Re: Legal weirdness in NY

August 2, 2001

i dont know if i should laugh or cry. i REALLY REALLY hate to say this but the

judge made a

mistake. Yes AA is religious, and yes sentencing people to it is violation of

church and state.

but that's a far cry from claiming its a religion with the protection that

entails. should we also

expect that AA money making machine deserves to be tax exempt too?

the article states " they generally apply to lawyer and client, cleric and

penitent, husband and

wife. " so does that mean the drunk holding my hand in the prayer circle was

somehow elevated

or " ordained " to same level as my wife, parent, lawyer or clergy mearly because

he happened

to stumble in that night? no one told me he or i was ordained. granted AA has

its gurus, but fuck

if that a special privilege which should be protected under the law.

what else becomes an religion, the boy scouts? how about the God squad meeting

in my old

high school?

if i hold a religious belief and share my crime with someone who holds that same

belief is that

somehow privilege information now? this has me torn up, because i was hoping

for a landmark

case which would finally end the travesty of AA as a a tool for religious

indoctrination, but this

make me sick.

on the bright side, (if there can be a bright side for a murderer being released

on a ill advised

technicality), i guess when the trolls say AA isnt religion, we can say NY state

says otherwise.

> Federal judge rules that conversations between AA members are confidential

> and not admissable as evidence, because AA is a religion! Apparently he was

> relying on the Warner case. Conviction of murderer overturned...

>

> Read all about it at

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/nyregion/02DRUN.html

>

> --wally

August 2, 2001

At 06:04 AM 8/2/01 +0000, you wrote:

>i dont know if i should laugh or cry. i REALLY REALLY hate to say this but

>the judge made a

>mistake. Yes AA is religious, and yes sentencing people to it is violation of

>church and state.

>

>but that's a far cry from claiming its a religion with the protection that

>entails.

I dunno; I think AA *is* a religion. It has its own distinct religious

beliefs and practices. Although it grew out of Christianity, it's a

distinct thing now.

Of course that doesn't mean that all AA members are clergy, or that

yakking around a coffee pot should be treated with the sanctity of a

confessional booth. According to the Times, the admission in

question didn't even take place during an actual meeting. I hope

it was at least during some kind of " step work " and not just

casual conversation.

It's a strange ruling. I'm actually rather pleased with the precedent.

Shame about the guy getting away with murder, though.

>should we also

>expect that AA money making machine deserves to be tax exempt too?

Heh. Good question. Does AA pay taxes on the money collected

in baskets?

August 2, 2001

Re: Re: Legal weirdness in NY

> At 06:04 AM 8/2/01 +0000, you wrote:

> >i dont know if i should laugh or cry. i REALLY REALLY hate to say this

but

> >the judge made a

> >mistake. Yes AA is religious, and yes sentencing people to it is

violation of

> >church and state.

> >

> >but that's a far cry from claiming its a religion with the protection

that

> >entails.

>

> I dunno; I think AA *is* a religion. It has its own distinct religious

> beliefs and practices. Although it grew out of Christianity, it's a

> distinct thing now.

So do I, and so with the previous rulings that AA is a religion it makes

legal sense to me that a judge would rule that it is entitled to the same

protections as other religions.

>

> Of course that doesn't mean that all AA members are clergy, or that

> yakking around a coffee pot should be treated with the sanctity of a

> confessional booth. According to the Times, the admission in

> question didn't even take place during an actual meeting. I hope

> it was at least during some kind of " step work " and not just

> casual conversation.

It sounds like it was just " coffee talk, " and if so I would think the

judge's ruling would be overturned. The positive part, I would think, is

that if any members of AA are ruled to be anything like clergy, they could

be sued for malpractice after this.

Steve

August 2, 2001

OH MY GOD!! I am so nauseated. I was the one who posted the original

story a week or two ago -- supposedly this ruling was going to be based on the

ruling in the " Priest-Confess " case involving a priest who testified after a

guy's death that he had confessed to a murder for which two other guys were

serving lengthy sentences. The archbishop OK'ed it -- said it was a

'conversation', not a formal 'confession' -- the prosecutors in the previous

murder trial were of course trying to get the priest's testimony ruled

inadmissible -- everyone was waiting with baited breath for the court's ruling.

