Mother Gives Away Son Via Internet July 14, 2000 6:15 am EST

Met Adopter While Surfing Through A Chat Room On The Net

SACRAMENTO, JULY 13, 2000 (CBS News) - A California woman has been charged with giving her 10-year-old son to someone she met on the Internet because she could no longer cope with his misbehavior.

The woman arranged to give the boy away nearly three months ago to a Florida man she knew only as Gus, then moved to another town, said Vacaville Police Detective Patrick Cowan.

The boy was found apparently unharmed over the weekend and will be sent back to California, Cowan said.

The child's mother, Helen Chase, 29, has posted $1,000 bond on charges of child endangerment, child abandonment and failure to provide for a child. No hearing date has been set.

There was no home telephone number listed for Chase, and police did not have a lawyer listed for her.

"She told us basically, yeah, she was having trouble with her 10-year-old, problems at school, that sort of thing really typical 10-year-old stuff," Cowan said. "She just decided she couldn't deal with this kid and wanted to adopt him out which is kind of unusual in the first place."

Chase told police she attempted to have the boy adopted in December after he had what Cowan described as minor disciplinary problems. Cowan said police can find no record of any adoption official talking with her.

In January, she began searching computer chat rooms and met Gustaf Sjoberg of St. Petersburg, Fla., who wanted to adopt a 7-year-old boy, Cowan said.

The boy's behavior improved temporarily after Chase told him she was planning to send him away, Cowan said. In February, however, she told police she could no longer deal with her son and arranged for Sjoberg to come get him on April 20.

-- Anon (anon@anon.anon), July 14, 2000

Answers

I guess we can now say this may become a trend. Has anyone seen Dennis today? ROTFLMAO!.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 14, 2000.

FS.You took the words out of my mouth. TOO funny.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 14, 2000.

I can't help but think of what this poor kid must be going through emotionally. When I heard this story this morning, and the fact that it went undetected for over two months, I thought of the attempted adoption on the old board and how so many were aware of it and how few actually took action, including myself, to my shame.

Someone who stood up

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 14, 2000.

Funny part is the "paranoid" Olson can be found as simply as plugging in his last name name and Hudson, Wi.(from the TV interview) into any net phone search and viola'.Given that, one has to question whether or not all his forum hopping had more to do with "networking" for a job or something else.

Since CPS did enter the picture and then seems to have decided that the baby could stay with the 15 year old child mother, there was at least some independent review which should be satisfactory.

The other part of this little "baby" mystery is why the Grandparents waited so long and then, when their backs were up against a wall, did not contact any church or independent group in either Wisc. or Mn.

You would hate to think that this was just an episode to collect names of people who would do anything and pay any price to adopt.

"Baby Brokering" was not unknown long before the internet and it takes no great leap of the imagination to suppose that such types are using the internet now. Its one of the shadiest type of things and in some states was illegal even for lawyers.

-- Anon (anon@anon.anon), July 14, 2000.

The obvious answer to this problem is for the government to register all internet users, with the end goal being to ban the internet completely. Well, to ban the internet for the common man, anyway. Government officials should still have the advantage of utilizing the internet to protect, er I mean, benefit their lives. Government officials and those high profile entertainment types, like Rosie O'Donnell.

Don't complain to me. It's for the children.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 14, 2000.

J: That was "tongue in cheek", right? [otherwise, it made no sense.]

Personally, I don't think Dennis did anything wrong on this one. He, apparently, knew these folks, as they lived in his area. The parties involved made the decision to put the teen and infant with him. Whether this was a good or bad decision is not mine to judge. People abuse, ignore, and dump children every day. The internet itself plays an inconsequential role.

MY job [as I see it] is/was to raise the three I bore to the best of my ability and do the best I can to report abuse that I see IRL. If I tried to concern myself with the problems of the WORLD in this regard, I'd have no time left for the important people in MY life.

Did this "Chase" personality do something wrong? *I* think so. Did the grandmother on TB2000 do something wrong? *I* think so. I think those folks who throw newborns in dumpsters are doing something wrong. The internet isn't at fault here. People who want to dump their kids have ALWAYS found a way to dump them. They've oftentimes found ways to make a profit in so doing, as well.

Samaritan chose to call authorities. I don't see anything wrong in that. Personally, I don't have the money to call authorities in other states to report situations in other states that I've run across on the internet. If I see a situation arise in Texas, I'd take the time to report it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 14, 2000.

J-

There's no need to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights to the web, as outlined in the first amendment. We don't need any new laws, instead, we should enforce the thousands of laws that are currently on the boooks which are designed to protect web users. We should also educate all citizens, particularly children, in how to use the internet safely. The National Internet Association could send in Gregory Geek to schools around the country, showing children the right and wrong way to use the internet. We could also talk to them about the importance of speaking up when they see something wrong happening on the internet, instead of just sitting around like defenseless sheeple waiting for the sysops to show up.

Remember, if you outlaw the web, only outlaws will access the web.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 14, 2000.

Anita,

Yes, my post was intended to be thick sarcasm paralleling how it is just as absurd to blame a gun for the behavior of a criminal as it is to blame the internet for the behavior of the mother of the 10 year old.

I agree wholeheartedly that Dennis Olson didn't do anything wrong in opening his home to a 15 year old unwed mother and her infant child.

Yes, Ms. Chase did something terribly wrong, but as you pointed out, the internet is not to blame. That is why I took the opportunity to sarcastically show how gun control looks when applied to other situations.

Finally, I disagree with you on what Samaritan did. If she had proof that the child(or the mother, who was also a child) was in danger, then she should have called the authorities. Instead, she brought big government into the life of a man whose only "wrong" was to be concerned enough for the welfare of mother and child to open up his home to them. In the eyes of Samaritan, maybe that wasn't the only "wrong" Dennis Olson was guilty of, though. After all, he was a "doomer", and we all know how "wrong" that was.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 14, 2000.

Y2J, you are drastically misrepresenting Samaritan's motives. Here is his/her response to you the first time you did this.

