lawsuit, supposed blackmail attempt....

[_skippy the dead]

Charity, I have three specific questions for you:

Do you think a child who is abused by a parent should be able to sue that parent for damages?

Do you believe anyone who is abused and tells clergy who fails to report it should be able to bring action against the clergy who failed to report it?

Do you believe anyone who leaves an abusive spouse should expect the support of their clergy?

I realize you addressed your post to Charity, but here's what I think:

Do you think a child who is abused by a parent should be able to sue that parent for damages?
skippy: Yes, if such a cause of action is provided by law, but it must be within the time provided by the statute of limitations. Even if the plaintiff recovered a repressed memory in 1991, we're now 16 years later. Time's definitely up.

Do you believe anyone who is abused and tells clergy who fails to report it should be able to bring action against the clergy who failed to report it?
skippy: No. There are already penalties in place via the various mandatory reporting statutes. Besides, she was an adult and no longer subject to the abuse - I don't believe that there would be any reporting required since there was not current abuse of a child, nor was there imminent abuse to a child.

Do you believe anyone who leaves an abusive spouse should expect the support of their clergy?
skippy: Generally, yes. Is it actionable if they don't? No.


I'm not surprised that the plaintiffs can't find an attorney willing to take this case on a contingency basis. There's nothing there. I'm sorry that they've found themselves in such a situation, but I don't think there's any redress at law or equity for them.

[_the road to hana]

I'm not surprised that the plaintiffs can't find an attorney willing to take this case on a contingency basis. There's nothing there. I'm sorry that they've found themselves in such a situation, but I don't think there's any redress at law or equity for them.

Based on my own read of the federal complaint, I'd agree.

Doesn't it complicate the issue enormously that the second party (Chris) has been added into the claim?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

But they will probably get quite a bit of money out of the guillible ex-Mormons. Notice their little "dontate" button? Estimates are that when the Tanners filed their suit against FAIR on the registration of domain names, which was dismissed rather quickly, they took in a lot more for donations to their legal fund than they could have possibly paid their lawyers.

whose estimates?

The Danites. We have our sources. Over on the MA&D board, we have a little smilie that is a spy guy. Where is a good picture that says moire than a thousand words when you need one.

Isn't this MA&D??

[_the road to hana]

But they will probably get quite a bit of money out of the guillible ex-Mormons. Notice their little "dontate" button? Estimates are that when the Tanners filed their suit against FAIR on the registration of domain names, which was dismissed rather quickly, they took in a lot more for donations to their legal fund than they could have possibly paid their lawyers.

whose estimates?

The Danites. We have our sources. Over on the MA&D board, we have a little smilie that is a spy guy. Where is a good picture that says moire than a thousand words when you need one.

Isn't this MA&D??

This is MDD.

The other board is MADB.

The other board is not FAIR, even though it occasionally pretends to be.

Neither is RFM.

[_skippy the dead]

I'm not surprised that the plaintiffs can't find an attorney willing to take this case on a contingency basis. There's nothing there. I'm sorry that they've found themselves in such a situation, but I don't think there's any redress at law or equity for them.

Based on my own read of the federal complaint, I'd agree.

Doesn't it complicate the issue enormously that the second party (Chris) has been added into the claim?

It does complicate the issue - I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "failure to state a claim" motion filed to pull him out of most (all?) of the claims listed. Federal court can be pretty hard-assed when it comes to making sure you have a basis for a claim, and will penalize those who don't (probably another reason an attorney won't touch it - nobody wants rule 12(b) sanctions). It's likely that if this lawsuit survives, it will be a much more limited version (with respect to parties and claims) than what has been filed.

[_Canucklehead]

whose estimates?

The Danites. We have our sources. Over on the MA&D board, we have a little smilie that is a spy guy. Where is a good picture that says moire than a thousand words when you need one.

Could you disclose what amount of money the estimates estimated?

[_the road to hana]

I'm not surprised that the plaintiffs can't find an attorney willing to take this case on a contingency basis. There's nothing there. I'm sorry that they've found themselves in such a situation, but I don't think there's any redress at law or equity for them.

Based on my own read of the federal complaint, I'd agree.

