Official Statement of TarValon.Net Regarding Riley Robinson

[Jalen te'Kreg]

Now as for Hammar's post - correct me if I'm wrong, but if TV.net decides NOT to file a complaint, then the prosecuter can't press charges, correct?
I guess the question on everyone's mind is does TV.net's legal status means the board HAS to file a complaint, or they will be considered accomplices...

No to both of these, they're entirely incorrect.

 

[Laralelle Susandrea]

Thanks Hammar, for the clarification. You answered my question before I could ask it. :bow

I myself retain a national board-certification, and I have to abide by their standards of conduct. Recently someone in my company falsified billing, and did so knowingly and intentionally. She was fired from her position, the billing was corrected, and she was reported the board-certification agency. They asked my supervisor what she thought, and my supervisor said that she should lose her certification. I don't know if this happened. This is the second time this has happened in the company, and, in the other case, she did not lose her certification, despite recommendations. So, these actions MAY not have affected his job and may not affect his ability to do his job in the future. That's (as Hammar said) is up to whatever governing board he has to answer to.

 

[Jordan Rayne]

For the most part I've been keeping my thoughts and feelings to myself about this situation, partly because I'm still such a jumble of emotions I'm not sure what I'm feeling, but Kitan's comments about Riley's job made me want to share some thoughts.

I, for one, have absolutely not forgotten that he is a mental health professional. And when I heard the news I immediately asked myself, in disbelief, how he possibly could've done something to jeopardize all that he's worked for the last few years.

Riley has hurt us deeply. He's broken our trust. He's betrayed a community and individuals who I KNOW he sees as family. And I'm positive that when he did what he did, he wasn't thinking about any of that. I couldn't fathom how he would justify such a betrayal in his mind, but when I was talking this over with Ayendra she reminded me that more often than not we're inclined to take advantage of family in ways we never would strangers or acquaintances. We subconsciously assume they'll forgive us our transgressions, and that we can make things right with them.

We've not heard the exact details yet as to how much Riley stole and when he stole it...we aren't likely to for a good long time. But even so, I fully believe this hasn't been a long-term on-going problem. That Riley wasn't willfully skimming the coffers on a regular basis, so to speak, for his personal gain. If he was he's the most skilled liar I've ever met, and I'll have to accept I didn't know him at all, but I have a feeling we would've caught on a lot sooner to such activity because we do check up on the accounts and because the amount that has disappeared is obviously a hell of a lot of money. So that means he made an incredibly stupid and rash decision, likely in reaction to dire straits in his personal life.

Should he have taken the money? Absolutely not! I am in no way justifying his actions. If he needed help that badly he only had to ask, and if he let pride get in the way of asking he was a fool. Now he has to pay the consequences of this crime that he's committed. Those consequences have already begun in drastic fashion -- he's been literally (and rightfully) banned from our family. Since we're a legal entity there will be legal consequences to pay as well.

But, and this is a HUGE but in my mind, TarValon has never been about money. We're not here to make a profit. We're here to serve the community and each other. We're in the business of bettering lives. Riley was/is family. He has betrayed us in a terrible way and there have to be major consequences for that. I'm completely gutted that he's done this. I desperately, though, do not want to see his life utterly ruined by this. I don't want to see his family, his daughters' lives, ruined by this. None of our lives were ruined by this. We are wounded emotionally. We're missing operating funds, we're short a Treasurer/Board Member, and an event was immediately placed in jeopardy. That rightfully makes us angry. But we'll pull together as we always do and come ahead on the other side. In one of these threads someone commented how a corporation would immediately prosecute and here people seemed reluctant to grasp the scope of the theft. I don't think we fail to grasp it at all. I just think that TarValoners care far more about the people than the finances, and so naturally we're more emotionally invested in the situation. And naturally those of us who know Riley are even less likely to care about the amount stolen than the fact that it was even stolen at all, because it was so unexpected and out of character.

Maybe I'm just too forgiving. I admit it's my nature. When confronted Riley immediately came clean. He didn't lie, he didn't hedge around the bush, he fessed up. And he lost a decade of friendships and a place he called home the minute he did. If a beloved family member came to us and confessed stealing our life savings, we'd want to kick their butts. We'd throw them out of our house, we'd call a lawyer and possibly the police, and we'd try to get our money back. But we wouldn't do everything in our power to destroy their lives. We wouldn't bay for their blood. We especially wouldn't push it as far as possible if it turns out that family member only stole our money to put a roof over their kids' heads or keep the electricity on. Theft is wrong. However, the reasons behind it can, and should, have an effect on the punishment that is demanded.

