Re: Defense Att'y Capitalizes on AA is Religious rulings

[Guest guest]

I do not condone the behaviour, but we are all fallible human beings. but as I

say,

that sure does NOT give us or anyone the right to hurt people.

Life is to good and to short for that. Let's all LOVE one another.

Was that not a Carpenter song?

Jewel.

rita66@... wrote:

> Some listmembers may remember the case of the stepper who confessed in

meetings to killing two doctors in New York State -- some rare AA'ers with

backbone, who due to the circumstances ignored the " anonymity " and " what you

hear here, let it stay here " traditions, called the police and he was arrested

and convicted.

>

> Well it seems his latest attorney is going to try to claim that since AA

is religious, his confession at meetings is covered by the same confidentiality

laws as confession to a Catholic priest! A real stretch, don't you all think??

>

> ~Rita

>

> http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/35626.htm

>

> PRIEST-CONFESS CASE COULD HELP '94 KILLER

>

> By LEONARD GREENE

>

> July 22, 2001 -- A priest's broken-silence testimony last week could

unintentionally affect the case of a man convicted on the word of fellow

Alcoholics Anonymous members of brutally slaying a Westchester couple in their

bed.

>

> Convicted killer has exhausted his state appeals, his lawyer said,

but a federal appeal is being considered - and the outcome of the other case

might play a role in their decision.

>

> The lawyer, Siegel, contends that AA meetings are religious in nature

and should be subject to the same confidential protections enjoyed by priests

and their penitents.

>

> Last week, a Bronx priest, the Rev. ph Towle, came forward after 12 years

with the murder confession of a teenage gang member that could free two men

convicted of killing another teen.

>

> Manhattan federal judge Denny Chin will decide later this week if the two

convictions should be vacated.

> Among those watching will be Siegel, who says Towle's testimony - like that of

the AA members - should not be admissible.

> " If it's admissible, it doesn't help my case, " said Siegel. But even if

Towle's testimony is thrown out, it might not help much anyway, given

previous rulings on AA meetings.

>

> was arrested in 1993 after an AA member told police that talked in

sessions about dreams and memories of killing Larchmont residents Lakshman and

Shanta Chervu, a husband-and-wife doctor couple, in a drunken stupor on New

Year's Day 1989.

> As a child, had lived in that Larchmont house.

>

> Police said , who was 21 at the time, broke in, grabbed a kitchen knife,

slit their throats, and stabbed them each at least 10 times.

>

> , on the witness stand, admitted that he killed the couple, but that he did

it during an alcoholic blackout during which he imagined he was in his own house

and that the victims were his abusive parents.

> was convicted on a lesser charge of manslaughter, for which he is serving

the maximum sentence of 16 to 50 years in prison.

>

> The Chervu family, meanwhile, continues to live with the pain of the ghastly

slaying.

> " It was very frustrating not knowing, " said Dr. Arun Chervu, a vascular

surgeon in Marietta, Ga., who followed his parents into the medical profession.

>

> He said he is forever grateful to the AA members who came forward.

>

> A judge agreed with that reasoning, ruling that state law does not extend

privilege to self-help groups.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I definitely see a problem, regardless of the ruling in the priest's

case. In AA, there is only a congregation -- no clergyman. If the

meeting is not all congregation, then it has to be all clergy -- a

most unlikely outcome. If you assume that a rotating chair is

" clergy " for these purposes, you still run into the problem that the

rest of the attendants at the meeting have no such status.

The only exception I see to any of these scenarios is a fifth step

made to a clergyman, one on one. Not just to a sponsor -- but to a

person who is accorded exemption from testifying by statute. Not to a

lawyer sponsor, either, because what you say to the lawyer is

privileged only as to the matter of the representation. Perhaps some

types of health professionals. As to them, it probably varies from

state to state.

>

> Some listmembers may remember the case of the stepper who

confessed in meetings to killing two doctors in New York State -- some

rare AA'ers with backbone, who due to the circumstances ignored the

" anonymity " and " what you hear here, let it stay here " traditions,

called the police and he was arrested and convicted.

>

> Well it seems his latest attorney is going to try to claim that

since AA is religious, his confession at meetings is covered by the

same confidentiality laws as confession to a Catholic priest! A real

stretch, don't you all think??

>

> ~Rita

>

>

> http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/35626.htm

>

> PRIEST-CONFESS CASE COULD HELP '94 KILLER

>

> By LEONARD GREENE

>

> July 22, 2001 -- A priest's broken-silence testimony last week

could unintentionally affect the case of a man convicted on the word

of fellow Alcoholics Anonymous members of brutally slaying a

Westchester couple in their bed.

