lawsuit, supposed blackmail attempt....

[_the road to hana]

I would use a word stronger that "disturbing." But surely you aren't saying that those girls would feel like what they suffered was worth the money they got? I would be horrified if you were saying that. And if not, then the money has nothing to do with the abuse they suffered. I find the "well, sure you had a nightmare life for 5 years, but at least you never have to work a day in your life" concept really disturbing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Charity so please answer this:

Do you think it would have been better if those girls did not recieve the estate?

After answering this, I think we can work out details about greed, and so on.

I think the money is irrelevant in the question of guilt or innocence or reparations. Money can never make up those girls for what they suffered. I doubt that years of therapy can either. But if that would do any good, I'm all for that. If those girls are going to go on to have reasonably successful lives, it won't be because of any sum of money.

I would even think that the "I have this house or this car because of what I went through" would not be a good thing psychologically. Like somehow you earned it?

If there are money damages in order to punish the guilty, I think they ought to go to some kind of a fund which would prevent future problems. This is my philosophy about all tort cases, not just this particular one.

Just to turn this question upside down a bit, Charity, answer me this.

Do you think an individual or organization should profit financially from a claim of abuse being suppressed?

[_charity]

Just to turn this question upside down a bit, Charity, answer me this.

Do you think an individual or organization should profit financially from a claim of abuse being suppressed?

How would that happen? You mean the person would lose his job if the claim were sustained, but because it isn't he keeps his job and keeps getting paid? Or the organization would lose paying members if a claim against one of their members was sustained?

I am not in favor of any guilty person getting away with his/her crime. That goes for any organization which has a policy of suppressing adverse claims against itself.

But I am not in favor of poor Catholic parishioners in northweast Portland losing their church because one man victimized 2 others who wanted $155 million between them for "damages."

[_asbestosman]

I think the money is irrelevant in the question of guilt or innocence or reparations. Money can never make up those girls for what they suffered. I doubt that years of therapy can either. But if that would do any good, I'm all for that. If those girls are going to go on to have reasonably successful lives, it won't be because of any sum of money.

I would even think that the "I have this house or this car because of what I went through" would not be a good thing psychologically. Like somehow you earned it?

If there are money damages in order to punish the guilty, I think they ought to go to some kind of a fund which would prevent future problems. This is my philosophy about all tort cases, not just this particular one.

While I agree that money will never make up what was suffered, that wasn't my question. I think you answered it though. It appears that you feel that giving those girls money is actually a bad thing. Your objection is interesting, but I'm not sure how damaging it really is. I suppose studies would have to be conducted. For example, is it damaging to someone wins prize money in a sweepstakes? Is it damaging for one to inherit posessions from a rich parent? I don't know, but I do know that strictly speaking I haven't earned all I have. If I were born in the ghetto, I think it less likely that I would have finished school. Does giving the victims money help assuage any of the pain? I don't know either. That's another good question for study I suppose.

[_the road to hana]

Just to turn this question upside down a bit, Charity, answer me this.

Do you think an individual or organization should profit financially from a claim of abuse being suppressed?

How would that happen? You mean the person would lose his job if the claim were sustained, but because it isn't he keeps his job and keeps getting paid? Or the organization would lose paying members if a claim against one of their members was sustained?

I am not in favor of any guilty person getting away with his/her crime. That goes for any organization which has a policy of suppressing adverse claims against itself.

But I am not in favor of poor Catholic parishioners in northweast Portland losing their church because one man victimized 2 others who wanted $155 million between them for "damages."

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the woman in this particular claim has a legitimate claim of abuse (please, I know, you don't believe she does, but just follow along with me for the sake of argument).

We know this from the complaint. The father she accused of sexually abusing her as a child was (1) involved in volunteering with the Boy Scouts of America in the troop in his local ward, and (2) a successful high-profile businessman (head of PBS Broadcasting at the time, living in Virginia). We also know that after the plaintiff told her uncle, and confronted her father, that her father went to two LDS Church apostles (Oaks and Ballard) for counseling to try to address the problem. Instead of any action being taken, she was called into Ballard's office and given a blessing.

Again, assume he is guilty of the charges.

How did he, or would he, or the LDS Church, profit if no action was taken, and charges were not pressed?

He certainly would not have become a Dean of a college at BYU, and later work for Bonneville International as president of KSL-TV. That amounts to significant revenues for both.

Should we assume he left his job at PBS because he feared prosecution, and the LDS Church gave him safe haven at BYU? Or that that was coincidental?

