(Post a new comment)

	honorh 2011-11-20 12:45 am UTC (link)
	I just wish his foundation had to give back every red cent they earned from that fiasco. That would be nice. Oh, and in another article I read, Ray says he wants to "help" the prisoners in whatever country-club prison he gets put in. Yeeeeeeaaaah. Dude, they're in prison; aren't they already being punished? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2011-11-20 12:49 am UTC (link)
	That's precious. I'm raging so hard. There's guys who were convicted of selling marijuana who are serving more time than him. What a scumbag. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	franzen 2011-11-21 03:53 pm UTC (link)
	I'm assuming a civil suit is coming, if not already filed? Now that the criminal trial is over, the families (or, rather, a competent lawyer with more knowledge in this area than I have) can leverage the guilty verdict into the "death" of all assets. After all, something has to die in Ray before he can live again! (Reply to this)(Parent)

harrylovesron
2011-11-20 02:40 am UTC (link)

"I'm so sorry," a tearful Ray said during the sentencing. "And I know that nothing I could say or do is enough. There's not one single day that passes that I don't relive the moments of that night of my life, asking what I missed, what I could have done differently."

Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you again, Ray, you woo-peddling doucheflotilla, and may you step on a field of Legos. I don't know how you could "miss" what is wrong with the fact that YOU STUFFED 60 PEOPLE UNDERNEATH A TARP WITHOUT WATER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING DESERT AND STOPPED OTHERS FROM RENDERING AID WHEN THOSE PEOPLE BEGAN SUFFERING.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	rosehiptea 2011-11-20 05:55 am UTC (link)
	Yes, this. He knew what was happening and he did it himself. It's pretty damn obvious what he should have done differently. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	harrylovesron 2011-11-20 04:11 pm UTC (link)
	And, as brennalarose pointed out, once he gets out he's probably going to go back to doing it again. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rosehiptea 2011-11-20 06:47 pm UTC (link)
	Sounds like he'd do it in prison if he could get away with it. Damn it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	franzen 2011-11-21 03:45 pm UTC (link)
	I wouldn't be surprised if he charges more and promotes the "experience" of it even more. Spiritual journey, releasing of guilt, grief, etc., as harrylovesron noted. This was a catastrophic failure of justice. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	brennalarose 2011-11-20 04:17 am UTC (link)
	Ray, you sniveling, lying, cheating cockbiscuit, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID WRONG. It sickens me to know that he's probably going to do this again. (Reply to this)(Thread)

platedlizard
2011-11-20 05:15 am UTC (link)

I've been reading some stuff by people who participate in real sweathouses, and they are effing pissed. Apparently you aren't supposed to keep someone in the house who doesn't want to be there, people leave when they are ready, they aren't brow-beat into staying in there. Small groups only, led by someone with special training and years of experience. You don't keep people in there longer than an hour (and that's an extreme amount of time) And water is freely available. Basically everything that Ray did was the exact opposite of how a sweatlodge should be run.

Absolutely disgusting.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	come_love_sleep 2011-11-22 08:42 am UTC (link)
	And never in summer. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Edit platedlizard 2011-11-23 02:30 am UTC (link)
	Or at least not during the hot part of the day. (Reply to this)(Parent)

harrylovesron
2011-11-20 05:02 pm UTC (link)

And people will continue to eat that shit up, yes. They'll reason the deaths away- "Oh, he didn't mean to kill anybody!" "He's learned his lesson and will make it safer next time." "It was a freak accident." Or blame the victims for it. Yeah, I can easily see him going right back to doing the same old shit once he's out of prison- but with an added element of "poor me, poor me, poor MEEEE let me tell you how I understand suffering so very much now", and oh, if you pay him a few grand he'll teach you how to work through your grief, isn't he generous?

I'd like to think that something like this would make his company crash and burn, but considering all the hucksters and frauds out there who continue to have people shell out money left and right for their books and lectures (e.g. Kevin Trudeau), I have little faith that it will. Trudeau's never killed anybody, but he's a convicted fraud who still somehow sells books left and right.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

brennalarose
2011-11-20 06:26 pm UTC (link)

First time I ever heard of Trudeau, was from my now-ex-father-in-law. The one who tried to lock my mother-in-law into their home, with all the weapons he was hiding. Happily, I got to keep a mighty fine husband and mother-in-law.

