Are You Kidding Me?

I occasionally get messages with information and/or articles written about Robert Adams and Creative Frontiers, and received the information that Christian Peet had written more about the case on his site. So I'm not really sure what to say to his recent entry as it is so far based in fantasy land.  According to Peet,

To date, no children have confirmed any of the adult allegations of molestation that originally closed Adams’s school in July 2011.

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.

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.

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:

	Date Time Department Location Reason 02/24/2012 8:30 AM Department 61 Sacramento County Main Jail - 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 SC

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.

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.

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.

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.