Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip era)

[Guest guest]

This is intended as a general discussion of the principles involved,

not legal advice. I am only licensed in California and the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of California. Consult a lawyer licensed to

practice in your area.

Yeah, what he said, except I am licensed only in Michigan, New York, and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. I am discussing this topic for reasons of interest, and nothing I post constitutes, or is intended to constitute, legal advice on matters pertaining to anyone, including but not limited to persons living within the states encompassed by the 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals.

See a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction, and pay him or her a large amount of filthy lucre in order to secure actual legal advice on any matter, including the matter leading to this academic discussion.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> Could you tell me how you came to know that the 9th Cir ruled that AA is

NOT

> religious. I just ran a search at findlaw.com, and found no 9th Cir

> authority on the question; but that database only goes back to 1995 or

so.

> ly, I doubt that this is quite true, i.e., that the 9th Cir would

simply

> blanketly hold that AA is not religious, but I'd like to know the name of

the

> case you have in mind.

I ran a Lexis search ( " alcoholics anonymous " AND " first amendment " )

and came up with 22 hits in federal courts, only one in the ninth. It was

mentioned only in a citation which allowed AA meetings while banning a

prisoners' union; the case is not citable, anyway.

I did find two interesting *very* recent cases:

DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., (2nd Cir., April 20, 2001) 247

F.3d 397: Overturned summary judgment against taxpayer in suit against AA

based treatment center as violative of the establishment clause.

Rauser v. Horn (3d Cir. Pa., February 26, 2001) 241 F.3d 330: Overturned

summary judgment against prisoner who said corrections department retaliated

against him for refusing to participate in AA meetings on first amendment

grounds.

There do *not* appear to be any California cases dealing with

compelled AA attendance as a first amendment violation.

> The situation your husband is in is so manifestly wrong, it simply cannot

be

> constitutional. He **cannot** be penalized for refusing to do the fucking

> steps, which ARE inherently religious, and I just cannot imagine the 9th

Cir.

> having reached any holding that would be contra. How any person having a

> passing familiarity with the First Amendment's religion clauses could see

it

> otherwise -- much less federal appellate court judges, who are generally

> pretty bright -- is simply mind-boggling.

>

> Bob Marshall? Say it ain't so, Bob!

One drug court judge in my area regularly orders defendants to get a

sponsor, work certain steps, etc.

I am willing to take this on if one of my clients objects to 12 step

involvement, but am very careful not to let my personal feelings on the

subject get in the way of a client's interests in avoiding " jails and

institutions " -- places they may, ironically, actually end up if they don't

attend meetings!

I have found the mandatory 52 week domestic violence programs to be

even more onerous. Clients are regularly violated on the subjective

impressions of the program counselors and supervisors.

This is intended as a general discussion of the principles involved,

not legal advice. I am only licensed in California and the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of California. Consult a lawyer licensed to

practice in your area.

-- Bob Marshall

[Guest guest]

Would Lexis allow you to copy those cases you cite and post them here?

(They are, after all, in the public domain.)

Also, several people have cited cases in which the CYA was not allowed

to send young people to AA. Was there a different basis for these

cases?

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <MonaHolland@a...>

> >

> > Could you tell me how you came to know that the 9th Cir ruled that

AA is

> NOT

> > religious. I just ran a search at findlaw.com, and found no 9th

Cir

> > authority on the question; but that database only goes back to

1995 or

> so.

> > ly, I doubt that this is quite true, i.e., that the 9th Cir

would

> simply

> > blanketly hold that AA is not religious, but I'd like to know the

name of

> the

> > case you have in mind.

>

> I ran a Lexis search ( " alcoholics anonymous " AND " first

amendment " )

> and came up with 22 hits in federal courts, only one in the ninth.

It was

> mentioned only in a citation which allowed AA meetings while banning

a

> prisoners' union; the case is not citable, anyway.

> I did find two interesting *very* recent cases:

>

> DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., (2nd Cir., April 20, 2001)

247

> F.3d 397: Overturned summary judgment against taxpayer in suit

against AA

> based treatment center as violative of the establishment clause.

