The Real Truth About Remi Gonzalez - FAQ
The Real Truth About Remi Gonzalez - Company Message
 

FAQ 
What is a statute limitations? 
A statute of limitations is a law that sets forth a maximum period of time, after certain events, that legal proceedings based on those events may be initiated.For more information about the New York Statute of Limitation on rape and other crimes, check out these links:

Who is a "public figure"?"Public figure" is a legal term typically used to determine the standard of proof that should be applied in libel or slander cases. The law generally holds that a public figure cannot base a lawsuit onincorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with malice, or reckless disregard for the truth.
    The burden of proof for a public figure is much higher than it is for a private citizen.According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:"A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter.""In addition to the obvious public figures -- a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate -- someone may be a limited-purpose public figure.""A limited-purpose public figure is one who
    (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy
    (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across.""One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure -- for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence."Other definitions and help information about public figures can be found here:

More to follow If you don't see the answer you are looking for here or you have any other questions about Remi Gonzalez, or any other aspect of this matter, feel free to reach us on the "Contact Us" page. We will try to answer all questions and post  replies frequently asked  questions      here.                    
 
 
Remi's Response FAQ
FAQ:

What is a statute of limitations?
 
Sarah Webster was within the time frame of her civil suit but her perjury cause this case to be remove and discredit.
 
She is allow 5 years after her 18 birthday to file a civil suit and crimminal, well within the time frame in 1989.
She claim that I raped her in 1984 to Mrs.Pat M. in 1989, she was within the time frame to file criminal charges, she didn’t. (Later she dined the Rape)
 
Her brother Ed who I spoke to about the Website still remembers Sarah Webster telling him in 1989 that she lie on the summons (Civil Lawsuit) and all the other lies. He also thought the picture of me on the website was real funny.
 
I also had Ed call Sarah Webster in 2007 so we could all meet and try to understand and resolve these issues. They really thought that there were 100s of abuse teen victims.

Ed also told me that Sarah Webster was now afraid to even come into the city in fear that I, Remi Gonzalez would retailed, I told Ed to tell Sarah I would not even thing of do such a thing.
What Is A Public Figure..... Not Remi Gonzalez I worked for the church since 1982
Read Below:
 

TIME
Monday July 14,2008


Who Is a Public Figure
 
In matters of libel, public figures are not as other mortals, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a series of cases since 1964, the court has ruled that a public figure cannot collect libel damages without proving that "actual malice" was involved in the publishing of inaccurate and defamatory material. Actual malice, said the court, means publishing with knowledge that a statement is false or with "reckless disregard" of whether it is false or not.
 
The average person, on the other hand, must show only that the publisher of such material was guilty of "some type of fault," as would be found in a negligence case. The point, the court said, is to accommodate the First Amendment by giving publishers some legal "breathing space" in reporting on public figures.
 
But who exactly is a public figure? The high bench has recently taken a narrow view of the definition, and last week, it did so again. In 1967 Millionaire Russell A. Firestone Jr., now 49, finally won a Florida divorce from his third wife, Mary Alice Firestone, now 40, after a much publicized trial that went on intermittently for 17 months.

TIME reported in MILESTONES that his divorce had been granted on grounds of "extreme cruelty and adultery." But while the judge's decision did allude to claims of extramarital escapades by both partners, he did not clearly identify the grounds. Mrs. Firestone was awarded alimony, which Florida law bans if the grounds for a divorce include adultery. She sued Time Inc. for libel and won a jury verdict of $100,000 for her mental anguish and suffering.

But she did not prove the magazine had acted with "actual malice." The publisher therefore asked the Supreme Court to throw out the libel judgment because the Palm Beach socialite was a public figure who was often in the newspapers, subscribed to a press clipping service, and even held press conferences during the long divorce fight.
 
William Rehnquist, joined by four other justices, was unpersuaded. Mindful of the public "need for judicial redress of libelous utterances," Rehnquist held that Mrs. Firestone "did not assume any role of especial prominence in the affairs of society, other than perhaps Palm Beach society, and she did not thrust herself to the forefront of any particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved in it."
 
Rehnquist also declined to require the "actual malice" test in all cases involving coverage of judicial proceedings. The majority did send the case back to Florida courts for a determination on whether the magazine had acted "with fault."

Meanwhile, journalists everywhere are now on notice that people who attract the sort of public interest that does not involve a true "public controversy" will be treated under libel law just like the average private citizen.
 
Let Me Take This Section And Talk About Facts Answers And Questions:
 
The Diocese of Buffalo wanted to meet on the Catholic School scandal. The Diocese ask my attorneys from HoganWillig for me, Remi Gonzalez to appointed a neutral  mediator . So I submitted three names:   Dr. Raphael T. Waters PhD,  Bishop Edward Groz (Past Western Niagara Vicariate) & Father Jim LeBar (Exorcist whom I knew personally) Archdiocese of New York.
 
Bishop Kmiec and the Attorneys for the Diocese of Buffalo rejected all three and appointed Hugh R III a Federal Lawyer. I accepted because we had nothing to hide. I sacred them by picking three very holy men. The meeting was set for January 24, 2007
 
Jan 24 2007 Mediation: Hugh R III
 
The attorneys show up without Bishop Kimec who was supposed to be at this meeting. .Hugh R III separated us into two rooms. The girls, wanted to meet with Bishop Kmiec and be able to tell him the truth about Catholic School cover up. The meeting took place and I will share a few things that were said: 

The Diocese of Buffalo and some staff members knew for two years while these girls were 11 and 12 years old. No one protected these kids excepted the Spanish teacher Mrs. Abbott. Mr. Russ was told about what happen to all three girls including the one that was almost rape in the room. 
 
To Mr Russ: From Remi Gonzalez:
 
Mr. Butler after getting out of jail was at my house in a white van. Follow my wife home from Top's Market, he pass Virginia Abbott house three times and Katy P saw the white van. Mr. Butler then follows A. G.(victim) into Wal-Mat and she runs into him at the school supply section and she freaks out. Mr. Russ: A. G. is this truth, YES
 
My daughter told Mr. Russ about how she was taken out of class because, on school dress down day, they told her that her shorts were to short. When all the kids reported to some staff members about Mr. Butler nothing was done! She also told Mr. Russ her side of the story. 

Mr. Hugh Russ III was very disturbed after speaking to the kids and said something he was not supposed to say : "you kids not only deserved an apology but the Courage Award". Remind You: This Lawyer was appointed by the Diocese of Buffalo and Bishop Kmiec In

Conclusion:  
Father S, Canonical Adviors stated at a Vicar meeting that "the kids exaggerated" the whole situation at the Catholic School.(Source Deacon Ben)

Noelle Response : "Was Mr. Butlers arrested and conviction exaggerated"! 
Our Lawyers Met with the Diocesan Attorneys After This Meeting:

One Thing That I Will Share That Was Said:
 The Diocese of Buffalo will dig into the kids pass and will bring it up if we go to court. This was said at mediation meeting.

Remi: What in the name of God could  11 year old's  pass life be like? Mr. Butler admission and  conviction isn't that enough?
Website Builder provided by  Vistaprint