Moving On | Choose your lifeMoving On | Choose your life
Safe Passage Foundation - Support to youth raised in high demand organizations


Saturday, January 31, 2009    

Home | New Content | Statistics | Games | FAQs

Getting Out : Creeps

Samuel Ajemian child molester documention?

from xrighty - Friday, May 28, 2004
accessed 6567 times

Check this out. (Reposted from the exfamily.org site.)



[ Replies to this Post ] [ Post a Reply ] [ Generation eXers Board ]




Posted by Researcher on May 25, 2004 at 11:06:35

A while back, there was some discussion on this board about Samuel Ajemian. Sam came on to deny that there was any truth to the statement that he had been tried for molesting a child in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles. Doing reserach is how I make my living, so I noted the above and as I had the time, I did some research. Sure enough, I found paperwork in the Munipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District files indicating a complainant by the name of Kirk declared that Samuel Vahan Ajemian of Pasadena "did engage in lewd and dissolute conduct in a public place", a violation od subdivision a of section 647 of the California Penal Code. In brief, section 647 (a) has to do with anyone "who annoys or molests any child under the age of 18." The fact that Samuel Ajemian would deny this charge is not surprising. Besides the issue of self-preservation, remember that this is the same fellow who signsed his letter as "Dr. Samuel Ajemian"! Last I checked, "Doctor Ajemian" drives a truck for a living. When a summary of the above information was posted on the exfamily site, the post was quickly removed, unlike all other posts on this board. The question that comes to mind is who made this decision, and more importantly, WHY? At the very least, if the coordinator of this board is truly interested in the truth, then let's discuss this matter. I have mailed a copy of the pertinent legal papers referred to in this post to the coordinator WC (aka Ed), as well as a number of other inmdividuals who post here, who all seem to me to be level-headed folks: Joseph, Ray, George, etc. They should have just received this in an envelope which I mailed to their addresses. (Assuming the addresses that I turned up for them are accurate.) So hHave a read, fellows, and let us know your feelings on the subject. Is this documentation valid, proving that Samuel Ajemian is a child molester?

Reader's comments on this article

Add a new comment on this article

from pyewackit paisan
Monday, May 31, 2004 - 18:18

Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
My, my, my, aren't you a twisted, little Berg-brain? No one at exfamily.org will get away with covering up sh*t as long as homicidal lesbian terrorists surf the ethers, so why not be straight about what you're up to with this deceptive post? Why not contact the Cherish Lloyd Service Center for a mailing address to send your copy of Ajemian's arrest record? Maybe because you aren't really interested in an objective, professional assessment of your "evidence"--? Maybe because you're a skilled outhouse technician looking to stir up shit between the two boards? Tell me something, did someone with a stake in dividing the online exer community put this donkey hair up your ass, or do you come honest by your hard-on for Ajemian because he hurt someone who's close to you?
(reply to this comment)
From Sheryl
Saturday, September 25, 2004, 19:21

Average visitor agreement is 1 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

What's with this freeking name calling, as in homicidal lesbian terrorist?? Isn't this a little overdone for someone who brags about having a lesbian past herself? Course some might say takes one to know one.

You see "pyewackit paisan" is none other than [removed] who posts here and at exfamily. Actually she's on the board of exfamily.org. probably as old a my mother, as she was in the group in the early days I seem to recall hearing.

Anyway, one might conclude that this posting on Samuel Ajemian hit a nerve with the exfamily crowd to cause [removed], one of their directors to come out swinging and calling names of someone who was just reposting a comment from their board.

Our webmaster couild check their records on where this pyewackit post originated but I'd put money that like many of us she posts from her place of work. In her case, [removed] works for [removed]. I wonder if her boss and the taxpayers who pay her salary are aware of her cult and lesbian background, and most of all that she is carrying on her crusade on their computer and server, and during work hours? (reply to this comment

From Jules
Sunday, September 26, 2004, 00:13

(Agree/Disagree?)

Sheryl, you have the right to your opinions. You do not have the right to "out" someone by posting their full name and place of work. Someone's sexual orientation has no relevance to anything, and neither does the fact that they were briefly in a cult. The person you are talking about left the group long before FFing and child abuse occured. If you have a personal issue with them, please take it up with them privately.

The allegations regarding Sam A. were investigated by WC (the exfamily.org webmaster) and were found to be unverifiable.
http://www.exfamily.org/chatbbs/genx/archives2/13591.htm

While participants have the right to privacy regarding their real life identity on this web site, we do not have any specific policies regarding general users identifying other users by nicknames they have registered. Perhaps we should. In the interest of free speech and minimum editorial involvement, I really didn't want to have to develop a whole list of specific rules and regulations but hoped that people would use common sense and courtesy, which for the most part has been the case for the past four years. (reply to this comment

From Jules
Sunday, September 26, 2004, 08:53

(Agree/Disagree?)
I just realised that the person in question who was "outed" by Sheryl did not register the name I thought they did on this web site. My apologies to them. I have removed all of the references to names they did not register or disclose on this web site. (reply to this comment
From pyewackit
Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 09:35

(
Agree/Disagree?)

