August 31, 2004

Rex,
By no means do i agree with some posts here and i for one am glad that there are members like you that do have the gift of words to debate this sort of thing. It's not that i don't want to voice an oppinion i just don't have the gift of being a public speaker to debate this Attacks.

Thanks To All The Members for their gift of WORDS.

_________________
The Rose Investigations LLC
Collection Agency
Security & Investigations Consultant
Retired Private Investigator & Bail Enforcement
NAM VET 1969- 1975 US Army (RECON)
Office 260-220-3877
1-888-631-5520
Fax 260-456-6062

David,

I knew from where your postition came as your posts are consistently in keeping with strong logic in a no nonsense presentation, so we're on the same page.

L.A.W. is a what you see is a what you get old-school professional with such an esteemed background that one has to wonder why in the world people with no ostensible expertise in private contract enforcement would enter herein to argue with an icon of the industry with nothing more than their feelings.

My inclination to enter into debate arrives from my strong position that to keep the record straight.

Rex

To L.A.W and whomever it may concern: The fact that my son has a record has nothing to do with my ignorance of bail recovery. The fact is that I was, through no choice of my own, an absent father when he was young, and he went the way many fatherless boys do. I am now trying to make that up to him, which is something that I have in common with Mr. Chapman.

No, I do not think that Mr. Chapman, or my son, or any other human being should ever be told that they are to serve a life sentence of not being allowed to work in a chosen profession FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. When the sentence is over the sentence should be OVER!! The man has demonstrated that he wants to go straight for the last twenty years!!

The man in the headlock did have a contorted face because he was being restrained. Not because he was choking.

And what is this new accusation about Mr.Chapman driving children around while intoxicated!!!!???? Let's hear your proof on that one! LAW, you become more libelous by the hour!!

You claim to just be telling the truth, but your accusations are vague, and the ones you are specific on are untrue! If your accusations against Mr. Chapman are true, then why did you take them down from your website?? I'm sure you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart, or out of any sense of fair play or decency!! You probably took them down because in your heart you know that some them are suable! I did see that you posted them, under another name, under the Toolbox website. Come on, Law, admit that it was you! But now you don't want to claim these vague and untrue accusations, so you are using another name on the "Toolbox" website. You are very recognizable!

As for his having broken the law by going through California to investigate Luster, he could have been in California for any reason. Anyone has a right to walk around on Californian soil.

Mr. Chapman is NOT a criminal. He is an EX-criminal. There is a BIG difference! He is still a human being. He should still have a right to work in the profession that he has been doing for the last twenty years. For you to assert that he should have done everything just the way you would have done it is assinine. And it's not about the law. Your accusations against him are exagerated to the point of being almost outright lies.

You people are not "afraid" of anything. You are, like Carine said, jealous. If any of you ever do get your own shows, you will be less jealous, and you will look back and see how silly you were acting.

Why do you keep harping on the fact, yes FACT, that some of us know nothing about recovery law?? This is not about recovery law. It is about common decency, mercy or cruelty, justice, and injustice. And the whole bunch of you are being very cruel and unjust to Mr. Chapman.


WE don't have a life LAW??? It seems you don't have much of a life, since you spend so much time on this board and on other internet boards trying to ruin the life of Mr. Chapman.

You are certainly no heroes.

I see you finally made parole and went right to your keyboard.

Anything I have written regarding Chapman is true substantiated by a 2" file of proof. As for Chapman driving his kids around when he was intoxicated... first I ever heard of that one. Its probably true though because of four convictions for Driving Under the Influence, the latest being March 29, 1976 (do you think his kids were little then?). These convictions were only a portion of the record that shows convictions for larceny, burglary, poss. burglar tools, accessory after the fact, accessory to homicide and a large number of convictions for armed robberies. My statement was that Chapman used to take his little kids on cases, not driving while intoxicated. This information is from his own admission in an interview that was published in Midland. Once again, Mr. Thayer, you lose. It fell from his own large oral cavity.

As for me being libelous... let us hope so. I would welcome such a situation so there would be national exposure in the various medias on all the facts. I don't believe even Mr. Chapman wants that type of exposure.

The kid in the choke hold was not only being restrained unnecessarily but the subject of excessive force as well. It is my belief that Chapman did it merely because of camera presence. I wonder what his excuse is for only yelling to his son Leland to cover up when Leland was on the ground being punched and kicked while Chapman sought the safety of staying behind a vehicle. I didn't see Chapman going to assist his own son. He only yelled from the sidelines "cover up, son, cover up". All that, and far more, merely reflects the attitude and condition of moral cowardice. And you, Mr. Thayer, seem to fall into the category of one who is not only preaching from ignorance but shouting from the inside of an empty barrel where you make the loudest noise. A noise without substance that serves only to dissipate like the morning mist on a mountain.

I removed Chapman from my webside at the request of Tom Evangelista in New York City, a long-standing friend of mine, and for no other reason. You can catch Tom's show on HBO, Family Bonds, and contact him for verification.