I reasoned that if the girl were really in trouble, she needed an advocate who was only interested in helping her. If the girl weren't in trouble, then the county would continue to monitor the situation, but wouldn't step in. Contrary to doomer belief, the goal of county Health and Human Services is to keep families together whenever possible, not tear tham apart for political reason. It was clear to me that the grandmother was not in a position to judge the safety and welfare of her daughter and grandson.

Another reason I called the county was because there was no involvement of the biological father. My younger brother got his girlfriend pregnant ten years ago, and rather than tell him, the girl moved away, had the baby, gave her up for adoption, and never told my brother. He only found out 18 months ago when he ran into a acquaintance from high school, who assumed that he knew. Our family would have jumped at the chance to take care of the baby, my brother would have offered to marry her, but we were not given any of those options. His parental rights were terminated without his knowledge or consent, and there isn't a day that goes by that we don't wish someone had known what was going on.

That baby has a father somewhere. The grandmother implied that the girl was raped, and if that is the case, then the father has no parental rights and the girl is in even more trouble than was clear from the original thread. If the girl wasn't raped however, the father of that baby has parental rights that must be considered.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 14, 2000.

Tarzan,

Touche' on your NIA post. : )

As far as Samaritan's motives go, I would not say that I am DRASTICALLY misrepresenting them. You may be doing some misrepresenting yourself, though. Why did you edit out the first line of Samaritan's reply to me that you just posted above? The line that said, "Yes, it did make me feel good". Remember this was her(maybe his, but I don't want to write her/his throughout the post) reply after I had asked her, "Did it make you feel important when you snitched on someone that was trying to help another person"?

Regardless, I will grant to you that in my cynicism, I may be concluding that Samaritan's MOTIVES were not as correct as they, indeed, may have been. I still hold that even if her motives were as pure as driven snow, her ACTIONS were way out of line. No government agency that has the power to destroy your life is as benign as Samaritan believes. It is best to stay off of their radar screens if at all possible. But between her naivete' regarding big government, and her unresolved torment for her unknown niece, she put Dennis Olson squarely in the middle of Wisconsin's child welfare agency's radar screen.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 14, 2000.

I vehemently disagree with you on this last one, J. I don't know what YOU have to fear from the government, but I'd allow them to come into my home and see what *I* was doing with kids anytime they wanted, and the only kids *I* have are my own.

Dennis never went through the authorization process required of even foster parents. Ask Cherri how often agencies check up on HER, as she's been a foster parent for YEARS.

It's a necessary part of living in a society in which folks CARE about each other, IMO. People change from day to day. If a family is caring for someone ELSE'S child, it's up to us as a society [working through these governmental agencies] to check up on how they're doing.

My daughter has been working for Boston Market for YEARS. She started when she was in high-school, and continues there part-time while she attends college. Her supervisor [although an obnoxious man] had never before made suggestive advances until RECENTLY. I don't know what change occurred in HIS life that led him onto this path, but he made suggestive comments to my daughter, and she basically told him to stay away from her. Another female employee was offered a 40-hour wage for working 20 hours if she'd give him a kiss. The girl told him that she wanted the agreement in writing, and he gave her a SIGNED contract.

To make a long story short, the girl took the contract to the manager and the manager began interviewing the entire staff. When my daughter's turn came up, she was met with, "But I've worked with him for three years, and nobody has complained about this before." My daughter didn't quite know how to respond, as she'd worked with this man for quite a long time and he'd never demonstrated this behavior previously in HER experience, as well. Folks flake out for some reason. We hear it all the time on the news: "He was SUCH a nice person. I just can't imagine him doing such a thing."

YOU may want folks off the radar of supervisory agencies, but *I* sure don't. If you're not guilty, nothing comes of it. If you ARE, someone's life may be saved.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 14, 2000.

J-

"Why did you edit out the first line of Samaritan's reply to me that you just posted above? The line that said, "Yes, it did make me feel good". Remember this was her(maybe his, but I don't want to write her/his throughout the post) reply after I had asked her, "Did it make you feel important when you snitched on someone that was trying to help another person"?

Actually, I left off the first line by accident. Now that you bring it up however, I do think it's interesting that you're attempting to do some editing of your own. Just so we're on the same page here, you said, "Did it make you feel important when you snitched on someone that was trying to help another person? Do you also have a list of all your neighbors that might be gun owners? Was anyone in your family's history a Nazi sympathizer?"

"I still hold that even if her motives were as pure as driven snow, her ACTIONS were way out of line. No government agency that has the power to destroy your life is as benign as Samaritan believes."

Frankly, J, there aren't many government agencies that DON'T have the power to wreck your life, if you've screwed up. Break the law badly enough and you'll go to jail. Refuse to pay your mortgage and you'll find your house repossesed and your credit ruined. Commit adultery while in the military and you'll get a dishonorable discharge. Of course, if you don't do any of those things, you're in the clear.

"It is best to stay off of their radar screens if at all possible."

I for one do not want to see adoptive or foster parents off any radar screens. Hold their pasts up to the light, ensure that any child placed in their care will be as safe as possible. I can't believe that you would actually propose we do less.

"But between her naivete' regarding big government, and her unresolved torment for her unknown niece, she put Dennis Olson squarely in the middle of Wisconsin's child welfare agency's radar screen."

Well first off, I wouldn't say she was naive at all. Lots of people wouldn't have known who to call (or even how to find Dennis in the first place). I would say she's pretty resourceful. Moreover, unless Dennis wanted a more permanent situation, the ones who were exposed to the radar screen were the grandparents and the mother herself. As an example, the couple in Florida who adopted the boy in the first thread are not under investigation.

Moreover, I think she has a fully fledged bastard of a good point regarding the baby's father (to paraphrase Black Adder). Where's your concern for his rights?

Anita-

"I vehemently disagree with you on this last one, J. I don't know what YOU have to fear from the government, but I'd allow them to come into my home and see what *I* was doing with kids anytime they wanted, and the only kids *I* have are my own."

