Local: Visalia pastor sues son over '...

Local: Visalia pastor sues son over 'cyberbullying'

There are 1863 comments on the The Fresno Bee story from Oct 18, 2012, titled Local: Visalia pastor sues son over 'cyberbullying'. In it, The Fresno Bee reports that:

Visalia Calvary Church pastor, the Rev. Bob Grenier, and his wife, Gayle, have sued their estranged son, Alex Grenier, accusing him of defamation and cyberbullying.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Fresno Bee.

CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Nampa, ID

#1805 Feb 16, 2013
Who wrote:
10 min ago
no e-mail notification required....
MindMeld with Alex Grenier reengaged!
My name is CalvaryChapelAbusedotcom

and doesn't it take a mind on the other end to have a mind meld? LOL

You've been soundly trounced again and again...and again.
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Nampa, ID

#1806 Feb 16, 2013
We see what the judge has to say about it.

Until then, you can post your response in the box provided by topix below and answer the question you've been dodging:

Do you think sexual abuse allegations should be taken seriously? Do you think the criminal court system is the right venue to deal with them?
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Nampa, ID

#1807 Feb 16, 2013
Who wrote:
making all kinds of unverified and unverifiable accusations and allegations
False. Lots of verifiable allegations and they're in the court record.

My name is CalvaryChapelAbusedotcom
Who

Manteca, CA

#1808 Feb 16, 2013
topix.com is analogous to an Old World busy street corner.
Alex is analogous to a nutty street preacher yelling his message to any and all passers-by.
Who decided to stand near the same busy street corner and provide an alternative narrative to the one yelled about by Alex, the crazy street preacher.
Alex USED to scream at this busy topix.com street corner every day, several times a day, in a way reminiscent of an inner-city crack ho smoking five dollar rocks.
Since Who arrived at the topix.com street corner, Alex has curtailed his screaming at topix.com considerably.
Alex' hatesite is, in effect, another street corner on the other side of town.
There has been no curtailment of free speech, and there is no intent to curtail free speech.
There has been an effort to get Alex to leave THIS PARTICULAR topix.com street corner, and in this Who has bee effective.
Alex continues to post on topix.com because the media market coverage it affords him is greater than that which his hatesite provides, his salesmanship notwithstanding.
But, he posts/screams here a lot less.
Who

Manteca, CA

#1809 Feb 16, 2013
Dear General Reader,
It is highly unfortunate that Alex has to date not put together a coherent chronology of events leading up to the lawsuit.
Had he, I believe you, General Reader, would come to some different conclusions than the ones Alex is trying to lead you to using his hate campaign.
-
Fact: Alex has exhibited, with various contributors at michaelnewnham.com , a propensity/proclivity to mischaracterze, misrepresent, misreport and outright lie about private conversations and communications that he has with other people. There is an e-mail and blogging trail to support this fact.

Fact: There is (and has been for some time) a division in the Grenier household.

Fact: Divisions in a household are not illegal, and in fact have sometimes been known to be unavoidable, especially when one party is intransigent....it takes two to tango, and if the partner doesn't want to tango, well there's not much that can be done to remedy the situation.
This is not illegal. And in fact, with all relevant information on the table, such a division in a household can actually be seen to be understandable. Shocking, I know!

Fact: Alex' assertion that the General Reader will have to, and I quote, "wait for the details," shows that Alex has a habit of/proclivity to keep all relevant information away from the general reader in an attempt to carefully manipulate public opinions against his mother and father.
Who

Manteca, CA

#1810 Feb 16, 2013
2004 - Alex has a conversation with Bob.
Alex has written about this, but given his credibility issues (that I've seen exampled with participants at michaelnewnham.com ), Alex' account of this conversation must be met with healthy skepticism until evidence is given to the general reader to support his, Alex' conclusion.
-
It seems that this is when the breach in the family occurred, and since Alex began professing Christianity in 2009, it is possible that the discussion was religious in nature, and not about falsely alleging abuse.
At any rate, we cannot today know what was the source of Alex' conflict with his father, and we cannot know why the division in the family occurred.
If we were flies on the wall during that conversation, the division in the family might even be (gasp!) understandable.
-
2004 - Alex continues to hound his father about his concocted and thus false allegations of abuse.

2005- Alex' son is born, division in the family continues, Alex continues to hound his father and mother after they have made it clear that any and all contact is undesired by them.
This is not illegal, and may in fact be quite understandable, especially if Alex is using bullying tactics to goad his parents into further connection.

