Censoring Comments

A surprising turn of events! The San Antonio Current elected to pull all the on-line comments made to its four main new stories on Friday. I find it interesting when the Cryers’ credibility as “directors” are questioned, the SA Current magazine elected to pull all the comments, including the 200+ comments that were made against Nicole Garcia. Nicole had to endure the most horrific comments and the SA magazine refused to pull down the objectionable comments, yet when nine comments are made against the Cryers, well, it’s suddenly a problem! Interesting how censorship works at the SA /Current.

From: Callie Enlow
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: WAO Articles


Sorry, I clicked send too soon! Anyway, I don't think we concientiously removed comments, but I'll ask.

- Callie Enlow

From: Callie Enlow
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: WAO Articles


I think it's part of a general issue we've been having with comments.

- Callie Enlow


Greetings Callie:

I noticed the SA Current on-line WAO stories no longer carry the comments previous attached to series. Are you able to say why the comments were removed from all the articles?

_____________________________________________________

Meanwhile I never heard back from Animal People. I guess this magazine has no interest in learning the truth either!

Yesterday, I was surprised to find my Department of Transportation FOIA documents in my mailbox! Very interesting stuff and needless to say, I plan to keep an eye on the WAO’s plans to utilize the WAO vehicles so as to haul animals once again. Turns out in 2009 the inspector requested to see 30 records, and out of the 30 records she found 30 violations!

The WAO got off really easy as only five violations were charged against the facility due to Cryers failure to (1) have a Class B license on file with the WAO (2) failed to have a current physical on file (hmmm, might be hard if the man has a supposed physical disability) and (3) failed to maintain a trip log when transporting the animals. At $710 per violation, the Cryers could have cost the WAO $21,300, instead of $3, 550.

I wonder if Mike Dereadt (criminal record - DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED), who supposedly travel and probably drives the truck, meets the same above requirements?

Meanwhile, the WAO listed Henry Newman’s name on the staff portion of the WAO’s website. I wonder if folks know this person, also a close friend of the Cryers, has a criminal record:

POSS MARIHUANA 0-2 OZ
03/12/2003 PG CT-GUILTY
03/12/2003 SENTENCE-FINE+TERM
Term: 80 days
Fine: $500.00
Court Cost: $581.00

FAIL IDENT TO P-O WTH TX WARR
10/04/2003 *** JN CLOSED ***
03/12/2003 NOLO CT-GUILTY
03/12/2003 SENTENCE-FINE+TERM
Term: 80 days
Fine: $500.00
Court Cost: $271.00

I am still waiting for the 600+ pages from the Texas OAG that cost me over $138! The check was cashed, so the package should be in the mail! I am curious to see if the documents will explain how the OAG allowed the Cryers to take over the WAO without a proper board. Or will this too, be censured?