Another televangelist bites the dust

Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 4:50 PM

This time it is Richard Roberts, No. 1 son of phony faith healer and money-grubbing false prophet Oral Roberts.  Richard was arrested for speeding (93 mph in a 65 mile per hour zone) and driving under the influence.  Here is the news report:

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...rrested-for-dui.html

 

And here is the arrest report:

https://www.documentcloud.org/...s-arrest-report.html

 

After the cascade of scandals involving these kinds of con men (e.g. Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, Eddie Long, etc. etc.), one wonders why there are still people gullible enough to send them money. I hereby nominate Richard Roberts for entry into the Televangelists' Hall of Shame!

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/halosham.htm

 

I yam what I yam and that's all I yam--but it is enough!

 
 
Post Master
 
January 24, 2012 5:02 PM

Did anyone else notice how his personal information is clearly visible on the arrest report? His home address, his home phone# and social security# are all there.
 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 5:11 PM

Hi BeterCon,

 

While I do not personally care for the people you have named -- I do have to give you the award for Equal Opportunity Trasher!   You go after everyone who does not follow YOUR CHURCH and YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS with equal hate and vengeance.   You get a big, atheist supported "ATTA BOY!" for all your efforts.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

madboy

 
 
 
Photos (1)
madboy
 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 5:18 PM

quote:  Originally Posted by Seven:
Did anyone else notice how his personal information is clearly visible on the arrest report? His home address, his home phone# and social security# are all there.

Hi Seven,

 

Personally, I think someone should lose their badge for allowing this to be posted on the internet.  How would any of us feel if this were us -- or a member of our family -- and a police officer posted this on the internet?  We all deserve some degree of privacy from such actions.

 

I do not personally care for Mr. Roberts or his approach to the Christian faith.  But, he is entitled to the same degree of privacy as anyone else.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 5:32 PM

You get a big, atheist supported "ATTA BOY!" for all your efforts.


---------------------

Oh yes bill, because we ALL know if it was a well known atheist YOU would be such a big man and let it pass in the name of defending his/her privacy. 

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 5:34 PM

Wonder why he didn't "heal himself sober" before the cops got to him?

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 5:37 PM

Originally Posted by Seven:
Did anyone else notice how his personal information is clearly visible on the arrest report? His home address, his home phone# and social security# are all there.

I’ve heard of freedom of information but isn’t this a little too much info?

Skippy

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Post Master
 
January 24, 2012 5:47 PM

It's a lot too much if you ask me. I wouldn't want my information out there like this is. Every other time I've viewed an arrest report on someone online their personal info is always blacked or blurred out.
 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 6:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Wonder why he didn't "heal himself sober" before the cops got to him?

================

What a great idea! I wonder if that would work with grass?

Hey,,,,,Have you already done that before???

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 6:11 PM

Sorry no invictus. I don't drink or do drugs. But his daddy was supposed to HEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!! folks so surely he passed it along to sonny boy. I mean come on, don't tell us old oral was flim flamming.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Post Master
 
January 24, 2012 7:27 PM

Several years ago I spent about a year one month in Tulsa. At the time, there was a lot of news about how Richard got caught with his hand in the cookie jar - taking money that was supposed to be for the school and using it as his own to finance his big living style.

When I left, it was still going on. Didn't hear much about it around here afterward.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Everybody Knows My Name
 
January 24, 2012 7:36 PM

Scary that this information got out, especially in this day and time where identity theft has become all too common.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 7:59 PM

 

Well, folks, in the various states of this nation, we have what are legally classified as "public records." In most, if not all, states, arrest records are classified as public records, subject to disclosure to the press and to anyone else seeking information concerning the particulars of an arrest.  Some states make only one page of an arrest record available, with information on the second page held confidential and not subject to public release.  In any case, if you are arrested, it is going to be no secret in these United States that an officer of the law saw or otherwise knew of something you did that was, or strongly appeared to be in violation of the law.  The lesson, therefore, is NOT to do things that are unlawful or, if you choose to break the law, be clever enough not to get caught. In Richard Roberts’ case, he could kept have kept him out of jail and out of the public records by the simple expedient of not driving 28 miles per hour while under the influence of alcohol.  Alternatively, the most clever thing he could have done would be to have used his considerable ill-gotten wealth to hire a cab to haul his drunken ass home. 