The amount of money this gentleman has made in the interim amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Revenues to the LDS Church from KSL are likewise significant. Both would have incurred losses.

So, if he was guilty (for the sake of argument), should he have continued in positions of prominence, earning significant money while trying to suppress her claims? Is it possible that leadership of the LDS Church had a vested financial interest in suppressing and discouraging her claims?

[_truth dancer]

I think the money is irrelevant in the question of guilt or innocence or reparations. Money can never make up those girls for what they suffered. I doubt that years of therapy can either. But if that would do any good, I'm all for that. If those girls are going to go on to have reasonably successful lives, it won't be because of any sum of money.

I would even think that the "I have this house or this car because of what I went through" would not be a good thing psychologically. Like somehow you earned it?

If there are money damages in order to punish the guilty, I think they ought to go to some kind of a fund which would prevent future problems. This is my philosophy about all tort cases, not just this particular one.

Charity... let us get you back on track.

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING MONETARY COMPENSATION makes up for the pain these girls suffered. No one. This is not even remotely the issue.

The issue is that in our society most people feel it is appropriate for monetary damages to be awarded to those who have suffered. Do you see how this is much different than what you are thinking (pretending) someone asserted?

As Asbestosman suggested, it does sound like you do not agree with this norm in society and even assert that it may be harmful.

I find your position extraordinary. My observation is that virtually everyone else in the country would suggest giving a monetary compensation is the very least that can be given to a survivor of such a horrendous crime. I would say there is virtually NO one else in the county who would suggest these girls are asking for money because of greed or revenge.

This board never runs out of surprises.

~dancer~

[_charity]

Just to turn this question upside down a bit, Charity, answer me this.

Do you think an individual or organization should profit financially from a claim of abuse being suppressed?

How would that happen? You mean the person would lose his job if the claim were sustained, but because it isn't he keeps his job and keeps getting paid? Or the organization would lose paying members if a claim against one of their members was sustained?

I am not in favor of any guilty person getting away with his/her crime. That goes for any organization which has a policy of suppressing adverse claims against itself.

But I am not in favor of poor Catholic parishioners in northweast Portland losing their church because one man victimized 2 others who wanted $155 million between them for "damages."

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the woman in this particular claim has a legitimate claim of abuse (please, I know, you don't believe she does, but just follow along with me for the sake of argument).

We know this from the complaint. The father she accused of sexually abusing her as a child was (1) involved in volunteering with the Boy Scouts of America in the troop in his local ward, and (2) a successful high-profile businessman (head of PBS Broadcasting at the time, living in Virginia). We also know that after the plaintiff told her uncle, and confronted her father, that her father went to two LDS Church apostles (Oaks and Ballard) for counseling to try to address the problem. Instead of any action being taken, she was called into Ballard's office and given a blessing.

Again, assume he is guilty of the charges.

How did he, or would he, or the LDS Church, profit if no action was taken, and charges were not pressed?

He certainly would not have become a Dean of a college at BYU, and later work for Bonneville International as president of KSL-TV. That amounts to significant revenues for both.

Should we assume he left his job at PBS because he feared prosecution, and the LDS Church gave him safe haven at BYU? Or that that was coincidental?

The amount of money this gentleman has made in the interim amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Revenues to the LDS Church from KSL are likewise significant. Both would have incurred losses.

So, if he was guilty (for the sake of argument), should he have continued in positions of prominence, earning significant money while trying to suppress her claims? Is it possible that leadership of the LDS Church had a vested financial interest in suppressing and discouraging her claims?

Okay. I will play the game, if you will too.

1. Suppose the girl had a legitimate claim, the father was guilty as h***, and he went to two leading authorities of the Church to get them to hide his crime. Guilty on all counts. God will punish them. No money damages, because it doesn't matter who makes what money, the claimant has to have some injury that money can fix. Money can't fix this. Except for counseling. And THE CHURCH is not guilty for the sinful actions of individuals. That would be the same as suing the Church because a member robbed a bank.

Now, to continue the game:

2. Suppose the girl had a legitimate claim, the father was guilty as h***, and he went to two leading authorities to get them to help him stop, repent, and make up for what he did to the extent he could. And they did. If there is nothing that the legal system can do, then on a Christian level, repentance takes care of the sin, and then it becomes the resopnsibliity of the sinned against to forgive. And in the scriptures we are told that if the person does not forgive, "in him remains the greater sin."

(D&C 64: 9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.)