>

> Rauser v. Horn (3d Cir. Pa., February 26, 2001) 241 F.3d 330:

Overturned

> summary judgment against prisoner who said corrections department

retaliated

> against him for refusing to participate in AA meetings on first

amendment

> grounds.

>

> There do *not* appear to be any California cases dealing

with

> compelled AA attendance as a first amendment violation.

>

> > The situation your husband is in is so manifestly wrong, it simply

cannot

> be

> > constitutional. He **cannot** be penalized for refusing to do the

fucking

> > steps, which ARE inherently religious, and I just cannot imagine

the 9th

> Cir.

> > having reached any holding that would be contra. How any person

having a

> > passing familiarity with the First Amendment's religion clauses

could see

> it

> > otherwise -- much less federal appellate court judges, who are

generally

> > pretty bright -- is simply mind-boggling.

> >

> > Bob Marshall? Say it ain't so, Bob!

>

> One drug court judge in my area regularly orders defendants

to get a

> sponsor, work certain steps, etc.

> I am willing to take this on if one of my clients objects to

12 step

> involvement, but am very careful not to let my personal feelings on

the

> subject get in the way of a client's interests in avoiding " jails

and

> institutions " -- places they may, ironically, actually end up if

they don't

> attend meetings!

> I have found the mandatory 52 week domestic violence

programs to be

> even more onerous. Clients are regularly violated on the subjective

> impressions of the program counselors and supervisors.

> This is intended as a general discussion of the principles

involved,

> not legal advice. I am only licensed in California and the U.S.

District

> Court for the Eastern District of California. Consult a lawyer

licensed to

> practice in your area.

>

> -- Bob Marshall

[Guest guest]

Good going Bob,

Here's the links.

DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc

http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/April01/99-9146.html

Rauser v. Horn

http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/994013.txt

Maybe we ought to start folders in the file section of this group to organize these cases. I'm not sure how to do it though.

Also, I think we're limited to storage space in the file section. I don't know how many cases we could put in there.

DT

Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip era)

----- Original Message ----->> Could you tell me how you came to know that the 9th Cir ruled that AA isNOT> religious. I just ran a search at findlaw.com, and found no 9th Cir> authority on the question; but that database only goes back to 1995 orso.> ly, I doubt that this is quite true, i.e., that the 9th Cir wouldsimply> blanketly hold that AA is not religious, but I'd like to know the name ofthe> case you have in mind. I ran a Lexis search ("alcoholics anonymous" AND "first amendment")and came up with 22 hits in federal courts, only one in the ninth. It wasmentioned only in a citation which allowed AA meetings while banning aprisoners' union; the case is not citable, anyway. I did find two interesting *very* recent cases:DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., (2nd Cir., April 20, 2001) 247F.3d 397: Overturned summary judgment against taxpayer in suit against AAbased treatment center as violative of the establishment clause.Rauser v. Horn (3d Cir. Pa., February 26, 2001) 241 F.3d 330: Overturnedsummary judgment against prisoner who said corrections department retaliatedagainst him for refusing to participate in AA meetings on first amendmentgrounds. There do *not* appear to be any California cases dealing withcompelled AA attendance as a first amendment violation.> The situation your husband is in is so manifestly wrong, it simply cannotbe> constitutional. He **cannot** be penalized for refusing to do the fucking> steps, which ARE inherently religious, and I just cannot imagine the 9thCir.> having reached any holding that would be contra. How any person having a> passing familiarity with the First Amendment's religion clauses could seeit> otherwise -- much less federal appellate court judges, who are generally> pretty bright -- is simply mind-boggling.>> Bob Marshall? Say it ain't so, Bob! One drug court judge in my area regularly orders defendants to get asponsor, work certain steps, etc. I am willing to take this on if one of my clients objects to 12 stepinvolvement, but am very careful not to let my personal feelings on thesubject get in the way of a client's interests in avoiding "jails andinstitutions" -- places they may, ironically, actually end up if they don'tattend meetings! I have found the mandatory 52 week domestic violence programs to beeven more onerous. Clients are regularly violated on the subjectiveimpressions of the program counselors and supervisors. This is intended as a general discussion of the principles involved,not legal advice. I am only licensed in California and the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of California. Consult a lawyer licensed topractice in your area.-- Bob Marshall

[Guest guest]

We need a Washington State lawyer. Here in the evergreen state, it's 12

step all they way and don't forget to pay. State licenses and certification

come only if 12 step is the core of the program of the treatment center (at

least I've had one hell of a time finding out if it's otherwise).

