ASA parent arrested

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are restraining orders public information like the other court documents?

I'm an Eaton parent involved with volunteering and I had no idea. TM wasn't around as much but I assumed he had to go into the office more like the rest of us

Yes, generally they’re public by default, but not necessarily easy to find/pull up (you can’t just do a google search). Also, it’s possible for a person with a restraining order to file a petition to shield their records from public access. Restraining orders are a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and may not show up on a standard background check.

Wouldn't we want restraining orders to show up on background checks? Everyone who volunteers in the school building or chaperones class trips needs a clearance every two years. I would like the WaPo reporter to look into this.

If there really was a restraining order, then Thomas’s wife had to have known about Thomas. It makes what she did look like she was letting this criminal activity happen. Law enforcement should not have let her leave the country.

Thomas' wife absolutely knew about the prior incident as did most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building. The crew basically split in half over those who gave him the benefit of the doubt and those who didn't. The parents of the two sibling victims knew about the prior incident and had given him the benefit of the doubt. All of this can be found in articles/reports linked in this thread. HSA knew there was a restraining order against him that prohibited him from being at the school (by admin); they did NOT know what it was in reference to. There are actually multiple parents/caregivers with restraining orders or similar and most are related to divorce/custody situations or adult conflicts, so I think this is not as unique a situation as folks are painting it to be and the jump to child sexual abuse is actually not an obvious (or in most cases, fair) one. They did not have the background; I'm not sure about admin. I think it's amazing the gossip didn't spread more from the multiple Eaton families who live in the building that knew; but, again, the two victims' family was one of the few that DID know and this still happened.

Most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building did NOT know about the prior incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are restraining orders public information like the other court documents?

I'm an Eaton parent involved with volunteering and I had no idea. TM wasn't around as much but I assumed he had to go into the office more like the rest of us

Yes, generally they’re public by default, but not necessarily easy to find/pull up (you can’t just do a google search). Also, it’s possible for a person with a restraining order to file a petition to shield their records from public access. Restraining orders are a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and may not show up on a standard background check.

Wouldn't we want restraining orders to show up on background checks? Everyone who volunteers in the school building or chaperones class trips needs a clearance every two years. I would like the WaPo reporter to look into this.

If there really was a restraining order, then Thomas’s wife had to have known about Thomas. It makes what she did look like she was letting this criminal activity happen. Law enforcement should not have let her leave the country.

Thomas' wife absolutely knew about the prior incident as did most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building. The crew basically split in half over those who gave him the benefit of the doubt and those who didn't. The parents of the two sibling victims knew about the prior incident and had given him the benefit of the doubt. All of this can be found in articles/reports linked in this thread. HSA knew there was a restraining order against him that prohibited him from being at the school (by admin); they did NOT know what it was in reference to. There are actually multiple parents/caregivers with restraining orders or similar and most are related to divorce/custody situations or adult conflicts, so I think this is not as unique a situation as folks are painting it to be and the jump to child sexual abuse is actually not an obvious (or in most cases, fair) one. They did not have the background; I'm not sure about admin. I think it's amazing the gossip didn't spread more from the multiple Eaton families who live in the building that knew; but, again, the two victims' family was one of the few that DID know and this still happened.

Most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building did NOT know about the prior incident.

The ones who had previously been friends with the family and had kids the same age did. (I would fully believe families with only younger kids and no social links did not. It obviously appears like it was not gossiped about.) The evidence is in the police report linked in this thread: the VICTIMS' family said they knew about the prior incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are restraining orders public information like the other court documents?

I'm an Eaton parent involved with volunteering and I had no idea. TM wasn't around as much but I assumed he had to go into the office more like the rest of us

Yes, generally they’re public by default, but not necessarily easy to find/pull up (you can’t just do a google search). Also, it’s possible for a person with a restraining order to file a petition to shield their records from public access. Restraining orders are a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and may not show up on a standard background check.

Wouldn't we want restraining orders to show up on background checks? Everyone who volunteers in the school building or chaperones class trips needs a clearance every two years. I would like the WaPo reporter to look into this.

If there really was a restraining order, then Thomas’s wife had to have known about Thomas. It makes what she did look like she was letting this criminal activity happen. Law enforcement should not have let her leave the country.

