Three Immunities

[Sonny Clark]

Everyone knows about "presidential immunity" and "diplomatic immunity", but how many know about and understand "Catholic Priest Immunity"?

Over the course of the past several decades, how many Catholic Priest have been sentenced for child molestation and rape? How many have been convicted of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or "improper conduct with a minor"? How many Catholic altar boys have come forth with stories of molestation and rape in connection to Catholic Priest? And, of all those cases, how many Catholic Priest have actually been placed behind bars as a result? My guess is very few, even though I have read of some that have been convicted.

Why do we give them a free past, allow the Catholic church to "pay families off", or allow the Catholic church to simply relocate the priest to a different state? Would you or I be allowed such immunity or exemption from the laws?

What would you consider to be justice in such cases? Should they be allowed immunity?

 

[emilynghiem]

No, there is no immunity to criminal violations.
People were failing to report abuses by keeping the complaints "in house"
as if these are not proven and aren't treated as criminal complaints or charges yet.

This is not correct.
Even the Christian laws teach to respect civil laws and authority,
so the criminal laws do prevail.

One group that has court cases SHIELDING them from complaints,
a woman went to court against the Jehovah's Witness elders,
claiming they had hidden sexual abuse of children. And they
disfellowshipped her for trying to uncover and bring these charges to law.

Here is one website that might have that case cited:
Case Summation

Yep I found it: Barbara Anderson, lost her case on appeal, due to "internal church matters"
and "separation of church and state" where they did not have enough proof for govt to intervene:
anderson loses appeal

They claimed they had the right to remove her for violating
"in house" policies that she NOT go public with the conflicts
between them but continue to redress them within the group
directly with elders. But elders have more power to pressure
members to "not cause disunity," so there is no guarantee they
will try to follow up on accusations of abuse but will cover up for "unity sake."

The courts ruled that the JW group had the right to exercise their
inhouse policies, and they acted by the rules shunning the member for
not following the policies.

So they put the religious freedom to follow "in house" policies
above the civic duty to report possible child abuse.
Because there was no proof, just "hearsay" then it was hard
to get enough backing to push for criminal issues to supercede the "inhouse"
rules of religious groups that they argued the state had no authority to interfere with.

So the "innocent until proven guilty" works in favor of the offenders
hiding enough traces to prevent from proving there might be a criminal case.

If there is no proven threat of violation of criminal law,
then it's civil and religious freedom is going to be argued as none of the state's business.

Very upsetting when I found this out.

That's why I believe religious organizations and other corporations should be
required upon registration with the state to agree to the same rules of
due process and right to petition, so they don't abuse unequal
collective authority as a large group to overrun individual rights.
Too much room for abuse, so the same limits on govt
should apply to any other large collective type organization
because the same power imbalance is going to happen and threaten equal protection of individuals.

I remember crying at my computer, calling a friend in tears, in shock and grief,
when I found out this level of religious and sexual abuse was going on in America.
Under the color of religious freedom from outside interference.
I couldn't believe it. I read case after case and was just shattered.
I had no idea the power of cults to have this many people follow along
but trusting their leadership to handle it. to the point of not knowing how to respond to criminal accusations and being too afraid to break from the herd (or being silenced and cut off from families if they wake up to what is going on and speak out).
Could NOT believe this was happening.

 

[Sonny Clark]

No, there is no immunity to criminal violations.
People were failing to report abuses by keeping the complaints "in house"
as if these are not proven and aren't treated as criminal complaints or charges yet.

This is not correct.
Even the Christian laws teach to respect civil laws and authority,
so the criminal laws do prevail.

One group that has court cases SHIELDING them from complaints,
a woman went to court against the Jehovah's Witness elders,
claiming they had hidden sexual abuse of children. And they
disfellowshipped her for trying to uncover and bring these charges to law.

Here is one website that might have that case cited:
Case Summation

I can't find the exact case, but it was a former member who used to
work at a very high level, and then got banned after she tried to expose the wrongs.

They claimed they had the right to remove her for violating
"in house" policies that she NOT go public with the conflicts
between them but continue to redress them within the group
directly with elders. But elders have more power to pressure
members to "not cause disunity," so there is no guarantee they
will try to follow up on accusations of abuse but will cover up for "unity sake."

The courts ruled that the JW group had the right to exercise their
inhouse policies, and they acted by the rules shunning the member for
not following the policies.

So they put the religious freedom to follow "in house" policies
above the civic duty to report possible child abuse.
Because there was no proof, just "hearsay" then it was hard
to get enough backing to push for criminal issues to supercede the "inhouse"
rules of religious groups that they argued the state had no authority to interfere with.

So the "innocent until proven guilty" works in favor of the offenders
hiding enough traces to prevent from proving there might be a criminal case.

