Famous PBS celebrity cook & author Jeff Smith pays over $5M to 8 teen boys he sexually abused,but admits NO guilt & money is paid by his insurance companies,in WA
Joe1orbit
In a diseased society, especially a capitalistic one, the notion of "justice"
is ALWAYS up for SALE, if the criminal lawbreaker is rich enough.
There is a rather famous PBS-TV celebrity named Jeff Smith, he used to have a
very popular cooking show titled "The Frugal Gourmet". Problem is, he had a
different kind of "meal" cooking in the sexual nerve center of his brain. Jeff
liked to sexually molest teen-age boys. SEVEN of the boys banded together and
filed a civil lawsuit against Jeff, after police
authorities refused to bring criminal charges against him.
Jeff, being RICH, loving his celebrity status, and eager to brush aside the
FACT that he is a pedophile child abuser, agreed in July to pay a cash
settlement to his 7 victims. We learn below that court documents show the cash
settlement to be in excess of $5,000,000.00! Not exactly chump chance. Each
abused boy gets around a million bucks, and our Frugal Gourmet gets to AVOID a
trial, and avoids ALL criminal punishment.
As part of the settlement, Jeff very specifically admits NO wrongdoing. How
BEAUTIFULLY appropriate for your LIE and HYPOCRISY saturated society. Jeff
BRIBES his victims, and because the bribe is BIG enough, all seven happily
pocket the dough. Meanwhile, Jeff maintains his 'good name' and reputation, by
NOT admitting any guilt. So all you middle aged and older housewives can go
ahead and keep on buying Jeff's cooking books and watch him on TV, without
having to DEAL with the TRUTH, of Jeff being a serial teen boy sexual abuser.
Everybody wins! The victims get RICH. Jeff keeps his good name. Jeff's
viewers & fans can proudly say to themselves: "He is Not Guilty of any crime."
The only losers are those humans like me, who VALUE Truth and rationality and
are brilliantly insightful enough to realize that what we have here is society
deliberately choosing to allow a multi-millionaire pedophile to get away
SCOT-FREE with serially abusing and torturing young boys.
I ADMIRE Jeff's cunningly wise decision to pay the dough. I only comdemn your
society for allowing this man to use his wealth and fame to SPIT in the FACE of
the notion of justice. It is so VERY appropriate that Jeff, cooking celebrity,
also happens to be a METHODIST MINISTER. Oh yeah, the god freak scene lures yet
another pedophile into it's leadership ranks.
What must have Jeff LAUGHING with glee in private is the fact that his
insurance companies are paying the vast bulk of the $5M+ cash settlement, so
that he loses almost NOTHING out of his own pocket. Insurance is paying $4.75M
to the 7 boys. In fact, based upon his lawyer's comments, it sounds as though
Jeff might not be losing a single PENNY of his own cash assets or property,
with the insurance companies paying EVERYTHING.
We also learn that in 1991, pedophile-celebrity Jeff paid 1.5 million
buckeroonies to an EIGHTH teen victim of his raging libido. This was also paid
by insurance companies. Hey. you generate enough income, and insurance
companies will gladly shell out millions of dollars on your behalf. Asked
REPEATEDLY over the years whether he had made such a payment in 1991, Jeff LIED
over and over, to EVERY media reporter who asked him this question. So what,
right? This is a LIE-BASED society. NOBODY will condemn Jeff for lying, he
simply acted as his society teaches ALL of it's citizen-slaves to act. He was
taught that LYING is just as crucial and important in life as BREATHING is.
In reading the below news items, we see that the NOTION of 'justice' is
nothing more than a non-existent phantom. It is ALWAYS for sale. It is bought
and sold every day like a hot internet IPO. Society will HAPPILY and proudly
protect it's famous and influential celebrity criminals, throwing justice into
the gutter in the process. The MOST USELESS and ABHORED character trait within
the societal sphere is TRUTH. Truth is totally condemned by society itself, as
being not just undesirable, but actively repugnant. NO truth-teller stands any
chance of gaining an influential position in society, and no truth-teller is
ever rewarded by society for their embrace and declarations of Truth. tHey are
instead CONDEMNED, while a serial and pathological and malevolent liar like
Jeff Smith is REWARDED for playing along with the societal game of bribery,
cheating, the god myth, con artist ploys, and the ABUSE of CHILDREN.
Take care, JOE
The following appears courtesy of today's Associated Press news wire:
Frugal Gourmet Sex Charges Settled
SEATTLE (AP) -- The price tag for settling sexual abuse charges against Jeff
Smith, public television's ``Frugal Gourmet,'' was more than $5 million,
according to court documents.
The terms of the settlement, which were not disclosed at the time it was
reached in July, were confirmed by Ed Winskill, Smith's attorney, according to
The Oregonian newspaper in Portland.
``I won't comment on the settlement except to point out to you that the
judgment is not enforceable against any of his property,'' he told Thursday's
edition of the newspaper.
Smith agreed to the settlement just before a civil trial was to begin in July
in which seven men accused Smith of sexually molested them. Most of the men
were teen-age employees of his from 1973 and 1981.
The settlement included no apology or admission of wrongdoing from Smith, a
bubbly, white-goateed Methodist minister and 59-year-old father of two grown
sons.
Insurance companies holding personal liability policies for the Smiths and
their parent corporations, The Frugal Gourmet Inc. and Frugal Gourmet
Productions Inc., agreed to pay $4.75 million to halt the trial, according to
court documents.
The papers did not detail how the settlement was divided among the plaintiffs.
Also, the court documents show for the first time that Smith agreed to pay an
eighth man $1.5 million in 1991 in exchange for silence about that man's claims
of sexual assault. Smith has repeatedly denied that any payments were made.
Smith has not been charged with any crime. The statute of limitations on all
the alleged offenses has run out. He has denied all of the accusations.
Smith's dozen cookbooks have sold a reported 12 million copies, and his series,
the most popular cooking show in history, once was viewed by an estimated 15
million people a week on 300 public TV stations.
AP-NY-12-31-98
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following appears courtesy of the 12/31/98 online edition of The
Oregonian newspaper:
Frugal Gourmet's insurers settle with accusers, documents say
Jeff Smith's assets are untouched in the more than $5 million judgment, and he
avoids scrutiny of sexual assault charges
Thursday, December 31 1998
By Deborah Holton of The Oregonian staff
Jeff Smith, the "Frugal Gourmet," and his insurers have agreed to pay more than
$5 million to avoid public scrutiny of charges that he sexually assaulted
several minor boys, according to documents filed in Washington state courts.
Some of that money was paid eight years ago to a man whose claims of a
money-for-silence agreement Smith has repeatedly denied.
Insurance companies holding personal liability policies for Smith; his wife,
Patty; and their parent corporations, The Frugal Gourmet Inc. and Frugal
Gourmet Productions Inc., agreed in June to pay $4.75 million to halt a July 6
civil trial on charges that Smith sexually assaulted seven men while most were
teen employees of his from 1973 and 1981. The judgment, filed Aug. 11 in Pierce
County (Wash.) Superior Court, does not detail how the settlement was divided
among the plaintiffs.
Ed Winskill, Smith's attorney, confirmed the settlement and said Jeff and Patty
Smith's personal assets are exempt from collection. "I won't comment on the
settlement except to point out to you that the judgment is not enforceable
against any of his property," he said.
F. Mike Shaffer, the attorney representing the seven men who sued Smith, said
his clients have not yet received the full settlement.
Before the settlement agreement, Smith vowed he would fight the accusations in
court and prove his accusers "crooks" who invented their claims as an extortion
attempt. Winskill publicly questioned the motives of Smith's accusers and
denied that Smith had confronted similar accusations.
But court records filed in Washington's Court of Appeals confirm that Smith
agreed to pay an eighth man $1.5 million in 1991 in exchange for silence about
that man's claims of sexual assault. The man, Clinton Smith, who is no relation
to Jeff Smith, said he violated the agreement by talking about where the money
came from and later sued when Jeff Smith refused to pay the final $1 million.
Jeff Smith and Winskill repeatedly denied Clinton Smith's claims and filed for
dismissal of the suit.
The transcript of a closed superior court hearing on the dismissal shows that
Winskill did negotiate the agreement to pay for silence. Winskill argues in
that transcript that Clinton Smith violated a legal contract by continuing to
talk about his allegations; Pierce County Superior Court Judge Frederick
Fleming agreed and dismissed Clinton Smith's case in February. The case is on
appeal.
When asked about his repeated denials of a settlement with Clinton Smith,
Winskill declined to respond.
Clinton Smith was unavailable for comment.
George Heitman, the lead plaintiff in the suit settled last summer, would not
discuss his share of the settlement or its division among the plaintiffs. He
said he remains disappointed that a public apology was not part of the
agreement.
But, in light of the confirmation of Clinton Smith's story, Heitman had harsh
words for Winskill. "I think it was unethical and unfair of Mr. Winskill to
attack the plaintiffs when he knew this had happened previously," he said. "He
could have just said, 'no comment,' but he lied and said it didn't happen."
---------------------------------------------------------
The following appears courtesy of the 7/2/98 online edition of The Oregonian
newspaper:
Accusers, 'Frugal Gourmet' settle suit
At least one of the men who claimed the celebrity chef sexually abused them is
dissatisfied with the accord's terms of confidentiality
Thursday, July 2 1998
By Deborah Holton of The Oregonian staff
The "Frugal Gourmet" avoided a civil trial next week by reaching a settlement
with his accusers on allegations that he sexually assaulted seven teen-agers
dating back to 1973.
The terms of the settlement are confidential. Previously, Jeff Smith had
threatened to fight the charges and prove his accusers were out to ruin his
reputation.
The first plaintiff to come forward, George Heitman, said he is disappointed
with the agreement. "I'm dissatisfied with the terms of confidentiality of the
agreement," he said. "In fact I'm kind of dissatisfied with the whole thing."
Smith, an ordained Methodist minister who started his career as a university
chaplain in Tacoma more than 30 years ago, progressed in the span of two
decades from Tacoma restaurant owner and local TV personality to become a
nationally syndicated star of one of the most popular cooking shows ever and a
best-selling author.
His "Frugal Gourmet" cooking show, born of modest beginnings on Tacoma public
television, at one time reached more than 7 million households every week
through syndication on more than 300 public stations. Broadcasts of "The Frugal
Gourmet Keeps the Feast," Smith's last cooking series, were suspended by United
Methodist Communications last year in the wake of the allegations of sexual
abuse.
Smith was accused by six men who worked for him during the 1970s and 1980s at
his Tacoma restaurant, the Chaplain's Pantry. In their depositions, the men
swore that Smith often offered them alcohol before attempting to lure or
intimidate them into sexual encounters. Some plaintiffs say Smith simply forced
himself on them sexually.
One man claimed he was a 14-year-old hitchhiker in 1992 and was assaulted after
Smith offered him a ride; his parents are also plaintiffs, bringing the total
number of plaintiffs Smith settled with to nine.
