Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BeenThere]

I don't know Stewart, except from his long-ago thoughtful posts on these forums as "Stewart the Yalie". I have no idea what he was going through or why he chose to do what he did. It appears that neither do you.

Neither his words nor thoughts matter.  It is his actions which are the measure of the man.  He dishonored his oath as a lawyer, he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he abandoned clients, and then refused to answer questions about these actions.

Bad relationships with government doesn't degrade anybody in my mind. More of a badge of honor.

You need to distinguish between the various types of "Bad relationships with government."  Criminals have "Bad relationships with government."  I'm sure you wouldn't consider that a "badge of honor" in such cases.

His clients had "Bad relationships with government."  He contracted to represent them before a government court.  That is a badge of honor.  He proceeded to misrepresented himself, then abandon those clients. He did not honor his contracted obligation. That is a stain of dishonor, the magnitude of which can only be diminished by humility and contrition.  As soon as we see what Rhodes has said about this affair, we might know whether he has either.

[Elias Alias]

This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,

Elias, this is already out in the public. 

Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.

It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving.  Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate.  Principles before personality.

I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.

Elias Alias, what one prefers be done can be contrary to what should be done.  It is in the best interest of OK that every member, and potential member, know this.  Without full disclosure, it will be used by those who want to discredit OK at a time of their choosing. You don't want to worry about how or when that will happen. You want to be the one to decide how and when. You don't want it to look like there is a cover up.

Waking Enigma, I got no bone to pick.  I was considering joining OK.  But, I don't join any organization without fully vetting the leadership and key members.  I do the homework.  It's called due diligence.  It didn't take long to find out about Rhodes.  That is why the lack of knowledge about him is surprising - if I can find this information, you can be sure your detractors can.  Is it good for the membership to know less about their leader than his enemies?  There lies the road to ruin.  Speaking the truth is not 'spreading the hate bashing.'

If it was discussed in a forum during November 2015, that was before the disbarment.  I for one would like to see Rhodes' explanation.  Right now, the facts seem to bear that Rhodes did a number of things that a lawyer just does not do - he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he mislead and then abandoned clients without notice to them and the court, he ignored orders to respond to the complaints, and he blew off a court order to appear.  Again, you just don't do that if you still want a career in law.  Of course, if you have another source of income (like some organization you "lead") then maybe you don't care.  But that's not the point.  He had obligations to others, and he shrugged them off.  As a man, that is something you just don't do.

You are both right, the mission is what is important.  However, you cannot keep the mission and the man separate when the man threatens the success of the mission.  Especially when the personality has no principles, as has been amply demonstrated.  For bringing dishonor upon Oathkeepers, the only honorable thing for Rhodes to do would be to resign and remove himself from anything to do with Oathkeepers.

Well, you're just quite the philosopher, indeed. Of course, the way you see things is always the correct way to see things, I can surmise that from your manifest un-wavering self-assurance that you know what is best.

I am not arguing with your points. I do disagree with your perceived need to open this up and then keep it open. To me, the whole matter should be between you and Stewart, not a topic for public discussion. But that is just my opinion, and obviously is not what you would choose.

Whatever damage you want to do has already been done, so I release you to your highest good. You have every right to your opinion, and you also have the right to be void of class, dignity, compassion, and forgiveness. If that is what gives you your jollies, then so be it. I'm just cut from a different cloth, so I'll invite you to keep your opinions while you reciprocate that right to me as well. It is my opinion that a man -- any man -- can make mistakes, for we all seem to make mistakes at one time or another. However, when a man has given this country as valuable a vision as Stewart has given the nation, I tend to recall my capacity for compassion and forgiveness, while it appears that you enjoy twisting the knife after you've stabbed it in. Like I said, I sense that you and I are not cut from the same cloth, but I'm okay with that.

As the owner of these forums and having been the senior editor for Oath Keepers for almost seven years now, I can tell you that I may know more about Stewart and Oath Keepers than your "due diligence" has provided your discernment. I submit (not to you, but to other readers here) that if you knew what I know you may not be so sure about how to respond to Stewart's mistakes. I am not going to be the one to throw Stewart under the bus, for I still believe that all men make mistakes and I would not deprive Stewart of the opportunity to correct past mistakes. That would be what Christians refer to as "God's business", not mine. It's between Stewart and his conscience.

