Our Greatest Need

Darrell Scott is the father of Rachel Joy Scott, one of the students murdered at Littleton, Colorado’s Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. Mr. Scott’s son, Craig, miraculously survived the massacre, but witnessed as two of his friends were shot to death in the school library. On May 27th, Mr. Scott testified in Washington, DC before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee. Following is his statement:

Since the dawn of creation there have been both good and evil in the hearts of men and of women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence.

The death of my wonderful daughter Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of the heroic teacher and the other children who died, must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA – The National Club Association. The true killer was Cain and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA, because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore, I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder, I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy – it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies. Much of that blame lies here in this room. Much of that blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves.

I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,

Your words are empty air,

You’ve stripped away our heritage,

You’ve outlawed simple prayer,

Now gunshots fill our classrooms,

And precious children die,

You seek for answers everywhere,

And ask the question, "Why?"

You regulate restrictive laws,

Through legislative creed,

And yet you fail to understand,

That God is what we need!

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our makeup, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual influences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historic fact.

What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God and in doing so, we open the doors to hatred and violence.

And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs, politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that continue to erode away our personal and private liberties.

We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre.

The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers.

The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched!

We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million-dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored.

We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God.

As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

I challenge every young person in America and around the world to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School, prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.

Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your conscience and denies your God-given right to communicate with Him.

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA, I give to you a sincere challenge: Dare to examine your own heart before you cast the first stone!

My daughter’s death will not be in vain. The young people of this country will not allow that to happen.

NOT AN URBAN LEGEND AS YOU SAID! STORY LINK TARZAN

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 16, 2001

Answers

Thank you Ain't

-- (appreciate@the.info), February 16, 2001.

It wasn't guns that killed his kid it was the seperation of church and state. Right.

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), February 16, 2001.

I did some poking around on the site and found this guy's schedule of speaking engagements and a link to his agent's webpage. Take a look at how tightly packed his schedule is and how widespread these events are. Between speaking engagements and traveling there's no way this guy holds down a regular day job. I can't help but wonder how much money he's made off his daughters death.

Blood money

-- Sick to my stomach! (feelings@ill.yuck), February 16, 2001.

I can't help but wonder how much money he's made off his daughters death.

You really need to read and listen to this man more before you convict him. Please don't be so quick to pre judge him.

Did you know he never asks for or accepts a speaking fee for any of his appearances? I believe he does sell some tee shirts to cover his traveling expences. Airfair...hotel stay etc.

This guy IS one of the truly squeaky clean good guys with a heart for God.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 16, 2001.

Tarzan is right, people are allowed to pray in school. This has never been illegal. Forced prayer is another matter. As a Christian I am 100% opposed to forced school prayer. It cheapens God by reducing Him to the lowest common denominator. The God I worship has definate attributes, He is not some amorphous faceless deity.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), February 18, 2001.

...forced school prayer...

B.S.! School prayer was NEVER 'FORCED' on ANYONE! The screaming bleeding hearts would have us believe guns, knives or some other armament was used prior to 1962 to 'FORCE' students to pray in public school. WRONG! Students recited a simple prayer each morning along with the recital of the pledge of allegiance. No one was forced to recit the prayer or the pledge then or now.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 18, 2001.

>>Students recited a simple prayer each morning along with the recital of the pledge of allegiance. No one was forced to recit the prayer or the pledge then or now<<

I suppose it depends on your definition of "forced" Ain't.

To my mind, you are forcing your religious beliefs on me if I *have* to *listen* to your prayers in a secular institution, which a public school is. By all means, schools can have a moment of silence for people to do whatever they want (say a silent prayer, think about the cute girl 2 desk behind...etc) but when you pray out loud in a school you are very much forcing your beliefs on me.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

And of course small children just *love* to be conspicuous by avoiding common activities led by the teacher. Doing so makes life so pleasant in so many little ways.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 18, 2001.

You know, you were absolutely right. This man did testify before congress. However, the other attributions which are currently making the rounds on the net are urban legends.

Not only did this guy actually give this speech before Congress, he's made quite a lot of money on it. I did some calling around to the contact numbers for his speaking engagements. For a man who doesn't accept a speaking fee, as Ain't claims, he sure costs those who would host him quite a bit of money. Then of course, there are the books and the solicitations for donations on his website. Some people turn disaster into opportunity. This guy seems to have turned his disaster into dollars.

Dr. Pibb-

Thanks for agreeing with me even though I made that statement on another post. It is beyond me why some people seem to think that silent, private prayer isn't enough.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 19, 2001.

Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.

-- Access For All (my.choice@not.yours.org), February 22, 2001.

I find it amusing that those who beleive that they should not have to so much as HEAR a prayer in a public institution such as a school, an athletic contest, or civic function also vehemently defend their "right" to burn flags, ridicule spiritual beliefs, and forward their own humanistic, anti-God propaganda in the name of free speech. If prayer offends you, then don't listen. Otherwise, agree to shut up and no longer speak of any of your own beliefs that anyone may find offensive. It's time that the politically correct types live by their qwn edicts and stop being so hypocrytical. Separation of church and state was meant to protect religious institutions from government, not vice versa, as many politicians and hollywood would have you believe. How disgusting that so many on this sight would belittle Mr. Scott because he hit the nail on the head. The truth hurts, doesn't it? To all of you who would try and cast Mr. Scott, who lost his daughter in the Columbine tragedy, in a negative light because his beliefs do not match yours.........methinks thou dost protest too much. When you throw a rock into a pack of wolves, guess which one yelps? The one that got hit. Obviously the truth in Darrell Scott's words hit you where you live.

-- Ryan Jones (sryan84@hotmail.com), April 23, 2001.

Ryan: "I find it amusing that those who beleive that they should not have to so much as HEAR a prayer in a public institution such as a school, an athletic contest, or civic function also vehemently defend their "right" to burn flags, ridicule spiritual beliefs, and forward their own humanistic, anti-God propaganda in the name of free speech."