Smith, 59, has not been charged with any crimes.
The settlement was reached with all the named parties in the suit, including
Smith; his wife, Patty; Frugal Gourmet Productions Inc.; The Frugal Gourmet
Inc.; and Chaplain's Pantry Inc. The trial was scheduled for Pierce County
Superior Court in Tacoma.
Some plaintiffs are glad the case is over, though some had hoped for a public
admission of guilt.
"I'm glad we're not going to be dragged through the trial," said Rod Pedersen,
a Wisconsin man who said Smith repeatedly got him drunk as a teen-ager before
forcing him to perform sex acts.
"But I'm kind of disappointed it doesn't include some kind of admission from
him," he said.
Another plaintiff, Karl Washburn, said although terms of the agreement were
confidential he sees the settlement as an admission of wrongdoing.
"I hope this case exposes a problem in our nation and world and shows that
pedophiles need to be exposed and held responsible," said Washburn, who never
discussed the specifics of his charges against Smith.
The complaint of another man, Clinton Smith (no relation), was dismissed in
February. Superior Court Judge Frederick Fleming rejected his claim, now being
appealed, that a 1991 money-for-silence agreement he said he had reached with
Jeff Smith was illegally breached. Jeff Smith and his attorney deny the
existence of any previous settlements.
F. Mike Shaffer, the plaintiffs' attorney, said all his clients are "very
satisfied with the agreement we were able to reach and are looking forward to
continued recovery and getting on with the good things in their lives."
Smith's attorney, Ed Winskill, would confirm only that a settlement had been
reached.
Smith answered the phone at his Seattle apartment but refused to discuss the
settlement.
"I'm busy in the kitchen," Smith said. "If you want anything more, you'll have
to call my lawyer."
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following appears courtesy of the 6/21/98 online edition of The Oregonian
newspaper:
'Frugal Gourmet' faces trial soon
Jeff Smith's career has waned in the 17 months since a civil suit first accused
him of sexual assault and molestation
Sunday, June 21 1998
By Deborah Holton of The Oregonian staff
"Frugal Gourmet" Jeff Smith faces his accusers in a July 6 civil trial,
culminating an eventful 17 months since the first lawsuit accusing him of
molesting and sexually assaulting a teen-age male employee was filed. His
troubles have grown during those months.
The number of accusers filing civil complaints grew by nine; more than a dozen
people signed affidavits swearing that they experienced or saw events that
corroborate the accusers' claims; broadcasts of his newest cooking show were
suspended, and no books have been published since 1995.
Smith denies every allegation. "These people are just trying to tear me down,
and the media is just as bad," he told The Oregonian earlier this year.
"You're all just trying to ruin me . . . my lawyer is going to prove that these
are people who just want money. They're bloodsuckers who want to ruin me."
Smith's ire is aimed at the seven men who claim they were sexually assaulted by
Smith when they were teens. They seek unspecified damages from Smith; his wife,
Patty; Frugal Gourmet Productions Inc.; The Frugal Gourmet Inc. and Chaplain's
Pantry Inc. in a trial to be held in Pierce County Superior Court in Tacoma.
That's where Smith opened a catering service, cooking school and restaurant
called the Chaplain's Pantry, in 1972, after serving as a professor of religion
and chaplain at the University of Puget Sound. Most of Smith's accusers claim
they were teen employees of Smith's at the Chaplain's Pantry in the 1970s and
early 1980s when, they say, Smith used alcohol, intimidation and physical force
to obtain sex.
One man claims he was a 14-year-old hitchiker in 1992 who was assaulted after
Smith offered him a ride; his parents are also plaintiffs.
Smith, 59, has not been charged with any crimes.
The complaint of another man, Clinton Smith, was dismissed in February. Judge
Frederick Fleming rejected his claim, now being appealed, that a 1991
money-for-silence agreement he claimed he reached with Jeff Smith, no relation,
was illegally breached. Jeff Smith and his attorney deny the existence of any
settlements.
Patty Smith's attorney, Dan Kyler, argued last week to the Washington Court of
Appeals that the concept of marital privilege protects her from having to
testify about what she may know about the alleged assaults. The plaintiffs'
attorney, F. Mike Shaffer, told the panel that even if the Smiths' marital
communications are protected, she still has to answer questions about anything
she has independent knowledge of.
Attorneys expect the appeals panel to rule before the trial's start.
Career slows
The career of Smith, an author capable of selling millions of cookbooks, has
slowed considerably since the lawsuits were filed. Seattle-area food
professionals and merchants near his Pike Place home and test kitchen say the
man named one of the 100 most influential people in the Pacific Northwest by
the Seattle Times in 1995 is rarely seen these days.
Nat Katzman, general manager and executive producer of the San Francisco-based
A La Carte Communications, which produced Smith's PBS shows for six years, said
no new shows are being planned or produced.
The contract for airing Smith's last PBS show expired in December 1997. Stu
Kantor, director of corporate communications for the Public Broadcasting
System, said no new contracts have been signed.
Broadcasts of "The Frugal Gourmet Keeps the Feast," Smith's last cooking
series, were suspended by United Methodist Communications last year in the wake
of the allegations of sexual abuse. The series, which hasn't aired on Portland
cable stations, was produced to accompany Smith's last book, published in 1995.
Smith's publisher, William Morrow, says no new books are planned.
Plaintiffs stand firm
The accusations have not put just Smith and his life under examination. His
accusers have all been deposed and examined by psychological experts.
George Heitman,the first man to file suit against Smith, said the publicity and
probing by the Smiths' attorneys has taken a toll on his family.
"I have to remind myself of the original reason for doing it, and that was to
expose Jeff and prevent it from happening again."
Another plaintiff, Christian Thomas, said he remains upset about Smith's
denials, which initially drove him to come forward after the first suit was
filed.
"If people who know the truth don't come forward, then the right thing won't be
done," he said. "It's the right thing to do morally."
Rod Pedersensaid he is not eager to undergo the scrutiny or upheaval of a trial
but is determined to go through with it. "That's what I decided to do when this
all started."
The trial could take several weeks, given the number of plaintiffs and charges.
Attorneys for both sides told Fleming that jury selection alone will take at
least a week.
Reporter David Austin and researcher Gail Hulden of The Oregonian staff
contributed to this story.
KAINE SIS2
>Frugal Gourmet Sex Charges Settled
>
>
I also read somewhere last week that
Tommy Smothers settled with the
2 now-adult stepdaughters who had
sued him for molesting them as
children. He had adamantly denied the
charges, accusing the women of being
after his money. The settlement was
$350,000 as I recall.
Kathy
EGlas35107
who worked on his program. I had forgotten about that until I read this post.
He also doesn't make up the recipes or cook the food on his show. His
"assistant" Craig does that. What a guy! :-)
Aviva
Joe1orbit
>Joe, he was also sued a few years ago for sexual harrassment by one of the
>men
>who worked on his program. I had forgotten about that until I read this
>post.
Hello Aviva,
Yes, I assume that was the early 1990's case, the first one out of the 8,
that he settled separately, paying 1.5 million bucks to that young man.
>He also doesn't make up the recipes or cook the food on his show. His
>"assistant" Craig does that.
Interesting. I didn't know that. Never have watched a single TV show of his.
I'm a Frozen TV Dinner Microwave Man. Never have actually "cooked" anything,
unless you count Campbell's soup in a can heated up on the stovetop.
> What a guy! :-)
He's a CUNNING fellow, a cunningly malevolent fellow, to have come so far in
life, achieving multi-millionaire status, fame, the respect and admiration of
his TV viewers, book readers, AND church underlings, etc..... IMO, he is just
as much a SOCIOPATH as even the most hard-core serial killer locked in jail for
life. Jeff simply knows how to channel his sociopathic ways in directions that
carry minimal risk of being punished by the society that created him.
Take care, JOE
>Aviva
></PRE></HTML>
EGlas35107
>unless you count Campbell's soup in a can heated up on the stovetop.
>
>
I like to cook, but I am very partial to the microwave beef pot pies. I also
like Campbell's chunky soup with cheddar cheese melted in it.> He's a CUNNING
fellow, a cunningly malevolent fellow, to have come so far
>in
>life, achieving multi-millionaire status, fame, the respect and admiration of
>his TV viewers, book readers, AND church underlings, etc..... IMO, he is just
>as much a SOCIOPATH as even the most hard-core serial killer locked in jail
>for
>life. Jeff simply knows how to channel his sociopathic ways in directions
>that
>carry minimal risk of being punished by the society that created him.
>
> Take care, JOE
>
I couldn't agree with you more.
Take care, Aviva
John R. Woodward
Joe1orbit wrote in message <19981231214815...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
>Hello,
>
> In a diseased society, especially a capitalistic one, the notion of
"justice"
>is ALWAYS up for SALE, if the criminal lawbreaker is rich enough.
>
> There is a rather famous PBS-TV celebrity named Jeff Smith, he used to
have a
>very popular cooking show titled "The Frugal Gourmet". Problem is, he had a
>different kind of "meal" cooking in the sexual nerve center of his brain.
Jeff
>liked to sexually molest teen-age boys. SEVEN of the boys banded together
and
>filed a civil lawsuit against Jeff, after police
>authorities refused to bring criminal charges against him.
Hello, Joe:
Thanks for this timely and fascinating post! Believe it or not, just last
night I was chatting with friends and we were wondering about the
disposition of this case. I am a bog cooking-show fan, and watch them by the
dozens, but I can truthfully say I NEVER liked the Frugal Gourmet. There was
always something about him that I disliked without being able to explain
it -- something in his manner. (As one whose hobbies include cooking and the
history of food, I also believe he sometimes had his facts wrong.)
I do think the case didn't turn out so well for him. He's off the air, and
never gonna come back. His books are all piled in the deep discount section
at Barnes and Noble and Books-A-Million doesn't even stock them. It is
doubtful that he'll ever revive his career.
I was interested to not that he started a restuarant after leaving a college
chaplaincy/teaching job. Why would an ordained Methodist minister, who is
virtually guarunteed a job, choose instead a risky career like opening a
restuarant? If he was tenured professor of religion it would be even more
foolish. Could it be that some of the troubled young men who came to him for
counseling were molested? Was he forced out to protect the students? Perhaps
there's more to know about this case.
Joe1orbit
>>Hello,
>>
>> In a diseased society, especially a capitalistic one, the notion of
>"justice"
>>is ALWAYS up for SALE, if the criminal lawbreaker is rich enough.
>>
>> There is a rather famous PBS-TV celebrity named Jeff Smith, he used to
>have a
>>very popular cooking show titled "The Frugal Gourmet". Problem is, he had a
>>different kind of "meal" cooking in the sexual nerve center of his brain.
>Jeff
>>liked to sexually molest teen-age boys. SEVEN of the boys banded together
>and
>>filed a civil lawsuit against Jeff, after police
>>authorities refused to bring criminal charges against >>him.
