Friday, October 26, 2012
Delay is the name of the game
Not that anyone is actually surprised, but there is yet another "delay" in the case. The case has now been continued to December from Robert Adams court case today, October 26th, 2012. I was not there, but was told this time the delay was due to a "scheduling conflict."
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Back!
Sorry for the hiatus Doubting CFS readers. I was taking a well-deserved vacation.
For anyone who hasn't heard, the Preliminary hearing was continued (yes...really) to Oct 26th. I have a lot of reading to do and should be posting again shortly. Thank you for your patience.
For anyone who hasn't heard, the Preliminary hearing was continued (yes...really) to Oct 26th. I have a lot of reading to do and should be posting again shortly. Thank you for your patience.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
So He Finally Entered a Plea...
It has only taken what...9 months for him to do it, but Robert Adams has finally entered a plea of 'not guilty' to the charges he is facing. I was not there so I am unsure of the exact details, but according to news sites, he has pleaded not guilty to all seven charges (6 felonies and 1 misdemeanor.)
From here the process should go to a preliminary hearing and then, if the judge finds the prosecution has enough evidence, a full trial. Of course a plea deal could be reached at any time.
The court appearances haven't ended yet this month for Mr. Adams. He is also due back in court on May 31st for a case management conference regarding the civil case with Stonington Insurance who has asked for a dismissal without prejudice of their case. Presumably this is because the other civil case against Mr. Adams was dropped until after the criminal hearing was completed.
EDITED TO ADD
The Preliminary Hearing in the case is set for August 17th, 2012, more than a year after the school was initially closed. Eleven months after he was arrested on seven separate counts of child molestation.
From here the process should go to a preliminary hearing and then, if the judge finds the prosecution has enough evidence, a full trial. Of course a plea deal could be reached at any time.
The court appearances haven't ended yet this month for Mr. Adams. He is also due back in court on May 31st for a case management conference regarding the civil case with Stonington Insurance who has asked for a dismissal without prejudice of their case. Presumably this is because the other civil case against Mr. Adams was dropped until after the criminal hearing was completed.
EDITED TO ADD
The Preliminary Hearing in the case is set for August 17th, 2012, more than a year after the school was initially closed. Eleven months after he was arrested on seven separate counts of child molestation.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Yes, Another Continuance
Yes folks, you heard correctly, Robert Adams has appeared in court once again, not entered a plea, and asked for a continuance. This time because his attorney hasn't had a chance to review the evidence completely. This time, the judge specified that there will be no more continuances allowed. While some supporters seem to think this means the District Attorney has no evidence, there is no indication of this.
As I have said many times in the past, these hearings that we keep continuing are only for a Settlement Conference. The attorneys are encouraged to sit down and work out a plea deal. If Mr. Adams and his attorney wanted to force the hand of the District Attorney and have this over and done with, he could enter a plea and invoke his right to a speedy trial. The delays are all his folks. Yes, he is following the advice of his attorney. And I am sure she is trying her best to keep Mr. Adams out of jail, since that is her job. But, if they really thought that the DA had as little evidence as Mr. Adams' daughter implies to all supporters, why would it make logical sense to delay this out?
The new court date is May 23rd. The judge specified there would be NO MORE continuances allowed so the Settlement conference will happen. This means that if they reach a deal, Mr. Adams will plea in accordance with that deal. If the DA decides to drop the charges, then there will be no further action. If a deal is not reached, the matter then goes forward with a pre-trial unless it is waived. If that happens, the matter is set straight to trial.
In other news, the property the school was once located on has been foreclosed by the bank.
Sorry folks that the updates have been few and far between but life gets busy sometimes.
I for one, will be looking forward to some sort of forward movement in this case on the 23rd of May. Hopefully we might get some answers and perhaps we will finally know how Mr. Adams plans to plea. He's had nearly 8 months to contemplate it.
