Met with some good friends today. :-)
Had another interview with Stephen Dark yesterday. (The transcription is below.)
Mr. Dark sent me a note requesting to know,
“Why weren’t you at the unveiling of the memorial last June? I assumed that was an event of some import to you.”
In response to him and to get him the information he requested during the interview, I composed the following:
_________________
Why weren’t you there? :-)
The dedication was meant as a public event in which the legal representative of the MWAW®, my attorney, Rod Vessels, did what “legal representatives do: publicly announce and introduce what they represent (in this case the Marvelous Work and a Wonder®) as an official, legally registered, trademarked entity. Rod Vessels explained the work and set forth a public challenge concerning it. The event was recorded. Would you like a transcript? Here’s a link to it:
Here’s the link to where the police report involving my father is presented.
http://marvelousworkandawonder.com/cmnblog/2010/12/05/joel-james-ida-and-nick/
Ironically, it is presented with some thoughts on my half-brother Joel, who you mentioned has accused me of all sorts of nonsense.
A few notes about what my father did:
I’ve never owned a gun. He blatantly lied about everything to accomplish his desire, which quickly became obvious to the investigating officers on scene.
So, Stephen,
If my own father lied and attempted to demean me and cast a darkness on my character, creating an “official, legal” document (the police report), why in the world could you or anyone else trust “affidavits” created by my enemies who have their own agenda? It would behoove you to read the rough draft of Chapter 20 of Joseph’s Bio. Go to my Daily Journal for December 20, 2010. Here’s that link:
http://marvelousworkandawonder.com/cmnblog/2010/12/20/a-name-had-for-good-and-evil/
The exact same thing happened to Joseph Smith, Jr. as he commenced his part of this work.
But, alas,
The real truth is boring. No sex, no crime, no deception. It is hardly something your readers would find interesting, now would they? :-)
Is journalism really objective? Is it not true that what is written and edited is subjective to the wants of its subscribers? But, of course, journalists are the smart ones, now aren’t they? :-)
Why not focus a bit on what the MWAW has done for people’s perception about their fellow humans? Why not point out the good points of what this work has done for Ida and others–the real things that caused her to give up everything?
But anyways,
It’s not my story, it’s yours. :-)
Below is a complete transcript of our interview.
The best to you,
C. :-)
____________________
Christopher with Stephen Dark, Salt Lake City Weekly Reporter,
December 21, 2010, 4:00 P.M.
(Exchange of salutations)
C: Stephen, I wanted you to know up front… I want you to try and understand where I’m coming from (regarding having to record all conversations). I have no choice. With my life and how it’s been, and what’s going to happen in the future—I have no choice but to protect myself and record any information I can… (dropped call) …looks like I lost Stephen, guess he’ll have to call back. (Ringing … calling in) I lost ya!
S: I don’t know what happened here.
C: I’m on my Skype phone, it’s the only one I have.
S: This is the 6-1-5 number.
C: Yep.
S: So you were saying, what were you saying… where you’re coming from as well?
C: I was just hoping you would understand where I’m coming from. Based on, of course, my past and what I’m giving to the world and what’s going to happen in the future, it’s in my best interest to always record every conversation I have (which I do) with an enemy or friend.
S: My only concern was that you didn’t tell me in the beginning. I mean, I was happy for you to record it, I don’t mind in the least. In fact I found the transcription quite useful.
C: Good.
S: It’s just… you know… you didn’t tell me up front that you were recording it. But it is what it is. So… I just can’t seem to get my tape recorders to work, so never mind.
C: Well, you can have this one (recording). I’ll get you a copy of this one, no problem.
S: So, you–is it correct that you went to West High and then to Rexburg to BYU there?
C: Yes, but at the time it was Ricks College.
S: And then were you offered a couple of some kind of sports scholarships–offered to go to pro basketball or football?
C: No. What happened was, I came up from California. Specifically, my family was still living in California, they wanted me to come up and get going with football for my senior year in Utah so that I could go play for BYU, and I hurt my leg during the summer, in the summer of ’79, so I had to redshirt all of my senior year in football; and then I went up to Ricks College after my senior year and walked on, because they wouldn’t offer — I had completely destroyed my knee — so I had to walk on and prove myself, and I did; and they offered me a full-ride scholarship. And I was out there practicing one day and I just said, “To hell with this, I don’t want to do this. I don’t want to compete like this,” so I went on my mission. And I came back from my mission and I played (basketball) for the Army. I played for the Utah National Guard. They had a team and we went to Nationals, and I got a commendation from the Army. Get this: They have this big ol’ ceremony and everybody gets their medal for bravery and all this other stuff, and then they call me up and they give me a commendation for basketball (laughing). But anyway, that was the end of that. I didn’t pursue anything after that.
S: You were learning Russian at the National Guard?
C: Yes, I was a Russian interrogator for the Army National Guard.
S: What happened to that?
C: What I did was – - my wife was having some serious – - my wife at the time (Paula Rae Blades), was having some serious issues with me being gone; and things were going, not good. So they gave me an honorable discharge on a hardship cause and they just let me go.
S: And how many languages do you speak?
C: I speak Russian, and Spanish, and English. I don’t speak Russian that well though, it’s been a long time.
S: When Mark Hoffman was making sort of overtures to the LDS Church, regarding the manuscripts, is it true that somebody at the Church had talked, or asked people in your Ward, including you, to talk to him, to find out, to check into him in any sense?
C: Never.
S: Was any of that going on?
C: Nope, never happened. I was a security officer when all that went down. I was on duty when the bomb went off there, downtown, it was near the Deseret Gym at the time, but I wasn’t involved in that whole thing and never – - there was never – - there was somewhat of an internal investigation. I was not a part of it. And then the FBI got involved. But one thing that really concerned me, that got me thinking, was the fact that the Church instructed all of the security officers not to let the FBI have any information at all; and pretty much to quarantine the Church Office Buildings and everything else and not allow anybody on there that wasn’t authorized. And that caused some problems for the FBI–they didn’t like that too much. But eventually, of course, they overcame that and got warrants and were able to go wherever they wanted. But personally? No, I did not investigate the Mark Hoffman deal officially. Now on my own I did. I know exactly what happened. It was interesting, the most interesting thing that happened back in the ’80′s. But, I was not officially assigned to, by either the LDS Church or the FBI. Nobody.
S: So when you say on your own you did, what did you – - did you talk to Hoffman at all?