"John R. Woodward" <JRWoo...@nettally.com> Wrote:
>Hello, Joe:
>
>Thanks for this timely and fascinating post!
Hello,
My pleasure.
> Believe it or not, just last
>night I was chatting with friends and we were wondering about the
>disposition of this case.
I am glad to have provided the information that you sought.
> I am a bog cooking-show fan, and watch them by the
>dozens, but I can truthfully say I NEVER liked the Frugal Gourmet. There was
>always something about him that I disliked without being able to explain
>it -- something in his manner. (As one whose hobbies include cooking and the
>history of food, I also believe he sometimes had his >facts wrong.)
Interesting. Well, he certainly was and is pretty popular among a lot of
cooking afficianados. Most people are far too uninsightful and unperceptive to
pick up on any subtle indications of arrogance or sociopathy.
>I do think the case didn't turn out so well for him. He's off the air, and
>never gonna come back.
He's probably overjoyed to be "retired". IMO, there is NO reason for any
person with even a ONE million dollar net worth to keep on working. 1 mil is
enough money to allow a person to live a comfortable lifestyle for the rest of
their lives, ESPECIALLY an older person who is in his 50's already.
He can still preach the god myth, too.
>His books are all piled in the deep discount section
>at Barnes and Noble and Books-A-Million doesn't even stock them. It is
>doubtful that he'll ever revive his career.
Maybe you're right. But he doesn't need any career at this point, IMO,
assuming that he has saved and wisely invested a fair amount of his money, and
retains a million dollar+ net worth.
>I was interested to not that he started a restuarant after leaving a college
>chaplaincy/teaching job. Why would an ordained Methodist minister, who is
>virtually guarunteed a job, choose instead a risky career like opening a
>restuarant?
I don't know why. Maybe he liked cooking, and knew that his god freak
position would always be there for him to fall back on if the restaurant fails.
> If he was tenured professor of religion it would be even more
>foolish. Could it be that some of the troubled young men who came to him for
>counseling were molested? Was he forced out to >protect the students?
That is certainly very possible.
> Perhaps
>there's more to know about this case.
Maybe. Jeff sounds like a good candidate for one of those sleazy celebrity
book authors to sink his/her teeth into, in the form of an unauthorized
biography.
Take care, JOE
>
></PRE></HTML>
John R. Woodward
EGlas35107 wrote in message
<19990101201536...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>Joe, he was also sued a few years ago for sexual harrassment by one of the
men
>who worked on his program. I had forgotten about that until I read this
post.
>
>
>Aviva
So Craig is kind of like Norm used to be on THIS OLD HOUSE . . . the guy who
actually does the work while The Talent preens before the camera.
Maybe this is why I always hated Jeff Smith's show (and I just LOVE good
cooking shows). I always thought he was a phoney and now we know that he IS
a phoney:
a phoney cook, a phoney author, a phoney entertainer, a phoney preacher and
a phoney heterosexual.
Barbrien
teen boys he sexually abused,but admits
From: "John R. Woodward" <JRWoo...@nettally.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 2, 1999 11:46 PM
Message-id: <76mp6s$i0r$1...@server.cntfl.com>
******
I know I've come in late but I thougt I read most of the thread. Is Jeff Smith
gay? Not that I have a problem if he is, just curious.
Barbara
</HTML>
Barbrien
>
>EGlas35107 wrote in message
><19990101201536...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>>Joe, he was also sued a few years ago for sexual harrassment by one of the
>men
>>who worked on his program. I had forgotten about that until I read this
>post.
>>
>>He also doesn't make up the recipes or cook the food on his show. His
>>"assistant" Craig does that. What a guy! :-)
>>
>>Aviva
>
>So Craig is kind of like Norm used to be on THIS OLD HOUSE . . . the guy who
>actually does the work while The Talent preens before the camera.
>
>Maybe this is why I always hated Jeff Smith's show (and I just LOVE good
>cooking shows). I always thought he was a phoney and now we know that he IS
>a phoney:
>a phoney cook, a phoney author, a phoney entertainer, a phoney preacher and
>a phoney heterosexual.
>
>******
>
>I know I've come in late but I thougt I read most of the thread. Is Jeff Smith
>gay? Not that I have a problem if he is, just curious.
>
>Barbara
>
i think he was in the pantry...
before these lawsuits...
what i don't ~get~
is why his insurance would pay??(katzrule)
****
dunno about the insurance:) seems mighty strange to me.
Did he *say* he is gay or are people assuming it?
Barbara
Martha Sprowles
> men
> >who worked on his program. I had forgotten about that until I read this
> post.
> >
> >He also doesn't make up the recipes or cook the food on his show. His
> >"assistant" Craig does that. What a guy! :-)
> >
> >Aviva
>
> So Craig is kind of like Norm used to be on THIS OLD HOUSE . . . the guy who
> actually does the work while The Talent preens before the camera.
>
> Maybe this is why I always hated Jeff Smith's show (and I just LOVE good
> cooking shows). I always thought he was a phoney and now we know that he IS
> a phoney:
> a phoney cook, a phoney author, a phoney entertainer, a phoney preacher and
> a phoney heterosexual.
Beeep! Wrong. Not a "phoney heterosexual"--a genuine pedophile, most
of whom are heterosexual.
Mothra
JBrown6000
<<Beeep! Wrong. Not a "phoney heterosexual"--a genuine pedophile, most
of whom are heterosexual.
**So you think he just liked young boys and big girls?
John R. Woodward
Martha Sprowles wrote in message <368F1B...@erols.com>...
>John R. Woodward wrote:
<snip>
>> Maybe this is why I always hated Jeff Smith's show (and I just LOVE good
>> cooking shows). I always thought he was a phoney and now we know that he
IS
>> a phoney:
>> a phoney cook, a phoney author, a phoney entertainer, a phoney preacher
and
>> a phoney heterosexual.
>
>Beeep! Wrong. Not a "phoney heterosexual"--a genuine pedophile, most
>of whom are heterosexual.
>
>Mothra
BEEP BEEP -- He abused teen boys; meaning he is either gay or bisexual, but
his first response when he was first accused of molesting teen boys was to
claim he couldn't have committed such an ofense because he was straight --
and pointed to his wife/2 kids as proof (like we don't all see through THAT
one).
Now, of course he's a pedophile and of course most pedophiles are hetero.
Jeff Smith, however is a gay, or possibly bisexual pedo. This doesn't in any
way reflect poorly on the gay community because most gays aren't pedos.
What Smith really is, is a predator, which makes him dangerous whatever his
sexual orientation.
WWWoLadyA
>is why his insurance would pay??
There are "umbrella policies" which can be purchased to protect assests, in the
event of personal liability suits, such as these were.
Lady A
MaryHedman
>**So you think he just liked young boys and big girls?
I don't think it's possible to determine Smith's sexual orientation merely from
these civil suits. He could be bisexual, gay or heterosexual. Since the
males he molested were old enough to be employed, they weren't young children,
so even the pedophile label may not exactly fit. One thing seems clear: he
wasn't a monogamous heterosexual. :)
Does anyone know how the plaintiffs got around the statute of limitations?
They weren't claiming repressed memories, we they? Or did they instead claim
that they hadn't 'discovered' that they were injured until recently?
Mary
John R. Woodward
WWWoLadyA wrote in message <19990103031024...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
He covered his assets, al right (so to speak).
Incidentally, I, too would like to know how the plaintiffs got around the
Statute of Limitations. If it had run on on crimes, how was the clock still
ticking on civil torts?
Dejanews had nothing to explain this -- evidently it hasn't appeared in any
post or news story.
EGlas35107
>Statute of Limitations. If it had run on on crimes, how was the clock still
>ticking on civil torts?
>Dejanews had nothing to explain this -- evidently it hasn't appeared in any
>post or news story.
>
>
I don't know about other states, but in NJ a plaintiff has 6 years to sue from
the date he/she is made aware that he/she has been injured. Kind of like
finding out that a doctor left a scalpel in you 10 years ago during surgery,
you would have 6 years from the time you discovered the scalpel, not from the
time the injury occurred.
Also, if these young men were minors, there is no statute of limitations for
civil actions. Their parents could sue, on their behalf, up to the time they
become legally adults then these young men would also be able to sue, once they
come of age.
Hope this helps, Aviva
Maggie8097
>**So you think he just liked young boys and big girls?
Mary said:
I don't think it's possible to determine Smith's sexual orientation merely from
these civil suits. He could be bisexual, gay or heterosexual. Since the
males he molested were old enough to be employed, they weren't young children,
so even the pedophile label may not exactly fit. One thing seems clear: he
wasn't a monogamous heterosexual. :)
Does anyone know how the plaintiffs got around the statute of limitations?
They weren't claiming repressed memories, we they? Or did they instead claim
that they hadn't 'discovered' that they were injured until recently?
***AFAIK, statutes of limitations apply only to criminal prosecutions. These
were civil suits.
Maggie
"It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few
by deceit." --Noel Coward
Maggie8097
Does anyone know how the plaintiffs got around the statute of limitations?
They weren't claiming repressed memories, we they? Or did they instead claim
that they hadn't 'discovered' that they were injured until recently?
Maggie said:
***AFAIK, statutes of limitations apply only to criminal prosecutions. These
were civil suits.
***I just did a little research, and statutes of limitations definitely *do*
apply to civil suits. From looking through a few state cases, it's clear that
there are loads of arcane rules and exceptions to rules in the statute of
limitations laws. Relevant information might include the age of the plaintiff,
when and where the acts occurred, when the actions first came to light, when
any action to recover commenced, et al. And courts, at least in some
jurisdictions, tend to interpret these laws liberally.
MaryHedman
>AFAIK, statutes of limitations apply only to criminal prosecutions. These
>were civil suits
All civil claims are controlled by statutes of limitation. The longest periods
are for written contracts, ie usually 6 years, and generally shorter for tort
actions.. The 'discovery rule' applies to personal injury actions and in a
psychological injury case, the S of L can start to run after the plaintiff
seeks counseling and 'discovers' that he or she was, in some way, injured by
the defendant. It's all very mushy and varies widely from state to state,
plus there are many rules about when the statute 'tolls.'
As far as the Smith cases go, I still don't understand how the plaintiffs
proceeded so many years after the incidents. I suspect that they claimed they
didn't 'discover' they were injured until many years afterwards. Perhaps,
however, these were 'repressed memory' cases, which seem to be more common with
female victims. Somehow, the plaintiffs survived the defendant's motion to
dismiss, so they obviously pled a valid defense to Smith's claim that the
actions were barred by the S of L.
Regards,
Mary
Regards,
Mary
WWWoLadyA
>All civil claims are controlled by statutes of limitation. The longest
>periods
>are for written contracts, ie usually 6 years, and generally shorter for tort
>actions..
In some states, the statute of limitations (for civil actions) does not begin
until the victim reaches a certain age.
Age 16, in one case that I know of.
But I have no idea how this varies from state to state....... or if it was even
a factor in this case.
