Re: Legal weirdness in NY

[Guest guest]

The remedy for a party whose priest or minister who attempts to

testify against them would be to have the evidence excluded. The

privilege belongs to the party, not the clergyman.

And this is one of the things that truly puzzles me about the priest

who came forward with the testimony that a different person, who had

died, had told him he had committed the murder that others had been

imprisoned for. I thought privilege did not survive the death of the

person claiming it. In that case, what does the Archbishop have to do

with it? Once the man had died, the priest should have been free to

come forward. Does anyone else know any more about this?

> In a message dated 8/2/01 8:16:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ghhws1@h... writes:

>

>

> > 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--

[Guest guest]

Why is a confession testimony from a non law enforcement person

allowed anyway? Seems to me like it would be disallowed because it

would be considered hearsay.

> > In a message dated 8/2/01 8:16:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > ghhws1@h... writes:

> >

> >

> > > 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--

[Guest guest]

At 09:09 PM 8/2/01 -0400, wrote:

>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?

The way I read the article, it only states that statements made in

AA are not admissible in a court of law in the state of New York.

As far as " can s/he be sued, " one can sue anyone for anything -

whether it is a suit that can reasonably be won is another question.

But playing along with your question...

What if a former (ahem) AA member, and currently non-alcoholic

[regardless of what my MIB record might say] repeats statements made in

confidence to him when he was a member? Just a rhetorical and

theoretical question, of course.

>And if AA is officially a religion, can they ask for faith-based

initiative money?

Oh, no, absolutely not, that would be Against Traditions. AA sbould

only be self-supporting through its own members' contributions.

The only thing this might result in is that AA meetings pay a dollar

a year to meet in government buildings. That is to say, AAWS sends the

government a check for one dollar every year, and for that, tens of

thousands of AA meetings get to meet weekly or daily in government

buildings. That would not be a gift, because AA would be paying for

it - " Here, we have the cancelled check, it's in our records, we paid

for it. " I wonder who will provide coffee and cookies.

But every church that has an AA/NA meeting might well qualify for

faith-based funds for D & A recovery, even though their only

qualification is they rent space to a 12-step meeting.

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 02:40 AM 8/3/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Why is a confession testimony from a non law enforcement person

>allowed anyway? Seems to me like it would be disallowed because it

>would be considered hearsay.

Hearsay is admissible in some cases, one being when the person

who originally spoke is now dead (and so can't testify).

[Guest guest]

" 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.

> > > In a message dated 8/2/01 8:16:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > > ghhws1@h... writes:

> > >

> > >

> > > > 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--

[Guest guest]

As says, if the declarant is unavailable (i.e., dead) certain

kinds of hearsay are allowed.

> > > > In a message dated 8/2/01 8:16:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > > > ghhws1@h... writes:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 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--

[Guest guest]

> And this is one of the things that truly puzzles me about the priest

> who came forward with the testimony that a different person, who had

> died, had told him he had committed the murder that others had been

> imprisoned for. I thought privilege did not survive the death of the

> person claiming it. In that case, what does the Archbishop have to do

> with it? Once the man had died, the priest should have been free to

> come forward. Does anyone else know any more about this?

As a divinity student, I can tell you, from the church I was raised in, it

doesn't survive death, but it is a matter of conscience for the individual

minister, regarding the rest of the family, the exact confession, etc.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> > 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

> > >

[Guest guest]

> 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

>

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

Hi Tommy --

I had no idea Isseks was involved until I read the article. Isseks is not

a criminal attorney, and did not represent this man at the original trial.

I've been racking my brains to try to understand what Isseks' point is, and the

best I can speculate is this: himself, either as a still-loyal stepper or

as just a desperate guy who exhausted all other avenues of appeal, may have

cried piteously that the testimony of the 7 AA'ers who reported his homicidal

" share " shouldn't be allowed because it breaks the " anonymity tradition " and

because " it is understood " that in AA meetings, " what you hear here, let it stay

here. " Then, I theorize, the DA dismissed such ideas on the grounds that " well

there is no 'privileged information' status to AA 'shares' because it's not like

AA is religious or anything... " and at THAT point it caught the attention of

Bob Isseks, who saw this as a possible challenge to his 12 years of work in

getting the courts in the 2nd Circuit to recognize the religiosity of XA. So

Isseks (not ) began to loudly vocalize the " AA is religious so 'shares' are

the same as Catholic confessions " crap.

Isseks is a fool for taking this stance. He'd do better in retaining

credibility for his previous achievements if he took the opposite stance -- that

in NO WAY should the state get involved in interpreting or enforcing any aspect

of AA's " spiritual " program.