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Post Master
 
January 24, 2012 8:13 PM

Beter is correct. An arrest report is public record in most if not all states. @Bill Why should an officer lose his or her badge because that county publicizes their records? Did you really think some officer just put it online for fun? If you look closely it was posted to the site by the LA Times. Looks like a reporter gathered the "public record" and made it available. It doesn't matter who you are or who you know if you drive drunk in my opinion. I too am equal opportunity I suppose Bill.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 8:15 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi BeterCon,

 

While I do not personally care for the people you have named -- I do have to give you the award for Equal Opportunity Trasher!   You go after everyone who does not follow YOUR CHURCH and YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS with equal hate and vengeance.   You get a big, atheist supported "ATTA BOY!" for all your efforts.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

madboy

___

Bill,

 

I pick my targets carefully.  I have followed the egregious Roberts family, including their putrid patriarch, Oral, for over 50 years.  What I have posted does not proceed from any feelings of hate or vengeance.  I need no vengeance against Richard Roberts or his tribe, since I have not been so naive and gullible as to have been suckered out of any of my hard-earned money or any other support for their bogus ministries.  I have long been disgusted at the money-grubbing activities of Oral and Company and I have felt no reservations about saying so, especially when I could dissuade anyone from contributing to their nefarious money-grubbing schemes.

 

It comes as no surprise to me that some unprincipled atheists would use the examples of Oral Roberts, Richard Roberts, Richard's high-fashion, high-living wife or other members of their tribe of false prophets in an effort to castigate Christianity in general.  I am disgusted that the actions of phonies like the Robertses provide this kind of opportunity for critics of Christianity, and you should be too!

 

Instead of presumptuously castigating me for alleged "hate and vengeance," you ought to be adding your voice to those who find much to legitimately criticize and rebuke in the unholy actions of these greed-infested phonies!

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 8:23 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:  Originally Posted by Seven:
Did anyone else notice how his personal information is clearly visible on the arrest report? His home address, his home phone# and social security# are all there.

Hi Seven,

 

Personally, I think someone should lose their badge for allowing this to be posted on the internet.  How would any of us feel if this were us -- or a member of our family -- and a police officer posted this on the internet?  We all deserve some degree of privacy from such actions.

 

I do not personally care for Mr. Roberts or his approach to the Christian faith.  But, he is entitled to the same degree of privacy as anyone else.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

__

 

Well, Bill, if I had been nailed driving drunk and at 28 MPH over the limit, then once I sobered up, I would not be happy about the world knowing about it, nor should I be.  See above in this string for a little education about PUBLIC RECORDS, and renovate your silly notion that the officer who made the arrest and wrote up the arrest record should have his badge pulled. We need more officers on the roads arresting drunk drivers and hauling their drunk butts in for booking.  We need more reporters monitoring the behavior of false prophets and poseurs like Richard Roberts, so that the public may learn the truth about these lying weasels. We need no carping, ignorant critics demanding that police officers'  badges be pulled for doing their jobs!

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 8:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi BeterCon, 

While I do not personally care for the people you have named -- I do have to give you the award for Equal Opportunity Trasher!   You go after everyone who does not follow YOUR CHURCH and YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS with equal hate and vengeance.   You get a big, atheist supported "ATTA BOY!" for all your efforts. 

Bill

madboy

____________________

Gosh, Billy! You must have smoked some honest weed. I'm surprised you would use such a cartoon to let Contendah know you would love to use your fist on him.

 

Why do you accuse him of going after everyone who does not follow his church & his political views with hate & vengeance when you do it all the time????????? You go so far as to tell us who is going to Hell & who isn't. Gotta love those wolf's in sheep's clothing.

 

 

 

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 24, 2012 8:40 PM

It comes as no surprise to me that some unprincipled atheists would use the examples of Oral Roberts, Richard Roberts, Richard's high-fashion, high-living wife or other members of their tribe of false prophets in an effort to castigate Christianity in general.

