Minnis cries "foul" which sounds an awful lot like "wolf!"
On last night's KATU 11PM news broadcast, the Minnis clan's apparent cover up of Tuck Minnis' child sexual abuse was one of their top stories. Sadly, KATU did such a piss poor job of reporting that I hardly know where to begin.
Unfortunately the story as reported last night doesn't appear to be on the KATU website. Small wonder. If I'd done such a shoddy job of reporting I wouldn't want it displayed for posterity either.
The KATU reporter sat down with Karen Minnis--who whined incessantly that what happened wasn't her fault and not her responsibility (sound familiar?).
The reporter let her statements stand unchallenged. Which tells me that he obviously didn't bother to read John Minnis' affadavit.
Neither apparently did the Oregonian.
Tuck Minnis worked at a business known as Little John's Pizza in Hillsboro, which was owned by John and KAREN Minnis. Further, once they made the decision to remove Tuck from his managerial position due to these incidents, KAREN Minnis became the lunch shift manager, working from 10AM to 2PM and they placed the girl who made the complaint on that shift.
John Minnis further states in his affadavit that he and KAREN didn't believe the accuser. If she's not responsible, why is he including her in these statements? In addition, if the situation at the store was dire enough for them to remove Tuck Minnis as manager and have Karen come in and take over, why wasn't Tuck fired? Why didn't John Minnis report the allegations to the proper authorities and demand a full investigation?
Oregon Statute is clear here. ORS 419B.010 states:
John and KAREN Minnis had reasonable cause enough to yank Tuck Minnis' manager title from him for these incidents. Its pretty clear that would be enough reasonable cause to at least file a report.
Under 419B.015, it should have been reported thusly:
In the girl's complaint (see pages 26-40), she alleges that John Minnis told her that "he could treat her any way he wanted because he was the employer." The girl further complained that she was forced to quit as they kept assigning her to late night shifts, ordering her to change her clothes on shift and off,setting rules for female employees that didn't apply to males and changing the girl's job description from hostess to cook--as well as treating her in a punitive and angry manner (anyone who watched Karen Minnis on KATU last night would totally buy this. Its obvious she's hella thin skinned).
So not only did this girl suffer sexual abuse at the hands of John Minnis' brother, both KAREN and John Minnis retaliated against her for making the complaints in the first place.
John Minnis is claiming that he reported the incident orally. I'm right now prepared to say that's bullshit. If John Minnis had properly reported this, there would be a record somewhere of a police investigation. That too is required by law when a report is made [419B.020(2)]. So far, no one has been able to come forward with record of a single police investigation taking place with Tuck Minnis with this incident.
And finally, why did John and KAREN Minnis pay this girl off with $20,000 if they didn't believe her? That simply makes no sense.
John and Karen Minnis are now threatening to sue both Rob Brading and FuturePAC now that this story has surfaced. What's telling is that they're apparently not making any plans to go to court to have the ads on this issue taken out of circulation.
Given the hefty source citations involved here, undoubtedly the court would rebuff them.
Unfortunately the story as reported last night doesn't appear to be on the KATU website. Small wonder. If I'd done such a shoddy job of reporting I wouldn't want it displayed for posterity either.
The KATU reporter sat down with Karen Minnis--who whined incessantly that what happened wasn't her fault and not her responsibility (sound familiar?).
The reporter let her statements stand unchallenged. Which tells me that he obviously didn't bother to read John Minnis' affadavit.
Neither apparently did the Oregonian.
Tuck Minnis worked at a business known as Little John's Pizza in Hillsboro, which was owned by John and KAREN Minnis. Further, once they made the decision to remove Tuck from his managerial position due to these incidents, KAREN Minnis became the lunch shift manager, working from 10AM to 2PM and they placed the girl who made the complaint on that shift.
John Minnis further states in his affadavit that he and KAREN didn't believe the accuser. If she's not responsible, why is he including her in these statements? In addition, if the situation at the store was dire enough for them to remove Tuck Minnis as manager and have Karen come in and take over, why wasn't Tuck fired? Why didn't John Minnis report the allegations to the proper authorities and demand a full investigation?
Oregon Statute is clear here. ORS 419B.010 states:
419B.010 Duty of officials to report child abuse; exceptions; penalty. (1) Any public or private official having reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse or that any person with whom the official comes in contact has abused a child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made in the manner required in ORS 419B.015.
John and KAREN Minnis had reasonable cause enough to yank Tuck Minnis' manager title from him for these incidents. Its pretty clear that would be enough reasonable cause to at least file a report.
Under 419B.015, it should have been reported thusly:
419B.015 Report form and content; notice to law enforcement agencies and local office of Department of Human Services. (1)(a) A person making a report of child abuse, whether voluntarily or pursuant to ORS 419B.010, shall make an oral report by telephone or otherwise to the local office of the Department of Human Services, to the designee of the department or to a law enforcement agency within the county where the person making the report is located at the time of the contact. The report shall contain, if known, the names and addresses of the child and the parents of the child or other persons responsible for care of the child, the child’s age, the nature and extent of the abuse, including any evidence of previous abuse, the explanation given for the abuse and any other information that the person making the report believes might be helpful in establishing the cause of the abuse and the identity of the perpetrator.
In the girl's complaint (see pages 26-40), she alleges that John Minnis told her that "he could treat her any way he wanted because he was the employer." The girl further complained that she was forced to quit as they kept assigning her to late night shifts, ordering her to change her clothes on shift and off,setting rules for female employees that didn't apply to males and changing the girl's job description from hostess to cook--as well as treating her in a punitive and angry manner (anyone who watched Karen Minnis on KATU last night would totally buy this. Its obvious she's hella thin skinned).
So not only did this girl suffer sexual abuse at the hands of John Minnis' brother, both KAREN and John Minnis retaliated against her for making the complaints in the first place.
John Minnis is claiming that he reported the incident orally. I'm right now prepared to say that's bullshit. If John Minnis had properly reported this, there would be a record somewhere of a police investigation. That too is required by law when a report is made [419B.020(2)]. So far, no one has been able to come forward with record of a single police investigation taking place with Tuck Minnis with this incident.
And finally, why did John and KAREN Minnis pay this girl off with $20,000 if they didn't believe her? That simply makes no sense.
John and Karen Minnis are now threatening to sue both Rob Brading and FuturePAC now that this story has surfaced. What's telling is that they're apparently not making any plans to go to court to have the ads on this issue taken out of circulation.
Given the hefty source citations involved here, undoubtedly the court would rebuff them.
posted by carla at 12:06 PM
|
<< Home