Talk:Terry Bean

Recent Arrest For Witness Tampering

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/10/prominent-portland-attorney-derek-ashton-arrested-and-booked-into-jail.html Portland real estate developer Terry Bean was arrested Wednesday afternoon on an accusation that he committed a felony computer crime by allegedly paying off a teenager who had been set to testify against him in a sex abuse case. Bean’s arrest followed the arrest earlier Wednesday of his former criminal defense attorney, Derek Ashton, on an identical computer crime charge. The prosecution has said in court documents that Ashton carried out the deed for Bean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvPok (talk • contribs) 09:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Plot to hide the witness in Bean's case.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/court-docs-detail-alleged-plot-to-pay-off-hide-witness-in-terry-bean-sex-abuse-case/283-4e6dd61f-9e57-45b6-8832-8da9674681b5

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Court documents filed in the criminal case against Portland real estate developer and civil rights activist Terry Bean outline an elaborate plot involving several lawyers to help pay off and hide Bean’s alleged victim in 2015.  Bean is accused of sodomizing and sexually abusing a 15-year old boy in Eugene after a University of Oregon football game. He has pleaded not guilty. Bean was originally charged in the case five years ago, but charges were dismissed when the alleged victim, identified as M.S.G. in court papers, declined to take the witness stand.  2601:601:1700:B672:AC4B:AAC9:4AD3:724B (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This self-serving statement should have been removed long ago.

The article says, ""I take some measure of comfort that the world now knows what I have always known — that I was falsely accused and completely innocent of every accusation that was made."[35]". Bean's statement of his opinion of what the world "knows" is self-serving and laughable. It does not need to be included here. There are plenty of statements by others that accuse Bean of child rape, and for some reason they aren't present in this article. Did NPOV just disappear? We have recently (January 2019) discovered that his corrupt attorney colluded with another corrupt (Lori Deveny) attorney to keep Bean's victim away from the courthouse for Bean's 2015 abortive trial. https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/08/prosecutor-in-terry-bean-sex-case-says-hes-got-damning-evidence-of-200k-bribery.html "Terry Bean’s lawyer, alleged victim’s lawyer colluded for months to get accuser to stay silent, new documents allege". 71.8.174.161 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Minimizing sex predator history

If you Google Terry Bean, near the top of the list is the allegations of sexual abuse. Yet its barely mentioned on his wikipedia, with nothing but a tiny sentence mentioning that he was re-indicted in September 2019. Why is this so minimized? Compare this to Harvey Weinstein, who has an entire paragraph about his allegations in his wiki introduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/09/explosive-new-allegations-surface-in-terry-bean-sex-abuse-case.html Mbsyl (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

and no one sees this. how convenientMbsyl (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. I believe some people, indeed many people, have been protecting this article at least since 2015, trying to cover up the news of Terry Bean's criminal charges and now, fraud as well associated with his lawyer, the lawyer for "MSG" Lori Deveny, the then-juvenile who is the victim in the crime, and (for example) the theft of about $220,000 in money paid by Terry Bean through his lawyer, Derek Ashton. (who was also charged in late 2019). What's fascinating is how so many people must be working to defend the article from having this well-sourced astonishingly incriminating information from 'staying put' when others have tried to edit to include it. Allassa37 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

as someone who cut their teeth editing the antifa page, extreme corruption of left/far-left wiki pages is not surprising to me. and then there's the simple factor of $$$ - Bean being rich and wiki editors being purchase-able on many websites. Mbsyl (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Lawyer for Victim "MSG", Lori Deveny, engaged in fraud and stole the money that Terry Bean and Bean's Lawyer had arranged to be (illegally) paid to victim MSG.