Knowing Riley I am positive the guilt over how he's hurt people is going to be punishing that man for the rest of his life. He's done something terrible, but the fact that it blindsided all of us, including those of us who've known him for a decade or more, just goes to show that such behaviour is not the norm for him. Until Wednesday, Riley was one of the most trustworthy guys I knew...a man of deep integrity. In the days since I've had to do a lot of thinking and re-evaluation. His past character doesn't mean we let him off, but I am very wary of prosecuting if we don't have to and even more so I don't want to see him lose his counseling license because of this situation. I don't want to see him lose everything. I want to see Riley make appropriate reparations, learn a painful lesson, and come out a far wiser man at the end. I want to see the lesson learned make him a better counselor. I also understand, though, that being a counselor is a place of trust and Riley, at the least, has shattered our trust in him. I don't think we should even speculate, though, on trying to make the call whether he should still be a mental health professional. A group of his colleagues would be best suited to discuss this situation and decide whether this is indication of being unfit to do his job. I don't for a minute believe Riley would be a danger to anyone in his care. I don't believe he'd disclose their secrets or advise them poorly. But trust once broken is a hard thing to regain. Whether his clients could trust him if they knew what he'd just done, whatever his reasons for doing it...

We so often give a free pass to people with deep character flaws towards petty lies, slander, and other deceit. Yet when someone commits a big deceit, even if it's only one time, we start calling for retribution. Why is this? We all have flaws. We all make mistakes. Who among us hasn't done something incredibly stupid that we deeply, deeply regret? Maybe we got caught and maybe we didn't. Maybe we were convicted of a crime and maybe we weren't. I want to make it clear I'm not trivializing a theft of this magnitude. But if what Riley did truly was a a one-off event, especially if it was in response to hardships at home (for all we know he may have been days away from his house going into foreclosure or something...), I think some understanding and mitigation is warranted. That's not to say I'm discounting the right everyone has to be bloody furious at him.

Riley is going to be paying for this for a long, long time to come. Far beyond the completion of any monetary reparations. He's committed a serious crime and I agree that should be on his record somewhere. But conviction of a felony...the thought of that happening to him breaks my heart all over again. If he loses his livelihood it's just going to make the situation that caused this to happened even worse. I can't help but be more compassionate than that. I still care about Riley. I care about ALL of us. If I had the money to pay back what he took, and help him fix this, I would in a heartbeat. What makes me cry is knowing that if the tables had been turned, and someone else had embezzled this money in desperation, Riley would've been there in the front line trying to fix things and make it right.

It's heartbreaking how one terribly bad decision can turn such an upstanding person into a villain. Riley made his choice, acted as he did, and now all of us have to live with it. I'm with those who are completely devastated. Maybe one of these days I'll get angry with the rest of you, but for now I just want to cry.

This.

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

Now as for Hammar's post - correct me if I'm wrong, but if TV.net decides NOT to file a complaint, then the prosecuter can't press charges, correct?

This is not correct. Prosecutors have discretion to pursue any case for which they have adequate facts.

I guess the question on everyone's mind is does TV.net's legal status means the board HAS to file a complaint, or they will be considered accomplices...

No. If the Board were to knowingly lie about or hide knowledge sought by the authorities, that's a different story.

Hammar, you rule :bow

Thanks guys!

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

This is not correct. Prosecutors have discretion to pursue any case for which they have adequate facts.

Sorry for being technical, I'm from Israel and our legal system works a little different here, but... If no complaint is pressed, how will the authoreties even know something happened? Maybe I'm mixing things here... I understand you can't give information, so theoreticaly speaking, can one inform the prosecution WITHOUT pressing charges, which can lead them to prosecute?
In Israel, unless someone actualy complains, the prosecution doesn't deal with it.

 

[Leese Sulan]

I'm going to continue standing on the other side of opinion from everyone who wants to forgive him.

It's simple: you do not DO these things, but he did it anyway and thus there are consequences. I am not a bleeding heart; I will give no free passes.

 

[Alaria Celentari]

I don't think we can or should make that decision until all the facts are in - and that may take a while...

 

[Laralelle Susandrea]

Hammar, I actually have a similar question to Aulrick. If TV.net does not press charges, why would an attorney prosecute. I hope you can answer my question in general terms.

And Ariana, sounds like you think you are alone in how you feel. I feel for Riley and truly hope he receives the help he needs. But I agree with you. One does not DO these things.

