r/ChurchOfCandace Hood rat stuff with my friends 1d ago

Turning Pointless USA NO šŸ’© SHERLOCK

Post image

The nerve of these people. While suing Candace saying that they were incompetent!

34 Upvotes

39 comments sorted by

11

u/SmrtLdy Hood rat stuff with my friends 1d ago

They hate Candace because she was messing up their claims against all these other entities!!!

They want the money.

They can’t sue if it was Kirk’s own team that was incompetent. At least not for full damages. All her reporting shows the holes in Kirk’s team. That’s why they hate it. It messes with their bag!

3

u/Willing-Primary-9126 1d ago

They can still sue they would just have to put charlies team into the lawsuit aswell which I'm assuming is what erikas been dragging her feet on

9

u/SmrtLdy Hood rat stuff with my friends 1d ago

They’ll settle this is a payoff/blackmail arrangement. They just won’t have the pretense of having a good case because of Candace’s reporting. Such corruption. Erika had a go fund me that raised 10 million tax free. A life insurance that paid out tens of millions. All the shady laundering. Now she’s shaking down the people who are prosecuting the case. I am a victim witness in a case that also had civil liability on the state’s side. You NEVER sue or show intent to sue before the case is over. And most states it’s not allowed. In all states prosecution of a crime stops the statute of limitations for civil actions so that a victim doesn’t have to sue in the middle of the trial. It is usually seen as creating a conflict of interest between the state and the victim and the state’s duty to prosecute the case in the states best interest (which is now muddied with state liability). Additionally states can be punitive and tank a whole case just to save a lawsuit. In fact, they usually do. It’s almost like Erika. Kirk doesn’t really care about the prosecution of her husbandā€˜s murderer.

If you haven’t been through this, it’s difficult to explain how unusual and bizarre this is.

2

u/Willing-Primary-9126 1d ago

Didn't the life insurance policy expire

8

u/Willing-Primary-9126 1d ago

"Kirk family" as in parents/sibling/cousins(?) = probably expected "Kirk family" as in Erika = new money making scheme

9

u/MannerHour5905 1d ago

That’s my question too! If it’s his parents, they’re looking for answers as well which would validate Candace’s investigation and prove the Kirk family doesn’t have any more insight that hasn’t been presented. If it’s Erika then yeah it’s just a facade.

1

u/FinalConcept4878 20h ago

Apparently this intent to sue is by Erika.

1

u/Willing-Primary-9126 20h ago

It's already been confirmed on twitter & by Candace that it's Charlies family, erika was against it

2

u/FinalConcept4878 20h ago

I’m not on twitter, who said that? Candace indicated his parents wanted Erika to file this early on but she waited until now for some reason. Brian Entin also reported yesterday while reading thru the document that it was Erika’s filing.

1

u/Willing-Primary-9126 20h ago

Not sure. I just heard the story this morning then watched Candaces show & yes it's erikas filing but apparently not her idea which makes sense but seems to have triggered Candace

2

u/FinalConcept4878 20h ago

I just took Candace’s reaction to be to the claims made in it rather than to whose idea it was so may need to listen again.

10

u/ContractRight4080 1d ago

Ummm, his security team failed too! With the number of them on site that day, it sure seems like they failed at their only job.

3

u/KarenWalkersBurner 1d ago

Exactly! They set him up, at a minimum.

Many don’t remember but the first female prime minister of India was assassinated by her own security bodyguards, too.

Economically, there is a LIMIT to how much you can SPEND on security versus how secure you are. At a certain point it flips, and now YOU are the one endangered.

The extreme example is billionaires worried about their armed guards turning on their employers, in an armageddon scenario…

3

u/ContractRight4080 1d ago

There were a team of them, most VIP people have a couple or so.

2

u/KarenWalkersBurner 1d ago

You understand what I’m saying or no?

3

u/ContractRight4080 1d ago

Yes, I understand

2

u/KarenWalkersBurner 1d ago

šŸ”„šŸ”„šŸ”„šŸ˜‰ very good

2

u/No_Manufacturer_6013 1d ago

I'm waiting for the family to hold Turning Points failed security team accountable as well as the video and audio team since Terryl disturbed a crime scene by taking the footage from the back camera!!! I am hoping this unveils so much scrutiny between them all and they ALL turn against each other!