>

> Convicted killer has exhausted his state appeals, his

lawyer said, but a federal appeal is being considered - and the

outcome of the other case might play a role in their decision.

>

> The lawyer, Siegel, contends that AA meetings are religious

in nature and should be subject to the same confidential protections

enjoyed by priests and their penitents.

>

> Last week, a Bronx priest, the Rev. ph Towle, came forward after

12 years with the murder confession of a teenage gang member that

could free two men convicted of killing another teen.

>

> Manhattan federal judge Denny Chin will decide later this week if

the two convictions should be vacated.

> Among those watching will be Siegel, who says Towle's testimony -

like that of the AA members - should not be admissible.

> " If it's admissible, it doesn't help my case, " said Siegel. But even

if Towle's testimony is thrown out, it might not help much anyway,

given previous rulings on AA meetings.

>

> was arrested in 1993 after an AA member told police that

talked in sessions about dreams and memories of killing Larchmont

residents Lakshman and Shanta Chervu, a husband-and-wife doctor

couple, in a drunken stupor on New Year's Day 1989.

> As a child, had lived in that Larchmont house.

>

> Police said , who was 21 at the time, broke in, grabbed a kitchen

knife, slit their throats, and stabbed them each at least 10 times.

>

> , on the witness stand, admitted that he killed the couple, but

that he did it during an alcoholic blackout during which he imagined

he was in his own house and that the victims were his abusive parents.

> was convicted on a lesser charge of manslaughter, for which he

is serving the maximum sentence of 16 to 50 years in prison.

>

> The Chervu family, meanwhile, continues to live with the pain of the

ghastly slaying.

> " It was very frustrating not knowing, " said Dr. Arun Chervu, a

vascular surgeon in Marietta, Ga., who followed his parents into the

medical profession.

>

> He said he is forever grateful to the AA members who came forward.

>

> A judge agreed with that reasoning, ruling that state law does not

extend privilege to self-help groups.

[Guest guest]

Hey Rita

This could be a real bummer, because I doubt very much if anyone's

going to let a double murderer off on the grounds AA is religious,

and hence a ruling is going to appear apparently suggesting it is

not. If indeed this claim succeeds, then exposing abuse inside AA

will get even harder. A guy confesses in MM and he gets the rap

along with a lot of bad publicity for MM, and AAs confess and no-one

can even inform on them. Great!

Funnily enough, I've met folks who think even non-religous groups

should have this kind of condfidentiality protection. I say *nobody*

should have it. If the Catholic church wants to bind its priests in

this way according to their own moral code, thats up to them. But

why should a secular society grant this privelege which it not give

to secular ppl? Why should a secular court refuse to allow the

ecidence of a priest who chooses to break confidentiality, any moire

than any other person to whom a criminal chhoses to confess?

Ordinarily, such a person becomes an accessory and is themselves an

offender. Now I can accept perhaps grounds to absolve priests from

being accessories, but I dont see why their evidence cannot be

accepted if they choose to come forward. Another silly aspect to

this is presumably confesion and absolution mean nothing unless their

is genuine repentance - and genuine repentance means willingness to

take responsbility for one's offence. So shouldn't a priest when

giving absolution, state as a penance that the offender should give

themselves up to the authorities? How can a sin be righted when

person(s) have been murdered and their loved ones have not had

justice? I will say that I would have a dilemma if the society in

question had the death penalty, as I do not support it.

P.

>

> Some listmembers may remember the case of the stepper who

confessed in meetings to killing two doctors in New York State --

some rare AA'ers with backbone, who due to the circumstances ignored

the " anonymity " and " what you hear here, let it stay here "

traditions, called the police and he was arrested and convicted.

>

> Well it seems his latest attorney is going to try to claim

that since AA is religious, his confession at meetings is covered by

the same confidentiality laws as confession to a Catholic priest! A

real stretch, don't you all think??

>

[Guest guest]

I think the question will more likely turn on the status of the

members as opposed to whether AA is religious. I doubt that anyone

could get away with confessing a double murder in a Quaker meeting,

either. Yet while they do not have clergy, I don't think anyone would

argue they are not religious.

I think you know the rationale for the privilege of confidentiality.

One cannot be absolved/cured/counseled/defended unless they are

assured that the person to whom they are speaking cannot be forced to

testify. There's a similar basis for other privileges, like the

spousal privilege.

> >

> > Some listmembers may remember the case of the stepper who

> confessed in meetings to killing two doctors in New York State --

> some rare AA'ers with backbone, who due to the circumstances ignored

> the " anonymity " and " what you hear here, let it stay here "

> traditions, called the police and he was arrested and convicted.