https://stephanievolin.medium.com/free-of-charge-fca23f9a73e6 Also: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/court-docs-detail-alleged-plot-to-pay-off-hide-witness-in-terry-bean-sex-abuse-case/283-4e6dd61f-9e57-45b6-8832-8da9674681b5 About 2015, ostensibly this case was going to be settled, but in 2019 that outcome began to unravel. It turned out that Terry Bean, through his crooked lawyer Derek Ashton, did indeed pay around $220,000, to the victim (identified as "MSG"), but the judge had specifically disapproved of this payment, and the fact of that payment was kept from that judge. However, MSG's crooked lawyer Lori Deveny actually stole the money intended for the victim, and engaged in a lot of fraud herself, against other of her clients. If this article on Terry Bean continues to be purported to actually cover these matters, it should correct the record and include these events. Also, the victim MSG conspired to leave Eugene, apparently going to Bend, Oregon, in order to make a trial impossible, and that occurred. In addition, the "See Also" section should be augmented to include references to child molestation and rape, as well as fraud and corruption by attorneys. Allassa37 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Has this article, "Terry Bean", been captured by the supporters of Terry Bean, and are they misusing that control to cleanse it of embarrassing facts about Bean? Should we report that to Wikipedia as misuse?

I wanted to make an edit, but I don't see an indication that the article is write-protected. Yet, write has been disabled, which usually means that an explanation will be placed at the top of the Talk Page. I will be quite clear: Terry Bean appears to be being protected, and the egregious news of his criminal case has been concealed from this article, apparently for many years. There has been a great deal of news about Bean himself, and his Attorney Derek Ashton, and the attorney(s) for "MSG", his rape-victim, and the fraud associated with the handling of that case. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be ideological, although for years seems to be under the control of "those kind of people". (Interpret that any way you wish...) The only plausible explanation is that there are people who think they can control this article, for the purpose of concealing embarrassing events that involve a (BLP violation removed). I am thinking that anyone who feels the way I do should assist me in filing a complaint with Wikipedia for this obvious fraud, which must include some WP administrators, to expose just how bad WP can get when that misconduct is allowed to fester. Notice that there are a great deal of references to news about Terry Bean and his criminal case in this Talk page, and far more information is available through a Google-search, and yet any attempt to put those events into the article seem to have ceased years ago. I say "seems to", because failed attempts to edit the article apparently don't leave a trace. Presumably, somebody tried to do edits, but were blocked by an edit block...but that edit block seems to not include EVERYONE, right? And, I wonder if the list of people who HAVE successfully edited this article in the last 2-3 years can be trusted: Are they a part of a de-facto cabal? I believe they must recuse themselves since they have apparently demonstrated their bias. I am thinking that there should be far more controversial discussion on the Talk page, and that should by now include extensive discussion as to why the embarrassing news hasn't been included in the main article. This is obvious corruption. Who objects to it? Who tolerates it? Tell me how to issue a complaint, and if nobody else does that, I will. Allassa37 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

