Ron C. # 10

[Whisperer]

Elle, I don't know but that kind of experience could be helpful for many reasons...gangs do drugs. They have behaviors that are similar to each other and they conform to a specific set of rules...thus, the gang mentality. He may get a good feel of this by knowing the what makes them tick and relating it to Palatka and what exactly is going on there. We know drugs are there on a bigger scale than most places. Has to be gangs handling the money. Gang members know what is going on inside there community. So all in all, I think it is great. He knows criminals, bottom line. He knows how to talk with criminals and understands the sub culture...that is what we need here. But most of all he is not from Putman County..so all is good!

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Somebody on the board stated they knew for certain his hours were 4:30 to 3:00am. They said they confirmed it by calling PDM and asking for hours of the Crane Operators.

Now, RC says he was a crane operator buy I have to question that too. He has no prior experience to my kge in that field and I think you have to be certified (?). What I am wondering is if he did some other sort of job, like maybe fork lifting and maybe said Crane Operator to make it seem like a better job.

So when the person verified they were giving PDM the wrong job info...JMO

Whisperer, imo, these shift hours have NOT been confirmed. I ran a search here on WS for "PDM" - very broad search. I searched both in this Forum and in the Parking Lot. There were over 500 posts about PDM. Many were in response to Ron being fired. Many others cited the poster's belief that many other WSers had called about the hours. However, I did not find a single post in which:

1. A WS poster said that they personally called.
2. A WS poster said that a friend or someone else they knew had called.
3. A WS poster thanked another for taking the initiative to call.

As I said, above, what I did find were multiple posts stating a belief that many that other posters had called.

I think this hearsay is based upon this March 5th post (#13) in the Facts Thread. It was also posted downstairs. The posts that someone had called began on March 17th. As you can see below, this post (which in my opinion DOES NOT belong in the Facts Thread, cites "someone on another message board" as the source.


Shift Schedule/Ron's Employer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted on anther thread here at WS

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceejaycee
I posted this in the Anna thread in response to some comments made over there but since this is the Ron thread I thought I should post it here as well. If that isn't the right thing to do I apologize.

Someone on another message board called Ron's work several days ago to find out the shifts.
His shift is from 4:30 p.m. until 3:00 a.m.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12832046&highlight=4:30#post128 32046

I think this is the same situation as the confiscation of Ron's Beretta being on the Police Report. That little bit went the rounds for months and months. Come fo find out, the gun is not included in the Property Section of the Police Report.

 

[Whisperer]

Well, thanks a lot for whoever posted those hours as "facts"!!

Some people based their whole theory on those hours...and ran with it, stood firmly behind it and completely ruled out RC because of it. But most of all bashed anyone who even considered RC as a POI and called them "goofy" because "he was at work"

There had to be reason for LE not to eliminate him right off the bat if "he was at work" the entire shift and it could be proven.

 

[Whisperer]

Thanks Shaymus for the information. Those work hours should be removed from "Fact" thread.

 

[Whisperer]

RC told the pastor he worked eight hours that night; and LE said they were satisfied with eight hours of the time line.

That leaves three hours for Ron to account for..

 

[Whisperer]

Most plants run a standard 3 to 11 or 4 to 12, give or take a mandatory 30 min lunch.

I wonder if the crane operators may be on a different schedule, maybe a 10 hour shift, 4 days a week...just speculating here

Still can't imagine him walking into a job, inexperienced and getting a crane operator job...just my opinion.

 

[Shelby77]

He did not illegally take them and keep them or the judge would have immediately returned them to her the day he showed up in court.

:clap::clap::clap::clap: ITA!! It is quite clear there was nothing illegal in his actions.
It's not like he turned a bunch of baseless accusations into DCF to try to steal the kids away lol. He did it the proper way, through the courts, as responsible parents should. I commend him for that. Combine that with the fact that there was more than one judge that decided on this, IIRC for a total of 3 times.
Crystal did try to get LE involved I believe, and they told her to see a judge (in so many words). So both LE and the legal system seem to agree that he was within his legal rights as the children's father. I'm ok with that too

 

[stilettos]

:clap::clap::clap::clap: ITA!! It is quite clear there was nothing illegal in his actions.
It's not like he turned a bunch of baseless accusations into DCF to try to steal the kids away lol. He did it the proper way, through the courts, as responsible parents should. I commend him for that. Combine that with the fact that there was more than one judge that decided on this, IIRC for a total of 3 times.
Crystal did try to get LE involved I believe, and they told her to see a judge (in so many words). So both LE and the legal system seem to agree that he was within his legal rights as the children's father. I'm ok with that too

You saying that does not change the statute. The law is the law and he was in violation of it when he kept the children against her will. There is black that is just black and not gray, white that is white and not cream and there is, really is absolute truth.