 

--------------------------

Who uses the roberts? This may be the first time they were mentioned. If the roberts were the only ones doing these things you might have a point. Like RP posted, rob people with a gun and you go to jail, rob them with the "word" and you get rich. 

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Everybody Knows My Name
 
January 24, 2012 8:56 PM

Originally Posted by Contendah:

 

Well, folks, in the various states of this nation, we have what are legally classified as "public records." In most, if not all, states, arrest records are classified as public records, subject to disclosure to the press and to anyone else seeking information concerning the particulars of an arrest.  Some states make only one page of an arrest record available, with information on the second page held confidential and not subject to public release.  In any case, if you are arrested, it is going to be no secret in these United States that an officer of the law saw or otherwise knew of something you did that was, or strongly appeared to be in violation of the law.  The lesson, therefore, is NOT to do things that are unlawful or, if you choose to break the law, be clever enough not to get caught. In Richard Roberts’ case, he could kept have kept him out of jail and out of the public records by the simple expedient of not driving 28 miles per hour while under the influence of alcohol.  Alternatively, the most clever thing he could have done would be to have used his considerable ill-gotten wealth to hire a cab to haul his drunken ass home. 

Contendah,

 

I believe the SS# is the most disturbing and the one of most concern. Just because the fact that his arrest lies within the "public release" domain doesn't mean all information collected should be released. It doesn't apply to certain private and personal information, such as this, to be included in the release. Ultimately, someone will bear the responsibility for releasing this information without removing certain privileged information first, that the public has no right to. If they were acting in part on behalf of the Tulsa County Sheriff's Dept, that entity can be held liable for any damages that come about on behalf of this information being released.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Post Master
 
January 24, 2012 9:11 PM

Is it ever legal to put someones SSN online or otherwise make it public for all to see? We are always hearing how we should guard our SS numbers. They even took them off drivers licenses years ago. I guess that is the biggest problem I see with this too.

The way I see it it's not the cops fault. The fault lies with whoever made it available online.
 
Last edited by Seven January 24, 2012 9:18 PM
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 25, 2012 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Seven:
Is it ever legal to put someones SSN online or otherwise make it public for all to see? We are always hearing how we should guard our SS numbers. They even took them off drivers licenses years ago. I guess that is the biggest problem I see with this too.

The way I see it it's not the cops fault. The fault lies with whoever made it available online.

____

 

Here is the law in Oklahoma.  I do not see anything in it that would prohibit release of the information in Roberts' arrest record:

 

http://www.foioklahoma.org/OpenRecords.pdf

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Hall of Famer
 
January 25, 2012 1:28 AM

Accident report, you would think were public record and at the Florence Police Dept. they once were on the desk clerks quarter round counter for you to fill out the Al State SR-13 report as required by law, but at the new PD you must pay $10 for the information required by state law. I wonder if when all the negative reports about the famous get out who gets the money and even where the money for the accident report goes. Once when I made a complaint about the $10 I was told the insurance go. would refund my $10 and it was for the making the copy the record was public, but they could not let me see it, I had to have a copy and that was what I was paying for.

As to the man of the cloth, ever notice those who have the calling to serve the lord and get no financial reward never get run off from the Lords house and we never hear of them getting into trouble, but the greater the financial reward the more trouble we find them in. How does a filthy rich television evangelist get caught with a ugly common prostitute ( charged less than $50 )  cries and begs the world on TV to forgive him and then in no time gets caught in the same scene again and for years condemned his cousins for their sinful ways as entertainers. I can't understand how one can amass so much wealth and not have the common sense to get a little sex without getting caught when it means so much for the whole world not to be made aware of one weakness... I guess it maybe the work of the Lord to let those collecting money in his name but not forwarding it to his work get their just reward....