 

[Meirah Zaïde]

We covered this issue a little in my media law class. Hammar can correct me if I'm wrong, here, but this is my understanding of how this works. The crime that has been committed has broken a law (statute), so it's considered a criminal act, a crime against the state. The state prosecutor (district attorney or state attorney or whatever the title is in the state where this will be prosecuted) decides whether to file charges. The state prosecutor can decide to file charges regardless of what TarValon.net wishes to do. In other words, if the state prosecutor decides that charges need to be filed, TarValon.net will not have any say in the matter. The prosecutor can also decide that charges do not need to be filed.

In googling "criminal case procedure", I found this document with some helpful explanations; it is for federal courts, and IANAL so I don't know whether the case at hand will be handled as a state or federal case, or, if a state case, whether it would be handled in Alabama or in New Mexico.

The bottom line is, TarValon.net doesn't file the charges - the state does. We don't have much say in whether or not Riley will be prosecuted for this.

 

[Serinia Edoras]

We covered this issue a little in my media law class. Hammar can correct me if I'm wrong, here, but this is my understanding of how this works. The crime that has been committed has broken a law (statute), so it's considered a criminal act, a crime against the state. The state prosecutor (district attorney or state attorney or whatever the title is in the state where this will be prosecuted) decides whether to file charges. The state prosecutor can decide to file charges regardless of what TarValon.net wishes to do. In other words, if the state prosecutor decides that charges need to be filed, TarValon.net will not have any say in the matter. The prosecutor can also decide that charges do not need to be filed.
...

Though I disagree with most of what Aulrick has said (no offense meant though!), I think his point is, how would the prosecutor/state/district/federal attorney know that there has been a statute broken if it's not filed by the injured party. Obviously if this was a car crash or a fire or some other act which calls for emergency personel or witnesses, that's a different matter, but when the act is not public, how would the authorities be alerted to the crime? I don't know the answer.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

Meirah - you misunderstand my meaning.
I think everyone understands that the state will decide if it wants to prosecute or not... But if TV.net doesn't file a complaint (NOTE: the complaint is NOT prosecution, federal or civillian. At least so far as I understand. It simply means informing law enforcement that something happened), then how will the prosecuter even KNOW something happened? I mean, if TV.net simply doesn't inform anyone, how will anyone know to prosecute?

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

LOL Serinia you wrote what I meant just as I was writing an explanation...
So yes, that's my meaning
Also, I am not easily offended, though I'm not really sure what there is to disagree on, seeing as I mainly asked questions on how these things work...

 

[Kessa Toireann]

This is just my understanding, but something will have to be filed to keep non-profit status because to have that, you have to show that no one is profitting or getting all of the money raised by the organization. It would have to be documented that it was stolen and not income to keep that status. Sorry, if I'm wrong, but I would think that is why the prosecutors would have to find out and have the opportunity to prosecute.

 

[Meirah Zaïde]

Kessa, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see how this could move forward without filing a police report.

 

[Emerald ní Róhan]

I'm going to continue standing on the other side of opinion from everyone who wants to forgive him.

It's simple: you do not DO these things, but he did it anyway and thus there are consequences. I am not a bleeding heart; I will give no free passes.

I do not consider myself a "bleeding heart" just because I am able to forgive Riley for what he has done. And just because I can forgive him does not mean giving him a free pass.

 

[Meirah Zaïde]

Y'all, whether or how we decide to forgive or not forgive is a personal choice. There's no right or wrong way to feel about Riley or what he did. We feel how we feel, and that's it.

 

[Aria Kakarot]

Y'all, whether or how we decide to forgive or not forgive is a personal choice. There's no right or wrong way to feel about Riley or what he did. We feel how we feel, and that's it.

I very much agree with this. Seems a weird thing to argue about. Forgiveness IS personal. You can't debate about whether or not someone should be forgiven. Forgive if you want, and don't worry about others. It doesn't concern you.

 

[Emerald ní Róhan]

I agree, which is why I didn't much care for being referred to as a "bleeding heart", if indirectly.

 

[Jalen te'Kreg]

Friendly suggestion: We've had a good thread for a couple pages. If people are starting to get offended about stuff it may be a good time to take a day or two off from these threads.




Edit to add: message not specifically to Emerylde, but just a general one. Stepping back for a day or two might do us all some good.

 

[Sela Narian]

Sending him to jail would hurt him. He needs to be punished yes, but making a decision that will make the situation he was in that prompted his actions worse, that is not the way. He needs to work to repay what he took, he needs to make restitution.

Yes, it would hurt him. That is half the point of jail: people shouldn't want to go there.

And as said, it is not up to us to judge his legal consequences. It is up to an impartial prosecutor and possibly a court presented with facts. We are none of us impartial.

Thank you, Hammar, for being a rockstar lawyer for us.