See my reply and advice at WP:ANI#Terry Bean. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And here is MY reply and MY advice.  ::Here, I am referring to things you have said and done. Your paragraph extensively criticizes me, or by implication others ('disruption') Sauce for the goose. I suspect you feel free to criticize others, yet not follow your own 'rules'. Everything you said in your above paragraph is biased and distorted. You mention "baseless accusations" but you so far have merely ASSUMED they were "baseless". You investigated nothing. You are completely new here. We are not obliged to assume, or even take your word, that you have adequately researched the past misconduct of 'all' sides. I suspect you were called her to 'put out a fire'. How long have you been monitoring this page? Who called you? Names? Expose evidence of why you arrived here. Also, while you don't identify what you called "significant past disruption", I suspect the reason all that became necessary is that people were improperly 'protecting' the article from the addition of content some 'protectors' did not want to see added. Some people, I suspect, were simply not tolerating the addition of embarrassing, yet accurate, material. You are taking a side simply by calling it "disruption", when in fact the actual "disruption" is obstruction of free editing of the article, that has gone on for 7 years, as I can see. You also hurl a term, "conspiracy theories", when actually you have no evidence whatsoever that the problem IS NOT what I claim. More likely, the editing has continued to be obstructed precisely to inhibit new, embarrassing information from being added. But that wouldn't work, unless simultaneously people were 'neglecting' to follow the edit-request situation you imply is available. You should explain exactly who was responsible for handling editing, especially since you have admitted the article was 'neglected'. I think everybody who is inclined to request edits knows 'the fix is in', the edits they request simply won't be made. If you are now claiming otherwise, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that edits actually occurred, including edits the 'protectors' likely wanted to impede. You also rushed in to 'protect' against my attempt to stop the obstruction of the editing, obstruction which you cannot properly defend merely by vaguely referring to other "disruption" in the long past. Even you admitted that this article page has been neglected, which constitutes a malicious act when it is intentionally done in coordination with blocking other editors from editing what you admit is a 'long-neglected' article. 'long-neglected' simply isn't accidental in this case. It has been astonishingly deliberate and persistent. Explain yourself to the victims here, as well as all those that have been so thoroughly discouraged by design. Also, your having deleted material from the Talk page is an attempt to tamper with the record. Other people who will eventually read that tampered record won't see the actual events and problems which you are helping to conceal. In addition, it is malicious to ban somebody from editing a Talk page, as you did, especially if they have already issued a complaint about the misconduct I am referring to. I should have been able to pursue this matter on the ANI, to show that there was indeed a problem that other people are trying to conceal. This problem needs to be discussed. How many times, in the last 7 years, did somebody else attempt to expose this problem? Were their attempts deleted from the record then, too, just like you did to my effort? Allassa37 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to copy my entire reply to you everywhere you have copied your message to me, but here is a link to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: I'll be far blunter than GorillaWarfare here. There is no cabal, no big conspiracy, nor anything malicious with what happened here. The reason the article is in such a terrible shape, if it indeed a terrible shape, is because editors like you, instead of taking the time to learn our policies and guidelines, have wasted your time posting nonsense like your comments above. Or posting BLP violations. No matter how terrible someone is, we need to respect BLP. If you're not willing to accept that, you don't belong here. As a BLP regular, I'll say it can be difficult as Schazjmd hinted at below, which does make editing these articles difficult especially in cases like this where as I noted later, it's likely few people actually can be bothered getting involved and reading up on the distasteful of uncomfortable details, since the person has very limited significance or relevance. But as long as we lack anyone who cares enough the article subject but also is willing to respect our policies and guidelines things aren't going to change. Since so far no one has appeared, I guess you're it. In other words, as long as you waste your time with nonsense rather than proposing properly sourced, properly worded edit requests nothing will happen. If you're so worried about victims, why don't you actually do something useful? From where I stand, it looks to me like you're one of the people who claims they care about victims, but doesn't show it with their actions. If you want to rant, start a blog. It will also likely be completely pointless and not help the victims in any way but at least you won't be making off topic posts and you only have to worry about defamation law and your hoster's T&C which will generally be a lot more relaxed than our BLP policy. To be clear, I'll freely admit I don't care much about this article's subject. I mean of course I care about victims in general, but there are too many victims that I don't really give a fuck about some minor American fundraiser from I can't even remember what state which frankly given my US geography is fairly shit, I may not even be able to identify it on a map, and especially not on reading up on whatever nasty shit they may have gotten up to. Notably I had a quick look at the article and see no obvious atrocious problems. It's possible the article has too much fluff and too little coverage of the trouble the subject got themselves in but it's not like it says 'his "victim", a well known liar, alleged, without evidence that X happened. The case was dismissed since everyone knew the victim was just lying' or some other terrible BLP violation. So whatever harm is alleged seems at best one of omission and even in terms of seriousness without regards to the article subject, the problem isn't that significant compared to the other problems with Wikipedia I know are out there from experience. Note also, the nature of Wikipedia and especially BLP means when some specific thing has received a lot of attention but limited consequence to the subject, especially if that attention was mostly around the time of the event, as seems likely to have been the case before 2019, we will generally have significant less coverage of details than exists. Again it's something all editors need to accept, no matter how much they may personally wish we could include more. To be clear, if there is a problem should be fixed. But until someone makes the effort it's not happening. Again since you're the one worried about the victims, why are you wasting everyone's time with nonsense rather than actually trying to improve the situation? Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to each and every comment you wrote. You seem to be simultaneously dismissive of the significance of this article, or the seriousness of its mishandling, yet at the same time the question must be raised: So, why are you here? Your position is immensely contradictory. One problem is that any such full response I write would end up 3x longer than your own. Would writing that be considered productive? You said: "But until someone makes the effort it's not happening." One problem with such a position is that I suspect that over the last 7 years, dozens (more than a hundred?) of would-be editors have been driven away, perhaps with their edits unjustifiably reverted, or even their participation maliciously banned. But they are not here now, because one-at-a-time they've been individually discouraged. And they don't know, at any given time, what is going on here. Put simply, they have a life to live. Nevertheless, they may still be motivated to edit this article, IF they knew that possibility became available. Rather than just me claiming there is a problem, and you claiming (I think falsely) there's not a problem, how about we involve, potentially, each of the people who might previously have been discouraged, reverted, blocked, banned, rudely insulted, threatened, etc? Individually, they were cowed, extorted. I think the only credible solution is to collect their names, and inform all of them that this article will be opened up to actual, unblocked editing. Invite them all. Let's have a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", in the way South Africa did it. Let them do what they were obstructed from doing months or years before. Turn this article into a REAL article, again. Not a 'Potemkin village' article, cleaned up and made to look innocuous. There is no legitimate reason to not do this: Especially since about September 2019, https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/09/explosive-new-allegations-surface-in-terry-bean-sex-abuse-case.html a great deal of news has appeared in the Pacific Northwest news media about the corruption by Bean's lawyer, "MSG"s lawyer, why there wasn't a trial in 2015 as was originally scheduled, "MSG"s flight to Bend, Oregon to make a trial impossible, the $240,000 payoff from Bean through his lawyer to Lori Deveny, the payoff that Deveny stole, etc. There's plenty of "reliable sources" in the media which talk about these things. You won't be able to hurl accusations of "BLP violations" any longer, given this wealth of public record material available. Accessing it is easy: Google ' "terry bean" "oregon" ' will get most of it. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be tricked, defrauded, manipulated, used to cover up well-documented facts. I haven't (yet) looked at the articles of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, but I suspect that none of them have been 'protected' in the way Terry Bean as been. Allassa37 (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing a very curious similarity between GorillaWarfare and Nil Einne, here. Notice that neither was previously involved in the Talk page for "Terry Bean", as far as I can see. And, maybe not, the main article page as well! It sure looks like they were called to put out a fire, so to speak. Maybe this is a very common 'modus operandi' in the Wikipedia world, when they suddenly have to shut down an unwanted visitor. Where were they? Who called them? What were they asked to do? Why doesn't somebody else, with a 'clean' history of involvement, act? Why do they think we should trust their involvement? Also, why don't the usual people here respond, too? Very strange. Maybe there are no longer any usual people, here: They've all been driven away by years of abuse. I'd sure like to see more people around here who look at the histories of the article and Talk page, and say, "This sure looks weird! Where are all the usual editors??" Allassa37 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It is very bizarre that you posted a request for involvement by outside editors, and are now acting shocked when such editors arrived. Yes, we were called here—by you.