Lady A
Martha Sprowles
>
> Martha says:
>
> <<Beeep! Wrong. Not a "phoney heterosexual"--a genuine pedophile, most
> of whom are heterosexual.
>
Well, *something* attracted him to his wife.
Mothra
John R. Woodward
Barbrien wrote in message <
<snip some of the Jeff Smith thread to get to the question>
>Did he *say* he is gay or are people assuming it?
>
>Barbara
>
>
>
I said he was a "phoney heterosexual" and later clarified that to include
both the possibility that he is gay and the possibility that he is bisexual,
which is the most likely because he has had a marraige with two sons. He
recently settled over a half-dozen cases in which he was alledged to have
given teen boys alcohol before molesting them. These were teens who worked
in his restuarant, except for one who worked on his show. The cases are old,
going back to incidents of abuse in the 70s/80s. The first case that I know
of to be publicized was brought in late 1996, but it turns out there was at
least one earlier case.
Smith's defense when the first case hit the airwaves was that he was a
happily married hetero. If so, why the multi-million dollar settlement? You
can't persuade me that someone who is innocent forks over 5 million "just to
put the case behind him."
Even tho the money is coming out of his insurer's pocket, the principle
remains. The insurer wouldn't approve the settlement unless the company
believed the charges had merit. (Yes, nusiance suits are settled for smaller
sums all the time -- but not 5 mil plus!)
So Jeff Smith has an attraction to young males. That makes him a pedophile,
subcategory gay or bisexual. His sexual assaults on young men do'nt do
anything to bring shame on the gay community -- gays are no more likely than
straights to be pedos, and the vast, vast majority of pedos are straights
who prey on their own families.
DOG3
In article <368FC5...@erols.com>, Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
writes:
>
>Well, *something* attracted him to his wife.
>
>Mothra
>
>
At least twice <G>
Michael
"The sole root of mans' unhappiness is that man does not know how
to sit and stay quietly in his room"
- Found on the bathroom wall in a Buffalo, NY bar
DOG3
In article <76nhkn$2ao$1...@server.cntfl.com>, "John R. Woodward"
<JRWoo...@nettally.com> writes:
>
>He covered his assets, al right (so to speak).
>
>Incidentally, I, too would like to know how the plaintiffs got around the
>Statute of Limitations. If it had run on on crimes, how was the clock still
>ticking on civil torts?
>Dejanews had nothing to explain this -- evidently it hasn't appeared in any
>post or news story.
>
>
>
Do you think he just settled to get rid of all the negative publicity ? I'm
interested in this also. Maybe the Statute of Limitations did run out but he
was advised to settle anyway. Anyone have any info on this ?
DOG3
In article <76n4bt$pud$1...@server.cntfl.com>, "John R. Woodward"
<JRWoo...@nettally.com> writes:
>
>BEEP BEEP -- He abused teen boys; meaning he is either gay or bisexual, but
>his first response when he was first accused of molesting teen boys was to
>claim he couldn't have committed such an ofense because he was straight --
>and pointed to his wife/2 kids as proof (like we don't all see through THAT
>one).
>
Exactly what were the ages of the boys he molested ? I haven't been following
this case because I didn't like any of his shows and seldom watched. I was
under the impression the boys were much younger than teens.
Barbrien
<JRWoo...@nettally.com> writes:
>
>BEEP BEEP -- He abused teen boys; meaning he is either gay or bisexual, but
>his first response when he was first accused of molesting teen boys was to
>claim he couldn't have committed such an ofense because he was straight --
>and pointed to his wife/2 kids as proof (like we don't all see through THAT
>one).
>
Exactly what were the ages of the boys he molested ? I haven't been following
this case because I didn't like any of his shows and seldom watched. I was
under the impression the boys were much younger than teens.
Michael
*************
All I saw in the article Michael, was that they were teens and one of them was
14. If you want the original article, yell:)
Barbara
Barbrien
Barbrien wrote in message <
<snip some of the Jeff Smith thread to get to the question>
>Did he *say* he is gay or are people assuming it?
>
John posts:
******
Correct me if I am wrong John, but if Jeff Smith is attracted to other males
yes, he is either a homosexual, or a bisexual or just experimenting and still
heterosexual :).
The fact that he was attracted to children, makes him a pedophile, no matter
what the sex of the child, although I have seen a definition of pedophilia
which defines it as attraction to pre pubescent children . If the children are
over 13 I believe it is called something else, the word escapes me right now.
Where is Lars when we need him:). The attraction to young male children does
not make one a pedophile although it is often misundertood. Right?
I dont believe that we know the ages these men were when they were molested yet
do we? I know one story said one of them was 14 but I dont know the ages of the
others.
Barbara
John R. Woodward
DOG3 wrote in message
<snip my own quoted post>
>Do you think he just settled to get rid of all the negative publicity ?
I'm
>interested in this also. Maybe the Statute of Limitations did run out but
he
>was advised to settle anyway. Anyone have any info on this ?
>
>Michael
>
From what has been put out by the AP so far, it would seem that the $$$$
came from his General Liaibility Insurance coverage. An insurance company
isn't going to pay out $5 mill+ to protect his reputation. They'll only do
it to protect themselves from steeper judgements down the line. His lawyer
assured the AP that none of the $$$ was going to come from the Rev. Smith's
pocket. Now, I can't figure out why the lawyer would make such a point of
that, unless it was a weird kind of advertising --
"Hire me if you're guilty, I can stick a 3rd party with the bill!"
Before deciding to settle, the insurer had to decide it was risker than not
settling. And therin lies the point.
John R. Woodward
DOG3 wrote in message <19990103161329...@ngol06.aol.com>...
<snip my own quoted post>
>Exactly what were the ages of the boys he molested ? I haven't been
following
>this case because I didn't like any of his shows and seldom watched. I was
>under the impression the boys were much younger than teens.
>
>Michael
They were teens of an age to work in a resturant, meaning 15 or up. They
were employees of the Rev. Smith. He gave them booze and messed with them.
John R. Woodward
Barbrien wrote in message <19990103174156...@ng04.aol.com>...
<snip a long quote of my own post, which is now my standard practice>
>Correct me if I am wrong John, but if Jeff Smith is attracted to other
males
>yes, he is either a homosexual, or a bisexual or just experimenting and
still
>heterosexual :).
>
>The fact that he was attracted to children, makes him a pedophile, no
matter
>what the sex of the child, although I have seen a definition of pedophilia
>which defines it as attraction to pre pubescent children . If the children
are
>over 13 I believe it is called something else, the word escapes me right
now.
>Where is Lars when we need him:). The attraction to young male children
does
>not make one a pedophile although it is often misundertood. Right?
>
>I dont believe that we know the ages these men were when they were molested
yet
>do we? I know one story said one of them was 14 but I dont know the ages of
the
>others.
>
>
>
>Barbara
>
Seven young males is beyond an "experiment." It's a pattern of behavior,
part of his lifestyle.
A pedophile is a person who engages in sexual acts with persons below the
societal/legal age of consent. The Rev. Smith's victims were teens of
working age, which would make them 14 to 17. Pedophilia is the crime of
soliciting and/or engaging in sexual acts with those who are protected by
society because they are too young to make responsible choices about sexual
expression, especially because they are vulnerable to the manipulation of
adults. Many people disagree as to where the line should be drawn -- at
what age -- and for all I know there may be states where Rev. Smiths
assaults were legal (tho not moral).
He's a predator. He doesn't stalk young victims; he's cleverer than that. As
the owner of a business, he can get them to come to him. (His victims worked
in his restuarant, or on his show, in one case.) He knows how to use
alcohol to reduce the resistance of his victims, and he was able to
manipulate or intimidate them into keeping quiet for a long time.
He is NOT a person with a healthy sexuality, gay or straight. IMHO, a man
with significant attractions to other many can have a perfectly healthy
sexual life, IF he acknowledges this fact. Denying his True Reality is the
start of the sickness. In order to deny it, he has to involve a woman (or
more than one woman) in a lifelong deceit. However much he may enjoy his
relations with her (or them), he has to go elsewhere in secret for
fulfullment he can't get with a woman.
In my town, I've seen where these men go: the park where the old downtown
bus transfer site used to be. When I worked at the mental health center, the
cops brought us young male runaways (not all of them underaged) who sold
their bodies in the park to survive. After listening to them, I came to
understand that homosexual men with a healthy attitude towards their
sexuality don't hire street hookers. A few of them who have needs for
cruelty mixed with their sex will go for the vulnerable boys on the street,
but the majority of the men who seek out underage, paid sexual partners are
"closet cases." They finish with their boys and drive up Thomasville Road to
their split-level ranch style homes in Killearn Estates, and kiss their
sadly deceived wives and then put their kids to bed. The next day they go
back to their jobs lobbying for Associated Industries, or digging cellulite
out of ther neighbor's ass, or filing writs, or delivering sermons or even
(I suppose) wearing a cop's badge. Every so often, you run into a trim,
blond suburban matron in her obligatory tennis togs, shopping at Dillards or
Carriage Gate. She looks a little out of place, she's got dark circles under
her eyes, but when you ask her, "What's wrong?" she says, "nothing."
In a couple of weeks, she and her husband will move out of town, leaving The
Middle Class Dream Lifestyle behind. People will wonder where they went and
then suddenly stop discussing it.
Poor woman, she's just discovered that she has AIDS.
Was it worth it? Was it worth all the lies and deceptions, so you could fit
in outwardly and in the meantime get your kicks downtown? You've doomed
yourself and your wife, you've sperad the disease (prehaps) to other young
throwaways and you've changed forever the future of your own children. Was
it worth it?
I've gotten away from Rev. Jeff Smith, so I will do an appropriate header
for this post. But I can't help but see Rev. Smith as a part of the
subculture that perpetuates and promotes this kind of destructive
secretiveness. I know that life isn't easy for out-of-the-closet gays. But I
also know that life is gonna catch up with the closet cases, too.
You don't have to be gay -- I'm not -- to see the dangers of hypocrisy.
(Now you know the kind of things that have driven me out of social work.)
Cliff and Linda Griffith
> The fact that he was attracted to children, makes him a pedophile, no matter
> what the sex of the child, although I have seen a definition of pedophilia
> which defines it as attraction to pre pubescent children . If the children are
> over 13 I believe it is called something else, the word escapes me right now.
I may be the only one who didn't know this, but...according to my
Webster's Dictionary, a "pedophile" preys on *children*, and a
"pederast" preys on *boys*. I had thought the two words were synonyms.
Linda
John R. Woodward
Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote in message <369041...@ix.netcom.com>...
>I may be the only one who didn't know this, but...according to my
>Webster's Dictionary, a "pedophile" preys on *children*, and a
>"pederast" preys on *boys*. I had thought the two words were synonyms.
>
>Linda
Your dictionary is correct. To put it terms Socrates might have used:
"All pederasts are pedophiles" (Major Premise)
"Jeff Smith is a pederast" (Minor Premise)
"Therefore, Jeff Smith is a Pedophile." (Conclusion)
EGlas35107
settlement to that young boy's father. I don't know if he settled with the
boy, as well, but if he didn't the boy could sue him when he turns of legal
age. Could be why Jacko moved to France?