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Everybody Knows My Name
 
January 25, 2012 2:26 AM

 

 

Here is the law in Oklahoma.  I do not see anything in it that would prohibit release of the information in Roberts' arrest record:

 

http://www.foioklahoma.org/OpenRecords.pdf

Release of the arrest record is not being questioned here. Release of any persons confidential information, particularly their Social Security Number, is not at right to be released to the public. It is to be removed (blacked/blurred out). Why would you or anyone else need to know another persons SSN? That information is privileged for the government. Just because someone is arrested, that doesn't entitle the public to their SSN. With all of the identity theft going on, do you not see a problem with that?

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Post Master
 
January 25, 2012 8:58 AM

It's a wonder more SS numbers are not stolen/abused than there are,

Last year, I needed  to turn on power in an apartment in Sheffield. Although I already had two accounts with them, they ask to see my SS card. (I haven't carried it in years and years- I know my number), and told them flat out NO. On the back of my SS card it states in very plain English - NOT TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION- .

They told me no one ever objected before, and that I could show a birth certificate instead, which I did.Why in all that is sacred, did Sheffield Utilities need my SS number ? They didn't , just more hassel.

I don't know about Ok Drivers license, but as soon as Al stopped requireing it on ours, I ask for mine to be taken off.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 25, 2012 9:23 AM

When did they put SS on drivers licenses? 

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Hall of Famer
 
January 25, 2012 9:47 AM

1980s and 1990s, in fact Mississippi it was your drivers license number.

I wish it was your ID number and you used it for every number you needed, telephone, Id,  Bank account, everything.

The one thing I hate most about the internet is Username and password. once you get the one you like the next time you sign up you need something different and some sights are determined to pick it for you and those I just leave.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 25, 2012 9:58 AM

Originally Posted by disolve:

 

 

Here is the law in Oklahoma.  I do not see anything in it that would prohibit release of the information in Roberts' arrest record:

 

http://www.foioklahoma.org/OpenRecords.pdf

Release of the arrest record is not being questioned here. Release of any persons confidential information, particularly their Social Security Number, is not at right to be released to the public. It is to be removed (blacked/blurred out). Why would you or anyone else need to know another persons SSN? That information is privileged for the government. Just because someone is arrested, that doesn't entitle the public to their SSN. With all of the identity theft going on, do you not see a problem with that?

___

 

It IS the arrest record that contains the SS Number and other information and as I pointed out, Oklahoma law apparently does NOT prohibit release of such information.  

 

If you KNOW of some express legal prohibition against release of a person's SS Number, then tell us what that is. All that you or others thus far have done is to state your opinion that there is some such prohibition or that there ought to be.  If indeed there actually is some such prohibition, tell us where is it and what it says?

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Everybody Knows My Name
 
January 25, 2012 1:09 PM

Originally Posted by Contendah:

It S the arrest record that contains the SS Number and other information and as I pointed out, Oklahoma law apparently does NOT prohibit release of such information.  

 

If you KNOW of some express legal prohibition against release of a person's SS Number, then tell us what that is. All that you or others thus far have done is to state your opinion that there is some such prohibition or that there ought to be.  If indeed there actually is some such prohibition, tell us where is it and what it says?

Happy reading!

 

http://www.justice.gov/opcl/1974privacyact.pdf

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Post Master
 
January 26, 2012 4:46 AM

I guess the moral of the story or the lesson learned here is don't do anything illegal or criminal unless you want your personal info(including your social security number) to become public knowledge and readily available for any and all to see.
 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Everybody Knows My Name
 
January 26, 2012 12:06 PM

I think there is a special place for those who purport to know and understand the Bible to the extent that you can judge others with that knowledge.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 26, 2012 1:29 PM

Ever notice how Bill is always trying to get someone fired?

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 26, 2012 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by disolve:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

It S the arrest record that contains the SS Number and other information and as I pointed out, Oklahoma law apparently does NOT prohibit release of such information.  

 

If you KNOW of some express legal prohibition against release of a person's SS Number, then tell us what that is. All that you or others thus far have done is to state your opinion that there is some such prohibition or that there ought to be.  If indeed there actually is some such prohibition, tell us where is it and what it says?

Happy reading!

 

http://www.justice.gov/opcl/1974privacyact.pdf

___

Having read it, I find nothing in it that would prohibit the entry of a social security number on a traffic ticket.  