Good point. I couldn't have said it better myself. When I was a kid, I was sent to another city to stay with my grandparents while my mother recovered from cancer. We had a CPS worker come over to check us out and interview all of us. I guess that means we hit their "radar screen". Nothing much came of it because nothing bad was going on.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 14, 2000.

Tarzan said:

Frankly, J, there aren't many government agencies that DON'T have the power to wreck your life, if you've screwed up. Break the law badly enough and you'll go to jail. Refuse to pay your mortgage and you'll find your house repossesed and your credit ruined. Commit adultery while in the military and you'll get a dishonorable discharge. Of course, if you don't do any of those things, you're in the clear.

I think you forgot a few more things to avoid doing if you want to stay "in the clear".

Start an unpopular religion, and get your house burned to the ground and bulldozed with several dozen people including children in it.

Refuse to act as an informer for a government agency, and have your wife and child killed by government snipers.

Refuse to pay a tax that the taxing agency claims is voluntary, and go to jail for years.

Get involved in a domestic dispute about a boy whose father lives in a totalitarian country and whose mother died trying to get him here, and have armed goons break your door down in the middle of the night while you're waiting for your court date to occur.

Own some land that a government agency wants, and be killed by armed goons who break into your house in the middle of the night on the pretext of searching for drugs.

Have a disease for which the treatment is a drug that the government disapproves of and die choking on your own vomit when you are unable to obtain it.

And literally millions of other "unclear" behaviors, which oddly enough are defined and redefined by the government, not you.

I hope this helps.

-- ABC (a@b.c), July 14, 2000.

And yet these vicious, evil government who is apparently just waiting for a chance to say "gotcha" left Dennis Olson alone when he showed up on their "radar screen". Dennis Olson, who by his own admission is borderline hostile to the government, and has made several posts on several public bulletin boards, found himself in the perfect position to have his life ruined by the government, and yet nothing happened. Isn't that odd?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 14, 2000.

Anita,

I believe that we all have much to fear when government becomes too powerful and is more than willing to wield that power in a capricious manner. I hope that by capitalizing (for emphasis, I assume) the word, "YOU", in the first paragraph of your post, that you are not implying that I have done something wrong. I was hoping that we could disagree without resorting to any attacks, even if they are subtle in nature.

In my state, Dennis would not have to go through an authorization process for foster parenting in the situation that he was in unless the state agency had previously been involved in the case. It would be the equivalent of letting your children stay with a neighbor while you went out of town. Surely you wouldn't want to involve the government before leaving your children with a neighbor or your best friend, would you?

I disagree completely with your next statement. If I decide to temporarily leave my children with my parents, or my siblings, or my best friend, or my neighbors, it is not society's or government's BUSINESS. Unless those children are in DANGER, society and government should keep their noses OUT.

You then go on to say, "YOU may want folks off the radar of supervisory agencies, but *I* sure don't. If you're not guilty, nothing comes of it. If you ARE, someone's life may be saved".

That about sums up our differences, Anita. You seem to be willing to give up your rights for the feeling of safety that you believe big government can provide. I am not willing to give up my rights, no matter what a bunch of dishonest politicians promise me. They never seem to be able to come through on their promises. Lastly, in a perfect system, if you are not guilty, nothing comes of it. In an imperfect system, if you are not guilty, your life can still be completely ruined.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 15, 2000.

Tarzan,

I stand by all of my words in my post from the old thread, even if they might have been a little harsher than they should have been. I did edit for brevity. If you notice, Samaritan's "Yes, it did make me feel good", reply only makes sense as an answer to the first of my three questions to her, not to the other two, and that is why I felt nothing was lost in the edit. I did, however, consider posting all three of those questions for fear of looking hypocritical, as you have pointed out here. I hope that I have cleared that up, so on to the rest of your post.

You seem to believe the same thing that Anita does: If you are not guilty, you have nothing to fear from the authorities. If only this were true. How many cases have they overturned in California due to the criminal behavior of that rogue drug enforcement group? Dozens? Government agencies have the power to wreck your life, even if you haven't screwed up. I am not saying that it happens most of the time, and I am not even saying that it happens often. But it happens way too much.

You also wrote, "I for one do not want to see adoptive or foster parents off any radar screens. Hold their pasts up to the light, ensure that any child placed in their care will be as safe as possible. I can't believe that you would actually propose we do less".

Tarzan, I agree with these statements wholeheartedly. Dennis Olson, however, was neither an adoptive nor foster parent, nor did he propose to become one, as far as I am aware. He merely opened up his home to a (very)young mother and her child.

Samaritan actually does raise a very good point regarding the baby's father's rights (unless the mother was, in fact, raped). How the mother and infant temporarily staying at Dennis Olson's home infringes on his parental rights, I'm not sure. I do find it ironic that those of you who are pro choice don't seem to be very concerned about the rights of the father while the baby is in utero, though.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 15, 2000.

ABC,

Thank you for the list of real life examples.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 15, 2000.

Tarzan,

In the case of Dennis Olson, I will grant you that nothing has happened, yet. As I said earlier, it does not necessarily happen often, but it undoubtedly happens.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 15, 2000.

J,

You're quite welcome. If you need a few more, I'll try to oblige; it shouldn't be hard, as there are hundreds or thousands of examples, including some I've heard directly from my brother, who is an attorney who sometimes acts as a public defender.

-- abc (a@b.c), July 15, 2000.

"If you notice, Samaritan's "Yes, it did make me feel good", reply only makes sense as an answer to the first of my three questions to her, not to the other two, and that is why I felt nothing was lost in the edit."

I read it as Samaritan being in your face after you basically called her a Nazi. Calling someone a Nazi is a good way to make yourself look like an idiot and I didn't want to muddy the post. Anyway, why shouldn't she feel good? She did the right thing after all.

"You seem to believe the same thing that Anita does: If you are not guilty, you have nothing to fear from the authorities. If only this were true. How many cases have they overturned in California due to the criminal behavior of that rogue drug enforcement group? Dozens?"

And this has what to do with the fact that Dennis was apparently examined and left alone by CPS?