I am just lamenting that TMM now is on record for publishing this embarrassment, but I am not saying you are wrong about your ice-cold points. What I would love to see happen in your mind would be a recollection of various aspects of Love's thought system, such as compassion, mercy, forgiveness, considerateness, empathy, personal dignity, balance, and oh yes, also some refreshing humility. Your notion of Stewart somehow needing to resign from the organization he created, based on some errors he made in his private role as an attorney, indicates to me that you have little of those traits I just listed. But please do go forward as you will. You are abiding by our terms of service here, and are welcome to express your truest nature as best you will.

I would like to state that Stewart owns Oath Keepers, but I own TMM's forums and national website. The two are not related, not connected other than by coincidences such as Stewart having been registered here for a couple of years before he started Oath Keepers and the fact that I work for Oath Keepers as their editor. TMM is its own entity, was here long before Oath Keepers came along, and remains completely a separate entity in all respects. I own the license for The Mental Militia LLC, which is a registered business. I have no ownership in Oath Keepers. In that context, what goes on with Oath Keepers cannot be a reflection upon The Mental Militia. Thanks for reading. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "Welcome To The Monkey House".

Salute!
Elias

[SamCarter]

This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,

Elias, this is already out in the public. 

Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.

It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving.  Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate.  Principles before personality.

I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.

Elias Alias, what one prefers be done can be contrary to what should be done.  It is in the best interest of OK that every member, and potential member, know this.  Without full disclosure, it will be used by those who want to discredit OK at a time of their choosing. You don't want to worry about how or when that will happen. You want to be the one to decide how and when. You don't want it to look like there is a cover up.

Waking Enigma, I got no bone to pick.  I was considering joining OK.  But, I don't join any organization without fully vetting the leadership and key members.  I do the homework.  It's called due diligence.  It didn't take long to find out about Rhodes.  That is why the lack of knowledge about him is surprising - if I can find this information, you can be sure your detractors can.  Is it good for the membership to know less about their leader than his enemies?  There lies the road to ruin.  Speaking the truth is not 'spreading the hate bashing.'

If it was discussed in a forum during November 2015, that was before the disbarment.  I for one would like to see Rhodes' explanation.  Right now, the facts seem to bear that Rhodes did a number of things that a lawyer just does not do - he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he mislead and then abandoned clients without notice to them and the court, he ignored orders to respond to the complaints, and he blew off a court order to appear.  Again, you just don't do that if you still want a career in law.  Of course, if you have another source of income (like some organization you "lead") then maybe you don't care.  But that's not the point.  He had obligations to others, and he shrugged them off.  As a man, that is something you just don't do.

You are both right, the mission is what is important.  However, you cannot keep the mission and the man separate when the man threatens the success of the mission.  Especially when the personality has no principles, as has been amply demonstrated.  For bringing dishonor upon Oathkeepers, the only honorable thing for Rhodes to do would be to resign and remove himself from anything to do with Oathkeepers.

So you were "considering" joining, huh? I assume by that you mean you haven't joined. For a non member with no bone to pick you certainly seem to have your opinion about Stewart Rhodes and what Oathkeepers need. Well alright, you have a right to your opinion just as do I, and my opinion is I'm less sure about your commitment to the OK mission as I am about your desire to discredit Stewart.  Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to work for an alphabet agency would you?

[BeenThere]

  Should you trust the mission of Oathkeepers to a quitter?

I am not an Oath Keeper. Thankfully, I have never been a part of an organization that required the Oath to be taken. I will however, chime in to say that nobody asked you to join OKers. Nobody asked you to follow Rhodes. Nobody asked you to be the judge of whether or not OTHERS should follow Rhodes.

Please. You have no idea what lead to my interest in OK.

You are free to do as you please. What you seem to be implying though, is a coup. écraser légèrement, mon amie. Judging by your posts so far, you are sending up red flags. You seem to be a government "agent provocateur". Or at the very least, a misguided SJW.

There are many that have been affected by following the wrong guy. Just ask Destin! He'll let you know how he really feels about Boston T. Party. So, Is Rhodes the wrong guy to follow? I have no idea. You, along with everybody else that seeks to sign on with OKers, must make that decision for yourself.

