I’m not sure this qualifies as “mundane”, but I didn’t know where else to post this.
I’m just wondering about this case- what really went down.The charges seem pretty trumped up. Clearly there’s spin going on all over the place. First I read this:
ELLEN WACHS: Chucked out of the Florida Atheists for being a drunk and accused in court of making loud sexual noises to children in the street. She admitted guilt on a few accounts of improper behaviour, some misappropriation of funds was on top of the whole grubby Wachs embarrassing spectacle. She was a lush and it was inappropriate for her to head the so called sos group. A group which through Wach’s unprofessional drunken manner failed to ever be recognized by the authorities as a viable alternative to Alcoholics Anonymous.
It appeared on my FB wall, and is from this group:
She (apparently it’s really her, I guess, I don’t know) chimes in in the comments on the last link and gets support all around from people who seem to know her personally. Not sure what to make of it all. The support does seems pretty unanimous, though.
Anyone have anymore inside (or otherwise) information about this? I have never even heard of this person before that quip appeared on my wall. Don’t have a very big dog in this fight, so maybe it IS MPSIMS after all.
Based on a couple of articles from more legitimatenews sources, it sounds like Ms. Wachs has behavioral problems and that she has a problem getting along with other people, such as her neighbors. Based on the articles, she does seem pretty abrasive.
That being said, some of the charges filed against her are he-said-she-said stuff, or, in the case of using the term “Esquire”, relatively trivial. Perhaps the sheriff was targeting her for her lawsuits, or perhaps not. Those kinds of claims are difficult to prove, and based on her overall behavior, are hard to take seriously.
Finally, the courts have consistentlyheld that Alcoholics Anonymous can’t be the only option for people who are ordered to attend a self-help program. It is, however, legal for courts and parole/probation officers to require some program, including SOS, as a condition for parole, driving privileges, or what-have-you. So that part of your post is moot.
She may not be a nice person, but it sounds like a lot of Bullshit from the Sheriff.
Retired lawyers can continue to use ‘esquire’ after their names. Retiring from medicine doesn’t mean you go from Dr. to Mr.
The felony sex charge seems way over the top charge for what was described, and whoever allowed the sheriff to search her place after that needs more disbarring more than she does.
I read the FB linked comments from the OP, and while I don’t particularly care for the woman I agree with her supporters more than her detractors - who seems to pile a load of strawman arguments about atheists, and harping on a lot of the letter of the law.
So, care to go the source for the facts?
You are basing I am not a nice person on what premise? The neighbor’s account? You do realize that he was the one that wanted me in jail?
I was not thrown out of Atheists of Florida for being a drunk. I didn’t admit guilt to any crime. To the contrary, the charges were dismissed. The man that runs that group has a grudge against me because he and I got into a debate about the usefulness of Alcoholics Anonymous and he got very defensive. I have been sober for 27 years. Where he is getting this nonsense about my “drunken” behavior is ridiculous. Even people here that dont like me wouldn’t say that because it is an unsupportable allegation. He has been holding quite the grudge obviously. He cannot defame me this terribly though. I will NOT be a nice person.
I did say you may not be a nice person. It doesn’t really matter what my opinion of you is. More important is that you seem to have been handed a rather raw deal… Can you explain on what basis the sheriff or judge used to get warrant to search your home because of some noises? That is quite a disconnect to me.
According to one link, you were kicked out “for seriously obstructing the organization’s business, misappropriating the organization’s name, misappropriating the organization’s funds, and acting in a way that discredits the organization.”
That doesn’t seem to be exactly correct -
If you have been sober for 27 years, why did you have marijuana in your safe?
You are mixing up different situations.
The failed coup at the organization had nothing to do with the criminal case. I have a pending defamation case against the former board members for throwing those ridiculous paste and cut nonsense charges at me.
As for the marijuana charge, that was also dismissed. If you read carefully, I plead no contest to a paraphernalia charge. I did so because it was the easiest way to end this with no formal finding of guilt.
The marijuana was not mine. But that is irrelevant to being sober.
Well, the facts as laid out in the warrant certainly support a finding of probable cause to believe that the unauthorized practice of law was being committed.
I take it, however, that those charges were not pursued following the search and seizure executed at the residence?
Also: assuming the facts related in the affidavit concerning the meeting with council officials were substantially correct, can you explain why their invocation practice is not protected under Marsh v. Chambers?
“Making loud sexual noises to children in the street”? How, and what would that even sound like? I hadn’t heard of this case, but now I’m quite curious about it.
You know, up until 9 years ago, I had been a pretty serious pothead for 25 years.
Not once in that entire time had I ever encountered a non-user holding pot for someone else.
But regardless of that, if you had it, it’s yours. Just as if you had stolen goods in your house. You’re the one in possession. “I’m just hanging onto that stereo for a friend” doesn’t count for jack in court. The crime isn’t OWNERSHIP. It’s POSSESSION.
On the other hand, I knew several people in high school who got caught with pot, and all of them told their parents they were holding it for someone else.
Not sure whether any of the parents actually believed it.