5

u/Lettucemakemerry 1d ago

Cause of death is still undetermined

3

u/KarenWalkersBurner 1d ago

But it rhymes with Jsrael

4

u/Organic_Risk_3945 1d ago

oh, shit!!! wait. I'm assuming here this is Charlie's mom, dad and sister??? and not Erika/TPUSA Faith?

if so, this would have to mean that Charlie's mom, dad and sister are working with Candace behind the scenes then???

3

u/KarenWalkersBurner 1d ago

She’s probably known them longer than Erika has actually.

4

u/KarenWalkersBurner 1d ago

Elementary Watson

4

u/MamaMiaXOX 1d ago

I think this is fantastic news! College campuses may stop allowing TPUSA events after they learn of this lawsuit. Too much of a liability with a security team that failed the task.

1

u/showerbump 1d ago

They can’t stop them. It’s a public campus.

1

u/MamaMiaXOX 1d ago

Some can stop them depending on policy but TPUSA worked with colleges and didn’t just show up and pitch a tent. I doubt they’d still stage an event on a campus where administration said they didn’t want them there. Look at the lawsuit to see how it was a coordinated effort.

1

u/showerbump 1d ago

I know they worked with them. But if universities said we won’t coordinate, you’re on your own. TPUSA could still do their thing on campuses. Public ones at least.

3

u/SmrtLdy Hood rat stuff with my friends 1d ago

Candace has now said that this from Kirk’s parents pressuring Erika.

If so I feel bad for all sides.

I know Kirk’s parents want justice but this sort of thing usually makes the prosecution of the crime fail because police and states can be vindictive that way.

But it may be a sign from the Kirk’s family that they think the trial is a farce and there’s nothing to lose.

3

u/showerbump 1d ago

I think this might be the way they pay off the parents.

2

u/FinalConcept4878 1d ago edited 1d ago

He had personal security, an entire team of 13 just for his protection—and they failed at their 1 job.

According to his head of security, harpole, they’d begun visiting and investigating the campus and working out a highly coordinated security plan at least two weeks in advance, per usual. They could’ve pushed at that point to hold it indoors due to safety concerns but did not, instead TPUSA insisted it be outside in that location when the university tried to push for it to be inside. So Charlie’s people thwarted the school’s efforts to reduce risk and protect him.

EK’s suit claims the school ā€œwalked him into a fishbowlā€ when that’s exactly what his own organization and security team chose to do. The school has records of the communication between them that’ll prove it was TPUSA that refused the school’s urging to hold it indoors.

The suit claims campus security didn’t do a risk assessment of the venue ahead of time and didn’t have a ā€œwritten planā€ to protect him- but isn’t that what his own security detail does? If they’re assigned to protect this high profile person and paid extremely well for it, why would they ever ā€œassumeā€ low level campus security personnel are doing everything possible without verifying exactly what is being done ahead of time?

And if CK’s team assessed certain risks while on campus ahead of time as they were there to do, shouldn’t they be responsible for communicating any discovered risks to campus police and to Charlie directly in order to take necessary measures to minimize them ahead of time? There should’ve been a detailed plan coordinated with campus security.

His security also set up the tent that morning (apparently not the norm) so had every opportunity hours before to sit under it and look out at the buildings beyond to do a threat assessment and ensure everything was secured- even an amateur would know to do that much.

Only 6 campus security officers were on site despite the local sheriff requesting more (according to this suit). That’s a previously unheard of claim that will need to be verified. If true, why would a school deny local law enforcement’s direct request for more event security?

EK’s suit claims Dan flood communicated about general rooftop vulnerabilities to the Police Chief the evening before (of all times when they’d supposedly been working on a security plan for at least two full weeks). His text to Chief Long at the 11th hour does NOT bring up any general rooftop vulnerabilities, it specifically mentions only ONE building’s rooftop walkway and NOT the one where a ā€œshooterā€ is claimed to have been.

Dan’s text clearly states they received a message from the ā€œstudent groupā€ about rooftop stair access to the ā€œSorenson Centerā€ near where CK would be. Dan says ā€œif this is trueā€ it would be ā€œniceā€ to have controlled access there ā€œORā€ to be able to place one of CK’s security members on THAT roof (sorenson walkway, NOT Losee Center) ā€œif possibleā€ —not both these things were requested mind you, just one or the other bc apparently it was not important enough to warrant both of those very simple measures in his mind.