As I have said many times in the past, these hearings that we keep continuing are only for a Settlement Conference. The attorneys are encouraged to sit down and work out a plea deal. If Mr. Adams and his attorney wanted to force the hand of the District Attorney and have this over and done with, he could enter a plea and invoke his right to a speedy trial. The delays are all his folks. Yes, he is following the advice of his attorney. And I am sure she is trying her best to keep Mr. Adams out of jail, since that is her job. But, if they really thought that the DA had as little evidence as Mr. Adams' daughter implies to all supporters, why would it make logical sense to delay this out?
The new court date is May 23rd. The judge specified there would be NO MORE continuances allowed so the Settlement conference will happen. This means that if they reach a deal, Mr. Adams will plea in accordance with that deal. If the DA decides to drop the charges, then there will be no further action. If a deal is not reached, the matter then goes forward with a pre-trial unless it is waived. If that happens, the matter is set straight to trial.
In other news, the property the school was once located on has been foreclosed by the bank.
Sorry folks that the updates have been few and far between but life gets busy sometimes.
I for one, will be looking forward to some sort of forward movement in this case on the 23rd of May. Hopefully we might get some answers and perhaps we will finally know how Mr. Adams plans to plea. He's had nearly 8 months to contemplate it.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Are You Kidding Me?
Really? While 3 of the girls listed in the arrest warrant are now adults, in 2000 when two came forward with allegations of abuse they were merely 10. Six years later, in 2006, another came forward at the age of 16. These CHILDREN came forward and told investigators of the alleged abuse. Just because the DA is now deciding to prosecute their cases when they are now adults, does not make the allegations less valid. It does however, make Peet's statement 100% false.
He goes on to say, "Children have, however, told forensic interviewers that they were not abused..." Wow. Peet's ability to twist what has been written to suit his own needs is astounding. Here is what the report says, "In July 2011, 8-year-old, B.R. (7/8/03) Stated at a Special Assault Forensic Evaluation (SAFE) that she attended Creative Frontiers when she was seven (7) years old and in 2nd grade (2010-2011). While she attended Creative Frontiers, she often went to visit "Mr. Bob" in his office. On several occasions, while visiting "Mr. Bob" in his office, she sat on his lap, where he proceeded to rub her body, including her inner thighs and vaginal area." I'm pretty sure any semi-literate adult could look at that and deduce that a child born in 2003, that disclosed to the investigators in 2011, that she was abused in 2010-2011 is indeed a child. So yes, more than one CHILD has come forward and confirmed the allegations. In addition, the warrant states that another child, 'A.P.' Was "interviewed twice at the SAFE center and did not disclose anything." This does NOT say that this child says she was not abused. This says that this child was interviewed and said nothing. As I have posted before, forensic interviewers are very careful not to ask leading questions. This child was quite young and they weren't going to push her. No where does it say they child said that she was not abused. Not disclosing is not the same thing as saying it didn't happen.
Sorry Peet, you fail again. Funny enough *I* am the one being accused of twisting the truth when some supporters like Peet spread blatant lies about the children who have disclosed and their families. Disgraceful.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Court Update*** Updated
It was rumored that the court hearing today for Mr. Adams was moved from 8:30am to 9:30am to accommodate some schedule conflicts for attorneys. I will post new information here as I receive it.
********
My apologies for the slow posting. I've had trouble verifying information this morning. One of my Doubting CFS spawn has been under the weather and had to go to the ER this morning. Priorities lay else where at that point.
My unverified information is that Ms. Parisi claims to have still not received all of the discovery and asked for a discovery. A new court date is said to be set for April.
It seems odd to me at this point for this same argument. If the DA has indeed not turned over the discovery, surely Ms. Parisi and the judge wouldn't keep letting that happen and would issue some sort of reprimand or demand for the information. If Ms. Parisi is not being truthful, and the DA *HAS* turned over the discovery, why is she being allowed to drag her feet?
I don't know the reason. I'm not a lawyer. I wasn't at the hearing. If there is anyone who was there and wants to add comments, that would be great. Hopefully I can verify some things and post some definitive information soon.
