Lying under oath...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
 
  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Lying under oath...

    So I guess the list about JF lying under oath (which is true) is not acceptable???! The post gets deleted for what! She needs to be gone along with BA... The other post that talk about issues within the department stay up? God forbid we hurt JFs feelings...
        

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    So I guess the list about JF lying under oath (which is true) is not acceptable???! The post gets deleted for what! She needs to be gone along with BA... The other post that talk about issues within the department stay up? God forbid we hurt JFs feelings...
    You didnt catch 733 taking up for her.
        

  3. #3
    Member LEO Affairs Road Patrol Mod 732's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    59
    I am the Moderator that deleted the thread regarding JF. Although I don't have to explain anything, I will do so as a courtesy.

    Let me begin by saying that I have no idea who "JF" is or anything about her. She could come up to my doorstep and I wouldn't know her unless it was on her name tag. I don't I also don't know who Mod 733 is, or what he/she does does for a living, or anything about him/her. I have no personal stake about either one of them. All I know is that Mod 733 is a new Forum Mod on this website.

    The original scope of the thread was a complaint that JF had allegedly lied during an Internal Affairs Investigation. Several posts alluded to that as well as other females that had conducted themselves in an unprofessional or unlawful manner but seemed to get away with their actions with minimal, if any, corrective action.

    Although this website can be used for officers to vent, the thread itself is based on assumptions and suppositions. JF was accused of lying in an I.A. but there was no proof to substantiate it. Other posters stated her I.A. was unsustained unsubstantiated and there was no evidence to state otherwise.

    Also, other officers and personnel were being slammed. Either way, the posts violates the Terms of Use.

    An excerpt of the TOU states "This is not a SLAM site and the Forums should be used constructively. Messages (anonymous or not) accusing anyone (including political candidates) of wrong doing (and/or criminal accusations) without substantial proof or reference are subject to deletion."

    Since the thread is based on unsupported and unsubstantiated claims, I therefore deleted it in its entirety. The fact is, comments made against individuals that are deemed false are not protected by freedom of speech. The posts can and will be deleted; and the posters themselves can be banned.

    Furthermore, the thread was apparently hijacked by people posting about Randy Jones. I will not state Mr. Jones himself was the poster, for I have zero evidence to support it. He and his family have been attacked on this site in the past, and like Mod 1 has alluded to in the past, I will not tolerate an attack on someone's family. I don't know Mr. Jones or all of the facts of his complaint and will not comment on it.

    But even if Jones had not been brought up, the fact that posters have stated that her IA was unsubstantiated or unsustained, I am led to believe that the original scope itself is based on assumptions. Without substantial proof, how do we know that she 1) Was untruthful during the I.A., and 2) Her alleged Untruthfullness in an Official Proceeding was sustained. This is usually a career killer, and she would be subject to being added to the Brady List.

    The following is a link to the Terms of Use:

    http://forums.leoaffairs.com/showthr...8-Terms-of-Use


    If you disagree with the thread being deleted, please do not hesitate to reach out to Mod 1.

    Thanks,

    Mod 732.
    "Some smart man once said that on the most exalted throne in the world, we are seated on nothing but our own arse" -Wendell Mayes
        

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod 732 View Post
    I am the Moderator that deleted the thread regarding JF. Although I don't have to explain anything, I will do so as a courtesy.

    Let me begin by saying that I have no idea who "JF" is or anything about her. She could come up to my doorstep and I wouldn't know her unless it was on her name tag. I don't I also don't know who Mod 733 is, or what he/she does does for a living, or anything about him/her. I have no personal stake about either one of them. All I know is that Mod 733 is a new Forum Mod on this website.

    The original scope of the thread was a complaint that JF had allegedly lied during an Internal Affairs Investigation. Several posts alluded to that as well as other females that had conducted themselves in an unprofessional or unlawful manner but seemed to get away with their actions with minimal, if any, corrective action.

    Although this website can be used for officers to vent, the thread itself is based on assumptions and suppositions. JF was accused of lying in an I.A. but there was no proof to substantiate it. Other posters stated her I.A. was unsustained unsubstantiated and there was no evidence to state otherwise.

    Also, other officers and personnel were being slammed. Either way, the posts violates the Terms of Use.

    An excerpt of the TOU states "This is not a SLAM site and the Forums should be used constructively. Messages (anonymous or not) accusing anyone (including political candidates) of wrong doing (and/or criminal accusations) without substantial proof or reference are subject to deletion."

    Since the thread is based on unsupported and unsubstantiated claims, I therefore deleted it in its entirety. The fact is, comments made against individuals that are deemed false are not protected by freedom of speech. The posts can and will be deleted; and the posters themselves can be banned.

    Furthermore, the thread was apparently hijacked by people posting about Randy Jones. I will not state Mr. Jones himself was the poster, for I have zero evidence to support it. He and his family have been attacked on this site in the past, and like Mod 1 has alluded to in the past, I will not tolerate an attack on someone's family. I don't know Mr. Jones or all of the facts of his complaint and will not comment on it.