If I lived anywhere near you I'd seriously consider taking it on, because lawyers can usually get admitted in foreign jurisdictions for one case without being a member of that state's bar. Expenses would satisfy me, as it would be a labor of love. But Indiana is simply too far from you.

Have you contacted the Washington Civil Liberties Union? Historically the ACLU has shrunk in terror from taking on AA, but perhaps with the rulings in the 2nd and 7th Cirs that might prompt them to reconsider. And they, of course, are free.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Trippel wrote:

> Good going Bob, Here's the links. DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group,

> Inchttp://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/April01/99-9146.html Rauser v.

> Hornhttp://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/994013.txt Maybe we

> ought to start folders in the file section of this group to organize

> these cases. I'm not sure how to do it though. Also, I think we're

> limited to storage space in the file section. I don't know how many

> cases we could put in there. DT

,

I can put them in a directory at aakills.com if you'd like.

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken,

Yes, I like. That's a great idea. Never can tell how long these egroups are going to be around in the same format anyway. I don't know whose site has the best folder of cases striking down AA coercion.

DT

PS. Looks like 12-step-free's about to graduate to page one of Yahoo Groups Addiction & Recovery on the next shuffle. Congrats. http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Health___Wellness/Support/Addiction_and_Recovery?st=0

Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip era)

Trippel wrote:> Good going Bob, Here's the links. DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group,> Inchttp://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/April01/99-9146.html Rauser v.> Hornhttp://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/994013.txt Maybe we> ought to start folders in the file section of this group to organize> these cases. I'm not sure how to do it though. Also, I think we're> limited to storage space in the file section. I don't know how many> cases we could put in there. DT,I can put them in a directory at aakills.com if you'd like.Ken

[Guest guest]

Wellll, the constitutional lawyer did mention that it was a lower court

within the 9th cqt district. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I missed that

important point. The lawyer stated that an appeal would surely be forced to

rise up the judicial ladder and that if for some reason the 9th upheld the

lower court, we'd have us quite an interesting split. 2nd and 7th say it is

religious, 9th says no. THAT would more than likely catch the attention of

the US Supreme Court, as it does not rest well when it's cqts are not in

harmony.

Mona, I think, said something about lots o' dough to a lawyer to help us go

along our way, and boy that's the truth. Can't understand why it should cost

so much to uphold our rights. Even if 1983 comes into play, we would be

compensated later, and who has all that money up front to pay a lawyer along

the way? Hell, we've already spent 16K in failed treatment and lawyers to

date. ly, the money issue pisses me the HELL off. Of course, if we

were destitute and admitted that my husband was powerless over his " disease "

and he called himself an alcoholic, we could take the public money route.

SICK SICK SICK. It's all so disgusting.

We need a Washington State lawyer. Here in the evergreen state, it's 12

step all they way and don't forget to pay. State licenses and certification

come only if 12 step is the core of the program of the treatment center (at

least I've had one hell of a time finding out if it's otherwise).

I'm aware of all the cases you've cited, (and more). My husband wants to

take this all the way. I was all for it until I started doing my research

and realized we are but one little itty bitty case, and the odds of us

making a major difference are slim. I know, I know, every vote counts.

And yes, if we have to re-mortgage the damn house to move this higher, we

will. We also have the anti-def league ready to back us as well since my

husband is jewish. But I'm not so sure I'm ready to invite burning crosses

onto my lawn. Personal security is already at risk since now I've been

reading about all these AA-loons killing and/or threatening to do so.

Plus, it's just not our thing to shove the Jewish thing into people's faces,

as that's NOT our point at all, and a wussy way to go about it really. AA

is objectionable. PERIOD. Forced treatment is bullshit. End of story.

Not to mention my husband has not been allowed to visit his son in prison

for two years now because his PO says my husband didn't work the steps hard

enough. (sounds like a case to me). The son in prison thing is tragic

story unto itself. But not allowing a man to visit his son (who just turned

20 in prison) because he isn't working steps is a pile of garbage.