Such decisions should be made after careful consideration of all information.  I looked for information, found it, and made my decision.  Those who choose to ignore any information, and follow or associate themselves with someone with a demonstrable lack of good judgement and good character, do so at their own peril.
Warning others of such peril does not make one an agent provocateur. 

I don't know this Destin fellow, but it sounds like he got burned by BTP.  He's not the first, and probably not the last.

Personally, I follow no one. I am a "maverick". I think for myself. I do not need, nor want, a "leader". Perhaps, you are the same. Well....... that is, assuming your intentions are pure, and you are not a POS agent provocateur.

Good for you.  We are alike in that respect.  However, one can not want or need a leader, yet still want to associate with like-minded people.  That seems to get harder with every day.

[BeenThere]

This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,

Elias, this is already out in the public. 

Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.

It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving.  Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate.  Principles before personality.

I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.

Elias Alias, what one prefers be done can be contrary to what should be done.  It is in the best interest of OK that every member, and potential member, know this.  Without full disclosure, it will be used by those who want to discredit OK at a time of their choosing. You don't want to worry about how or when that will happen. You want to be the one to decide how and when. You don't want it to look like there is a cover up.

Waking Enigma, I got no bone to pick.  I was considering joining OK.  But, I don't join any organization without fully vetting the leadership and key members.  I do the homework.  It's called due diligence.  It didn't take long to find out about Rhodes.  That is why the lack of knowledge about him is surprising - if I can find this information, you can be sure your detractors can.  Is it good for the membership to know less about their leader than his enemies?  There lies the road to ruin.  Speaking the truth is not 'spreading the hate bashing.'

If it was discussed in a forum during November 2015, that was before the disbarment.  I for one would like to see Rhodes' explanation.  Right now, the facts seem to bear that Rhodes did a number of things that a lawyer just does not do - he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he mislead and then abandoned clients without notice to them and the court, he ignored orders to respond to the complaints, and he blew off a court order to appear.  Again, you just don't do that if you still want a career in law.  Of course, if you have another source of income (like some organization you "lead") then maybe you don't care.  But that's not the point.  He had obligations to others, and he shrugged them off.  As a man, that is something you just don't do.

You are both right, the mission is what is important.  However, you cannot keep the mission and the man separate when the man threatens the success of the mission.  Especially when the personality has no principles, as has been amply demonstrated.  For bringing dishonor upon Oathkeepers, the only honorable thing for Rhodes to do would be to resign and remove himself from anything to do with Oathkeepers.

Well, you're just quite the philosopher, indeed. Of course, the way you see things is always the correct way to see things, I can surmise that from your manifest un-wavering self-assurance that you know what is best.

I am not arguing with your points. I do disagree with your perceived need to open this up and then keep it open. To me, the whole matter should be between you and Stewart, not a topic for public discussion. But that is just my opinion, and obviously is not what you would choose.

Whatever damage you want to do has already been done, so I release you to your highest good. You have every right to your opinion, and you also have the right to be void of class, dignity, compassion, and forgiveness. If that is what gives you your jollies, then so be it. I'm just cut from a different cloth, so I'll invite you to keep your opinions while you reciprocate that right to me as well. It is my opinion that a man -- any man -- can make mistakes, for we all seem to make mistakes at one time or another. However, when a man has given this country as valuable a vision as Stewart has given the nation, I tend to recall my capacity for compassion and forgiveness, while it appears that you enjoy twisting the knife after you've stabbed it in. Like I said, I sense that you and I are not cut from the same cloth, but I'm okay with that.

As the owner of these forums and having been the senior editor for Oath Keepers for almost seven years now, I can tell you that I may know more about Stewart and Oath Keepers than your "due diligence" has provided your discernment. I submit (not to you, but to other readers here) that if you knew what I know you may not be so sure about how to respond to Stewart's mistakes. I am not going to be the one to throw Stewart under the bus, for I still believe that all men make mistakes and I would not deprive Stewart of the opportunity to correct past mistakes. That would be what Christians refer to as "God's business", not mine. It's between Stewart and his conscience.

