SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES RALLY AROUND LEADER ACCUSED OF CHILD MOLESTATION By FITSNEWS || A statement hasYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
You failed to mention the site is soliciting donations to his legal defense fund. $25 all the way up to $5,000 for those who want to help pay for this guy’s lawyer instead of donating to a real charity.
Dave Chappelle I'm Rick James October 16, 2014 at 3:43 pm
I would consider it a real charity…if he is wrongly accused and cannot afford adequate legal assistance (considering the severity of the accusations).
However, I also would consider it a complete scam if he is guilty. Therein lies the problem–theres’ no way to know this at the time you choose to make your “donation.”
Dave Chappelle I'm Rick James October 16, 2014 at 4:55 pm
I think we agree mostly. However, charity is giving to those in need for a worthy cause. Again, I prefaced my comment with a pivot-point assumption.
In fact, I could not care less what one’s political aspirations are (within limits) if they are accused of such a heinous act. As such, if he is truly innocent, and truly cannot afford adequate legal representation through any other means, then I struggle to see how one could rationally argue that this would not meet the definition–or intent–of charity.
Conversely, should one donate money to his legal defense fund, and later find out that he is guilty, or that he could afford his own legal defense, then this is most certainly not charity.
It is quite foolish to require starving children–or Africa–to be involved for something to qualify as a charity. Giving school supplies to a needy child who lives across the street from you can qualify as charity. They might even live in a nicer house. But if both of their parents are laid off from work, then it may all of sudden result in a situation where someone is in great need.
Dave Chappelle I'm Rick James October 22, 2014 at 12:58 pm
I see your response. Apparently, you’ve inserted facts into this hypothetical. I stated that giving to this man could be an act that rises to the level of “charity” based on most respected dictionaries. Nowhere did I discuss tax deductions, etc.
Again, I fail to understand John’s position that this does not qualify as a “real” charity. I haven’t check for a SOS filing. But I don’t need to based on my initial point. However, it is correct to cite S.C. Code Ann. § 33-56-30(A) as according to John, a website is soliciting donations on his behalf. Thus, this organization must file, accordingly.
That said, this Act essentially “punts” when defining a charitable organization–citing IRS standards and including other language (e.g. that is or holds itself out to be established for any benevolent, social welfare, scientific, educational, environmental, philanthropic, humane, patriotic, public health, civic, or other eleemosynary purpose, or for the benefit of law enforcement personnel, firefighters, or other persons who protect the public safety).
Thus, back to my original point. There is no logical connection to require that a charity must undertake African children or hungry children, etc. Furthermore, the filing requirements are merely in place because of the solicitation for said donations. Therefore, I could argue that by simply hearing his story, I was compelled to give to a cause that I deemed worthy (meeting standard definition of “charity”). Moreover, I gave this “charitable” contribution on my own accord (without any solicitation). Finally, I made this charitable gift with no interest in receiving a tax deduction.
I’m curious, under your logic, if I take furniture and clothes to a “His House” type of establishment and (1) I do accept the tax deduction; and (2) this establishment failed to make the required annual filing with the SOS, would this mean I did not just make a charitable gift?
Buz Martin October 22, 2014 at 8:40 pm
Enough semantics argued by pedantics.
Think what you want to. Too much time wasted on this. Fuck it.
Dave Chappelle I'm Rick James October 23, 2014 at 9:10 am
Agreed. Way too much time lost. Oh well…see you on the next thread. Cheers!
BlueCat57 October 22, 2014 at 10:44 am
Spoken like a true believer in biggest government possible.
A “real” charity is one that helps those that need it. Whatever the act.
Engage in hyperbole much? You sound like an ideologue with no grounding in reality. I’m talking about law, about what people can take off their taxes. Not making a statement about whether this is the best system or not, just stating fact. You’re talking about giving a gift to the needy. I’m talking about what constitutes actual charitable giving, under law. We are still a nation of laws, for better or worse.
Get a grip and stop treating everyone as an enemy of your fantasies of what could be.