> >

> > Well it seems his latest attorney is going to try to claim

> that since AA is religious, his confession at meetings is covered by

> the same confidentiality laws as confession to a Catholic priest! A

> real stretch, don't you all think??

> >

[Guest guest]

> I think you know the rationale for the privilege of

confidentiality.

> One cannot be absolved/cured/counseled/defended unless they are

> assured that the person to whom they are speaking cannot be forced

to

> testify. There's a similar basis for other privileges, like the

> spousal privilege.

Hi Kayleigh,

Well I can understand the *Church* using that reasoning, but I dont

see why the State should. In a secular State the religious notion of

absolution is meaningless, or at very least only one of a panoply of

competing religious paradigms, for which no favor must be shown for

one over another, or no paradigm at all. A secular society should

only be intereted in justice as defined in secular terms, and hence

if that society deems an obligation to inform on an offender who

confesses to an ordinary citizen, that obligation should extend to

everybody. Also as I said before, even if the State should extend

privelege to a lack of *obligation* to inform out of respect for a

religious practice, that still doesnt mean that it should refuse to

hear evidence when a clergyman chooses not to exercise the

privelege? Why should the State play a role in enforcing a custom

internal to a religion fromw which it itself is separate?

As far as spousal privelege is concerned, my impression was that in

the UK anyway this correspended to it not being allowed to *force* a

spouse to testify against a person. Again, this principle is quite

separate from the notion of *allowing* a spouse to testify against a

person if they wish to do so. Fwiw, one of the worst spy traitors in

a Britsh history replete with such individuals, Prime, was

convicted on evidence from his wife. Such is the incompetence of

British counter-intelligence that he was only caught because he was

also a pedophile and the net was closing in on him. Knowing this he

decded to confess to his wife and he decided he might as well confess

to being one of Britain's worst ever traitor spies too. Three days

later she told police, interestingly claiming patriotism over spousal

loyalty, rather than a desire for revenge or to protect children, as

her motive. If he had chosen to confess to a priest instead should

that confession be deemed inadmissable?

P.

[Guest guest]

Normally the privilege belongs to the penitent/patient/defendant.

This can be overcome in certain circumstances by court order. The

person can relinquish the privilege in certain ways, thus opening

things up for the other side to inquire into the matter (i.e. health,

primarily, mental or physical). I believe priests are taught to do

everything within their power to persuade confessed but uncharged

criminals to turn themselves in. The trickiest question can indeed be

for attorneys, and it's a double-edged sword. The defendant will not

tell the attorney what really went down in case the attorney would not

represent him zealously, but on the other hand, the attorney can't

give the client his best effort if he doesn't know what really

happened. But the basis is obvious -- the attorney shouldn't be

called to testify against his own client, or the entire idea that a

defendant deserves a defense would become a sham.

The spousal privilege is a little different, as you point out.

Most of these types of laws have a long history behind them starting,

in the case of priest/penitent, in times when the king was the law,

and sanctuary was the only way out. The development's been logical,

although from your point of view, perhaps archaic.

>

> > I think you know the rationale for the privilege of

> confidentiality.

> > One cannot be absolved/cured/counseled/defended unless they are

> > assured that the person to whom they are speaking cannot be forced

> to

> > testify. There's a similar basis for other privileges, like the

> > spousal privilege.

>

> Hi Kayleigh,

>

> Well I can understand the *Church* using that reasoning, but I dont

> see why the State should. In a secular State the religious notion

of

> absolution is meaningless, or at very least only one of a panoply of

> competing religious paradigms, for which no favor must be shown for

> one over another, or no paradigm at all. A secular society should

> only be intereted in justice as defined in secular terms, and hence

> if that society deems an obligation to inform on an offender who

> confesses to an ordinary citizen, that obligation should extend to

> everybody. Also as I said before, even if the State should extend

> privelege to a lack of *obligation* to inform out of respect for a

> religious practice, that still doesnt mean that it should refuse to

> hear evidence when a clergyman chooses not to exercise the

> privelege? Why should the State play a role in enforcing a custom

> internal to a religion fromw which it itself is separate?

>

> As far as spousal privelege is concerned, my impression was that in

> the UK anyway this correspended to it not being allowed to *force* a

> spouse to testify against a person. Again, this principle is quite

> separate from the notion of *allowing* a spouse to testify against a

> person if they wish to do so. Fwiw, one of the worst spy traitors

in

> a Britsh history replete with such individuals, Prime, was

> convicted on evidence from his wife. Such is the incompetence of

> British counter-intelligence that he was only caught because he was

> also a pedophile and the net was closing in on him. Knowing this he

> decded to confess to his wife and he decided he might as well

confess

> to being one of Britain's worst ever traitor spies too. Three days

> later she told police, interestingly claiming patriotism over

spousal

> loyalty, rather than a desire for revenge or to protect children, as

> her motive. If he had chosen to confess to a priest instead should

> that confession be deemed inadmissable?