And anyway, there is NOTHING in AA literature that states that no member is

allowed to repeat anything heard in meetings -- certainly nothing stating that

criminal activity is to be protected by other AA members.

p.s. No, haven't heard any update on the Middletown mayor case -- I live quite

far from that county and don't keep up with their politics. Is Bob Warner still

on this list? That's his region, I believe.

[Guest guest]

down in DC, i heard of a group called the R street group or something similar,

there

were tales of it having a guru guy as leader and he suspoedly promoted opposite

sex

sponsoring and haing sex with new commers. my sponsor told me this all hush

hush.

which i thought was oddd, becuase if this is so bad, why is everyone so quite

about ti?

shoudlnt you be vocal to prevent this fucker from hurting people?

then there was tthat thing about aa and the raping of members which the gso sent

out a

warning, apparently only becuase there was an on going investigation or

something.,

always good to come out with this stuff yourself, if you know someone else is

going to

anyways.

but it all makes sense becuase AA isnt about sobirety, or even a " good program "

its

about the god and the group.

and there should be no wonder this is so, it comes from Bill wilson himself, its

the

tradition of group preservation and not embarassing AA:

" The moment Twelfth Step work forms a group, a discovery is made -- that most

individuals cannot recover unless there is a group. Realization dawns on each

member

that he is but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is too

great for

preservation of the Fellowship. He learns that the clamor of desires and

ambitions within

him must be silenced whenever these could damage the group. "

-bill wilson

and of course people go along with this, and dont let AA's dirt out because

without the

group , people suppsoedly die:

" This is why sobriety -- freedom from alcohol -- through the teaching and

practice of A.A.'s

Twelve Steps, is the sole purpose of the group. If we don't stick to this

cardinal principle,

we shall almost certainly collapse. And if we collapse we cannot help anyone. "

" A.A. is more than a set of principles; it is a society of alcoholics in action.

We must carry

the message, else we ourselves can wither and those who haven't been given the

truth

may die. "

ironicallty this comes from a man who lied about AA 's relgious nature, froma

man and

preached honesty yet lied to his wife his whole marriage about the womanizng he

did his

entire life.

[Guest guest]

not to mention wilson lied about channeling spirits too.

[Guest guest]

lied directly and indirectly about many things. His spiritual

awakening was drug and stress induced hallucination.

In a message dated 8/3/01 12:56:45 AM Central Daylight Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< not to mention wilson lied about channeling spirits too.

>>

[Guest guest]

see response below - starts with per saint wilson,

In a message dated 8/3/01 12:56:04 AM Central Daylight Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< down in DC, i heard of a group called the R street group or something

similar, there

were tales of it having a guru guy as leader and he suspoedly promoted

opposite sex

sponsoring and haing sex with new commers. my sponsor told me this all hush

hush.

which i thought was oddd, becuase if this is so bad, why is everyone so

quite about ti?

shoudlnt you be vocal to prevent this fucker from hurting people?

then there was tthat thing about aa and the raping of members which the gso

sent out a

warning, apparently only becuase there was an on going investigation or

something.,

always good to come out with this stuff yourself, if you know someone else

is going to

anyways.

but it all makes sense becuase AA isnt about sobirety, or even a " good

program " its

about the god and the group.

and there should be no wonder this is so, it comes from Bill wilson himself,

its the

tradition of group preservation and not embarassing AA:

" The moment Twelfth Step work forms a group, a discovery is made -- that

most

individuals cannot recover unless there is a group. Realization dawns on

each member

that he is but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is

too great for

preservation of the Fellowship. He learns that the clamor of desires and

ambitions within

him must be silenced whenever these could damage the group. "

-bill wilson

and of course people go along with this, and dont let AA's dirt out because

without the

group , people suppsoedly die:

" This is why sobriety -- freedom from alcohol -- through the teaching and

practice of A.A.'s

Twelve Steps, is the sole purpose of the group. If we don't stick to this

cardinal principle,

we shall almost certainly collapse. And if we collapse we cannot help

anyone. "

" A.A. is more than a set of principles; it is a society of alcoholics in

action. We must carry

the message, else we ourselves can wither and those who haven't been given

the truth

may die. "

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

Per saint wilson:

see his last will and testament at aadeprogramming.com. He and lois made

quite snatch of money from the residuals of sales of the bb and other books

he wrote. He left a certain percentage of his wealth to his mistress Helen.