The above comment was aimed at Researcher, not Xrighty. Researcher knows full well why the post in question was removed by coordinators at the exfamily.org website, as this decision has been publically explained on a number of occasions in a number of ways. There is no coverup going on, as Researcher's inflamatory post suggests.

Researcher also neglects to mention that he's been trying to "out" exfamily.org coordinators by linking legal names with geographic locations, and otherwise engaging in stalking behavior, such as threatening to contact Canadian Revenue. At least one exfamily.org coordinator is Canadian, and these kinds of threats can only be interpreted as aggressive acts of "outing" people who have little love for Ajemian and his practice of putting unsubstantiated allegations into print and publishing such information widely on the internet.

Researcher's manipulative approach to exposing the public information associated with Ajemian's arrest record with innuendo is essentially a matter of visiting Sam with a taste of his own unsavory tactics. So my question remains: What is Researcher's unstated agenda? Is he striking back at Ajemian for Sam's blundering, careless exposure of a certain Family Care Foundation project as a potential child-molesting operation run by someone incorrectly identified as a pervert? If that is the case, why attempt to intimidate exfamily.org coordinators or make inflammatory remarks about a "coverup" by FGs who are struggling in good conscience with questions of how to confront accused child molesters among their peers who post on that board periodically?

Or is Researcher really a shill for someone who would benefit from driving a wedge between FGs and SGs in the online exer community? I find the timing of Researcher's most recent attempt to expose Ajemian as a child molester--along with his suggestion of an FG coverup--to be a bit suspect. Researcher is well aware of efforts currently under way to align interests & coordinate resources in the FG online community with the mission of Safe Passage Foundation, an entity designed to provide assistance to SGs leaving TF. Who benefits if there's increased distrust among SGs toward FGs who are in fact working to expose TF's history of child abuse among their peers? Who benefits if attention & energy is drawn to the question of whether Ajemian perped on an adolescent boy 16 years ago rather than focused on how FG exers can support the work of Safe Passage Foundation?

By the way, I'm perferctly willing to entertain the possibility that Ajemian likes boys and perped on a kid 16 years ago. I don't know Ajemian personally, and I have nothing to gain or loose in the way of a personal relationship with him. That said, I have offered to make a professional assessment of this police report Researcher touts as evidence and appears to be using to fan the flames of distrust between the generations. Researcher doesn't seem to be interested in getting an objective evaluation of his evidence, however, and that's why I've employed some very rude, confrontational tactics. (reply to this comment

From Sheryl
Thursday, September 23, 2004, 14:15

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

Whatever.

I still think this Samuel Ajemian thing found a sore spot for some reason. Cover up or something. As my English prof often quotes, and with apologies to Will Shakespeare, "Methinks paisan and exfamily doth protest too much!"

As for Samuel Ajemian, which afterall is the issue, I agree with you Jules, when you wrote, What to me is a little surprising is that Sam refused to clarify the record.

Same on your statement that Sam refused to clarify what happened when he was arrested on these charges. It does make you wonder.(reply to this comment

From Jules
Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 19:24

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

Pyewackit, I really wouldn't pay too much attention to this. Personally when I first heard about Sam's record (almost 2 years ago) I looked it up myself. There was nothing that said he abused children that I saw, and no one I know has named him as an abuser. I think you know what our general opinion of him is, so I don't think this is designed to be a "board war" but just someone who was frustrated in one arena bringing it to another.

What is, to me, a little bit surprising is that Sam has refused to clarify his record. As someone who used to post here often said: "If you live in glass houses, don't throw stones". If you expect full disclosure from those you are targeting, then it's only fair to go there yourself. I for one try to live by that. The questionable parts of my life are an open book.