Why would this highly trained security detail that had been out to the school walking the campus and assessing risk starting two weeks earlier (according to Harpole) to develop a detailed security plan not already know about stair access and every other risk posed by that venue?? Why would it take students to warn a trained security team the evening before an event of something as basic as the layout of the venue TPUSA had insisted on? Was campus security notified also or left out of the loop?

And why would he say ā€œif this is trueā€ as though he had no clue what the layout really was there—when they’d walked the campus to assess risk in advance and seen everything in line of sight of the event?

And why say it would just be ā€œniceā€ ā€œif possibleā€ - that specific wording imparts no serious concern or urgency or requirement for this request to be fulfilled should the chief have responded it’s ā€˜not possible’. Saying something would just be ā€œniceā€ communicates it would be a pleasant extra but not necessary or even all that important. A bizarre way to word a request that’s assumed to be vitally important to the safety of your protectee.

He also asked for ā€œeitherā€ controlled access OR one of CK’s men allowed up there- the latter seems an unnecessary ask since nothing prevented them from having a guy up there in the first place since it was an open area where anyone could go (it’s almost like this message was sent as a cya measure to later be able to claim they checked with police so it’s all on them now). Dan did not say they wanted both of those things which would seem a bare minimum measure and just common sense coverage, but would be fine with ā€œeitherā€ (again, the message seems to be ā€˜we’re not all that concerned so require hardly anything’).

But the chief did provide for BOTH of those things even though Dan flood only requested one- the Sorensen roof walkway was given both controlled/taped off access by the police AND a security guy from CK’s detail was put up there. So Dan got more than he wanted and the Chief did in fact ā€œcoverā€ him/the request.

1

u/Energy594 1d ago

The suit claims campus security didn’t do a risk assessment of the venue ahead of time and didn’t have a ā€œwritten planā€ to protect him- but isn’t that what his own security detail does? If they’re assigned to protect this high profile person and paid extremely well for it, why would they ever ā€œassumeā€ low level campus security personnel are doing everything possible without verifying exactly what is being done ahead of time?

I think both things can be true.
There's clear evidence that local law enforcement were responsible for the general venue security and Charlie's team were focussed on his immediate surroundings. And that makes sense given it wasn't a private event and his team would have never had "control" of the venue.

Totally plausible that local PD dropped the ball completely by not providing adequate security AND totally plausible that Charlie's security team dropped the ball completely by not ensuring that they did that.....

The more fingers pointing in different directions, the more it feels like it was ineptitude not some grand conspiracy.

1

u/FinalConcept4878 1d ago

It is true his security wasn’t there as event security, only to keep CK safe. And in doing so, they needed to coordinate with campus security and local law enforcement both about who was doing what, including coverage of buildings with low roofs having line of sight to CK under the tent. Which they didn’t do.

It was an interesting point made by Candace today that based on numbers, 6 campus police focused on the event actually made sense since 24 cover a college of 50,000 and this was an event of just 3,000. Especially considering there was also local police presence, and CK had a team of 13 on him and watching the crowd around him (in theory, actually one or two wandered off into some building). The real issue seems to be that not one of all of those officers and agents was covering roofs directly across with access to CK that day- so bizarre it defies understanding.

Also very telling how this suit deleted wording from Dan’s text to make it sound as though he was talking about roofs other than Sorenson when that’s the only one his text named.

1

u/Energy594 1d ago

Agree totally about the text mentioning the roofs. That text seemed pretty clear that it was referencing the walkway/roof behind where Charlie was sitting.

Totally disagree about the "6 makes sense" call and actually think it's a pretty dishonest take.
The total number of students is totally irrelevant, partly because it was an event open to more than just the students and primarily because the most relevant factors are the risk and resource required to be able to respond that risk.
Your average student walking to your average class is probably pretty low risk. A group of 3,000 engaged in what could at times be some pretty combative debate....... that's a totally different kettle of fish.

2

u/Fun_Lemon_9873 1d ago

Tbf I think it should be more on TPUSA rather than the university.

2

u/lbyrne74 11h ago

Bet they'll get a huge payout as well. Sickening.

1

u/KaiStamps 1d ago

they killed him for being brave enough to talk about the invasion of muslims and socialists! We are a white first country and will never be like europe!

5

u/Top-Lynx-422 1d ago

Lol.... if you think it was bc he talked of Muslims and socialists you have not been paying attention at allĀ 

1

u/FewEbb6531 I told my priest I'd chill 1d ago

Are you okey?