Doesn't it complicate the issue enormously that the second party (Chris) has been added into the claim?

It does complicate the issue - I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "failure to state a claim" motion filed to pull him out of most (all?) of the claims listed. Federal court can be pretty hard-assed when it comes to making sure you have a basis for a claim, and will penalize those who don't (probably another reason an attorney won't touch it - nobody wants rule 12(b) sanctions). It's likely that if this lawsuit survives, it will be a much more limited version (with respect to parties and claims) than what has been filed.

That was my sense, too.

My difficulty had to do with Charity's statement, "They will probably get quite a bit of money out of the gullible ex-Mormons."

I think it's possible, even very likely, that Jennifer's claims of abuse have merit, whether or not her case does. Charity's statement seemed insensitive to the larger issues involved.

[_The Nehor]

whose estimates?

The Danites. We have our sources. Over on the MA&D board, we have a little smilie that is a spy guy. Where is a good picture that says moire than a thousand words when you need one.

Could you disclose what amount of money the estimates estimated?

As a Danite Squad Leader I can help here. They received:

$6,073.54 in cash
$143.00 in Toys'R'Us money
$200,456.00 in Monopoly money
an emu
7 Chuck E Cheese tokens
1 autographed photo of Leonard Nimoy
1 Taco Bell 2 Burrito Supremes for the price of 1 coupon
1 piece of the Berlin Wall
6 Geese a Laying
1 surplus Soviet ICBM (warhead sold separately)
8 Love Letters

Glad I could help.

[Guest]

My answers in bold.

But they will probably get quite a bit of money out of the guillible ex-Mormons. Notice their little "dontate" button? Estimates are that when the Tanners filed their suit against FAIR on the registration of domain names, which was dismissed rather quickly, they took in a lot more for donations to their legal fund than they could have possibly paid their lawyers.

Charity, I have three specific questions for you:

Do you think a child who is abused by a parent should be able to sue that parent for damages?

For counseling expenses, yes. For "lottery" winnings, no.

Do you believe anyone who is abused and tells clergy who fails to report it should be able to bring action against the clergy who failed to report it?

If it is against someone not connected to the church, no. There are many other avenues of reporting. If it is telling one clergyman that a clergyman of the same church is the abuser, then yes.

Do you believe anyone who leaves an abusive spouse should expect the support of their clergy?

I think that would be a reasonable expectation, depending on what you mean by "support." Church assistance in food commodities and rent subsidy? "There, there, dear, you are right, he was a brute." Church disciplinary action against the abuser? What?

If you are talking about a situtation where both abuser and victim are both known to the clergy, you have a more complicated circumstance than where the abused can go to an advocacy agency, and then it is all black and white, and she is completely innocent and he is a kin of Satan.

But then, in the imperfect world, we can't expect the reasonable to take place. So it isn't a matter of suing the clergy.

In my opinion, unless there are damages which can be remediated with money, money is not the solution. Today, if somebody crosses their eyes at you, you can sue them for causing you "stress." It is part of the "entitlement" theory. Children are entitled to a set of loving parents. Well, yes. And if you don't get them, there isn't anything money can do to make up for the fact that you were on the short end of the stick. Go on from where you are. Learn and be a good parent yourself.

Did you tell someone you needed help and they didn't help you? Go tell someone else. Don;'t just roll over and play helpless.

Should you be able to expect support and help from people? Yes. We are all supposed to be our brother's keepers. What if you don't get it? Get over it. Be as good a person as you can and help others.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

But they will probably get quite a bit of money out of the guillible ex-Mormons. Notice their little "dontate" button? Estimates are that when the Tanners filed their suit against FAIR on the registration of domain names, which was dismissed rather quickly, they took in a lot more for donations to their legal fund than they could have possibly paid their lawyers.

whose estimates?

The Danites. We have our sources. Over on the MA&D board, we have a little smilie that is a spy guy. Where is a good picture that says moire than a thousand words when you need one.

Isn't this MA&D??

This is MDD.

The other board is MADB.

The other board is not FAIR, even though it occasionally pretends to be.

Neither is RFM.

OKAY. Now I am confused. Can you provide links?