First point: you (either knowingly or ignorantly) misrepresent the position of those who object to the prayers. They don't object to hearing such prayers, but to the official or semi-official sponsorship of such prayers by government.

A teacher who leads a class in prayer is a whole different kettle of fish from a student who prays unobtrusively before taking a test. A prayer read over the loudspeaker before a basketball game is entirely different from a player crossing himself before taking a free throw. Prayer is not excluded from schools, but only the appearance of official sponsorship.

Next point: if the right of free speech doesn't grant one the right to "ridicule spiritual beliefs, and forward [...] humanistic, anti-God propaganda", then it isn't a right or a freedom, it is a worthless, lifeless rag doll dressed up as a right. Speech that everyone approves of doesn't need protection.

You can say what you want, but if you undermine the idea that we have a "right" to say what we think, then the next stop on that particular bus line is to use the police to make us shut up. You might not like that neighborhood as much as you think you would.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 23, 2001.

It's true. The shootings are a direct result of not enough God in the classrooms. That must be why this shooting occurred in a Roman Catholic high school. Guess there just isn't enough God there.

-- (religion@the.answer), April 23, 2001.

Little Nipper

First point: you (either knowingly or ignorantly) misrepresent MY point of view. I responded to a statement that was made my Mr. Cannuck that if he had to hear or listen to prayer, then it was forced on him. He did not bother to clarify, as you did, specific instances. I do not believe the teacher should lead a class in prayer, and I do not believe that the state should endorse any religion (although this does not require being openly hosile to the spiritual beliefs held by many). But in case you haven't heard, the "moment of silence" practice was declared unconstitutional, as well because somehow it supposedly might make students feel they must pray.

Second point: you (either knowingly or ignorantly) chose to ignore that the statement I made involving those who are intolerant of and offended by spiritual beliefs they do not share agreeing to shut up was made as a logical balance of fairness. If I cannot pray out loud or profess my belief in God of my own volition because it might offend someone, then it stands to reason that any act which would greatly offend someone would likewise be prohibited. THIS, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE POSITION I FEEL SHOULD BE TAKEN.

I serve in the armed forces of the United States. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I believe in your right to say it. I do not think that free speech should be restricted. And I joined the armed forces for that reason. But in case you have forgotten, free speech protects those who want to pray in school or carry a Bible just as much as it protects those who would burn a flag with no regard for what it means to those who gave their lives to defend it. Funny how those that continually preach tolerance only tolerate those points of view that do not directly conflict with their own.

So, I will respectfully ask that you consider my argument in the context in which it was made.

Ryan Jones

-- Ryan Jones (sryan84@hotmail.com), April 23, 2001.

Ryan: "But in case you have forgotten, free speech protects those who want to pray in school or carry a Bible just as much as it protects those who would burn a flag with no regard for what it means to those who gave their lives to defend it."

I know of no law or interpretation of law that prohibits you or anyone else from praying in a public school as a private individual, much less any law that prohibits carrying a Bible anywhere at any time - unless, perhaps, while you are acting in an official capacity, as a representitive of the law or of society (as in the case of a teacher, who might be required to restrict his or her religious practise to those neutral times and places where they are not acting as social surrogates.)

As for the flag and burning it, I fully respect the sacrifice made by those who have served our country and died for it. However, I think that the freedoms represented by our Bill of Rights have a far greater value than any flag, as those freedoms constitute the substance of our rights, while the flag is a mere symbolic representation of them.

Ryan: "I responded to a statement that was made my Mr. Cannuck..."

It was not clear that your statements were a direct response to Mr. Cannuck, since you did not quote him or refer to him. I deny that I misrepresented anything you said. If you intended something more than you said or a context more than you indicated or made clear, I am not a mind reader.

Ryan: "... the statement I made involving those who are intolerant of and offended by spiritual beliefs they do not share agreeing to shut up was made as a logical balance of fairness."

I am sorry. I cannot understand what you mean by this.

Further, there seems to be a myth that there is some movement afoot by liberals or some unnamed, poorly defined group to restrict the rights of Christians to practise their religion in their churchs, or to proselytize on their own nickel. I had a Jehovah's Witness at the door this weekend and spoke to him at length. I don't see ANY attempts being made to restrict Christians from evangelical activity in America, unless they are trying to use public facilities to their own advantage. All I see is an attempt to level the playing field for other religions and beliefs that are not as popular in the USA as Christianity.

Please feel free to cite facts to refute my beliefs and to establish the factuality of this persecution. Prove me wrong. I am open to the facts.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 24, 2001.

"I find it amusing that those who beleive that they should not have to so much as HEAR a prayer in a public institution such as a school, an athletic contest, or civic function also vehemently defend their "right" to burn flags, ridicule spiritual beliefs, and forward their own humanistic, anti-God propaganda in the name of free speech."

I find it amusing that someone who is upset about being misinterpreted by Little Nipper doesn't see his own folly in claiming to know what my mindset is. Mr. Jones, you have every right to pray wherever and whenever you want. However, you do not have the right to conduct planned or impromptu prayer meetings in schools, etc. I don't assert a right to burn flags, but contrary to what you appear to believe, there is nothing to prohibit it.

I do assert that there is a right to "ridicule spiritual beliefs," and I think you may have done so yourself. Mr. Jones, have you ever commented on how Hindus don't eat beef? Ever commented on how residents of India would get enough to eat if they'd only eat all those cows blocking Bombay intersections? Well, if so, then you have ridiculed someone else's spiritual beliefs. One man's god is another man's garbage.

Finally, you call it "humanistic, anti-god propaganda." I call the alternative "totalitarian christian orthodoxy," and I refuse to abide by it. I don't believe in your imaginary god, and I have every right to assert my belief. If I don't do so in your face, then perhaps you could return the favor and not pray in mine.