I am just lamenting that TMM now is on record for publishing this embarrassment, but I am not saying you are wrong about your ice-cold points. What I would love to see happen in your mind would be a recollection of various aspects of Love's thought system, such as compassion, mercy, forgiveness, considerateness, empathy, personal dignity, balance, and oh yes, also some refreshing humility. Your notion of Stewart somehow needing to resign from the organization he created, based on some errors he made in his private role as an attorney, indicates to me that you have little of those traits I just listed. But please do go forward as you will. You are abiding by our terms of service here, and are welcome to express your truest nature as best you will.

I would like to state that Stewart owns Oath Keepers, but I own TMM's forums and national website. The two are not related, not connected other than by coincidences such as Stewart having been registered here for a couple of years before he started Oath Keepers and the fact that I work for Oath Keepers as their editor. TMM is its own entity, was here long before Oath Keepers came along, and remains completely a separate entity in all respects. I own the license for The Mental Militia LLC, which is a registered business. I have no ownership in Oath Keepers. In that context, what goes on with Oath Keepers cannot be a reflection upon The Mental Militia. Thanks for reading. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "Welcome To The Monkey House".

Salute!
Elias

Elias, it is a shame that you choose to disparage the messenger, especially when the messenger thought you knew all that.  You have no idea what is in my heart, nor I yours, or Rhodes.  He needs no forgiveness from me. He needs forgiveness from those he's wronged.

Trying to keep this info under wraps will come back to bite OK, hard.

Let's hope we can read what Rhodes had to say.

[BeenThere]

So you were "considering" joining, huh? I assume by that you mean you haven't joined. For a non member with no bone to pick you certainly seem to have your opinion about Stewart Rhodes and what Oathkeepers need. Well alright, you have a right to your opinion just as do I, and my opinion is I'm less sure about your commitment to the OK mission as I am about your desire to discredit Stewart.  Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to work for an alphabet agency would you?

I commit to principles and ideals, not to any man.  I have, for a long time, longer than there has been the OK, been committed to many of the stated principles of OK.
I choose not to lend my good name to any organization lead by a man whose character, motives, and actions appear questionable. 
I am open to correction.

[WAKING ENIGMA]

This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,

Elias, this is already out in the public. 

Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.

It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving.  Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate.  Principles before personality.

I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.

Elias Alias, what one prefers be done can be contrary to what should be done.  It is in the best interest of OK that every member, and potential member, know this.  Without full disclosure, it will be used by those who want to discredit OK at a time of their choosing. You don't want to worry about how or when that will happen. You want to be the one to decide how and when. You don't want it to look like there is a cover up.

Waking Enigma, I got no bone to pick.  I was considering joining OK.  But, I don't join any organization without fully vetting the leadership and key members.  I do the homework.  It's called due diligence.  It didn't take long to find out about Rhodes.  That is why the lack of knowledge about him is surprising - if I can find this information, you can be sure your detractors can.  Is it good for the membership to know less about their leader than his enemies?  There lies the road to ruin.  Speaking the truth is not 'spreading the hate bashing.'

If it was discussed in a forum during November 2015, that was before the disbarment.  I for one would like to see Rhodes' explanation.  Right now, the facts seem to bear that Rhodes did a number of things that a lawyer just does not do - he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he mislead and then abandoned clients without notice to them and the court, he ignored orders to respond to the complaints, and he blew off a court order to appear.  Again, you just don't do that if you still want a career in law.  Of course, if you have another source of income (like some organization you "lead") then maybe you don't care.  But that's not the point.  He had obligations to others, and he shrugged them off.  As a man, that is something you just don't do.

You are both right, the mission is what is important.  However, you cannot keep the mission and the man separate when the man threatens the success of the mission.  Especially when the personality has no principles, as has been amply demonstrated.  For bringing dishonor upon Oathkeepers, the only honorable thing for Rhodes to do would be to resign and remove himself from anything to do with Oathkeepers.

Well, you're just quite the philosopher, indeed. Of course, the way you see things is always the correct way to see things, I can surmise that from your manifest un-wavering self-assurance that you know what is best.

I am not arguing with your points. I do disagree with your perceived need to open this up and then keep it open. To me, the whole matter should be between you and Stewart, not a topic for public discussion. But that is just my opinion, and obviously is not what you would choose.