"Government agencies have the power to wreck your life, even if you haven't screwed up. I am not saying that it happens most of the time, and I am not even saying that it happens often. But it happens way too much."

This is no excuse to allow an innocent child to be placed in a potentially dangerous situation with little or no safeguards. Maybe she was safe with Dennis, but the grandmother got lucky on that one. Should she gamble with her infant grandson's future the way this California woman gambled with her own son's future?

"Tarzan, I agree with these statements wholeheartedly. Dennis Olson, however, was neither an adoptive nor foster parent, nor did he propose to become one, as far as I am aware. He merely opened up his home to a (very)young mother and her child."

Ah, but the problem isn't so much with Dennis as it is with the solicitation in the first place. Dennis took the children in (remember, the mother was only 15) but it was the grandmother who sought to give the baby away without any kind of background check or safeguards whatsoever.

"Samaritan actually does raise a very good point regarding the baby's father's rights (unless the mother was, in fact, raped). How the mother and infant temporarily staying at Dennis Olson's home infringes on his parental rights, I'm not sure."

Well, how about this; your wife decides that she can't take care of your kids one day while you're at work. When you come home, you find that she's sent them to live with a family in a different state. Would you be upset? Would you feel your rights had been infringed?

"I do find it ironic that those of you who are pro choice don't seem to be very concerned about the rights of the father while the baby is in utero, though."

Are you so fresh out of arguments that you have to change the subject?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 16, 2000.

J: I've never in my life had any problems with the government. My parents never had any problems with the government, nor did my children ever have any problems with the government.

It seems to ME that folks like abc [or whatever it was] haven't studied the cases involved before jumping to the conclusion that the government overstepped their bounds. That you agree with the examples cited indicates that you haven't studied them either.

For instance, the Davidian Compound at Mt. Carmel was established in 1934. It passed through many leaderships before ultimately being "led" by the megalomaniac Vern Powell. The government didn't get involved because the folks there believed in something outside of the norm. They got involved because they'd been receiving complaints from neighbors and family members of the cult regarding the abuses taking place there. Neighbors were scared. Family members were scared. Cult members were scared.

Both this case and the Elian case were ones wherein a parent said, "I want my child back." In both cases, the parties holding the children said, "You'll have to use force. I'm not giving him up."

J: On that pro-choice issue, the majority of pro-choice advocates don't believe that a child is a child until that child is born alive. You may not agree with this definition, but since a fetus isn't being "fed" by a father, the father has NO rights until birth.

Personally, I think some folks ought to stop reading World Net Daily and look into the SOURCE of some of these things, and the decisions that have been made to back up current laws.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 16, 2000.

Tarzan,

"Yes, it did make me feel good", is an example of being "in my face"? Well, that's an interesting take on it. I'm not sure that most people would see it that way.

When a person resorts to the oft-used Nazi tactic of turning in their neighbor to the authorities because of a supposed wrong doing, then that person runs the risk of someone drawing a parallel between their behavior and that of the Nazis. Maybe you feel that this makes me look like an idiot because you are ignorant of history and fail to see the similarity. Or perhaps you clearly see the similarity, but it doesn't fit into your overall agenda to admit that it does, and calling me an idiot was the best that you could do to try and obscure the fact. Regardless, the similarity is there, and it is striking.

You wrote, "And this has what to do with the fact that Dennis was apparently examined and left alone by CPS"?

Let me try to explain in greater detail, as you seemed to have missed the obvious analogy:
California drug enforcement squad is a government agency.
Wisconsin CPS is a government agency.

Certain California residents did nothing wrong.
Dennis Olson did nothing wrong.

Certain California residents were jailed due to the illegal abuse of power of a government agency.
Dennis Olson could have been jailed due to the illegal abuse of power of a government agency.

You also wrote, "This is no excuse to allow an innocent child to be placed in a potentially dangerous situation with little or no safeguards. Maybe she was safe with Dennis, but the grandmother got lucky on that one. Should she gamble with her infant grandson's future the way this California woman gambled with her own son's future"?

"Potentially dangerous"? What is so "potentially dangerous" about Dennis Olson's home? Where is the documented risk to these children? Is it in the minds of Samaritan and yourself because Dennis Olson was a "doomer"? Or do either of you have any evidence of this danger?

"The grandmother got lucky on that one"? How in the world did Samaritan (or you) know anything about the relationship between the grandmother and Dennis Olson? They could have been lifelong friends for all that you know. You have no way of knowing that she was "gambling" by allowing her daughter and grandson to stay with the Olsons.

You also wrote, "Ah, but the problem isn't so much with Dennis as it is with the solicitation in the first place".

Indeed. One could even argue that Dennis was trying to avoid any potential problems for the grandmother by providing a temporary home for the mother and child so that proper adoption procedures could be performed. This gesture of love for his neighbor resulted in a call to the authorities from, ironically, someone calling themself, "Samaritan".

You also wrote, "When you come home, you find that she's sent them to live with a family in a different state. Would you be upset? Would you feel your rights had been infringed"?

I would have Janet Reno send machine gun toting federal agents in to retrieve them. : ) No, seriously, I would be upset, and I would feel that my rights had been infringed. Those are the legal benefits that accrue to a man who actually marries a woman before she bears his children. I am sure that it varies from state to state, but until paternity is proven, I am not sure what rights the baby's father actually has under law. None that are violated in the Dennis Olson scenario, I am fairly sure.

I am not fresh out of arguments. It just struck me as ironic that your position on abortion completely disregards a father's rights, but you are concerned about the father's rights in this situation. Maybe we could start another thread to discuss this apparent discrepancy in views.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 16, 2000.

Anita,

I never claimed nor suggested that you, your parents, or your children have ever had any problems with the government. That doesn't necessarily infer that other innocent people have been so lucky, though.

Anita, I have studied most of the cases on ABC's list. I could, in turn, say that it seems to ME that folks like you have no critical thinking skills if they blindly believe the mass media propaganda that poses as reporting, and actually believe that the government DIDN'T overstep their bounds.