Aviva
WWWoLadyA
It would be unusual for a settlement NOT to be contingent on a signed release
from all future claims.
A parent can authorize this release for a minor ..... though it may require a
court order.
Lady A
EGlas35107
>from all future claims.
> A parent can authorize this release for a minor ..... though it may require
>a
>court order.
>
>Lady A
>
Yes, that is true. But if it wasn't settled on behalf of the boy?.........
Aviva
Barbrien
Barbrien wrote in message <19990103174156...@ng04.aol.com>...
>Correct me if I am wrong John, but if Jeff Smith is attracted to other
males
>yes, he is either a homosexual, or a bisexual or just experimenting and
still
>heterosexual :).
>
>The fact that he was attracted to children, makes him a pedophile, no
matter
>what the sex of the child, although I have seen a definition of pedophilia
>which defines it as attraction to pre pubescent children . If the children
are
>over 13 I believe it is called something else, the word escapes me right
now.
>Where is Lars when we need him:). The attraction to young male children
does
>not make one a pedophile although it is often misundertood. Right?
>
>I dont believe that we know the ages these men were when they were molested
yet
>do we? I know one story said one of them was 14 but I dont know the ages of
the
>others.
>
>
>
>Barbara
>
John:
Seven young males is beyond an "experiment." It's a pattern of behavior,
part of his lifestyle.
Barbara:
>>>>>>>I was kidding John but I do have a lesbian friend who tried a lot of
men and then switched to women, switched back to men for awhile but has now
settled in with one woman for many years and considers herself gay, not bi
sexual. <<<<<<<<
John:
A pedophile is a person who engages in sexual acts with persons below the
societal/legal age of consent. The Rev. Smith's victims were teens of
working age, which would make them 14 to 17. Pedophilia is the crime of
soliciting and/or engaging in sexual acts with those who are protected by
society because they are too young to make responsible choices about sexual
expression, especially because they are vulnerable to the manipulation of
adults. Many people disagree as to where the line should be drawn -- at
what age -- and for all I know there may be states where Rev. Smiths
assaults were legal (tho not moral).
Barbara:
>>>>>>>>Do me a favor, check how the DSM defines it. I've seen people in
disagreement about the age thing before and I am not sure where the information
about pre-pubescent children came from. I know who posted it but I dont know
what he was quoting from. <<<<<<
John:
He's a predator. He doesn't stalk young victims; he's cleverer than that. As
the owner of a business, he can get them to come to him. (His victims worked
in his restuarant, or on his show, in one case.) He knows how to use
alcohol to reduce the resistance of his victims, and he was able to
manipulate or intimidate them into keeping quiet for a long time.
He is NOT a person with a healthy sexuality, gay or straight. IMHO, a man
with significant attractions to other many can have a perfectly healthy
sexual life, IF he acknowledges this fact. Denying his True Reality is the
start of the sickness. In order to deny it, he has to involve a woman (or
more than one woman) in a lifelong deceit. However much he may enjoy his
relations with her (or them), he has to go elsewhere in secret for
fulfullment he can't get with a woman.
Barbara:
>>>>>>>>You'll get no argument from me on whether or not he has a healthy
sexuality especially since he seems to have forced himself on at least some of
these teens. And you'll get no argument as to whether or not he is a predator
if the facts are as presented in the story.
My only issue was the feeling that you were defining his sexual orientation by
the fact that he is a pedophile. <<<<<<<<<
John:
Barbara:
>>>>>>>>>>You should have done what I did. Be a case worker and *refuse * to go
to social work school.
I have seen perfectly sane and good workers go for their MSW's and come out so
changed that I didnt recognize them. They no longer operated in the real world
and certainly Child Welfare was not for them while they were still operating
on theory.
Then again I've seen a few come out being the *good* guys:)
You sound like you were one of the good guys. <<<<<<<
barbara
Barbrien
Barbrien wrote:
> The fact that he was attracted to children, makes him a pedophile, no matter
> what the sex of the child, although I have seen a definition of pedophilia
> which defines it as attraction to pre pubescent children . If the children
are
> over 13 I believe it is called something else, the word escapes me right now.
I may be the only one who didn't know this, but...according to my
Webster's Dictionary, a "pedophile" preys on *children*, and a
"pederast" preys on *boys*. I had thought the two words were synonyms.
Linda
**********
Yep. that's the word I was searching for. Thank you Linda:)
I was wrong about the differnce being the age though it seems.
Barbara
Maggie8097
>You know what's interesting. It made me start thinking about Michael
>Jackson's
>settlement to that young boy's father. I don't know if he settled with the
>boy, as well, but if he didn't the boy could sue him when he turns of legal
>age. Could be why Jacko moved to France?
Lady A said:
It would be unusual for a settlement NOT to be contingent on a signed release
from all future claims.
A parent can authorize this release for a minor ..... though it may require a
court order.
**Are you sure? I remember several years ago there was a lot of discussion
regarding second and third generation effects of DES and the settlement of
suits. IIRC, the conclusion was that a mother effected by DES taken by *her*
mother couldn't sign away her minor daughter's rights to sue, making the
manufacturer still liable if a reproductive problem developed in the
grandaughter later. But that may be a special case.
Martha Sprowles
>
> In article <76nhkn$2ao$1...@server.cntfl.com>, "John R. Woodward"
> <JRWoo...@nettally.com> writes:
>
> >
> >He covered his assets, al right (so to speak).
> >
> >Incidentally, I, too would like to know how the plaintiffs got around the
> >Statute of Limitations. If it had run on on crimes, how was the clock still
> >ticking on civil torts?
> >Dejanews had nothing to explain this -- evidently it hasn't appeared in any
> >post or news story.
> >
> >
> >
>
> interested in this also. Maybe the Statute of Limitations did run out but he
> was advised to settle anyway. Anyone have any info on this ?
>
> Michael
>
And I wonder, if these men were adults when he allegedly molested them,
why they would need the protection of the law. Did he rape them? Were
they fired if they didn't comply with his wishes? I had assumed,
incorrectly it seems, that the complainants were under age when the sex
took place.
Martha
WWWoLadyA
>eglas...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>You know what's interesting. It made me start thinking about Michael
>>Jackson's
>>settlement to that young boy's father. I don't know if he settled with the
>>boy, as well, but if he didn't the boy could sue him when he turns of legal
>>age. Could be why Jacko moved to France?
>
>Lady A said:
>It would be unusual for a settlement NOT to be contingent on a signed release
>from all future claims.
> A parent can authorize this release for a minor ..... though it may require
>a
>court order.
>
>**Are you sure? I remember several years ago there was a lot of discussion
>regarding second and third generation effects of DES and the settlement of
>suits. IIRC, the conclusion was that a mother effected by DES taken by *her*
>mother couldn't sign away her minor daughter's rights to sue, making the
>manufacturer still liable if a reproductive problem developed in the
>grandaughter later. But that may be a special case.
If I had to guess..... I would say that the difference is this:
In a civil suit like this one involving Jeff Smith, the parents are most likely
acting as guardians and the settlements will be on behalf of each child.
In the DES cases, the women themselves were affected, as well as passing along
a potential for harm to their own children.
The women were entitled to compensation for their own health problems, pain,
and suffering as well as that of their offspring.
The insurance company, for the drug manufacturer, probably tried to exempt
themselves from liability for future claims , by including some type of clause
to that effect, in the legal release....... at the time they negotiated
settlements for the women.
Considering that DES effects can be expressed for generations, I can see a
reason for a distinction.
A side note about the Jeff Smith settlement.....
Typically, it works this way......
When children are awarded more than $10,000 ...... a formal guardianship of the
estate has to be established, and the parents are directly accountable to a
court to show how funds are spent and/or invested.
Lady A
John R. Woodward
Martha Sprowles wrote in message <369091...@erols.com>...
<snip>
>And I wonder, if these men were adults when he allegedly molested them,
>why they would need the protection of the law. Did he rape them? Were
>they fired if they didn't comply with his wishes? I had assumed,
>incorrectly it seems, that the complainants were under age when the sex
>took place.
>
>Martha
The victims of Rev. Jeff Smith were between 14 and 17. The ones who were
part of the recent group settlement were employed at his restuarant; another
one worked for the kitchen in his TV show.
He gave them alcohol and then had sex with them. In at least one case, the
survivor claimed that sex was forcible.
This is (sadly) an easy crime to get away with. Most teen boys will endure
ANYTHING rather than admit to a homosexual experience, voluntary or forced.
The victims (now grown men) who came forward recently claimed that Smith
told them nobody would ever believe their story, and they would be branded
as gays AND liars.
During the wretched Anawakeee scandal a few miles south of Tallahassee, that
is exactly what did happen to the first teen inmates to speak out about
being abused. The camp administrator (the main abuser) told the
investigators that the boys making the complaint were gay, and he had been
trying to "stamp out gay sex" to protect the boys from AIDS. At one stroke
he demonized the boys, attributed to them a reason to file false abuse
complaints and accounted for the physical evidence of rectal penetration. It
was very effective at first, but then a counselor panicked and confessed the
whole thing, taking it out of the hands of the abuse investigators and
bringing in under the Florida Dept of Law Enforcement, an altogether more
formidble organization.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Anawakee: it was a rural
residential treatment center for teen males who had come under court
supervision for "status" offenses: running away, truancy, alcohol use,
small-scale drug posession, etc. Violent delinquents were not part of the
program. In 1987, it was revealed that the owner/operator, a
politically-well connected fellow, and a pillar of his church, had been
using male residents sexually for years, pimping them for others and hiring
like-minded counselors. He had actually gone so far as to take boys from
Anawakee to Mexico, to be with men who joined them there for sex, and paid
for the privledge. He was getting away with all this, the State was sending
boys to him, and his crummy camp wasn't even licensed! Moreover, there had
been occasional reports of abuse at Anawakee for years, including
accusations by counselors who saw what was going on, and not only had the
investigations never been done properly, no one had ever suspended the
placements or even made the owner toe the line and get his licenses!
Anawakee was located about 30 miles south of Tallahassee, Florida.
Barbrien
<snip>
*****
Do you recall the book *Sleepers* written by Leon Carcaterra who had the same
experience in a boys reformatory along with 3 other of his friends? It was made
into a film of the same name and the boys when they grew up, murdered the guard
most responsible for the gang rapes, disgraced another, and set up another to
be whacked by wise guys? Then. one of the boys who had become a DA set himself
up to prosecute the boys responsible for the killing and threw the trial ,
setting the boys free?
It was allegedly a true story although all of the New York State prison
officials and court officials deny the existence of such a reformatory ( the
name had been changed in the book) and the trial as well.