Okay, well, at this moment I'm helping my husband pen a letter to his PO

which states that my husband is going to request alternative treatment.

It's so hard not to just go ON and ON about what a bunch of crap all the AA

stuff is when we are writing this letter!!!!!!!!!!!. But we need to keep it

short and to the point. Wish us luck if you are so inclined.

thanks for responding by the way.

Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip

era)

> ----- Original Message -----

>

> >

> > Could you tell me how you came to know that the 9th Cir ruled that AA is

> NOT

> > religious. I just ran a search at findlaw.com, and found no 9th Cir

> > authority on the question; but that database only goes back to 1995 or

> so.

> > ly, I doubt that this is quite true, i.e., that the 9th Cir would

> simply

> > blanketly hold that AA is not religious, but I'd like to know the name

of

> the

> > case you have in mind.

>

> I ran a Lexis search ( " alcoholics anonymous " AND " first

amendment " )

> and came up with 22 hits in federal courts, only one in the ninth. It was

> mentioned only in a citation which allowed AA meetings while banning a

> prisoners' union; the case is not citable, anyway.

> I did find two interesting *very* recent cases:

>

> DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., (2nd Cir., April 20, 2001) 247

> F.3d 397: Overturned summary judgment against taxpayer in suit against AA

> based treatment center as violative of the establishment clause.

>

> Rauser v. Horn (3d Cir. Pa., February 26, 2001) 241 F.3d 330: Overturned

> summary judgment against prisoner who said corrections department

retaliated

> against him for refusing to participate in AA meetings on first amendment

> grounds.

>

> There do *not* appear to be any California cases dealing with

> compelled AA attendance as a first amendment violation.

>

> > The situation your husband is in is so manifestly wrong, it simply

cannot

> be

> > constitutional. He **cannot** be penalized for refusing to do the

fucking

> > steps, which ARE inherently religious, and I just cannot imagine the 9th

> Cir.

> > having reached any holding that would be contra. How any person having

a

> > passing familiarity with the First Amendment's religion clauses could

see

> it

> > otherwise -- much less federal appellate court judges, who are generally

> > pretty bright -- is simply mind-boggling.

> >

> > Bob Marshall? Say it ain't so, Bob!

>

> One drug court judge in my area regularly orders defendants to get

a

> sponsor, work certain steps, etc.

> I am willing to take this on if one of my clients objects to 12

step

> involvement, but am very careful not to let my personal feelings on the

> subject get in the way of a client's interests in avoiding " jails and

> institutions " -- places they may, ironically, actually end up if they

don't

> attend meetings!

> I have found the mandatory 52 week domestic violence programs to

be

> even more onerous. Clients are regularly violated on the subjective

> impressions of the program counselors and supervisors.

> This is intended as a general discussion of the principles

involved,

> not legal advice. I am only licensed in California and the U.S. District

> Court for the Eastern District of California. Consult a lawyer licensed to

> practice in your area.

>

> -- Bob Marshall

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Trippel wrote:

Ken,

Yes, I like. That's a great idea. Never can tell how long these

egroups are going to be

around in the same format anyway. I don't know whose site has the best

folder of

cases striking down AA coercion.

DT

PS. Looks like 12-step-free's about to graduate to page one of Yahoo

Groups

Addiction & Recovery on the next shuffle. Congrats.

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Health___Wellness/Support/Addiction_and_Recovery

Dave,

The two cases are posted, although they probably need some introduction.

Ken

[Guest guest]

>

> Mona, I think, said something about lots o' dough to a lawyer to help us go

> along our way, and boy that's the truth. Can't understand why it should cost

> so much to uphold our rights. Even if 1983 comes into play, we would be

> compensated later, and who has all that money up front to pay a lawyer along

> the way? Hell, we've already spent 16K in failed treatment and lawyers to

> date. ly, the money issue pisses me the HELL off. ...

> And yes, if we have to re-mortgage the damn house to move this higher, we

> will.