Thomas' wife absolutely knew about the prior incident as did most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building. The crew basically split in half over those who gave him the benefit of the doubt and those who didn't. The parents of the two sibling victims knew about the prior incident and had given him the benefit of the doubt. All of this can be found in articles/reports linked in this thread. HSA knew there was a restraining order against him that prohibited him from being at the school (by admin); they did NOT know what it was in reference to. There are actually multiple parents/caregivers with restraining orders or similar and most are related to divorce/custody situations or adult conflicts, so I think this is not as unique a situation as folks are painting it to be and the jump to child sexual abuse is actually not an obvious (or in most cases, fair) one. They did not have the background; I'm not sure about admin. I think it's amazing the gossip didn't spread more from the multiple Eaton families who live in the building that knew; but, again, the two victims' family was one of the few that DID know and this still happened.

Most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building did NOT know about the prior incident.

The ones who had previously been friends with the family and had kids the same age did. (I would fully believe families with only younger kids and no social links did not. It obviously appears like it was not gossiped about.) The evidence is in the police report linked in this thread: the VICTIMS' family said they knew about the prior incident.

“Gossip” is not an appropriate word to use in this context. The problem is the the people who spread the word about Thomas were treated as troublemakers rather than heroes of the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are restraining orders public information like the other court documents?

I'm an Eaton parent involved with volunteering and I had no idea. TM wasn't around as much but I assumed he had to go into the office more like the rest of us

Yes, generally they’re public by default, but not necessarily easy to find/pull up (you can’t just do a google search). Also, it’s possible for a person with a restraining order to file a petition to shield their records from public access. Restraining orders are a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and may not show up on a standard background check.

Wouldn't we want restraining orders to show up on background checks? Everyone who volunteers in the school building or chaperones class trips needs a clearance every two years. I would like the WaPo reporter to look into this.

If there really was a restraining order, then Thomas’s wife had to have known about Thomas. It makes what she did look like she was letting this criminal activity happen. Law enforcement should not have let her leave the country.

Thomas' wife absolutely knew about the prior incident as did most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building. The crew basically split in half over those who gave him the benefit of the doubt and those who didn't. The parents of the two sibling victims knew about the prior incident and had given him the benefit of the doubt. All of this can be found in articles/reports linked in this thread. HSA knew there was a restraining order against him that prohibited him from being at the school (by admin); they did NOT know what it was in reference to. There are actually multiple parents/caregivers with restraining orders or similar and most are related to divorce/custody situations or adult conflicts, so I think this is not as unique a situation as folks are painting it to be and the jump to child sexual abuse is actually not an obvious (or in most cases, fair) one. They did not have the background; I'm not sure about admin. I think it's amazing the gossip didn't spread more from the multiple Eaton families who live in the building that knew; but, again, the two victims' family was one of the few that DID know and this still happened.

Miyoko’s behavior was very selfish. She could not care less about other parents’ children being sexually abused as long as she could shield from her own children the fact that their father was a pedophile.

[Anonymous]

I'm an Australian journalist writing a story on Mahony's arrest.

If anyone here knew him and is able to confirm his identity in a photograph, could you please email me at [e-mail]

Thank you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are restraining orders public information like the other court documents?

I'm an Eaton parent involved with volunteering and I had no idea. TM wasn't around as much but I assumed he had to go into the office more like the rest of us

Yes, generally they’re public by default, but not necessarily easy to find/pull up (you can’t just do a google search). Also, it’s possible for a person with a restraining order to file a petition to shield their records from public access. Restraining orders are a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and may not show up on a standard background check.

Wouldn't we want restraining orders to show up on background checks? Everyone who volunteers in the school building or chaperones class trips needs a clearance every two years. I would like the WaPo reporter to look into this.

If there really was a restraining order, then Thomas’s wife had to have known about Thomas. It makes what she did look like she was letting this criminal activity happen. Law enforcement should not have let her leave the country.

Thomas' wife absolutely knew about the prior incident as did most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building. The crew basically split in half over those who gave him the benefit of the doubt and those who didn't. The parents of the two sibling victims knew about the prior incident and had given him the benefit of the doubt. All of this can be found in articles/reports linked in this thread. HSA knew there was a restraining order against him that prohibited him from being at the school (by admin); they did NOT know what it was in reference to. There are actually multiple parents/caregivers with restraining orders or similar and most are related to divorce/custody situations or adult conflicts, so I think this is not as unique a situation as folks are painting it to be and the jump to child sexual abuse is actually not an obvious (or in most cases, fair) one. They did not have the background; I'm not sure about admin. I think it's amazing the gossip didn't spread more from the multiple Eaton families who live in the building that knew; but, again, the two victims' family was one of the few that DID know and this still happened.