C: No I didn’t talk to Mark Hoffman. I just got into our files—security files—and looked at every, all the investigation that was going on. You know, I was there when Gordon B. Hinckley called a press conference and he told the world during that press conference–and there’s a tape of it somewhere–that he had no contact with Mark Hoffman. And that’s bullshit because our security records signed Mark Hoffman in to see him; not only to see him but to see Spencer Kimball and a couple other General Authorities–Pinnock and I think Dallin Oaks. But, you know, I couldn’t believe it at the time. Well no, let me rephrase that: As I stood there and listened to Hinckley lie, I assumed at that time it was a “good” lie. That these men were God’s chosen servants, and if they had a reason to not disclose certain information to the public for the sake, the good sake of the public and the sake of the Church, then I was all for that. So don’t get me wrong, Mark Hoffman’s deal, it only intrigued my curiosity as to what was really going on in the Church. Okay, Well no, let me rephrase that, I could actually of truth say that it was the starting point of me questioning whether or not those men, that led the Church, were actual apostles of Christ. And of course, during the course of my investigation which that incident initialized–I found out that they weren’t, which led me to the experience that I had inside the temple, which led me on my knees, which led me to pretty much give up all hope that the truth even existed, and that’s when I cried out and Joseph himself answered my inquiry. That’s how that started. And I know you’re going to get some bullshit from the other people who might say, “Well, the reason why he did this is because he had some bad experiences with the Church,” and I didn’t. The LDS authorities and the Church itself–they’re great people Stephen. They are not inspired by God in any form. No advanced human being in the universe has anything to do with them. They simply run a corporation and a church that benefits themselves and those who believe in it. But they’re not bad people and I never came to that conclusion. There’s no corruption going on in there, unless you term “corruption” as: not following the counsel of Christ and not living a Christ-like lifestyle. But other than that, my only disillusionment came from that fact that these men, and the way the Church was ran, was completely contrary to what I had imagined it as being as a member of the Church. And of course, without being a security officer and having access to things that most people didn’t have access to, I would never have been able to come to the conclusion that led me to pretty much throwing up my hands and saying, ya know, “If there’s a God then I want to know the truth.” Anyway…
S: The other name that came up in your Personal Journal recently, and has been on all of our minds, is Brian David Mitchell.
C: Yes.
S: I heard…. did you ever meet him on the street or while you were in jail at that time?
C: Never. I’ve never known the guy.
S: Did you ever give him revelations?
C: Never. Don’t know the guy, have never seen him, don’t know anything about him, anything to do with the guy–nothing to do with him. So if you got some quote from some enemy of mine they’re “up in the night.” Never met the guy. Don’t have anything to do with him. All I know about Brian David Mitchell is he’s typical of the environment in which he was raised.
S: How do you mean?
C: He was taught that a human being can receive personal revelation from God. That’s what he was taught. And they (the LDS/Mormons) are taught that that personal revelation comes to their mind. And once it comes to their mind, they feel like God is inspiring them and they act on that. And Brian David Mitchell – - obviously, if you were to investigate his life, he probably had problems with the LDS Church, and excommunicated, maybe problems that were similar to mine as he found out how corrupt they were. The differencr is: I lost my faith in God, faith in religion, faith in everything–I didn’t even believe that there was a God, not inspiring me or anybody. He believes that that he received some personal revelation that gave him the authority, that gave him the, the opportunity to become this, what these people like to call “the Mighty and Strong One” to go in and rectify the Church. I never received anything like that. My communication came directly from a human being, an advanced human being that doesn’t exist in this world. I don’t trust one thing that comes into my head as so-called “revelation.” So what I’m trying to say is that LDS people do. They actually believe that they can receive some personal divine revelation from God, and it’s absurd. It’s not true. All they gotta do is listen in their temple endowment and they’ll find out that it’s not true. But, because they are taught that way, when they have a little problem mentally, it’s going to lead them to believe that anything that comes into their mind is a revelation from God, justified by scripture. There are scriptures that justify doing crimes because you feel that the Spirit gives you the right to do that. And so that’s why I say that Brian David Mitchell was a victim of the circumstance of his Mormon upbringing, and the Mormon theology as it exists, which is incorrect… it’s not how Joseph Smith taught it, but is what it has evolved into since the time that Brigham Young took over.
S: Okay. And lastly, among the notables, some suppose, who have said, that you may have met with Warren Jeffs for another one?
C: Never. Absolutely not. Don’t know the guy. He wouldn’t like me if he met me.
S: (Laughing) Why not?
C: Because I know the truth about polygamy. It’s published out there. And Warren Jeffs hasn’t a clue what’s going on. But I’ve never met the man. Don’t have anything to do with him. Never corresponded with him; not once in my life. I’ve never met any of those people. I did deal with Fundamentalism in some abstract polygamous groups at one time–and that’s where Vickie, Marcee, and Jackie came into the picture–but with none of these main figures that are in the media all the time.
S: I’ve heard that your father tried to have you committed at one point–is there any truth to that?
C: That my father what?
S: He tried to have you committed, and you had not consented–Is there any truth to that?
C: Oh, no! He tried to have me arrested. My dad tried to have me arrested and I don’t know if he was going to try to commit me or what, but he had guns pulled on me, it was an incredible – - the police report of that is on the Internet. I posted that in one of my journals. We can send that to you if you’d like.
S: Yeah, sure.
C: I’ll send ya a link to that. You can see the actual police report–it happened in Snohomish, Washington, back in 1990, March of 1990. My father, believing he was doing the right thing, justifying his LDS religion–tried to get me arrested. But he made up this big fantasy story and when he came up to initiate his plan, and he had all the sheriffs there and everything else… oh, my gosh… the Sheriff did his investigation, they had me in handcuffs. It’s a long story but the sheriff did his investigation, came in, took my handcuffs off and said, “Mr. Nemelka, we are so sorry that this has happened to you.” And he went to my father and said, “You get out of my county, and if you ever come back into this county I’m going to have you arrested.” Okay, so the investigation was totally in my favor. My father just lost it. He lost it and… I’ll send you those police reports; just remind me and send me an email, you’ll have ‘em. They’re very simple, the police reports of the incidents that happened.
S: I also read your brother’s affidavit in the court files regarding that lawsuit, where you accused him of saying–that you shouldn’t be around kids.
C: Yea.
S: And he mentioned that you threatened to kill him, and also a number of different things.