BlueCat57 October 22, 2014 at 3:06 pm
I am so sorry I offended you. Accept my humble apologies. Based on the tone and use of real as the first word in your reply I thought you were talking about “real charity” not “legal charities”. From the other comments those in the conversation were defining “real” not in legal terms. Your immediate appeal to government authorization to make something “real” led me to believe that you believe that only government can make something real. So sorry for misinterpreting your point. That’s the trouble with written communication. BTW – I believe that there are “real” charities in other states and even the federal government plays a role in determining if a charity is “real.”
guest October 16, 2014 at 5:13 pm
Maybe Tom Ervin will help him? Tom has flushed around 5 million dollars down the toilet in his run for governor. What’s another million?
Republicans make believe they are against lawyers…until they need one. And in this state, that is often. But it still makes them feel good to call someone a “trial lawyer.” It’s another one of their go-to moves to fool the low-information voters. Like being tough on unions, that’s another good one.
“It is not uncommon that allegations such as these arise in the course of such disputes, particularly when the complainant, in this case the ex-wife, can benefit from the allegations.”
I suggest they call their local solicitor and get the numbers before they assume such.
Or, they could just think about when was the last time they read about a man being arrested for molesting his biological child.
Exactly what I was thinking. It is not common at all for a spouse in divorce to accuse the other spouse of molesting their child. Nor is it common for the police to make a high profile arrest on just the word of a disgruntle spouse. If this is purely he said she said, I don’t see why there would be a need for a huge defense fund. There has to be more to be concerned about. But he is innocent until proven guilty.
Not that Republicans believe that of anyone except Republicans. If this had been a Democrat they would have been calling for his immediate execution.
Who are the attorney’s on BOTH sides? This is up in Greenville area, correct? Who is the judge or solicitor that has apparently denied bond. Do they have “political party” affiliations?
Damn interesting that Fits just wrote a piece about the Greenville GOP Republican Party and “KImbrell’s buddies” and he is suddenly charged with child molestation and Fits is trying to attach it to Haley? I am sure the timing prior to the election is not a factor?
Tom Ervin is from Greenville, correct. Says he is a “card carrying Republican”. Wonder if he knows what is going on or the parties involved? Typically he would have faxed Fits a statement by now.
What has he attached to Haley? She was already attatched to the dude. Are you not paying attention. She has thrown him under the bus, so her “faith” in him must be pretty shaky. Maybe for good reason, as she is in a position to get information to which most of us are not privvy.
If she were sure the allegations were false, she would have nothing to lose from “the base” for supporting him. In fact, she’s probably pissing off a lot of them by not doing so. This is so damned obvious I feel silly pointing it out.
Why do all accused pedophiles (who end up being found guilty) say the same thing? “The accuser is crazy and wants money”. It’s almost like a a mantra. Must teach it in law school.
Kimbrell is paying the price for a sic personal hatred and desire to destroy Haley and the Republican “establishment’s” rejection of the self-identified loser.
One provides the message board and the other one has millions to facilitate such evil against others.
Just an opinion. Continue to pray for that family.
He is OCD. He is a clean freak. Takes a shower after going to the bathroom, he is very well connected, he only pays a few hundred dollars a month in child support. He has his income hidden inside his radio and conservative foundation.
He already only had supervised visits with his son. But with his family connections and such he was able to have his own mother (josh’s mother) as the one supervising the visits with his 3 yr old son. She obviously did not keep his visits supervised.
The ex wife was threatened with a gun by josh.
The childs mother only wants what is best for the boy.
This guy is not what he appears.
He has sued the ex wife repeatedly.
The family of the child are regular folks.
There is video evidence.
Hopefully the legal system now sees the real picture
Don’t donate ! If you had a DUI, would a stranger come along and pay your legal fees? no. DUI can be heinous. It can be just a trumped up charge. It could be false. But it could cost a person his or her life. This man needs to foot the bill himself. He needs to man up and face the same system he tells everyone else to do. He needs a GOOD LAWYER.
46 comments
You failed to mention the site is soliciting donations to his legal defense fund. $25 all the way up to $5,000 for those who want to help pay for this guy’s lawyer instead of donating to a real charity.
I would consider it a real charity…if he is wrongly accused and cannot afford adequate legal assistance (considering the severity of the accusations).
However, I also would consider it a complete scam if he is guilty. Therein lies the problem–theres’ no way to know this at the time you choose to make your “donation.”
A real charity helps feed starving children in Africa or the Pee Dee. A real charity helps improve literacy.
Paying for the legal defense of a college educated, upper class white man accused of a heinous crime is not a real charity.