'
Good book and great film, IMHO. ( Brad Pitt, Minnie Driver, De Niro, Jason
Patric, )
Barbara
John R. Woodward
Barbrien wrote in message
<long snip of the Anawakee Case>
>
>*****
>
>Do you recall the book *Sleepers* written by Leon Carcaterra who had the
same
>experience in a boys reformatory along with 3 other of his friends? It was
made
>into a film of the same name and the boys when they grew up, murdered the
guard
>most responsible for the gang rapes, disgraced another, and set up another
to
>be whacked by wise guys? Then. one of the boys who had become a DA set
himself
>up to prosecute the boys responsible for the killing and threw the trial ,
>setting the boys free?
>
>It was allegedly a true story although all of the New York State prison
>officials and court officials deny the existence of such a reformatory
the
>name had been changed in the book) and the trial as well.
>'
>Good book and great film, IMHO. ( Brad Pitt, Minnie Driver, De Niro, Jason
>Patric, )
>
>Barbara
>
Although the Anawakee Case was never written up in book form, it is a little
better documented that Carccatera's SLEEPERS. Even Carccatera now admits
that the case was more fictionalized than he let on at first.
Good book. OK movie. Dustin Hoffman and DeNiro were the best things about
the movie. I'm no big Brat Pack fan.
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented barb...@aol.com (Barbrien) broadcast
on alt.true-crime:
|The fact that he was attracted to children, makes him a pedophile, no matter
|what the sex of the child, although I have seen a definition of pedophilia
|which defines it as attraction to pre pubescent children . If the children are
|over 13 I believe it is called something else, the word escapes me right now.
|Where is Lars when we need him:). The attraction to young male children does
|not make one a pedophile although it is often misundertood. Right?
It makes him a criminal if he acts on the attraction, nothing
more or less.
Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder involving a sexual attraction
to prepubescent children, regardless of the sex of the children.
Pedophilia is not a crime, although the acts of pedophiles may be.
On the other hand, sexual activities with post-pubescent minors
may or may not be a crime (depending on the relative ages of the
parties and various other factors), but an attraction to post-pubescent
minors is not a psychiatric disorder.
Many of our great grandparents were married at ages that would now
be regarded as shocking. They weren't crazy. In some societies with
different economic bases from our own, condone sex, marriage, and
childbearing among sexually mature people regardless of chronological
age. They are not all perverts. Joe Sixpack doesn't need a shrink
if he feels a twinge while watching high school cheerleaders.
Pedophiles are attracted to children precisely because of their lack
of sexual characteristics -- and for that reason pedophiles are often
relatively indifferent to the sex of the children. The sex of the
children a pedophile is involved with does not have any reliable
relationship to the pedophile's preference for the sex of his adult
partners, if any, and often is more a matter of opportunity than choice.
|I dont believe that we know the ages these men were when they were
|molested yet do we? I know one story said one of them was 14 but I
|dont know the ages of the others.
If I understand, these were civil cases involving young men or boys
who worked for him. I doubt there were any seven-year-olds rolling
out pasta. Maybe I'm not up on the child labor laws, but it seems
to me when I was that age, you couldn't work at a restaurant except
a family business until you were sixteen. Whatever, given that he had a
wife at home AND Craig (who is cute as button) to traipse around Europe
with him, I'd diagnose this as sex-piggy.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
* All I want is a warm bed, a kind word and unlimited power
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented "John R. Woodward" <JRWoo...@nettally.com>
broadcast on alt.true-crime:
|A pedophile is a person who engages in sexual acts with persons below the
|societal/legal age of consent.
This is not the definition in DSM III.
|Pedophilia is the crime of
|soliciting and/or engaging in sexual acts with those who are protected by
|society because they are too young to make responsible choices about sexual
|expression, especially because they are vulnerable to the manipulation of
|adults.
Please cite any statute of any state, province, or nation that defines
"pedophilia." Just one, from any place.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
* Where are we going? Why are we in this handbasket?
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Cliff and Linda Griffith <grif...@ix.netcom.com>
broadcast on alt.true-crime:
|I may be the only one who didn't know this, but...according to my
|Webster's Dictionary, a "pedophile" preys on *children*, and a
|"pederast" preys on *boys*. I had thought the two words were synonyms.
The problem with "pederast" is that, according to my dictionary,
it strongly implies anal intercourse, which is inaccurate in many
if not most cases. Moreover, it leaves out men with adolescent
girls, women with boys, and women with girls.
The objection to "pedophilia" is that it is a term from psychology and
psychiatry which is being misused by the public. I pretty much have
the same objection to Perry Mason psychiatrists who define schizophrenia
"split personality," and other "popular" misuse of such terms as
"paranoia" (which the public thinks means "persecution complex"),
"libido" (which is popular as a euphemism for "sex drive").
When I read a crime novel (or true crime account) in which schizophrenia
is defined as "split personality" I toss the book or magazine away
that instant. I am sick to death of hearing someone who is moody
described as manic-depressive, someone who is neat and precise
described as anal retentive, and someone with regular habits
described as obsessive.
In the immortal words of James Thurber: "Leave your mind alone."
And leave psychological language alone unless you are willing
to learn what the words really mean.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
* "Don't you hate it when your boogers freeze?" -- Calvin
Delilah
DOG3 wrote in message <19990103161328...@ngol06.aol.com>...
>
"The sole root of mans' unhappiness is that man does not know how
>to sit and stay quietly in his room"
>
> - Found on the bathroom wall in a Buffalo, NY bar
I have two boys and agree with the above statement!!!
Delilah
EGlas35107 wrote in message
<19990103191454...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
>You know what's interesting. It made me start thinking about Michael
Jackson's
>settlement to that young boy's father. I don't know if he settled with the
>boy, as well, but if he didn't the boy could sue him when he turns of legal
>age. Could be why Jacko moved to France?
>
Hello,
I was just talking about him yesterday! Jackson. We were wondering what
ever happened to him. So he is in France, eh? Is he still married to
Presley? I just said that no one buying his shtuff anymore so hes backed
off before he gets himself booed out of the business...sounds like I wasnt
totally wrong!
Delilah
><snip some of the Jeff Smith thread to get to the question>
>
>happily married hetero. If so, why the multi-million dollar settlement? You
>can't persuade me that someone who is innocent forks over 5 million "just
to
>put the case behind him."
>Even tho the money is coming out of his insurer's pocket, the principle
>remains. The insurer wouldn't approve the settlement unless the company
>believed the charges had merit. (Yes, nusiance suits are settled for
smaller
>sums all the time -- but not 5 mil plus!)
Do you know how easy is it to destroy a man's character, livliehood just by
uttering the words, "he molested me?" Come on, I had an uncle who had 3
boys and worked in the army reserve here in Canada. He was in charge of
physical fitness. One of the boys accused him of "molesting him". That was
over 20 years ago. He lost his job, his life, really because everyone
believed he was guilty before even proving his innocence. Even though the
kid later admitted to lying, my uncle was blackballed.
The biggest fear my current husband had was that my cunning, abusive ex
husband would have laid the claim that the boys said he "molested them". It
is amazing he never thought of this, because if you were rich you would be
able to pay for someone to shut up. It is no different then the claim that
women make against certain figures of prominence in order to get rich! I am
not saying Jeff Smith is innocent, I am saying that yes sometimes you have
to "fork out the dough" (pardon the pun), if you are.
Martha Sprowles
There are (mostly) men in professions where it seems to me that the
threat of accusations, unfounded or not, of sexual abuse of children
would make it important for those men to take particular precautions so
that these accusations would not occur.
In a recent Tennis magazine, there's an article about Dr. Pete Fischer,
who was Pete Sampras' first coach and the coordinator of his early
program. He is a pediatrician who is not a very good tennis player
himself but who has a knack for coaching children, and he has quite a
following. The article said that he specializes in neonatology, which
is dealing with newborns, and also with growth issues in adolescent
boys. I doubt that the newborns would be likely to complain about
improper touching, but surely boys who were being checked for secondary
sexual development would be very aware of what was going on.
Dr. Fischer is about to begin serving a sentence of (I think) two years
for molesting patients. He says he agreed to a deal that would limit
his time in jail so that his patients would not have to go to trial, but
that he is innocent.
I wonder why he, or the parents of the boys he was examining, wouldn't
insist on the presence of another person during these exams, much as
most gynecologists have a nurse in the room during pelvic exams of
women? The other person could be a nurse, but not necessarily, and
would not even have to be close enough to the child to be embarrassing;
just a presence to maintain propriety.
Martha
PS I never did like Jeff Smith or his show. It never occurred to me
that he might be a molester, or that anything was "off." I found him
smarmy and pretentious, using what strikes me now as Baby Talk when
explaining ingredients. And, as someone else pointed out, a minister
who does not minister is often a puzzlement. At least Mr. Rogers has
said that his tv show is a sort of ministery of love.
John R. Woodward
Delilah wrote in message ...
No, you pretty near right. Jackson plays European and Asian venues now
(mostly the former Soviet Bloc states). He's very popular in these
countries, where perhaps they don't take the American criminal justice
system very seriously.
Sdaly, he is divorced from The King's daughter.
He did, apparently, father a child -- knocked up the recpetionist (or was it
nurse?) at his DRs office, and they had a baby.
Who remembers if it was a boy or girl?
John R. Woodward
Delilah wrote in message ...
>Do you know how easy is it to destroy a man's character, livliehood just by
>uttering the words, "he molested me?" Come on, I had an uncle who had 3
>boys and worked in the army reserve here in Canada. He was in charge of
>physical fitness. One of the boys accused him of "molesting him". That
was
>over 20 years ago. He lost his job, his life, really because everyone
>believed he was guilty before even proving his innocence. Even though the
>kid later admitted to lying, my uncle was blackballed.
>
>The biggest fear my current husband had was that my cunning, abusive ex
>husband would have laid the claim that the boys said he "molested them".
It
>is amazing he never thought of this, because if you were rich you would be
>able to pay for someone to shut up. It is no different then the claim that
>women make against certain figures of prominence in order to get rich! I
am
>not saying Jeff Smith is innocent, I am saying that yes sometimes you have
>to "fork out the dough" (pardon the pun), if you are.
>
This applies to a person who wants to save HIS OWN reputation, career,
freedom, etc. A cold-hearted insurance company, run by lawyers and
actuaries, looks at these things differently. The insurer settled. They have
to feel they'd lose the case.
Moreover, settling this case has ruined Rev. Jeff Smith's career, anyway.
Fighting it might have helped him, esp. if he won.
EGlas35107
>Typically, it works this way......
>When children are awarded more than $10,000 ...... a formal guardianship of
>the
>estate has to be established, and the parents are directly accountable to a
>court to show how funds are spent and/or invested.
>
>Lady A
Absolutely correct, Lady A. In New Jersey, where I live, it is deposited into
a Court fund.
Aviva
EGlas35107
nurse. He is breeding his own colony of kids to molest, IMHO.
Aviva
Barbrien
He has two children now. A boy and a girl. Both by his plastic surgeon's
nurse. He is breeding his own colony of kids to molest, IMHO.