C: Never. All that was false. All those were lies made up by my brother. Never. I’ve ever threatened anybody. Never. They were all lies, Stephen. That’s why I was taking him to court. That’s why the judge – - the judge didn’t throw that case. I’m the one who stopped the case–I withdrew the case out of respect for my stepmother who asked me to, and my father, and to keep the peace, I had stopped the case. But Joel Nathan Nemelka has lied about his interactions with me and about me for a long time. Don’t ask me why he has it in for me–I don’t know. But complete lies.
S: So the judge didn’t pull the plug on the case?
C: No. I’m the one that did. I asked for it to be dismissed; to be closed.
S: I was mulling over Bob Bennett’s letter to Ida where he talks about the witnesses to Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon, where you not having witnesses to your translating the Sealed Portion. I mentioned that to Ida this morning and I just wondered what were your thoughts when you read that point in the letter?
C: They’re easy. The Book of Mormon expresses it perfectly. There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon that says perfectly, that there’ll be three witness only to the Book of Mormon, to the actual plates. Okay. My job is not to bring about those types of witnesses. I don’t need them. I’ve written a whole explanation on this because this has come up before, to show and prove through their own records and scripture that witnesses don’t need to come out for the Sealed Portion. The Sealed Portion is only going to be accepted by those who are looking for truth, who have accepted the Book of Mormon, studied it and who are looking for truth, and come to a point in their lives where they feel they just can’t find any truth anywhere, then they’ll be led to the sealed part of the gold plates. So, nothing about me not having witnesses throws any wrench into the fact that I had the plates.
S: Am I correct in thinking that Sheri is your sixth wife, is that correct?
C: Sheri’s my what?
S: Your sixth wife?
C: Well, it depends on how you describe wife. Sheri is my fourth legal wife.
S: Your fourth legal wife – -
C: Vickie and Marcee were never my wives–that was a ruse that I’ve already explained to some degree – -
S: Sure – -
C: - – to help them out. But no, Sheri, the one that’s my wife now, is the fourth wife that I’ve been married to legally.
S: And you met her while she was nursing Charlie, is that right?
C: No, no. I was nursing Charlie. I just met her. Charlie and I would go places to divert our attention off of the thing he was going through and part of that was going to LDS dances, just to the singles dances. He was in a wheelchair and we was dancing, and it was there that I met Sheri.
S: So Charlie was LDS?
C: No, no. Hell no! Charlie and I, we didn’t have any religion at all. We just go there cuz they were fun. Clean, fun. The girls danced a lot with Charlie while he was in his wheelchair, they’d dance him around and make him feel good.
S: I was a little bit confused on the issue of child support. How much child support do you actually owe, because the figure that was batting around, was about 40,000, but when I was looking at the court papers it seems that you paid a chunk off.
C: Yea, well, that’s the confusion, okay. That’s the confusion that was never resolved in court, which I’m waiting for my day in court to have the opportunity to present the evidence. Because the child support is based on your income, it’s based on your potential of earning. When I was in jail the court imputed to me a 3,000-dollar per month income, which I’ve never made in my life. And they did all these things ex parte–when I wasn’t there. And so the whole issue of child support is simply this: I want to go to court to make sure that whatever child support is paid–it is the correct and legal amount, and not the amount that my ex-wife Jackie and Marcee have convinced some judge, without me being able to present evidence, is correct. And if that wasn’t the case – - the federal government has my child support case – - and what they’re doing with it, I don’t know. They’re sitting on it because they know that it’s a civil matter. I’ve already told them that I want a day in court where I can present the evidence, and whatever the legal child support is that I should pay–I’ll be more than happy to get a loan from somebody and pay that amount off in full. No problem. But if it’s not the amount that legally I’m due to pay, then it’s by principle alone that I’m not going to pay what some judge imputes to me when I’m not there or able to present evidence. And that’s where it stands right now.
S: So is the figure of 40,000 correct?
C: You know – - oh no, not at all. That’s not even close to what it is. I – - we made an offer about a month or two ago to Jackie, to settle her child support case for $18,000 dollars. Okay. Sheri and I had that R.V. that we put a loan on. So we had $20,000 dollars, we offered Jackie an $18,000-dollar settlement to settle the case. We offered Marcie $2,000. They both declined, and now they are not going to get anything. They are not going to one dime until we go to court. And so, I’m not running from child support, Stephen. Never. I believe that a man should pay his legal child support based on his earning potential, his job, and what he owes based upon his number of children. The law has a certain equation that they figure those things out. It has never been justly imputed to me correctly. Never. That’s my case and that’s what I’m going to stick to until I go to court. I want a day in court where I’m able to present the evidence. It’s that simple.
S: And what was your response to Judge Henriod’s ruling when he land blasted for basically inflicting poverty on your nine children?
C: Number one: I wasn’t responsible for nine children. Not at all. Two of them were already emancipated, four were adopted away from me. You were – - had you been there during that court hearing, it would have made you sick. I called my wife Sheri to the stand, Stephen. Henroid said this to Sheri, “You’re married to this guy!” That’s what he said. It was uh – -it was uh – - a joke. The whole hearing was a joke. He never allowed me to present any evidence. He hated me from the beginning. It’s obvious what was going on there. He had talked to the attorney. He didn’t like the fact that I was representing myself – - and when you – - if you go through all the legal – - the things that happened before that hearing — you would find that my ex’s attorney had stopped me from being able to present evidence. But in court I tried to present that to the judge and he pretty much said, “I’m not letting this continue on. I want this solved.” I didn’t have any evidence there. I didn’t have anything. And those women on the stand lied, they perjured themselves — which I will prove if I’m ever able to take this to court. The hearing was a joke. If you go back to the file and pull that file for that case, you’ll find in there affidavits from tens of people that were there in the court that day – - that sent affidavits to the court – - just with their own personal testimony of how terrible Judge Henry treated me. Now – -
S: I tried to pull that file but it’s missing.
C: Well, no kidding.
S: I’m waiting for the Archives Department to come back to me.
C: You’ll see it. Just get the affidavits of the people that attended that hearing. I wish you were there. Oh, my gosh. Then, I believe that you would have been satisfied in your mind that that court system and that judge at that time did not give me a fair hearing at all. What he did was this–the craziest thing a judge can do: I was working full time at the time and the State was taking the legal half of my income for child support. I had no problem with that, for – -
S: Was that at Walmart?
C: At Walmart, yeah. The judge threw me in jail for thirty days. I lost my job. And now that’s the last job I had. Who the hell is going to hire me? If I tell the truth on an application, who is going to hire me?
