Excuses, Excuses

I have to say, some of the excuses and "explanations" that have come out on this long journey towards the truth have been  pretty unbelievable when you sit back and look at them.

One Mad Parent- When we first heard about the allegations, one of Robert Adams' daughters said, "this is all just one mad parent trying to ruin it for everyone."  But it wasn't.  While she was probably just mistaken, the Department of Social Services paperwork was available to the family, and most certainly Mr. Adams when the police and DSS showed up.

The Disgruntled Employee- According to some of the supporters, none of the allegations can be true because Ms. Mertens was passed up for permanent employment and that must be why she "made up" her allegations.  While I guess one could say there could be some merit to this, it certainly isn't a fact.  At this point, no one knows how much truth was in Ms. Mertens' statements.  I do find it hard to believe that she would make such heinous allegations over a temp job, especially considering that she was part of the AARP work program and they would have found her another placement.  I suppose stranger motivations have prompted crazy things, but I have seen no evidence that proves either her motivations OR that her statements were or were not factual.  In addition, there are SEVEN different children not connected to Ms. Mertens listed in the arrest warrant. 

Making a Name- This is one of the more humorous ones.  We've been told by supporters that the District Attorney, the Director of Social Services AND the Citrus Heights Police Department all wanted to "make a name" for themselves.  While I, and many others, question the manner in which the school was shut down, I think the claims that the Citrus Heights Police Department was making a big deal out of this investigation just to "make a name" is beyond ludicrous.  The District Attorney?  The Director of Social Services?  Come on....really?  How many people do supporters think need to "make a name" and use Robert Adams as a platform?

New Fire Station- Perhaps the most laughable of all the excuses has been the statement by one of the Adams' daughters that "a little birdie" told her that the City of Citrus Heights needed a new location for the fire department.  So wait, the City of Citrus Heights, Department of Social Services, Irma Mertens, and the District Attorney all banded together to make up allegations to get a new location for the fire department on those prime 7 acres?  Wow.  The City of Citrus Heights really has it together.  Wonder why they haven't snatched up that property now that it is for sale?

New Beamers for All- While some of the other claims are laughable, this one is pure spiteful nastiness.  Many supporters have claimed that the older three girls in the complaint only did so to get new BMW's for themselves.  The girls in the report who are now in their 20's, were 10 in 2000 when the complaint was made.  Another who attended school at the same time came forward in 2006 when she was 16.  I'm astounded that these children were thought to have such foresight when they were pre-teens to plan for new BMW's.  It is a horrific attempt to discredit 3 young girls who came forward years ago.  While I don't know if their stories are true, their claims are certainly disturbing when held in conjunction with each other.


AT is the Bestest Friend in the World- There have also been claims that one of the two teachers in the report, AT, only made her statement because she was friends with another teacher who was fired.  The report of this teacher is extremely credible to me.  She saw something she was concerned about.  When she gets the report back the next day from the parent of the very same child she observed the day prior she knew she needed to make a complaint.  To claim that she would do so because she was friends with a teacher who was fired is beyond asinine.  They worked together for years and were friendly, so what?  I am friendly with a lot of people but that doesn't mean I'd coordinate with a parent to make up some lies about someone to get back at my employer.  To believe that AT would make something up about Mr. Adams just to get back at him for a former co-worker means that you also must believe that she somehow convinced a parent, to go along with this story to take revenge on Mr. Adams and subject their child to examiners and detectives.  Yeah, not likely. Not to mention, surely she would have realized that her complaint would put her out of a job.  Again, I why would she go to these lengths to "get back" over another employee who was fired years earlier.

Refusing to Publish?- It was widely reported that Robert Adams did not have the degrees he claimed to have on his resume and the schools website.  One of the first big excuses we heard was that the news reporters had been sent the copies of the degrees but refuse to publish them.  Really?  Okay....publish them yourself.  If you sent them to news agencies, why not just black out any info you don't want public and then post them yourself on the Facebook page?  Oh yeah, that's right, because they don't actually exist.