I think we agree mostly. However, charity is giving to those in need for a worthy cause. Again, I prefaced my comment with a pivot-point assumption.
In fact, I could not care less what one’s political aspirations are (within limits) if they are accused of such a heinous act. As such, if he is truly innocent, and truly cannot afford adequate legal representation through any other means, then I struggle to see how one could rationally argue that this would not meet the definition–or intent–of charity.
Conversely, should one donate money to his legal defense fund, and later find out that he is guilty, or that he could afford his own legal defense, then this is most certainly not charity.
It is quite foolish to require starving children–or Africa–to be involved for something to qualify as a charity. Giving school supplies to a needy child who lives across the street from you can qualify as charity. They might even live in a nicer house. But if both of their parents are laid off from work, then it may all of sudden result in a situation where someone is in great need.
You left out that he is one with the support of many rich doners already.
Dave, I am making my donation based on faith. I believe in Josh, and therefore I will donate. or me, it is the cost of being a friend.
Faith can be misplaced, though.
Real charities are registered with the SC Sec of State’s office, and donations are tax exempt. That’s the difference.
Ok…semantics. I would consider it to meet the “real” interpretation of “charity” under most recognized dictionaries.
Does the definitions section of this state statute define it as a “real charity?”
See response above.
I see your response. Apparently, you’ve inserted facts into this hypothetical. I stated that giving to this man could be an act that rises to the level of “charity” based on most respected dictionaries. Nowhere did I discuss tax deductions, etc.
Again, I fail to understand John’s position that this does not qualify as a “real” charity. I haven’t check for a SOS filing. But I don’t need to based on my initial point. However, it is correct to cite S.C. Code Ann. § 33-56-30(A) as according to John, a website is soliciting donations on his behalf. Thus, this organization must file, accordingly.
That said, this Act essentially “punts” when defining a charitable organization–citing IRS standards and including other language (e.g. that is or holds itself out to be established for any benevolent, social welfare, scientific, educational, environmental, philanthropic, humane, patriotic, public health, civic, or other eleemosynary purpose, or for the benefit of law enforcement personnel, firefighters, or other persons who protect the public safety).
Thus, back to my original point. There is no logical connection to require that a charity must undertake African children or hungry children, etc. Furthermore, the filing requirements are merely in place because of the solicitation for said donations. Therefore, I could argue that by simply hearing his story, I was compelled to give to a cause that I deemed worthy (meeting standard definition of “charity”). Moreover, I gave this “charitable” contribution on my own accord (without any solicitation). Finally, I made this charitable gift with no interest in receiving a tax deduction.
I’m curious, under your logic, if I take furniture and clothes to a “His House” type of establishment and (1) I do accept the tax deduction; and (2) this establishment failed to make the required annual filing with the SOS, would this mean I did not just make a charitable gift?
Enough semantics argued by pedantics.
Think what you want to. Too much time wasted on this. Fuck it.
Agreed. Way too much time lost. Oh well…see you on the next thread. Cheers!
Spoken like a true believer in biggest government possible.
A “real” charity is one that helps those that need it. Whatever the act.
An IMHO without any government involvement.
Engage in hyperbole much? You sound like an ideologue with no grounding in reality. I’m talking about law, about what people can take off their taxes. Not making a statement about whether this is the best system or not, just stating fact. You’re talking about giving a gift to the needy. I’m talking about what constitutes actual charitable giving, under law. We are still a nation of laws, for better or worse.
Get a grip and stop treating everyone as an enemy of your fantasies of what could be.
I am so sorry I offended you. Accept my humble apologies. Based on the tone and use of real as the first word in your reply I thought you were talking about “real charity” not “legal charities”. From the other comments those in the conversation were defining “real” not in legal terms. Your immediate appeal to government authorization to make something “real” led me to believe that you believe that only government can make something real. So sorry for misinterpreting your point. That’s the trouble with written communication. BTW – I believe that there are “real” charities in other states and even the federal government plays a role in determining if a charity is “real.”
Maybe Tom Ervin will help him? Tom has flushed around 5 million dollars down the toilet in his run for governor. What’s another million?
Vincent Sheheen should Volenteer to defend him pro bono
get a tutor
Vinnie can defend him and million $$$$ Tommy can pay for it.