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

> I believe priests are taught to do > everything within their power

>to persuade confessed but uncharged

> criminals to turn themselves in.

Well other than mere words, without breaking the confidentiality, the

only thing he can do is refuse absolution. As I said, the obvious

argument is No repentance = No absolution and No submission to

authorities = No repentance.

The situation for a defense attorney I've always been interested in.

I remember seeing a TV drama in which a Brit lawyer says that he cant

ethically defend a man he believes to be guilty. Didnt somebody here

say that they couldnt defend a person they believe guilty? But if a

guy seems obviously guilty, how's he going to find someone to defend

him, as he's entitled to have? Shouldn't he get the best possible

defense a lawyer can give him even if his own lawyer doesn't buy it?

After all they're not the jury themselves. There is the issue that

they might not be very convincing in that capacity of course. Then

there's the other thing about advising a client to plead guilty, or

accept a plea bargain. I believe plea bargaining to be a travesty of

justice, but given the system's there then again the lawyer can only

do what s/he thinks will get the client the best deal. What I find

really interesting is the notion that the defendant admits guilt to

the lawyer but asks them to enter a Not Guilty plea and defend it

with whatever legal argument they tink is most likely to work. Or

maybe the lawyer says " Look I dont really believe your story and I

dont believe the jury will either, why dont you just tell me what

really happened and we'll work out the best way to get you off? " . Or

maybe " I believe your sory but it's implausible. why dont we work out

one that isnt strictly true but is more likely to be believed? " Is

any of that ethical, and how often does it happen?

P.

[Guest guest]

I agree with Kayleigh -- the legal issue isn't whether or not AA is religious per se (although it involves legitimizing the "anonymity tradition" as a religious precept) -- it is whether AA members at meetings are to be accorded the same status as Catholic priests

Oh, the priest-penitent privilege will apply to sharing in AA...right after AA are held to be immune from trial subpoenas in order to vouchsafe their sacred anonymity and avoid participation in public controversy.

--Mona--(who somehow just knows that these arguments have actually been made)

[Guest guest]

btw, who moderates this list?

Satan

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I Want to be Loved by you........

kayleighs@... wrote:

> I definitely see a problem, regardless of the ruling in the priest's

> case. In AA, there is only a congregation -- no clergyman. If the

> meeting is not all congregation, then it has to be all clergy -- a

> most unlikely outcome. If you assume that a rotating chair is

> " clergy " for these purposes, you still run into the problem that the

> rest of the attendants at the meeting have no such status.

>

> The only exception I see to any of these scenarios is a fifth step

> made to a clergyman, one on one. Not just to a sponsor -- but to a

> person who is accorded exemption from testifying by statute. Not to a

> lawyer sponsor, either, because what you say to the lawyer is

> privileged only as to the matter of the representation. Perhaps some

> types of health professionals. As to them, it probably varies from

> state to state.

>

>

> >

> > Some listmembers may remember the case of the stepper who

> confessed in meetings to killing two doctors in New York State -- some

> rare AA'ers with backbone, who due to the circumstances ignored the

> " anonymity " and " what you hear here, let it stay here " traditions,

> called the police and he was arrested and convicted.

> >

> > Well it seems his latest attorney is going to try to claim that

> since AA is religious, his confession at meetings is covered by the

> same confidentiality laws as confession to a Catholic priest! A real

> stretch, don't you all think??

> >

> > ~Rita

> >

> >

> > http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/35626.htm

> >

> > PRIEST-CONFESS CASE COULD HELP '94 KILLER

> >

> > By LEONARD GREENE

> >

> > July 22, 2001 -- A priest's broken-silence testimony last week

> could unintentionally affect the case of a man convicted on the word

> of fellow Alcoholics Anonymous members of brutally slaying a

> Westchester couple in their bed.

> >

> > Convicted killer has exhausted his state appeals, his

> lawyer said, but a federal appeal is being considered - and the

> outcome of the other case might play a role in their decision.

> >

> > The lawyer, Siegel, contends that AA meetings are religious

> in nature and should be subject to the same confidential protections

> enjoyed by priests and their penitents.

> >

> > Last week, a Bronx priest, the Rev. ph Towle, came forward after

> 12 years with the murder confession of a teenage gang member that

> could free two men convicted of killing another teen.

> >

> > Manhattan federal judge Denny Chin will decide later this week if

> the two convictions should be vacated.