********
My apologies for the slow posting. I've had trouble verifying information this morning. One of my Doubting CFS spawn has been under the weather and had to go to the ER this morning. Priorities lay else where at that point.
My unverified information is that Ms. Parisi claims to have still not received all of the discovery and asked for a discovery. A new court date is said to be set for April.
It seems odd to me at this point for this same argument. If the DA has indeed not turned over the discovery, surely Ms. Parisi and the judge wouldn't keep letting that happen and would issue some sort of reprimand or demand for the information. If Ms. Parisi is not being truthful, and the DA *HAS* turned over the discovery, why is she being allowed to drag her feet?
I don't know the reason. I'm not a lawyer. I wasn't at the hearing. If there is anyone who was there and wants to add comments, that would be great. Hopefully I can verify some things and post some definitive information soon.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Another Court Date Soon Approaches
I know some people have been wondering what happened and why there have been no posts to the blog recently. Although some choose to think otherwise, this is simply because there is nothing to post and I am not in the business of just making something up in order to have a post. I've been dealing with some health scares and so, my mind has been elsewhere recently. However, if there were any new, pertinent information, I would have it posted here for you all in a jiffy.
Mr. Adams does have an upcoming court date:
This again will be a settlement conference where the two attorneys and Mr. Adams will be encouraged to come to an agreement. If none is made, then the case goes to a preliminary trial. However, this has been the case the last few times and not even a plea has been entered. At the last appearance in December however, Ms. Parisi, Mr. Adams' attorney, claimed to have "finally" received the discovery and now just needed time to go through it. I would think she is out of delaying excuses at this point and the charges would move forward.
Mr. Adams also has an additional Small Claims court case pending against him filed 1/18/2012. I am unsure what the status of these cases are, as the information isn't available online, but I would have thought there would be judgement of some kind at this point. These cases are usually given a date within a month or two of the filing date.
I can also find no further information on the Civil case against Mr. Adams from Stonington Insurance.
Sooooo, that's it really. I guess we will all have to wait and see what happens on the 24th.
Mr. Adams does have an upcoming court date:
|
This again will be a settlement conference where the two attorneys and Mr. Adams will be encouraged to come to an agreement. If none is made, then the case goes to a preliminary trial. However, this has been the case the last few times and not even a plea has been entered. At the last appearance in December however, Ms. Parisi, Mr. Adams' attorney, claimed to have "finally" received the discovery and now just needed time to go through it. I would think she is out of delaying excuses at this point and the charges would move forward.
Mr. Adams also has an additional Small Claims court case pending against him filed 1/18/2012. I am unsure what the status of these cases are, as the information isn't available online, but I would have thought there would be judgement of some kind at this point. These cases are usually given a date within a month or two of the filing date.
I can also find no further information on the Civil case against Mr. Adams from Stonington Insurance.
Sooooo, that's it really. I guess we will all have to wait and see what happens on the 24th.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Lawsuit Dropped
This isn't surprising as attorney Joseph George already expressed his intent to drop and later refile a civil case on his clients behalf, but the case has now been officially dropped.
There was some stir on the Sacramento Bee article about his quote saying he was dropping it so as to not allow attorneys for Adams conduct any discovery that they wouldn't be normally allowed to do. I agree, if you don't know what he is talking about specifically, it is confusing. I explained this more thoroughly in an earlier post, but I will recap. A defense attorney is allowed to conduct very limited discovery in a criminal case. So by having his civil case at the same time as Mr. Adams criminal case, he would have been allowing Mr. Adams' attorney to conduct discovery that she would usually not be able to do. This sounds odd initially but you also have to consider the burden of proof differences in criminal and civil cases. Civil cases do not require "belief beyond a reasonable doubt" as a criminal case does. Case in point; O.J. Simpson. There was enough reasonable doubt to acquit him of charges in criminal court but a civil case against him found enough evidence to award civil damages. I will also add in and remind people, that a verdict of "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent". A not guilty verdict also does not exclude anyone from filing a civil case. Again, I am not a lawyer, so please forgive my lack of eloquence when describing these legal terms.
