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

[Guest guest]

At 12:59 AM 7/24/01 EDT, MonaHolland@... wrote:

>In a message dated 7/23/01 9:57:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

kewebb@...

>writes:

>

>

>btw, who moderates this list?

>

>

>

>Satan

>

>--Mona--

>

[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?

Fine. Now why do you think ppl on a list called 12-step-free might

continue to talk about AA? Take your time.

[Guest guest]

Folks have now had the dubious pleasure of meeting g Gaughan,

who I think might have been behind the strange character

who sounded like an odd Diener/Mandolin composite.

Note his strange habit of using question marks instead of exclamation

marks. I dont know if he will see this, but anyway " Pee "

didnt " skulk " on the gso list, I made my presence plain, I repeatedly

received reassurance from the listowner(s) that my presence was

welcome and encouraged to keep posting; one post even said that those

who attacked me like , were not their friend! This is contrast

with Jim Skulk, I mean Shirk, who has been doing this here for

considerably longer despite being specifically banned by the

listowner.

I also actually said I was going to read the manual, what I find odd

though is that no-one was prepared to summarize the relevant bits.

Even now, no-one will say what the GSO policy on slip-signing is.

Why not exactly?

The " What You see Here... " card, ofen directly pointed out at the end

of AA meetings, clearly indicates that confidentiality is expected.

(I note is not keeping his anonymity in the very public medium

of the internet). something he also fails to understand is that any

comtempt he see here is subsequent, not prior, to investigation.

The traffic here is very light compared to many active AA-friendly

sites, and he seems to forget not everyone lives in the US time

zones. We also do talk about lots of disparate things, that have got

nothing to do with being 12-step-free, let alone the 12-steps or

alcohol that dominate AA discussions almost totally.

P.

> > >

> > > > 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]

Hi Jan

> :

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

program,

> maybe YOUR brain needs washing. Mine doesn't.

I'm not sure but I think he may have said that himself on the gso

list - I know somebody did.

> 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.

Again I think he may have visited it - I know somebody did from the

gso list, tho in his case it might only be to have a " lot of fun with

a guerilla attack on their site " as he put it. A great irony here is

that the gso list exists precisely because they *know* AA is actually

a profit-making organization - a vast publishing house, and they want

to change it. they arent to wild about rehabs either, and their is at

least some recognition ny some of them that coercion is wrong, though

more in terms of what they want AA to be than in the rights of the

coerced or the appropriateness in terms of the US constitution.

> 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.

Fwiw iirc it was who suffered alcohol cravings constantly

afterward that made him chase drunks - apparently only

reported being tempted to drink twice after his meeting with ,

once after accidentally drinking a cough medicine containing alcohol.

's problem was severe depression and he saw drunk chasing as the

answer to that.

P.

[Guest guest]

> > >In a message dated 7/23/01 9:57:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > kewebb@d...

> > >writes:

> > >

> > >

> > >btw, who moderates this list?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Satan

> > >

> > >--Mona--

> > >

[Guest guest]

> > How the Heck do I get OFF this List?

> > Jewel

>

> > You Can't!!!

> lol

You are forever trapped in cyber hell...

A long time ago I used to quote in my sig file " Hotel California " by

the Eagles a verse which made me think of RR's Beast of addiction,

and in particular Lois Trimpey's book " Taming the Feast Beast " :

" And in the Master's chambers,

They gather for the Feast,

They stab It with their steely knives

But they just cant kill the Beast. "

I was on the addict-l list and after some spirited posts by me I

wondered if the listowner would ban me. He replied:

" 'Relax', said the Nightman,

'We are programmed to Receive,

You can check out any time you like,

But you can never Leave.' " !

P.

[Guest guest]

> Note his strange habit of using question marks instead of

exclamation marks.<

See the " G. for Geordie? " message.

[Guest guest]

Therefore, a New York state court, following on federal rulings, could certainly find AA to be a religion but reject the "confessional" defense.

To the degree an analogy would fit, AA parallels Quakers or Mormons, which have no regularly established clergy.

I'm licensed in New York, and reasonably familiar with its priest-penitent privilege. This invocation of it is almost certainly not going to fly. What a person confesses to in a Bible study is not covered under the privilege; only his one-on-one with his minister or priest.

Creative idea on the part of the defense atty here, and I might have tried it myself, but it isn't going to work.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

>

> 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

I just joined, Rita, and this post caught my eye. It may not be such a stretch,

with two different

Federal courts having made their rulings, that, regarding coerced AA attendance

by inmates, that

AA is a religion.

However, AA members do not take an oath of membership, unlike priests being

ordained, or

Protestant ministers taking oaths of office. In other words, AA has no

incorporated or formal

guarantee of anonymity.

Therefore, a New York state court, following on federal rulings, could certainly

find AA to be a

religion but reject the " confessional " defense.

To the degree an analogy would fit, AA parallels Quakers or Mormons, which have

no regularly

established clergy.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Looking back on the MM incident, one of the informers was Jim Shirk.

Thee were two others, both lurkers on the MM list and all AAs I

think. I actually think Jim did the right thing, though I didnt have

the courage of convicions to say so straight out at the time. I dont

believe the death penalty was a possibility ( I dont think they have

it in N Dakota, where the killing occurred). I also know that he

didnt do it lightly; he ven asked view on addict-l about it before he

did so. however, this isnt a simple " MM ppl covered it up " story,

even to the extent of the listowner and MM director, Fred Rotgers.

First off there is dissociated responsibility - like the " bystander "

phenomonon in 3D, no individual feels themselves personally

responsible. Second, an easily forged email from a man made when

drunk who might feel like a murderer because had failed to save his

daughter from a fire at his home rather than actively killing her,

who made the cindfesion neither under oath nor cautioned... all of

these things mean it dos not add up to much. At most all they would

do is what I think they actually initially did... check the fire

investigation which reported nothing suspicious, and maybe send the

local cops (Froistad had moved to S Dakota) to interview him. I

believe it was only after Froistad made a direct confession to the

police himself that they searched his home and found incriminating

material. Fred Rotgers of course had more responsibility as the

group's leader, but I rememeber what he said to me when I asked him

about the incident: " Do you know what it is like to be arrested by

the police in America? " . After all that I have seen and read since,

such as chaps being hadcuffed behind their back whle they drive round

looking for a breathalyser, then I understand his point of view. He

urged Froistad to seek professional help after which, when in control

of his faculties, he could have made a full confession to the

authorities.

P.

>

> I'm licensed in New York, and reasonably familiar with its priest-

penitent

> privilege. This invocation of it is almost certainly not going to

fly. What

> a person confesses to in a Bible study is not covered under the

privilege;

> only his one-on-one with his minister or priest.

>

> Creative idea on the part of the defense atty here, and I might

have tried it

> myself, but it isn't going to work.

[Guest guest]

what would you prefer we talk about?

> > > >

> > > > 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??

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> >