The post below was sent as a comment to one of my articles titled "When All Else Fails, Fake It..
Sorry if this is offensive to anyone but it was important that I post it in it's entirety and will explain immediately following.
Holden and Sharon Caulks to me show details 7:21 AM (10 hours ago) Reply
Holden and Sharon Caulks has left a new comment on your post "When All Else Fails....Fake It":
Hey Lynne,Arent you going to post a congratulations to Fred Paquin for fighting the good fight and winning his court battle. Or are you going to continue to smoke aarons meat sickle and bash anyone who disagrees with your precious skunk headed freak. You dont have to answer, I already know. We all know how trashy and bias you are. I cant believe your last name isnt bias. Well, tell ****** we all feel very bad for her, I mean we would have loved to see her perjur herself in court whikle she tried to explain her infidelity and tramp like ways.
Stay in touch Lynne Cleaver.
Often when I have difficulty making up my mind about a particular situation or person, I weigh the pros and cons or the good and bad of it all. Someone makes a mistake, whether large or small, admits the wrong, pays their dues to society, makes every effort to make amends to those that suffered as a result of their mistake, then that person does deserve a certain degree of forgiveness..
But if Fred Paquin had made one mistake by being involved in an altercation with a female and as a result admitted that a man of his size, involved in a physical assault against a small female is not exactly a fair fight or a manly thing to do, was apologetic and willing to pay his dues then he should be forgiven.
Fred Paquin was caught on camera in the midst of a gaming violation. Could have been an honest mistake...a case of forgetfulness or it could have been a deliberate act fueled by a " I- can-do-what-I-want-because-I-have-the-power-to-get-away-with-it" attitude. Who is going to tell the Chief of Police and a director on the board of the Sault Tribe what he can and cannot do?
Fred Paquin took no police action when he was informed by Bernard Bouschor that he was about to relieve the tribe of 2.7 million dollars. When he was offered the same deal, why did he turn it down? Was it because he knew it was wrong or because he was making an awesome salary double-dipping as well as having double the power....too much to give up?
Fred Paquin was accused of sexual harassment which resulted in the loss of the victim's career when she was terminated for reporting the numerous incidents.
Since I have spoken repeatedly of Paquin's dirty deeds, I have had calls and anonymous emails from those who claim to be aware of other victims that are afraid to report the other incidents of ????? Because they are unreported, I cannot even hint at the details of the accusations. I can only suggest that they do us all a favor and do the right thing.
Any decent person with a normal level of integrity would agree that this man should not be wearing a badge representing someone who swore to uphold the law. If Paquin could take the assault charge along with the sexual harassment charge and the gaming violation and get a job as a police chief or even just as an officer with another department then I guess he should be allowed to remain as police chief of the Sault Tribe.
But what police department would hire someone with that sort of record? Wouldn't they be fearful of opening themselves up for lawsuits by hiring someone with that record on their force? I don't think he could get hired elsewhere if he had to to be honest and include the above details so why allow him to dirty the name of the Sault Tribe Police any longer?
Back to the post from the "Caulks" who are defending Fred's right to beat up a woman because "they" believe she is disreputable herself. The "Caulks" may not be aware that Paquin is now on probation, has a no-contact order with the victim and her family, must apologize to the victim, must have his head examined and agree to counseling for his problems with women.
To me, he...oops I mean the "Caulks" sounds like someone who has been in a similar situation, didn't take responsibility for "their" actions, blamed others for "their" own mistakes, believes there is nothing wrong with the way Paquin lives his life, and seems to pity the victimizer instead of the victim.
But the point is, how many people do you know that you consider to be of good moral character that would write the sort of sexually graphic dirt "the Caulks" wrote while criticizing the morals of Paquin's victim? It's pretty clear to me that "the Caulks" have no room to talk.
One last point, Payment supporters do not write that sort of filth because they are a different breed of people with higher moral standards than those that would support Fred Paquin's actions and I would like to say "thanks" to the "Caulks" for giving me yet another opportunity to point that out.
Lynne "Wind Weaver"
No comments:
Post a Comment