It wouldn't be very smart legally for me to say anything of that, though I understand your request. I will say that this comment appeared anonymously on the Village Voice blog: Theresa Delfino --- This is not the Theresa Delfino who is concerned about her personal life being "splashed" all over the internet. I don't believe this is the former wife of Richard Leiby
And the words "splashed on the Internet" have never appeared under my name. I will share one submitted and unposted comment I wrote:
theresa defino | May 12, 2011 at 10:32 pm | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I am trying a third time to get a comment posted. I already replied that twice Rathbun was giving [GIVEN} my phone number yesterday and asked to call, by a person who wouldn’t give me his number. He choose NOT to call me.
As I stated in the other comments you refused to publish, I did NOT defend the `church.’ You did not need to publish my name or any details about me or my children.
Clearly my statement indicates that the documents, and Rathbun’s paraphrasing, both contained numerous factual errors not limited to the fact that my job history is wrong, job title is work, other personal details…all wrong. When you print personal information about someone you might consider contacting them for confirmation and if you can’t get YOU DON’T USE IT. I see no reason to stoke the ‘church’s’ pleasure with my outrage. I’m now being accused of being a Scientologist because I know how to craft a reply statement? How does this fit with your accusation that I “caved” to become their tool?



Reply With Quote
