More on Suleiman Fraud

User Forum Topic
Submitted by PerryChase on September 16, 2006 - 3:02pm

Submitted by PerryChase on September 16, 2006 - 3:09pm.

I rarely watch local TV but looked it up when someone told me about this case.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on September 16, 2006 - 4:00pm.

Okay, by all means husband and wife should be punished for assault.

But come on here. Am I the only one to say that the reporters should have just left? Its bad enough that they were being media-greedy paparazzis with no genuine concern for educating viewers about fraud, but rather just doing the typical investigative reporting gotcha-gotcha. But no, this wasn't enough, they saw a great opportunity to film violence for tonights local news and took it. They aren't guilty of violence, but they are guilty of not acting to prevent it. If it were a pitbull in the yard, should the cameraman stick around and film the bloody battle between human and canine? "Wow, the dog's jaw is now locked around the reporter's throat... you have that on camera don't you?"

Submitted by Steve Beebo on September 16, 2006 - 4:44pm.

I've read that the State Dept. of RE is investigating, but is the D.A.'s office in San Diego also investigating the fraud? And why hasn't this lowlife been arrested in the identity theft / fraud?

Submitted by CFO on September 16, 2006 - 6:04pm.

If this reporter was not persistent these people could have continued to perpetuate their alleged crimes and claimed even more victems.

As a youth I attracted the attention I deserved for my behavior as I can plainly see now as an adult. These people would not attracted the attention of other people if not for their behavior. Let's be clear that I mean a negative behavior as we can attract attention in many different forms.

This being said this guy and his wife should be F**king put away. We have no room in our society for this type of behavior.

The mexican wife yelled at the reporter, "Which do you like better,Tijuana or Ensenda" this is a drug cartel related slang for were would you like to be buried.

I am half Hispanic and I am real tired of this bullshit. I want it out of my country.

Submitted by rankandfile on September 16, 2006 - 7:04pm.

CFO - you took the words out of my mouth. It is scum like this that gives hard-working, law-abiding Hispanics a bad name. I have heard many like you say that they are also tired of this BS...that this is the reason why they left Mexico in the first place. The only problem is that this country is being turned into Mexico.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on September 16, 2006 - 7:17pm.

Reporters are not ones who are tasked to fight crime. If this had been a police officer would there be water sprayed about? The reporter could have been persistent without sticking around while the violence escalated.

Submitted by PerryChase on September 16, 2006 - 7:26pm.

I'm with you FutureSDguy. Such trash is why i rarely watch local TV. I posted these links because Sulieman was a topic of interest in earlier threads.

In a civil society, we don't need this care of vigilantism on the part of the press. The reporter's in-your-face kind of reporting doesn't do anyone any service. Investigative reporting yes, but no in-your-face reporting, please.

Submitted by CFO on September 16, 2006 - 7:41pm.

In your face reporting!! Nobody was around! He was interviewing another aledged victim when these two decided to show up. That is complete bullshit.

Submitted by CFO on September 16, 2006 - 7:45pm.

If the press won't do it who will YOU??? Do YOU have the TIME,ARE YOU Fully employed?? I am. I have just enough time in my life to kiss my wife goodbye in the morning and pay my kids school tutition much less try and fight the issues that will make us better.

Submitted by CFO on September 16, 2006 - 8:00pm.

Well then, where were the police...until an event took place. Yes, it takes all kinds and by the way this, until the fight, was not a "Crime" that the police department could respond to. It took this event to elevate this to the athorities for review.

I necessarily don't like reporters but I have found in a lot of cases they protect the rights of people who are unable to protect themselves. Yes, the ignorant ones. So what?

You and I probably can protect ourselves some people don't have anyone.

Submitted by CFO on September 16, 2006 - 8:01pm.

Well then, where were the police...until an event took place. Yes, it takes all kinds and by the way this, until the fight, was not a "Crime" that the police department could respond to. It took this event to elevate this to the athorities for review.

I necessarily don't like reporters but I have found in a lot of cases they protect the rights of people who are unable to protect themselves. Yes, the ignorant ones. So what?

You and I probably can protect ourselves some people don't have anyone.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on September 16, 2006 - 8:09pm.

