Re: Tommy or anyone: Court Ordered AA

[Guest guest]

> > Tommy

>

> Does it have to be a certain AA member, say, one that the court can

> verify as being a member, or can it be just any person in the room?

> Could the AA person just refuse to sign, or have you ever heard of

> this happening? It just seems to me that Joe S. or whoever in the AA

> meeting could potentially have a lot of power over the person

needing

> the signature. If the court doesn't have any supervision over the

> person or people with the authority to sign the attendance slip, it

> would be fairly easy for AA members to abuse their position, say, if

> they wanted someone to " keep coming back " . I was just curious to

know

> if anyone had ever heard of this happening or if the court had some

> measure in place to prevent it.

> Joan

Joan,

I think it varies from place to place. My requirement was only any

present member. I never had one refuse to sign my slip but I have

heard of it happening. People in AA abuse their power all the time.

If AA had any dignity they would tell the courts/government that AA is

a private organization and does not condone coercion. AA does the

opposite; it not only accomodates this coercion, but actually

addresses it on their website, I forget in exactly what section. If

the government were to coerce someone into any other private

organization such as Elks, Rotary etc. the leader would make one call

to his Senator and it would end immediately. AA is a cult and will

get it's victims any way it can, even if it requires blatant lies

( " attraction, not promotion " and " spiritual, not religious " ). AA is

one big fat lie.

What says is true in that people all over forge slips and think

nothing of it. At the time, I was trying to salvage a career in an

organization under the AA spell and also trying to salvage a marriage

to a women also under the AA spell. All the while I hated going to

meetings and thought most all the AAer's were extraordinarly fucked up

people. And to think that a person on this list has doubted whether I

have ever been " depressed. " All this has affected me to this very

day, and that is why I spend so much time in an effort to end 12-step

coercion.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> I emphasized in my complaint in federal court that this compromised the

> anonymity of the AA member and cited it as a violation of the

> " excessive entanglement " prong of the " Lemon Test " , a test the Supreme

> Court uses to determine whether there is a violation of the

> Establishment Clause.

Although some of the Supremes have tried to drive a stake through

Lemon's heart -- both figuratively and literally. Scalia may be a cro-mag,

but the guy (or his clerks) can sure write.

I love this passage (even used it last year in another context):

----------

As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late

night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad,

after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment

Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening thelittle children and school

attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent

burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: our

decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ----, ---- (1992) (slip op., at 7),

conspicuously avoided using the supposed " test " but also declined the

invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of

the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally

driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion

repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so....

The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to

kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so,

but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. See, e. g., Lynch v.

Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 679 (1984) (noting instances in which Court has not

applied Lemon test). When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we

invoke it, see, e. g., Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985) (striking

downstate remedial education program administered in part in parochial

schools); when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it

entirely, see Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding state

legislative chaplains). Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its

three prongs " no more than helpful signposts, " Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734,

741 (1973). Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at

least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.

Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. (1993) 508 U.S. 384

(1993).

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

Justice White, writing for the majority, ribbed Scalia:

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

While we are somewhat diverted by Justice Scalia's evening at thecinema,

post, at 1 3, we return to the reality that there is a proper way to inter

an established decision and Lemon, however frightening it might be to some,

has not been overruled. This case, like Corporation of Presiding Bishop of

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987),

presents no occasion to do so. Justice Scalia apparently was less haunted by

the ghosts of the living when he joined the opinion of the Court in that

case.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2024.ZO.html

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> I emphasized in my complaint in federal court that this compromised the

> anonymity of the AA member and cited it as a violation of the

> " excessive entanglement " prong of the " Lemon Test " , a test the Supreme

> Court uses to determine whether there is a violation of the

> Establishment Clause.

Although some of the Supremes have tried to drive a stake through

Lemon's heart -- both figuratively and literally. Scalia may be a cro-mag,

but the guy (or his clerks) can sure write.

I love this passage (even used it last year in another context):

----------

As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late

night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad,

after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment

Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening thelittle children and school

attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent

burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: our

decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ----, ---- (1992) (slip op., at 7),

conspicuously avoided using the supposed " test " but also declined the

invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of

the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally

driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion

repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so....

The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to

kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so,

but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. See, e. g., Lynch v.

Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 679 (1984) (noting instances in which Court has not

applied Lemon test). When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we

invoke it, see, e. g., Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985) (striking

downstate remedial education program administered in part in parochial

schools); when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it

entirely, see Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding state

legislative chaplains). Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its

three prongs " no more than helpful signposts, " Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734,

741 (1973). Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at

least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.

Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. (1993) 508 U.S. 384

(1993).

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

Justice White, writing for the majority, ribbed Scalia:

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

While we are somewhat diverted by Justice Scalia's evening at thecinema,

post, at 1 3, we return to the reality that there is a proper way to inter

an established decision and Lemon, however frightening it might be to some,

has not been overruled. This case, like Corporation of Presiding Bishop of

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987),

presents no occasion to do so. Justice Scalia apparently was less haunted by

the ghosts of the living when he joined the opinion of the Court in that

case.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2024.ZO.html

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> I emphasized in my complaint in federal court that this compromised the

> anonymity of the AA member and cited it as a violation of the

> " excessive entanglement " prong of the " Lemon Test " , a test the Supreme

> Court uses to determine whether there is a violation of the

> Establishment Clause.

Although some of the Supremes have tried to drive a stake through

Lemon's heart -- both figuratively and literally. Scalia may be a cro-mag,

but the guy (or his clerks) can sure write.

I love this passage (even used it last year in another context):

----------

As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late

night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad,

after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment

Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening thelittle children and school

attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent

burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: our

decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ----, ---- (1992) (slip op., at 7),

conspicuously avoided using the supposed " test " but also declined the

invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of

the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally

driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion

repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so....

The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to

kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so,

but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. See, e. g., Lynch v.

Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 679 (1984) (noting instances in which Court has not

applied Lemon test). When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we

invoke it, see, e. g., Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985) (striking

downstate remedial education program administered in part in parochial

schools); when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it

entirely, see Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding state

legislative chaplains). Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its

three prongs " no more than helpful signposts, " Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734,

741 (1973). Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at

least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.

Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. (1993) 508 U.S. 384

(1993).

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

Justice White, writing for the majority, ribbed Scalia:

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

While we are somewhat diverted by Justice Scalia's evening at thecinema,

post, at 1 3, we return to the reality that there is a proper way to inter

an established decision and Lemon, however frightening it might be to some,

has not been overruled. This case, like Corporation of Presiding Bishop of

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987),

presents no occasion to do so. Justice Scalia apparently was less haunted by

the ghosts of the living when he joined the opinion of the Court in that

case.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2024.ZO.html