If it wasn't part of the record that the house was where his godkids lived, then he should have just kept his damn mouth shut if he didn't want people to know that.
That's the thing. I can't speak for anyone else, but I had no idea who lived there, nor did I care. All that mattered to me that it was the corporate address of a corporation I was interested in, and that it was owned by Alec Peters.
It's like I'm at your house, and say, "Hey, I'm going to set this book on your chest here," and you scream, "No! I have a body hidden in that chest!" It was totally useless that Peters revealed that information, except that it would distract from the real question being asked. And it was successful on Peters part. Because people are so hypersensitive about addresses, many people (including some here on this board) latched on to how much of a monster I was for "doxxing" Peters, when in fact, I did not.
Even in states where doxxing is illegal, it's ONLY in the context of threats or other stalking behavior. Someone doing research on a different topic and revealing information easily available in public documents would not come anywhere close to meeting that definition.
But then again if there's one thing that Peters and co. have proven during this whole thing, it's that they don't know when to keep their damn mouths shut. Imagine how much trouble they could have saved themselves if they did.
Agreed. While I don't think anyone cares who lives in the house, no one would even think about it or know about it if it weren't for Peters announcing it to the world.
I have to admit, at times I kind of wish Peters and some of his people were here to defend themselves. It kind of feels like we're all piling on them without giving themselves a chance to defend themselves. But then again, I don't think I've actually seen them try to defend themselves in a reasonable, intelligent manner. It seems like they can't do anything but insult or throw a temper tantrum when people question anything they've done.
That's the thing. On this particular question, for instance, instead of throwing insults and victim cries, Peters could have simply said, "The company is not what you might think it is. We did it to protect that real property, so that it was a corporate asset, not a personal asset."
And when I responded with, "Well, you didn't transfer the title," a good response would be, "Oh, we haven't? I thought that was done," or "We're supposed to do that? I'm not sure. Let me check with the lawyer to make sure we covered all those bases."
Without the anger, the need to attack, and the "I'm a victim" sideshow, I would've actually accepted that answer. It makes sense. I can't expect everyone understands real estate law at the same level as everyone else, and since Peters is not a real estate attorney, it is possible he did the initial motions to protect real property, but simply didn't finish it.
However, when you start all this sideshow mess, it only means that there's probably more smoke coming from somewhere than you realize.
But hey, maybe Peters just doesn't know how to respond without being defensive. I know I can be defensive sometimes, too. But usually if I am being defensive, and I'm called out on it, I re-evaluate and follow up.
I would love to see someone have a real honest conversation with Peters or one of his cohorts where they actually discussed this whole situation and why they have done the things they have done.
Read John Kirk's interview with him on 1701News.
