Suzanne Gentling Misleading Statements and Innuendo- Round 2
25 August 2015 at 11:30:08 AM
As mentioned in my previous post, Suzanne Gentling was posting erroneous information, on purpose, on a Facebook gossip site. She said that my husband, Paul Harper, owns this blog site, Somervell County Salon, salon.glenrose.net and, apparently predicated on that 0 start, brought up other unfounded innuendos without a shred of proof. She neglected to mention that she was a regular poster on Somervell County Salon for years, that she KNOWS it is I, female *salon* whose website and blog site this is, and that she at this very moment and for years has been hosting her own website on Glen Rose Network Corp, a Texas corporation I am president of, and have been for years. I have ignored most of her ravings, figuring people would realize she likes to post stuff that isn't 1, but when someone sent me screenshots of what she said, and it directly involves ME, it's really too far.. because she absolutely knows better.
She decided, a couple of days ago, to come post a few comment on Somervell County Salon's Facebook page. My hub pointed out that she was lying, and presto, this morning, I see she deleted her comments. Clearly she doesn't want anyone to see that she has been posting untruths. You can see the original, sans the comments Gentling deleted on Facebook's Somervell County Salon site.
Notice on the screen shot I have at right that she says she never questioned who created salon.glenrose.net or who runs it. YES, SHE DID and she is trying to make it appear that Paul does, and not me. Then she, unprompted, goes back and deletes some post on the gossip site about salon.glenrose.net-nobody told her that deleting it would make them feel better. And there's no bargain there to delete my post about her simply because she's trying to hide her smears. What gets me in particular, and clearly Paul called her out on this, is that she was caught in a lie when she said "I repeat. I've never made any statements or offered any opinions about the legal ownership of the website salon.glenrose.net" Yes, she did. Notice also that she refers to me as *she* so she KNOWS it's me, a woman that owns it.
However, I want to talk about this. I'm sure she hoped if she just removed her post and comments, that all the crapola she's been spinning about my husband and now denigrating and minimizing my own blog site, that it would all go away. Nope. In fact, I have a lot of friends who have regularly been sending me screenshots of postings on Facebook, and I have saved them in the event the innuendos reached the level of slander against me personally. I will sound somewhat irate here and I am, because it's ridiculous.
To start, the Facebook group that Gentling belongs to and posted the following uninformed posts on is not one that I am a member nor do I read. Randy Hurtado started the group out of revenge because I would not allow him and some others to post about a 38 year old woman whose kin had not taken the effort to file a police report, despite being told to by Somervell County Sherriff's Department. I believe it is not against the law for an adult woman to believe she can take a break without siccing the entire internet on her to find her. The upshot of that was that the woman had gone off with a boyfriend to Dennison or Sherman. Hurtado was upset that I would not allow a Missing Persons post about her and started another Facebook site. I have been told that in order to pump up numbers, rather than waiting for people to decide for themselves if they thought it was a good site, that people were added without their permission. I also know that that Facebook group has made every effort to smear both me and my husband, so it shouldn't be surprising that it's not one that I personally would ever go to or even casually read. People who know me and are my friends DO want to alert me as to the malicious and unfounded stuff that is said, and have been sending me screenshots of relevant information since last year, and that's how I found out Suzanne Gentling was lying about me.
Note that she came back on yesterday to say that she issued a *correction* on Hurtado's gossip site. She says she said
"Correction: My statement above that Paul Harper not D*** H**** was the owner of the website salon.glenrose.net is inaccurate. Paul Harper and the business owned by him and his wife, are the registered owners of that domain. The Harpers have stated in court that the website itself is owned soley by D*** Harper. Whether or not the question of joint ownership of the website was ever resolved in court, I can't say, but it's my understanding that the Harpers did not submit any documented proof of the ownership of that particular website."
I never gave any thought to the legal ownership of this website until a year ago. I always assumed that D**** H**** was the sole owner of salon. glenrose. net. I've never questioned that she created it, designs it, and manages it, and does most of the posting
Um. Her *correction* is still bullchit that shows she has done NO research. If she spent any time, she would find out WHO solely owns the business. She also does NOT understand domains. She also says it is her understanding that "The Harpers did not submit any documented proof of the ownership of this particular website". Yes, I put in an affadavit and testified about MY website for about an hour and a half under oath. How about since SHE wants so badly to post bullchit, SHE goes and looks at what is EASILY seen on the State of Texas SOS website?