Aviva
Hi Aviva,
Have they ever proved that he molested anyone?
Or is the assumption made because he settled the cases which might have been
protracted circuses in front of a public who might not understand that there
are some adults who actually relate better to children and like to play with
them on their level. ( NO pun intended).
Barbara
talul...@innocent.com
"John R. Woodward" <JRWoo...@nettally.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe this is why I always hated Jeff Smith's show (and I just LOVE good
> cooking shows). I always thought he was a phoney and now we know that he > IS a phoney:
> a phoney cook, a phoney author, a phoney entertainer, a phoney preacher
> and a phoney heterosexual.
And certainly not very frugal, either!!! ;-)
TG
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Barbrien
From: eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner)
*****
Aha! Lars to the rescue:)
thanks Lars, I will save this so I wont have to ask again.
Sex - piggy huh? Sounds rather familiar:)))
Barbara
Barbrien
From: "Delilah" <DON'TSPAMd...@asarian-host.org> posted the following:
Barbrien wrote in message <19990103174156...@ng04.aol.com>...
>
>
>Barbrien wrote in message <
><snip some of the Jeff Smith thread to get to the question>
>
>Smith's defense when the first case hit the airwaves was that he was a
>happily married hetero. If so, why the multi-million dollar settlement? You
>can't persuade me that someone who is innocent forks over 5 million "just
to
>put the case behind him."
>Even tho the money is coming out of his insurer's pocket, the principle
>remains. The insurer wouldn't approve the settlement unless the company
>believed the charges had merit. (Yes, nusiance suits are settled for
smaller
>sums all the time -- but not 5 mil plus!)
Do you know how easy is it to destroy a man's character, livliehood just by
uttering the words, "he molested me?" Come on, I had an uncle who had 3
boys and worked in the army reserve here in Canada. He was in charge of
physical fitness. One of the boys accused him of "molesting him". That was
over 20 years ago. He lost his job, his life, really because everyone
believed he was guilty before even proving his innocence. Even though the
kid later admitted to lying, my uncle was blackballed.
The biggest fear my current husband had was that my cunning, abusive ex
husband would have laid the claim that the boys said he "molested them". It
is amazing he never thought of this, because if you were rich you would be
able to pay for someone to shut up. It is no different then the claim that
women make against certain figures of prominence in order to get rich! I am
not saying Jeff Smith is innocent, I am saying that yes sometimes you have
to "fork out the dough" (pardon the pun), if you are.
******
Yo Delilah, could you be a little more careful
with your snipping. It's bad enough that I am excoriated for my own words no
less
those of someone else:))
I didnt write or quote the passage above.
And I agree, people throw around the accusation much too easily.
Barbara
Barbrien
Someone wrote ( not me):
> >Smith's defense when the first case hit the airwaves was that he was a
> >happily married hetero. If so, why the multi-million dollar settlement? You
> >can't persuade me that someone who is innocent forks over 5 million "just
> to
> >put the case behind him."
> >Even tho the money is coming out of his insurer's pocket, the principle
> >remains. The insurer wouldn't approve the settlement unless the company
> >believed the charges had merit. (Yes, nusiance suits are settled for
> smaller
> >sums all the time -- but not 5 mil plus!)
Delilah offers:
>
> Do you know how easy is it to destroy a man's character, livliehood just by
> uttering the words, "he molested me?" Come on, I had an uncle who had 3
> boys and worked in the army reserve here in Canada. He was in charge of
> physical fitness. One of the boys accused him of "molesting him". That was
> over 20 years ago. He lost his job, his life, really because everyone
> believed he was guilty before even proving his innocence. Even though the
> kid later admitted to lying, my uncle was blackballed.
>
> The biggest fear my current husband had was that my cunning, abusive ex
> husband would have laid the claim that the boys said he "molested them". It
> is amazing he never thought of this, because if you were rich you would be
> able to pay for someone to shut up. It is no different then the claim that
> women make against certain figures of prominence in order to get rich! I am
> not saying Jeff Smith is innocent, I am saying that yes sometimes you have
> to "fork out the dough" (pardon the pun), if you are.
There are (mostly) men in professions where it seems to me that the
Martha
******
Because in those days before all the public awareness of child abuse doctors
would not have had a reason to have another person in the room whether they
were innocent or not., Martha.
There was never anyone else in the room when I went to male gynecologists. In
fact the only doctor who ever came close to molesting me was a podiatrist. ( Is
Joe listening?:)
I recently went to grad school with mostly men and some women who complained
that they were too uptight to hug some of the kids in their day care for fear
that they might be accused of touching them improperly. And it is the kids who
suffer especially when they need comforting.
I am not trying to devalue caution, but something has gotten out of hand here.
The assumption of guilt is coming just a tad to easily for my comfort level.
Barbara
Delilah
ironic, because I dont even think Jackson remembers!!! (hello Diana):)
John R. Woodward wrote in message <76qmnr$111$1...@server.cntfl.com>...
>
>Delilah wrote in message ...
>>
Delilah
(which is in no way condoning any molesting if it happened)
Barbrien wrote in message <19990104141011...@ng40.aol.com>...
Delilah
I never looked at it this way and you're absolutely right. I guess it is
the meek and the innocent who back down, penniless and move on with whatever
you can get.
Reminds me of my favorite proverb:
\
You make a living by what you get, you make a life by what you give.
John R. Woodward wrote in message <76qn04$12v$1...@server.cntfl.com>...
>
>Delilah wrote in message ...
>
>>Do you know how easy is it to destroy a man's character, livliehood just
by
>>uttering the words, "he molested me?" Come on, I had an uncle who had 3
>>boys and worked in the army reserve here in Canada. He was in charge of
>>physical fitness. One of the boys accused him of "molesting him". That
>was
>>over 20 years ago. He lost his job, his life, really because everyone
>>believed he was guilty before even proving his innocence. Even though the
>>kid later admitted to lying, my uncle was blackballed.
>>
>>The biggest fear my current husband had was that my cunning, abusive ex
>>husband would have laid the claim that the boys said he "molested them".
>It
>>is amazing he never thought of this, because if you were rich you would be
>>able to pay for someone to shut up. It is no different then the claim
that
>>women make against certain figures of prominence in order to get rich! I
>am
>>not saying Jeff Smith is innocent, I am saying that yes sometimes you have
>>to "fork out the dough" (pardon the pun), if you are.
>>
Delilah
job I should be at, let alone who posted what. Sorry!
Barbrien wrote in message <19990104142127...@ng40.aol.com>...
>
>From: "Delilah" <DON'TSPAMd...@asarian-host.org> posted the following:
>
>
>
>Barbrien wrote in message <19990103174156...@ng04.aol.com>...
>>
>>
>>Barbrien wrote in message <
>><snip some of the Jeff Smith thread to get to the question>
>>
>>happily married hetero. If so, why the multi-million dollar settlement?
You
>>can't persuade me that someone who is innocent forks over 5 million "just
>to
>>put the case behind him."
>>Even tho the money is coming out of his insurer's pocket, the principle
>>remains. The insurer wouldn't approve the settlement unless the company
>>believed the charges had merit. (Yes, nusiance suits are settled for
>smaller
>>sums all the time -- but not 5 mil plus!)
>
>
>
>
>
>uttering the words, "he molested me?" Come on, I had an uncle who had 3
>boys and worked in the army reserve here in Canada. He was in charge of
>physical fitness. One of the boys accused him of "molesting him". That
was
>over 20 years ago. He lost his job, his life, really because everyone
>believed he was guilty before even proving his innocence. Even though the
>kid later admitted to lying, my uncle was blackballed.
>
>The biggest fear my current husband had was that my cunning, abusive ex
>husband would have laid the claim that the boys said he "molested them".
It
>is amazing he never thought of this, because if you were rich you would be
>able to pay for someone to shut up. It is no different then the claim that
>women make against certain figures of prominence in order to get rich! I
am
>not saying Jeff Smith is innocent, I am saying that yes sometimes you have
>to "fork out the dough" (pardon the pun), if you are.
>
>
EGlas35107
settling the civil matter, but the authorities were allowed to take photos of
his genitals. Apparently, the young boy was able to describe certain marks and
moles and such. (ala Paula Jones).
Its kind of funny when LaToya Jackson, who came out and said she believed her
brother was a molester, looked like the only sane one in that family.
Aviva
Barbrien
Aviva
**********
La Toya sane????
I think she is the one who is most messed up.
I thnk they were all abused as kids and obviously Michael never had a real
childhood. He apparently was very close to Elizabeth Taylor as she had the same
problem.
I have no idea whether or not he molested anyone but I would not take La Toya's
word for much. I thnk she got an additional 15 minutes of fame after that
statement >G<
I cant imagine if he was guilty that he would have let it go as far as
photographing his genitals would you ? Couldn't he have settled and avoided it
if he had needed to?
BTW, both Monica and Gennifer Flowers say Paula was wrong:))
barbara
EGlas35107
>
>barbara
>
>
They do???? That's so funny!!
Aviva
Babyface
John Woodwaed wrote:
> No, you pretty near right. Jackson plays European and Asian venues now
> (mostly the former Soviet Bloc states). He's very popular in these
> countries, where perhaps they don't take the American criminal justice
> system very seriously.
>
> Sdaly, he is divorced from The King's daughter.
>
> He did, apparently, father a child -- knocked up the recpetionist (or was
it
> nurse?) at his DRs office, and they had a baby.
>
> Who remembers if it was a boy or girl?
>
>
>
nurse....
boy......
I thought they were trying for another one, too, but I'm not sure.
Babyface.....Enquiring minds need to know...
Barbrien
teen boys
From: eglas...@aol.com (EGlas35107)
Date: Tue, Jan 5, 1999 2:46 PM
Message-id: <19990105134651...@ng135.aol.com>
Aviva
****
Yep, can you imagine dragging them all in for the Senate trial just in case?
:)
Barbara
Tammy P.
Jacko and his wife have two children...a boy named Prince and
a girl named Paris.
Tammy (who is embarassed that she even knows this......)
Remove "nospam" to reply
ta...@nospam.king.igs.net
John R. Woodward
Tammy P. wrote in message <36930769...@news.igs.net>...
>>John Woodwaed wrote:
>>> No, you pretty near right. Jackson plays European and Asian venues now
>>> (mostly the former Soviet Bloc states). He's very popular in these
>>> countries, where perhaps they don't take the American criminal justice
>>> system very seriously.
>>>
>>> Sdaly, he is divorced from The King's daughter.
>>>
>>> He did, apparently, father a child -- knocked up the recpetionist (or
was
>>it
>>> nurse?) at his DRs office, and they had a baby.
>>>
>>> Who remembers if it was a boy or girl?
>>nurse....
>>
>>boy......
>>
> a girl named Paris.
>
> Tammy (who is embarassed that she even knows this......)
Don;t be ashamed, Tammy, the other day I discovered that I knew the names of
all five Spice Girls . . . just absorbed it, sure didn't seek it out.