"If prayer offends you, then don't listen."

If humanistic, anti-god propaganda offends you, then don't listen. See how easy it is?

"Otherwise, agree to shut up and no longer speak of any of your own beliefs that anyone may find offensive."

You have no right to not be offended. Further, you have no right to advance your religion in a school or government building.

"It's time that the politically correct types live by their qwn edicts and stop being so hypocrytical."

Really? Explain how that is happening.

"Separation of church and state was meant to protect religious institutions from government, not vice versa, as many politicians and hollywood would have you believe."

Now we shall dance. Show me how. Prove your claim.

"How disgusting that so many on this sight would belittle Mr. Scott because he hit the nail on the head."

I have belittled Mr. Scott because he appears to be falsely claiming that he is running a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity. I have belittled him because the IRS says he is not running such a charity. I have belittled him because he has not provided me with a copy of his IRS Form 990, which he is required to do BY LAW to anyone who asks. I have belittled him because he has claimed that donations to his organization are tax-deductible, and they are not. I have belittled him because he is dodging taxes in order to make money -- a lot of money -- from his dead child. Further, I have belittled him because the experience of having a child killed does not make him an expert in law, history, government and all the other areas in which he claims expertise.

I am belittling Darrell Scott because every indication is that he is a tax-dodging dirtbag who is cashing in on his dead daughter.

"The truth hurts, doesn't it?"

You have failed to present any truth, and that goes for Mr. Scott, too.

"To all of you who would try and cast Mr. Scott, who lost his daughter in the Columbine tragedy, in a negative light because his beliefs do not match yours.........methinks thou dost protest too much."

Mr. Scott is casting himself in a negative light because he claims to be running a 501(c)(3) charity, yet he is not. He is casting himself in a negative light because he will not comply with the law and disclose how much money his "charity" is making. No one has cast Mr. Scott in a negative light FOR ANY OTHER REASON, and you need to learn to read, Mr. Jones.

"When you throw a rock into a pack of wolves, guess which one yelps? The one that got hit."

Actually, maybe it's the wolf that's evading taxes.

"Obviously the truth in Darrell Scott's words hit you where you live."

No, that's not obvious. It's more obvious to me that you haven't read through all the Darrell Scott threads, and that you are unaware of the strong indications that he is breaking the law. Deal with it, rock-throwing wolf.

"Second point: you (either knowingly or ignorantly) chose to ignore that the statement I made involving those who are intolerant of and offended by spiritual beliefs they do not share agreeing to shut up was made as a logical balance of fairness."

I didn't ignore it. In fact, I showed you where your basic assumption was wrong. Would you care to try again?

"If I cannot pray out loud or profess my belief in God of my own volition because it might offend someone, then it stands to reason that any act which would greatly offend someone would likewise be prohibited."

Nope. You have no right to not be offended. However, I suspect you are tossing this out as a red herring because you are prevented, as a matter of law, from engaging in group prayer or worship in a school or government building. You appear to erroneously believe that those who do not share your belief in your imaginary god must also have some set of shared beliefs, and that those must also be eliminated from schools and government buildings in some sort of attempt at "fairness." Well, Mr. Jones, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

"THIS, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE POSITION I FEEL SHOULD BE TAKEN."

That's good.

"I serve in the armed forces of the United States."

Well, la-de-da. I served for 12 years, including 2 years in the Persian Gulf, part of which was during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. So now what?

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I believe in your right to say it."

No, you don't. You'd like to not be "restricted," but since you have been, you seem to think that others with whom you disagree should be restricted as well.

"I do not think that free speech should be restricted."

Well, surprise! The Supreme Court long ago found that time, manner and place restrictions on free speech were permissible under the Constitution. That's why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

"And I joined the armed forces for that reason."

This is a non-starter. Why bring it up?

"But in case you have forgotten, free speech protects those who want to pray in school or carry a Bible"

How many times must this be said? Individuals can pray in school and cary bibles, and nothing PREVENTS that. However, GROUPS cannot, and teachers cannot LEAD such prayer. You are simply wrong, yet you cannot see it.

"just as much as it protects those who would burn a flag with no regard for what it means to those who gave their lives to defend it."

When a symbol of freedom becomes more important than the freedoms it symbolizes, then there are big problems afoot. People did not give their lives to defend A FLAG. They gave their lives to defend the freedoms SYMBOLIZED by that flag. If you remove freedoms, then there's no point in having the flag around in any form.

"Funny how those that continually preach tolerance only tolerate those points of view that do not directly conflict with their own."

Your point of view is tolerated. However, it is not permitted to use schools or government as a bullhorn, and that's the part you can't stand.

"So, I will respectfully ask that you consider my argument in the context in which it was made."

If you present it with the context intact, then it might be so considered.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 24, 2001.

Point of order: groups are allowed to pray in school, so long as it's student organized and does not interfere with class time or the civil rights of other students. Meeting before school to pray is fine, meeting at lunch is fine, praying in an empty classroom is fine. Blocking the entrance to the school with your prayer group or trying to turn study hall into a prayer group is against the law.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.

I have belittled Mr. Scott because he appears to be falsely claiming that he is running a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity. I have belittled him because the IRS says he is not running such a charity. I have belittled him because he has not provided me with a copy of his IRS Form 990, which he is required to do BY LAW to anyone who asks. I have belittled him because he has claimed that donations to his organization are tax-deductible, and they are not. I have belittled him because he is dodging taxes in order to make money -- a lot of money -- from his dead child. Further, I have belittled him because the experience of having a child killed does not make him an expert in law, history, government and all the other areas in which he claims expertise.

Excuse me, did you hear back from the IRS? If so, please show proof.

He claims to have expertise, where?

I saw the man, I feel for the man he lost a child. What bout the lawsuits of ALL the parents involved, which I read has been settled.