When she also says "I always assumed that D** H*** was the sole owner of salon .glenrose. net. I've never questioned that she created it, designs and manages it and does most of the posting", I hope she is loudly saying it on that Bullchit site, because THAT is accurate. It is only because of the sheer ignorance of a few men that this is even a specious issue, but she knows better and, as per her statement above, SHOWS that she knows better. She, again, CHOSE to mislead people about it being Paul that ran this website, apparently in order to continue with some random, unsourced, and unproven theories in her head. Since the foundation for the rest of what she says is based on a lie, NO ONE should swallow her theories wholesale without a challenge.
Suzanne Gentling, shot out of the box, pulls out an unfounded innuendo which can only be for the purpose of smearing Paul Harper. ALL the board members have access to important discussions about the Turk lawsuit when they discuss it together. What in the world is her basis for saying Paul has a close association with the Plaintiffs? Because *I* posted about the lawsuit under my screenname *salon* on MY blog site Somervell County Salon after I found out about the lawsuit NOT FROM ANY BOARD MEMBER TELLING ME????? As if I live in a cave, am behind closed doors wearing a burka, and cannot possibly have any communication with community members myself? She just is making stuff up. Why?????
NOT Paul Harper's website. Somervell County Salon is MY website. And, I'll be saying this repeatedly, Suzanne Gentling KNOWS this because she herself posted regularly on it for years. Then she throws out another innuendo that came out of nothing, insinuating that Paul Harper, the Turks and TORCH have all been colluding together. Pffffttt. Anyone can wonder about all kinds of improbable situations, saying that she's been *curious* about this is the height of implying that there is something unsavory there when there is not, even if she does have extreme outlandish thoughts about it. If she thinks she knows something that others don't, then shey doesn't she exert herself to do open records requests to find out, or call the TORCH guy or call Shelley Turk or call Paul Harper? Does this mean if I've been wondering for the last year if Gentling has been hanging out with the Shah of Iraq and that I've been *curious about that for a long time* that I should be taken seriously? Sheesh. Dreamland.
I called a colleague that has been a hospital administrator for over thirty years and discussed the situation with him and requested advice. He encourged me to take all of this information to the hospital board. He reported that he would be concerned that Mr. Reynolds would not only be at risk for civil penalties for ignoring the warnings, but might even be at risk for criminal prosecution. He also strongly recommended that we contact TORCH to come in and help our hospital.
So instead of reporting this to all of the board members, I approached some of them individually and showed them a draft of the letter sent to Ray. I expressed my concerns, asked for their help and told them about TORCH. One board member simply reported that they understood my concern for it taking so long for improvements to occur. A second board member listened to my concerns, took the TORCH information and appeared to be interested, but nothing happened. I met with a third board member and after showing him the draft of the letter, explaining my concerns and telling him about TORCH, he openly said that Ray was a friend of his and that he would be too busy fighting against the *four* other board members to be able to help.
Hopefully YOU can see this. Dr Turk is the one that found out about TORCH and approached board members, 3 of which weren't interested in helping him. HE wanted TORCH.
With nowhere left to turn, I contacted one of the *four* members that were supposedly against the hospital. After questioning him cllsely concerning his plans for the hospital, his interest in improving the hospital, his interest in patient care and his integrity, I finally felt like I had contacted someone that would fight along with me to put the hospital and patients first and foremost. I then shared with him my concerns and gave him the information on TORCH. Finally, some action was taken. He called a board meeting and the board voted unanimously to bring in TORCH.
So now you can see Suzanne is not a careful reader from FACTS.
Why did TORCH withdraw? Who knows? A lot of what goes on in a meeting the public can know but anything that goes on in closed, executive session, the public is not privy to. She, just like me, can go watch video of open session to form an opinion BUT WE, THE PUBLIC, DON'T GET TO KNOW WITHOUT A COURT ORDER what gets discussed in closed session. I've also heard rumours that one of the board members threatened the TORCH guy-do I know that that's 1? No. So, again, 4 board members did NOT come up with the idea to get TORCH, the ENTIRE board was approached by Dr Turk.
