Sheri Coleman, sons Garett and Gavin murdered 5-5-09, Columbia, IL. Pt9

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
waterlooinspector said:
This comment is intended mainly for the St Louis members of this forum who have seen firsthand the lavish lifestyle of JM and her inner circle:

Do you ever get the feeling that this incident will be the whole unravelling of the JMM? I have a gut feeling that there is more here than just the possibility of MM being in events with CC. The entire MM thing could be looked at as a potential convert to the cause.....
Click to expand...

I do agree waterlooinspector....The name Coleman has become JM's worst nightmare, not only, of course, the :behindbar CC but the :praying: RC.....JMM holding out for confidentiality is going to send Carey down many other avenues to get what he needs. IMHO, "It ain't gonna be pretty."
 
Yeah and these guys are xtian "sharks" - trained to protect their conservative "values" (including their prodigious wealth) at all costs. . . even if it means a cover up of what most likely points to JMM paying for CC's trysts with TL.

I saw a lawsuit where Michael King represented an Xtian author (and the publisher) against a female professor - she didn't have a chance. I wouldn't be surprised to see JMM find a way to counter-sue (or threaten to). IMHO, it a travesty of justice and Christianity. I am embarrased to admit I once thought JM "wise".
 
An employer has a fundamental right to protect the privacy of employee information and HIPPA rules apply to medical information.

.... just sayin'.... there are some valid reasons why any employee record must be kept confidential-governing agencies like HIPPA, for one
 
From JMM's "Privacy" page regarding confidential information:

Information Sharing and Disclosure

JMM will not rent, sell, lease, or share personal information about you with other organizations, except in response to subpoenas, court orders, or legal processes, or to establish and/or exercise our legal rights.

These are legal proceedings and, IMHO, if CC were any other employee, those records would have been handed over without a qualm. It's the "damaging information" that is causing the ruckus.

Another interesting tidbit from the same page:

In the case of information provided to the America section of the Website (such as date of birth, marital status, gender, demographic, and other information), this data is handled by a third party.

I wonder who the third party is? The Providence Foundation?

http://providencefoundation.com/endorsements.php

All of these folks have a right to their revisionist history. . . except if they are perverting the justice they are so adamant about preserving! The more I sleuth this "ministry" and it's ties, the more insidious and self righteous it becomes. Every hint of scandal is swept under the rug by legal maneuver, marketing campaign and/or payoff.

I wonder how long it will take for JMM to make a settlement offer? I sure hope that Pister or someone else is doing their homework!
 
analytical said:
An employer has a fundamental right to protect the privacy of employee information and HIPPA rules apply to medical information.

.... just sayin'.... there are some valid reasons why any employee record must be kept confidential-governing agencies like HIPPA, for one
Click to expand...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]law enforcement (HIPAA)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A covered entity may disclose protected health information (PHI) for a law enforcement purpose, to a law enforcement official, under several sets of circumstances.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A law enforcement official, is defined as "an officer or employee of any agency or authority of the United States, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or an Indian tribe," who is empowered by law to: [/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]investigate or conduct an official inquiry into a potential violation of law; or [/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]prosecute or otherwise conduct a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding arising from an alleged violation of law. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First, PHI may be disclosed as required by specific laws, such as those that require the reporting of certain types of wounds or injuries (e.g., gunshots), of child abuse or neglect, and so forth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Second, PHI may be released in compliance with (and as limited by) the relevant requirements of[/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a court order or court-ordered warrant;[/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer;[/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a grand jury subpoena; or [/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]an administrative request, including an administrative subpoena or summons, a civil or authorized investigative demand, or similar process authorized under law.[/FONT]
There's a lot more info regarding this here:

http://privacy.med.miami.edu/glossary/xd_law_enforcement.htm

Again, IMHO - the only thing causing delay in the release of this information is damage control.
 
Again, IMHO - the only thing causing delay in the release of this information is damage control.
Click to expand...

I disagree but would it make a difference if it was a Fortune 500 company instead?

:twocents:

Carey will view the info, per news reports, on July 20 with a judge present.

Just my 2 cents, but Carey seems maybe a "loose cannon" from that "ain't gonna happen" comment.

As an employer, that comment would set off alarm bells for me that the info would be immediately released for publication.

Jumpin' the get-go maybe ...this info will undoubtedly be part and parcel of the criminal trial.
 
analytical said:
I disagree but would it make a difference if it was a Fortune 500 company instead?