Does this make them money grubbing no good sob's also? Hmmm?

I dont care anymore which position others take, I will STAND on mine.

I feel bad for the man. PERIOD. IF he makes money so FUCKING what?

You jealous? Ever and I mean EVER cheat on your taxes? On anything?

Oh we are ALL perfect, shit, I forgot. By all means, let me grab the first stone and pass it on to the rest of the pack.

I WAS the one who stated, fwiw, that there is NO law banning prayer in school. Anyone can pray anywhere they wish. TRUTH.

Now what subject are we on? The one belittling Mr. Scott or the prayer issue?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 24, 2001.

Excuse me, did you hear back from the IRS? If so, please show proof.

I spoke to the IRS. He's not listed as a 501c3. But don't take my word for it, call them yourself. And check out Pub 79 while you're at it, the listing of all tax-exempt charities. He's not in there, either. Somewhere I have a link to a searchable tax-exempt charity database on the web. I'll dig it out if you're interested.

He claims to have expertise, where?

He's selling his services and a number of books.

I saw the man, I feel for the man he lost a child. What bout the lawsuits of ALL the parents involved, which I read has been settled.

Does this make them money grubbing no good sob's also? Hmmm?

Actually, the parents have lost children, and that is a tragedy, and they have sought compensation for that, which is fine. What is not fine is if they have committed fraud (i.e., lied about forming tax exempt charities) to get money. If Mr. Scott has done this, then he is a money grubber.

I dont care anymore which position others take, I will STAND on mine.

Hey, I can understand why you might feel sympathy for him, I really do. However, remember that if he really isn't a tax-exempt charity he has taken advantage of everyone that has donated money to him on false pretenses. Try to have some sympathy for them as well.

I feel bad for the man. PERIOD. IF he makes money so FUCKING what?

He's able to make money, but fraud is a crime, sumer. Someone pointed out on another thread that it also makes criminals out of those who have given him the money believing their donation was tax- exempt, only to find out that he's not recognized as a tax-exempt charity. To me that is a big fucking what.

You jealous? Ever and I mean EVER cheat on your taxes? On anything?

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never cheated on my taxes and I have never asked for money from people under false pretenses.

Oh we are ALL perfect, shit, I forgot. By all means, let me grab the first stone and pass it on to the rest of the pack.

Come on sumer, if the guy really is running a 501c3 charity than however he chooses to stump for donations is his business. Hell, if he's not running a charity but a private business, it's his business. But claiming a tax-exempt status when you're not a tax- exempt charity is just plain fraud.

I WAS the one who stated, fwiw, that there is NO law banning prayer in school. Anyone can pray anywhere they wish. TRUTH.

Yes, that's true.

Now what subject are we on? The one belittling Mr. Scott or the prayer issue?

Look, it's not belittling the man to discuss his charity openly. When you form a 501c3 organization, you open yourself to public examination, so in at least claiming that status (if not actually having it) Mr. Scott has opened himself to this examination. He ceased being a private citizen with a private issue when he claimed to have founded a 501c3 charity.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.

Search for Tax Exempt Organizations

-- (the@tax.man), April 24, 2001.

Cin, it's clear that you are dead set against changing your mind, but I figure somebody other than Tarzan needs to point out that you are rationalizing away some important facts.

"I feel bad for the man. PERIOD. IF he makes money so FUCKING what?"

He could make money without resorting to fraud. Lying about being a tax-deductible donation to a charity as an inducement to buy his merchandise is low, mean and despicable. There is no way around this.

Yes. He lost a daughter. He did so through no fault (or merit) of his own. I'm sure that he loved his daughter and the loss of her hurts. But that does not in any way excuse him on this other matter of lying.

"You jealous? Ever and I mean EVER cheat on your taxes? On anything?"

Cin, this is bad. Do you really want to go there?

"Oh we are ALL perfect, shit, I forgot. By all means, let me grab the first stone and pass it on to the rest of the pack."

Stop, cin. In that parable the stoning is literal. It refers to picking up an ugly, jagged rock and killing someone with it, for righteousness' sake. All Tarzan is doing is telling the truth about Darrell Scott, not stoning him to death (maybe with a somewhat righteous attitude, but still...).

Remember, Mr. Scott could have avoided this unpleasantness by a trivial exertion of his moral sense. That he did not choose so speaks very badly about him. Not about his daughter. Not about Mr. Scott as a parent who lost a daughter. About him and the ease with which he used a lie for a purely venal reason.

Cin, in a case like this, the only admissable defense is to ask forgiveness. I doubt Mr. Scott will ever come here and do that on his own behalf, for obvious reasons. But in your role as his defender, this is the best path open to you. You took a very different attitude and it doesn't look good on you.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 24, 2001.

Am I missing something, LN? Is sumer Cin?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.

Tarzan,

Do you KNOW that he does not have a 501c3, or are you assuming he doesn't because you don't see one named "the darrel scott foundation" and your bitterly negative attitude suggests fraud to you? If it really is fraud, the people who have donated to him will toss him in jail as soon as their tax returns get bounced. My bet though is that there really is a foundation under some not obvious name, as why would he be stupid enough not to make one? He still gets paid the same. The fact that you can't figure out what name it's under is your problem. Donate some money to it, and see how the cancelled check is signed or something, but don't insist something doesn't exist because you can't figure out what it is.

And on him not responding to you? Why not try requesting the information with a 10$ stipend to cover the time and cost of him responding? How much of a foundation's income should be taken up responding to anonymous internet assholes, anyway? I probably wouldn't bother responding to you either in his situation, at least not until the 30th request ;-) , an internet asshole like you is hardly likely to take him to court about it, but more likely just to complain on their forum, like you are doing, so there is no harm in NOT responding. I'd bet if you were the state's attorney general, your response would have been FedEx'd back to you the next day.

Feel free to waste your own time, but quit trying to waste other people's. Why not try working at your job for once?