Whatever damage you want to do has already been done, so I release you to your highest good. You have every right to your opinion, and you also have the right to be void of class, dignity, compassion, and forgiveness. If that is what gives you your jollies, then so be it. I'm just cut from a different cloth, so I'll invite you to keep your opinions while you reciprocate that right to me as well. It is my opinion that a man -- any man -- can make mistakes, for we all seem to make mistakes at one time or another. However, when a man has given this country as valuable a vision as Stewart has given the nation, I tend to recall my capacity for compassion and forgiveness, while it appears that you enjoy twisting the knife after you've stabbed it in. Like I said, I sense that you and I are not cut from the same cloth, but I'm okay with that.

As the owner of these forums and having been the senior editor for Oath Keepers for almost seven years now, I can tell you that I may know more about Stewart and Oath Keepers than your "due diligence" has provided your discernment. I submit (not to you, but to other readers here) that if you knew what I know you may not be so sure about how to respond to Stewart's mistakes. I am not going to be the one to throw Stewart under the bus, for I still believe that all men make mistakes and I would not deprive Stewart of the opportunity to correct past mistakes. That would be what Christians refer to as "God's business", not mine. It's between Stewart and his conscience.

I am just lamenting that TMM now is on record for publishing this embarrassment, but I am not saying you are wrong about your ice-cold points. What I would love to see happen in your mind would be a recollection of various aspects of Love's thought system, such as compassion, mercy, forgiveness, considerateness, empathy, personal dignity, balance, and oh yes, also some refreshing humility. Your notion of Stewart somehow needing to resign from the organization he created, based on some errors he made in his private role as an attorney, indicates to me that you have little of those traits I just listed. But please do go forward as you will. You are abiding by our terms of service here, and are welcome to express your truest nature as best you will.

I would like to state that Stewart owns Oath Keepers, but I own TMM's forums and national website. The two are not related, not connected other than by coincidences such as Stewart having been registered here for a couple of years before he started Oath Keepers and the fact that I work for Oath Keepers as their editor. TMM is its own entity, was here long before Oath Keepers came along, and remains completely a separate entity in all respects. I own the license for The Mental Militia LLC, which is a registered business. I have no ownership in Oath Keepers. In that context, what goes on with Oath Keepers cannot be a reflection upon The Mental Militia. Thanks for reading. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "Welcome To The Monkey House".

Salute!
Elias

Elias, it is a shame that you choose to disparage the messenger, especially when the messenger thought you knew all that.  You have no idea what is in my heart, nor I yours, or Rhodes.  He needs no forgiveness from me. He needs forgiveness from those he's wronged.

Trying to keep this info under wraps will come back to bite OK, hard.

Let's hope we can read what Rhodes had to say.

As I and others have stated, this has been in the public domain since 11-15.  It is NOT
being kept under wraps. 

You are making up stories that fail the facts and suit only your hate filled bashing agenda.

A person "committed to principles and ideals' would have posted an FYI link rather than
all over TMM in his first and subsequent posts.

You may be right about some of your summation but for all of the wrong reasons.

But as Elias said, please reveal yourself further.

[Elias Alias]

Elias, it is a shame that you choose to disparage the messenger, especially when the messenger thought you knew all that.  You have no idea what is in my heart, nor I yours, or Rhodes.  He needs no forgiveness from me. He needs forgiveness from those he's wronged.

Trying to keep this info under wraps will come back to bite OK, hard.

Let's hope we can read what Rhodes had to say.