 

[kiki the parrot]

...look at the FL statutes regarding custody with unmarried parents. The Mother retains custody...he kept them against her wishes and that is against the FL statutes. Using your logic RC would be in prison for each and every possession charge as they are illegal.

(bbm) And again, as stilettos so accurately observes here, were that the case, by this same faulty logic the failure to impose consequences for any of RC's other illegal activities would be proof he's never broken the law. :waitasec:

arrot:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I find it absurd to believe that the Judge wouldn't care if Ronald obtained the children illegally. If Crystal would have done or said anything to prove this...the case would have been handled differently, imo. Evidently, whatever statute you are using as a crutch here to support your view is not applicable to this case since the issue was never raised by Crystal, imo. I would guess her failure to raise the issue with the court means that she validated his right to have the children in his care because she freely gave them to Ronald, imo. His choice of filing for custody when he did was proven to be in the children's best interest according to the court, imo.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Innocent people do get convicted sometimes but a wise family would take into account that it may be more common for innocent people to get convicted if they refuse to cooperate with LE, refuse to talk to them and insist on holding on to their inconsistencies because that kind of behaviour makes them look guilty and even the true parts of their story seem like lies. Let's hope that the recent publicity will make LE, Ron or Misty to pick up the phone and set up a meeting that helps them clear the problems up.

Blaming the police for attempts to frame people will hardly help.

You might want to check the facts before concluding what a "wise" person would conclude. I think you'll find a great number of people who were innocent and convicted "co-operated" with LE.

 

[Skully]

Somebody on the board stated they knew for certain his hours were 4:30 to 3:00am. They said they confirmed it by calling PDM and asking for hours of the Crane Operators.

Now, RC says he was a crane operator buy I have to question that too. He has no prior experience to my kge in that field and I think you have to be certified (?). What I am wondering is if he did some other sort of job, like maybe fork lifting and maybe said Crane Operator to make it seem like a better job.

So when the person verified they were giving PDM the wrong job info...JMO

I just asked my husband, he is in the construction business, he says you do have to be trained and go to school and be licensed and there are different levels of operators. A good crane operator can make $30 hr or more.

 

[kiki the parrot]

I have not engaged in any disparaging here, as for myself I have consistently refrained from the bickering and backbiting which regularly occurs here. My post (following shelby) wasn't a personal attack but in support of stilettos point that this logic simply does not hold true. To be fairminded in one's reasoning requires at least a willingness to extend the logic of any particular argument across the board--an argument which failed this test IMO.

arrot:

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I find it absurd to believe that the Judge wouldn't care if Ronald obtained the children illegally. If Crystal would have done or said anything to prove this...the case would have been handled differently, imo. Evidently, whatever statute you are using as a crutch here to support your view is not applicable to this case since the issue was never raised by Crystal, imo. I would guess her failure to raise the issue with the court means that she validated his right to have the children in his care because she freely gave them to Ronald, imo. His choice of filing for custody when he did was proven to be in the children's best interest according to the court, imo.

Yes. And she's had 2 apparently very competent lawyers since then, and neither have sought to overturn that decision or sought to obtain custody of RJ. Seems the only people arguing the Judge got it wrong are the posters here

 

[Boytwnmom]

no one alleges the judge got it "wrong" in regard to RC's illegal actions in keeping the children against the wishes of the only legally recognized parent. While many might feel the judge did indeed, "get it wrong" overall, here, the question of his ability to legally have the children was simply not addressed as CS did not raise the issue. If anyone takes someone's child and refuses to return them they must raise that as an issue with a court. Absent a pleading or a motion setting out the allegations regarding the illegal retention of the children the court is unable to address it. It only addresses issues properly before it. I doubt CS would have done this even if she knew she could as she does not seem like that type of person and would not have made trouble for RC, whether out of passivity or fear. Although I might feel she should have raised the issue she did not and thus the court had no reason to address the legality of RC's keeping the children beyond the agreed upon time frame. Remember, he needed to be adjudicated the father of those children-that was in fact before the court. Why, because at that point in time he was not legally the father of the children. Thus, on what basis do you propose he could keep the children against the wishes of the child's sole parent

Yes. And she's had 2 apparently very competent lawyers since then, and neither have sought to overturn that decision or sought to obtain custody of RJ. Seems the only people arguing the Judge got it wrong are the posters here

 

[stilettos]

no one alleges the judge got it "wrong" in regard to RC's illegal actions in keeping the children against the wishes of the only legally recognized parent. While many might feel the judge did indeed, "get it wrong" overall, here, the question of his ability to legally have the children was simply not addressed as CS did not raise the issue. If anyone takes someone's child and refuses to return them they must raise that as an issue with a court. Absent a pleading or a motion setting out the allegations regarding the illegal retention of the children the court is unable to address it. It only addresses issues properly before it. I doubt CS would have done this even if she knew she could as she does not seem like that type of person and would not have made trouble for RC, whether out of passivity or fear. Although I might feel she should have raised the issue she did not and thus the court had no reason to address the legality of RC's keeping the children beyond the agreed upon time frame. Remember, he needed to be adjudicated the father of those children-that was in fact before the court. Why, because at that point in time he was not legally the father of the children. Thus, on what basis do you propose he could keep the children against the wishes of the child's sole parent