Mr. Thayer, you have finally convinced me that you are not worth the effort to respond to your outlandish, uneducated, pointless, moronic and totally ridiculous postings. You are, to me, a man without merit... a person with no substance who wouldn't even take care of his own child and now wants to live off any positive claims of others. It is my belief you should seek immediate counselling.

I see you did not post anything for your profile.

PS_ look around. Some of us do have our own shows. One, in particular, aired on national television on October 15th, 2004 in which some of us on this forum (including myself) were featured. Be sure to check your TV Guide for applicable listings in the summer of 2005. You will see me on a weekly series (so much for the jealousy angle).

Have a quality day, Mr. Thayer. As Mr. Chapman is prone to spout, "Amen. In Jesus' name."

_________________
Lance Allen Wilkinson
Recoveries by L.A.W.
Serving since 1984
“What is sought is found... what is overlooked escapes” (Oedipus Rex)

Mr. Thayer,

Again, I find your logic to be absent any working knowledge of the current state of legislative affairs when it comes to private citizen contract enforcement and the law in general.

To apply your logic that Mr. Chapman has been doing bail recovery for 20 years and therefore should be given a pass on new laws is very curious indeed. Take California gun laws for example. New laws get passed and law abiding citizens have to change the way the do things and some even lose the right keep and bear arms. Just because a person owned guns responsibly isn't an argument to ignore new laws.

Mr. Chapman did not just take a walk in California where ex-felons or prohibited to engage in bail fugitive recovery. In point of media documented fact, he was here to work the Luster case--period.

For the last time, Mr. Chapman had no justification whatsoever to literally choke a handcuffed, compliant bail bond client amounting to excessive force and can even be construed as torture with the latter of the two drawing a life sentence if convicted here in California.

A felony conviction must have teeth or the severity of being convicted of a felony will be marginalized. As L.A.W. indicated, Mr. Chapman has a long record of criminal activity, and, today, if he embarked on such a career here in California he'd be looking at 25-to-life under the 3-Strikes law.

Truth is a positive defense against allegations of Slander and or Libel. Before stating your position that anyone should or could be held liable for anything it may be in your best interests to do your homework first.

It appears from your most recent post that you are taking action to make up for lost time with your son, and it is my sincere wish that you and your son find peace and enjoy good health. However, a felony conviction is devastating to a person's future whether or not that person wants to go straight, and it is for this reason that a felony conviction is to be avoided whenever possible.

L.A.W., please do tell about this new show if you can.

Rex

rex... I cannot elaborate on the new show at this time. Suffice to say the format is far different than any presented in the media thus far covering facets previously unexplored.

_________________
Lance Allen Wilkinson
Recoveries by L.A.W.
Serving since 1984
“What is sought is found... what is overlooked escapes” (Oedipus Rex)

I understand.

Rex

I AM BACK FROM THE ABYSS OF NO COMPUTER LAND(EMAIL STILL DOWN)
ALOT HAS GONE DOWN IN MY ABSENCE-SIMPLY SAID BOTH LAW AND REX ARE A LOT BETTER WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAN I AM-THEY HAVE SAID IT ALL
HERES MY TWO CENTS WORTH AGAIN-ON EVERY DU-DU SHOW I WATCH I SPOT ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL ACTS DONE BY THE DU-DU GROUP PERIOD- ILLEGAL BADGES-ILLEGAL ARREST PROCEDURES- SAYING I AM LAW ENFORCEMENT-THE LUSTER FIASCO STARTED ILLEGALLY (DU-DU HAD NO ARREST AUTH FROM THE BEGINNING) AND JUST GOT WORSE-THE UNMITIGATED GALL TO GO BEFORE A CAL. COURT TO REQUEST BAIL MONEY FOR LUSTER CAPTURE-ALL OF THESE ACTS SHOW A DISREGUARD FOR ETHICS THE LAW AND PROCEDURES.
I ALSO SAY AND EX FELON IS AN EX FELON YESTERDAY IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE HE SERVED HIS TIME AND SHOULD HAVE HIS RIGHTS RESTORED(IN ALL CASES BUT ACTS OF VIOLENCE)-THE FACT THAT HE CHOSES TO VIOLATE THE LAW CONSISTANTLY SHOWS HE STILL HAS A DISTAIN FOR THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND IN MY OPINION HAS NOT EARNED THE TITLE OF EX FELON BUT CONTINUES TO BE A FELON AND OFFEND
AS FOR JELOUSY NO I AM NOT JELOUS BUT WORRIED HIS BRAND OF TV SHOW MAKE ALL BEA LOOK LIKE CLOWNS AND FOOLS - I AM NEITHER BUT GET PAINTED WITH THE SAME BRUSH BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC AGAIN I SAY WE AS A GROUP NEED TO STAND AND BE COUNTED - WE WILL NOT ABIDE HIS KIND MUDDYING OUR WATERS WE NEED TO LOBBY OUR LEGISLATORS FOR BETTER STRONGER LAWS CONCERNING OUR PROFFESSION

I didnt want to get in on this post. even Though I have been reading things here they really do not seem to hold my interest. Sorry not in this business so most of it doesnt really effect me I guess.

