zorro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by zorro on Nov 10, 2017 19:08:10 GMT -7
Angel claims our community is becoming more divided. NOT TRUE! What is true is that we can no longer ignore just how divided our community is...and has always been.
|
|
|
Post by United We Stand on Nov 10, 2017 22:15:48 GMT -7
In response to Zorro - Glastonbury has been divided since 1998 when the first "outsiders" were allowed in. The outsiders now make up a majority of Glastonbury while the GLA Board is still dominated by CUT members who were here previous to 1998.
When this was a CUT exclusive community CUT was widely regarded as an apocalyptic cult. Glastonbury and the Ranch was their home. As evidenced by other writers many newcomers consider CUT people as friends and neighbors. I believe it is only a small, hard core group of CUT diehards, cult loyalists, who wish to divide our community. Their claim to power depends upon a divided Glastonbury. "Us against Them" is their rallying cry. They will conspire with the most despicable members of Glastonbury to hold on to power. They will scream "church hater" and "religious discrimination" to all who will listen.
Based on what I read here I think that fewer and fewer people are listening to them. Glastonbury will embrace the future when neighbors and friends unite and oust the despicable die-hards from the GLA Board. Then we will stand united and we can all work for a better future.
So yes, our community is divided but it is also healing old wounds, leaving CUT the cult behind and hopefully kicking the despicables and malcontents from office.
This thread started with the O'Connells and a restraining order. I believe the O'Connells are deranged and very dangerous individuals. They have already said what they want to do - they have a plan to kill everyone they meet. No one should be debating whether they meant that or not; they should be thinking about how everyone can keep a Waco, Jonestown or Texas church shooting from happening here. The O'Connells were CUT cult members and their identities are closely tied with cult beliefs. Like Islamic Jihadists they believe that death will bring them to a new spiritual level and that if they take a few "atheists" with them, the rewards will be even greater. CUT does not teach exactly that; but a deranged mind could interpret The Teachings to glorify death. Our community should be very concerned about the O'Connells and anyone who conspires with them. If people are hurt or die, those who collude with the O'Connells will have blood on their hands.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Moore on Nov 11, 2017 18:49:24 GMT -7
A REPORT ON WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID AT THE O'CONNEL HEARING:
I was surprised at the false reports above, especially Sally accusing me of "relying on Val’s word" for the hearing and not "disseminating fact from fiction." It seems bias and her admitted "Dislike" for Valerie has poisoned her and others statements. I understand it was legal to record the O'Connel hearing, since the court can but did not forbid recordings from what I was told. This recording allows me to give a detailed and factual report on what was said at the hearing. I would like to now give a short report of what was actually said at the O'Connel hearing to dispel any doubts about the accuracy of my reports:
Neither Daniel nor Valerie gave any testimony at their one hour allowed time at the hearing. At the hearing I heard Deputy Dykstra witness that Valerie reported Dennis Rilie assaulted her; and that two other members physically assaulted Valerie at GLA meetings. I looked up the definition of assault. Beside physical attacks, assault is also, "purposely or knowingly causes reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in another." Dennis Rilie admitted at the hearing he "was angry" and "lost his temper" with Valerie. Rilie admitted he "banged the table with his fist" and said he then, "came around the table in the direction of where Val was sitting." Dennis Rilie said he "could not remember why he came towards Val." Charles Barker's witness said, "Rilie was shouting at Val" "Riley was angry before he closed the meeting" and he was "coming towards her" and "Riley got about 4 feet from Val" Barker also told the court that he said to Dennis, "no, no, and turned Dennis Rilie away from her." These witnesses testimony do support Valerie's statement that she was assaulted by Dennis Rilie who caused her "apprehension of bodily injury."