Logically laid out. Thanks boytownmom. He had absolutely no standing whatsoever according to law...until there was a DNA report identifying him as the biological Father before the court. Therefore, when he refused to return the children...he was without standing and had no legal right to do so...and arguing about it will never negate the fact that it is true. A persuasive argument is interesting but ineffective against the backdrop of the FL statute.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

He has not worked since that last night shift, then lost his job because he did not stay in contact, according to the company. Cummings said he has not been able to find another job and does not know if he can go back to work.

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/me...aleighs_family_remains_divided_6_months_later

Ron is not working and has not been able to find another job. That's not surprising as this is a terrible economy, he is in a smallish town and has a very limited education. But his last sentence implies that he may never return to the work force. He is 24-5 years old. Assuming he lives out a normal life span, that is a long time to be dependent upon others. He lives with his grandmother and a stay-at-home wife - so child care is not an issue. IMO, surely, someone needs to counsel him on how to get back into the work force at some point in the future. That is the kind of husband/father example that a little boy, like Jr, needs. Again, IMO.

 

[VolLady]

no one alleges the judge got it "wrong" in regard to RC's illegal actions in keeping the children against the wishes of the only legally recognized parent. While many might feel the judge did indeed, "get it wrong" overall, here, the question of his ability to legally have the children was simply not addressed as CS did not raise the issue. If anyone takes someone's child and refuses to return them they must raise that as an issue with a court. Absent a pleading or a motion setting out the allegations regarding the illegal retention of the children the court is unable to address it. It only addresses issues properly before it. I doubt CS would have done this even if she knew she could as she does not seem like that type of person and would not have made trouble for RC, whether out of passivity or fear. Although I might feel she should have raised the issue she did not and thus the court had no reason to address the legality of RC's keeping the children beyond the agreed upon time frame. Remember, he needed to be adjudicated the father of those children-that was in fact before the court. Why, because at that point in time he was not legally the father of the children. Thus, on what basis do you propose he could keep the children against the wishes of the child's sole parent

Re the bolded part, I believe she did address the issue and withdrew it on her own about 8 days later. Am I reading this wrong? It looks like the judge denied the pick-up order after seeing the birth certificates. CS dropped the rest of the stuff on 10-4-05 when she appreared in court.

2005-09-22 001.PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
2005-09-22 002.EMERGENCY VERIFIED MOTION FOR CHILD PICK-UP ORDER
2005-09-22 003.UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION/ENFORCEMENT AFFID.
2005-09-22 004.PHOTO COPY OF ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
SNIP...

http://www.putnam-fl.com/clk_apps/civ_dkts/frame.php

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

He has not worked since that last night shift, then lost his job because he did not stay in contact, according to the company. Cummings said he has not been able to find another job and does not know if he can go back to work.

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/me...aleighs_family_remains_divided_6_months_later

Ron is not working and has not been able to find another job. That's not surprising as this is a terrible economy, he is in a smallish town and has a very limited education. But his last sentence implies that he may never return to the work force. He is 24-5 years old. Assuming he lives out a normal life span, that is a long time to be dependent upon others. He lives with his grandmother and a stay-at-home wife - so child care is not an issue. IMO, surely, someone needs to counsel him on how to get back into the work force at some point in the future. That is the kind of husband/father example that a little boy, like Jr, needs. Again, IMO.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's suffering from some deep depression right now. Hopefully he'll get some grief counselling and support and one day be able to resume a normal sort of life and return to work etc.

 

[TxLady2]

He has not worked since that last night shift, then lost his job because he did not stay in contact, according to the company. Cummings said he has not been able to find another job and does not know if he can go back to work.

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/me...aleighs_family_remains_divided_6_months_later

Ron is not working and has not been able to find another job. That's not surprising as this is a terrible economy, he is in a smallish town and has a very limited education. But his last sentence implies that he may never return to the work force. He is 24-5 years old. Assuming he lives out a normal life span, that is a long time to be dependent upon others. He lives with his grandmother and a stay-at-home wife - so child care is not an issue. IMO, surely, someone needs to counsel him on how to get back into the work force at some point in the future. That is the kind of husband/father example that a little boy, like Jr, needs. Again, IMO.

I agree, Shaymus. Perhaps he should look into some kind of schooling or training of some sort, to give him an edge when he does go to look for a job. His g/ma is getting on up there in age, she won't live forever. There are all kinds of technical schools around, a lot that you can take online, and they provide you with the laptop to do your studies.