---------------

Hi --

It is not correct to assume that 100% of all attorneys require you to pay

up front in a suit of this nature. My attorney took the case on contingency --

I paid ZIP up front. I was suspended from work without pay at the time I sued

my company -- no chance I could have paid an attorney in advance.

Call your local county bar association, or possibly call RR headquarters in

CA to ask if they know of a lawyer in WA who will do anti-12-step-coercion

cases. Lois Trimpey actually referred me to the attorney I used. And I'm

nowhere near California. I think RR keeps a list of all attorneys who have done

or are willing to do this kind of case.

>We also have the anti-def league ready to back us as well since my

> husband is jewish. But I'm not so sure I'm ready to invite burning crosses

> onto my lawn. Personal security is already at risk since now I've been

> reading about all these AA-loons killing and/or threatening to do so.

> Plus, it's just not our thing to shove the Jewish thing into people's faces,

> as that's NOT our point at all, and a wussy way to go about it really. AA

> is objectionable. PERIOD. Forced treatment is bullshit. End of story.

>

-------------

No, not really. Judaism has the mandate of " Tikkun Olam " -- repair of the

world, pursuing justice etc. -- and not surprisingly, Jews have been very active

in a lot of civil liberties issues. The issue is not merely that AA is

objectionable to you and your husband -- the issue is that AA is religious, and

your husband is being threatened with punishment for pursuing non-religious

sobriety. Freedom of religion -- for EVERYONE -- is an issue of special concern

to Jews. It is not necessary for your husband to mention his Jewishness nor to

" prove " that 12-step ideology is contrary to his religious beliefs in order to

argue the case as an Establishment Clause violation. The American Jewish

Congress has filed Amicus Curiae briefs in several of the well-known forced-AA

cases -- in none of them was the plaintiff Jewish. It's not " shoving Judaism in

people's faces " at all. Please do contact the AJC. They might even be able to

steer you to an attorney in your area.

I do wish you the best of luck, and look forward to more of your posts.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

I have not contacted the ACLU here per se. Didn't know I could just call them up. (I'm still learning... trial by fire) I

Now, sometimes that can be true. Letters or calls from lawyers may get more attention. This may be something your Texas atty would be willing to do (and yes, pro hac vice is the name of the application for him to practice in Washington -- any lawyer not licensed there would have to go that route to help here).

I'm giving some thought to getting in touch with Jack and establishing a formal clearing house of XA litigators. I have the time and the passion, and if the job prospect I'm currently pursuing works out, I'd be ideally situated for it. I could even maintain a constant national database, stay in touch with one and all who have or are litigating these cases, and even keep up a how-to treatise of the sort lawyers refer to for more conventional matters where such are widely available.

It is really important work, and I think I could sink my teeth into it.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

The constitutional lawyer is from texas and needs a pro hac vice lawyer (did I get that right?) here in WA to get him entered as our lawyer. The Texas lawyer is doing it for travel costs, which is gonna be hard as it is. (I jokingly told him we have an extra bedroom and my husband is a great cook!... but he didn't take the bait!) We do have a local lawyer who said he'd do it, but I don't like him too much, and he totally does not get the AA thing, or really care. I want a local lawyer with PASSION! Then the cost seems irrelevent, ya know? I have not contacted the ACLU here per se. Didn't know I could just call them up. (I'm still learning... trial by fire) I did look up civil rights lawyers here and found 2 in Seattle. Not many of them really. One didn't want to touch our case told us we were NEVER going to get away with it.... blah blah. I gave up after that... the other lawyer was so busy it took me a week to get 30 min's on the phone w/ her and it was going to cost me 30 bucks just to find out if she'd take it. I hate that...

We are taking it slow and easy. Gonna give the alternative treatment plan and the PO/Judge a fair chance. Don't need to shove a constitutional lawyer in their face on the first day. Who knows, we might actually get approval of the plan. Then all this heat and excitement is wasted... at least for my husband's case.