I wasn't aware of just how much of a fraud Trudeau is, but I have to wonder if he's where ex-FIL got the whole "hydrogen peroxide will cure ANYTHING" idea from.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

franzen
2011-11-21 03:34 pm UTC (link)

Holy shit, what a textbook psychopath. I'd heard the titles of Trudeau's books but always ignored them (I don't have an interest in books like that to begin with and the titles alone told me they were claptrap); I had no idea he was such an obvious conman. (Unfortunately, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of the FDA and pharmaceutical industry, but that's neither here nor there. Middle ground, people, middle ground. If a book positions you as "US AGAINST THEM," something is very, very wrong. And when the author's Wikipedia page is divided into subsections by lawsuit, run the hell away!)

and oh, if you pay him a few grand he'll teach you how to work through your grief, isn't he generous?

I can honestly see this happening. Same practices as before -- he may learn from the deaths and tone things down (please, let him learn something) in order to stay off radar, but he'll compensate by ramping himself up as a martyr and the one to guide you through your profound emotional journey... until the same fucking thing happens again, because, yeah, faith in this utterly contemptible creature = zero.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

harrylovesron
2011-11-21 03:59 pm UTC (link)

Middle ground, people, middle ground. If a book positions you as "US AGAINST THEM," something is very, very wrong. And when the author's Wikipedia page is divided into subsections by lawsuit, run the hell away!)

EXACTLY. I have no idea how in the hell this guy continues to sell books- except for the fact that it might be BECAUSE he, like many woo-peddlers, paints himself as The Little Guy vs. The Man, and omg he just wants to help people but the mean old FDA et al want to silence his Miracle Cures, and people snap it up without bothering to do even basic research about him. But even then, this guy has been sued MULTIPLE TIMES and CONVICTED OF FRAUD, he refuses to provide reliable sources to back his claims up, why the hell do people still think it's a good idea to give him money? Is this belief in The Man Bringing Us Down really that strong? D:

I hear his books contain nothing more than common-sense information (like healthier eating habits and exercising to lose weight and feel better in general- OMG WHO KNEW) anyway- to access the "secrets" and "cures", you have to pay out the ass for a subscription to his website.

he'll compensate by ramping himself up as a martyr and the one to guide you through your profound emotional journey...

Exactly. Because Ray is suffering so, so very much, you see- can't we SEE how much emotional distress he's in?! He has to spend a WHOLE TWO YEARS IN PRISON (if he even serves his full term, which I doubt), he's so confused as to how this could have happened!! *gaaaag*

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	zara_zero 2011-11-23 02:16 am UTC (link)
	And when the author's Wikipedia page is divided into subsections by lawsuit, run the hell away! I know a surprisingly large amount of people (my mother included) who see this type of thing as "proof" that the author in question is actually legit. Because "they" wouldn't be trying so hard to keep him down if "they" didn't have something to hide. Oy. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2011-11-23 02:50 am UTC (link)
	Confirmation bias FTW (Reply to this)(Parent)

	agent_hyatt 2011-11-20 05:58 pm UTC (link)
	And I know that nothing I could say or do is enough. Well, to start, you could've legally taken responsibility and PLED GUILTY rather than forcing it to go to trial. Sure, it wouldn't be enough, but it'd at least have more meaning than all the platitudes you're spewing now. (Reply to this)(Thread)

franzen
2011-11-21 03:43 pm UTC (link)