:twocents:

Carey will view the info, per news reports, on July 20 with a judge present.

Just my 2 cents, but Carey seems maybe a "loose cannon" from that "ain't gonna happen" comment.

As an employer, that comment would set off alarm bells for me that the info would be immediately released for publication.

Jumpin' the get-go maybe ...this info will undoubtedly be part and parcel of the criminal trial.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't make a difference to me at all if it was a Fortune 500 company. But then again, it is not. We are talking about a religious, non-profit and therefore, TAX EXEMPT, organization. IMO, they should be 100% transparent with nothing to hide. If they're not, there is some 'splainin to do.

We don't know what type of information was requested for the civil suit. I doubt very much any of it falls under HIPPA. If they are looking for medical records, I would expect them to request the information from any doctors CC may have been seeing. I'm not really sure how JMM would figure into that. Not really sure what they would consider to be "confidential" information related to a case where a man allegedly murdered his wife and children.

Can you offer any specific examples that you feel would be legally considered confidential under the circumstances? Try as I might, I just cannot think of anything....
 
Rule 56-General Rules regarding Discovery

56.01 (c)

(c) Protective Orders. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

(1) that the discovery not be had;

(2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;

(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;

(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;

(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;

(6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court;

(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;

(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.

If a motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of Rule 61.01 apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/Cle...b83f5cbe4450f09686256ca60052134e?OpenDocument
 
of particular interest regarding 56.01(c) from a Plaintiff's perspective, in part:

"Most often, defendants argue that the information and documents sought to be protected involve “trade secrets”, and thus it would be a detriment to their company and/or products to force them to make public these valuable documents.

It is important to note that confidentiality occurs at two different times during litigation. The first, and the one that will be given the most attention in this article, is the sealing of discovery documents by courts. The second, involves settlement agreements, and the stipulation put on parties to that agreement to maintain secrecy. These agreements are contracts between the parties, thus the parties can generally set their own terms, and the agreements can be written to provide overwhelming protection, including limiting all disclosure regarding the litigation, or can be written very narrowly, protecting only things such as settlement amount, or certain documents.

While one may ask why a plaintiff would enter into such an agreement, knowing that binding oneself to secrecy will put members of the general public at risk, it is important to know that faced with the possibility of years of litigation, possibly costing millions of dollars, some plaintiff’s have no choice but to enter the agreement and dispose of their case.

This article will outline the current Missouri law with regard to the issuance of protective orders, present a recent bill presented to the Missouri Senate attempting to restrict the use of protective orders (continued at link)

See decisions in Wright v. Campbell and Blue Cross v. Anderson and the author's commentary of the decisions in cited cases below:

"According to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 56.01, a party attempting to be issued a protective order must only satisfy the court that good cause exists to protect the documents or information, but it appears as if the development of common law has heightened that requirement, by requiring a showing of a “compelling justification” that the records should be closed, and requiring courts to identify “specific and tangible threats to important values” in order to override the presumption of openness. Pulitzer at 301-02."

http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles61.asp

While the commentary seems to focus primarily on consumers and protection of "trade secrets," the same rules of discovery apply to protective orders regardless of defendant's "good cause" burden under 56:01(c)
 
analytical said:
of particular interest regarding 56.01(c) from a Plaintiff's perspective, in part:

"Most often, defendants argue that the information and documents sought to be protected involve “trade secrets”, and thus it would be a detriment to their company and/or products to force them to make public these valuable documents.

It is important to note that confidentiality occurs at two different times during litigation. The first, and the one that will be given the most attention in this article, is the sealing of discovery documents by courts. The second, involves settlement agreements, and the stipulation put on parties to that agreement to maintain secrecy. These agreements are contracts between the parties, thus the parties can generally set their own terms, and the agreements can be written to provide overwhelming protection, including limiting all disclosure regarding the litigation, or can be written very narrowly, protecting only things such as settlement amount, or certain documents.

While one may ask why a plaintiff would enter into such an agreement, knowing that binding oneself to secrecy will put members of the general public at risk, it is important to know that faced with the possibility of years of litigation, possibly costing millions of dollars, some plaintiff’s have no choice but to enter the agreement and dispose of their case.