> > Among those watching will be Siegel, who says Towle's testimony -

> like that of the AA members - should not be admissible.

> > " If it's admissible, it doesn't help my case, " said Siegel. But even

> if Towle's testimony is thrown out, it might not help much anyway,

> given previous rulings on AA meetings.

> >

> > was arrested in 1993 after an AA member told police that

> talked in sessions about dreams and memories of killing Larchmont

> residents Lakshman and Shanta Chervu, a husband-and-wife doctor

> couple, in a drunken stupor on New Year's Day 1989.

> > As a child, had lived in that Larchmont house.

> >

> > Police said , who was 21 at the time, broke in, grabbed a kitchen

> knife, slit their throats, and stabbed them each at least 10 times.

> >

> > , on the witness stand, admitted that he killed the couple, but

> that he did it during an alcoholic blackout during which he imagined

> he was in his own house and that the victims were his abusive parents.

> > was convicted on a lesser charge of manslaughter, for which he

> is serving the maximum sentence of 16 to 50 years in prison.

> >

> > The Chervu family, meanwhile, continues to live with the pain of the

> ghastly slaying.

> > " It was very frustrating not knowing, " said Dr. Arun Chervu, a

> vascular surgeon in Marietta, Ga., who followed his parents into the

> medical profession.

> >

> > He said he is forever grateful to the AA members who came forward.

> >

> > A judge agreed with that reasoning, ruling that state law does not

> extend privilege to self-help groups.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

this IS 12 step free, correct? Why do we or rather YOU continue

to talk about AA?

kayleighs@... wrote:

> I think the question will more likely turn on the status of the

> members as opposed to whether AA is religious. I doubt that anyone

> could get away with confessing a double murder in a Quaker meeting,

> either. Yet while they do not have clergy, I don't think anyone would

> argue they are not religious.

>

> I think you know the rationale for the privilege of confidentiality.

> One cannot be absolved/cured/counseled/defended unless they are

> assured that the person to whom they are speaking cannot be forced to

> testify. There's a similar basis for other privileges, like the

> spousal privilege.

>

>

> > >

> > > Some listmembers may remember the case of the stepper who

> > confessed in meetings to killing two doctors in New York State --

> > some rare AA'ers with backbone, who due to the circumstances ignored

> > the " anonymity " and " what you hear here, let it stay here "

> > traditions, called the police and he was arrested and convicted.

> > >

> > > Well it seems his latest attorney is going to try to claim

> > that since AA is religious, his confession at meetings is covered by

> > the same confidentiality laws as confession to a Catholic priest! A

> > real stretch, don't you all think??

> > >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

An equivalent to the last scenario has been found to be ethical in a

different state.

There are many different types of lawyers, as I'm sure you realize,

and some are not comfortable with domestic relations, so don't do it,

some are not comfortable with tax law, and so don't do it, some are

not comfortable with criminal law, and so don't do it. Most good

defense lawyers really want to see that the system works, and that

includes giving defendants a good defense. A lot of them probably

really enjoy litigating in the trickiest forum around.

I can't agree with you regarding plea bargains. There are some

systems that are so overcrowded that defendants meet their publicly

appointed attorneys right before the case is to begin, and there is

tremendous pressure to keep things moving, therefore to reach a plea

bargain before the lawyer really knows the facts. That is most

unfortunate. But face it, most cases are pretty open and shut.

Mason doesn't reign in the land. Plea bargains are compromises, and

in the cases I've seen, are fair compromises.

This is getting pretty off-topic, so if you want to continue to

discuss this, let's go off-list. I don't really have a desire to go

on with the subject though. I think most people who don't see the

reasoning behind plea bargaining are simply too unfamiliar with the

criminal justice system to understand why they're beneficial.

> > I believe priests are taught to do > everything within their power

> >to persuade confessed but uncharged

> > criminals to turn themselves in.

>

> Well other than mere words, without breaking the confidentiality,

the

> only thing he can do is refuse absolution. As I said, the obvious

> argument is No repentance = No absolution and No submission to

> authorities = No repentance.

>

> The situation for a defense attorney I've always been interested in.

> I remember seeing a TV drama in which a Brit lawyer says that he

cant

> ethically defend a man he believes to be guilty. Didnt somebody here

> say that they couldnt defend a person they believe guilty? But if a

> guy seems obviously guilty, how's he going to find someone to defend

> him, as he's entitled to have? Shouldn't he get the best possible

> defense a lawyer can give him even if his own lawyer doesn't buy it?