Thanks for the encouragement though. I needed the bolster.

lisak

Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip era)

We need a Washington State lawyer. Here in the evergreen state, it's 12 step all they way and don't forget to pay. State licenses and certification come only if 12 step is the core of the program of the treatment center (at least I've had one hell of a time finding out if it's otherwise).If I lived anywhere near you I'd seriously consider taking it on, because lawyers can usually get admitted in foreign jurisdictions for one case without being a member of that state's bar. Expenses would satisfy me, as it would be a labor of love. But Indiana is simply too far from you. Have you contacted the Washington Civil Liberties Union? Historically the ACLU has shrunk in terror from taking on AA, but perhaps with the rulings in the 2nd and 7th Cirs that might prompt them to reconsider. And they, of course, are free. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

THIS has been THE most enlightening readings I have had since March... I was

wasting my time everywhere else. You and Mona have have given me some very

viable and encouraging places to go for help. Thank you. Really. I'm

heaving a sigh of relief here.

I think the " shoving Judaism in peoples faces " thing came more from my

father in law who flipped out when I told him I spoke with the anti def

league. He was more concerned about *appearing* to be shoving it in peoples

faces... people who hate Jews just love to point this stuff out ya know? I

was really backing off the anti def league to ease his worry's. As I

stated, it isn't about my husband being Jewish. He's proud of it. And we

know we have the EC of the 1st Amend. on our side regardless of faith. I

will contact the ACLU (per Mona) and the AJC.

I'll keep you all posted. On the one hand I hope it gets juicy. On the

other, I hope it doesn't. Can't wait to see how the PO responds to my

husband telling him where to stuff AA. This oughtta be good! I can't wait,

cuz I think the guy is a loon anyways. he's very high horse and all that.

BTW, Jack Trimpey got me in touch with the Texas lawyer. The lawyer is

great! Knocked my socks off both times we spoke on the phone. My husband

wanted to talk to him to " check his credentials and references " ... He didn't

need to worry, my husband got off the phone and just said " WOW! We are

gonna TAKE this all the way baby! " . LOL.

lisak

Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip

era)

>

> >

> > Mona, I think, said something about lots o' dough to a lawyer to help us

go

> > along our way, and boy that's the truth. Can't understand why it should

cost

> > so much to uphold our rights. Even if 1983 comes into play, we would be

> > compensated later, and who has all that money up front to pay a lawyer

along

> > the way? Hell, we've already spent 16K in failed treatment and lawyers

to

> > date. ly, the money issue pisses me the HELL off. ...

> > And yes, if we have to re-mortgage the damn house to move this higher,

we

> > will.

>

> ---------------

>

> Hi --

>

> It is not correct to assume that 100% of all attorneys require you to

pay up front in a suit of this nature. My attorney took the case on

contingency -- I paid ZIP up front. I was suspended from work without pay

at the time I sued my company -- no chance I could have paid an attorney in

advance.

>

> Call your local county bar association, or possibly call RR

headquarters in CA to ask if they know of a lawyer in WA who will do

anti-12-step-coercion cases. Lois Trimpey actually referred me to the

attorney I used. And I'm nowhere near California. I think RR keeps a list

of all attorneys who have done or are willing to do this kind of case.

>

> >We also have the anti-def league ready to back us as well since my

> > husband is jewish. But I'm not so sure I'm ready to invite burning

crosses

> > onto my lawn. Personal security is already at risk since now I've been

> > reading about all these AA-loons killing and/or threatening to do so.

> > Plus, it's just not our thing to shove the Jewish thing into people's

faces,

> > as that's NOT our point at all, and a wussy way to go about it really.

AA

> > is objectionable. PERIOD. Forced treatment is bullshit. End of story.

> >

> -------------

>

> No, not really. Judaism has the mandate of " Tikkun Olam " -- repair

of the world, pursuing justice etc. -- and not surprisingly, Jews have been

very active in a lot of civil liberties issues. The issue is not merely

that AA is objectionable to you and your husband -- the issue is that AA is

religious, and your husband is being threatened with punishment for pursuing

non-religious sobriety. Freedom of religion -- for EVERYONE -- is an issue

of special concern to Jews. It is not necessary for your husband to mention

his Jewishness nor to " prove " that 12-step ideology is contrary to his

religious beliefs in order to argue the case as an Establishment Clause

violation. The American Jewish Congress has filed Amicus Curiae briefs in

several of the well-known forced-AA cases -- in none of them was the

plaintiff Jewish. It's not " shoving Judaism in people's faces " at all.