Yes, the mass media would have you believe that Vernon Powell (I assume you mean Howell) aka David Koresh, was sexually molesting every female child in the compound. The fact is that there were no substantiated reports of child abuse, just unsubstantiated reports (dare I say it) not unlike the kind that Samaritan made about Dennis Olson.

I also see that you refer to the Davidians as a "cult". That's a convenient tag that the media also used to label the Davidians. But the mass media is just trying to report the facts, not sway public opinion, right? You go on to write, "Neighbors were scared. Family members were scared. Cult members were scared".

This is subject to who you believe. In the end, it turns out that the Davidians had every reason to be scared. Scared of the federal government.

The Davidian case was never about child custody, Anita. I don't know where you got that idea.

I understand that the pro-abortion position is that the baby's not alive until birth. It's barbaric, in my opinion, but I understand where it is that they stand.

Finally, I don't read World Net Daily, or the Drudge Report, for that matter. Personally, I think people ought to open their eyes to the possibility that not everything that the mass media tells them is unbiased or true.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 16, 2000.

Is the response problem fixed yet?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 16, 2000.

J:

"The Davidian case was never about child custody, Anita. I don't know where you got that idea."

The problems BEGAN in the Davidian compound with the complaints of Breault, the Bunds [Robyn and Jeannine}, and Jewell. They all revolved FIRST around Howell's abuse of children and young women [Thanks, BTW, for not concentrating on my poor memory there.] Breault was Australian, and complained to the Australian government, who tipped off the American government. These were all Davidian members, BTW.

You betcha I think it was a cult. Do you not think Jim Jones had a cult? WHENEVER a leader establishes himself as a messiah, makes up rules as he goes along, etc., the followers are in a cult.

I understand that may think it was all about guns. Breault DID mention the guns, the grenades, etc., but he mentioned them at the same time as he mentioned all the other things...sometime in 1991, I think. The government didn't do anything based on the reports of this one man. Admittedly, I haven't read much of the reports on this since 1998 or so, but if I recall correctly, the feds moved in with the warrants because so many of the locals started complaining.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 16, 2000.

Anita,

According to some of the sources that I have read, Breault tried to rest power from Koresh back in the late 80's or early 90's, and that is why he initiated the child abuse allegations. One report that I read said that Breault was the one who told Jewell about the alleged child abuse, and then Jewell used this angle to try and get custody of his children from his ex-wife.

IF he established himself as a messiah, then I would agree that it was a cult. I do not trust former disgruntled members or the mainstream media to decide this for me, however. Even if it was a cult, what right does a government agency (the ATF) have using military weaponry to storm a compound where many women and children were inside? I will tell you what right: NONE.

The government was so concerned for the safety of the children that Koresh was allegedly abusing that they first opened fire with full automatic weapons without knowing where the women and children were within the compound, and then they burned the place to the ground with CS gas and machine gunned those that tried to escape. To quote someone from the old TB2000 (I can't remember who), "They had to kill them to save them". If it weren't so incredibly tragic, it would be funny.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 16, 2000.

Anita,

It appears that you can still post replies to the older threads, just not to the newer ones.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 16, 2000.

You are a complete fuckhead, j. please pray for me and samaritan as we both departed from your worshipfully dicated path.

Down with government, make way for j's theocracy. long live the saved. only 144,000 of those you know.

-- j sucks (blowme@j.com), July 16, 2000.

Let me guess.

You are one of the ATF agents that participated at Waco, now retired, and you are just coming off of another all weekend long drinking binge. You use the alcohol to try and drown out the memories of the little kids that you burned to death. It's not working, is it? You are pathetic.

Repent, and I will pray for you.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 17, 2000.

I repent. I repent. I'll do any pennance you want just as long as you stop with the holier than thou attitude.

Hey you aren't David Koresh or Jim Jones in hiding are you. I mean the frothing at the mouth anti-government stuff sure seems like the same religious zealot, let me show you the way, charismatic act?

-- Repenting sinner (blowme@j.com), July 17, 2000.

J, you make it very difficult for someone like myself to address your input without getting overly aggressive. But Ill try.

Basically, you just plain do not have the facts surrounding the Waco tragedy at hand. In your quest to blame it all on the government you are turning a blind eye to the evil that was David Koresh. I know more about this story then I care to but the recent trial by Davidian survivors should clear some of the air.

Hopefully, we as a society will take a close look at redefining what qualifies as a church. David Koresh was a drug addict, pedophile, egomaniac, and overall despicable dude. He collected families from England and Australia and put them in jeopardy to serve his own agendas, much in the same way, as did Jim Jones.

You must keep the Truth at the Ready.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 17, 2000.

J:

Breault never tried to vie for leadership. You must be thinking of Roden. Breault had differences with Howell [mostly scriptural interpretations], but he didn't leave until I think a month after he got married. When Howell declared that he, himself, was the only one fit to plant seeds in any of the girls or women, Breault realized this as indicative of a cult leader. The same sortof thing occurred in Jim Jones' cult when he told the folks that their wives were his and his alone.

Here's some information on the time line involved in the activities. You haven't stated what YOU'VE read, but I'd bet you read sites like this? Such sites tend to minimize the weirdnesses of Howell and concentrate on gun rights.

I don't think anyone will deny that the FBI/ATF, etc. handled the situation poorly, but they're not trained in understanding the thoughts of those who believe in biblical prophesies. They knew that they had four dead agents and 16 wounded agents, and I'm sure they wanted to get even. The charges that they set the fire at the compound have been dealt with by a jury. You may not agree with the results. That's your choice. Personally, I still think OJ was guilty, but I accept the fact that I was not privy to all the evidence that caused others to find him innocent.

There's a good site, IMO, that includes quite a bit of information on the Waco situation. Mark Swett puts it out, and he still keeps in contact with a number of Davidian survivors. Waco - Never Again.

You can read more by Mark Breault there, as well as writings of some of the survivors. Livingston Fagan still thinks the attack caused the fire, yet he was in the chapel with Jaime Castillo, David Thebodeau, Derek Lovelock, and Clive Doyle. Renos Avraam isn't really sure WHAT happened, and he was right there in the midst of it all. Of course Renos sees himself as the new Koresh, so the remaining members are split on whether to follow HIM, or wait for David to resurrect [like Catherine Matteson.]