> After all they're not the jury themselves. There is the issue that

> they might not be very convincing in that capacity of course. Then

> there's the other thing about advising a client to plead guilty, or

> accept a plea bargain. I believe plea bargaining to be a travesty

of

> justice, but given the system's there then again the lawyer can only

> do what s/he thinks will get the client the best deal. What I find

> really interesting is the notion that the defendant admits guilt to

> the lawyer but asks them to enter a Not Guilty plea and defend it

> with whatever legal argument they tink is most likely to work. Or

> maybe the lawyer says " Look I dont really believe your story and I

> dont believe the jury will either, why dont you just tell me what

> really happened and we'll work out the best way to get you off? " . Or

> maybe " I believe your sory but it's implausible. why dont we work

out

> one that isnt strictly true but is more likely to be believed? " Is

> any of that ethical, and how often does it happen?

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

At 08:27 PM 7/23/01 -0500, kewebb wrote:

>this IS 12 step free, correct? Why do we or rather YOU continue

>to talk about AA?

There's no rule here that says you can't talk about AA.

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

What the heck is AA? btw.........

Ben Bradley wrote

There's no rule here that says you can't talk about AA.

>

> ----------

> http://listen.to/benbradley

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >this IS 12 step free, correct? Why do we or rather YOU continue

> >to talk about AA?

>

> There's no rule here that says you can't talk about AA.

Why in AA do ppl continue to talk abt alcohol?

[Guest guest]

> What the heck is AA? btw.........

It's a group of dorks who keep coming onto a list called 12-step-free

and being pains in the ass, often by playing dumb which they are much

more convincing at in AA meetings.

[Guest guest]

>

> > I think the question will more likely turn on the status of the

> > members as opposed to whether AA is religious.

[Guest guest]

> Why in AA do ppl continue to talk abt alcohol?

Maybe cause they are working on conquering their obession or alcohol abuse

problems.

Yes? a possibility?

Jewel.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

just have to say a LOL............

btw, who moderates this list?

watts_pete@... wrote:

>

> > What the heck is AA? btw.........

>

> It's a group of dorks who keep coming onto a list called 12-step-free

> and being pains in the ass, often by playing dumb which they are much

> more convincing at in AA meetings.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

ok Rita, I get it.

Thanks,

jewel.

rita66@... wrote:

>

> >

> > > I think the question will more likely turn on the status of the

> > > members as opposed to whether AA is religious.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have been on this web site for about one week?

Skulking as Pee has done on a similar site for AA

members?? I believe there is much contempt prior to

investigation? AA does not stand for Alcoholics

confidential? please refer to the word " Anonymous " in

the Dictionary and you will rarely find

confidentiality amongst its definitions? Your posts

have been enlightening? Alas they lack any information

accurate that is?they are coming fast and furious

though( 12 in the last hour between 12AM and 1AM when

do you sleep?). the display a lack of understanding

regarding our steps traditions and even experience

strength and hope?

I have read several anecdotes of horror stories about

individual AA members behavior but I have not heard

anything new.

I have read some disturbingly familiar posts though? I

have been frustrated by the member of AA. who like you

folks seem to use the Internet as an exercise in

intellectual one upmanship? dissecting the posts to

criticize and cajole each other into their opinions?

It truly sounds like a bunch of drunks to me? thanks

Pete for intruding on our AA site and letting me know

that his site existed?I truly understand why you were

hesitant to red our Service Manual? You are much

happier with the blissfully uninformed?

Oh and please take me off the list your messages are

coming at me too fast and furious?

G.

--- kayleighs@... wrote:

> Normally the privilege belongs to the

> penitent/patient/defendant.

> This can be overcome in certain circumstances by

> court order. The

> person can relinquish the privilege in certain ways,

> thus opening

> things up for the other side to inquire into the

> matter (i.e. health,

> primarily, mental or physical). I believe priests

> are taught to do

> everything within their power to persuade confessed

> but uncharged

> criminals to turn themselves in. The trickiest

> question can indeed be

> for attorneys, and it's a double-edged sword. The

> defendant will not

> tell the attorney what really went down in case the

> attorney would not

> represent him zealously, but on the other hand, the

> attorney can't

> give the client his best effort if he doesn't know

> what really

> happened. But the basis is obvious -- the attorney

> shouldn't be

> called to testify against his own client, or the

> entire idea that a

> defendant deserves a defense would become a sham.

>

> The spousal privilege is a little different, as you

> point out.

>

> Most of these types of laws have a long history

> behind them starting,

> in the case of priest/penitent, in times when the

> king was the law,

> and sanctuary was the only way out. The

> development's been logical,

> although from your point of view, perhaps archaic.

>

>

> >

> > > I think you know the rationale for the privilege

> of

> > confidentiality.