Please do contact the AJC. They might even be able to steer you to an

attorney in your area.

>

> I do wish you the best of luck, and look forward to more of your

posts.

>

> ~Rita

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Go girl go! (and boy).

The lawyer

is

> great! Knocked my socks off both times we spoke on the phone. My

husband

> wanted to talk to him to " check his credentials and references " ...

He didn't

> need to worry, my husband got off the phone and just said " WOW! We

are

> gonna TAKE this all the way baby! " . LOL.

[Guest guest]

Mona, I might be willing to join you in doing that.

It seems like an idea whose time has come. Let me have a week or two to get some life business settled, and I will do a mailing to a number of lawyers to see what kind of interest there may be.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> There do *not* appear to be any California cases dealing

with

> compelled AA attendance as a first amendment violation.

Hi Folks,

I haven't been able to keep up with all the messages but I went

through this thread and I don't know of any ruling in the 9th, but

there has been a case in CA. I assume it was not appealed. This is

pasted from another site. Trimpey is familiar with this ruling.

" Earlier in 1994, in federal court (O'Connor vs. Orange County and the

State of California), AA was found to be

" religious, " and the State of California must offer alternatives

to 12-step programs in any state-funded or mandated

program, such as Rational Recovery, but the State has ignored the

ruling by failing to inform citizens of their right to

refuse 12-step participation. "

[Guest guest]

Mona, I might be willing to join you in doing that. I don't know how

helpful Trimpey might be, however. I wrote him recently telling him

that I wanted to file a lawsuit here, and how was his going? He said

he hadn't gotten it off the ground, but would be willing to supply me

with potential plaintiffs' names and to be an expert witness. I wrote

him back to ask him for names of Ohio plaintiffs, and he just plain

didn't reply. Even if there aren't any, I think I deserved an answer.

> In a message dated 6/26/01 5:59:17 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> kasperkarma@h... writes:

>

>

> > I have not contacted the ACLU here per se. Didn't know I could

just call

> > them up.

>

> Now, sometimes that can be true. Letters or calls from lawyers may

get more

> attention. This may be something your Texas atty would be willing

to do (and

> yes, pro hac vice is the name of the application for him to practice

in

> Washington -- any lawyer not licensed there would have to go that

route to

> help here).

>

> I'm giving some thought to getting in touch with Jack and

establishing a

> formal clearing house of XA litigators. I have the time and the

passion, and

> if the job prospect I'm currently pursuing works out, I'd be ideally

situated

> for it. I could even maintain a constant national database, stay in

touch

> with one and all who have or are litigating these cases, and even

keep up a

> how-to treatise of the sort lawyers refer to for more conventional

matters

> where such are widely available.

>

> It is really important work, and I think I could sink my teeth into

it.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

How about soliciting such attorneys through a request or classified ad in some popular legal webzine?

That is certainly something to do down the road. I haven't given this a lot of thought yet, but it seems to me the first thing to do is contact the counsel for all the coerced XA cases in the last decade or so, and see who will share what by way of discovery and trial strategies, briefs and such.

You know those "How to Defend a DUI Case" practitioners binders and such, it would be helpful to do the same with "How to Defeat Coerced XA Participation."

If that roadmap were available, a lot more regular attys might be willing to give it a shot. Certainly that could be advertised on relevant web sites.

But of course, a directory of counsel already seasoned in such cases is also a primo idea.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

How about soliciting such attorneys through a request or classified ad in some popular legal webzine?

DT

Re: Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip era)

Mona, I might be willing to join you in doing that. It seems like an idea whose time has come. Let me have a week or two to get some life business settled, and I will do a mailing to a number of lawyers to see what kind of interest there may be. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Okay, keep in touch.

> In a message dated 6/26/01 7:15:09 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

>

> > Mona, I might be willing to join you in doing that.

>

> It seems like an idea whose time has come. Let me have a week or

two to get

> some life business settled, and I will do a mailing to a number of

lawyers to

> see what kind of interest there may be.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Ken

I'll be happy to give you a few blurbs, but I ought to let the attorney's here get first dibbys.