2006 - Alex continues to attempt to bully his way into communication. He contacts Bob a "few" times and contacts his mother "several" times, and his attempts are rebuffed.
This is not illegal, and might even be understandable. We would have to know ALL of the facts, and these facts are exactly what Alex has refused to provide, for going on a few years now.

2007 - At a funeral--YES, AT A FUNERAL (thus the Westboro Baptist connection), Alex' wife brings her children to CCV and attempts to bully her way into a meeting with Alex' mother. Alex is not present.
KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS AT A FUNERAL.
Amy's attempt is rebuffed by Gail. This is not illegal, and may even be understandable.

2007-2008-2009 - Alex sells his advertising business. Alex moves to Idaho with his wife and children and opens a pawn and gun shop. Alex' wife discovers topix.com . Alex begins a phone call and e-mail campaign to any and every person even tangentially associated with Bob Grenier, wherein Alex makes all sorts of accusations about conduct that he says occurred roughly FIFTEEN YEARS PRIOR.
Alex finds these people cold to his courting.

2010 - Gene Pensero recommends that Alex take his concerns to CCOF. Alex does so. CCOF refuses to, in the absence of evidence, bend their rules to serve Alex' agenda.
This is not illegal, and may even be understandable.

June 2010 - Who begins posting at topix.com .

July/August 2010 - Alex starts his refuse collector of a hatesite whereon he continues making all sorts of non-specific allegations without in any way providing supporting evidence that would allow the disinterested reader to come to his or her own conclusions.

Late 2010/early 2011 - Once again Alex' wife Amy shows up at CCV, unannounced and WITHOUT ALEX, and attempts to bully her way into a meeting with Alex' mother.
Just like three years prior, Alex' mom refuses to be bullied into meeting with someone with whom she may have a good reason for not wanting to meet with.
This is not illegal, and may in fact be understandable.
Who

Manteca, CA

#1811 Feb 16, 2013
From THIS side of the fence, Alex' wife looks more culpable than Alex.
My guess is that Amy hates Gail and Alex is conducting a hate campaign to keep Amy off his ass for procrastinating on washing the dishes.

2011- Paul's accusation surfaces for the first time.

2012 - Alex' allegations grow and grow like Pinnochio's nose to include accusations that seem constructed to give credence to Paul's claims.
Why was a "showering" incident completely unmentioned by Alex until 2012? Could it be that reading about the Sandusky affair gave him ideas? Seems likely to me, more likely in fact than the possibility that the showering incident occurred.
If Alex were a serial killer we would call him a copycat.
-
It is my hope that this loose chronology (which is the best that I could do given Alex' attempts to muddy the chronological, ideological and factual waters) will help the general reader navigate their way through the enduring saga that is
Alex Grenier's cyberbully hate campaign against the only family that loved him enough to raise him, a hate campaign motivated by Alex' disgust that his father made him shop for clothes at Miller's Outpost in high school in lieu of letting Alex wear Smiths t-shirts like all the other wanna-be pre-emo losers.
Who

Manteca, CA

#1812 Feb 16, 2013
2004 - Alex has a conversation with Bob.
Alex has written about this, but given his credibility issues (that I've seen exampled with participants at michaelnewnham.com ), Alex' account of this conversation must be met with healthy skepticism until evidence is given to the general reader to support his, Alex' conclusion.
-
It seems that this is when the breach in the family occurred, and since Alex began professing Christianity in 2009, it is possible that the discussion was religious in nature, and not about falsely alleging abuse.
At any rate, we cannot today know what was the source of Alex' conflict with his father, and we cannot know why the division in the family occurred.
If we were flies on the wall during that conversation, the division in the family might even be (gasp!) understandable.
-
2004 - Alex continues to hound his father about his concocted and thus false allegations of abuse.

2005- Alex' son is born, division in the family continues, Alex continues to hound his father and mother after they have made it clear that any and all contact is undesired by them.
This is not illegal, and may in fact be quite understandable, especially if Alex is using bullying tactics to goad his parents into further connection.

2006 - Alex continues to attempt to bully his way into communication. He contacts Bob a "few" times and contacts his mother "several" times, and his attempts are rebuffed.
This is not illegal, and might even be understandable. We would have to know ALL of the facts, and these facts are exactly what Alex has refused to provide, for going on a few years now.