The ruling came down the other day -- it said that the priest's testimony WAS

admissible -- that a priest revealing the contents of a conversation between

himself & penitent is regulated by the Catholic Church, not by the courts.

SO HOW CAN THIS RULING ABOUT AA " SHARES " HAVE PASSED??? To be in keeping

with the priest ruling, they should have said, " Yes, AA is religious, but it is

up to AA to 'discipline' members who violate the 'anonymity tradition', not the

courts -- the testimony is valid. "

This is really terrifying -- AA/NA members now have free reign to actively

PLAN crimes of all types at meetings -- and any members with a shred of decency

who try to report the planned crimes will be told, " Sorry, the 'sharing' is

confidential, you can't go to the DA with it "

~Rita

> Federal judge rules that conversations between AA members are confidential

> and not admissable as evidence, because AA is a religion! Apparently he was

> relying on the Warner case. Conviction of murderer overturned...

>

> Read all about it at

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/nyregion/02DRUN.html

>

> --wally

August 2, 2001

This is so bizarre! Since when do Catholics, Congregationalists,

Jews, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, and so on and so forth,

have a right to talk between one another and claim a religious

privilege?

> Federal judge rules that conversations between AA members are

confidential

> and not admissable as evidence, because AA is a religion! Apparently

he was

> relying on the Warner case. Conviction of murderer overturned...

>

> Read all about it at

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/nyregion/02DRUN.html

>

> --wally

August 2, 2001

This is the first time i have heard of crimes being planned in AA meetings.

I find it a very unusual place for such activities to be taking place. Can

you please pass on some details or histories of when this has happened? I

have never before thought about AA in terms of Organised Crime.

>From: rita66@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Legal weirdness in NY

>Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:39:12 -0000

>

> OH MY GOD!! I am so nauseated. I was the one who posted the

>original story a week or two ago -- supposedly this ruling was going to be

>based on the ruling in the " Priest-Confess " case involving a priest who

>testified after a guy's death that he had confessed to a murder for which

>two other guys were serving lengthy sentences. The archbishop OK'ed it --

>said it was a 'conversation', not a formal 'confession' -- the prosecutors

>in the previous murder trial were of course trying to get the priest's

>testimony ruled inadmissible -- everyone was waiting with baited breath for

>the court's ruling. The ruling came down the other day -- it said that the

>priest's testimony WAS admissible -- that a priest revealing the contents

>of a conversation between himself & penitent is regulated by the Catholic

>Church, not by the courts.

>

> SO HOW CAN THIS RULING ABOUT AA " SHARES " HAVE PASSED??? To be in

>keeping with the priest ruling, they should have said, " Yes, AA is

>religious, but it is up to AA to 'discipline' members who violate the

>'anonymity tradition', not the courts -- the testimony is valid. "

>

> This is really terrifying -- AA/NA members now have free reign to

>actively PLAN crimes of all types at meetings -- and any members with a

>shred of decency who try to report the planned crimes will be told, " Sorry,

>the 'sharing' is confidential, you can't go to the DA with it "

>

>~Rita

>

> > Federal judge rules that conversations between AA members are

>confidential

> > and not admissable as evidence, because AA is a religion! Apparently he

>was

> > relying on the Warner case. Conviction of murderer overturned...

> >

> > Read all about it at

> >

> > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/nyregion/02DRUN.html

> >

> > --wally

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 2, 2001

a crime wasnt planned, she was say in theory a crime could be planned and

admited to AA

members and the law would protect the guilty.

-- In 12-step-free@y..., " " <W51@h...> wrote:

> This is the first time i have heard of crimes being planned in AA meetings.

> I find it a very unusual place for such activities to be taking place. Can

> you please pass on some details or histories of when this has happened? I

> have never before thought about AA in terms of Organised Crime.

>

> >From: rita66@w...