Thank you for at least posting a source this time. As I have pointed out, but you are apparently choosing to ignore, editors have already been working to update this article since you raised concerns about it being out of date. If you would like to join them, I have already pointed out how to make edit requests, but generally the best way to go about it is to post the exact text that you would add to the article itself. Here is an example. Posting just the reference can be useful if other editors were formerly unaware of it, but an edit request is much more helpful in understanding precisely which information from that reference you think needs to be included, and in what way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

editors absolutely are driven away, as you suggest. dogpiling and gaslighting are common towards people who are critical of the wrong things - especially far left topics. another common tactic: swamping people with jargon and procedure - much like an elitist lawyer - when simple common sense and sincerity would suffice. Mbsyl (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Extensive article about Bean

The ref I just added to support "Terry Bean Equality Day" has a great deal of background on Bean as well as details about legal issues with a Kiah Lawson. TBH, I find most everything I'm reading about this person distasteful and have no interest in expanding the article, but pointing out that ref for anyone else who wants to dig into it. Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea what's going on with the case? The latest I could find is [1] which is 11 months ago and mentions pre-trial motions. There was already a delay and I suspect COVID-19 has probably added to delays and it's possibly the sort of case which often takes a long time but it's been over 2 years now. A resolution to the case would help guide our coverage and hopefully produce a bunch of RS with a more long term view so while we have to cover things as best as we can at the moment, I'm less inclined to put in much effort if it's likely there will be a verdict in the case soon. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The courts in Oregon are hopelessly backlogged due to COVID-19 restrictions. My next door neighbor has several issues with the landlord, including non payment and maintaining a common nuisance, and the landlord cannot evict them because the courts aren't hearing civil cases, just criminal and family cases. 174.212.227.114 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)