2007 - At a funeral--YES, AT A FUNERAL (thus the Westboro Baptist connection), Alex' wife brings her children to CCV and attempts to bully her way into a meeting with Alex' mother. Alex is not present.
KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS AT A FUNERAL.
Amy's attempt is rebuffed by Gail. This is not illegal, and may even be understandable.

2007-2008-2009 - Alex sells his advertising business. Alex moves to Idaho with his wife and children and opens a pawn and gun shop. Alex' wife discovers topix.com . Alex begins a phone call and e-mail campaign to any and every person even tangentially associated with Bob Grenier, wherein Alex makes all sorts of accusations about conduct that he says occurred roughly FIFTEEN YEARS PRIOR.
Alex finds these people cold to his courting.

2010 - Gene Pensero recommends that Alex take his concerns to CCOF. Alex does so. CCOF refuses to, in the absence of evidence, bend their rules to serve Alex' agenda.
This is not illegal, and may even be understandable.

June 2010 - Who begins posting at topix.com .

July/August 2010 - Alex starts his refuse collector of a hatesite whereon he continues making all sorts of non-specific allegations without in any way providing supporting evidence that would allow the disinterested reader to come to his or her own conclusions.

Late 2010/early 2011 - Once again Alex' wife Amy shows up at CCV, unannounced and WITHOUT ALEX, and attempts to bully her way into a meeting with Alex' mother.
Just like three years prior, Alex' mom refuses to be bullied into meeting with someone with whom she may have a good reason for not wanting to meet with.
This is not illegal, and may in fact be understandable.
My name is Who
Who

Manteca, CA

#1813 Feb 16, 2013
you says
"...Until then, you can post your response in the box provided by topix below and answer the question you've been dodging:
Do you think sexual abuse allegations should be taken seriously? Do you think the criminal court system is the right venue to deal with them?..."
Who says
I resent your saying I've dodged this question---I answered this question pages back when you first asked it, you ffing douche.
Saying I have not answered a question does not mean I have not answered a question.
No WONDER your parents want nothing to do with you, which is not illegal, by the way.
In fact, when I read your typing, their stance regarding you
is understandable.
Who

Kent, WA

#1814 Feb 17, 2013
Dear reader just to clear. I don't actually know anyone involved. Wink wink.
Who

Manteca, CA

#1815 Feb 17, 2013
whatevs
Who

Manteca, CA

#1816 Feb 17, 2013
yawn
chris

San Francisco, CA

#1817 Feb 19, 2013
no response to "Who" is the best move because "who" feeds off the attention and will go away
Who

Manteca, CA

#1818 Feb 19, 2013
A person named Juan posted this at a blog that is publicly vilifying Bob Grenier.
Juan says
"How much professional experience have you had investigating allegations like this? As a retired court investigator, I have submitted over 2000 reports to California courts under penalty of perjury. I can tell you from experience that just because allegations are “detailed” does not mean they are true. Often, in reviewing allegations from opposing parties in cases I was assigned to, the allegations contained minute details that sounded very persuasive on the surface, but once in-depth investigation was initiated, were found to be completely false or misleading. In reviewing your profile I find nothing that would qualify you to be an investigator in a case like this. It sounds like you are emotionally invested and as such that alone would disqualify you.
In reading this blog, I can form no opinion as to this man’s guilt or innocence. Unfortunately, by posting it in the manner you have, you are forming the reader’s opinions for them and he is already tried, judged and executed in their minds. Too many people are willing to arrive at conclusions based on unqualified and probably uninformed bloggers.
You jeopardize the objectivity of this investigation by your public airing of this case and you seem to be especially interested in airing dirty Christian laundry in general. What is your agenda Dee?"
Who

Manteca, CA

#1819 Feb 19, 2013
This is precisely what I've been saying.
To be a journalist, you go to school, take on mountains of personal debt, and pound the pavement to find any crappy paper to work for.
When doing your job for the paper, your personal sacrifice itself often keeps you from misreporting.
-
With the advent of the internet, the incentives are currently skewed.
Typing things on the internet comes at no personal cost, and if you type a lie, can the internet fire you?
No.
Which makes it that much easier to lie.
Like newspapers, the ubiquity of the internet gives the power to change minds,
without ANY of the responsibilities that come with working for a veritable news organization.
-
Why do you think Alex chose the internet for his hate campaign? For all these reasons.
I've tried to hold Alex' feet to the fire regarding inconsistencies in his accounts, and he just sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
And the next day he's back to typing, back to dodging my questions, belittling my observations by claiming I work for Bob, minimizing my criticisms because I am not personally involved in the lives of those that are party to the suit, and just generally being a prick.
-
Bob is getting smacked in the face right now because of Alex' typing, and the only thing he did to make himself a target was....be a pastor.
-
If this continues, no one in their right mind would choose to be a pastor, since they have absolutely no defense against false allegations made by anyone with too much time on their hands and an internet connection.
Alex' behavior, if taken to its logical extreme, will have a chilling effect on the ministry of Christ, since the pastor has no way to defend themselves from public rebuke and ridicule coming from those that will only be too happy to help Richard Dawkins destroy the church (that last comment goes directly to you, Alex, you self-professing Christian that asked Richard Dawkins Foundation to allow you to testify before Congress [!] against organized religion of all types).
Who