But had two points I wanted to make LAW said" the latest being March 29, 1976 " That was in 1976 so I am wondering what it has to do with 2004 ( almost 2005) that was what 28 , 29 years ago.. That seems like a lot of time to go by to make some one accountable for a mistake. Just my thought.

I did have the following though sentto me and it may be something that Law and others keep in mind. I am not sticking up for DOG CHapman I am pointing out that this happened in Canada and many states have had similar cases since then and have rules in a similar mannor. so when posting things in public where ips and other thinsg can be traced some people may want to be careful. here is the thing that was brought to my attension.
By COLIN FREEZE
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
An Ontario judge has awarded an archeologist $125,000
in damages after a native man used e-mails to smear
her as a grave robber.

The archeologist's lawyer is calling the ruling a
precedent-setting one in the emerging field of
Internet libel, a notion that may eventually have a
chilling effect on the freewheeling ways computer
users send messages.

People seem to think there is a level of anonymity to
e-mail and the Internet. And that it's a lawless
area, said winning lawyer Berkley Sells. And clearly
it is not, nor should it be.

In a decision released this week, Madam Justice Wailan
Low of the Ontario Superior Court sketched out a rough
hierarchy of what she called cyberlibel.

Posting slanderous remarks on a popular website, where
millions of users might pick them up and circulate
them, might be one the more egregious uses of
technology, she said. But close behind that is
e-mailing libellous remarks in an attempt to smear
someone's reputation.

Clearly, the use of e-mail is far more powerful than
the sending out of a multiple of hard-copy letters
defaming the plaintiff, Judge Low ruled.

The Internet is rife with people insulting one
another, but what made this case defamatory was that
the medium was used in a calculated attempt to defame
someone's professional reputation. The native man
circulated his e-mail widely and asked it to be passed
along to as many people as possible.

And eventually, the message made it onto the computer
monitors of government regulators and the
archeologist's bosses. This meant it was calculated
to cause the plaintiff the maximum embarrassment and
professional harm, according to Judge Low.

The plaintiff is Cheryl Ross, a prehistoric
archeologist affiliated with Wilfrid Laurier
University, in Waterloo, Ont., who sued Pat Holley
over his comments.

Dr. Ross had befriended Mr. Holley's wife while
working on the site of an Indian reserve that was once
home to a 17th-century Huron village. Court documents
indicate that Mr. Holley has long acted erratically,
especially as he came to blame the archeologist for
the breakdown of his marriage.

The lawsuit said that in October, 2003, Mr. Holley
sent more than 30 people an e-mail titled beware of .
.. . grave robber cheryl ross archeologist. It
asserted that she robbed human remains from his
driveway, in conjunction with one of her supervisors
at the university.

Please forword [sic] this to as many people and list
as possible, the e-mail said.

That started a chain reaction, in which the false
allegations  buttressed with pictures of bone
fragments that Mr. Holley said were human remains 
were passed along until they reached the registrar of
Ontario's cemeteries unit.

He contacted Wilfrid Laurier University about the
e-mail, and court documents show that exchange led to
another one in which Dr. Ross's supervisor e-mailed
her to ask: Cheryl, what the hell is going on?

. . . I know that none of this is true but I need to
know why they would be accusing you of [this], the
supervisor said. We need to jump on this soon as it
could effect you professionally at least in Canada.

Mr. Holley did not appear in court to defend himself.
Judge Low agreed that the e-mail was malicious,
defamatory and untrue. General damages were pegged at
$75,000 plus another $50,000 in aggravated damages.

The judge did this, knowing it amounted to hitting Mr.
Holley for all he was worth, or very close to it. In
her decision, she said the damages amounted to
equivalent to all or a significant portion of the
defendant's assets.

Before this, there has been very little case law in
the field of cyberlibel, although a June Ontario Court
of Appeal decision was instructive. In that case, a
homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for
libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.



*** so as you can see this new liability is getting some ground work and I would hate to see anyone here get hurt. after all no matter how much we think we do or do not know about the law there is always a judge and jury that can change our view with a differant out look.

A noun - slander... words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another.

Slanderous remarks are one thing... writing the truth about anyone (whether in the public eye or not) is quite another... the key phrase here is "words falsely spoken". People tend to confuse the two.

Ever notice that when one writes or speaks the truth about another that isn't to his or her liking the other tends to cry 'slander' and 'libel'. I have a 2" file on the matter to verify any statements I've made. Actually, I would absolutely 'love' to be sued for slander... then the truth would come out in the national media and I don't think the 'subject' of this situation wants that to happen.

_________________
Lance Allen Wilkinson
Recoveries by L.A.W.
Serving since 1984
“What is sought is found... what is overlooked escapes” (Oedipus Rex)