Most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building did NOT know about the prior incident.

The ones who had previously been friends with the family and had kids the same age did. (I would fully believe families with only younger kids and no social links did not. It obviously appears like it was not gossiped about.) The evidence is in the police report linked in this thread: the VICTIMS' family said they knew about the prior incident.

“Gossip” is not an appropriate word to use in this context. The problem is the the people who spread the word about Thomas were treated as troublemakers rather than heroes of the community.

More than half the people on this board love telling people to mind their own business on everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No picture of this guy?

He took all the pictures so he's not in any of them.

Not helpful.

I mean, he’s not the only parent that takes pictures and video (especially) at meets.

[Anonymous]

New article:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/former-australian-embassy-staffer-in-dc-charged-with-child-abuse/news-story/ebd93aeb2640fc82875cec2c3ff6477b

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New article:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/former-australian-embassy-staffer-in-dc-charged-with-child-abuse/news-story/ebd93aeb2640fc82875cec2c3ff6477b

Paywall

[Anonymous]

Not everyone in the building knew about the protection order. I wish we did. There would have been no "benefit of the doubt on our part". The stakes are way too high for that kind of thing.

For those who didn't know the guy, he was very, very, very deceptive - a pro. His mask was incredible. Fair dues to those that had suspicions and could see through him, I didn't.

Part of the sad thing about all of this is that we're suspicious of everyone know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone in the building knew about the protection order. I wish we did. There would have been no "benefit of the doubt on our part". The stakes are way too high for that kind of thing.

For those who didn't know the guy, he was very, very, very deceptive - a pro. His mask was incredible. Fair dues to those that had suspicions and could see through him, I didn't.

Part of the sad thing about all of this is that we're suspicious of everyone know.

Very well said. You are so smart whoever you are!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are restraining orders public information like the other court documents?

I'm an Eaton parent involved with volunteering and I had no idea. TM wasn't around as much but I assumed he had to go into the office more like the rest of us

Yes, generally they’re public by default, but not necessarily easy to find/pull up (you can’t just do a google search). Also, it’s possible for a person with a restraining order to file a petition to shield their records from public access. Restraining orders are a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and may not show up on a standard background check.

Wouldn't we want restraining orders to show up on background checks? Everyone who volunteers in the school building or chaperones class trips needs a clearance every two years. I would like the WaPo reporter to look into this.

If there really was a restraining order, then Thomas’s wife had to have known about Thomas. It makes what she did look like she was letting this criminal activity happen. Law enforcement should not have let her leave the country.

Thomas' wife absolutely knew about the prior incident as did most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building. The crew basically split in half over those who gave him the benefit of the doubt and those who didn't. The parents of the two sibling victims knew about the prior incident and had given him the benefit of the doubt. All of this can be found in articles/reports linked in this thread. HSA knew there was a restraining order against him that prohibited him from being at the school (by admin); they did NOT know what it was in reference to. There are actually multiple parents/caregivers with restraining orders or similar and most are related to divorce/custody situations or adult conflicts, so I think this is not as unique a situation as folks are painting it to be and the jump to child sexual abuse is actually not an obvious (or in most cases, fair) one. They did not have the background; I'm not sure about admin. I think it's amazing the gossip didn't spread more from the multiple Eaton families who live in the building that knew; but, again, the two victims' family was one of the few that DID know and this still happened.

Most Eaton families who lived in the same apartment building did NOT know about the prior incident.

The ones who had previously been friends with the family and had kids the same age did. (I would fully believe families with only younger kids and no social links did not. It obviously appears like it was not gossiped about.) The evidence is in the police report linked in this thread: the VICTIMS' family said they knew about the prior incident.

[Anonymous]

Re "...The ones who had previously been friends with the family and had kids the same age did..." know about the protection order.

This is not the case. Most did not. It wasn't spoken about.

[Anonymous]

https://www.noticer.news/australian-diplomat-washington-dc-child-sexual-abuse/

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know the outcome of his August 26 court hearing?