DT

Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip era)

Trippel wrote: Ken, Yes, I like. That's a great idea. Never can tell how long theseegroups are going to be around in the same format anyway. I don't know whose site has the bestfolder of cases striking down AA coercion. DT PS. Looks like 12-step-free's about to graduate to page one of Addiction & Recovery on the next shuffle. Congrats.http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Health___Wellness/Support/Addiction_and_RecoveryDave,The two cases are posted, although they probably need some introduction.Ken

[Guest guest]

I'll be willing to help too, as I stated earlier... we need a point of

contact in WA state anyways, as I've not heard that there is one. There

does need to be a larger, more organized effort than I've seen. I don't

feel qualified to start it all on my own, nor can I commit all my time, but

I want to commit SOME time, and I'll be happy to concentrate on my corner of

the 9th cqt. Grass roots is good, but there needs to be a central, committed

organizing factor. I'm not sure if it's Mona, but she sounds like a good

place to start the journey.

As for Jack, please give the guy a break. He's very busy. Either write him

again, or call him. I spoke to him on the phone a couple weeks ago and we

spoke for about 20 min's or so. he gets lots of email, monitors his web

site, writes his newsletter, teaches AVRT, is married, fills orders, and

etc. he has not answered all of my emails either... but if I think it's

important to his overall work, I resend, or call.

Re: AA & 9th Cir (was Musing about the post-slip

era)

> Mona, I might be willing to join you in doing that. I don't know how

> helpful Trimpey might be, however. I wrote him recently telling him

> that I wanted to file a lawsuit here, and how was his going? He said

> he hadn't gotten it off the ground, but would be willing to supply me

> with potential plaintiffs' names and to be an expert witness. I wrote

> him back to ask him for names of Ohio plaintiffs, and he just plain

> didn't reply. Even if there aren't any, I think I deserved an answer.

>

>

> > In a message dated 6/26/01 5:59:17 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > kasperkarma@h... writes:

> >

> >

> > > I have not contacted the ACLU here per se. Didn't know I could

> just call

> > > them up.

> >

> > Now, sometimes that can be true. Letters or calls from lawyers may

> get more

> > attention. This may be something your Texas atty would be willing

> to do (and

> > yes, pro hac vice is the name of the application for him to practice

> in

> > Washington -- any lawyer not licensed there would have to go that

> route to

> > help here).

> >

> > I'm giving some thought to getting in touch with Jack and

> establishing a

> > formal clearing house of XA litigators. I have the time and the

> passion, and

> > if the job prospect I'm currently pursuing works out, I'd be ideally

> situated

> > for it. I could even maintain a constant national database, stay in

> touch

> > with one and all who have or are litigating these cases, and even

> keep up a

> > how-to treatise of the sort lawyers refer to for more conventional

> matters

> > where such are widely available.

> >

> > It is really important work, and I think I could sink my teeth into

> it.

> >

> > --Mona--

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 6/26/01 9:03:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> davetrippel@a... writes:

>

>

> > How about soliciting such attorneys through a request or

classified ad in

> > some popular legal webzine?

> >

>

> That is certainly something to do down the road. I haven't given

this a lot

> of thought yet, but it seems to me the first thing to do is contact

the

> counsel for all the coerced XA cases in the last decade or so, and

see who

> will share what by way of discovery and trial strategies, briefs and

such.

> You know those " How to Defend a DUI Case " practitioners binders and

such, it

> would be helpful to do the same with " How to Defeat Coerced XA

> Participation. "

>

> If that roadmap were available, a lot more regular attys might be

willing to

> give it a shot. Certainly that could be advertised on relevant web

sites.

> But of course, a directory of counsel already seasoned in such cases

is also

> a primo idea.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona, all,

I'm not a lawyer (and the one experience I personally have of being

subject to the whole process was one of the worst things that has ever

happened to me in my life), but........go, go! Do it! It sounds like

a wonderful and very needed idea. I think it would help a lot of

people.

[Guest guest]

Trippel wrote:

> Ken I'll be happy to give you a few blurbs, but I ought to let the

> attorney's here get first dibbys. DT

>

> ,

>

> That would be great. And, if you happen to have the URL's for other

> cases, I'll post them too.

>

> Ken