So the reporter couldn't have turned over the evidence to the police department? If this guy had committed theft, then there's a process for dealing with it through law enforcement. Last year, my wife and I were victims of identify fraud once that ended up putting a $3000 dent on our credit card--we called the city police and they followed up on it and even worked with ebay. They couldn't solve the crime as it was international, but I tell you this story to let you know that it's the police's job to investigate theft and the attorney's office to prosecute. All this reporter did was make a fool of himself--he's not fighting any crime here.

Submitted by CFO on September 16, 2006 - 8:25pm.

Had the reporter not gone through what he did the public would not have known about this. I would have not been aware of this and I am Joe Q. public. I am glad he did what he did to expose this fool and if I ever would have seen him in a business transaction I would be better armed to deal with him. The more knowledge the public has the better the society.

Maybe you are smart enough to not need the notification...good for you. I wish I would have had you for my father.

Submitted by CFO on September 16, 2006 - 8:40pm.

By the way, it was pretty obvious from the video that the reporter was not fighting crime. He got his ass kicked.

If you and your wife would have been aware of your identity theft criminal maybe you would not have had the hassle that you have had to correct the situation. Go figure.

Why don't you subsribe to identity theft protection? I do.

Get Smart, get a shoe phone.

Submitted by no_such_reality on September 17, 2006 - 6:53pm.

FutureSDGuy, your position is pathetic. Anybody in our society is free to question people when they are acting unethically without fear of violence and have someone like you insinuate they *caused* the violence by sticking their nose in. Let me guess, when you hear someone was raped, your first question is what was she wearing.

The fact that the couple reacted so violently shows their true colors and understanding that what they were doing was illegal.

It's foolish to think that we as a society should expect only the police to investigate something. Criminals would love nothing more. Imagine, no more neighborhood watches, no more security guards asking questions, no reporters tracing the paperwork.

Submitted by Bugs on September 17, 2006 - 7:07pm.

Supposedly this guy's threats and violence were what the reporter and guy being intereviewed were talking about when the wife started her assault. Then when the reporter had the nerve to ask her about it is when the husband came rolling up and made things worse.

True to form, both the husband and wife pled "Not Guilty" at their arraignment. Whereas a reasonable and rational adult would at least feign contrition and take responsibility for thier misconduct, these two are hoping to win on a technicality. I'm sure the attorneys are looking for a way to throw out the videotape.

I hope the courts find them guilty and then throw the book at them.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on September 17, 2006 - 7:42pm.

NSR, if you reread what I said, you will see that I did not say that the reporter instigated the violence, but rather I said could have prevented it by departing the scene after the woman was already assaulting him. Now if the woman acted within civil boundaries, then yes the reporter should be able to conduct his investigation. But he was no longer doing that: he was indulging in a media coverage of violence. In your shallow view, it looks as if you think only one side must be wrong (be it a rapist, an assailant, or a thief), and the other side must be right. Both sides wronged on different things. The husband/wife should be punished for their crimes according to the law, but the press should be called on their glorification of that violent scene. In a sense, everyone was acting like animals.

Submitted by rseiser on September 17, 2006 - 8:36pm.

I see all your views, and sure, the reporter was persistent and the camera-man tried to get sensationalism on tape. But sometimes that is necessary since our police system isn't perfect either. My friend's car was broken in, and he found out within hours who the thief was, who had stolen his lap-top and camera. He didn't dare to confront the thief, but called the police. It took the police five(!) weeks to finally go to the thief's house and take the lap-top away from him (not the camera). The thief got only a warning for possession of stolen goods.

Submitted by Peace on September 17, 2006 - 11:10pm.

Hey, FutureSDguy, stay where you are, don't move to San Diego.
Yes, when there is "a rapist, an assailant, or a thief" - there is one side that is wrong.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 17, 2006 - 11:22pm.

If you look at the resume of the investigative reporter he has broken several fraud cases. I don't believe the guy is sensationalistic at all. He is no different then many investigative reporters, he has to get to people who DON'T WANT TO BE FOUND. He recently helped uncover a car sales fraud of a car sales office that would take trade ins and not pay off the originating loan. Prior to that, he also uncovered a health care scam. If you look at the tape Sulieman came up to the guy and attacked him. It is hard for me to believe some people actually think the reporter "indulged in the media coverage of violence". How do you know that? Were you there?