Deputy Dykstra said he "received from Leo Keeler a September 11, 2017 GLA meeting recording" and Dyktra called, "Daniel's statement was in defense of his wife" that said, "I would like to dissuade you President Rilie and anyone else here that I am not a pacifist. In fact, think of me as an anti-pacifist where I live by a kind of code where I embrace a motto by General Mattis you may have heard of him say to be courteous, professional, but you have a plan to kill every person you meet, Right? When I heard about what happened last month to my wife, it brought, you know, a lot of rage in me. I must admit and I still kind of have some of that rage now. But if you come against my wife, [if] you come to my wife again and you're gonna have to come against me. And I will defend and protect," (interruption here "I said if") "I will defend and protect every square inch of my territory" meaning property and wife.
Dennis Rilie and Dan Keyho both said at the hearing that they "did not feel threatened by the O'Connels" after what Daniel said. Valerie asked Riley, Kehoe and Charlette Mizi who all admitted Valerie never threatened and never stalked them. Valerie read from GLA petition that his "witness testimony all refute the petition that said "Their behavior includes threatening the GLA petitioners constantly with lawsuits...and on September 11, 2017 threatening the petitioners with death." Valerie pointed out "lawsuits are a legal threat not an actual threat" and "no lawsuits were filed in the last five and a half years."
Someone reported above about Valerie, "erratic in her presentation and was overruled throughout the hearing." But my recording of this hearing has no "erratic" tone or mood. I also tried to count how many times Valerie was overruled; about 12 times. I heard Valerie was overruled when she objected to "hearsay testimony" "leading the witness" "giving opinion" "Alanah is testifying for the witness" GLA "witness is testifying to matters outside the petition" and more. I think the judge was unfair to overrule objections to allow hearsay and opinion. But the Judge did overruled the GLA attorney also. The judge told GLA attorney questions "needed foundation." The judge also said "I have not established that the O'Connels were vexatious litigants" and overruled Alanah and prevented her saying this again. At least five times the GLA attorney was overruled and Valerie's objections were "sustained."
Michelle McCowen was the only witness to say "Valerie harassed me" and "threatened me" because "she touched my back" and leaning over me to read what I was holding" and "being loud." Valerie's cross examination got Michelle to admit that it was plausible Val never touched her but that she held some paperwork that may have touched her back. Michelle admitted she felt threatened because Val is "loud." Valerie explained that she learned to be loud after 50 years of living with her mother who is almost completely deaf. Michelle also admitted a few weeks ago she walked past the O'Connells in town and could not recognize them until her friend pointed them out. Michelle also testified that towards the end of the September 11th GLA meeting, that she "grabbed the sign-in clipboard out of Val's hands" and "then Val and him [Daniel] walked back to their seat." Michelle's testimony did not sound credible after Valerie questioned Michelle "how could you possibly feel threatened by the O'Connels" since Michelle "you admitted you approached the O'Connels at the September 11th meeting and you Michelle ripped a clipboard out of Val's hands" and "could not recognize the O'Connels a few weeks later walking past them." Valerie also objected to Michelle's testimony being "outside the scope of the petition...having nothing to do with stalking."
Also the reports above about Charlette Mizzi were not correct. I would like to say that from the recording I have, Charlette Miizi's testimony was also not "disingenuous" Charlette Miizi witnessed she has been on the GLA Board for more than ten years off and on and was GLA President up until December. Charlette also said since 2007, "The O'Connels have never threatened anyone on the Board," and "they never stalked anyone at meetings...or outside of GLA meetings as far as I know." This is another reason why Charlette did not sign the petition. Charlette also admitted to the court that the GLA "cellphone link to the GLA meetings are of very bad quality" and "difficult to hear...the meetings."
