.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
Judging from comments and questions received concerning the ongoing legal battle of Salah N. Salah to obtain a beer/wine license from the City of Russellville, there are many misconceptions about the local alcohol laws and how they are being used or misused in this instance. We're listing the facts of the case below. It will be up to a court to determine if the laws are being applied in accordance with these facts.
1. Alabama law states that any business licensed to sell alcohol must be at least 300 feet from a church building or 1000 feet from a school.building.
2. Russellville's liquor license law states that such a business must be at least 500 feet from a church or 1000 feet from a school building.
3. TNS Mini-Mart is 397 feet from the main church building at Southside Baptist.
4. TNS Mini-Mart is 187 feet from a playground that is part of the Southside Baptist Church plant.
5. Southside Baptist Church erected their building at 12215 Highway 43 South in 1964. It remains the original congregation.
6. Salah purchased Ray's Southside Food Mart at 12301 Highway 43 South approximately one year ago. The building certainly had not been constructed when Southside Baptist established its church. In other words, Salah knew the church was there when he purchased the small store.
7. Representatives of Southside Baptist exercised their legal right to object to alcohol sales at TNS Mini-Mart, and the Russellville City Council honored that objection.
8. It's unknown to us if Southside Baptist Church operates a daycare that would qualify as a school. If so, it would logically seem the courts would uphold the City of Russellville's decision not to license TNS Mini-Mart for the sale of beer and wine.
We'll add that of all the governments in the Shoals area, we receive the most complaints concerning Russellville Mayor Troy Oliver; however, in this case, we feel the town acted legally. What a court of law will say may be entirely different.
*****
We recently received a comment from Tasha concerning what she called errors in our report on Laurel Ann Stocker Pruett (pictured). We asked Tasha to elaborate; however, her second comment contained what could be construed as a libelous statement concerning Pruett's victim. Therefore we choose not to publish the comment, but will address the errors that Tasha has enumerated.We had reported that Laurel met Ronald E. Weems after she moved to the Shoals. Tasha informs us that Laurel had previously met Ron and moved here to be with him.
Tasha further stated that Laurel had lived in the Shoals for some time before she became employed at the Chevron. We did not mention a specific date for Laurel's employment, taking the information from one of Laurel's social networking sites; however, we are happy to add this if Tasha feels it's important to the account.
Tasha has also assured us that Laurel was not jealous of Ron and his other girlfriends. This is a subjective opinion, and one we sincerely doubt. If it should be true, it would indicate Laurel's feelings for Ron were something less that love. This would then beg the question of why Laurel would have helped Ron dispose of his victim's body. Believe us, Tasha, it's far better that Laurel be seen as a woman under the influence of uncontrollable passion than one cold-blooded enough to abet the crimes of murder and dismemberment.
Finally, Tasha mentioned the name of Ron and Laurel's child. We have chosen not to name the child in question, but it should be noted that if Ron and Laurel are convicted, they will become the property of the state. They will have no rights the state chooses not to give them. At that point, their little girl will be legally adopted by, we hope, a loving couple who will change both her names. We hope she will never have to suffer for the sins of her current parents.
Shoalanda
LOL. If Tasha wanted to address some of your errors in your reporting on "Laurel Pruett's Path to Murder" then Tasha should have started her corrections with the start of your report. That report took some fact, stirred in an amazing amount of fiction, and ended with irresponsible reporting. However, you are a blog sight that has, at times, exaggerated and/or blurred the lines of truth... as a blog sight that can be expected, I suppose. Your own admission is to gathering information from a social networking site. If I were reporting information on the history of someone's life that may have taken them down the path to murder, I would perform real research and not haphazardly compile "information" from social networks. Please try to help your own credibility by providing true, informed information.
ReplyDeleteI hope so too cause anyone who names their child after a box of evil has mental issues...
ReplyDeleteRussellville ordinance only requires a 300 foot distance for convenience stores. The 500 foot reqirement is for on premise consumption. There is no mention of a 1000 foot distance at all in the ordinance.
ReplyDeleteSilahs argument could (and likely should) be that as his store is one of only two gas stations in town meeting the 500 feet rule, this was added to the standard state rules specifically to target his store.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this has anything to do with his religion, don't get me wrong. However, it was Southside Baptist among other churches that was most active in campaigning against Russellville going wet, and it seems entirely plausible they could've talked someone into giving them a good deal.
Again I have to ask though, what is the point? Russellville's "let's pretend it doesn't exist" law won't let anyone actually advertise the fact that they have beer for sale, so the only logical reason for blocking sales near churches is a fear that someone might try to sneak a drink in church.