The Fire Marshal!!!!  Flying Colors!!- Anyone tired of this one yet?  How many times have we heard that the school must have been in tip-top shape because the fire marshal had just cleared it the month prior?  Except that the fire marshal isn't the building department of the city.  You know, the ones who have been sending Mr. Adams notice after notice.  Never mind them.  Pesky building codes.

Just One More Signature- Perhaps one of the more blatant lies told to the CFS supporters, yet some choose to still believe this was the case, despite the evidence otherwise.  The business entity was "sold" to Zolt Benedek.  He then applied for a new license.  This license had to go through the same application process as every other business, the one that is quite a lengthy process and has nothing to do with getting people to sign off on repairs.  The one that involves providing the people you are asking to give you a license the information they ask for instead of speaking in circles.  Here is a hint supporters, you worked your butts off for nothing.  The school was NEVER going to reopen within that time frame...they knew that.  They let people pull their kids out of new schools over this.  Others left their kids out of school missing valuable time on their educations.  You were used for your time, labor, and money. There is someone to blame, but it isn't me or anyone else who has pointed it out and it isn't the city.  It is a certain family who's name rhymes with Schmadams.

Insurance Fraud- I've heard two different things with regards to the insurance company suing to rescind their policy with Mr. Adams.  First is the, "this is all normal business with insurance companies".  Well, I'm sure it doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out that an insurance company denying an initial claim might be common, but an insurance company suing a party they insure to make the policy null and void is not.  The other out there excuse I have heard come out regarding this lawsuit is just silly.  Some supporters seem to believe that he shouldn't HAVE to report previous allegations of abuse if he was never charged.  But that isn't up to supporters to decide.  The insurance company's policy is to ask on the application, "Have you ever been accused?" At that point Mr. Adams had 2 choices, to tell the truth, or to lie.  It is clear which choice he made.

Therapy all Around- Some supporters even had enough gall to determine, with their extensive psychiatric backgrounds, that anyone opposing Robert Adams, must be child molesters themselves and need intense therapy.  Wow...I wish I was making this stuff up, but alas, these statements have come from actual supporters.  I will schedule my appointment soon.  Maybe when Robert Adams enters a plea.


Just a Few Wires- One supporter, who really wants us to know his name, claimed that the report drafted by the City of Citrus Heights building department, was over-exaggerated and not accurate.  According to him, the only things that were wrong with the school were a bit of dry-rot and a hanging telephone wire.  Never mind the multiple additions made to buildings without permits, the unsafe range and gas equipment in the kitchen, the tree growing into the building, or the other numerous issues.  I wonder then, why it took so long to repair a hanging telephone wire and some dry rot?

Can't Refund!- While I have no doubt that the CHPD took the computers as evidence, there is no reason why Creative Frontiers School cannot issue refunds.  In small claims court, all a person suing has to do is prove that a debt is owed to them and that the person they are suing is responsible for that debit.  Well, if a parent who is owed a refund can show their signed contract, a copy of their cancelled check and the letter that the DSS issued in July stating that the school is closed due to allegations of molestation, it is highly doubtful that a judge would not grant them their money back.  It is disgraceful that Robert Adams and the CFS family is dragging their feet on this issue and that parents suing for refunds are being painted as "bad guys".  Computers are not needed to issue refunds.

Recruited Victims- This one has been around since the beginning.  The CHPD put a 'contact us' information page on their website for parents who had any questions.  Of course to supporters, this means that they must have been recruiting victims.  Never mind the fact that this is common procedure in MANY criminal investigations.  Never mind that the majority of the victims listed in the arrest warrant came long before the date of the closure.  Facts are such pesky things.