As a side note, she attempts to smear the board members as saying they have no hospital experience. Well, neither did Larry Shaw and some others on the temporary board. When people ran for that board there was no prerequisite that there be a certain level of experience in order to be on it. And yet every single one of those board members were ELECTED by people in this community. Does Gentling not believe in the democratic process? IF Glen Rose Medical Center wanted to ensure that only medical professionals run the hospital, they could have opted to REMAIN PRIVATE instead of wanting to TAX Somervell County residents. Since the latter is 1, the board is elected from AMONG THE COMMUNITY, and smear the board members all she wants, she can't change that.
Sheesh. *Ostensibly withdrew*.... If she has a fact supported by a source to say this, why doesn't she put it out there? When someone asserts things, that person should be CHALLENGED.
Again. Obvious??? Why??? Because I write about facts that are publicly available and put them on MY blog site? A whole lot of people know me in this community, know that this is my blog, know that I write under the name "salon", know I have gone and still go occasionally to government meetings to record them, or I do open records requests to get audio, I do open records requests for documents, I, in short, attempt to be an INFORMED CITIZEN. Why is no one but me challenging such a stupid innuendo????
And as for *good question for some cross-examination". In what context? Should ALL the board members be put up before a court and cross-examined? Why? Surely people in this community are aware of the efforts of Darrell Best, Ron Hankins and Andy Lucas to remove Paul from office. Best filed a CIVIL lawsuit to that end about a year ago; he, Paul Harper, Ray Reynolds, and I testified in that hearing over 2 hearing dates, and that the upshot of the temporary hearing was that the judge said, in January, 2015, that people ELECTED Paul Harper to office, regardless of whether one agrees with him or not. For those that aren't aware, there is an anti-slapp appeal right now in the 10th court of appeals Harper v Best regarding what sure looks like a frivolous CIVIL lawsuit.
Yup. This is the type of post Randy Hurtado created his gossipy, National Enquirer style Facebook page for. For people to come up and just blurt out whatever crosses through their head without any proof at all. I knew this was the case when he huffed off after I wouldn't let him post the BS about Jodi Cook Wood. How nice of him to acknowledge it. I also find it really telling that while he piously tells people not to do personal attack, he sure has no problem with it as long as it is I or my hub. So christian, must be a characteristic of Stonewater Church.
Wonder if he knows that Gentling called him a *somabitch*?
I wrote a letter to the editor recently and Travis Smith called me up to tell me he would not publish it without attribution. I was a little testy with him as I thought, heck, I've written letters before without having to put a source for everything. However, I did put in every source, and he published the letter. I called him up and apologized for being cross with him, as, on reflection, I think he's trying to make sure there isn't slander or other unfounded innuendos in the paper. I certainly hope he has the same standard for Suzanne Gentling, who has been writing letters smearing Paul for at least the last year, using that same vague technique not of any proof but questions picked from a cloud.
Paul is the registrar for top level Glenrose.net - salon.glenrose.net is a subdomain of that, and I also have Somervell County Salon registered with a shorter, top level domain name scalon.org, among other domain names. I explained about why in my own testimony in the CIVIL hearing against Paul in January 2015 and I'm not going to recap here, read for yourself. Being a registrar does not mean you necessarily own and manage other domains, including subdomains. If that were 1, then when Darrell Best used weebly to host his best4judge site, weebly the corporation actually wrote all the vainglorious words he had on that page touting his candidacy. I understand that domains are tricky and hard to figure out for some people. That's why for some the customer simply says "Hey, do this for me, don't tell me the details, I just want a website up". As mentioned before, Suzanne has a website and she hosts it on Glen Rose Network Corp. Does this mean that Paul or I (I am the president of Glen Rose Network Corp, that is the LEGAL ownership) am going on HER website and putting up pictures, text, etc? Does it even mean that I or Paul LOOK at her site to try to tell everytime she adds or edits something? No. So why in the world would she think that on MY site anyone else, including my husband, immediately is watching to see what I write.
In fact, Andy Lucas asked my hub about this, whether Paul *admonished me* not to write stuff, or if he approved what I said before I posted it, etc, AS IF I AM NOT AN ADULT CITIZEN WHO IS FREE TO DO WHAT I WANT OR SPEAK TO ANYONE I WANT AT ANY TIME. Anytime any spouse posts on Facebook or Twitter, does EVERY wife first show it to their husband for approval? Pffffttttttt. And my point also is that IF we are going to be in the business of having husbands check over what their wives write and do before they do it, burka style, then that also applies to Ron Hankins's wife, who is sure free (and I have a ton of screen shots to prove it) to say whatever the fool she wants, her venue of choice being Facebook. Her husband apparently didn't know that she took that threat letter to John Parker, now did he? The day that female US citizens are treated as lesser, dumber, and unempowered citizens of the US is the day we should admit we're no better than Muslim countries who also want to severely conscript what women do.