In all honesty, speaking as someone familiar with the legal system... even if I knew someone who was one hundred percent penitent and on the terrible, awful wrong end of a mistake, I wouldn't say "plead guilty at arraignment," since the cardinal rule of law is "KEEP YOUR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT UNTIL I SAY SO." There's the restorative justice school of thought and research into what, exactly, constitutes remorse, and the markers thereof -- and should evidence of remorse exist, I think that's when you plea bargain. (Although, of course, that doesn't do much to make you look "not guilty," even if you did so to spare a trial, as then it's collusion/"he just knew the right people"/"ugh, look at what he got that pled down to.") In a fucked up way, fighting the thing to trial was the best PR move he ever made, as no matter what sentence he received, he goes to jail a martyr. I could see someone who was legitimately remorseful going to trial as well -- because the justice system is fucked up, and in well-publicized cases, pleading out or settling with an NDA is socially the same as an admission of full guilt; I wish nolo contendere pleas were a viable route -- if it were someone I knew and I loved and they'd fucked up, big time, and needed to make amends? This is where my mind breaks down, because sending someone who wasn't of an anti-social mindset to prison for a long period of time could turn them into a recidivist (as people have noted, there are pot smokers doing more time than this asshole), bar them from employment that would allow them to make financial restitution to their victims, etc. On the other hand, there needs to be a taking of responsibility.

This comment totally got away from me and is tangential to the case mentioned, obviously -- in this case, the jackass got off; he's going to bide his time (anyone want to start a pool on how long he'll actually serve?); there'll be a book deal in the aftermath; and the victims will never see justice or remorse. But you got me thinking, in any event, about remorse/penitence/amends and pleas in the current justice system. To quote Homer Simpson: And the taking of a life is murder. And the punishment for murder is... well, it varies from state to state and by race --

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zellieh
2011-11-24 11:39 am UTC (link)

On another tangential legal note, I want the Scottish legal system's third option to be much more widespread: Scotland allows the three verdicts of Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Proven.

Because a lot of woo-peddlers and other assorted criminals can be found not guilty only because there's not enough evidence for a conviction and then say, "Look, everybody -- I'm INNOCENT!" (which is actually not the same thing as Not Guilty anyway) and THEN play the Martyr card and claim they were right all along, etc. etc. etc.

It would be nice to be able to say to those guys, no, you're not "innocent"; we just don't have enough evidence to convict you -- yet.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	bienegold 2011-11-25 12:38 am UTC (link)
	What's the sentencing on Not Proven? Same as Not Guilty? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zellieh 2011-11-25 12:49 am UTC (link)
	If the final verdict in a case is Not Proven, the defendant goes free. But they can't say they've been found not guilty, and the case can be re-tried in future. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	bienegold 2011-11-25 01:06 am UTC (link)
	Thanks for indulging my curiosity! (Reply to this)(Parent)

franzen
2011-11-26 05:01 pm UTC (link)

The US has nolo contendere, but no judge will accept it -- basically boils down to "I'm not going to fight the case, but I won't admit guilt." (Essentially, punished as guilty without any formal admission of guilt on the part of the defendant.) Which, considering the way the US legal system works and the overwhelming pressure to skip a trial, seems to me to be a very valid response for low-level charges or in a case when there's no hope of a plea bargain.

But, yeah, "not proven" would be useful. The OJ Simpson case and the Casey Anthony case are two instances of guilt being socially accepted as fact, despite the verdict. On the other hand, I can also see "not proven" being overused in the US along racial lines -- "I want to say the black guy did it, but it's not proved." It could also go the other way with regard to hate crimes -- get a jury sympathetic to a victim for "trans rage" (FUCK HUMANITY -- sorry, had a moment) and a desire not to convict some poor little white boy for a hate crime because people can change... I wonder what the breakdown of "not proven" verdicts would look like in the US.

(Further on the tangent train, I have always wished for the voting option of "against all," but that's something else that's never going to happen.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

gardnerhill
2011-11-25 07:19 pm UTC (link)

It's good to be white, isn't it Jimmy?

1) You can make millions peddling a sacred ceremony you stole from indigenous brown people who don't practice their religion for profit.

2) You get 2 whole years in prison when 3 people die as a result of your thievery. (Troy Davis - and every other POC who's ever been executed for being in the same vicinity as a white murder victim - must be drinking heavily somewhere right now.)

3) People will still send you money, support, and will buy your bullshit when you stroll out of prison a martyred hero.

(Reply to this)