Manteca, CA

#1820 Feb 19, 2013
chris wrote:
no response to "Who" is the best move because "who" feeds off the attention and will go away
Typing my name in the topix.com box qualifies as a response to me. If you really believed what you typed, you wouldn't have typed it to begin with.
chris

Visalia, CA

#1821 Feb 19, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>Typing my name in the topix.com box qualifies as a response to me. If you really believed what you typed, you wouldn't have typed it to begin with.
?
Who

United States

#1822 Feb 19, 2013
I've been saying this the entire time:
-
There are several reasons why
this internet tomhackfoolery of Alex' is
wrong.
Additionally, chronology is important.
It is here that Alex goads the sheep he collects and discards by sale or consumption those sheep that
REFUSE TO BE SHEEP.
[[Juan put it so well.
But my angle is a tad more abstract,
which is not saying that it is less important.]]
-
Juan says
"...As a retired court investigator, I have submitted over 2000 reports to California courts under penalty of perjury. I can tell you from experience that just because allegations are “detailed” does not mean they are true. Often, in reviewing allegations from opposing parties in cases I was assigned to, the allegations contained minute details that sounded very persuasive on the surface, but once in-depth investigation was initiated, were found to be completely false or misleading.
In reading this blog, I can form no opinion as to this man’s guilt or innocence. Unfortunately, by posting it in the manner you have,
you are forming the reader’s opinions for them and he is already tried, judged and executed in their minds. Too many people are willing to arrive at conclusions based on unqualified and probably uninformed bloggers.
You jeopardize the objectivity of this investigation by your public airing of this case and you seem to be especially interested in airing dirty Christian laundry in general. What is your agenda Dee?"
Who

United States

#1824 Feb 20, 2013
I think it is telling that they are posting step-by-step instructions on how to more successfully assassinate the character of Bob using any media vehicle they can.
Using twitter to harass? Really? And you don't see anything wrong with this?
Julie Anne, your case in Oregon against Grace Community and Alex' case in CA are apples and oranges...I wish you weren't so dense, because then you would see the differences.
As it stands now, you are jumping on a hate bandwagon that you have no reason to jump on, other than the fact that you have waaaay too much time on your hands.
I thought home-schooling kids was more work than that.
I guess not.
Or, your kids are going to grow up really stupid because while their mom SHOULD be helping them with their math, mom is instead assisting Alex' hate campaign by tweet bombing anyone and everyone, even though you know they will delete your tweets because they don't like being harrassed for disagreeing with you and Alex.
Jeez! Sometimes I think you guys take crazy pills every morning.
My name is Who.
Who

Visalia, CA

#1826 Feb 20, 2013
#whowouldjesussue

Julie Anne Smith knows who we are. We've spoken for 2 months for hours and hours on end. Same with the ladies from Wartburg watch. All class acts.

Yes Who, apples to oranges. BG is 1000 times worse. That's why JAS is helping us.

Forcing a 5 year old to perform oral sex on you is an evil worth fighting. I can't began to guess how far an wide this will go tomorrow. But it will be viral. It's already begun.

#whowouldjesussue

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Domestic Violence Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Jackson, MO man charged with child abuse 4 hr purple 1
News Billy Carol Anderson, Sr. 21 hr Frankie 5
News Two arrested on meth, child abuse charges Aug 23 guest 1
Best Domestic Violence Lawyer Aug 21 Dalehayes 1
News Domestic violence likely more frequent for same... (Sep '14) Aug 21 Dalehayes 18
News Duggars pitching new show where- I Kid You not!... Aug 20 You Never Know 3
News Women suffering from domestic violence at great... Aug 17 HumanSpirit 8
More from around the web