To summarize, the Privacy Act of 1974   requires that any federal, state, or local government agency that requests your Social Security Number has to tell you four things:

1. Whether disclosure of your Social Security Number is required or optional,
2. What law authorizes them to ask for your Social Security Number,
3. How your Social Security Number will be used if you give it to them, and
4. The consequences of failure to provide an SSN.

 

Neither you nor I know whether the drunken Mr. Roberts was informed of these four things.  Nor do we know whether, if he was so informed, his mind was sufficiently clear to understand the significance of what he was told.  In any case, the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 clearly do NOT include any kind of across-the-board prohibition of the use of the social security number by agencies of government, including law enforcement agencies.

 

disolve, the mere fact that the Privacy Act of 1974 has some a heading and some provisions involving use of social security numbers does not equate to a prohibition of entry of such a number on a publicly-available arrest record or any other public record.  If you find something in the act that indicates otherwise, thern you should cite that particular provision.

 

 

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 26, 2012 11:41 PM

In my post above, kindly ignore the word "some" in the first line of the last paragraph.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Everybody Knows My Name
 
January 27, 2012 2:24 AM

I respectfully disgree with you Con. I'm not going to go through 200+ pages, again, of this trimmed down version, to pull multiple highlights out of it that can be interpreted by you however you want it to be. Kinda like kicking a dead horse, over and over and over again. However, you will find multiple accounts to most of your questions in the Disclosures and Release section, as well as the multiple court rulings cited where the courts have held government entities responsible, citing civil law.
 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Old Faithful
 
January 27, 2012 9:58 AM

Originally Posted by disolve:
I respectfully disgree with you Con. I'm not going to go through 200+ pages, again, of this trimmed down version, to pull multiple highlights out of it that can be interpreted by you however you want it to be. Kinda like kicking a dead horse, over and over and over again. However, you will find multiple accounts to most of your questions in the Disclosures and Release section, as well as the multiple court rulings cited where the courts have held government entities responsible, citing civil law.

___

Well, then, let us just leave it to the imbibing televangelist to take any available action to protect his privacy against any invasion of it that might have been occasioned by his drunken misadventure.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Everybody Knows My Name
 
January 28, 2012 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by skreechowl:

I think there is a special place for those who purport to know and understand the Bible to the extent that you can judge others with that knowledge.

 

Mt 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.   In other words do not judge according to the flesh i.e. outward appearence. Joh 7:24  Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.  Who is qualified to use this righteous judgement?

 

 

Mt 7:15 ¶  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Ahh the beliver is warned of false prophets and to judge them by their fruits, so we must judge. 17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 

 

Ro 8:9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.  In other words if a man's words do not agree with Christ he is a false prophet i.e anti christ.  (one who opposes Christ).

 

Mt 15:11  Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Mr 7:20  And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 
Again righteous judgement involves judging according to the word of God.

 

Eph 4:14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;   If we could not judge this verse would have no meaning.

 

Ac 11:14  Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

 

De 8:3  And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

 

Mt 4:4  But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  So righteous judgment is not a fleshly judgment for all have sinned and come short of the golory of God, but rather judge according to the Spirit. 

 

The special place reserved for those you speak is called Heaven.

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
Everybody Knows My Name
 
January 28, 2012 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
Bill, I pick my targets carefully.  I have followed the egregious Roberts family, including their putrid patriarch, 

Instead of presumptuously castigating me for alleged "hate and vengeance," you ought to be adding your voice to those who find much to legitimately criticize and rebuke in the unholy actions of these greed-infested phonies!

To that list you can add: (list not inculsive)

Kenneth Copeland

Joel Olsteen

Benny Hinn

Jack Van Impe

Rexella Van Impe

Joyce Meyer

James Robinson

Billy Graham

Franklin Graham

Hal Linsey

 

24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

 

Uh oh theres that word elect again.  Why can't they deceive the elect?  Because they were sealed before the foundation of the world to be brought to the knowledge of the truth, and be conformed to the image of Christ.  Rom 8:29

 

 

 
 
 
Like Like (0 likes)
Permalink
 
Post Reply