The Agreement that Will Live in Infamy- Remember the whole "we have an agreement with the city" spiel that C. Adams tried to sell everyone on when everyone found out that they delayed the hearing?   She said repeatedly that the school will open because they have an "agreement".  Well, it turns out the "agreement" didn't exist.  Instead the boyfriend of C. Adams, the only daughter who is not married, "bought" the business entity in an attempt to circumvent the proper procedure for the City's business license appeal procedure.   There was NO agreement with the city...okay I take that back, the only agreement with the city was to postpone the appeal hearing so that Zolt Benedek could apply and try to "trick" the city.  They had a plan.  A plan that failed miserably.

I'm sure I'm missing some, as excuses and lies seem to come so easily from this family and supporters.

Taking a Christmas Break

Just letting everyone know Doubting CFS will be taking a break to spend Christmas with loved ones.  I hope everyone enjoys their holiday.  We will be back sometime next week.  If there is any "breaking news" I will post about it, but I expect things will be quiet until after Christmas.  There are active comments on the Sacramento Bee's website on this article: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/21/4136687/hed-here.html as well as this article: http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2011/12/molestation-trial-of-principal-delayed-until-february.html#disqus_thread  if anyone is interested.

I will be checking emails and approving comments as I can.  Thank you to all who read and enjoy your celebrations!

Are you really surprised?

The criminal court case for Robert Adams has been continued again.  This time to February 24th.

Court Hearing Tomorrow

Tomorrow marks the 5th court appearance for Robert Adams.  Maybe we will be surprised and the scheduled settlement conference will commence instead of asking for another continuance.  His family members claim to have seen the discovery, so I would assume his attorney, Linda Parisi DOES indeed have it as well.

To refresh your memory, and mine, tomorrow's hearing is called a "settlement conference".  This means that the District Attorney and the defense attorney will sit down together and attempt to work out a plea to keep the case from going to trial.  This is mandatory for all criminal cases.  If indeed this happens instead of asking for another continuance, and no agreement is reached, the case will then be scheduled for a preliminary hearing.  This is basically a "mini-trial".  This is basically all on the prosecution to "prove" they have evidence warranting a full trial.  If the judge deems that there is, then the case moves on to yet another settlement conference in an attempt to reach a plea deal.  If none is reached, then the case goes to a full trial.  In some cases the preliminary hearing is waved by the defense.  At some point, I'm pretty sure Mr. Adams will have to enter a plea with regards to the charges.

I will update here as soon as I hear anything.

By the way, did anyone know he was arrested in 1991 as well?  The case appears to have been eventually dismissed, and the charges are odd to say the least.  The misdemeanor charges were for California Penal Code 487 which is grand theft.  It includes everything from 487(a) which refers to stealing and/or transporting dead bovine and other farm animal carcasses, to 487(d) which is theft of a firearm.  It encompasses every kind of grand theft. I do not know which of these he was charged with exactly.  He was arrested in October 1991 and the case went on and appears to have eventually been dismissed in November of 1992.  It doesn't really mean anything with regards to the current case, but I found it odd.

Criminal Discovery vs. Civil Discovery

Let me first preface this by saying I am not a lawyer nor am I pretending to be one.

Upon first reading the article penned by the Sacramento Bee's Sam Stanton, I was confused by a statement by Attorney Joe George.  George represents the plaintiff, named as Jane Doe 45, in a Civil case that is currently pending against Robert Adams and Creative Frontiers School.  In Stanton's article, George is quoted as saying,  

"Basically, we do not want to give Adams' attorneys an opportunity to conduct discovery to assist them in their criminal defense.  We will re-file after the conclusion of the criminal trial."

At first glance I kind of had to scratch my head at that comment.  I didn't understand it.  So I did some digging and research.  I found an excellent webpage that really compares and contrasts the two types of cases.  That website can be found by clicking here.

After reading the page, it seems that what George is referring to is the difference between what is allowed by a defense attorney in a civil case and what is allowed in a criminal case.  In a criminal case, the attorney is allowed to conduct very limited discovery.  They may or may not be allowed to know in advance who the prosecution is calling to the witness stand.  This means they cannot look into the backgrounds of witnesses, and so on.  They can provide their own witnesses, they can cross-examine the witnesses brought forth by the prosecution, they can dispute evidence, but what they are allowed to conduct on their own is more limited that in a civil case.

