Roger Patterson, an Embezzler??

That's what Kitakaze said. Then, kinda walked back his comments on a message board, but not really as strongly as he should have. He has been asked to provide the actual documentation to prove his allegations of Embezzlement and Grand Larceny, but has instead chosen to post on the message board where he was asked to do so.. Not post the information which proves his claim, just cutsie little comments, and defending his position.

Here is the truth folks.



Taken from Greg Long's book, page 304. The following image is a photo taken of the bottom of page 304



The following image shows the entire page 304 of Greg Long's book.



This is a letter written by Vilma Radford. Vilma tells Greg Long, she sent this letter to Roger Patterson. These kinds of letters are what is called, "Demand for Payment" letters. They are very common when trying to execute the terms of a contract, or in an attempt to collect a debt (debt collectors). "Demand for payment letters can be written by anyone who is owed money.

Please note in the close up image, at the bottom of the page, Greg Long inserts his own wording:

"Copy of note dated, December 29, 1967, to Roger Patterson from Vilma Radford threatening legal action for breach of contract."

Breach of Contract and Embezzlement are in different leagues all together. A suit for Breach of Contract is not handled in the criminal courts, this is a civil matter. Embezzlement is a criminal matter, and most often you are charged with a felony and sent to prison. There are no "fines" involved with a "Breach of Contract" suit, and Roger Patterson would not even have to show up for such a matter, if he agreed with Vilma that he owed her the money.

If you have a suit brought against you for "Breach of Contract," and you "fail to appear" the judge simply enters what is called a "default judgment" - basically, your failure to appear (in court) and defend yourself against the action means you are saying, "I owe the money." Had Roger Patterson shown up that day, to defend himself against this action, Vilma Radford's attorney fees would have been much higher than what she did end up paying out. The only thing I am curious about at this point is why the judge didn't order a seperate judgment (from the $999.00) for attorney fees.. That is curious to me, as the contract between Vilma and Patterson, calls for Patterson to pay attorney fees.

But, this is not a criminal matter, and it is not correct at all to call this particular case "Embezzlement," as I said two very different ball games entirely.

I also found the arrest warrant for Roger Patterson on charges of "Grand Larceny" on page 168 of Greg Long's book. As far as I am concerned however, this is a non-issue, as it has been said the charges were dropped. There was not even a trial. The only way we will know why the charges were dropped is to get the Court Transcripts, the reason may be in there.

In this country we are, "Innocent until Proven guilty." Whether you like Roger Patterson or not, he is still entitled to his day, the District Attorney in this case, made the decision to drop, therefore Roger Patterson never even seen trial. We can speculate all we want as to, "Why?" But, unless we have the court transcripts, that is all it is. Even if we can get the transcripts and find out why the case was dropped, it STILL does not make Roger Patterson guilty of a Felony. You can think he is a bad person, but your "feelings" do not make it so. We are not the judge and jury of Roger Patterson.

We should be careful when discussing issues such as this, to be certain our comments and accusations are correct. Kitakaze blew it big time on this one, and for his sake I hope Roger Patterson's widow doesn't catch wind of this ... or for that matter, her Attorney.

Just thought I would share this with you. Have a great day everyone.


*Disclaimer: The comments above are not legal advice, and should not be taken as such. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney.*