-- Stick (with@killing.babies.tarzan), April 24, 2001.

*@!!@!*! Drat! No, they morphed in my brain between snagging the quote and writing the reply.

Sorry, cin. My bad. I apologize. It was 'sumer I was tsking.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 24, 2001.

Stick: Why not try requesting the information with a 10$ stipend to cover the time and cost of him responding?

You don't get it, do you?

Fraudulant "charities" spring up constantly like weeds after rain. The law is there to protect both legitimate charities and donors. It is in the interest of any legitimate charity to promptly comply with a request like Tarzan's. 30 days is ample time to get your act together and first class postage is widely accepted as part of the cost of doing business.

Trying to shift the responsibility to Tarzan to pry this information out of Mr. Scott is misguided at best and blind at worst. What next? Telling Tarzan he should go to Colorado and make his request in person?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 24, 2001.

Dear Nip: Its okay, it is I, SUMER, not Cin.

Lets DO go there, have YOU ever cheated, on anything? BTW, fwiw, we really do not know IF he has. I dont feel like calling IRS, I got better things imo to do than check on his status, shit I dont even trust the damn IRS.

I guess bout the only thing I 'can' agreee with is...IF those who made donations, WERE to be audited (yeah right, read the papers lately? hee hee) then they who donated would be in some 'minor' shit.

I'll go there though, IF you will, have you EVER cheated, on anything?

Ok, rest my case, but thanks for being cordial. I can appreciate your feels/opinions, and hey, I dont even expect you to do the same with me.

I just think the whole damn thing is worth a good head shaking. Who'd of thunk, becuz of an internet forum it would go so far?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 24, 2001.

Do you KNOW that he does not have a 501c3, or are you assuming he doesn't because you don't see one named "the darrel scott foundation" and your bitterly negative attitude suggests fraud to you?

The IRS has no record of him, or his organization being a tax-exempt 501c3 organization. If the IRS doesn't recognize you, you aren't a tax-exempt charity. Now I was willing, at the time I investigated this, to believe that it's possible that Mr. Scott just didn't have his organization listed due to timing. However, since Mr. Scott has refused to produce a Form 990, which is required of him under the IRS, it looks less and less like a clerical error.

If it really is fraud, the people who have donated to him will toss him in jail as soon as their tax returns get bounced.

There's no need to wait that long. I've already called the IRS to report him.

My bet though is that there really is a foundation under some not obvious name, as why would he be stupid enough not to make one?

If you read his website, you'll find that the name of the group is The Columbine Redemption. I don't know why he would claim a 501c3 status if he wasn't a 501c3 organization. I also don't know why he wouldn't comply with the law and produce a Form 990.

He still gets paid the same. The fact that you can't figure out what name it's under is your problem. Donate some money to it, and see how the cancelled check is signed or something, but don't insist something doesn't exist because you can't figure out what it is.

On his website, it clearly states that the group, The Columbine Redemption, is a 501c3 organization, and that you should make your checks payable to The Columbine Redemption. There was no figuring involved here. And I refuse to give money to any person, or group, that refuses to account for how my donations are used.

And on him not responding to you? Why not try requesting the information with a 10$ stipend to cover the time and cost of him responding? How much of a foundation's income should be taken up responding to anonymous internet assholes, anyway?

His burden under the law is to produce a tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.

sumer (hey, I got it right!): "I'll go there though, IF you will, have you EVER cheated, on anything?"

No memories of having cheated spring readily to mind, but it doesn't matter. I assume I have cheated somewhere, sometime. Memories like that tend to get buried pretty deeply, so not remembering is a highly unreliable indicator.

But according to the way I was taught, the only reason this has any bearing on what Mr. Scott did is that requiring forgiveness for my own sins should make it easier for me to forgive him for his.

Of course, my having done wrong doesn't mean that Mr. Scott has any excuse for lying. He doesn't. And it doesn't mean that committing fraud is right. It is wrong. And it doesn't mean that he isn't responsible for his actions. He is. And it doesn't mean that, if committed fraud, he shouldn't be punished. He should be.

But by all means, let's not not stone him to death. That would be unmerciful.

What you seem to believe is that, since we all do wrong from time to time, we should all just wink at each other any time anyone is caught. That road goes downhill so damn fast that you'll burn out your brakes before you'll ever find the bottom of the slope.

So, if that isn't what you meant, what are you driving at by asking if I have ever cheated?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 24, 2001.

Hi Nip.

Nope, you understood me just fine. As for the 'winking' statement, hell, I could say why not? But I wont :)

IF you can barely recall a time when you cheated, or anything else morally wrong, good for you. Cant and wont say the same for moi. Do I wish I could? Yeppers. Matter of fact, just went to the library and got me some books on self-improvement. OKAY, no comments peeps on this one hee hee.

Just read his words, have an open-mind. He LOST a daughter because 2 crazed kids hated. Period. I admire him for speaking out, all the better IF he gets paid. IF and again IF he is cheating IRS, let them worry bout it.

They (being IRS) must not be too concerned because we got Mr. Jackson by the BALLS and nobody is saying shit.

IF we wanna go for the juglar vein, why not take on Jesse? How come nobody is bitchin a fit and calling IRS for him? HUH? This is not only directed at you Nip, but to ALL of our fellow forum folks who picked up the phone for IRS.

Tell me is one worse than the other? Why?

Thanks.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 24, 2001.

Just read his words, have an open-mind. He LOST a daughter because 2 crazed kids hated. Period. I admire him for speaking out, all the better IF he gets paid. IF and again IF he is cheating IRS, let them worry bout it.

Eh... no. If someone is committing fraud and taking advantage of people, I personally feel that I should do something about it.

They (being IRS) must not be too concerned because we got Mr. Jackson by the BALLS and nobody is saying shit.

I'm missing something. Did Jesse Jackson commit tax evasion or fraud?

IF we wanna go for the juglar vein, why not take on Jesse? How come nobody is bitchin a fit and calling IRS for him? HUH?

Wait a minute. You said the IRS already has Jesse Jackson by the balls. So what's the point?

In any event, someone else's misdeeds don't excuse the misdeeds of another person. Just because Jackson may have committed fraud and tax evasion doesn't make it acceptable for Darrell Scott to commit fraud and tax evasion.

This is not only directed at you Nip, but to ALL of our fellow forum folks who picked up the phone for IRS.

To me, it's really not about Darrell Scott. Nipper pointed out that this is common. Groups come out and play on public sympathy and get people to donate because they think they're building an orgzanizatio when all they're doing is lining someone's pockets. Should we sit back and watch people get taken advantage of? Hey, maybe some folks would give Scott money just because he's a nice guy. Maybe others would give money to a charitable organization he's part of because they agree with the mission. Shouldn't they have a choice as to whom and what they're giving their money to?

Tell me is one worse than the other? Why?

I don't even know what Jackson supposedly did that was against the law. Once I know that, then I can speak to this point.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.

'sumer, as for whether Jesse Jackson is better or worse than Darrell Scott, let's just say Jackson's a bigger man on both the positive and negative sides of the ledger. Jackson has done a lot more good in his long public life than Scott could ever dream of doing and Jackson's misappropriation of PUSH funds was on a scale that makes Scott look like a piker. So make of it what you will.

Next question, if my trangressions don't give Mr. Scott any excuse for his, then why would Jesse Jackson's transgressions be any more effective for letting Scott off the hook? It's just the same play with a different handoff.

Next you'll be bringing up Clinton. Or, god forbid, Hitler. Leave it lay, 'sumer. It doesn't throw any more weight than it did the first time around. Two wrongs do not make a right.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 24, 2001.

If it really is fraud, the people who have donated to him will toss him in jail as soon as their tax returns get bounced.

There's no need to wait that long. I've already called the IRS to report him.

There you go tarz, you're taking positive action! Now you can shut your hole about it, and if his charity remains, you were wrong. If he goes to jail, you were right.

-- Yea (Tarzan@has.an.excuse.to.shut.up), April 24, 2001.

Tar, you feel a personal responsibility to do somethin, eh?

LOL. I bet you call 696-kids when you see a parent strike a child?

Do you tell on your friends too? I bet.

Jesse has done NO wrong, oh I'm sorry he's done more good. Now there is a piss poor excuse for ol Jess.

What I dont get is why anyone felt the need to contact IRS at all. I am certain of one thing, IF I do somethin wrong, I wont let nobody here no bout it. :-)

I can let it lay, but I'm sure it wont. Like yea said, guess we'll wait and see, eh?

Remember there is ONLY a 'few' subjects I get passionate over.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 24, 2001.

I really have a lot of respect for you sumer, but I think you're losing a bit of perspective on this. I want to be respectful of your opinions however, and I'm trying to be as circumspect as possible here. I hope you understand.

Tar, you feel a personal responsibility to do somethin, eh? LOL. I bet you call 696-kids when you see a parent strike a child?

Depends. If the kid was getting a spanking, no. I once saw a kid's mom punch him in the face at the mall. The kid was about eight years old and I didn't see what preceeded it, but I called 911 and went over to restrain the woman, along with several others people.

Do you tell on your friends too? I bet.

Good heavens, you make it sound like Mr. Scott has been ringing doorbells and running away!

First of all, I would not be friends with someone who committed fraud and played on the sympathies of people to get money. In college I had an acquaintance who filed a false disability claim one summer while on a state job. He claimed he hurt his back and was too sick to work, yet that very weekend he went water skiing. Yes, I turned him in.

Jesse has done NO wrong, oh I'm sorry he's done more good. Now there is a piss poor excuse for ol Jess.

I thought that was sort of lame as well. But you haven't told me yet what Jackson did beyond having the mistress.

What I dont get is why anyone felt the need to contact IRS at all.

I personally don't like fraud at all. I also don't like to see other people give money under false pretenses. And I really don't like it when someone purposely invites an audit into other people. It's just the way I am.

I am certain of one thing, IF I do somethin wrong, I wont let nobody here no bout it. :-)

We're not talking wrong as in "Gee, I went three miles over the speed limit," we're talking wrong as in "I solicited donations through a tax-exempt charity that wasn't really tax-exempt,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.

sumer: Now there is a piss poor excuse for ol Jess.

That's because it wasn't an excuse for ol' Jess.

You asked me who was better or worse and I gave the best answer I knew to make. You didn't ask me whether ol' Jess should be excused for his behavior. As it happens I don't have the slightest interest in making excuses for him. But you sure do seem interested in finding excuses for Mr. Scott.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 24, 2001.

Tarzan,

I haven't weighed in on this one before, but I decided to do so because you and Nipper are apparently determined to hammer this 501c3 thing to death. As someone who was raised in the church and who has worked with ministries most of his life (especially in radio), I can perhaps shed a little light on this.

The bottom line, if you're in a hurry, is that failing to find an entry for "Columbine Redemption" in the IRS database doesn't actually mean a whole lot.

Speaking from experience, it is common for a group to form one parent organization which then provides an "umbrella" for dozens of smaller subsidiaries. Obtaining 501c3 status is expensive and time-consuming, so these subsidiaries are glad for the affiliation. Each affiliate may legally call itself "not for profit" and "tax exempt," but won't necessarily appear in the IRS database.

This is certainly confusing and I DO wish that all ministries would clearly state who their "parent" is. (I believe this is part of the Evangelical Council for Financial Responsibility's recommendations, but I'm not sure. If not, it should be.)

You also have a legitimate complaint about Scott failing to provide more info on his status; he SHOULD do that. I am disappointed that you got no reply. But should he finally do so, don't be surprised if the answer is something like, "contact my church ..."

(Or possibly, "contact Family Research Council?" I suspect Gary Bauer because he runs the Prayer in schools organization linked to at the Columbine site, but that's just a guess).

To give you a perfect example, MY OWN CHURCH (the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Vestavia Hills, AL) didn't show up when I did a search of the IRS database, even though it's been in existence for YEARS and I know FOR A FACT that its tax-exempt status is just fine.

(I would suspect, but don't have the interest or time to run it down, that it's covered under the Church's general charter or something like that. See?)

Now: I have no idea what happened in Scott's specific case, but to give you an idea, it usually goes something like this: Darryl speaks to a few churches. He gets invited to speak elsewhere. Coupled with his burning desire (completely understandable!) to make his daughter's death mean something, he decides to set up a foundation. At that point, others step in and say, "here, we'll help. You can operate under our charter, we'll set you up with Ambassador Agency, etc., etc."

Here's another clue: the Columbine Redemption website was created (donated?) by the folks at Hydro Tec marine (the Java code for the pages is even the same; compare them[g]).

The www.rachelscott.com site is also administered from Missouri.

Now, I have *NO* idea how these people up in MO got word of Scott and his ministry, but it's obvious that they decided to help him with his Website.

But back to what I said at first: failing to find Scott's ministry in the IRS database doesn't prove anything. Yes, you have a right to complain about his failure to provide information, but it's wrong to draw conclusions based on silence.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 24, 2001.

Mr. Poole --

Thanks for the illuminating information. I appreciate your efforts to clear things up here. However, based on my experience with Mr. Scott's organization, I cannot believe that we are looking at a simple case of him being covered under someone else's 501(c)(3) filing.

Here are three good reasons why:

1) I didn't just search the IRS' database -- I contacted them directly, which is no mean feat this time of year. An IRS agent told me specifically that the Columbine Redemption was not listed under its own name or any other. This means that either Mr. Scott is lying, or that I got a clueless IRS agent (which I am certainly willing to accept).

2) Before I ever sent a snail-mail letter to Mr. Scott, I sent his organization an e-mail message asking for a copy of their Form 990. I included a name and an address so they could send it right along. I received a terse message back saying, essentially, "what do you want it for?" No explanation, no 'thanks for your interest,' simply a refusal to abide by the law and provide the Form 990 AS REQUIRED. Mr. Poole, far from being silent, Mr. Scott's organization is KNOWINGLY REFUSING to provide a document that they are bound to provide BY LAW. I don't see how you can put a good spin on that.

3) If Scott really is covered under another organization's 501(c)(3) filing, then it should be a simple matter to refer me to that organization. That action would get me what I asked for, would comply with the law, and would get me out of Scott's hair. Yet he has chosen not to do it. Why?

I have said repeatedly that we don't know for a fact what's going on here. But things don't look good, they don't pass the smell test, and Mr. Scott is not doing himself any favors.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 25, 2001.

Already,

1 - I thought I explained this. Even the IRS may be unaware of the names of everyone affiliated with, and working under the umbrella of, the IRS. Doesn't mean they're clueless, it's means they MAY NOT KNOW.

2 - I've already said that I agreed that he should provide this information. But again speaking from experience, you're wrong to automatically assume that he has something to hide. Many ministries have taken a cautious attitude toward granting media interviews or releasing information to unidentified individuals because of negative publicity.

An analogous example: radio stations are similarly *REQUIRED* to provide you with a copy of their public file, which is a record of all mail received, copies of various government licenses and filings, etc. Speaking from experience, most of them will also ask, "why do you want this info?" even though they're not supposed to.

(Trust me on that one. Again, I speak from first-hand experience.[g])

In some cases, it's simple ignorance. They don't realize that the law says, "if someone asks for the file, you show it to 'em not now, but RIGHT now." What I disagree with is your defacto assumption of guilt or chicanery.

There's a good discussion of the legal requirements in Nonprofit.org's FAQ ('bout halfway down the page). You are required to identify yoruself when asking for the info; did you? They have a right to charge a reasonable fee for copying and postage. And -- here's the narrow exception -- if they think the information is being requested for the purpose of harrassment, they CAN refuse.

So it's not QUITE as cut and dried as you think.

3 - Is an extension of the other two. I've already agreed that he should be forthcoming with the info. But again: did you identify yourself? Did you offer to pay for copies? If not, he doesn't even have to respond.

Now, if you write him and say, "this is Tom Jones of Blankey-Ville, OH, and I want this information for so and so, here's $20 to cover the costs of copying and shipping," he CAN'T refuse, you're right.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 25, 2001.

Already and Stephen-

I got a very similar response to my initial e-mail as well. I faxed over a request, and got no response. I tried to call, and got no response. I photocopied the Form 990 disclosure reg and sent it to him, with a registered letter asking whoever to please send me a copy of the 990, as required by law, and to please let me know if they required any money from me to comply with this. Yes, I did identify myself by my legal name along with address, home phone number, cell phone number, e-mail, and fax number. I mentioned in my letter that I always request financial information on any group I wish to donate money to before making the donation(which is true). As yet, no response. I know they got the registered letter.

I am part of a couple of 501c3 organizations, though not religious ones. Both are affiliated under other groups, yet both are listed in Pub 78 and listed with the IRS and I was able to find both in the link provided. As far as who developed and hosted the web pages, that really doesn't mean anything. A lot of web pages are developed and hosted by people not affiliated with the organization or its parent and often not in the same state. In one case that I know of, we got a small web company looking for referenceable development credits. They got something, we got something, without money changing hands or any affiliation necessary.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

Jessie Jackson and his organization has been investigated to death, especially after it came out about his affair. Nothing wrong was found wrong. Just because he couldn't keep it in his pants it does not not mean he is guilty of financial wrongdoings. But then when has that ever stopped people from assuming otherwise?

