Church settles sex-abuse lawsuit

[_GoodK]

It's got nothing on your SCV fortress - paid for, in part, by tithing money - but I like it.

What basis do you have for claiming that my house is paid for with tithing money?

Umm... who pays you when you represent the church in court?

OK, now we get down to it. You want us all the infer from your little news blurb that the Church settled because it was responsible for the abuse.

Not just from the AP blurb, but the fact that the church has "settled" other sex abuse cases, has been ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages, and has been forced to disclose their financial records in other sex abuse cases.

[_rcrocket]

Umm... who pays you when you represent the church in court?

Other than identifying your father as somebody to whom I have given advice, I have never identified a single client of mine on these boards. (Not that I could really admit or deny the identity of any client unless it makes the papers or reported decisions.) What makes you think I represent the Church? And, is the Church not entitled to representation?

[_GoodK]

Other than identifying your father as somebody to whom I have given advice, I have never identified a single client of mine on these boards. (Not that I could really admit or deny the identity of any client unless it makes the papers or reported decisions.) What makes you think I represent the Church? And, is the Church not entitled to representation?

Spoken like a true attorney.


Answer the question.

Who pays you when you represent the church in court?

Would that be tithing money?

**crickets**

[_rcrocket]

Other than identifying your father as somebody to whom I have given advice, I have never identified a single client of mine on these boards. (Not that I could really admit or deny the identity of any client unless it makes the papers or reported decisions.) What makes you think I represent the Church? And, is the Church not entitled to representation?

Spoken like a true attorney.


Answer the question.

Who pays you when you represent the church in court?

Would that be tithing money?

**crickets**

Umm, I cannot admit or deny that I have a client without my client's consent. Sorry; thems the rules I follow.

[_Hally McIlrath]

How about have them report it within a reasonable amount of time.

I didn't report mine. Ever. And I'll tell you why.

I was a little girl. I was raised in the church, by parents who were too squeamish to ever mention sex. I mean, ever. When it was over he got down on his knees and looked right into my eyes. He had his hands on my shoulders, and he shook me a little. Not hard, just enough so that my head rocked back and forth. He said, "Don't you ever tell." and then he said, "No one will believe you if you tell."

And I didn't tell. I didn't tell, because I believed him, that no one would believe me, but even more, I didn't know how to tell. I didn't have the words. I didn't have the vocabulary to even explain what had happened. Can you understand that? I didn't even know how to tell.

Not everything is black and white, "asbestosman." Not everything can be neatly tied up in bright packages marked with labels that make sense. Not everyone can report something within "a reasonable amount of time."

How can a person report a horrific and shaming crime? How can they report it, when they can't even explain what it is?

[_Sethbag]

How about have them report it within a reasonable amount of time.

I know you aren't trying to be offensive, but wow. What if a child is not emotionally prepared to re-live his abuse? What if he mentally blocks it out, like most do? Why would you expect a child - who has just had his mind scrambled - to behave reasonably?

We as a society have no foolproof method to ensure that each and every criminal is caught and punished, and each and every victim is recompensed in some way. It's entirely possible that a non-trivial number of victims of such abuse will not be able to get their justice. That sucks royally, but if that's the price we pay for not falsely convicting the innocent, then it's the price we pay. As a society we've decided that it's more acceptable for the guilty to go free, than it is for the innocent to be falsely punished. I agree with that decision.

There are situations where I would agree that evidence might exist that would demonstrate culpability, or at least liability. Take the Boston Archdiocese, for instance, where there were records showing that the Archdiocesan hierarchy had credible complaints against certain priests for sexual abuse, and rather than remove the priests from their jobs or subject them to the punishment of the law, they were simply transferred to other parishes, in the hope, apparently, that the problem would just go away. In a case like that I'd agree that the Archdiocese has a case to answer.

But in purely he said/she said cases where someone alleges misconduct with no evidence whatsoever except their claim, I think that's a very tough case to buy into. Without actual evidence of guilt I think the presumption of innocence is just too strong to ignore.

What if your child told you he was molested? Would you demand proof from him? Would you go look at your Franklin Covey and see what the time frame was for his report, and deem it reasonable or not?

I would report that claim to the authorities, and let it play out from there. There might be other kids who claimed similar treatment from the same individual, which would tend to confirm the claim, etc.

[_Sethbag]

How can a person report a horrific and shaming crime? How can they report it, when they can't even explain what it is?

Your story is heartwrenching, but it does beg the followup question: how do you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court? Or if you're suing for cash, how do you prove it to whatever standard of proof is required in such a civil suit? This is the problem we're discussing here. It really, and royally sucks that so often in abuse cases there's really no way to prove it happened. While it sucks for abuse victims if they can't get justice from the courts because of this, it's a double-edged sword, because defendants, even the innocent ones, face the same problem, really - how do they defend against the charge? By saying "no, I didn't"?

Again, I'm very sorry to hear about your abuse, and how it affected you. It does bother me that you've never gotten justice done for what happened to you. At the same time, I really can't support the notion that someone filing a claim in court 40 years later alleging sexual abuse, with no more evidence than their say-so, really has a case that someone should have to answer in court.

It's not fair either way. Life's not always fair. It sucks, but there it is.

[_GoodK]

Umm, I cannot admit or deny that I have a client without my client's consent. Sorry; thems the rules I follow.

Fair enough. Quick recap:

I know that Crockett has represented the Church in CA court. Big deal. I also know that Crockett is wealthy. Again, big deal.

Presumably, a portion of his wealth has come from tithing money. Once again, big deal.

Then Crockett, trying to be funny/a jerk, makes a jab at me and my apartment (?). I comment on the fact that his SCV fortress has been paid for - at least in part - by tithing money.

He says how do you know, and doesn't the Church deserve representation?


He already knows how I know, and I never said the Church didn't deserve representation.

Then he says I am not allowed to mention who I represent - even though he has bragged about representing my step-dad multiple times here.

And so the saga continues...

[_Hally McIlrath]

how do you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court? Or if you're suing for cash, how do you prove it to whatever standard of proof is required in such a civil suit?

Answer: most likely, you can't.

It's one person's word against another.

While it sucks for abuse victims if they can't get justice from the courts because of this, it's a double-edged sword, because defendants, even the innocent ones, face the same problem, really - how do they defend against the charge? By saying "no, I didn't"?

I think only physical evidence can put you on sure ground. Other than that...again, it's one person's word.

At the same time, I really can't support the notion that someone filing a claim in court 40 years later alleging sexual abuse, with no more evidence than their say-so, really has a case that someone should have to answer in court.

It's not fair either way. Life's not always fair. It sucks, but there it is.

Yeah.

There are valid reasons for a person not telling at first, though. That was my point... The enormity of it is so overwhelming -- you don't know if anyone will believe you, you don't know if they will be angry with you, maybe you don't even have the words to explain what it is you have to tell. Many years later, perhaps, you have battled those fears that seemed impossible, and finally you can speak, except that it is now too late.

[_harmony]

Not just from the AP blurb, but the fact that the church has "settled" other sex abuse cases, has been ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages, and has been forced to disclose their financial records in other sex abuse cases.

I thought the church often settled these types of lawsuits because they didn't want a judge to have his/her fingers in church financial records. What financial records are you saying the church has been forced to disclose? And where is that information?