S: So what did he incarcerate you for?
C: This is where he did his worse: He incarcerated me for not paying child support from 1992 to the year 2000 – - to the year 2001. Jackie lived with me at that time. Jackie and I had a pseudo divorce agreement that we did in 1992 so that we can do that polygamy thing legally – - without me being married to anybody. She knew that. I lived with her until December of 2000. Lived with her. Took care of her. Bought her houses, refrigerators – - everything. I was her main man. I was just like her husband living with her most of the time. Okay. She got on that stand and said I didn’t do anything like that. I have all the proof. I have videotapes of me and the kids and her. I have testimony from people but Judge Henriod didn’t want to hear it. And so what he did was, he threw me in jail for thirty days for non-payment of child support from 1992 to 2000. Well, guess what he did? He punished me for that. Double jeopardy tells ya that you can’t be punished again for the same crime. But the fact is I don’t care about all that rangling. I care about the truth. I want to settle the child support issue once and for all but I want a day in court where I can present evidence that I do not owe what the State and Court say that I owe those women. I’ve never had that opportunity. Never.
S: What do they say you owe?
C: I don’t know – - 40 or 50 thousand. There’s things that the judge added on there. I’m not sure what they told me I owe. But obviously Jackie and Marcee must not be hurting too bad or they would have accepted some kind of a settlement. Because now they are not going to get anything. I have an affirmative defense – - which according to law is what one needs – - to show that it would be very hard for me to be employable. Who the hell is going to hire me? I was a fugitive from justice; I was in jail; I’ve been charged with a felony of kidnapping; a felony of distributing harmful material to a minor; I’ve been charged with all kinds of things, all of which were dropped, of course. But still, who’s going to hire a fifty-year-old man who has a background like that and who claims to be talking to advanced human beings on nearly a monthly basis, and communicating with four quasi-immortal humans upon this earth? You tell me, Stephen.
S: What was your thoughts on Patty Nattrass?
C: Oh, Patty Nattress.
S: Yeah. She sent a letter to the Attorney General’s Office, or to Judge Lindberg, wasn’t really sure, it seems it was heading AG’s Office but (…all of a sudden somebody said that someone had sent it to them as well?…), where she had said that you had put her name on some credit card and (…) the amount was 10,000 dollars of credit card debt.
C: No. That’s not – - here’s exactly what happened if you want to know all that with Patty Nattress, okay? Patty Nattress was a good friend of mine. She was in her 60′s – - late 50′s early 60′s or so – - there – - when I first met her back in uh, I think is was back in the mid-90′s. I don’t know the exact date. She got to know me very well. She knew my situation with these women, what I was trying to do. She allowed me to – - she co-signed on a credit card for me – - it was in my name – - a credit card. And the credit card, I used it for a few years and it finally got a credit limit of about 10,000 dollars, okay? Here’s what happened: I went and remodeled Jackie’s house and put 8,900 dollars or something like that into her house, okay? I put it on the credit card. All the remodeling I did. Everything that I did I put it on Patty’s credit card – - the credit card that was in my name that she had co-signed on, okay? When I broke up with Jackie in December of 2000 – - just before I broke up with Jackie – - we had a home-equity credit line on that property that she owned, okay? I was the one who signed the checks. I was the one who handled that. And so I signed a check for 8, 900 out of the home-equity credit line to pay off Patty Nattress’s credit card. This was all done with Bank One. It was called Bank One at the time. And if you need to do your research, you can go back and prove all of this. So I signed a check for 8,900 dollars from Bank One on the home-equity credit line on Jackie’s house, alright? It was to pay off the credit card. Well, when I left Jackie she went to the bank and filed fraud charges against me saying that she didn’t authorize me to pay that money out of the home-equity, okay? So what the bank did, once they talked to me and I explained to the bank that, “I’ve been signing these home equity checks for years, that’s my signature, not Jackie’s, on there.” And a guy looked it up and said, “Oh well, ya you’re right, you signed her name, this is what you did.” And Jackie admitted that I signed her name for years on the home-equity credit line, okay? But then she convinced these Bank One’s that I committed some fraud, so Bank One rescinded that payment to the credit card company; they did that in the early part of 2001, okay? I was in the midst of going back and saying, “Wait a minute, you can’t do that.” Now, Patty Nattress – - the credit card that she had co-signed on with me had and eighty-nine hundred dollar balance on it. And so about that point, Lindberg threw me in jail–threw me in jail on that charge. So I had no way of going back and fighting the Bank One charge that Jackie had done. Because all the charges on that credit card that Patty Nattress had co-signed for me, were towards Jackie’s house. All of them. All you have to do is go pull those files and it would come up to that, and you would see that that’s exactly what happened. Okay, so now I’m in jail and I can’t do anything, Stephen.
S: You’re now what? Sorry.
C: When I’m in jail you can’t do anything. So what my father did, I asked my father to please make sure that every month the payment on Patty’s credit card was made. My father can’t stand me but I know he would – - hope he would – - never lie about that. He would say, “Yes, while Chris was in jail I made sure every payment was made on Patty Nattress’s credit card.” Well, this is where it gets good. Remember that Jeff Richens guy?
S: Uh huh.
C: Remember I told you he got out of jail and he had sex with Christine Marie, then he had sex with Sheri, my fiancée at the time?
S: Yes.
C: Well, guess what he and Sheri did? He and Sheri took my credit card — the one with Patty Nattress — and they maxed it out by going to hotels, going to restaurants to despite me. So they got that credit card up to 10,000 dollars. Patty Nattress found out about that, okay? So, she immediately filed charges against Sheri –felony charges — for using that credit card unauthorized. I talked to Patty from jail and she told me that she was filing these charges and I said, “Patty, no you’re not.” I would not let her file those charges. She did anyway but I wouldn’t sign the paper because the credit card was in my name. Patty was only the co-signer and I wouldn’t agree to file charges against Sheri on a felony, so they dropped that. And when I did that and I wouldn’t file those charges, Patty turned against me. And then she started telling everybody, “Oh, he took ten-thousand dollars,” bah la la la la la la la. What I just told you is the absolute truth. If we had all the bank records, which, if it ever went to a court issue, which it won’t, because that’s what would happen. We’d pull the records and we’d find out exactly what happened there. So there ya go. That’s the Patty Nattress story with the credit card.
S: Okay. I think Nattress also made some sort of allegation that you’d use a different name under “Stohl”
C: Ya, ya. I’d used Christopher “Stohl” before.