Again, Paul does NOT own salon.glenrose.net aka scscalon.org, I do. I have already said I knew about the lawsuit, NOT FROM ANY BOARD MEMBER, I went up to the Waco US District court site (because, er, it's ON THE INTERNET) , got a Pacer account and pulled down the document and posted it, under MY screen name on MY blog. Guess what, as Rosie Mimms, says, once a thing is filed it becomes public record. There is NO requirement that people be served before the information in out. Doesn't Suzanne watch the evening local news? Just last week there was a guy who had a suit filed against him, the CBS11 reporter was in his face asking for his comments and the man had NOT BEEN SERVED YET, so it was the first time he was seeing it. That's how things work, even if Gentling doesn't understand this.
I guess it's NOT *pretty obvious*. Having made a specious comment without ANY facts, she now builds on it by saying that Paul was the first defendant to hear about this suit. Uh, she pulls that out of WHERE? Once I posted that suit on the internet, ANYONE could see it, including Ray Reynolds, who is one of the ones being sued. I certainly had no obligation to tell ANYONE, and I knew Ray Reynolds and the board would be served at some point, because it's in the court documents. So the question BACK at Gentling should be- does any media outlet have the obligation to take time to notify people in involved in a lawsuit that they're about to be served? The answer is NO.
Rosie Mimms also KNOWS that Somervell County Salon is mine and that I post as *salon*. I've known her for years.
Again, NO! Somervell County Salon is OWNED BY ME, not Paul. She needs to STOP saying that. She decided to come up to the Facebook Somervell County Salon and comment about it. Paul took her on and caught her in a lie.
Once she was caught in that lie, she went back and DELETED her comments from the SCS Facebook page, and I assume she may have done so on Randy Hurtado's page, although I don't know that for sure since I don't read that gossipy place where people are allowed to attack each other.
Her comment about the 8/10 meeting shows that she cannot figure out even how to watch a video fo a meeting. At the 8/10 meeting, which Paul recorded for me with my camera and I made clips of, AS ANY CITIZEN CAN DO, the board went into closed session first and after they came out, there was a discussion about the press release. Does Gentling know what was said in closed session that the rest of us don't know? Maybe we need to buy her a magic hat like the one Ron Hankins has where he thinks he can see the future and know people's motives.
Again, Gentling needs some better reading comprehension. When you go to the ICANN website to look up SUBDOMAIN salon.glenrose.net, because there is NO domain registered for that, ICANN goes to show glenrose.net which Paul is the registrar for. In fact, if you do the WHOIS lookup for salon.glenrose.net on networksolutions, which is the place where we have all our own personal domains, you'll get an error message that says "this domain extension is not supported". That's because it is glenrose.net that is registered, NOT THE SUBDOMAIN salon.glenrose.net. The registration also shows Glen Rose Network Corp, which I am president of (go look up on the Texas Secretary of State business filings). People that do not understand domains have no business trying to hornswaggle others about them, and I remind AGAIN that her own website is hosted BY Glen Rose Network Corp and has been for years.
After I posted the lawsuit, ANYONE could read it, that's how it works in our Freedom of speech democracy and also, uh, that's how the internet works.
Update 9/13/2015. On September 5, which you can see is about 2 weeks after I called her out on her bullchit, Gentling decided to request that her website no longer be hosted on Glen Rose Network Corp. She has said before that having Glen Rose Network Corp host her website (which had been done for years) while for the past year trashing those associated with it was *just business*. I suppose that justification only served as long as PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW what a hypocrite she is, since she indicated that the reason for pulling the website was that I had been *indiscreet*. In my world, calling her out on on her lies and attempts to mislead people while hiding her own involvement trumps the whiny complaint of *indiscretion*. Once Gentling decided to mislead people about who owns Somervell County Salon (ME) in order to smear others based on innuendo, she invited a direct response from me. Anyone else who was being lied about would have done the same, at least anyone who believes challenging lies is an appropriate action.