The comment about my family was intended strictly to demonstrate that folks who tend to follow the law don't have altercations with the government. I don't even KNOW anyone who has had problems with the government. We haven't had any problems with the police either. Some folks are like teenagers in that they need to test the limits. They suffer from delusions of grandeur. When they cross the line between legal and illegal activity, they claim persecution on the part of the part of the authority figure.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 17, 2000.

Clarification:

"Of course Renos sees himself as the new Koresh, so the remaining members are split on whether to follow HIM, or wait for David to resurrect [like Catherine Matteson.]"

I did not mean to imply that Catherine Matteson resurrected. I meant to state that she was one of the remaining members who still feels that Koresh will resurrect.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 17, 2000.

Ra,

I appreciate your restraint. I try not to go into attack mode unless attacked. Even when attacked, I try to cut the poster some slack if they are a regular. The above anonymous poster kind of tripped my trigger, so to speak. Anyway, on to the rest of your post.

I am not "turning a blind eye to the evil that was David Koresh". I am open to the POSSIBILITY that he was, in fact, "a drug addict, pedophile, egomaniac, and overall despicable dude". Being an egomaniac or an overall despicable dude is not against the law. I am unaware of any claims that he was a drug addict. The pedophile charge was unsubstantiated. But even if he was a drug addict and/or a pedophile, the sheriff should have arrested him. Contrary to what you and Anita believe/claim, this was about GUNS. That is why the ATF did the raid. The raid that ultimately lead to the deaths of many women and children. I am not turning a blind eye, but it seems that most people are more than willing to turn a blind eye to the evil that was the ATF and the FBI.

As far as society (meaning government) redefining what a "church" is, I think that you will have a new era of church persecution under way if you start down that road.

To summarize, pedophilia is wrong, buying and selling legal weapons is not. If there was EVIDENCE of children being sexually abused, then the sheriff should have arrested Koresh. Instead, the FEDERAL government sent two cattle trailers full of combat equipped ATF agents to conduct a military raid on a building full of women and children. How many times do pedophiles get apprehended in that manner?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 17, 2000.

J, yes it WAS mainly about guns. But not legal guns. Howell was in the process of constructing a world class facility to go to full auto with a wide variety of existing firearms and some of new design. This activity was being tracked over a long period of time and in the course of this investigation many of Sir Davids other questionable activities came to light. Why would a church need to ramp-up like Delta Force? Vernon Howell was a very dangerous person and his followers were actually more like captives. We are always quick to focus on the children but they were really victims of Howell and his inner circle of enforcers. It was Howell who kept them captive, if not physically then mentally. You think those poor children had a vote when the parents decided to leave everything behind in England or Australia and join the self proclaimed messiah of Central Texas? The fire at the end was Koreshs version of the Kool Aid solution.

I have it on very good authority that Mr. Vernon Howell/David Koresh/God on Earth will not be rising from the ashes. Thats a good thing dont you agree? t

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 17, 2000.

Anita,

I think that you hit the nail on the head when you wrote, "They (the FBI/ATF) knew that they had four dead agents and 16 wounded agents, and I'm sure they wanted to get even".

I would add that the reason that the ATF went in the way that they did in the first place (with media close by for photo ops) was to try and look good. An overwhelming show of force to show other groups who might fear the government just what they would be up against if the ATF came gunning for them. It backfired on them. If anything, I would guess that it has galvanized other groups by showing that the federal government so disregards the Constitution, that it can even burn children to death and get away with it. No man (or government agency) is supposed to be above the law.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 17, 2000.

"When a person resorts to the oft-used Nazi tactic of turning in their neighbor to the authorities because of a supposed wrong doing, then that person runs the risk of someone drawing a parallel between their behavior and that of the Nazis."

Last night, my fiancee and I saw a driver weaving all over the road, driving without lights. We called the police and reported that person as a possible DUI. Care to call me a Nazi? I didn't know that that person was drunk, but I did know that driving in that manner is a great way to endanger someone else's life. Likewise, no one knew for certain that the grandmother would choose an unsafe adoptive parent, however, giving a kid to stranger on the internet is a great way to endanger someone else's life. Now Dennis did step in, but there was no way to know whether or not the grandmother would continue to attempt to get rid of her grandson in the same way.

"Maybe you feel that this makes me look like an idiot because you are ignorant of history and fail to see the similarity."

I think it makes you look like a hysterical idiot who's also possibly anti-semitic because you choose to aggrandize your cause on the backs of six million people. There's a huge difference between getting a fair hearing and examination (which Dennis apparently received) and being dragged away into the night because of your religion and ethnic heritage. If you can't see the difference between calling CPS when you see someone attempting to give away a child like it's a free kitten and having the SS send your neighbor to the gas chamber because they have a different religion than you, I truly pity you.

"Let me try to explain in greater detail, as you seemed to have missed the obvious analogy: California drug enforcement squad is a government agency. Wisconsin CPS is a government agency."

OH WOW! You couldn't possibly believe that all government agencies are the same, could you?

""Potentially dangerous"? What is so "potentially dangerous" about Dennis Olson's home? Where is the documented risk to these children? Is it in the minds of Samaritan and yourself because Dennis Olson was a "doomer"? Or do either of you have any evidence of this danger?"

Probably nothing. But Dennis isn't the point. The point is that the grandmother tried to give her grandson away to a stranger on the internet. I don't understand how you think this is at all safe or a good idea. All Samaritan did was to make CPS aware that someone was soliciting strangers to participate in an adoption without any oversight or background check. Dennis is actually extraneous to this whole situation.

"You have no way of knowing that she was "gambling" by allowing her daughter and grandson to stay with the Olsons."

No, once again, the problem is that she was soliciting an adoption without any sort of background check.

"One could even argue that Dennis was trying to avoid any potential problems for the grandmother by providing a temporary home for the mother and child so that proper adoption procedures could be performed. This gesture of love for his neighbor resulted in a call to the authorities from, ironically, someone calling themself, "Samaritan"."