WWWoLadyA
>Don;t be ashamed, Tammy, the other day I discovered that I knew the names of
>all five Spice Girls . . . just absorbed it, sure didn't seek it out.
Are you saying.....
you didn't want
didn't really really want
to know them ?
Lady A
John R. Woodward
WWWoLadyA
>>JRWoo...@nettally.com wrote:
>>>Don;t be ashamed, Tammy, the other day I discovered that I knew the names
>of
>>>all five Spice Girls . . . just absorbed it, sure didn't seek it out.
>>
>>Are you saying.....
>>you didn't want
>>didn't really really want
>>to know them ?
>>
>>Lady A
>
>Not consciously, I didn't.
Relax, John.
You don't know them TOO well.
Lady A
BTW......You have mail :)
Barbrien
From: wwwo...@aol.com (WWWoLadyA)
>>JRWoo...@nettally.com wrote:
Lady A
BTW......You have mail :)
**************
Grrrrrrrr......*more* competition:)
Barbara-pouting
glas
|>
|>>Don;t be ashamed, Tammy, the other day I discovered that I knew the names
|of
|>>all five Spice Girls . . . just absorbed it, sure didn't seek it out.
|>
|>Are you saying.....
|>you didn't want
|>didn't really really want
|>to know them ?
|>
|>Lady A
|
|Not consciously, I didn't.
Maybe this is a Spice Girl thing. It seems that I somehow managed to know
the names of the Spice Girls and which one is which long before I'd ever
seen them perform or even heard any of their music. I'm not a big fan of
theirs although after I realized that I knew them I made an effort to catch
them the next time I heard about them being on TV and I did find them
somewhat entertaining to watch. Wouldn't buy any of their cd's tho because
thats not the type of music I enjoy...
glas
EGlas35107
>case?
>:)
>
>
ROTFLMAO!!!! What was it that Hillary called it "the bimbo invasion" or
something like that. That would be must see TV.
Aviva
EGlas35107
>thats not the type of music I enjoy...
>
>glas
>
>
Not only do we have their cd, but we have the video Spice World!!! My 6 year
old daughter LOVES them!!! She and her little friends go around singing "if
you wanna be my lover....." They have no idea what the lyrics mean.
Have mercy,
Aviva
Barbrien
From: eglas...@aol.com (EGlas35107)
Aviva
*****
And of course he would have to be there to so they could view and identify the
*evidence*:)
Barbara
Jmc727
>>Wouldn't buy any of their cd's tho because
>>thats not the type of music I enjoy...
>>
>>glas
>>
>>
>>
>
>old daughter LOVES them!!! She and her little friends go around singing "if
>you wanna be my lover....." They have no idea what the lyrics mean.
>
>Have mercy,
>
>Aviva
LOL, Aviva. We have all of the above plus the playsation Spice Girls game.
Your daughter would love it. You create the dances and songs for them.
Tammy
EGlas35107
>the
>*evidence*:)
>
>Barbara
>
>
>
>
But, of course!
Aviva :-)
EGlas35107
read your post!!!!!
Aviva
Martha Sprowles
We have it, too, god help us.
Martha
MO CAFEEN
>> Your daughter would love it. You create the dances and songs for them.
>> Tammy
>
>We have it, too, god help us.
>
>Martha
>
>
Us, too. All of the above. Plus all the dolls, bubble gum cards, posters,
etc. My three-year-old son sings "If ya wanna be my lover". Poor kid.
Girlielaw
LOL that is hilarious - my daughter will be 4 in 2 weeks and I just hope to god
the Spice Girls are a thing of the past before she discovers them!!
******************************
Michelle
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive." - Elbert
Hubbard
Yesterday is history
Tomorrow's a mystery
Today is a gift;
That's why it's called "The Present"
MO CAFEEN
>
>LOL that is hilarious - my daughter will be 4 in 2 weeks and I just hope to
>god
>the Spice Girls are a thing of the past before she discovers them!!
>******************************
>Michelle
Keep your fingers crossed; I wouldn't wish this on anyone ;)
BTW, my son also belts out some dramatic renditions of Barry Manilow's "Weekend
in New England" and "I Don't Wanna Walk Without You" as well as "One Headlight"
from the Wallflowers. He is quite the well-rounded little entertainer for a
three-year-old, but it can get a bit embarrassing at the grocery store. LOL.
EGlas35107
his songs instead of Spice Girls songs. She also sings "if you wanna be my
lover....". Also, she and her little friends love "Grease" and sing along to
Olivia Newton-John "you'd better shape up, cause I need a man, to keep me
satisfied...." I am mortified!
Aviva :-)
Linda Van Waldick
EGlas35107 wrote in message
<19990114124425...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
Don't feel too bad. My daughter insists on singing an "Offspring" song with
the refrain
"Give it to me baby, uh huh uh huh"
Linda
MO CAFEEN
So does my three-year-old son. It's frightening. Sometimes while cruising the
aisles of the grocery store he belts out songs like "Even Now" and *instists*
that he *is* Barry Manilow. I kid you not. Then again, sometimes he crawls
the aisles barking and insisting he is a dog. He's an odd child. ;)
> Also, she and her little friends love "Grease" and sing along to
>Olivia Newton-John "you'd better shape up, cause I need a man, to keep me
>satisfied...." I am mortified!
>
>
Ah, yes. My daughter also has the Grease CD and movie. I am very fortunate,
though, that she has not ever been caught singing *that* song. She gets her
kicks from "Beauty School Dropout". LOL.
MO CAFEEN
>the refrain
>"Give it to me baby, uh huh uh huh"
>
>
Eeeeek!!!! Draw the line! Draw it now!
EGlas35107
That is so cute!
Beauty School Dropout is one of my favorite songs from Grease.
My daughter also likes "Summer Nights" especially when John Travolta sings in
falsetto at the end. She cracks up!
Aviva
EGlas35107
><19990114124425...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
>>I love Barry Manilow!!! Seriously! I wish my 6 year old would sing some
>of
>>his songs instead of Spice Girls songs. She also sings "if you wanna be my
>to
>>Olivia Newton-John "you'd better shape up, cause I need a man, to keep me
>>satisfied...." I am mortified!
>>
>
>Don't feel too bad. My daughter insists on singing an "Offspring" song with
>the refrain
>"Give it to me baby, uh huh uh huh"
>
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
Oh how funny! Linda, how old is your daughter?
Aviva :-)
Barbrien
From: moca...@aol.com (MO CAFEEN)
>I love Barry Manilow!!!
So does my three-year-old son. It's frightening. Sometimes while cruising the
aisles of the grocery store he belts out songs like "Even Now" and *instists*
that he *is* Barry Manilow. I kid you not. Then again, sometimes he crawls
the aisles barking and insisting he is a dog. He's an odd child. ;)
*******
Remember that hilarious scene in Murphy Brown ( who of course is musically
stuck in the 70's) when she had the baby and the only thing that would calm him
down was Barry Manilow? :)
Barbara
> Also, she and her little friends love "Grease" and sing along to
>Olivia Newton-John "you'd better shape up, cause I need a man, to keep me
>satisfied...." I am mortified!
>
>
Ah, yes. My daughter also has the Grease CD and movie. I am very fortunate,
cor...@conservatory.com
"John R. Woodward" <JRWoo...@nettally.com> wrote:
>
You are right on target with your comments about the Frugal cook. Should have
been more frugal with his advances.
Agree, never watched him, there was just something about him that turned me
off. As much as I hated Julia Child's difficulty to understand, I still
continued to watch her show. I have a wall of cook books in my kitchen. The
Frugal ones went into trash. I have the one of the first "Joy of Cooking" and
several editions since.
>
Family laughed at me when I got on one of those MediFast diets several years
ago. I would sip my MediFast and look through my cook book collection. Guess
could have known that I would gain That 30 pounds back.
Rather be a happy, cookin' it up size 16 than a skinny edition that gave up
cooking.
>
>
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Linda Van Waldick
EGlas35107 wrote in message
<19990114210914...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
>>EGlas35107 wrote in message
>><19990114124425...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
>>>I love Barry Manilow!!! Seriously! I wish my 6 year old would sing some
>>of
>>>his songs instead of Spice Girls songs. She also sings "if you wanna be
my
along
>>to
>>>Olivia Newton-John "you'd better shape up, cause I need a man, to keep me
>>>satisfied...." I am mortified!
>>>
>>
>>Don't feel too bad. My daughter insists on singing an "Offspring" song
with
>>the refrain
>>"Give it to me baby, uh huh uh huh"
>>
>>Linda
>>
>>
>></PRE></HTML>
>
>Oh how funny! Linda, how old is your daughter?
>
>Aviva :-)
She's a lot older than yours, 15 last birthday.I don't think it would
bother me too
much except that she likes to sing it in stores and whatnot. (loudly)
She had a Grease faze years ago, it must be some strange new little girl
rite of passage.
Linda
glas
|
|EGlas35107 wrote in message
|<19990114124425...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
|>I love Barry Manilow!!! Seriously! I wish my 6 year old would sing some
|of
|>his songs instead of Spice Girls songs. She also sings "if you wanna be
my
|>lover....". Also, she and her little friends love "Grease" and sing along
|to
|>Olivia Newton-John "you'd better shape up, cause I need a man, to keep me
|>satisfied...." I am mortified!
|>
|>Aviva :-)
|
|Don't feel too bad. My daughter insists on singing an "Offspring" song with
|the refrain
|"Give it to me baby, uh huh uh huh"
My daughter was very interested in Reggae music when she was young. It was
kinda cute at times but sometimes not as the lyrics to a lot of those tunes
were not exactly what you would expect to find a 4-year old walking around
singing.
glas
MO CAFEEN
>stuck in the 70's) when she had the baby and the only thing that would calm
>him
>down was Barry Manilow? :)
>
>
Ah, yes. I remember it very well. That was hysterical. :)
MO CAFEEN
>falsetto at the end. She cracks up!
Oh, yeah. We have been known to sing that one in the car on long trips. I had
no idea we weren't the only household where Grease is such a popular CD with
the pre-teens. How funny this is. :)
WWWoLadyA
>Oh, yeah. We have been known to sing that one in the car on long trips. I
>had
>no idea we weren't the only household where Grease is such a popular CD with
>the pre-teens. How funny this is.
We "misplaced" that CD two years ago.
In fact, it was just *after* my then 5yo daughter chose a very public moment to
belt out a rendition of "Look at Me, I'm Sandra Dee".
Remember those lyrics?
Lady A
Leonard Martin
They say that "in middle age, we get the face we deserve." In that
man's face I always say meaness.
In article <77nnap$ceh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cor...@conservatory.com wrote:
> Agree, never watched him, there was just something about him that turned me
> off. As much as I hated Julia Child's difficulty to understand, I still
> continued to watch her show. I have a wall of cook books in my kitchen. The
> Frugal ones went into trash. I have the one of the first "Joy of Cooking" and
> several editions since.
>
--
--
Shake it but don't break it.
It took your momma nine months to make it.