This article will outline the current Missouri law with regard to the issuance of protective orders, present a recent bill presented to the Missouri Senate attempting to restrict the use of protective orders (continued at link)

See decisions in Wright v. Campbell and Blue Cross v. Anderson and the author's commentary of the decisions in cited cases below:

"According to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 56.01, a party attempting to be issued a protective order must only satisfy the court that good cause exists to protect the documents or information, but it appears as if the development of common law has heightened that requirement, by requiring a showing of a “compelling justification” that the records should be closed, and requiring courts to identify “specific and tangible threats to important values” in order to override the presumption of openness. Pulitzer at 301-02."

http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles61.asp

While the commentary seems to focus primarily on consumers and protection of "trade secrets," the same rules of discovery apply to protective orders regardless of defendant's "good cause" burden under 56:01(c)
Click to expand...

This is not Missouri, JMM is not the plantiff nor defendant and this is a civil case. I fail to see how this information applies here.

IMO, "compelling justification" must be determined by the court, not the representing attorneys on either side. JMM is not accused of any wrongdoing. Their role here is simply to provide information that pertains to CC and the circumstances surrounding his employment. Seeing as they terminated his employment within days of the murders, I really cannot understand what they could possibly WANT to hide. IMO, their insistence on a confidentiality agreement here is highly suspicious.

We know that much of the evidence pertaining to the criminal charges against CC tie back to his work life. If I were JM, I would be tripping over myself to get any and all pertinent information to the authorities, courts, followers, whatever. They may wind up with egg on their face, but they will be helping to bring a cold-blooded murderer to justice. IMO, that should be the most important thing here.
 
As far as I'm concerned, if the organization is non-profit, they don't have the right to keep secrets. Pay your taxes and then you have the right to make your own rules. Just MOO.
 
The legal commentary was relevant because it discussed the general issue of "secrecy" in civil proceedings, cited rulings in several states, et al
 
The Gospel of Jesus is not a "trade secret" - and I can't imagine why CC's travel diary and employment records should be either. Why? To prevent exposing evidence of Blackmail? Extortion? Complicity? Excess and greed? This stonewalling is just another red flag to those who have been wondering about JMM for years. They may be completely above board - if so, they've got nothing to hide.

They're annual report says they paid 14 million in salaries in 2008 and supposedly that doesn't include JM who receives royalties instead. How many people work for JMM?
 
Lindadanette said:
The Gospel of Jesus is not a "trade secret" - and I can't imagine why CC's travel diary and employment records should be either. Why? To prevent exposing evidence of Blackmail? Extortion? Complicity? Excess and greed? This stonewalling is just another red flag to those who have been wondering about JMM for years. They may be completely above board - if so, they've got nothing to hide.

They're annual report says they paid 14 million in salaries in 2008 and supposedly that doesn't include JM who receives royalties instead. How many people work for JMM?
Click to expand...

Why such a public need to know?

Again, Mr. Carey will review the documents on July 20.

The delay is because of Ronald Coleman's change of counsel.

"A judge was set to decide the issue on Monday, but Ronald Coleman's recent change of attorneys sparked a delay."

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...9325FEBF314F3433862575EB008057CD?OpenDocument

and about those threats-details about previous threats made to JMM and Coleman-those names were provided to someone in the organization by Coleman-names and some photos

despite your feelings about the threats, JMM has stated she has received past threats

surely those names should be held as confidential..since Coleman was JMM's bodyguard, he had to have some notes or names

imagine the liability if this list were not kept confidential but rather was published in the media

most employers prefer to keep their terms of employment secret as well

about 500 people, IIRC
 
Assuming Ronald Coleman responds in a timely manner, BND reports that:

"Attorney Dennis Fields, of Waterloo, appearing at a hearing Monday with James Michael King, of Tulsa, Okla., on behalf of the Joyce Meyer Ministries based in Missouri, agreed that Carey could review all of the requested records, but if there's a disagreement about whether the document is confidential, Associate Circuit Judge Andrew Gleeson will be on hand to moderate and decide. The review is set for July 20."

Furthermore:

"During the hearing Monday, attorneys for both sides agreed that no assets from Coleman received as part of his employment with Joyce Meyer Ministries will be transferred to Christopher Coleman, who has pleaded not guilty."

http://www.bnd.com/news/crime/story/835390.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 3,579 (members: 91, guests: 3,488)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
3,488
Total visitors
3,579
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,347
Messages
18,170,968
Members
232,420
Latest member
Txwoman
Back
Top