The grandmother tried to circumvent adoption laws, background checks, and the legal consideration of the father's rights once. What possible guarantee would there be that she wouldn't do it again, Dennis or no Dennis? If you saw a parent beating his child, would you take that parents word that he wouldn't do it again? As for Samaritan's motives, here's what she said: "No, I didn't believe they were in danger from the Olson family. I do believe they might have been in danger from the MOTHER'S family. However, the Olson family was where they were staying, so that is why I called the county where Dennis lives."

"I am sure that it varies from state to state, but until paternity is proven, I am not sure what rights the baby's father actually has under law. None that are violated in the Dennis Olson scenario, I am fairly sure."

Why should the father in question take YOUR word for it? If it happened to you, would you be satisfied with me saying, "Oh, don't worry about it, Y2J. You don't have any rights in this matter. Don't bother even consulting an attorney, and don't try to stop the situation. None of your rights were violated. Take my word, please,"

"I am not fresh out of arguments. It just struck me as ironic that your position on abortion completely disregards a father's rights, but you are concerned about the father's rights in this situation. Maybe we could start another thread to discuss this apparent discrepancy in views."

It strikes me as equally ironic that your position on adoption puts you completely at odds with child safety. You seem so concerned with what happens before a baby exists, but afterwards, that baby can apparently be left on any old doorstep for all you care.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 17, 2000.

Ra,

According to at least one source(I believe it was a Texas newspaper), as late as early 1993, the FBI admitted in an internal memo that it did not have enough evidence for probable cause. I have also read that the only full auto weapons found in the aftermath were two legally licensed .50 caiber machine guns (unfired during the siege, by the way), and an ATF issue left behind during the attack.

We could argue for days about the differing "facts" of this tragedy. Many would argue that the fire was not set by the Davidians, but by the FBI using CS gas, which they initially lied about using, and then admitted to later.

Because I don't know what to believe as fact, and what to disregard as propaganda when it comes to Vernon Howell/David Koresh, I am not sure whether or not it is a good thing that he is dead.

I am, however, certain that it is a very bad thing that many children are dead.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 17, 2000.

J, we both agree on one aspect of the Waco tragedy and that is the terrible suffering of the children. What we dont agree on is who is responsible. Do you blame the government for all of the children that were killed in Jonestown? After all, if Congressman Ryan and his entourage had not gone over there for that inspection visit, Old Jim wouldnt have made everyone drink up, right? The parallel here is the two insane fanatics that were responsible for the deaths of those poor children. If these self-proclaimed gods would just kill themselves all would be swell, but nooooo, they must take everyone with them to justify their actions. Same trip with the comet riders. I thought this might be an appropriate time to revisit the following article, even though it appeared in that lying propaganda rag, Time Magazine.

In the Grip of a Psychopath Time Magazine, May 3, 1993

By Richard Lacayo; Reported by Wendy Cole and and Richard Woodbury

There were occasions when David Koresh enforced discipline among his followers the hard way. One of his handpicked lieutenants would paddle the rule breakers with an oar on which were inscribed the words IT IS WRITTEN. Most of the time that wasn't necessary. In the manner of cult leaders before him, Koresh held sway largely through means that were both more subtle and more degrading. Food was rationed in unpredictable ways. Newcomers were gradually relieved of their bank accounts and personal possessions. And while the men were subjected to an uneasy celibacy. Koresh took their wives and daughters as his concubines.

All of it just confirmed his power in the eyes of his flock. And for anyone who though it odd that a holy man lived out a teenage boy's sexual fantasy, Koresh had a mangled theological rationale. He was Jesus Christ in sinful form, who because he indulged the flesh could judge mankind with insights that the first, more virtuous Messiah had lacked. Or as he put in one of his harangues to the faithful: "Now what better sinner can know a sinner than a godly sinner? Huh?"

Equipped with both a creamy charm and a cold-blooded willingness to manipulate those drawn to him, Koresh was a type well known to students of cult practices: the charismatic leader with a pathological edge. He was the most spectacular example since Jim Jones, who committed suicide in 1978 with more than 900 of his followers at the People's Temple in Guyana. Like Jones, Koresh fashioned a tight-knit community that saw itself at desperate odds with the world outside. He plucked sexual partners as he pleased from among his followers and formed an elite guard of lieutenants to enforce his will. And like Jones, he led his followers to their doom.

Psychologists are inclined to classify Koresh as a psychopath, always with the reminder that such people can be nothing short of enchanting on a first encounter. "The psychopath is often charming, bright, very persuasive," explains Louis West, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles medical school. "He quickly wins people's trust and is uncannily adept at manipulating and conning people." David Jewell, whose former wife died in last week's fire, had a brief phone conversation with Koresh five years ago that left him in shock. "In 20 minutes, he took my entire Christian upbringing and put in such a tailspin, I didn't know what I believed. Once in the cult, Davidians surrendered all the material means of personal independence, like money and belongings, while Koresh seemed to have unlimited funds, much of the money apparently from his followers' nest eggs. The grounds around the compound were littered with old automobiles that the faithful cannibalized for parts to keep their clunkers running while Koresh drove a black Camaro muscle car.

At lengthy sessions of biblical preaching that cult members attended twice a day, Koresh underlined his authority by impressing upon them that he alone understood the Scriptures. He changed his interpretations at will, while his unsteady flock struggled to keep up. In a tactic common to cult leaders, Koresh made food a tool for ensuring obedience. The compound diet was often insufficient, varying according to the leader's whim. Sometimes dinner was stew or chicken; at other times it might be nothing but popcorn. On their infrequent trips to Waco, cultists could be seen wolfing down packaged cheese in convenience stores. Household and dietary rules at the compound were as changeable at the theology. Koresh established strict bans on sugar and ice cream, then reversed them without explanation. He told his disciples they could buy chicken hot dogs, but exploded in anger when they brought home chicken bologna instead.