So from what I gather, he is planning on refiling on behalf of his client, Jane Doe 45, as well as an additional client he has eluded to after the criminal case has finished. Mr. Adams is due back in court February 24th 2012. As his attorney has finally conceded that she has received the discovery from the prosecution, perhaps they will not ask for yet another continuance.
There was some stir on the Sacramento Bee article about his quote saying he was dropping it so as to not allow attorneys for Adams conduct any discovery that they wouldn't be normally allowed to do. I agree, if you don't know what he is talking about specifically, it is confusing. I explained this more thoroughly in an earlier post, but I will recap. A defense attorney is allowed to conduct very limited discovery in a criminal case. So by having his civil case at the same time as Mr. Adams criminal case, he would have been allowing Mr. Adams' attorney to conduct discovery that she would usually not be able to do. This sounds odd initially but you also have to consider the burden of proof differences in criminal and civil cases. Civil cases do not require "belief beyond a reasonable doubt" as a criminal case does. Case in point; O.J. Simpson. There was enough reasonable doubt to acquit him of charges in criminal court but a civil case against him found enough evidence to award civil damages. I will also add in and remind people, that a verdict of "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent". A not guilty verdict also does not exclude anyone from filing a civil case. Again, I am not a lawyer, so please forgive my lack of eloquence when describing these legal terms.
So from what I gather, he is planning on refiling on behalf of his client, Jane Doe 45, as well as an additional client he has eluded to after the criminal case has finished. Mr. Adams is due back in court February 24th 2012. As his attorney has finally conceded that she has received the discovery from the prosecution, perhaps they will not ask for yet another continuance.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Documentation
A few comments have come in recently information people claim to have, but can't or won't back up. I understand not having "proof" but wanting to comment about your personal experience. That is fine. In addition, if you give me or others something to go on, we can research it a bit more. For example, saying that Creative Frontiers School was dropped from the Child Action program, is something I can try to get information about. Saying there are documents that are out there that say things that dispute other things I have posted is so vague I can't possibly even begin to research.
It was claimed that this blog intentionally leaves out certain documents because they don't support whatever cause I am thought to have. Folks, I will be completely honest, I am entirely too lazy to pick and choose what parts of certain documents I publish. What I have, you get.
We keep hearing that there is another side to the story. Okay fine. Fair enough. So where is it? When the Creative Frontiers Facebook page was open to the public, that was prime opportunity for supporters and family to plead their case and to support their claims. Each and every excuse that was posted about the other day actually came from a supporter or family. Instead of using their public platform to provide factual information or explaining things, they've instead chose to create conspiracy theories, to bash victims, witnesses, other supporters, reporters, online commenters, blog writers, city officials, and even victims and their families in other cases where the criminal was convicted!
If you disagree with my interpretation or what others have to say, please share. Healthy debate is encouraged. We are all adults with independent thought. It is perfectly normal people to look at the same document and walk away with something different from it. I have respect for individuals who can disagree without name-calling and diverting from the seriousness of the topic. For example, the anonymous that questioned the interpretation of the DSS documents provided. He/she disagreed, but with respect, unlike some of the recent comments on the Sacbee website that were utterly ridiculous. Some claiming Mr. Adams wasn't at the school, some calling posters there names, and my favorite, as it was clear the commenters they were directing their anger at were women, telling them to get back in the kitchen and take care of their kids and husbands. The anonymous here (with regards to the DSS papers) argued a valid point articulately. The commenter on the SacBee website made him/herself look foolish and did nothing for their cause.
If you have information that disproves anything posted here, please share it. If you have further information about Robert Adams or CFS, please share it. If you are concerned about this blog having your name or email address, then create a new one on hotmail and use a fake name. It's free and easy to do. You can also use the comments section here to contact me. As all comments must be approved, I would see it. You can always preface whatever you want to tell me with something like "Tip/info, not actual comment to be published" then follow it with your message to me.