> > > One cannot be absolved/cured/counseled/defended

> unless they are

> > > assured that the person to whom they are

> speaking cannot be forced

> > to

> > > testify. There's a similar basis for other

> privileges, like the

> > > spousal privilege.

> >

> > Hi Kayleigh,

> >

> > Well I can understand the *Church* using that

> reasoning, but I dont

> > see why the State should. In a secular State the

> religious notion

> of

> > absolution is meaningless, or at very least only

> one of a panoply of

> > competing religious paradigms, for which no favor

> must be shown for

> > one over another, or no paradigm at all. A

> secular society should

> > only be intereted in justice as defined in secular

> terms, and hence

> > if that society deems an obligation to inform on

> an offender who

> > confesses to an ordinary citizen, that obligation

> should extend to

> > everybody. Also as I said before, even if the

> State should extend

> > privelege to a lack of *obligation* to inform out

> of respect for a

> > religious practice, that still doesnt mean that it

> should refuse to

> > hear evidence when a clergyman chooses not to

> exercise the

> > privelege? Why should the State play a role in

> enforcing a custom

> > internal to a religion fromw which it itself is

> separate?

> >

> > As far as spousal privelege is concerned, my

> impression was that in

> > the UK anyway this correspended to it not being

> allowed to *force* a

> > spouse to testify against a person. Again, this

> principle is quite

> > separate from the notion of *allowing* a spouse to

> testify against a

> > person if they wish to do so. Fwiw, one of the

> worst spy traitors

> in

> > a Britsh history replete with such individuals,

> Prime, was

> > convicted on evidence from his wife. Such is the

> incompetence of

> > British counter-intelligence that he was only

> caught because he was

> > also a pedophile and the net was closing in on

> him. Knowing this he

> > decded to confess to his wife and he decided he

> might as well

> confess

> > to being one of Britain's worst ever traitor spies

> too. Three days

> > later she told police, interestingly claiming

> patriotism over

> spousal

> > loyalty, rather than a desire for revenge or to

> protect children, as

> > her motive. If he had chosen to confess to a

> priest instead should

> > that confession be deemed inadmissable?

> >

> > P.

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

dear ,?

why do you choose to have ? mark after all your sentences?

are you questioning? yourself?

What IS a Skulking as Pee?

Jewel?

Gaughan wrote:

> I have been on this web site for about one week?

> Skulking as Pee has done on a similar site for AA

> members?? I believe there is much contempt prior to

> investigation? AA does not stand for Alcoholics

> confidential? please refer to the word " Anonymous " in

> the Dictionary and you will rarely find

> confidentiality amongst its definitions? Your posts

> have been enlightening? Alas they lack any information

> accurate that is?they are coming fast and furious

> though( 12 in the last hour between 12AM and 1AM when

> do you sleep?). the display a lack of understanding

> regarding our steps traditions and even experience

> strength and hope?

> I have read several anecdotes of horror stories about

> individual AA members behavior but I have not heard

> anything new.

> I have read some disturbingly familiar posts though? I

> have been frustrated by the member of AA. who like you

> folks seem to use the Internet as an exercise in

> intellectual one upmanship? dissecting the posts to

> criticize and cajole each other into their opinions?

> It truly sounds like a bunch of drunks to me? thanks

> Pete for intruding on our AA site and letting me know

> that his site existed?I truly understand why you were

> hesitant to red our Service Manual? You are much

> happier with the blissfully uninformed?

> Oh and please take me off the list your messages are

> coming at me too fast and furious?

> G.

>

> --- kayleighs@... wrote:

> > Normally the privilege belongs to the

> > penitent/patient/defendant.

> > This can be overcome in certain circumstances by

> > court order. The

> > person can relinquish the privilege in certain ways,

> > thus opening

> > things up for the other side to inquire into the

> > matter (i.e. health,

> > primarily, mental or physical). I believe priests

> > are taught to do

> > everything within their power to persuade confessed

> > but uncharged

> > criminals to turn themselves in. The trickiest

> > question can indeed be

> > for attorneys, and it's a double-edged sword. The

> > defendant will not

> > tell the attorney what really went down in case the

> > attorney would not

> > represent him zealously, but on the other hand, the

> > attorney can't

> > give the client his best effort if he doesn't know

> > what really

> > happened. But the basis is obvious -- the attorney

> > shouldn't be

> > called to testify against his own client, or the

> > entire idea that a

> > defendant deserves a defense would become a sham.

> >

> > The spousal privilege is a little different, as you

> > point out.

> >

> > Most of these types of laws have a long history

> > behind them starting,

> > in the case of priest/penitent, in times when the

> > king was the law,

> > and sanctuary was the only way out. The

> > development's been logical,

> > although from your point of view, perhaps archaic.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > > I think you know the rationale for the privilege

> > of

> > > confidentiality.