Since the social networking sites belonged to Laurel herself, what would inaccuracies say? If Laurel, or anyone, thinks working at a Chevron enhances their bio... Better they should say they work for Google--at least we can understand that prevarication.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Russellville liquor law, it was amended with this clause:
ReplyDeleteA clause in the ordinance allows city officials to consider possible impacts on homes and other buildings within 500 feet of a businesses when considering applications for a license to sell alcoholic beverages.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are many errors in your reporting nad much conjecture. But this is a blog in a free country, I respect that you have the right to your opinions (as that is what most of it is). As someone that is close to both Ron & Laurel, I can live my life happily knowing in my mind most of what you say is falsehoods used to increase your amount of readers. I know you are trying to make it exciting reading to keep people coming back & attract new followers. I just read on the Our Daughter Amanda Taylor is Missing's page that Mr. Leeth blocked you from that page for your sensasionalism. So Tasha and I aren't your only critics. I have commented amny times on your stories. It doesn't help, you are going to continue writing about any rumour or lie you hear about them. That's ok, it's you that has to live with your conscious and karma. Will you allow this comment to be posted?
ReplyDeleteI have happily posted your comment. What you don't know and what I have until now chosen not to address is that a member of Amanda's family asked me to post updates. In hind sight, I should have broached the subject with Mr. Leeth first, as he should have privately requested me not to post.
ReplyDeleteMy information on Laurel comes from two mature adults who have known her all her life. We do editorialize, but we do not add facts, or should I say factoids, to our blogs.
So far, the only error that has been pointed out on our blogs is that Laurel met Ronald Weems before she moved here, not after. If you have other errors to point out, please do so.
As for sensationalism, the murder itself provided that. Throttling a young woman and then hacking her body up is not a mundane topic.
Thanks for reading.
Well for one the child in question will not become a ward of the state, her grandmother, Ron's mother, has custody. Laurel did not lose custody of her other 2 (not 3) children, she did sign her rights away in the last 2 years for private reasons I will not reveal. Some of the things you have said about both of them have not been accurate, as I am a friend to both of them, and have been for years. Laurel had a very privelaged upbringing, in a family that had no financial problems. I would have to go back and read every one of your blog posts with a pen and paper to document the inaccuracies. If you want me to take the time from my extremely busy life to do so then just tell me. I am going from memory here. I sent you a friend request on facebook, feel free to contact me there. I would prefer that my last name not be revealed on here, as I have already received enough hate mail for just being their friend. But I do know up until now Ron was never violent, he was always sweet, tender, and caring with me. This was so unexpected I stayed in bed and cried for a week. I never said it was a mundane topic, but writing about what you assume was the last minutes of Amanda's life when none of us know the actual situation that caused this tragic senseless act was a bit uncalled for. That is something that maybe should have waited until the entire story is brought forth. They are not horrible people, they just committed a horrible act. A horrible mistake that has affected many on both sides, and they must live with it for the rest of their lives, as well as their loved ones and Amanda's loved ones. I will admit I still love both of them, and will continue to be their friend, I don't and won't approve of what they did, but I can't in good conscious turn my backs on them either. It's not easy to just stop loving someone.
ReplyDeleteOk looking back here are a few mistakes:
ReplyDelete1. Ashley Greenhill was never one of Ron's "girlfriends". She needed a place to stay, he was nice enough to open his home to someone in need.
2. Tasha was correct in the fact that Laurel wasn't jealous of Ron's "girlfriends" I know from personal experience, but she did love him deeply.
3. Laurel and Ron weren't a couple many months before October, in fact the custody hearing for their daughter was in August. They had broken up in May and Laurel had moved out of Ron's house.
just thought I would add that to my earlier comment and if I look back and read a little closer I know there are more mistakes. Also digging up information from dating sites isn't very credible information. These two mature adults that you are getting information from (I'm pretty sure I know who they are) are two who probably have not spoken to Laurel in years. I notice you don't have the same inside information on Ron, probably because those of us close to him are very protective of him.
Our info comes from several close to Laurel and Ashley. We have already corrected the location of Laurel's child in today's blog. DHR is reportedly petitioning the courts for custody. We don't find that we have stated anywhere that Laurel was reared in a financially underprivileged home, just a home where her father was not present. Most intelligent and caring individuals find that to be a hardship. Most also recognize jealousy as a byproduct of romantic love.
ReplyDeleteWhile we theorized on the length of time it took for Amanda to die, the act of strangulation was described correctly. Not pretty, is it? It's not like he dropped a brick on his foot and uttered an epithet; he manually strangled a woman--that takes time and deliberation, and the prosecutors will make sure the jury knows that.
I have witnessed Ron being violent on two occasions 1)July 4 he and Brandy and their two girls were with Laurel and other friends at Laurel's house when Ron punched Brandy in the face and gave her a black eye. 2)A few years back the cops were called to Ron and Laurel's apartment because he beat her up and he was arrested for it.That is public record so anyone can look it up.So to say that Ron Weems is not a violent person is totally wrong.
ReplyDelete