    But even if Jones had not been brought up, the fact that posters have stated that her IA was unsubstantiated or unsustained, I am led to believe that the original scope itself is based on assumptions. Without substantial proof, how do we know that she 1) Was untruthful during the I.A., and 2) Her alleged Untruthfullness in an Official Proceeding was sustained. This is usually a career killer, and she would be subject to being added to the Brady List.

    The following is a link to the Terms of Use:

    http://forums.leoaffairs.com/showthr...8-Terms-of-Use


    If you disagree with the thread being deleted, please do not hesitate to reach out to Mod 1.

    Thanks,

    Mod 732.
    The IA is public record...so there is enough to substantiate the allegations, just saying. Anyone with morals who takes pride in their job as a law enforcement officer would be displeased that she was kept as a LEO after lying during an official investigation. People like that are the ones who give the rest of us who bust their ass a bad rep and are why LEOS are not trusted and hated by society.
        

  5. #5
    Member LEO Affairs Road Patrol Mod 732's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The IA is public record...so there is enough to substantiate the allegations, just saying. Anyone with morals who takes pride in their job as a law enforcement officer would be displeased that she was kept as a LEO after lying during an official investigation. People like that are the ones who give the rest of us who bust their ass a bad rep and are why LEOS are not trusted and hated by society.
    Ok, perhaps I was a bit unclear and for that I apologize. I don't know any of the particulars of the I.A. and have no inclination of obtaining a copy of it.

    The IA may or may not have been sustained, but regarding this website, there is no evidence to support that claim. In other words, anonymous posters have said there were sustained findings and others indicated otherwise. So who am I or any reasonably prudent person to believe? For all I know the same person could be accusing and defending her. I do not know. I'm not implying that the I.A. was unsubstantiated.

    The bottom line is this: pertaining to this forum, there is nothing to substantiate the claim and the accusations are unsubstantiated and violated the TOU. Since that in itself was the subject of the thread, the thread in its entirety was deleted.

    Again, I apologize if I didn't make it clear in the previous post.

    Thanks,

    Mod 732
    "Some smart man once said that on the most exalted throne in the world, we are seated on nothing but our own arse" -Wendell Mayes
        

  6. #6
    Member LEO Affairs Road Patrol Mod 732's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    59
    Ok, this is not going to be another subject that becomes a Randy Jones thread. If any of you have an issue please contact Mod 1. Stay on topic please.

    Thanks

    Mod 732
    "Some smart man once said that on the most exalted throne in the world, we are seated on nothing but our own arse" -Wendell Mayes
        

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The IA is public record...so there is enough to substantiate the allegations, just saying. Anyone with morals who takes pride in their job as a law enforcement officer would be displeased that she was kept as a LEO after lying during an official investigation. People like that are the ones who give the rest of us who bust their ass a bad rep and are why LEOS are not trusted and hated by society.
    If you are so “displeased” with JF, why don’t you go talk about it to her face and get her side???? That’s what I did. Most of these dudes running their mouths probably wouldn’t even have the balls to ask her straight up. What happened to being men? Now we are hiding behind a computer??? Unbelievable. She’s a pretty nice person and a good deputy I might add. And no I’m not “sleeping with her” since that was one of your claims in a previous post. Haven’t heard a single damn thing like that about her. You must have a super small ****
        

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod 732 View Post
    Ok, perhaps I was a bit unclear and for that I apologize. I don't know any of the particulars of the I.A. and have no inclination of obtaining a copy of it.

    The IA may or may not have been sustained, but regarding this website, there is no evidence to support that claim. In other words, anonymous posters have said there were sustained findings and others indicated otherwise. So who am I or any reasonably prudent person to believe? For all I know the same person could be accusing and defending her. I do not know. I'm not implying that the I.A. was unsubstantiated.

    The bottom line is this: pertaining to this forum, there is nothing to substantiate the claim and the accusations are unsubstantiated and violated the TOU. Since that in itself was the subject of the thread, the thread in its entirety was deleted.

    Again, I apologize if I didn't make it clear in the previous post.

    Thanks,

    Mod 732
    The bottom line is you just closed this forum because no matter the subject someone will disagree even if you have proof as long as someone says no you dont its a violation of the TOU. Really? With that being said go back and look at the other threads still open you might as well lock every one of them.
        

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The bottom line is you just closed this forum because no matter the subject someone will disagree even if you have proof as long as someone says no you dont its a violation of the TOU. Really? With that being said go back and look at the other threads still open you might as well lock every one of them.
    What proof do you have on this website? Only your word? The word of an anonymous poster? If that's all you got then you got nothing.
        

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    What proof do you have on this website? Only your word? The word of an anonymous poster? If that's all you got then you got nothing.
    The IA is public record...so there is enough to substantiate the allegations, just saying. Anyone with morals who takes pride in their job as a law enforcement officer would be displeased that she was kept as a LEO after lying during an official investigation. People like that are the ones who give the rest of us who bust their ass a bad rep and are why LEOS are not trusted and hated by society.

    You didnt read this post did you
        

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •