-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: diddlede on 1/25/09
The government will not do anything like this unless they are sure they have legal grounds to do so. It is looking like all that were involved are guilty. Of course our legal system says, "a person is innocent until proven guilty".
The government will not do anything like this unless they are sure they have legal grounds to do so. It is looking like all that were involved are guilty. Of course our legal system says, "a person is innocent until proven guilty".
By: Trvlace on 1/25/09
I wonder when they are going to spill the beans on this case? Must be some bigger fish they are still trying to net.
I wonder when they are going to spill the beans on this case? Must be some bigger fish they are still trying to net.
By: barrettbear on 1/25/09
You might want to think about the legal system and being innocent until proven guilty.
It is in most case scenarios that it can be guilty until proven innocent.
Probable Cause ring them bells.
You might want to think about the legal system and being innocent until proven guilty.
It is in most case scenarios that it can be guilty until proven innocent.
Probable Cause ring them bells.
By: Farmall on 1/26/09
Isn't there supposed to be an innocent spouse clause in the IRS code?
Isn't there supposed to be an innocent spouse clause in the IRS code?
By: momof3 on 1/26/09
There is an innocent spouse clause for TAX purposes used mostly for back child support or divorce situations. That would not apply in this case because the IRS is just being used to collect and distribute the money as part of a court order for illegal activity.
And I'm with you, Trvlace, from what I've heard, there are some "bigger fish" that will be reeled in when all of the investigation is over.
There is an innocent spouse clause for TAX purposes used mostly for back child support or divorce situations. That would not apply in this case because the IRS is just being used to collect and distribute the money as part of a court order for illegal activity.
And I'm with you, Trvlace, from what I've heard, there are some "bigger fish" that will be reeled in when all of the investigation is over.
By: voiceofreason on 1/26/09
Frankly, I have watched this story, or lack of it, since it started over a year ago and am surprised at such a normally intelligent and inquisitive bunch so willing to just accept what the government is saying when they haven't even told us anything. Normally, everyone in here is screaming conspiracy but since we are talking about a well to do family, everyone seems so accepting of completely throwing them to the wolves. If this were a poor family, convicted in the mass media, without a shred of evidence or without at least, the attempt to share any wrongdoing whatsoever with the public, then I think that all of us would be holding our government accountable to prove a case before repeatedly slandering what we all know to be a thus far, honorable, Christian family.
I am also ashamed of LISA MARCHESONI in particular for repeatedly opening up this story for our carnivorous viewpoints when absolutely nothing has changed in a year and a half. I want to read a story, not a gossip column. I want to know facts, not rumors, accusations, hearsay, personal vendettas or what the government believed at the time but has thus far been unable to prove with all of the power, resources and (according to this blog) public opinion on their sides. I don't want to hear about the shrinking market share of advertisement dollars for newspapers and why we need to resort to this type of reporting to encourage readership. I think that this is as low down and dirty as a reporter can get and personally, I think that she should be fired for it. I see now why she was fired from the Daily News Journal and now has to work for this FREE paper. But that is just me.
From what I have FACTUALLY gathered, every single person that was arrested on the day that the government searched the Rowland and Smotherman houses, along with other bigger fish that were arrested as a result of the first arrests, have been tried or otherwise adjudicated but for some unknown reason, they have failed to produce a case against Mr. Rowland or Mr. Smotherman. Additionally, "Anthony Corley", the biggest fish of all in the "Jackson-Corley" case, according to the government, has been given a Misdemeanor conviction and time-served 0-6 months probation for his role in what the government wanted us to believe was a 6 million dollar drug dealing conspiracy. So, does this sound like a result from a case similar to what we were told or more like a case that any traffic cop could work? At this point, I am not convinced that the case was nearly as important as we were told. Six Million dollars of drugs does not equate to a time served misdemeanor conviction people.
Now, I realize that the government works slow sometimes but they said initially that this was a case that had been worked for several years prior to those arrests. So, time, in my opinion, is not on their side. They have had more time than is needed to make what they described as a simple case of wrongdoing.
You just do not understand the full power of the federal government. When something like this happens, they seize bank accounts, freeze assets, slander your reputation by interviewing everyone you know and scaring anyone away from doing business with you. They threaten all of your friends with the intimidation of retribution if they don't cooperate against you. They get wiretaps on your and your friends phones and listen to all of your and their conversations. They follow you everywhere you go and rent houses in the neighborhood to keep close tabs on all of your comings and goings, they get mail covers to read all of your mail. Do you really believe that anyone in this day and age can get past all of that power if they are truly guilty? Do you think that a person's last name or how much land you own really gets you a get-out-of-jail-free card? Myself and Gov. Rod Blagojevich would respectfully disagree.
What about the Burns Tennessee Police Chief. He was indicted and arrested for fixing a ticket but was recently this week proven not guilty in a court of law. People are found to be innocent quite often even after they are convicted. Mr. Smotherman and Mr. Rowland have not even been charged or indicted for anything at all.
Personally, I actually do believe in not only the constitution, but the principles that led to the writing of it. We wouldn't have language in the constitution stating our innocence until proven guilty unless there have been attempts past and present of taking that simple right from us.
Law enforcement officials, just like us, get embarrassed and make mistakes sometimes. To think otherwise would be naivete in its most pure form.
A highly respected man once told me, people don't mind you doing well, they just don't want you to do better than them! The older I get, the more sense the old man makes. People interested in this story seem to accept whatever the government says, without any evidence, so long as it takes down someone with money or prestige. It is shameful and a true sign of the intelligence and class of the writers and readers of this column. I for one, want to hold our government accountable for its actions. Not doing so has historically been dangerous and costly for citizens of many countries.
My advice to the people reading this story, read with your brains turned on. Sometimes what you don't see printed can be more enlightening than what is printed. Lisa Marchesoni, print what the readers need and want to read. Don't just be a holster hugger and allow yourself to be manipulated by law enforcement for their own personal gain. The story here is why did Anthony Corely, a long time target of the federal government for drug dealing, only get a misdemeanor conviction time-served? Someone doing a story would have turned that up. Someone writing what she was told to write would not have turned that up.
Frankly, I have watched this story, or lack of it, since it started over a year ago and am surprised at such a normally intelligent and inquisitive bunch so willing to just accept what the government is saying when they haven't even told us anything. Normally, everyone in here is screaming conspiracy but since we are talking about a well to do family, everyone seems so accepting of completely throwing them to the wolves. If this were a poor family, convicted in the mass media, without a shred of evidence or without at least, the attempt to share any wrongdoing whatsoever with the public, then I think that all of us would be holding our government accountable to prove a case before repeatedly slandering what we all know to be a thus far, honorable, Christian family.
I am also ashamed of LISA MARCHESONI in particular for repeatedly opening up this story for our carnivorous viewpoints when absolutely nothing has changed in a year and a half. I want to read a story, not a gossip column. I want to know facts, not rumors, accusations, hearsay, personal vendettas or what the government believed at the time but has thus far been unable to prove with all of the power, resources and (according to this blog) public opinion on their sides. I don't want to hear about the shrinking market share of advertisement dollars for newspapers and why we need to resort to this type of reporting to encourage readership. I think that this is as low down and dirty as a reporter can get and personally, I think that she should be fired for it. I see now why she was fired from the Daily News Journal and now has to work for this FREE paper. But that is just me.
From what I have FACTUALLY gathered, every single person that was arrested on the day that the government searched the Rowland and Smotherman houses, along with other bigger fish that were arrested as a result of the first arrests, have been tried or otherwise adjudicated but for some unknown reason, they have failed to produce a case against Mr. Rowland or Mr. Smotherman. Additionally, "Anthony Corley", the biggest fish of all in the "Jackson-Corley" case, according to the government, has been given a Misdemeanor conviction and time-served 0-6 months probation for his role in what the government wanted us to believe was a 6 million dollar drug dealing conspiracy. So, does this sound like a result from a case similar to what we were told or more like a case that any traffic cop could work? At this point, I am not convinced that the case was nearly as important as we were told. Six Million dollars of drugs does not equate to a time served misdemeanor conviction people.
Now, I realize that the government works slow sometimes but they said initially that this was a case that had been worked for several years prior to those arrests. So, time, in my opinion, is not on their side. They have had more time than is needed to make what they described as a simple case of wrongdoing.
You just do not understand the full power of the federal government. When something like this happens, they seize bank accounts, freeze assets, slander your reputation by interviewing everyone you know and scaring anyone away from doing business with you. They threaten all of your friends with the intimidation of retribution if they don't cooperate against you. They get wiretaps on your and your friends phones and listen to all of your and their conversations. They follow you everywhere you go and rent houses in the neighborhood to keep close tabs on all of your comings and goings, they get mail covers to read all of your mail. Do you really believe that anyone in this day and age can get past all of that power if they are truly guilty? Do you think that a person's last name or how much land you own really gets you a get-out-of-jail-free card? Myself and Gov. Rod Blagojevich would respectfully disagree.
What about the Burns Tennessee Police Chief. He was indicted and arrested for fixing a ticket but was recently this week proven not guilty in a court of law. People are found to be innocent quite often even after they are convicted. Mr. Smotherman and Mr. Rowland have not even been charged or indicted for anything at all.
Personally, I actually do believe in not only the constitution, but the principles that led to the writing of it. We wouldn't have language in the constitution stating our innocence until proven guilty unless there have been attempts past and present of taking that simple right from us.
Law enforcement officials, just like us, get embarrassed and make mistakes sometimes. To think otherwise would be naivete in its most pure form.
A highly respected man once told me, people don't mind you doing well, they just don't want you to do better than them! The older I get, the more sense the old man makes. People interested in this story seem to accept whatever the government says, without any evidence, so long as it takes down someone with money or prestige. It is shameful and a true sign of the intelligence and class of the writers and readers of this column. I for one, want to hold our government accountable for its actions. Not doing so has historically been dangerous and costly for citizens of many countries.
My advice to the people reading this story, read with your brains turned on. Sometimes what you don't see printed can be more enlightening than what is printed. Lisa Marchesoni, print what the readers need and want to read. Don't just be a holster hugger and allow yourself to be manipulated by law enforcement for their own personal gain. The story here is why did Anthony Corely, a long time target of the federal government for drug dealing, only get a misdemeanor conviction time-served? Someone doing a story would have turned that up. Someone writing what she was told to write would not have turned that up.
By: mikewest on 1/26/09
Editor's note: The previous post, among other allegations, incorrectly states that Post senior writer Lisa Marchesoni was fired by the Daily News Journal. She resigned from the DNJ on good terms.
Editor's note: The previous post, among other allegations, incorrectly states that Post senior writer Lisa Marchesoni was fired by the Daily News Journal. She resigned from the DNJ on good terms.
By: voiceofreason on 1/26/09
Hmmm, does it sting a bit to have someone write things that may be a bit one-sided? Lots of people are allowed to resign without being fired. But, the point is, it was inevitable that she leave the Daily News Journal. I chose to leave that part out because she left out many important facts from her new story as well. The difference is that she is a professional, I am not. The point I was trying to make is that if you are going to do a story, write both sides of the story. We don't want opinions from one side, we want a story that is well investigated and thoughtful. We all can write words, but we look to reporters to give us newsworthy information that digs into the dirt and grime of reality because we trust you. Sometimes, people do bad things and sometimes government does bad things. We want to read about all of it but we really want it to be accurate and non-biased. As you could see, my first blog was a little biased, similar to the pieces that Marchesoni wrote. But it sure does read better doesn't it? I can see why she writes that way, it sells. The problem is that its not factual and not news; Its government sanctioned slander. It took about ten minutes for the link to be taken off the front page after I posted my opinion. Is that censorship? I think so. I hope that in the future, the Editor can respond as quickly to stop fictional reporting as he did to censor my opinion.
Hmmm, does it sting a bit to have someone write things that may be a bit one-sided? Lots of people are allowed to resign without being fired. But, the point is, it was inevitable that she leave the Daily News Journal. I chose to leave that part out because she left out many important facts from her new story as well. The difference is that she is a professional, I am not. The point I was trying to make is that if you are going to do a story, write both sides of the story. We don't want opinions from one side, we want a story that is well investigated and thoughtful. We all can write words, but we look to reporters to give us newsworthy information that digs into the dirt and grime of reality because we trust you. Sometimes, people do bad things and sometimes government does bad things. We want to read about all of it but we really want it to be accurate and non-biased. As you could see, my first blog was a little biased, similar to the pieces that Marchesoni wrote. But it sure does read better doesn't it? I can see why she writes that way, it sells. The problem is that its not factual and not news; Its government sanctioned slander. It took about ten minutes for the link to be taken off the front page after I posted my opinion. Is that censorship? I think so. I hope that in the future, the Editor can respond as quickly to stop fictional reporting as he did to censor my opinion.
By: voiceofreason on 1/26/09
I would be happy to identify myself just as soon as all of these other people are asked to do the same. Again, am I being treated differently just because I disagree with the opinions of this paper? Do you disagree with the idea that reporting should be done fairly and with a neutral stance. That is the jist of all that I have said thus far.
I would be happy to identify myself just as soon as all of these other people are asked to do the same. Again, am I being treated differently just because I disagree with the opinions of this paper? Do you disagree with the idea that reporting should be done fairly and with a neutral stance. That is the jist of all that I have said thus far.
By: voiceofreason on 1/27/09
By: Singhey616 on 1/26/09
I just wonder if having the name "Rowland" means you get a free pass.Why didn't these people get treated like the kids on State Street for selling drugs and stuff?Oh I forgot about the "Rowlands" family owning half of Rutherford County.
Wouldn't any intelligent thinking person surmise that the Rowland and Smotherman families would be happy to trade all of the gestapo police tactics and negative media attention against their sons when they haven't even been arrested for the 10 seconds of fame that the "kids on State Street" have gotten for actually selling "Drugs and Stuff"? The jealousy and ignorance in your statements is no more worthy of being heard than the sound opinions shared by me and many others. Thank you for proving my point. I'm just disappointed that it requires a "novel" of reason to make up for the numerous short stories of dung that get slung around in here like rice in a refugee camp.
By: Singhey616 on 1/26/09
I just wonder if having the name "Rowland" means you get a free pass.Why didn't these people get treated like the kids on State Street for selling drugs and stuff?Oh I forgot about the "Rowlands" family owning half of Rutherford County.
Wouldn't any intelligent thinking person surmise that the Rowland and Smotherman families would be happy to trade all of the gestapo police tactics and negative media attention against their sons when they haven't even been arrested for the 10 seconds of fame that the "kids on State Street" have gotten for actually selling "Drugs and Stuff"? The jealousy and ignorance in your statements is no more worthy of being heard than the sound opinions shared by me and many others. Thank you for proving my point. I'm just disappointed that it requires a "novel" of reason to make up for the numerous short stories of dung that get slung around in here like rice in a refugee camp.
By: fenton on 1/27/09
voiceofreason, a bit touchy aren't we? Not to mention, long-winded...
voiceofreason, a bit touchy aren't we? Not to mention, long-winded...
By: voiceofreason on 1/27/09
I googled "singhey616". Now we all know what you like to read on the crapper.
I googled "singhey616". Now we all know what you like to read on the crapper.
By: Singhey616 on 1/28/09
I am not the only Sinhey616 out there.If you had any idea of the true meaning you would know it's just a slang word in another language.There are Singhey's all over the web.Doesn't mean there all me.If you google your name it gets 53,300 hits.Does that mean there are all yours?No.
I am not the only Sinhey616 out there.If you had any idea of the true meaning you would know it's just a slang word in another language.There are Singhey's all over the web.Doesn't mean there all me.If you google your name it gets 53,300 hits.Does that mean there are all yours?No.
By: voiceofreason on 1/28/09
Its apparent to me that since the editor decided to erase his own obvious feauxpa on Monday that now the paper has decided to give us all the ability to erase our own entries. Now, when you read the strings, they no longer make sense because people cherry pick the things they want to erase. If you can't make an intelligent argument, that doesn't mean I am smarter, it just means that you were wrong to begin with. You cannot intelligently argue an idea that is flawed. Instead of deleting your entries, you should try admitting your mistakes and moving forward. This way, at least you have the appearance of non-bias. The point I am trying to make is that the writer of this piece never asks questions of the police. She always just writes what she is told. Look at all of her stories. There are numerous questions that arise out of all of her stories, not just this one. If I am asking questions, then why can't she. That is not reporting, that is dictation. When I first responded to this story, it was from a link directly on the front page. Within minutes, they took the link off the front page and buried it. Not deleted it, but effectively buried it. Then the editor himself got defensive about it and inappropriately asked me to identify myself. Once I responded in the way that you can read above, the editor decided to delete his own inappropriate response. Then, after Singhey616 wanted to play dirty as he is known in this forum to do, I called him out and exposed him as well. Now, as of yesterday, we can all delete our most unintelligent and inappropriate statements. In fact, Singhey616 has decided to delete all of his with the exception of his last pathetic attempt to redeem himself. This forum has lost all of its credibility in my opinion. I just hope that something positive will come from all of this and that the Post will actually require its reporters to report. In this day and age of quick, quality information, you will have to change with the times or lose altogether.
Its apparent to me that since the editor decided to erase his own obvious feauxpa on Monday that now the paper has decided to give us all the ability to erase our own entries. Now, when you read the strings, they no longer make sense because people cherry pick the things they want to erase. If you can't make an intelligent argument, that doesn't mean I am smarter, it just means that you were wrong to begin with. You cannot intelligently argue an idea that is flawed. Instead of deleting your entries, you should try admitting your mistakes and moving forward. This way, at least you have the appearance of non-bias. The point I am trying to make is that the writer of this piece never asks questions of the police. She always just writes what she is told. Look at all of her stories. There are numerous questions that arise out of all of her stories, not just this one. If I am asking questions, then why can't she. That is not reporting, that is dictation. When I first responded to this story, it was from a link directly on the front page. Within minutes, they took the link off the front page and buried it. Not deleted it, but effectively buried it. Then the editor himself got defensive about it and inappropriately asked me to identify myself. Once I responded in the way that you can read above, the editor decided to delete his own inappropriate response. Then, after Singhey616 wanted to play dirty as he is known in this forum to do, I called him out and exposed him as well. Now, as of yesterday, we can all delete our most unintelligent and inappropriate statements. In fact, Singhey616 has decided to delete all of his with the exception of his last pathetic attempt to redeem himself. This forum has lost all of its credibility in my opinion. I just hope that something positive will come from all of this and that the Post will actually require its reporters to report. In this day and age of quick, quality information, you will have to change with the times or lose altogether.
By: voiceofreason on 1/28/09
As far as the comment from Singhey616 about me not knowing what the meaning of the word Singhey is in another language; It is Lao for a person who smokes Marijauana. Just in case the rest of you want to know.
As far as the comment from Singhey616 about me not knowing what the meaning of the word Singhey is in another language; It is Lao for a person who smokes Marijauana. Just in case the rest of you want to know.
By: JustAguy on 1/29/09
Ok, Now I am confused. Where the charges dropped or settled in court against Mr.Rowland and Mr.Smotherman ? Where they accuited ? What happened to the house in savahna ridge ? What about the porsche that was confiscated from the rowland home ? Any new news on the buisness partner of rowland that was gunned down at the mans drive way ? Sorry for being behind in the news . Just trying to catch up .
Ok, Now I am confused. Where the charges dropped or settled in court against Mr.Rowland and Mr.Smotherman ? Where they accuited ? What happened to the house in savahna ridge ? What about the porsche that was confiscated from the rowland home ? Any new news on the buisness partner of rowland that was gunned down at the mans drive way ? Sorry for being behind in the news . Just trying to catch up .
By: voiceofreason on 1/30/09
I say go to "archives" to catch up. If you were really interested in the news, then you wouldn't need me to catch you up. Try another paper if you want real news.
I say go to "archives" to catch up. If you were really interested in the news, then you wouldn't need me to catch you up. Try another paper if you want real news.
By: LilAudrey on 1/30/09
voiceofreason, I am sure, your friends the Rowlands are pleased you are keeping this story alive.
voiceofreason, I am sure, your friends the Rowlands are pleased you are keeping this story alive.
By: sgtpepper on 1/30/09
LilAudrey I'm sure you are in the know. Why are you and the others here so quick to judge? Have you ever considered the only crime that Rowland is guilty of is being friends with the wrong people and not knowing what they were into? I understand that when all the parties were pressed to implicate Chris they all said he had no knowledge of their activity even thought they were offered lighter charges. What is your vested interest in this story? Are you the ACE repeorter in hiding? Or just one of her cronies? Or just one of the pile ons?
LilAudrey I'm sure you are in the know. Why are you and the others here so quick to judge? Have you ever considered the only crime that Rowland is guilty of is being friends with the wrong people and not knowing what they were into? I understand that when all the parties were pressed to implicate Chris they all said he had no knowledge of their activity even thought they were offered lighter charges. What is your vested interest in this story? Are you the ACE repeorter in hiding? Or just one of her cronies? Or just one of the pile ons?
By: LilAudrey on 1/30/09
I am not judging anyone, just remarking on what is obvious to most people. Or are you going to attempt to bully me, a retired educator who moved here to be with family? I am not an "ACE reporter" or anyone associated with her. You sir, sgtpepper/voiceofreason are not helping anyone, especially the Rowlands. I don't know them either, nor do I care to, if all their friends are like you. Go away.
I am not judging anyone, just remarking on what is obvious to most people. Or are you going to attempt to bully me, a retired educator who moved here to be with family? I am not an "ACE reporter" or anyone associated with her. You sir, sgtpepper/voiceofreason are not helping anyone, especially the Rowlands. I don't know them either, nor do I care to, if all their friends are like you. Go away.
By: sgtpepper on 1/31/09
lil first I am not a friend of the Rowlands I met them once in passing at a FUND RAISER. I happen to know how the enforcement community will all to often jump to conclusions and put out a press release to sway public opinion to try and justify their actions. If Chris Rowland is proven guilty after a trial where ALL the evidence is revealed then so be it. But until them why does this ACE reporter and a rival owner of this paper continue to hammer the same old crap over and over. I can tell you why the Rowland have built a very successful business and the other real-estate companies can compete. I think you and I can agree on one thing. Most people don't mind when others are successful. they just don't want the rowlands to be more successful than them. As far as telling me to go away. BITE ME !
lil first I am not a friend of the Rowlands I met them once in passing at a FUND RAISER. I happen to know how the enforcement community will all to often jump to conclusions and put out a press release to sway public opinion to try and justify their actions. If Chris Rowland is proven guilty after a trial where ALL the evidence is revealed then so be it. But until them why does this ACE reporter and a rival owner of this paper continue to hammer the same old crap over and over. I can tell you why the Rowland have built a very successful business and the other real-estate companies can compete. I think you and I can agree on one thing. Most people don't mind when others are successful. they just don't want the rowlands to be more successful than them. As far as telling me to go away. BITE ME !
Login and voice your opinion!