What I can assume Attorney Joe George is saying is that he doesn't want his civil case to affect the District Attorney's criminal case by allowing more discovery than would usually be allowed.

If Mr. Adams is found guilty and Mr. George refiles on behalf of his clients (it appears he has another client not listed on the criminal complaint) at that time, it would not affect any appeals because the defense would know who the prosecution called in the first trial.  If Mr. Adams is found not guilty, Mr. George can still file on behalf of his client(s).  The outcome of the criminal case is not essential to any potential civil cases.

Hopefully this clears this up for you as it did for me.

A Closer Look

Now that I have had a little more time to thoroughly look at the civil complaint filed by Stonington Insurance company I can provide more details.

My initial reaction to reading that the insurance company of Robert Adams was suing him in a civil court case was "huh?"  I couldn't figure out why an insurance company would sue someone they insured.  It didn't make sense to me.  Even more confusing was the plaintiff in another civil case against Mr. Adams also being named as a defendant.  The complaint sheds some light on this:

JANE DOE 45 and her guardian ad litem STEPHANIE DOE are named as necessary
parties against whom a declaration is sought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1060.

For those of you, like me, who have no idea what the Code of Civil Procedure §1060 is, I've found it for you:

Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or a trust, or under a 

contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another,

or in respect to, in, over or upon property, or with respect to the location of the natural 

channel of a watercourse, may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights 

and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the 

superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including 

a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument 

or contract. He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with 

other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, 

whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be 

either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the declaration shall have the force 

of a final judgment. The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the 

obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought.

Confused?  Yeah, me too.  I really haven't a clue what all that means.  Maybe someone can shed some light.

They also have names DOES 1-30 in their complaint as defendants.  The complaint clears that up as well:

Plaintiff is unaware at this stage of the proceedings of DOES 1 through 30, inclusive. At such time as their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will seek the Court's permission to amend this Complaint accordingly.

This basically means that the girls listed in the criminal investigation and any unnamed alleged victims could possibly file their own civil lawsuits as well.  Stonington is asking that should this arise, they would not be held responsible for covering Mr. Adams.

Stonington's main issue is that Mr. Adams was supposed to disclose ANY previous allegations of abuse:

As part and parcel of the issuance of these policies, STONINGTON required insurance applications. Inter alia, the applications directed the insured to disclose any prior allegations of abuse or molestation occurring at CREATIVE FRONTIERS or involving ROBERT or SAUNDRA ADAMS. These inquiries were answered by the insureds uniformly in the negative. STONINGTON relied on these representations in issuing the insurance policies.

According to the above, on his application (Stonington has insured Mr. Adams since 2004) he was required to answer, as are ALL applicants, if he had ever been accused of abuse.  They claim he answered "no" which clearly is not the truth.  In the arrest warrant issued for Mr. Adams, it clearly states he was being investigated in 2000 and again in 2006.  Now you might say, "did Mr. Adams know he was being investigated?"  Now I cannot answer this with 100% certainty, but my guess is, yes, he would have at least been notified.  Even though there were never any criminal charges, allegations were made.  This is where the insurance company has a very good point.  If they are correct, and he did not tell the truth on his application, then why should they have to cover him?

Now many might look and say 'well this is just typical insurance company stuff...trying to deny a claim at first.'  However, this is not what is happening.  They are not denying the claim.  They are asking the courts to rescind the policy making it null and void.  They claim that:

The failure to disclose prior allegations of sexual abuse against Mr. ADAMS were material misrepresentations under the California Insurance Code entitling Plaintiff to rescind the contracts ab initio.

This is quite different.  It is NOT a normal thing for insurance companies to file civil suits asking to have a judicial decision to rescind the policy against one of their insured.  Does it happen?  Sure.  But is isn't common practice.  Part of their complaint is that the claim would not be eligible under the terms of the policy, but the main thing they appear to be asking for is the policy to be rescinded completely, leaving them not liable for the current or any future lawsuits. 