The far-fetch or exaggerated reports from others above is not much more that hateful personal attacks based on a lot of specualtion not facts, or else opinion based on their admitted "dislike" of the O'Connels and Charlette. How shocking that anyone would demand they apologize for this. I know Charlette as our church minister to be truthful, and honorable. And based on the hearing recording I was given, it appears the O'Connels are innocent and being falsely accused too. Nor do I believe that Charlette would ever treat anyone "like her subjects." That someone would describe Charlette's service on the GLA Board as a "Reign of Terror" is so unbelievable and shocking that I now have to say that the delusion and hate probably is coming from people above who think that it is ok to use a public website to shame, insult, and denigrate Charlette and the O'Connels. I have truly never seen such persecution before coming from the statements by others that I have read on this website who justify their hatred as necessary and beyond reproach. These statements from others seems more like a public execution and reign of terror against the Charlette Miizi, and the O'Connells as church members. You seem to be acting as a mob trying to incite violence against these church members by saying "another Texas Church shooting will occur to "protect GLA." From what I have read from others attacking the O'Connels and Charlette, these statements from others above appear to be the Sociopaths and bullies who do not posses empathy, or compassion, nor a conscience for what is decent and fair threatment ! I must demand this persecution of these church members stop right now! This is truely evil!
|
|
angel
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by angel on Nov 12, 2017 8:43:27 GMT -7
You failed to mention that Daniel spoke of raging, killing, and then followed a landowner out in the dark. Do you consider that to be stalking?
It is a serious threat, especially since Val was the one taunting and threatening this person way before she took a clipboard out of their hands.
Tho O'Connells are bullies. If Dennis had not stopped the meeting it would not have ended peacefully. Bottom line.
Enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Moore on Nov 12, 2017 9:53:26 GMT -7
No angel, not stalking. It seemed more like the telling of a paranoid fantasy. Michelle's testimony also was not believable and even if it were she is not a petitioner. Valerie correctly objected that Michelle's testimony was outside the petiition and therefore irrelevant. And so it was.
Deputy Dykstra testified that what Daniel said was a statement of self-defense. This is also the way the Official Sept 11 meeting minutes describe his statement: "Dan O'Connell expressed feelings of rage and resolved to protect his property and wife." This fact was entered into evidence at the court hearing. It's also on the GLA's own website now.
Dykstra also testified he told Leo and Dennis [prior to the 8 BOD voting for the restraining order] that it was a self defense statement . Dykstra also testified at that same meeting Valerie's name was never mentioned.
The only meeting Dennis stopped was was near then end on Aug 14th and it shows in his testimony at the hearing and minutes of Sept 11, he was already angry when he did so. The hearing also proved a landowner (Barker) stepped in and directed him away from Valerie by placing his hand on dennis' shoulder saying "no no no Dennis." That is proof of Valerie's claim of simple assault and also motive for Daniel's need to make a statement of self defense.
The true bullies are the ones who stated under oath they did not feel threatened by what Daniel said until later. How much later and why?
The whole truth will be out soon enough!
Drip...drip...drip...
|
|
angel
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by angel on Nov 12, 2017 11:07:14 GMT -7
Stalking (by definition): Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.
All landowners have the right to attend the meetings without the threat of harassment and bullying...or physical threats by other landowners or Board members. Val and Daniel O'Connell should never be allowed to attend the Board meetings or Committee meetings ever again for this very reason.
They have proved time and again that they cannot be respectful towards others and are constantly interrupting and harassing the members. That is what this is about...not "he said/she said" and who is willing to lie in order to protect their reputation and defend their church.
We already know the truth of what happened. We are just waiting on a fair decision from the Judge. If landowners and the Board do not feel safe attending meetings, we will boycott. No one should feel threatened at a public meeting.
|
|
angel
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by angel on Nov 12, 2017 11:17:05 GMT -7
Thomas Moore...AKA Daniel O' Connell? LOL. Nice try.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 12:52:41 GMT -7
Thomas isn’t it spelled with one o? (More) Val, Daniel,
Angel is correct! Naturally you More (by way of Val) are spreading your views to people who did not attend the hearing. Mr Barker testified that he did not fear for (Val’s) her safety even when she wanted that to be his testimony by repeating that refrain. He did not support Val’s contention that Dennis assaulted her, although Val kept repeating it even when not supported by the facts. If by being 4 feet away constitutes “ASSAULT” THEN VAL HAS BEEN ASSAULTING PEOPLE FOR YEARS!!
