This was under "CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES" text file link
(snip)
2514.5 Clients shall ensure that children within the clients family and physical custody are enrolled in school, where required by law.
2514.6 Clients shall ensure that the clients minor children receive appropriate supervision while on the Providers premises.
2514.7 Clients shall utilize child care services that they qualify for and can afford, when available and necessary to enable the adult client to seek employment or housing or to attend school or training, unless the client meets any of the exemptions of section 519g of the District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982, effective April 20, 1999 (D.C. Law 12-241; D.C. Official Code § 4-205.19g (2008 Repl.)), or section 5809.4(b)-(e) of Title 29 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, including any subsequent revisions.
I don't see verbiage that directly supports what SY said. :waitasec:
Sent from my iPhone using
Tapatalk
Then, that would only leave one other place that those rules exist. Rules for employees of the shelter.
Why would SY be aware of what KLT's rules as an employee would be? Unless there has been some type of discussion about those rules.
I imagine that after spending 18 months in that shelter, plus how many years of using the system that those who live there, if they are of a certain mindset, probably pretty much know what they can and can't do, and can figure out who will and who won't bend, or break those rules.
I would also then think, that if there was this supposed "grandfather relationship" between KLT and Relisha, that SY and/or MY/T & Company had all ready worked out some type of arrangement to insure that none of the other shelter-mate's (for lack of better terminology) or an employee, who was a rule follower, would not notice anything.
We all ready know that KLT had been feeling other parents out by giving their young girls gifts. Some parents were willing to let their girls accept these gifts, up to a point, until they felt the dollar amounts or the items value crossed the line from being "just a friendly, caring man" to a "man who was looking for something". Others shut him down right away.
How many other parents have not said anything at all about KLT because it will bring unwanted LE attention, endanger their ability to continue to receive benefits, or even just draw unwanted media attention on them.
Forgive me if I am repeating something that has already been discussed .
There was also something mentioned in the warrant papers that has not been explored that I thought I would mention. I don't know if it is something that could shed light on anything or not.
the warrant that was issued on 3/22 to search KLT work locker ---
Link:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ms-locker/914/
On the day before, on 3/21, an employee [I did not print her name here] of the shelter forced it open and told LE it was empty. She also said lockers were not assigned, but "free for staff members to use on a first come first served basis"
The next day, on 3/22 another employee [I did not print his name here] and friend of KLT showed LE the locker that KLT used. There is an inventory of the locker hand written on the warrant.
Warrants are pretty much matter of fact documents so this has me wondering if there could be a small clue here.
FYI
Here is the links to all of the warrants that have been put out by MSM that I know of.
Search warrant for Kahlil Tatum's Gmail account
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...l-account/917/
Search warrant for Kahlil Tatum's locker on Mass
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ms-locker/914/
Search warrant for storage locker on S. Capitol Street
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ol-street/916/
Prince George's County warrant
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...y-warrant/918/