Then there is the question of "who hasn't knowingly done something they knew was wrong. Like take a pen from work? Well, some people live like that, not doing something they could get away with without being caught just because it the principals they live by. There are actually some people who live by a standard that doing something wrong is not correct, whether it is a little unnoticable thing or a big thing. I realise most people justify doing something wrong by saying it doesn't hurt or cost any one any thing, but what about the knowledge within themselves? They know. Doesn't it make them feel bad knowing they did it?

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 25, 2001.

I really have a lot of respect for you sumer, but I think you're losing a bit of perspective on this. I want to be respectful of your opinions however, and I'm trying to be as circumspect as possible here. I hope you understand.

Tarz: Thanks for the kind words. I respect you also. I 'maybe' losing perspective, but, hey thats me :-)

The best thing bout life is....You can be who you are and if folks like ya, cool, if not, oh well. IMHO.

I 'used' to be (believe it or not) a person who 'did' kind things, who DID not do things I knew better than doing. I've changed. I was never the type who would call on a situation as you did in a mall. As a matter of fact, back in the day, my son was so strong willed, I beat his ass in the mall. He had flung himself to the floor and began to throw a tantrum, I yoked him up and whupped his ass. Thats me, and see, back then it WAS legal.

Times have changed. I 'try' to maintain a soft spot. In SOME situations. To you, my feeling sympathy for D. Scott is clouding my better judgement based on Supposition that he MIGHT be a tax frauder.

Cool. IF he is a tax frauder, it is HIS business, not mine. I still will feel much sympathy for the man, have seen him on tv.

Now imho, he is either for real, or one hell of a great actor. I choose to believe that he is for real.

Tarz, I have a son who is dying. Maybe that has nothing to do with the other, but I know the Pain a little already. I cant fathom the murder portion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is....to each their own. There are so many scammers out here IRL I just dont pay attention. I am at the point where to be frank, I guess I really dont care. Sound strange? Guess I just got hardened along the way.

And I see others trying real hard to prove Jessee is okay, he didnt defraud rainbow push, whats up with that? He stole money and gave it (or hell, maybe he didnt steal it? he just gave it away, it was his?) to his mistress, and that is OKAY? Oh they investigated him and he aint been caught red handed....lets GET HONEST here...I believe the sob is guilty as shit. does it matter what i believe? NO.

But D. Scott has been pretty much tried and convicted on this forum, imo.

I think that investigating/turning someone in, for fraud is up to an individual if they choose, but, then sit back and dont say nuthin bout ol rev J., cause he done did some good? Bullshit.

IF I got paid to turn someone in, hell, I'd do that in a heart beat. Thats the type of person I am. And ONLY IF I couldnt/wouldnt suffer retaliation. But even then, I would not bother Mr. Scott, sorry, imo, he lost a child, I guess I just cant get beyond that.

nuff said.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.

I 'used' to be (believe it or not) a person who 'did' kind things, who DID not do things I knew better than doing. I've changed. I was never the type who would call on a situation as you did in a mall. As a matter of fact, back in the day, my son was so strong willed, I beat his ass in the mall. He had flung himself to the floor and began to throw a tantrum, I yoked him up and whupped his ass. Thats me, and see, back then it WAS legal.

I don't have an issue with parents disciplining their kids. In this case, there was an adult woman who punched an eight year-old in the face so hard that his nose began to spurt blood. She continued to shake him, and it looked like (to me, anyway) that she had her hands around his neck. That's over the line.

Cool. IF he is a tax frauder, it is HIS business, not mine. I still will feel much sympathy for the man, have seen him on tv.

You know, I have sympath for him as well. But I don't think that his role as a bereaved father means he should be exempt from the law and take advantage of other people. If he's not, that's all fine and well, but if he is, someone should stand up and say something about it.

Now imho, he is either for real, or one hell of a great actor. I choose to believe that he is for real.

I don't doubt that he lost a daughter and that he feels that loss deeply and painfully. What I do doubt is that he's following the law when it comes to his group.

I guess what I'm trying to say is....to each their own. There are so many scammers out here IRL I just dont pay attention. I am at the point where to be frank, I guess I really dont care. Sound strange? Guess I just got hardened along the way.

Nah, it sounds human. And there's nothing wrong with this, at least I wouldn't judge you for that. However, some of us are in a different place.

And I see others trying real hard to prove Jessee is okay, he didnt defraud rainbow push, whats up with that? He stole money and gave it (or hell, maybe he didnt steal it? he just gave it away, it was his?) to his mistress, and that is OKAY? Oh they investigated him and he aint been caught red handed....lets GET HONEST here...I believe the sob is guilty as shit. does it matter what i believe? NO.

I suspect it would matter to you if you were the first person to stumble on this and if the whole world didn't know about it yet. If Jesse Jackson took PUSH money and gave it to his mistress, he deserves to be prosecuted. If he used his own money, then it's a private matter.

But D. Scott has been pretty much tried and convicted on this forum, imo.

He's had ample opportunity to comply with the law and provide a Form 990. If/when he does that, I'll post the results here.

I think that investigating/turning someone in, for fraud is up to an individual if they choose, but, then sit back and dont say nuthin bout ol rev J., cause he done did some good? Bullshit.

I have no idea what Jesse Jackson did or didn't do. Would you like to provide some data? If he's done something wrong, I promise to work myself up into frothing Tarzan mode. :-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

Cherri, "Jessie Jackson and his organization has been investigated to death" Name the investigator.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.

'Sumer:

The Rainbow PUSH Coalition explains quite well on their website how THEY [not Jesse, but the folks who run the thing] provided this woman $35,000 in the form of severance pay. They also explain how the $3,000/month in childcare is coming out of Jesse's pocket. I know these amounts, etc. have been "mushroomed" by some to the height of $250,000. The same folks who state these false amounts accuse Jesse of all kinds of other things, including breaking RICO statutes.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2001.