Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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. 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 >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Lawyers on the list, can ministers and priests be sued if they break confidentiality? I imagine it has been tried, but I can't think of a breach of any legal duty. Mmmm. Perhaps a breach of contract. But what is the consideration? Defamation? No success there if what the cleric repeats is true. There are clearly fiduciary obligations here, but what is the casue of action for their breach? Others of you? If this were a fact pattern in a law school or bar exam, could you all contrive a cause of action? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Rita, I agree with you, this is quite disturbing. I just found out that Isseks represented the defendent. Did you know this before? Just wondering if you or Bob had any info that was not in the news article. Also, wasn't Isseks to have oral arguments in the Second Circuuit earlier last month on the mayor/taxpayer suit case? Heard anything on that one? Tommy > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Here is a link for those of you who do not want to register with nytimes. http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa010802a.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 A la Dubya: " Only in America! " This is amazing - and I am sure will make absolutely no difference to those still fighting coercion on religious grounds. Absolutely out of sight. AA's wins both ways. P. > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 > should we also > expect that AA money making machine deserves to be tax exempt too? In the UK it already is - I thought it was in the US too? > > 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. We always could say that Dave - anyone says it who can read a dictionary or has any common sense! P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Yes Pete, I would call it poetic injustice. AA lies about its religious nature and then one of its own gets away with murder because what AA lies about is indeed a lie. Doesn't make sense. For someone to get away with murder because something is deemed religious is a breach in and of itself of the separation of church and state. BTW here is the article in print from AP: Judge voids manslaughter conviction, saying AA conversations are 'religious communication' Associated Press Thursday, August 2, 2001 WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- A federal judge overturned a manslaughter conviction, saying conversations among Alcoholics Anonymous participants should not have been used as evidence because such exchanges are a form of confidential religious communication. U.S. District Judge Brieant said treating AA meetings with less protection than any other form of religious communication, which carries assurances of confidentiality, is unconstitutional. The entire AA relationship, he wrote, ``is anonymous and confidential.'' , 33, had been convicted of two counts of manslaughter for stabbing to death Laksman Rao Chervu and his wife, Shanta, in their home in 1988. claimed he was in an alcoholic stupor when he broke into the home, where he had lived as a child. He did not know the couple. His trial featured testimony - some obtained by subpoena - from AA members who said had discussed memories of the stabbings. was sentenced to a minimum of 16 years in prison. He appealed, claiming his statements to fellow AA members were confidential and should not have been admitted as evidence. Brieant said a federal appeals court held in 1999 ``that AA is a religion.'' That conclusion, he said, was reached in a case that said a criminal defendant could not be ordered to attend AA meetings ``because of the religious nature of the 12 steps.'' The 12 steps are tasks AA participants are asked to complete as they fight alcoholism. In his ruling Tuesday, Brieant said that, based on AA being considered a religion, disclosures of wrongs to fellow members should be protected by ``a privilege granted to other religions similarly situated.'' He also cited a state Court of Appeals finding that ``adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization.'' Brieant stayed 's release to allow time for an appeal, which District Attorney Jeanine Pirro said she would pursue. The prosecutor said the testimony was not privileged because ``there was no evidence whatsoever that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religious organization as required by statute, or that another member is a clergyman.'' Pirro also noted that the AA testimony did not concern what said in meetings, but rather in conversations outside meetings - a point Brieant did not address. 's attorney, Isseks, said the ruling was ``a tremendous and strong statement of First Amendment principles.'' A spokesman at AA's general services office in New York, who insisted that his name not be used because he is a member, said today that the organization would have no comment. > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 > > 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. In " Pass it On! " there is a picture of the " Actual coffee pot in which Lois brewed coffee " like it's a holy relic. Does AA pay taxes on the money collected > in baskets? In the UK it definitely doesnt, and I didnt think it does in the US either. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 > A spokesman at AA's general services office in New York, who insisted > that his name not be used because he is a member, said today that the > organization would have no comment. probably becuase the are too dumbfounded over how they are going to lie and deny their slimey way out of this one to newcomers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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. Well I can give you an example where it happens all the time . It's called signing court-coercion slips. It happens all the time on a massive scale all over the US in AA meetings, and it' violates the US Constitution. I must say we have coe a long way from the time when NA was effectively *illegal* in NY because to even admit to having used drugs could get you a rap. I wonder if all those folks who got snitched on by narc stoolpigeons can appeal to have their convictions revoked? P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 > A spokesman at AA's general services office in New York, who insisted > that his name not be used because he is a member, said today that the > organization would have no comment. Fans of the satirical and highly publicly controversial UK TV spoof news/documentary series " Brass Eye " will see this as beyond even genius producer Chis 's talents. Given that we will probably never have another of that series after the most recent episode lampooning the media's treatment of pedophilia, imo he ought to turn his attentions to an exposure of the AA anonymity/outised issues farce and the normally varciously intrusive media's ass-licking of it. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 > > > A spokesman at AA's general services office in New York, who insisted > > that his name not be used because he is a member, said today that the > > organization would have no comment. > > probably becuase the are too dumbfounded over how they are going to lie and deny their > slimey way out of this one to newcomers. Quite. they actually *did* have something to say about the Kishline tragedy and MM. Fred Rotgers has used it as evidence that AA is not hostile to MM, but in fact if you read what they said carefully then " damning with faint praise " is putting it mildy. They said things like " Some ppl are not yet ready to stop drinking " . I guess they reckon that some folks have to commit double vehicular homicide before they can be responsible about alcohol use. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Why is a confession testimony from a non law enforcement person allowed anyway It's been awhile since I studied for a bar exam, and I don't do crim law anymore, but admissions are either not hearsay (being defined out of the category) or are among the listed exceptions to the prohibition on hearsay. I can never remember which, but I think it is the former. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Admissions against interest" are allowed into evidence. In fact, I don't believe they are even considered hearsay. (Mona?) The theory is that someone would not admit to something incriminating unless it were actually true, hence it is trustworthy. Yes, I just replied to Tommy's inquiry, and I believe it is considered non-hearsay. Either that it or it is one of the listed exceptions -- but I think you have it right. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 I just read the article to my partner. Interesting. Now, if an AA member breaks confidentiality, can s/he be sued for doing so and for breaking religious confidentiality? Two inquiring minds here want to know. Lawyers on the list, can ministers and priests be sued if they break confidentiality? And if I were a Methodist or a Presbyterian church member, and another member told me something, would I be subject to the same sort of confidentiality that a minister has? I'll be interested to see how this case turns out. And if AA is officially a religion, can they ask for faith-based initiative money? Cheers, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted 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. 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 >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 > And if AA is officially a religion, can they ask for faith-based >initiative money? The State of land has been giving them money for years even when they were officially a non-religion and before faith-based initiatives.... P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 - really? tell me more. im a marylander. -- In 12-step-free@y..., watts_pete@h... wrote: > > > > And if AA is officially a religion, can they ask for faith-based > >initiative money? > > The State of land has been giving them money for years even when > they were officially a non-religion and before faith-based > initiatives.... > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.