Republicans make believe they are against lawyers…until they need one. And in this state, that is often. But it still makes them feel good to call someone a “trial lawyer.” It’s another one of their go-to moves to fool the low-information voters. Like being tough on unions, that’s another good one.
Gosh, the christian lifestyle is just soooooooo immoral.
sc = America’s A N U S!
Innocent till proven guilty, especially this early when proof has not been offered.
didn’t take him long to start asking for $$.
“It is not uncommon that allegations such as these arise in the course of such disputes, particularly when the complainant, in this case the ex-wife, can benefit from the allegations.”
I suggest they call their local solicitor and get the numbers before they assume such.
Or, they could just think about when was the last time they read about a man being arrested for molesting his biological child.
Exactly what I was thinking. It is not common at all for a spouse in divorce to accuse the other spouse of molesting their child. Nor is it common for the police to make a high profile arrest on just the word of a disgruntle spouse. If this is purely he said she said, I don’t see why there would be a need for a huge defense fund. There has to be more to be concerned about. But he is innocent until proven guilty.
Not that Republicans believe that of anyone except Republicans. If this had been a Democrat they would have been calling for his immediate execution.
SO true!
Who are the attorney’s on BOTH sides? This is up in Greenville area, correct? Who is the judge or solicitor that has apparently denied bond. Do they have “political party” affiliations?
Damn interesting that Fits just wrote a piece about the Greenville GOP Republican Party and “KImbrell’s buddies” and he is suddenly charged with child molestation and Fits is trying to attach it to Haley? I am sure the timing prior to the election is not a factor?
Tom Ervin is from Greenville, correct. Says he is a “card carrying Republican”. Wonder if he knows what is going on or the parties involved? Typically he would have faxed Fits a statement by now.
Oh my!!! The barnyard door is open!!
What has he attached to Haley? She was already attatched to the dude. Are you not paying attention. She has thrown him under the bus, so her “faith” in him must be pretty shaky. Maybe for good reason, as she is in a position to get information to which most of us are not privvy.
If she were sure the allegations were false, she would have nothing to lose from “the base” for supporting him. In fact, she’s probably pissing off a lot of them by not doing so. This is so damned obvious I feel silly pointing it out.
Nothing will be cleared up before the election. It will continue to be a mess until after the election.
Why do all accused pedophiles (who end up being found guilty) say the same thing? “The accuser is crazy and wants money”. It’s almost like a a mantra. Must teach it in law school.
Is he guilty? Has anyone accused her of being crazy or wanting money?
The response says she wants custody of there child.
Are you fucking blind? Deaf? Brainwashed by religious film-flam artists? All three.
Haley was in a no-win situation. FITS would criticize her if she removed Kimbrell’s name and would criticize her if she left his name there.
Kimbrell is paying the price for a sic personal hatred and desire to destroy Haley and the Republican “establishment’s” rejection of the self-identified loser.
One provides the message board and the other one has millions to facilitate such evil against others.
Just an opinion. Continue to pray for that family.
Please forgive my ignorance but what is indicated when bail is denied….that cops are pretty sure he did it?
Was bail denied?
Was bail denied?
Bail denial is usually because the accused is a flight risk.
He is OCD. He is a clean freak. Takes a shower after going to the bathroom, he is very well connected, he only pays a few hundred dollars a month in child support. He has his income hidden inside his radio and conservative foundation.
He already only had supervised visits with his son. But with his family connections and such he was able to have his own mother (josh’s mother) as the one supervising the visits with his 3 yr old son. She obviously did not keep his visits supervised.
The ex wife was threatened with a gun by josh.
The childs mother only wants what is best for the boy.
This guy is not what he appears.
He has sued the ex wife repeatedly.
The family of the child are regular folks.
There is video evidence.
Hopefully the legal system now sees the real picture
about half of this is false. Perhaps the other stuff too…I just don’t know about that.
You should not tell people he has money hidden inside his radio. They might break in and steal it.
Don’t donate ! If you had a DUI, would a stranger come along and pay your legal fees? no. DUI can be heinous. It can be just a trumped up charge. It could be false. But it could cost a person his or her life. This man needs to foot the bill himself. He needs to man up and face the same system he tells everyone else to do. He needs a GOOD LAWYER.
He also has a porn addiction/issue
No fact, simply shameful unsupported statements by an anonymous poster.
Shameful!