I would love to hear what some believe to be the "other side of the story". What is the other side to the resume issue? The building code violations? The lies about the business license? The fraudulent insurance application? I'd really like to hear it. There is proof that Robert Adams, and/or a family member directly lied and/or misled people with regards to ALL of these issues. There is no excuse. There is no good reason to lie about these. No one forced them to lie. They chose to lie, and now it makes them look bad. This isn't the fault of this blog.
Getting back to my original topic, if we are going to post things here as fact, we really need documentation. You can claim anything you want and say it is true, but without proof, it is nothing more than words. This doesn't mean you can't comment your opinion or experience, but we can't make a blog post about it unless there is something to back it up. I try very hard to research all of the information provided in the blog posts and make sure it is factual.
I am also adding this is again, because some clearly still don't get it; any comments here are the opinion or experiences of the writer, not of this blog. I will publish all comments unless they contain profanity, guesses at my identity or the identity of others commenting here, or have otherwise inappropriate content.
It was claimed that this blog intentionally leaves out certain documents because they don't support whatever cause I am thought to have. Folks, I will be completely honest, I am entirely too lazy to pick and choose what parts of certain documents I publish. What I have, you get.
We keep hearing that there is another side to the story. Okay fine. Fair enough. So where is it? When the Creative Frontiers Facebook page was open to the public, that was prime opportunity for supporters and family to plead their case and to support their claims. Each and every excuse that was posted about the other day actually came from a supporter or family. Instead of using their public platform to provide factual information or explaining things, they've instead chose to create conspiracy theories, to bash victims, witnesses, other supporters, reporters, online commenters, blog writers, city officials, and even victims and their families in other cases where the criminal was convicted!
If you disagree with my interpretation or what others have to say, please share. Healthy debate is encouraged. We are all adults with independent thought. It is perfectly normal people to look at the same document and walk away with something different from it. I have respect for individuals who can disagree without name-calling and diverting from the seriousness of the topic. For example, the anonymous that questioned the interpretation of the DSS documents provided. He/she disagreed, but with respect, unlike some of the recent comments on the Sacbee website that were utterly ridiculous. Some claiming Mr. Adams wasn't at the school, some calling posters there names, and my favorite, as it was clear the commenters they were directing their anger at were women, telling them to get back in the kitchen and take care of their kids and husbands. The anonymous here (with regards to the DSS papers) argued a valid point articulately. The commenter on the SacBee website made him/herself look foolish and did nothing for their cause.
If you have information that disproves anything posted here, please share it. If you have further information about Robert Adams or CFS, please share it. If you are concerned about this blog having your name or email address, then create a new one on hotmail and use a fake name. It's free and easy to do. You can also use the comments section here to contact me. As all comments must be approved, I would see it. You can always preface whatever you want to tell me with something like "Tip/info, not actual comment to be published" then follow it with your message to me.
I would love to hear what some believe to be the "other side of the story". What is the other side to the resume issue? The building code violations? The lies about the business license? The fraudulent insurance application? I'd really like to hear it. There is proof that Robert Adams, and/or a family member directly lied and/or misled people with regards to ALL of these issues. There is no excuse. There is no good reason to lie about these. No one forced them to lie. They chose to lie, and now it makes them look bad. This isn't the fault of this blog.
Getting back to my original topic, if we are going to post things here as fact, we really need documentation. You can claim anything you want and say it is true, but without proof, it is nothing more than words. This doesn't mean you can't comment your opinion or experience, but we can't make a blog post about it unless there is something to back it up. I try very hard to research all of the information provided in the blog posts and make sure it is factual.
I am also adding this is again, because some clearly still don't get it; any comments here are the opinion or experiences of the writer, not of this blog. I will publish all comments unless they contain profanity, guesses at my identity or the identity of others commenting here, or have otherwise inappropriate content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)