Sadly, it appears to be yet another instance where Mr. Adams should have done one thing, and yet chose to do the complete opposite.  While none of this means he is guilty or not guilty of the crimes he is charged with, it certainly puts forth another example where it appears that Mr. Adams did not tell the truth.

Wowzers

I have been waiting for the information regarding the civil complaint from Stonington Insurance to become available, but it looks like Sacramento Bee's Sam Stanton beat me to it in his article this Sunday.

Basically, the insurance company is claiming their policy required Mr. Adams to report any past allegations of molestation or abuse.  In addition, he was required to inform the company should any allegations surface.  Stonington claim he did not.

It also is a bit more clear as to why Jane Doe and Stephanie Doe, the plaintiff and guardian of the plaintiff, are included in the suit.  Stonington is asking that any relief sought by Jane Doe, not be covered under their policy with Robert Adams.

The civil suit complaint can be read in its entirety here.

For Sale Signs Up

It is now official.  Creative Frontiers signs are down, and "For Sale" signs are now up at the property at 6446 Sylvan Road.


In other news....
I apologize for the lack of updates.  With the holidays and work, we've all been extremely busy...add to that a house full of sickness and maintaining this blog has gotten a bit lower on the priority list.  Please forgive me if updates are sparse in the dates prior to the hearing.

A Recap of Upcoming Court Cases

Robert Adams has several upcoming court cases.

First, the Criminal Case:

	Filing Information:
	Case Number Filing Date Xref Last First Middle Status Charge Doc Court ID 11F05749 09/07/2011 253349 ADAMS ROBERT BENSON Active Complaint 34470

Filing Charges:

	Count Charge Severity C001 PC 288(A) FEL C002 PC 288(A) FEL C003 PC 288(A) FEL C004 PC 288(A) FEL C005 PC 288(A) FEL C006 PC 288(A) FEL C007 PC 647.6(A) MIS

Hearing Future:

	Date Time Department Location Reason 12/20/2011 8:30 AM Department 61 Sacramento County Main Jail - 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 SC

Hearing History:

	Date Time Department Reason Outcome 11/04/2011 8:30 AM Department 61 SC CONT 11/02/2011 4:00 PM Department 61 FP OTHER 10/07/2011 8:30 AM Department 61 SC CONT 09/09/2011 8:30 AM Department 61 ARRAIGN ARRAIGNFEL 09/09/2011 8:30 AM Department 61 BAIL/REV OTHER 09/09/2011 8:30 AM Department 61 COUNSEL RET

Not sure what happened on 11/2/11 for "FC" (Further Proceedings) or what the "Other" outcome means.


We also have the Civil Suit from an alleged victim, named as Jane Doe in the court documents:

Case Number:	2011-00110418
Filing Date:	09/08/2011
Case Type:	PI/PD/WD - Other
Case Title:	JANE DOE 45 VS. CREATIVE FRONTIERS SCHOOL INC.

Select	Name	Party Type
	ADAMS, ROBERT	Defendant
	CREATIVE FRONTIERS SCHOOL INC.	Defendant
	DOE, STEPHANIE	Guardian Ad Litem
	JANE DOE 45	Plaintiff
	ROES 1-20	Defendant

Then the new Civil Suit from the insurance company:

Case Number:	2011-00114820
Filing Date:	12/01/2011
Case Type:	Insurance Coverage
Case Title:	STONINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY VS. ROBERT B ADAMS

Name	Party Type
	ADAMS, ROBERT B	Defendant
	ADAMS, SAUNDRA	Defendant
	CREATIVE FRONTIERS SCHOOL INC	Defendant
	DOE 45, JANE	Defendant
	DOE, STEPHANIE	Defendant
	DOES 1 TO 30	Defendant
	STONINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY	Plaintiff

Then we also have the small claims suits:

Case Number:	11SC05123
Filing Date:	10/13/2011
Case Type:	Breach of Contract
Case Title:	P[name removed], S[name removed] VS. CREATIVE FRONTIERS SCHOOL INC.

