Effie,

I finally found the reference on the Bully Monster site. Your analysis of the situation is correct. AFRA's de facto publication gets it wrong, again. If AFRA thinks confidentiality has been breached, why don't they condemn the person who first breached it, e.g. Ms. Treadwell? Why pick on Greg for responding? Oh, silly me. . .they pick on Greg BECAUSE he responded. He's supposed to be gagged to prevent the entire story from comming out.  In America, no less. Free speech and free press does not apply to non-AFRA individuals.

First of all. . .it's blatently obvious Billy isn't writing this stuff. He has ghost writers - AFRA ghost writers. How can I tell?

Second. . .the blather being written is consistent with the writing style and content of an identifiable core group of Shell-bashers. It is inconsistent with Billy's historical cognative and writing abilities,  but is it quite consistent with Hinger, Tower, and a few others. Like I said, writing style is as distinctive as a fingerprint.

Third. . .the legal analysis supporting all the confusing rhetoric on that site is wholly consistent with the legal analytical abilities of AFRA leadership and prominent members. They strain and stretch to find SOME. . .ANY nitpicky violation they can to twist and turn against us. What they don't realize is that they are making themselves look like complete idiots with their strained analysis, especially by ignoring the context of the incident they are discussing. They think the reader is too stupid to pick up on their crude spin doctoring - a clear insult to the reader which will turn the reader off. It's obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that this site is nothing more than yellow journalism. 

Fourth. . .need I point out that their presentation of the 'facts' proves The Editors@... theories that at least some of these people are sociapathic? They don't understand metaphor and interpret figurative speech as literal threats. . . a common pathology of the sociopath. In fact, they are so blind to their inability to understand the communication tools used by the rest of society that they don't even recognize that they are not going to convince their intented audience because they don't understand the context or the language the rest of society operates under. Billy because of his cognaitve disablity and the ghost writers, because of their pathology. Even AFRA members condemn that site. . .behind AFRA's back for fear of retaliation. Why won't AFRA condemn it? Because it is a de facto AFRA publication.

AFRA - you don't have a credible writer or legal analyst or public speaker in your entire group. Why publicize this weakness so loudly? Some friendly advice. . .figure out what your strengths are and go with them, you'll get a lot further. Stop trying to compete in arenas where you are so miserably unqualified to do so. It's pathetically embarassing.

Suzanne


lbe818@... wrote:

Dear All,
 
I have had the opportunity to hear the comments regarding Evelyn Treadwell's indiscretion of putting her case details up on a yahoogroup post.
 
As most of you know, I have done great research into public records and how to obtain your public records.  Someone erroneously believes that what Evelyn published was confidential.   Well, confidentiality laws apply to closed hearings.  In Evelyn's situation, the guardianship was done in MA Probate and Family Court, in open session, so it was completely public.   Anyone could get the information, by getting the documents in the public court file on the guardianship, and the hearing tape of the hearings.

 

Evelyn.  As a party to this case, decided, of her own free will to publish the information about her case on the AFRA site.  Therefore, she has voided any claims to confidentiality.
 
However, she did not mention the mother's name, the minor child's name or other details which would be kept confidential under Mass. law.
 
In turn, Greg, who is no longer her attorney also did not breach the privacy of the mother's name or the minor child's name.  Therefore, the legal analysis of AFRA associate Billy Wiseman  has reached an erroneous conclusion thinking that anyone breached a confidentiality issue.  Once published in an open court proceeding, it is no longer confidential but a public record.
 
Here is the open records law in MA governing court information:
 
(c) In any court proceeding pursuant to paragraph (b) there shall be a presumption that the record sought is public, and the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. 
 
Hope that clears up any confusion.
 
effie

.