S: And dressed up as an A-mish – - an Amish – -
C: No, no, no, no. Jiminy Christmas. Gosh. What I did was, that I traveled around trying to find – - when I first left – - got my assignment, and got the plates – - I was told to find a place that felt comfortable in translating them. So Jackie and I would travel around different states and I was like a migrant worker. But all I could work for was farmers. So we dressed that way. And furthermore, I found out how – - ya know, I wanted my kids to be raised poor so that they learned to appreciate things. I had my own views of those things, okay? But to say that I dressed specifically to be like the Amish — no. I don’t care, I dress like uh – - at that time especially, I dressed how I wanted to. And I certainly wasn’t going to wear a suit and tie.
S: And what was the point of the “Stohl” thing?
C: What happened with the “Stohl” thing was – - and this is where it gets good Stephen, okay? David B. Haight – - this is a long story man, it’s very, very, very long – - but come down to the nitty gritty, the LDS Church helped me get that name. It’s a legal name to protect me from polygamists groups. But it’s not used anymore. I don’t use it anymore. I haven’t used it for a long time. It’s just a pseudo-name that I used to protect me from these polygamous groups because I upset ‘em pretty bad with the Vickie and Marcee deal. Okay, so yes, used that name and I’ll never deny that. I don’t use it anymore, but it was the LDS Church with their – - with their way that they work things out – - that helped me get that name. And all you got to do is go ask Jackie, if she’ll talk to ya. She’ll tell ya exactly how it was done. She was with me when we went after – - like I say – - these events – - they would take us hours for me to go through ‘em and outline for ya.
S: Ya, that’s fine. You’ve given me a good summary of what happened. Um, I’ve heard, somebody said that you were dismissed from Walmart because you were proselytizing about your – - I guess about the Sealed Portion – -
C: What? What’s that? I’m sorry.
S: That you were fired from Walmart becauase you were proselytizing.
C: Bullcrap! I went to jail for crying out load.
S: Because you went to jail. I remember you telling me that a couple of (or “multiple”) times – - I think we were talking at one point.
C: Gosh, your sources there are really good there, Stephen.
S: You mentioned Richens before and when we talked about Richens’ sorta affidavit, he made some pretty kinda fundamental sort of allegations in his affidavit in which he wrote six years later about you making up the Sealed Portion and asking him to claim that there was a miracle in the jail cell and so forth, and you told me that, I sort of asked you why, I can’t quite remember the question I asked at the time, but I was curious, um, just to go back up to there for a moment. You talked about what happened when he got out of jail, and that he had had sex with Christine Marie and then with your fiancée at the time Sheri — I guess what I came away with, but I wanted to ask you, in terms of what he actually put in his affidavit, what, what would be your response to the claim that he saw you sorta making the whole thing up?
C: Oh geez. Very simple. Jeff Richens was a man — a guy who would – - when I’d walk around the jail he would tag along with me. Okay? He was seeking value wherever he could get it. So he would walk with me for hours at times and we were in Oxbow Jail. And for a long time he and I would walk around and he would talk to me, and we would talk about religion; we’d talk about things. He’d talk about the LDS Church; I’d tell him facts and truths about it, ya know, that Joseph had made up revelations and things like that, that the LDS Church doesn’t know what they’re doing, and blah blah. He took bits and pieces – - he’s not a very educated dude, man – - he took bits and pieces of what we’d talk about and turn them into this convoluted bullshit testimony of his that has nothing to do with truth, okay? But it’s true that we discussed things about religion, polygamy, life in general. Things like that. But, from what I gather from his affidavit and what he’s been telling people, it is totally absurd. Totally absurd. He made it all up based on his conversations with me as he followed me around that jail as I embraced him as a friend. But at no time ever, did I say anything about, that was derogatory towards my having the plates and going to do the Sealed Portion, that I gave it up and blah blah blah. I said a lot of things to him but he’s invented – - obviously he was interviewed by one of my enemies. Probably a John Lewellen or somebody, or even maybe uh, I think Ben Fulton even interviewed him but decided not to use any of his stuff. But you think about this and you put it all in the context. Come on. The guy gets out the same day and screws Christine-Marie. The next day he screws my fiancée and then they go on this spending spree with that Patty Nattress credit card. So you tell me what kind of character that guy has, ya see? His affidavit is useless. If you use any part of it is all your doing is taking part of something that somebody made up from his own imagination based on his dealings with me. But hell, I was in jail and I dealt with a lot of people in jail. I was there for ten months for crying out loud. And there were other guys there that heard the same things; you don’t see them coming out of the wood work, and saying, “Well, Christopher said this that and that.” What Richens is mad at – - Richens is mad because Sheri, my fiancée, found out what he was doing, found out that he was lying and deceiving people. So she turned on him and came back to me and that pissed him off, ya see? So, you’re going to try to tell me that this uneducated drug abuser – - for that’s what he’s been in jail for most of his life, a long time – - that what he was told by me during just casual conversation about religion and other things in jail six years ago – - you’re going to take that in any way for any type of truth? Come on.
S: Well, it is an affidavit he’s sworn to it in front of a notary and it’s in the court files.
C: Of course. People are going to swear to all kinds of things. I just wrote a chapter against all these affidavits against Joseph Smith — all bullshit. People can write an affidavit about whatever they want. It all depends good or bad for the person. So ya know, but I’m telling you the truth. Because you’re asking me and I’m telling ya. Put me in front of Jeff Richens. Put me in front of anybody –together — and let’s see how far they go. That’s all I’ve ever asked of anybody. But you’re the first investigative reporter that’s ever talked to me.
S: What was the reaction within, among the ranks of, for lack-of-a-better-word, your “followers” when Ida um, recorded that phone conversation? The reason I ask, I’ve heard it sort of characterized like an officer or undercover officer wearing a wire to get in with the drug lords, etc. What was sort of the general reaction to what she had done within those who believe the Sealed Portion is true?
C: Number one: I have no idea. Because I don’t have any followers. I don’t have those. Whatever they – - their opinions were of the matter, you’d have to ask them. You picked up a tape from John Roh. He was there at the time. You’d have to ask him about how he reacted. How am I supposed to respond for them? I don’t know. I have no followers, Stephen. There. You got this misconception that I put myself out there and I give people counsel.