	Name	Party Type
	CREATIVE FRONTIERS SCHOOL INC.	Defendant
	P[name removed], S[name removed]	Plaintiff

and

Case Number:	11SC05356
Filing Date:	10/28/2011
Case Type:	Breach of Contract
Case Title:	Z[name removed], M[name removed] VS. CREATIVE FRONTIERS SCHOOL, INC

Select	Name	Party Type
	CREATIVE FRONTIERS SCHOOL, INC	Defendant
	Z[name removed], M[name removed]	Plaintiff

Other than the criminal case, I am unsure when the upcoming court dates are.  I am assuming the small claims cases would be pretty soon.  It is my understanding that the court dates are usually set 2-3 months from the date of filing.

Please forgive the formatting.  Blogger isn't being cooperative.

Another Civil Suit

Well there were predictions of more civil suits, and here is one, but not from another alleged victim.  This is an insurance company, presumably his own, suing him this time.

Case Number:	2011-00114820
Filing Date:	12/01/2011
Case Type:	Insurance Coverage
Case Title:	STONINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY VS. ROBERT B ADAMS

	Name	Party Type
	ADAMS, ROBERT B	Defendant
	ADAMS, SAUNDRA	Defendant
	CREATIVE FRONTIERS SCHOOL INC	Defendant
	DOE 45, JANE	Defendant
	DOE, STEPHANIE	Defendant
	DOES 1 TO 30	Defendant
	STONINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY	Plaintiff

Now this is slightly confusing as Jane Doe 45 and Stephanie Doe, are the named plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit civil lawsuit suing Robert Adams.  I can't factually say I know why this is.  My best guess is that the insurance company is trying to effectively say "not it" if in case the other civil suit requires a payout.

What is theTruth

Another definition for you:

truth

noun, plural truths 

1. the true  or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

4. the state or character of being true

5. actuality or actual existence.

This blog seeks to find the truth.  I would hope that the truth is something everyone would be seeking in this case, and in life in general.  Sometimes that truth is uncomfortable.  Sometimes it points out where you were wrong, and that is an uneasy feeling.  We have all been wrong at some point in our lives.  Here is the big difference between what I would hope most people strive for and what has happened with regards to the Creative Frontiers case.  Instead of acknowledging truths, we have instead seen blatant refusal to see what is right in front of everyone's faces.  

One of many examples of the denial of reality exhibited by the Adams family/CFS supporters is in regards to the building code violations.  We posted the building code violations and the multiple notices sent to Robert Adams regarding these issues.  And yet no one chooses to address this.  We hear yet again, about the Fire Marshal.  We hear about the postmark on the envelope.  Yet no one can answer where the red tags that were supposed to be on the building disappeared to.  We also hear that the 14 page document from the city citing violations can be summed up to a hanging telephone wire and some dry rot.  No one cares to address the numerous letters sent to Robert Adams from the City building department, clearly pointing out what the problem was, but also showing him clearly how to solve it.  Instead pretending like none of this exists because "we passed the fire marshal inspection with flying colors" despite basic reading comprehension skills required to understand that the Fire Marshal and the City of Citrus Heights Building Department are two separate entities.

Truth goes a long way with people.  Being lied to does not.  Mistakes are one thing.  I told someone I had 2% milk in the fridge the other day.  Poured it for them, they took a drink and said, "Um no, this is non-fat milk."  Oops.  I don't drink milk.  I didn't look at it closely.  I thought I had 2% milk and I told them, "I have some 2% in the fridge."  I don't blame the person drinking the milk.  I don't blame the grocery store.  I don't blame the milk company.  I don't blame the cow.  It was my mistake, but that is just it; a mistake.  I say I'm sorry and it is over.  Unfortunately we don't see this from the CFS family.


We all make mistakes.  What you choose to do with your mistakes can either make you a better person or one in complete denial.