I don't feel like I am disparaging the messenger. I am disparaging the messenger's persistence in drumming on and on about another organization's president while here at TMM's forums, after I've dropped polite hints that your "message" is not really wanted here because I chance to work for the man you want to see destroyed.  TMM does have a vested interest in preventing any further growth and empowerment of the burgeoning police state. Oath Keepers has been a huge detriment to that expansion of the police power, and I'm just lamenting that Stewart (apparently) made some errors in judgment. To you, if a guy makes a few mistakes in judgment, you're ready to throw him under the bus. Your take on this is not my style at all, but you're certainly welcome to hold whatever views you choose. But always remember, there is the messenger, and there is the message. I find your message detrimental to my previous image of Stewart, so of course it's unpleasant news to me. But it is / was his decision to do or not do whatever his errors were. I find the whole subject to be uncomfortable for me, and have let you see that clearly enough, yet you persist in wanting to make me wallow in your gleeful pronouncements of Stewart's sins. So you are not at all respectful for my sentiment, which shows me that you are one insensitive person. When I go to someone else's forum, I seek for the proper decorum there and try my best to stay within acceptable parameters. You, on the other hand, couldn't care less. So, according to your earlier statements, you are disparaging me by continuing to harp on a subject which I find uncomfortable. You do not have to respect me, and I do not have to respect you. That does not mean I'm disparaging you, it just means that I see through your veneer. You obviously have an axe to grind, and you've picked my forums to do your nasty pleasure. So you've said your piece. Is there anything else you'd like from me?

Maybe you should know this... I organized the march in Quartzsite and drove down there from Montana to march with the people there. I met Jennifer "Jade" Jones and we became friends. We are close friends to this day, sharing phone calls, emails, and snail mails. She and I have countless hours discussing the problems which you're dragging out here, and you know what? She has never publicized Stewart's errors in how he mishandled her case.  She understands something your ego seems to be incapable of grasping -- that this sort of thing is best left out of the spotlight. Why would she and I both feel that way? The answer to that is readily seen by many reading here, but for you I'll spell it out. The Oath Keepers mission is much more important than one man.  Here -- take a look at Jade Jones, a woman who has more patriotism in her little finger than you can muster; a woman who has sensitivity and understanding of a larger picture of reality than your micro-introspection can manage; a woman who joins me in knowing what is at stake for all of us in this country and who is big enough to rise above the sort of childish-assed witch-hunting vengeance you're promoting here. Jennifer is the victim of the errors you're willing to crucify Stewart for having done to her, yet she has the standards of moral uprightness, dignity, and balance, enough so to, unlike you, refrain from dancing for joy that Stewart has been disbarred.



Now. I did not say that I wish to cover-up whatever Stewart did or did not do. I just asked that this knowledge not go wandering off this forum into the big cold world out there. Jennifer Jones and I both know why, and I lament that you can't figure that out for yourself, even after I've dropped several suggestive hints for you.

In closing this note, let me ask you to tell all readers here which organization you've started please. Give us a little background on you so we can see why we should respect you as you continue to try to destroy a man who gave this country the vision underlying the Oath.

Salute!
Elias

[BeenThere]

As I and others have stated, this has been in the public domain since 11-15.  It is NOT
being kept under wraps. 

You are making up stories that fail the facts and suit only your hate filled bashing agenda.

A person "committed to principles and ideals' would have posted an FYI link rather than
all over TMM in his first and subsequent posts.

Please, read the documents available at the links already presented by myself and Mr. St. Clair before you make such desperately childish accusations.  Especially this one kindly provided by Mr. St. Clair:

https://supremecourtdocket.mt.gov/search/case?case=17398

Then come back and show me where I am "making up stories that fail the facts."

You may be right about some of your summation but for all of the wrong reasons.

But as Elias said, please reveal yourself further.[/size]

Truth is its own reason.  Reveal myself?  After seeing these reactions?  Would you reveal yourself to someone who has shown overt hostility towards you?

It seems like there are a number of issues here.  One is the anger some feel when their preconceptions are threatened by evidence to the contrary.

[BeenThere]

Elias, it is a shame that you choose to disparage the messenger, especially when the messenger thought you knew all that.  You have no idea what is in my heart, nor I yours, or Rhodes.  He needs no forgiveness from me. He needs forgiveness from those he's wronged.

Trying to keep this info under wraps will come back to bite OK, hard.

Let's hope we can read what Rhodes had to say.

I don't feel like I am disparaging the messenger. I am disparaging the messenger's persistence in drumming on and on about another organization's president while here at TMM's forums, after I've dropped polite hints that
your "message" is not really wanted here because I chance to work for the man you want to see destroyed.
. . .

In closing this note, let me ask you to tell all readers here which organization you've started please. Give us a little background on you so we can see why we should respect you as you continue to try to destroy a man who gave this country the vision underlying the Oath.