S: Well, I don’t think that but there is an identifiable group of people, albeit commonly, where they come and they believe in the Sealed Portion and it’s message, and at some point they had left for whatever reason, and that is an identifiable group for lack-of-a-better word, followers. I mean they don’t follow you in the sense that you have a church or anything like that, I know. But they sort of believe that the Sealed Portion is true and that you are messenger communicating with, among others–Joseph Smith, the Three Nephites, John the Beloved. Is that not accurate?
C: Sure. That’s accurate. Pretty accurate. And on the website you can find their stories, some of their stories and some pictures. So what you have to do is – - you can’t ask me how these people think, because I have no idea. I have no idea how they react to anything that this Work does. You have to ask them that. I don’t know.
S: What was a fund or a bank account set up for donations for the Three Nephites and John the Beloved? Is that right?
C: There are donations given to me. Cash given right to my hand by some people. Nobody is under any obligation. Nobody has ever been asked by me for anything to support me in this Work. What I do with those funds is nobody’s business. Because it all goes – - it certainly doesn’t go into my life style because I have nothing. What it does do is support this Work. So if you’re trying to – - an enemy or somebody with innuendo trying to come up with an angle [for] this would think that, “Oh, Christopher’s making up this so that he can enrich himself in some way. He’s making up the story,” or whatever it is, I’ve heard these lines, “making up that he deals with the Three Nephites and John the Beloved so people can support him.” There’s an easy way to uncover that: Look at my lifestyle. There’s no account is set up that purposely does anything for anyone but pay for the bills of the Marvelous Work And A Wonder, and that’s it. I’m the Trustee of the Trust. And I do with those funds what the Work – - The Marvelous Work And A Wonder is set up to do. And that’s to disseminate information about these truths to the world. It takes money to do that. But the person who gives the most money to this Work is my wife, Sheri. We live very, very frugally, and she gives about – - almost a thousand dollars a month, to this Work.
S: From her salary from working – -
C: From her salary. All verifiable just by looking at her bank account.
S: We talked briefly about you and Sheri live part time in that basement at Ida’s.
C: Yes, at times. Sheri works in Salt Lake City and we have the R.V. But I’m not one – - I hate to take that poor girl and travel around all the time, like I do at times. We kinda made Ida’s basement into – - Ida has given her apartment, everything to this Work. Ida put it in Sheri’s name so that her family couldn’t take it and probate if and when she dies. And that’s simply that. With that, and Ida’s permission, we turned the downstairs into a small little apartment that we can be in at times. But that’s neither here nor there. I hope that doesn’t go anywhere. I don’t want people come knocking on Ida’s door so that they can come and talk to me.
S: There is some regards with Ida, something personal, but there’s a relationship there as well.
C: I don’t talk to Ida. I haven’t talked to Ida but for a few minutes since you first interviewed her, Stephen–for just a few minutes, and it had to do with something – - it had to do with a lock on the door and other sundry things that had to do with the apartment. Nothing else. I don’t influence her. I don’t tell her what to say. I don’t tell her what to do. From Ida’s own free will and choice she did not want to let her legacy, nor any of her belongings, go to any of her family. Now here’s where the argument comes in that makes people who accuse this Work of taking advantage of Ida, puts them in suspect, because had Ida – - quote, this it is good – - and I’ll give you this tape if you’d like: Had Ida donated everything she had to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she would have been a hero, a heroine, “Oh, look what Ida had done, she did such a noble and worthy thing.” But instead of doing that and allowing the State to take any of her assets, because she believes in this Work with all of her heart, she wants to perpetuate that Work. So, she’s willed everything to this Work. Nothing is wrong with that. There’s no difference between doing that, or anyone else preparing a will that gives all of their – - all of their leftover funds or property, or whatever, to a charitable organization that does what that person wants done. And because Ida knows what this Work is, she, by her own free will and choice, told me that she wanted to give everything to this Work. And thus she has. I believe that there are other people that have filled out wills doing the same, but you can’t talk to me about that. You’ve got to talk to the attorney that represents the Marvelous Work And A Wonder Trust, and that’s Rod Vessels. And if you call him he won’t tell you because that’s and attorney/client thing. But there are some people that have.
S: But is there like an Ida Smith – - or an Ida Smith foundation or trust that – - to people to put their assets in Idaho? Is that correct?
C: No. Ida Smith set up the initial Marvelous Work And A Wonder Trust. Somebody had to do it. Somebody had to initiate the trust. Ida did so. She was the only one that had any funds to do that. So she set up that Trust under the direction of our attorney, Rod Vessels, who found the appropriate trust for us to do it. At the time I was living in Idaho, in Melba, Idaho. Me, being the trustee, to handle anything that came to that Trust, then that’s what we had to do. But see, I see your angle – - and it’s ridiculous because – -
S: I don’t have an angle. I’m just trying to work my way through and sort stuff out.
C: Well, it’s just like anything else. This Work is a valuable work, Stephen, maybe not to you, but to many people it is–this has freed them up. It has given them a whole different view of life, and knowledge. It’s valuable to them. They have every legal right — every moral and ethical right — to do whatever they want to support this Work. The difference between this Work and any other religion or foundation out there, is that there is no mandate given, no requirement. Nothing. People step forward of their own free will and say, “Whatever I can to help this Work.” Here, when I was involved – - the attorney takes care of all that – - when I was involved I’d turn people away. It would offend ‘em. Because no one is going to give some donation to get in good with me, or get close to me. And it never happened and it never will. Some have tried, and of course they’ve been greatly offended when I wouldn’t take their money or them. So – -
S: I was just confused what you said earlier about the Trust, whether it was – - you run this, the Trust? Or Rod Vessels does?
C: Well, no. Rod’s the attorney. I’m the trustee. And Ida – - it’s a legal trust – - Ida has the right to appoint whomever she wants – - the person she trusts the most to use whatever funds go in that Trust for the purpose that it was given. And the Trust is worth nothing because much, much more goes out in bills than what comes in as little donations. Everything that Sheri gives – - that Sheri and I give – - which is her income, of course – - it goes to pay bills because we don’t get anything cuz there’s nothing in the Trust. Now, there’s property. The property that Ida owns is in the Trust. But that’s all it is – - it’s a living trust that she set up and which, when she dies, it stays in the Trust and I administer that. Can I sell it? Yes I can. Can I sell it and go buy me a Porsche? Yes, I can. I can do whatever I want with those funds that are in that Trust. But I’m the trustee. And Ida trusts that I will use the funds that she puts in there, or anyone might put in there, for the sake or this Work. That’s what a trustee does. So these enemies and all these crazy people that are out there thinking, “Oh, yeah, he set up this to take advantage of this and that.” Hey. Bullshit. Why don’t they come and see how I live? I’ve tried to get you to do that. There ain’t nobody in their right mind that’s going to live like Sheri and I live. And we don’t need to live that way. We can take the thousand dollars that we’re givin’ to this Work and we can have a nice apartment, or somewhere nice to live. But – -
S: I remember the R.V. It’s quite comfortable.