> >Reply-To: 12-step-free@y...

> >To: 12-step-free@y...

> >Subject: Re: Legal weirdness in NY

> >Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:39:12 -0000

> >

> > OH MY GOD!! I am so nauseated. I was the one who posted the

> >original story a week or two ago -- supposedly this ruling was going to be

> >based on the ruling in the " Priest-Confess " case involving a priest who

> >testified after a guy's death that he had confessed to a murder for which

> >two other guys were serving lengthy sentences. The archbishop OK'ed it --

> >said it was a 'conversation', not a formal 'confession' -- the prosecutors

> >in the previous murder trial were of course trying to get the priest's

> >testimony ruled inadmissible -- everyone was waiting with baited breath for

> >the court's ruling. The ruling came down the other day -- it said that the

> >priest's testimony WAS admissible -- that a priest revealing the contents

> >of a conversation between himself & penitent is regulated by the Catholic

> >Church, not by the courts.

> >

> > SO HOW CAN THIS RULING ABOUT AA " SHARES " HAVE PASSED??? To be

in

> >keeping with the priest ruling, they should have said, " Yes, AA is

> >religious, but it is up to AA to 'discipline' members who violate the

> >'anonymity tradition', not the courts -- the testimony is valid. "

> >

> > This is really terrifying -- AA/NA members now have free reign to

> >actively PLAN crimes of all types at meetings -- and any members with a

> >shred of decency who try to report the planned crimes will be told, " Sorry,

> >the 'sharing' is confidential, you can't go to the DA with it "

> >

> >~Rita

> >

> > > Federal judge rules that conversations between AA members are

> >confidential

> > > and not admissable as evidence, because AA is a religion! Apparently he

> >was

> > > relying on the Warner case. Conviction of murderer overturned...

> > >

> > > Read all about it at

> > >

> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/nyregion/02DRUN.html

> > >

> > > --wally

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 2, 2001

In St. Louis at the Steps Alano Club on Park Ave. which provides meeting

space to gay people -

Mark Horton is a member of the board. He's the treasurer and embezzles

$3000. The board gives him two options - pay up or they notify the police.

He pays up and continues to be a revered old-timer who's very wise about the

ways of living sober.

Don Mester comes to me and wants me to look at a picture he's worried about

on his laptop. He's a revered old-timer who is considered to have a good

program and to be very wise. He consults me about his laptop because I work

with computers. I go to his house. He shows me a naked picture he received

in email of a 12-year old boy. He's concerned he could be arrested for this.

Probably not, unless some cyber cop is exchanging email with him. But I

tell him it's definitely dangerous to have this on his laptop and delete it,

only because I have just found out he's a pervert and I don't want him to

have this picture to jack off to.

has AIDS. Has had for 13 years. Yet he's treated for venereal

warts on his penis and anus, and is furious with his doctor because his

doctor is unhappy with the fact that he's contracted another STD.

claims to have had over 250 sex partners. He continues to go to Club Body

Center (bathe house) and seek sex with other men. I find this morally

outrageous not to mention irresponsible.

When I tell Madonna - former aa friend and confidante about Don, she says she

didn't want to know that about him. When I tell her I found out about Mark

Horton, she sternly tells me I ought not repeat that information. She served

on the same board as he did. Madonna has a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology

and is a certified therapist. What's wrong with her morals???

The sickest fuckers I've ever known, I met in aa. I will never darken the

doorway of another meeting as long as I live. I would rather die drunk, but

I won't because I choose to be abstinent, and find it very easy to do so. I

never had any problem with that aspect of aa. When I did use, it was because

I wanted to, not because something mysterious came over me and took control

of my mind - you know that cunning, baffling, and powerful ALCOHOL.

Actually I chose to use pot - I enjoyed it much more.

CRIMES in aa - I thought that was an everyday occurrence in aa.

Jan

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

---------

In a message dated 8/2/01 1:38:12 PM Central Daylight Time,

W51@... writes:

<< This is the first time i have heard of crimes being planned in AA

meetings.