How's this work with practicing the program with vigorous honesty? No

wonder he never worked a day in his life after he joined aa. The rockefellers

gave him a stipend monthly, I think, and of course, he made a pile from sales

of the big book. he has, as aa's continue to do today, lied blatantly about

the religious origins of aa. I've visited aa chats rooms (okay just to stir

up shit, and present other viewpoints) and these people all claim to be

working a spiritual program. The seventh step prayer is a Christian prayer

as is the Our Father used to close most meetings. But, I'm preaching to the

choir here.

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

ironicallty this comes from a man who lied about AA 's relgious nature,

froma man and

preached honesty yet lied to his wife his whole marriage about the womanizng

he did his

entire life.

>>

[Guest guest]

OK. Thanks. I just find it hard to visualise people choosing AA meetings to

plan or organise crimes. I did not realise that this had never happened and

was theory only.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Legal weirdness in NY

>Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:53:55 -0000

>

>

>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

>

_________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

In the real world Pete. Your protestations are hardly in the context of the

discussion. You may indeed be right on this technicality, it has yet to be

tried in the courts, but you changing the focus to suit yourself is hardly

cosher.

>From: watts_pete@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Legal weirdness in NY

>Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:39:17 -0000

>

>

> > 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.

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

Drug users talk about drugs and where they can be obtained no matter where

they are. Do you want self help groups to be policed by legal means? A haven

for criminals? Do you see addicts who are talking about the logistics of

supplying their addiction as criminals? Only those at the end of the line go

to NA. Those at the forefront of the drug dealing activities who make all

the money would never dream of going to such places and to pounce on those

who do attend is further oppressing the weak and the exploited.

>From: rita66@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Legal weirdness in NY

>Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 04:31:40 -0000

>

>

> > > 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

> > > >

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

If the court had wanted to, it could have found that AA is a religion but that its members have no more standing to qualify as clergy than do a couple of Quakers or Catholics or Congregationlists chatting after a service.f I agree that the court went to astonishing lengths here, and that the precedent, while luckily not far-reaching in terms of jurisdiction, is disastrous.

Isseks must be a very good lawyer.

Absolutely. 100% concurrence here. I admire Isseks' lawyerly skills quite enormously, even as I am relatively certain (and hopeful) that the Second Circuit will send back a reversal. That AA is a religion -- and it is -- is not by any stretch a justification for expanding the priest-penitent privilege beyond all reason.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Despite what you say, Rita, many AAers do believe that what is shared

at AA meetings enjoys legal confidentiality and privilege. Face it,

that is what they are told, and most of them are not as intelligent as

you are. Also, most of them are not faced with the lack of

confidentiality due to treatment as you were.

It seems to me that Isseks wanted to make the point that AA is a

religion. Well, he accomplished that. As to whether the state has

any business at all interpreting or enforcing AA's religious stance --

I can't agree with you there. There are some religions that are very

abusive. Scientology comes first to mind, but AA is one as well, and

isn't that one of the things we complain of here on this list? That

the state has not only acknowledged the anonymity principle, but

promoted it? It is this secretiveness that allows the abuse, is it

not?

There will be times when the interests of the state and religion will

conflict. Look at the blood transfusion issue. Look at the failure

of Christian Scientists to permit their children be treated, and how

the state steps in when a child dies of a treatable disease. Look at

the FDA's insistence that the silly Scientology machine bear a warning

that it had no demonstrable medical benefits. I think that it is

particularly when a religion claims to have a medical aspect that the

state has a right to step in. The Scientology treatment for

alcoholism is clearly without scientific basis and is actually harmful

to people with other health problems.

If the court had wanted to, it could have found that AA is a religion

but that its members have no more standing to qualify as clergy than

do a couple of Quakers or Catholics or Congregationlists chatting

after a service.f I agree that the court went to astonishing lengths

here, and that the precedent, while luckily not far-reaching in terms

of jurisdiction, is disastrous.

Isseks must be a very good lawyer.

>

> Hi Tommy --

>

> I had no idea Isseks was involved until I read the article.

Isseks is not a criminal attorney, and did not represent this man

at the original trial. I've been racking my brains to try to

understand what Isseks' point is, and the best I can speculate is

this: himself, either as a still-loyal stepper or as just a

desperate guy who exhausted all other avenues of appeal, may have

cried piteously that the testimony of the 7 AA'ers who reported his

homicidal " share " shouldn't be allowed because it breaks the

" anonymity tradition " and because " it is understood " that in AA

meetings, " what you hear here, let it stay here. " Then, I theorize,

the DA dismissed such ideas on the grounds that " well there is no

'privileged information' status to AA 'shares' because it's not like

AA is religious or anything... " and at THAT point it caught the

attention of Bob Isseks, who saw this as a possible challenge to his

12 years of work in getting the courts in the 2nd Circuit to recognize

the religiosity of XA. So Isseks (not ) began to loudly vocalize

the " AA is religious so 'shares' are the same as Catholic confessions "

crap.

