ STILL AGIN' <jlne...@mole.uvm.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> Crazy is being a high-ranking government
>official and paying someone to suck your toes.
Was that as an offical act of the HRGO (thus taking place in a government
office) or was the fact that this person was a HRGO circumstantial?
i.e.: crazy is paying someone to suck your toes.
In the second case, one might argue that such proclivities are not completely
crazy.
-jc
--
---
A woman needs a fish like a man needs a bicycle.