> > > > One cannot be absolved/cured/counseled/defended

> > unless they are

> > > > assured that the person to whom they are

> > speaking cannot be forced

> > > to

> > > > testify. There's a similar basis for other

> > privileges, like the

> > > > spousal privilege.

> > >

> > > Hi Kayleigh,

> > >

> > > Well I can understand the *Church* using that

> > reasoning, but I dont

> > > see why the State should. In a secular State the

> > religious notion

> > of

> > > absolution is meaningless, or at very least only

> > one of a panoply of

> > > competing religious paradigms, for which no favor

> > must be shown for

> > > one over another, or no paradigm at all. A

> > secular society should

> > > only be intereted in justice as defined in secular

> > terms, and hence

> > > if that society deems an obligation to inform on

> > an offender who

> > > confesses to an ordinary citizen, that obligation

> > should extend to

> > > everybody. Also as I said before, even if the

> > State should extend

> > > privelege to a lack of *obligation* to inform out

> > of respect for a

> > > religious practice, that still doesnt mean that it

> > should refuse to

> > > hear evidence when a clergyman chooses not to

> > exercise the

> > > privelege? Why should the State play a role in

> > enforcing a custom

> > > internal to a religion fromw which it itself is

> > separate?

> > >

> > > As far as spousal privelege is concerned, my

> > impression was that in

> > > the UK anyway this correspended to it not being

> > allowed to *force* a

> > > spouse to testify against a person. Again, this

> > principle is quite

> > > separate from the notion of *allowing* a spouse to

> > testify against a

> > > person if they wish to do so. Fwiw, one of the

> > worst spy traitors

> > in

> > > a Britsh history replete with such individuals,

> > Prime, was

> > > convicted on evidence from his wife. Such is the

> > incompetence of

> > > British counter-intelligence that he was only

> > caught because he was

> > > also a pedophile and the net was closing in on

> > him. Knowing this he

> > > decded to confess to his wife and he decided he

> > might as well

> > confess

> > > to being one of Britain's worst ever traitor spies

> > too. Three days

> > > later she told police, interestingly claiming

> > patriotism over

> > spousal

> > > loyalty, rather than a desire for revenge or to

> > protect children, as

> > > her motive. If he had chosen to confess to a

> > priest instead should

> > > that confession be deemed inadmissable?

> > >

> > > P.

> >

> >

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Jewel:

They talk about alcohol because they are afraid of it. Bill and Bob

whats-his-name determined they could only stay sober by working with others.

Bill was still plagued by the desire to drink. Even admits such in

the big book. Visit www.aadeprogramming.com for more info and compare to

info in the books PASS IT ON and DR. BOB AND THE GOOD OLDTIMERS.

I used pot after 10.5 yrs. plus 19 mos. plus nine mos. in aa. I felt so free

because the fucking sky didn't fall in. I did resume abusing alcohol, and

according to the DSM-IV I fitted the criteria for substance dependency. SO,

I decided to detox, and to quit. I have five months of abstinence today.

When I get the urge to use pot (I really like it better than alcohol), I

don't run to an aa/na meeting or out to drag some other poor sole into aa. I

just decide not to do it. Gee, all on my own.

Jan

[Guest guest]

:

So sorry you're still brainwashed by aa. But as they say in the program,

maybe YOUR brain needs washing. Mine doesn't. Want to learn some truths

about your precious mindfucking aa? Visit www.aadeprogramming.com. Not for

profit organization? That's a laugh. I vow to do everything in my power to

help rid the medical profession, mental health professions, and prison

systems from aa. It will take time and many people and SCIENTIFIC data. I

know science is unpopular in aa but so is independent thinking and critical

reasoning skills. Bill was a coward of the highest order. He

couldn't stay sober, according to the big book, with out looking for someone

else to drag into his net. I diagnosed myself as substance dependent (see

DSM-IV), and on the rare occasions that I get the desire to smoke a joint, I

don't run and hide in a meeting clinging to my fear of using, nor do I reach

out to grab someone else into the clutches of the cult aa. I just say " no " .

All on my own with my own mind.

Jan - no need to hide behind anonymity.

[Guest guest]

At 04:23 AM 7/24/01 -0000, watts_pete@... wrote:

>

>> >this IS 12 step free, correct? Why do we or rather YOU continue

>> >to talk about AA?

>>

>> There's no rule here that says you can't talk about AA.

>

>Why in AA do ppl continue to talk abt alcohol?

Vicarious drinking. But then since we talk about AA so much we must

be vicarious AA members.

>