3. Suppose the girl made this up because she is mad at her father, and she is mad at the Church for subsequent events and she thinks she can get back at both of them. One of the 10 commandments covers that one.

[_the road to hana]

2. Suppose the girl had a legitimate claim, the father was guilty as h***, and he went to two leading authorities to get them to help him stop, repent, and make up for what he did to the extent he could. And they did. If there is nothing that the legal system can do, then on a Christian level, repentance takes care of the sin, and then it becomes the resopnsibliity of the sinned against to forgive. And in the scriptures we are told that if the person does not forgive, "in him remains the greater sin."

You're not addressing the fact that he was given positions of leadership and authority within the same church, by said authorities, all of whom profited as a result.

That was the crux of my question.

3. Suppose the girl made this up because she is mad at her father, and she is mad at the Church for subsequent events and she thinks she can get back at both of them. One of the 10 commandments covers that one.

I don't think it can be both ways. I don't think she can have reported this to an uncle all those many years ago, and confronted her father, and LDS General Authorities were involved--AND that she can have just recently concocted this because she resents subsequent events.

But let's again say for the sake of argument that she fabricated a claim of abuse against her father. It appears to me that she had much more to lose than to gain in going to her uncle and/or confronting her father in that situation. She willingly went to visit with Apostle Ballard. It doesn't seem to me that there were difficulties here until she went through a divorce later, and then all that she had discussed in confidence with various of these individuals was used against her during those proceedings.

Let's say for the sake of argument she's just fabricated all this recently, and never confronted her father, or spoke to Elder Ballard. I find that unlikely. All your "after the fact" arguments don't make sense.

Certainly if she has fabricated a claim of abuse against any individual, including her father, and that person is innocent, she is guilty of having unjustly accused them. Again, I'd ask you, to what purpose?

I think there are people in this world who are insulated and protected by others. And our world doesn't always make it easy for victims of abuse to come forward, obviously. Because if she is correct in claiming that her father abused her, look at the results. He has gone on to be a leader in his profession and in the community, profited financially, and she has suffered not only physically, but emotionally and spiritually, and likely also financially, as a result.

[_charity]

The issue is that in our society most people feel it is appropriate for monetary damages to be awarded to those who have suffered. Do you see how this is much different than what you are thinking (pretending) someone asserted?

As Asbestosman suggested, it does sound like you do not agree with this norm in society and even assert that it may be harmful.

He didn't suggest it, I said it. I don't think I am alone. I am one of a growing crowd who realizes that the "norm" of demanding monetary damages from everything from hot coffee to late mail delivery is a crazy aberration. It encourages an "entitlement" mentality and a victim mentality.

End of rant.

I find your position extraordinary. My observation is that virtually everyone else in the country would suggest giving a monetary compensation is the very least that can be given to a survivor of such a horrendous crime. I would say there is virtually NO one else in the county who would suggest these girls are asking for money because of greed or revenge.

This board never runs out of surprises.

~dancer~

And why would these girls want money? Not because it could undo what happened to them. And I would hope you would agree that it wouldn't make the ordeal seem "better" in retrospect! So what could it be?

[_the road to hana]

The issue is that in our society most people feel it is appropriate for monetary damages to be awarded to those who have suffered. Do you see how this is much different than what you are thinking (pretending) someone asserted?

As Asbestosman suggested, it does sound like you do not agree with this norm in society and even assert that it may be harmful.

He didn't suggest it, I said it. I don't think I am alone. I am one of a growing crowd who realizes that the "norm" of demanding monetary damages from everything from hot coffee to late mail delivery is a crazy aberration. It encourages an "entitlement" mentality and a victim mentality.

End of rant.

I find your position extraordinary. My observation is that virtually everyone else in the country would suggest giving a monetary compensation is the very least that can be given to a survivor of such a horrendous crime. I would say there is virtually NO one else in the county who would suggest these girls are asking for money because of greed or revenge.

This board never runs out of surprises.

~dancer~

And why would these girls want money? Not because it could undo what happened to them. And I would hope you would agree that it wouldn't make the ordeal seem "better" in retrospect! So what could it be?

I think skippy addressed the concept of punitive damages and the reasoning behind them pretty well above.

Most of us here would likely agree that there is a need for tort reform in this country, and that awards have gotten seriously out of hand. That doesn't mean that punitive damages don't have their place.

[_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.

Ach, I can be so dumb sometimes. Of course this isn't MADB. I'm T&B on MADB. I am having a bad day. :P