I ASK: When bosses don't like the thread, it gets deleted?

Not open for further replies.


Well-known member
Feb 7, 2007
I ASK: When bosses don't like the thread, it gets deleted?

"Desperate" opened a thread today with her story indicting Mr. Fabio Guzman's nephew in a potential scandal over briberious results to the divorce and custody of the OP and her children.

Indicating a judge in POP/Sosua area was involved, and she accuses that judge of corruption. Also, she indicated, this judge was no longer a judge.

To me it seems she was talking about a judge that is involved in the murder of the German businessman in Sosua and attack on him and his Mexican wife, recently. A judge that was accused of curruption, tried and convicted, and later destituted from his judge position. It is only my assumption, though.

Miguel posted questions to the OP and I was waiting for the OP's reply. To me it doesn't look right to have a thread DELETED when such a serious issue is at stake. Do the bosses fear the rage of Fabio Guzman for some reason? If nothing like that happened as the lady indicated in her thread, it should be discussed here and shown for the world that such accusations are incorrect and the OP should be proven a lier. This (deleting) only indicates to me that there MAY BE something true to the nature of the case presented by the OP in that thread and the conspiracy to cover up may be ongoing.

While I do not agree that lies and unwarranted accusations should be published on the open message board, I am also wary of the situation where I or somebody else may come up with publishing something I/he know/s is true, and get deleted because the bosses do not like the idea of publishing or exposing such a thing, even if true and real, because they have interest "por el medio".

DR1 is hosted at Gnax in Atlanta, with underlying provider Savvis. The servers and their content are located in the United States, where the US Constitution on Freedom of Speach should apply. Generally, if I can corraborate and prove my claims, I should not be negated and denied access to publish such an accusation and/or claims. I should be given the freedom and right to express myself and prove my case with at least a preponderance of the evidence, and this goes for the OP as well. She was not given such an opportunity. If the bosses are afraid to publish something, it has been proven over and over at US Courts that warranted claims and accusations can rightfully be disseminated, without anybody possibly bringing a claim against such publication, provided that the proof of such claims exists. Should a claim be brought up, a quick and pointed response then usually results ina summary judgement or dismissal.

The OP in the mentioned thread was not given the opportunity to demonstrate the warranted nature of her claims and accusations, and therefore her rightful interests MIGHT have been violated.

That the information in last thread she published does not correspond 100% to the information presented today?
There may be something going on... maybe it's the OP's vendetta against the Guzman family, maybe it's the OP's lying for other reasons, and maybe there is some truth to what the OP (Desperate) wrote.

My intention is not to analyse whether the claims of the OP were warranted or not. I hold Mr. Guzman in high esteem and I am not accusing neither him nor nobody else of anything, nor holding the OP's (Desperate's) side, nor am I suggesting that the situation the OP published in her thread really happened and that the points she presented were truthful. Hearing the story in the pub I would probably have said "nice story, let's move on". But the OP was asking for certain advice, and was trying to say what she thought was rightful. All I am saying: Let the two sides be heard. And let's THEN search for the truth...

My intention and the nature of this post is to express my disagreement over how the situation about the OP's thread was handled by the bosses. Nobody likes when negative thing is being written about themselves, their friends, relatives or people they know. But should that be the basis to not allow negative publishing? Lies are usually uncovered pretty quickly. If there are lies, let's make the OP discredit herself. So why the deletion? Or is there something else going on?

Is there a cover up?
Is there a fear?
Or is there just a pure ignorance and decision to look away?

Why not give Desperate a chance? Why not see where all this leads?

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

To the OP: Contact investigative journalists of Antenna Latina Canal 7 (SIN Noticias) if your case happened really in the way you presented.


Apr 4, 2002
I was going to post on that thread to say that I thought it should be deleted, but I thought it was rather obvious.
Did you check out the OP's previous posts?
She appears to be a few cards short of a full deck and left her purported story of her sexually abused daughter and never came back.
Now she has another tale to tell, and this time it's the lawyer wanting to have sex with her.
As if her history wasn't enough to shed a ton of doubt about today's post, the mere fact that it involves a divorce case and her displeasure with her ex's lawyers, is at the very least, highly suspect.
There comes a time when accusations such as these are not believable enough to be permitted to stand.
Besides, how could Fabio possibly respond about a legal case?
Wouldn't he be bound by certain privacy restrictions?
if someone were to come onto DR1 and say that joeblow was a pedophile and was a first time poster, would you not find it a bit suspect?
I agree 100% that the thread should have been deleted, and if I had been in charge of the delete button, it would have been gone before anyone even had the time to reply.
Last edited by a moderator:


New member
Oct 21, 2002
If we allow everyone to fight their personal battles on the board it will be a mess. Fights about personal issues do not belong here.

This is now closed.
Not open for further replies.