I have been watching the Sulieman investigation from the first report and there have been many reports on it. None of them had been violent or confrontational, yet the media reported all of the stories in the investigation, in full entirety. The same is true for ALL of the investigative journalism that this guy does. Go all the way back to guys like David Horowitz, investigative journalism is quite helpful.

Both sides were not wrong.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on September 18, 2006 - 7:01am.

I find it interesting that instead of placing the responsibility onto the police department to fight crime, people think that journalists should be helping out. What's next, the 7th grade civics teacher? This is vigilantism folks.

Submitted by PerryChase on September 18, 2006 - 8:21am.

I'm with you FutureSDguy. I'd hate to see a return to the kind of vigilantism that leads to public lynching. Unfortunately, the local news is full of this type of sensational stories.

We're so used to watching them that we've become desensitized. The news outlets have to put on ever more outlandish shows to hold the ratings.

Let the authorities do their job and let Sulieman have his day in court.

Submitted by donreno on September 18, 2006 - 10:15am.

Why is it that these Immigrants are the Ones that think they can bring the bullshit from their country to Ours? they should put that son of a bitch on a fast ship back to where he came from. Of Course after he does some serious time in our Penal colonys being someones girlfriend.

Submitted by Doofrat on September 18, 2006 - 12:35pm.

Future SD, did you hear in the tape where they said "call the police"? That was the point where they decided it was time for the police to do their work. Also, did you notice the timeframe of the attack, it went from the reporter interviewing a victim down the street from the Sulieman's to the reported being attcked by the wife to the husband attacking the reporter in a matter of about 30 seconds.
The reporter wasn't glorifying violence, he was getting his ass kicked!

Future, I don't know why, but I've got this image of you going around your neighborhood tearing down the Neighborhood Watch signs yelling "Let the police do their job, no vigilantism!"

Submitted by lendingbubbleco... on September 18, 2006 - 12:49pm.

doofrat-

you nailed it!

this reporter had f*ckin' teeth tearing into his flesh thirty seconds after the interview began...how was he supposed to leave without leaving his face behind?!?!?

Submitted by FutureSDguy on September 18, 2006 - 1:57pm.

When a reporter doesn't back off after being assaulted verbally and with a water bottle and continues to hound her after she walks away, he's was definitely sensationalizing (which is what i meant by glorifying) violence. The "call the police" wasn't a "decision" as much as a surprised reaction as reporter found himself in over his head. The cameraman could have come to the reporter's defense, but felt it was more important to record the violence.

Don't worry, I won't take down any Neighborhood watch signs... :) but kids, if you see robber, dial 911 and leave the video camera in the closet.

Submitted by no_such_reality on September 18, 2006 - 5:08pm.

Okay, FSD, I'll give you that he could have left. So I apologize for my cheap shot yesterday. I had a particularly bad afternoon yesterday after getting stuck behind a pair of clowns driving 50 side-by-side down the 101 from Santa Maria until almost Ventura.

However, I really do have the simplistic view that he who throws the first punch is usually wrong. I also have the simple view that when people are angry that people ask questions about what they are doing on public dealings, it's typically because they aren't 100% on the up and up on their dealings.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on September 18, 2006 - 5:16pm.

Thanks, reality. I just wanted to speak my mind about what I see as a darker side of society. I'd hate the Suelimans just as much as the next guy but I see another wrong that I wanted to share.

I wish people in Seattle were better at knowing that the left-most lane is for passing only (barring high congestion). I still have to be "traffic cop" at four way stops because people don't understand who has the right of way,

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on September 18, 2006 - 10:58pm.

I just wonder when Sulieman gets to "Oz" to whom he will have to service first? The Aryan's obviously won't protect him, the Italians want nothing to do with him, so there are some possibilities.

With his wife being hispanic perhaps he can join a latin brotherhood, for protection. Maybe the muslims take him in.

I think he'll get the white collar treatment and won't have to go to one of these nasty prisons.

Submitted by bgates on September 18, 2006 - 11:46pm.

Non sequitor du jour:
I'd hate to see a return to the kind of vigilantism that leads to public lynching.
Because that's what led to lynching in 19th century Alabama, was not leaving crime fighting to the 19th century Alabama professional law enforcement community.

I can imagine you or FutureSDguy getting mugged:
instead of "Help! Help me!" you'd yell
"Return to your homes! Return to your homes and let the police take care of it!"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.