C: Well, yeah. It’s an R.V. And yes, people donated that to us. People came up with the funds and donated that to us because I was living in a car. But so what?
S: Well, you were talking about your lifestyle.
C: And that’s the key. When you look at it in my mind, look at the person’s lifestyle –look at how he lives. What’s his angle? If he wanted to he could get a lot of money from all these people who believe in his work, but he doesn’t. What’s donated to the Trust – - I don’t’ even know. I don’t know. There are automatic bills that came, that come out. I know that there’s – - Sheri gives the most of anybody. We have to, because if we didn’t everything that’s done in the Work will not get done.
S: How would you describe your relationship with your children?
C: There is none. I have no relationship with my children. I tried. I was in court a lot trying to get visitation rights back in 2006, 2007. But I’m a crazy man. According to the world, according to my ex’s. I’m crazy and I shouldn’t be allowed to be around children. And now most of them are grown anyway. My youngest is almost eighteen. So I – - they’re grown. They’re adults. They can come and see me anytime they want and there’s nothing I can do. There’s nothing more I can try to do for ‘em. They can believe their mothers, or they can come and visit me and see for themselves.
S: Tell me a little bit more. We talked about the – - um, Aaron Nemelka’s death, um. At his funeral you had an interview – - at the Ward house with KSL – - is that right?
C: Nope. Never did. Never interviewed with any media.
S: You didn’t interview with any media?
C: Never. They didn’t want anything to do with me.
S: Did your – - did some of the people who – - some of the young people who believe in the Sealed Portion – - did they tell some of the funeral goers about Human Reality? Did they give them pamphlets?
C: What happened was, I was going to give a press conference in Phoenix, Arizona. And what was passed out by Julie Taggart, and a couple other ones, was information to the media based on that press conference which never took place because no media showed up. That’s all they did. Did they do that under my direction? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. The media – - Julie Taggart at the time was kinda like my publicist. She contacted the media to say, “Hey, why don’t you sit down and talk with Christopher? Ask him why he’s doing what he’s doing.” But they never would. And so she delivered to them some – - a pamphlet, or a kinda of an article, saying that this is what he’s going to do, “He doesn’t want the LDS Church to send their LDS Mormon leaders there.” I don’t know if you have a copy of that or not. I don’t even have a copy of it. It’s out there somewhere. But uh, no, I did not mandate anyone to go disrupt that funeral. Jesus Christ! Not at all. Not in any way. I stayed away from that funeral for one purpose only: because I knew my family doesn’t like me. They don’t respect me. They don’t like – - and I wasn’t about to bring any more hard feelings on that family than what they were already going to – - going though. But by damn, I was going to stand up for what I knew was true. I knew that kid. And he did not join the military to be a hero, or for any other reason than because he couldn’t get his job, and he was pressured by his father — to either go on a mission or do something with his life. It was my own son, who I got into the military, unfortunately, that influenced Aaron the most to join. And I wasn’t about to let him go down as a hero who wanted to go in there and fight people. No! He was a victim like many of those kids are that join the military, and I said it all in that video presentation. And that’s what I stand on. But standing on that, of course, I’ve alienated my entire family, okay? They want him to be hero. But I’ll never see him as one. I’ll always see him as a victim.
S: It’s still not quite clear. Why did Julie hand out an article at the funeral to people – - to mourners – - about you – -
C: No. What I understand happened – - and you’d have to talk to Julie more about this – - is that she was going to give the article to the news media that was there – - that was standing by at the funeral. And she did so, and then she left the rest of them on a table. I don’t even know what kind of table it was, but she left them there. But if it was – - if when would have asked me, I would have said, “Absolutely not. If you’re going to tell the media about my stance then you just give it to the media. But she did this on her own free will. I think she said that she left copies on a table or something that was set up. I don’t know if it had memorabilia on there or wherever, but then she said that one of my brother’s, or somebody just threw ‘em, wrinkled them up and threw ‘em in the trash. Okay? But by damn don’t you dare try to pin that shit on me, because I did not, and I would never do anything like that. The only thing I ever did was make a public statement about my views of why that young kid died — the cause. The true cause. And that’s it.
S: Okay.
C: Bear with me, I’m going to start up my car because I don’t want this battery to go down.
S: Had you told Ida that when she dies and is reincarnated that she will sort of carry the torch forward for the Sealed Portion – - that she will sort of be, I guess, kinda of that – - as reincarnated as a young girl she will carry the banner forward. Is there any truth to that?
C: Did you ask Ida?
S: I did, and she, she, kinda just didn’t comment. She said, “No comment,” or “Ask Christopher”– one of the two.
C: Well the comment is, you got all these rumors going around out there, from enemies–from whomever. You got these people that think they know me, that they think they know this Work – - like the Harry Dschaak, and the bullshit that goes on in that sealed portion discussion group with Dewey, and those other people. They’ve never met me. They’ve never talked to Ida. They don’t know one thing that’s going on. They don’t know anything about it. Now, whether Ida chooses – - and here’s where that came from, Stephen, so you understand: In the Book of Mormon it talks about our life before this earth; it talks about those who chose to help out, to help Christ out in his work; and that they would do so in different incarnates — and I’m not going to go into the whole thing. It’s written. It’s out there somewhere. So, in the course of doing that, of course people are going to inquire in their own minds, “I wonder if I’ve been around before — am I going to help again?” It’s very well that I could have said at one time if we were in the course of a conversation – - I could have said about anyone, not just Ida but anyone, “More than likely you will come back and help with this Work, if that’s what’s your desire, if that’s what you chose to do.” That’s how it went down. So based on that, you’re going to get all these people coming up with, “He said that I would do this, He said this–” Bullshit. So when you’re talking to my enemies you gotta first ask them, “How well do you know Christopher? Has he ever been to your house? Have you ever met him? What about those who have never met me, Stephen? Come on, come on.
S: One person that we didn’t talk about among the faithful who left you, for lack-of-a-better word, was Sue Kammerman – - who was, as I recall, some kinda of financial advisor of some form?