Val is constantly making UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS against people during meetings of hateful, hurtful, why do you hate me, hating the church she used to belong to, poor me I’m a victim. A common refrain from some of their members. She is under the impression that if she says something enough it becomes “truth” as her warped sense of reality sees it. He, Mr Barker, did not turn, stop or redirect Dennis’ direction (his testimony) but put his hand on Dennis’ shoulder and stated to Dennis that Val just wanted his energy (something to that effect) and nothing like what your implying above. Dennis, lots of times after meetings, comes over to talk to landowners.
You think because you make a statement (like Val and Daniel) that it is “truth” but couldn’t be farther from the truth! You, like the O’Connell’s, must be living in an alternate reality than the rest of us. Your view of what happened in court is distorted and slanted for what reason I have no clue. You (Val & your partner Daniel) harass, try to intimidate, badger and continually disrespect landowners, and have done so for years period. I heard that Val harassed the Barker’s about what to testify to so much they stopped answering Val’s calls? How many witness’ didn’t show up to support the O’Connell’s? How many witness showed up to support the Board?
That should tell the side of story about the O’Connell’s after intelligent research which detectives always do to find the truth!!
|
|
angel
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by angel on Nov 12, 2017 14:13:00 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Moore on Nov 12, 2017 14:39:04 GMT -7
Angel, Lol nice try to you too ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) They say ignorance of the law is no excuse...but for you! And here is a clue that is Seau for you. It matters not that barker felt fear or no, only that he was near and stepped in like so and redirecting stated "No no no Dennis." I suggest that it is you who has the warped sense of reality and truth. Maybe it's time to cleanse your lens. Rightness is never measured by visible numbers alone.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Moore on Nov 12, 2017 15:38:56 GMT -7
Angel, you may want to modify the beginning of your nom de plume (some thing which perhaps rhymes with lark), for truth it seems does not shine in your eye. A simple google search of his, Daniel's name does not go to the site you linked to. You are 0-4 for truthfulness.
From the amount of lies at the linked site, it looks like you posted this yourself. Perhaps I should call you Harold?
I do find it strange though there is no negative sentiment on this forum site about the O'Connell's until recently.
Btw a number of us landowners personally thanked the O'Connell's for the positive changes their lawsuits brought. The few do not speak for the many nor the many for the few.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Moore on Nov 12, 2017 16:11:51 GMT -7
Oh Angel you do know there is such thing as cyber stalking right? Encouraging others to bully someone online is also a crime these days. So is libel. Careful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 17:03:26 GMT -7
Really Thomas? Seriously? You might want to examine your statements and thought processes a little closer they are almost unintelligible and make no sense. We still live in a country of “free speech” and “free opinions” and with your attitude and perceptions maybe you should cease to post your opinions since threats seem to be your answer. Angel just posted what was already on the site.
I was hoping for intellectual responses and not knee jerk emotional blather against other people’s opinions. Angel, obviously Thomas has picked up the O’Connell play book of threatening lawsuits. What say we don’t waste our time on this persons intellectual deficiency’s in the area of honest debate?
OK Angel?
Clouseau
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Moore on Nov 12, 2017 18:27:15 GMT -7
Free is speech as you say Clouseau, so long as that speech be true.
But when that speech is a lie it does give, that one harmed the right to sue.
Or perhaps you'd prefer to revert, to the rule of the fist, duel, lance, or stone?
Take heed how ye choose, for thy freedom ye may lose; for each sin must be atoned.
|
|
angel
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by angel on Nov 13, 2017 10:10:15 GMT -7
Threads and Posts
Total Threads: 666 Total Posts: 1,333 Last Updated: O'Connell Restraining Order Hearing Results by Thomas Moore (15 hours ago) Recent Threads - Recent Posts - RSS Feed - Mark All Boards Read
Interesting set of numbers on this site right now! For those of you who enjoy "Numerology"!
Numerology is any belief in the divine, mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.
|
|