>

> Isseks is a fool for taking this stance. He'd do better in

retaining credibility for his previous achievements if he took the

opposite stance -- that in NO WAY should the state get involved in

interpreting or enforcing any aspect of AA's " spiritual " program.

>

> And anyway, there is NOTHING in AA literature that states that

no member is allowed to repeat anything heard in meetings -- certainly

nothing stating that criminal activity is to be protected by other AA

members.

>

> p.s. No, haven't heard any update on the Middletown mayor case -- I

live quite far from that county and don't keep up with their politics.

Is Bob Warner still on this list? That's his region, I believe.

[Guest guest]

> OK. Thanks. I just find it hard to visualise people choosing AA

meetings to

> plan or organise crimes. I did not realise that this had never

happened and

> was theory only.

There you go again Mr wAAtson. Look pretty silly now that youve been

shown it happens all the time, dont you?

P.

[Guest guest]

WRONG . Just shows your ignorance of the facts and how you

dont have any real interest or understanding of the issues relevant

to this list. It has been shown MORE THAN ONCE that AA coercion is

unconstitutional. I'm not changing the focus, I'm telling you a FACT.

> > > 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.

> >

> >

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Mona:

No doubt they will since they have a strangle hold on the treatment industry,

and many people coerced into treatment feel this violates their 8th amendment

rights per the establishment clause. Further, since it is becoming more

public knowledge that AA is very ineffective in treating addictions,

insurance companies likely won't want to pay for AA indoctrination via

treatment facilities. In reading " The Drama of the Gifted Child " , it was

apparent to me that not all therapists are regarding AA as the answer to

addiction.

Jan

In a message dated 8/6/01 11:04:18 AM Central Daylight Time,

MonaHolland1@... writes:

<<

But *is* this notion really part of the AA religion? Could be that AA is

going to dragged into some " outside controversies " whether it likes it or

not. >>

[Guest guest]

Interesting observation Steve.

Rita I should think that if there is an expectation of privacy between

....say a counseling session between a pigeon and a sponsor which said

sponsor later reveals the details of causing emotional stress to the

individual which eventually results in the individual committing suicide?

Far fetched, some steppers would say, but not really from what I've read

here alone and I've personally seen in the rewms.

I would have thought, once a member agrees to accept someone as a sponsee,

that at the very least they have a fiduciary responsibility to the

individual. While I accept the fact that most XA's would refute that

concept I don't think it's far fetched at all.

Of course I'm speculating here and I darn sure don't know the least about

contract law but could it be argued that the pigeon and the sponsor enter

into a contract at such time as they agree to play each perspective role?

- Re: Legal weirdness in NY

-

-

-

->

-> 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.

->

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

-

- Not following you here -- how can clergy be sued for malpractice?

-

-~Rita

-

[Guest guest]

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: <12-step-free >

>Subject: RE: Re: Legal weirdness in NY

>Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:55:32 -0500

>

>

>Interesting observation Steve.

>

>Rita I should think that if there is an expectation of privacy between

>...say a counseling session between a pigeon and a sponsor which said

>sponsor later reveals the details of causing emotional stress to the

>individual which eventually results in the individual committing suicide?

>

>Far fetched, some steppers would say, but not really from what I've read

>here alone and I've personally seen in the rewms.

>

>I would have thought, once a member agrees to accept someone as a sponsee,

>that at the very least they have a fiduciary responsibility to the

>individual. While I accept the fact that most XA's would refute that

>concept I don't think it's far fetched at all.

>

>Of course I'm speculating here and I darn sure don't know the least about

>contract law but could it be argued that the pigeon and the sponsor enter

>into a contract at such time as they agree to play each perspective role?

>

To me, it would be the equivalent of conventional clergy when they act in a

counseling role, . Why shouldn't they be subject to malpractice just

like other clergy (I believe) are when they are in a counseling role?

Just think of what would happen the next time a sponsor said: " You're not

*really* sober.... get rid of that Prozac. "

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

maybe not AA, but from what i understand, certianly part of NA's.

what hasnt been mentioned here, this ruling has implicatisons beyond AA, it

would effect any

12-step group.

> But *is* this notion really part of the AA religion? Could be that AA is

> going to dragged into some " outside controversies " whether it likes it or not.

>

> --Mona--