C: Absolutely not. Sue Kammerman – - she was paid to make the website. That’s it. She has a website – - her website design company is “John and Sue Design” or something like that. She was paid to create the website. That’s it. She was no other kinda advisor. She loves the Worldwide United Foundation – - at least she did, I don’t know what she believes now. She created that website. And we used her. We utilized Sue Kammerman and her talents because of her business, to create the websites. That’s it.
S: Anything we haven’t touched on as we sift through these things that you want to bring up?
C: Stephen, I don’t know. You got your story. You know which way you’re going with it. All I’m asking you to do is be fair here. Okay? Be fair. I’ve asked you before and again and again: If you have somebody that says something about me and you want to know the truth, then you arrange for that person to be in front of me and you. And then let’s see what comes out of their mouth.
S: Okay. Um – -
C: I don’t mind the hard questions. You can ask me any question you want. There’s no question – - I love the hard questions. They are what gives integrity to this Work. It’s when I’m not afraid to answer those questions. But when you’re going out there and you’re scratching on the doors of my enemies and critics, I can’t imagine where you’re going. Because nobody that I know of, besides Ida and myself, have you contacted. People who are wonderful people who have known me for years now, who will tell you anything you want; they’ll tell you anything, “Has Chris taken advantage of you, has he said this, has he done this or that?” Yet, for the life of me, I don’t know why Stephen Dark hasn’t contacted one of these people, because – -
S: Well, I think primarily – - I think that I – - Ida Smith is who you directed me towards.
C: Yep.
S: I mean she is the person, I mean I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to Ida and understand what she’s about, and she is uh, in my mind at least — as you phrased it — the most visible and important verification for your validation from your point of view that the Work is true, No?
C: That’s true. That’s a fair assessment.
S: You know, to my mind she is where – - she provides that more than any. That’s what I needed from that. And I did visit briefly from John Roh just the other day, when I picked up the CD. But as I say, I think kinda – - Ida is – - uh, very much the focus – - from what you told me.
C: Sure.
S: That’s why I have been spending a lot of time with her.
C: But, now do the critics that you speak to and get the other side – - of the so-called “other side of the coin” – - have they ever met Ida? Have they ever sat down with her, like you have? You know they haven’t. Nobody has. Except you. And so if you’re story is based on that one individual and her perception, how, in integrity, can one go to these enemies and these critics and get on opinion on Ida that they don’t even know anything about? Including her brothers? Including her family that didn’t have anything to do with her since the start?
S: Uh huh. Well, I mean she is nearly eighty years old and she lived the majority of her life with her family – - or their lives – - with her – -
C: Sure.
S: – - until she was converted to the Sealed Portion.
C: Sure.
S: And frankly, um, the documents testify of a lot of people’s opinions and perspectives and such, and I’m sort of drawing on those since they are legally acceptable, legally qualified, or at least legally – - what’s the word I’m looking for – -
C: No, you’re right. Any affidavit that a person gives — it’s their legal testimony. All you’re doing is presenting information to a jury of readers and letting them determine for themselves what’s true and what isn’t. But, ya know, I’m not – - like I said – - you can present me any way you want. I’m not afraid of that at all — good or bad — I’m not afraid of that. Stephen, you do your thing. I told you and I’ll tell you this again: If from this story anyone tries to contact me from any other media outlet, I will be saying, “Well, have you talked to Stephen Dark, because I don’t talk to any reporter but Stephen Dark, and it’s not because he’s on my side — because he’s not. It’s because he had the balls to at least do some research and some investigative work.” And I’m not going to undermine that, Stephen. I promise you that, and it will hold true. Anybody that wants to talk to me has to go through you. Whether that bothers them or not, I don’t care. So, hopefully, if anything comes of this, somebody can hire you to even dig deeper. I have no problem with you digging deep, deep, deep, because the deeper you dig, the more you’re going to find out, first of all: how corrupt the LDS Church is; and second: how my integrity has never changed over time. I believe that. I don’t care who you are or what investigative reporter tries, as long as your willing to dig deep. That’s why I sent you that information on those judges and what they did.
S: So, “A,” I would find two things: one is that I would find the corruption in the LDS Church, and two: your integrity hasn’t changed.
C: That’s right. The LDS Church is not what Joseph Smith intended, nor was the church that he created — and that will all come out in his biography, it’s all coming out. If you have any interest you can just read some of those things that have been written and you’ll find that. But still I understand, putting myself in your shoes, I could see the same thing; that there’s a charismatic man out there taking advantage of people by presenting information to them that causes them to believe in him and his cause, thus making them give up family, friends – -
S: Uhhh
C: - – and everything else for this Work. But that’s what the LDS Church does. That’s what every religion does. That’s what cults do. Schools do. Many people do it. You’re own daughter is going to do it to you some day when she accepts that man on the motorcycle that you don’t like (laughing). So anyway, you know, Stephen, in spite of ya, I think you’re a great guy. Keep on keeping on dude. Ya know, you got an exclusive with me, Stephen. I’m just telling ya that.
S: Thank you, Christopher.
C: Somebody can come and offer me, “We’ll give you 250,000 dollars for your interview, Christopher,” and I’ll say, “Nope, don’t want it. Go talk to Stephen Dark. You want to give him 250,000 dollars so he can investigate this even further and spend a lot more time? That would be good.” You can quote me on that, print that, have it recorded–because it is. I’m recording it. It will go in my journal.
S: Well then, I shall look for the transcript in the next few days.
C: Alright, Dude.
S: Thank you. Thanks for your time.
C: Hey, when do you anticipate this story coming out?
S: At the moment it’s kinda set for mid-January or at the end of January.
C: Okay. What – - if I could ask something of you, to either me or my attorney – - if you could tell us before hand the exact date when you’d know. This is why: We want to alert the Salt Lake City Police Department and let them know when the story’s coming out so they can drive by the memorial more often and watch it, and to make sure that once the story comes out for at least the next week or so, that they’re watching so that someone doesn’t go up and it gets destroyed.
S: Of course. As soon as I have publication on the publication date, I will shoot you an email.
C: That’s all. Alright, Stephen. So what did you need from me then, just that – - that police report’s of my dad’s incident?
S: Um, ya, sure. That would be helpful. Thank you.
C: Alright. Alright, Dude.
S: And in case I have any other questions, I’ll shoot ya an email.
C: Alright, man.
S: Alright so, take care.
C: You too. Bye.