Salute!
Elias

I apologize for not recognizing your polite hints as such.  Perhaps if you just decree that no more be said of the matter, it will go away, never to arise again, here or anywhere.  We both know the real world does not work that way.

Destroy Rhodes?  It has already been done. He did it to himself.  If he was an honorable man, he would resign to prevent his failings from bringing down OK.  And it will.  I don't feel any need to publicize this outside of this forum.  As I said, more than once, I thought everybody knew.  You can be sure that someone, somewhere, will bring this story to a wide audience at the worst possible time for OK. 

I understand your hostility.  It is very disappointing, even crushing, to find out such things about someone you thought you knew, especially when you worked with him for so long. It is surprising that someone who was as close to him as you claim to be was not aware of any of this. I am sorry you found out from me, that you did not already know what others have claimed was "public knowledge."

The only background on me you need to know, is that I've been burned more than once by those I thought were honorable and trustworthy.  I've had my illusions shattered more than once when I finally saw the truth.  And like you, at first I felt extreme hostility, even hate, towards those who were trying to open my eyes.  Then I wallowed in the jagged shards of those shattered illusions for a time until the realization came that such wallowing would only bring more cuts, more scars, more hurt.

I believe in the OK mission.  I just can't believe Rhodes, and while his vision was spot-on, I don't believe his continued association will be good for OK in the future.

[FDD]

A lot of noobs here acting like they know more than everyone else.

maybe you do, maybe you do not, but the way you have gone about it, is not making any friends here.

in fact, you are sounding more and more like a troll.

[Elias Alias]

Just for clarity, I'm not angry at you, just irritated by your egoism and insensitivity. But that is not a crime here, so do carry on. You did not comment on what I told you about Jennifer Jade Jones and why she understands good reasons not to go around bashing Stewart Rhodes, even though she was the victim in all this.

You apparently have not started your own operation/organization, but you are quick to criticize those who have actually done that. Balance, Mon! Achieve some balance in your views of things. Try a little humbleness, a little caring for your fellow man, a little respect for those who *are* doing something other than riding keypads on the Net.

I've nothing else to say. May you have every blessing in life you so richly deserve. As Silver often says,

Peace!

Salute!
Elias

[da gooch]

Been There

I have been a member of OK since its inception (Here at TMM) and have known Stewart since we first met in 2009.
I have known about his problems for about a year or so and never once felt the need to attempt to splash it all over the internet. I have never once considered them any part of my business with either OK or Stewart himself. With both of whom I do maintain relationships.

From the little I have learned from you, about you, in the recent few postings I can honestly state that I am not in the least interested in making your acquaintance. You sirrah are a back biter and the world has no need for more of those. Government seems to supply quite enough.

I, personally, will not miss your presence on these boards.

[Klapton Isgod]

If you would, please post Rhodes' explanation.  Right now, it seems like it is just part of a deeper hole he has been digging.

It was posted in a private forum, so it would be inappropriate to post here, even if I was to go to the effort of finding it.

EDIT:  a forum that isn't working, ROFL

[BeenThere]

Just for clarity, I'm not angry at you, just irritated by your egoism and insensitivity. But that is not a crime here, so do carry on. You did not comment on what I told you about Jennifer Jade Jones and why she understands good reasons not to go around bashing Stewart Rhodes, even though she was the victim in all this.

I haven't enough information to comment on Ms. Jones, other than what you said.  With all due respect, I'll take that with a grain of salt.  It is confusing, though, because you said you were unaware of Rhodes' disbarment, yet aware of how he mishandled Jones' case.  If I were to speculate, Ms. Jones could be an example of something like Stockholm Syndrome. 

Have you also spoken with Michael Roth, his other abandoned client, and one of the complainants?

You apparently have not started your own operation/organization, but you are quick to criticize those who have actually done that. Balance, Mon! Achieve some balance in your views of things. Try a little humbleness, a little caring for your fellow man, a little respect for those who *are* doing something other than riding keypads on the Net.

Nice try, but I will not reveal any more about myself when surrounded by hostility.  You write nice, though.

I've nothing else to say. May you have every blessing in life you so richly deserve. As Silver often says,

Peace!

Salute!
Elias

So be it. Thank you for the backhanded parting.  I sincerely hope you fare well when things fall apart.