Having convinced his followers that he was the messiah. Koresh went on the persuade them that because his seed was divine, only he had the right to procreate. Even as Koresh bedded their wives and daughters-some as young as 11-in his comfortable private bedroom on the second floor, the men were confined to their dormitory downstairs. Behind the mind games and psychological sadism lay the threat of physical force. In addition to the paddlings, administered in a utility area called the spanking room, offenders could be forced down into a pit of raw sewage, then not allowed to bathe.

No amount of adulation seemed to satisfy Koresh, whose egomania apparently disguised an emptiness at his center. Fallenaway follower Marc Breault, who sometimes played bass in the rock bank Koresh organized at the compound, says that even practicing together was difficult because Koresh threw tantrums when he hit a wrong note in front of the others. "It's very difficult being in a band with God's messenger," says Breault.

As the Davidians stockpiled guns and ammunition, Koresh's theology centered more obsessively upon the coming Apocalypse, binding Koresh and his followers in a vision of shared catastrophe in order to maintain their focus and resist the overtures of the authorities outside the compound. "Koresh would say we would have to suffer, that we were going to be persecuted and some of us would be killed and tortured," recalls David Bunds, who left the compound in 1989.

As Koresh and his followers heightened the melodrama, their ties with the outside world became irretrievably broken. "The adulation of this confined group work on this charismatic leader so that he in turn spirals into greater and greater paranoia," says Murray Miron, a psychologist who advised the FBI during the standoff. "He's playing a role that his followers have cast him in." In the end, Koresh and his flock may have magnified one another's needs. He looked to them to confirm his belief that he was God's appointed one, destined for a martyr's death. They looked to him to bring their spiritual wanderings to a close. In the flames of last week, they all may have found what they were searching for.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 17, 2000.

Tarzan,

It seems hard for you to distiguish between wrong doing and supposed wrong doing. Drunk or not, driving erratically with no headlights at night is wrong. What Dennis Olson did was not wrong.

Again you show your ignorance of history. The similarity is that the Nazis used citizen to turn in citizen in much the same way that citizen Samaritan turned in citizen Dennis Olson.

OH WOW! You couldn't be so incredibly naive as to believe that only one government agency illegally ruins peoples' lives, could you?

Whether the grandmother used the internet or not is inconsequential. Adoption most often involves strangers. Just because she tried to use the internet to initially locate a prepared family, it does not necessarily follow that the adoption was going to occur "without any oversight or background check". Do you assume that an adopting family was just going to drive up to Wisconsin and bring home a baby?

The mother was supposedly raped, if she was not, then the adoption laws of Wisconsin would determine the father's rights, if any.

You don't know my position on adoption, and it certainly is not at odds with the safety of the child. Your mistake lies in concluding that the grandmother was putting the baby in danger by looking on the internet for a prepared family. This first step does not necessarily lead to an illegal adoption, as you and Samaritan have concluded.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 17, 2000.

"It seems hard for you to distiguish between wrong doing and supposed wrong doing. Drunk or not, driving erratically with no headlights at night is wrong. What Dennis Olson did was not wrong."

Let me try this AGAIN. Dennis Olson was not, and is not, the problem. The problem is people trying to arrange illegal adoptions without oversight or background checks. Even private adoptions require serious background checks to be sure the adoptee isn't going to be abused or worse.

"Again you show your ignorance of history. The similarity is that the Nazis used citizen to turn in citizen in much the same way that citizen Samaritan turned in citizen Dennis Olson."

Are you really ignorant about Nazi history, or are you just trying to inject a note of hysteria into this discussion?

Just for the record, and one more time, she said, "No, I didn't believe they were in danger from the Olson family. I do believe they might have been in danger from the MOTHER'S family. However, the Olson family was where they were staying, so that is why I called the county where Dennis lives." No word about Dennis' religion, lifestyle, or values. No word about a desire to see Dennis or his family driven into a ghetto or concentration camp. No word about hoping to take revenge on Dennis or hoping to loot his house after he was dragged away.

"Whether the grandmother used the internet or not is inconsequential. Adoption most often involves strangers. Just because she tried to use the internet to initially locate a prepared family, it does not necessarily follow that the adoption was going to occur "without any oversight or background check"."

NOT TRUE. For the record, here's the initial post, made eight days before the rollover: "If anyone well-prepared for Y2K is looking for a healthy infant to adopt with GREAT speed, please contact PRIVATEONE@spinfinder.com very quickly."

And from later in the thred: "It has to happen now, or it probably won't."

Exactly how much background investigation do yout think can be acccomplished in a week, particularly when that week falls between the holidays?

"Do you assume that an adopting family was just going to drive up to Wisconsin and bring home a baby?"

I think it's pretty obvious from the above statements that that is exactly what the grandmother had in mind.

"The mother was supposedly raped, if she was not, then the adoption laws of Wisconsin would determine the father's rights, if any."

Assuming of course, that he was aware of the baby's existance.

"You don't know my position on adoption, and it certainly is not at odds with the safety of the child."

So you think giving a baby to someone with little or no background check so long as they have ample toilet paper and canned beans is A- OK?

"Your mistake lies in concluding that the grandmother was putting the baby in danger by looking on the internet for a prepared family."

No, the grandmother's mistake lay in attempting to give her grandson away without any background checks or legal transfer. Unless you actually think this can be accomplished in under eight days?

"This first step does not necessarily lead to an illegal adoption, as you and Samaritan have concluded"

You can look for an adoptive family in any way you choose. However, when you simply give your child away to any white, rural, college- educated couple on the internet with complete disregard to background checks or capability of providing for the child, you have broken the law.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 18, 2000.

J-

Your old friend FS here. I think Tarzan has the u pper hand at this point. I was thinking the same thing as her about the timing-that there was no way a proper, legal adoption could be done in 8 days- that the grandmother was dead wrong. There are instances where a citizen "alert" is justified; an example of this was given when the poster said they called the cops regarding an erratic driver who appeared drunk. I have done this myself; called the police to report a reckless driver.

The grandmother WAS being reckless. This child was NOT being attended to properly.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 18, 2000.