Sam's articles spare no pity for the personal aspects of his informants and suspects lives. Sam has absolutely refused to clarify what happened when he was arrested. Perhaps a simple explanation could do away with all doubt. As this all stands, honestly, it makes me wonder. (reply to this comment

From pyewackit
Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 20:43

(
Agree/Disagree?)
The possibility that Sam likes boys could explain his refusal to clarify his record. The board wars argument is a pretty flimsy rationalization for the unleashing of ragedyke on this site. My apologies. I'm basically infuriated with Researcher's "outing" tactics and have a strong reading on exactly who this person is. Berg-brains make my teeth itch.(reply to this comment
From Banshee
Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 11:02

Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
Since "the above comment was aimed at Researcher, not Xrighty", perhaps you should take your comment to Researcher, who DID NOT post this here, and not to Xrighty, who DID. You accuse--whoever--of "looking to stir up shit between the two boards" when you are the one doing just this. As you may have noticed, this article has been up for several days now, and obviously no one around here has been all that interested. So could you please take your trash talk and stupid arguments back to where they belong. "Here's a quarter; call someone who cares." If we really want to--and trust me, we don't--we can go on the exfamily board and read this stupidiy for ourselves. (reply to this comment
From pyewackit paisan
Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 17:53

(
Agree/Disagree?)
I'd be glad to take down the original trash talk aimed at Researcher if I knew how to do that. It does not matter to me how many people on this website are interested in the specific issues raised by Researcher's post; what matters is that someone who uses intimidation tactics such internet stalking should be exposed for what they are doing. Here's a stupid argument for you: Predatory behavior is not a problem as long as no one cares whether there's a snake in the grass. NOT!(reply to this comment
from
Monday, May 31, 2004 - 10:42

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

I think the question to ask is was anyone abused by Sam and let us go from there. Were you abused? You don't have to put your name.


(reply to this comment)

from Wolf
Monday, May 31, 2004 - 07:08

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
The dude was probably passing out some of Bergs porn or something if he really molested a kid hed have done time. I do think hes a real creep though (somebody sue me)
(reply to this comment)
from Another researcher
Monday, May 31, 2004 - 00:42

(Agree/Disagree?)
The information provided certainly does not prove "that Samuel Ajemian is a child molester." I checked http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/639-653.1.html and
647(a) is not about "anyone who annoys or molests any child under the age of 18." In fact, it states:

"647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

(a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view."

The original poster may be confusing 647(a) with 647.6(a) which apparently was formerly 647a. Note that 647a is not the same as 647(a). In any case, apparently this happened 16 years ago and Sam was charged with disorderly conduct under 647(a) and eventually this was reduced to "disturbing the peace" according to a post at http://www.exfamily.org/chatbbs/genx/posts/13544.htm

I have no idea what actually happened (nor do I really care) but it seems this was a relatively minor incident that happened 16 years ago and the criminal justice system resolved it. It seems very irresponsible (and perhaps defamatory and libelous) for someone to accuse Sam of being a "child molester" when the record clearly indicates this is not the case.
(reply to this comment)
From moon beam
Saturday, October 02, 2004, 16:25

(Agree/Disagree?)
Is it just me or is the pharagraph starting with "The original poster is confusing..." 647(a) is repeated as the same number all the way through? What does that mean!!!?(reply to this comment
From moon beam
Saturday, October 02, 2004, 16:42

(Agree/Disagree?)
Also who is this top ranking ws member (know child abuser) who ed had exposed who was accused of having a vendetta against him?(reply to this comment
From Ed Priebe
Saturday, October 02, 2004, 17:39

(Agree/Disagree?)
Moonbeam, sorry for responding, as I don't want to post too much on your board, but seeing as how you mentioned my name I'll try to answer. You asked "who is this top ranking ws member (know child abuser) who ed had exposed who was accused of having a vendetta against him?"

I haven't read WC's article for some time, but I do recall clearly that WC said that Sam Ajemian (not me) had exposed some top ranking WC member who was a known child abuser and that this person was suspected or known to be behind the "get Sam" campaign.

I am not WC, for the record, though a certain Researcher a few months ago thought that I was.
(reply to this comment
From moon beam
Sunday, October 03, 2004, 06:46

(Agree/Disagree?)
OOPS Sorry, I did mean sam A. (reply to this comment

My Stuff


log in here
to post or update your articles

Community

83 user/s currently online

Web Site User Directory
5047 registered users

log out of chatroom

Happy Birthday to demerit   Benz   tammysoprano  

Weekly Poll

What should the weekly poll be changed to?

 The every so often poll.

 The semi-anual poll.

 Whenever the editor gets to it poll.

 The poll you never heard about because you have never looked at previous polls which really means the polls that never got posted.

 The out dated poll.

 The who really gives a crap poll.

View Poll Results

Poll Submitted by cheeks,
September 16, 2008

See Previous Polls

Online Stores


I think, therefore I left


Check out the Official
Moving On Merchandise
. Send in your product ideas


Free Poster: 100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Systemite

copyright © 2001 - 2009 MovingOn.org

[terms of use] [privacy policy] [disclaimer] [The Family / Children of God] [contact: admin@movingon.org] [free speech on the Internet blue ribbon] [About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]