If there is no proven threat of violation of criminal law,
then it's civil and religious freedom is going to be argued as none of the state's business.

Very upsetting when I found this out.

That's why I believe religious organizations and other corporations should be
required upon registration with the state to agree to the same rules of
due process and right to petition, so they don't abuse unequal
collective authority as a large group to overrun individual rights.
Too much room for abuse, so the same limits on govt
should apply to any other large collective type organization
because the same power imbalance is going to happen and threaten equal protection of individuals.

That still doesn't address the fact that the Catholic church basically admitted guilt by paying off families and agreeing to relocate priest. And, yes, molestation of children was proven to be fact. Even today, the Pope has addressed the issue and has spoken against the known abuse.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, there is no immunity to criminal violations.
People were failing to report abuses by keeping the complaints "in house"
as if these are not proven and aren't treated as criminal complaints or charges yet.

This is not correct.
Even the Christian laws teach to respect civil laws and authority,
so the criminal laws do prevail.

One group that has court cases SHIELDING them from complaints,
a woman went to court against the Jehovah's Witness elders,
claiming they had hidden sexual abuse of children. And they
disfellowshipped her for trying to uncover and bring these charges to law.

Here is one website that might have that case cited:
Case Summation

I can't find the exact case, but it was a former member who used to
work at a very high level, and then got banned after she tried to expose the wrongs.

They claimed they had the right to remove her for violating
"in house" policies that she NOT go public with the conflicts
between them but continue to redress them within the group
directly with elders. But elders have more power to pressure
members to "not cause disunity," so there is no guarantee they
will try to follow up on accusations of abuse but will cover up for "unity sake."

The courts ruled that the JW group had the right to exercise their
inhouse policies, and they acted by the rules shunning the member for
not following the policies.

So they put the religious freedom to follow "in house" policies
above the civic duty to report possible child abuse.
Because there was no proof, just "hearsay" then it was hard
to get enough backing to push for criminal issues to supercede the "inhouse"
rules of religious groups that they argued the state had no authority to interfere with.

So the "innocent until proven guilty" works in favor of the offenders
hiding enough traces to prevent from proving there might be a criminal case.

If there is no proven threat of violation of criminal law,
then it's civil and religious freedom is going to be argued as none of the state's business.

Very upsetting when I found this out.

That's why I believe religious organizations and other corporations should be
required upon registration with the state to agree to the same rules of
due process and right to petition, so they don't abuse unequal
collective authority as a large group to overrun individual rights.
Too much room for abuse, so the same limits on govt
should apply to any other large collective type organization
because the same power imbalance is going to happen and threaten equal protection of individuals.

That still doesn't address the fact that the Catholic church basically admitted guilt by paying off families and agreeing to relocate priest. And, yes, molestation of children was proven to be fact. Even today, the Pope has addressed the issue and has spoken against the known abuse.

So if immunity covers settlements to shush things up then Michael Jackson and Bill Cosby also have Celebrity Immunity?

 

[Sonny Clark]

No, there is no immunity to criminal violations.
People were failing to report abuses by keeping the complaints "in house"
as if these are not proven and aren't treated as criminal complaints or charges yet.

This is not correct.
Even the Christian laws teach to respect civil laws and authority,
so the criminal laws do prevail.

One group that has court cases SHIELDING them from complaints,
a woman went to court against the Jehovah's Witness elders,
claiming they had hidden sexual abuse of children. And they
disfellowshipped her for trying to uncover and bring these charges to law.

Here is one website that might have that case cited:
Case Summation

I can't find the exact case, but it was a former member who used to
work at a very high level, and then got banned after she tried to expose the wrongs.

They claimed they had the right to remove her for violating
"in house" policies that she NOT go public with the conflicts
between them but continue to redress them within the group
directly with elders. But elders have more power to pressure
members to "not cause disunity," so there is no guarantee they
will try to follow up on accusations of abuse but will cover up for "unity sake."

The courts ruled that the JW group had the right to exercise their
inhouse policies, and they acted by the rules shunning the member for
not following the policies.

So they put the religious freedom to follow "in house" policies
above the civic duty to report possible child abuse.
Because there was no proof, just "hearsay" then it was hard
to get enough backing to push for criminal issues to supercede the "inhouse"
rules of religious groups that they argued the state had no authority to interfere with.

So the "innocent until proven guilty" works in favor of the offenders
hiding enough traces to prevent from proving there might be a criminal case.

If there is no proven threat of violation of criminal law,
then it's civil and religious freedom is going to be argued as none of the state's business.

Very upsetting when I found this out.

That's why I believe religious organizations and other corporations should be
required upon registration with the state to agree to the same rules of
due process and right to petition, so they don't abuse unequal
collective authority as a large group to overrun individual rights.
Too much room for abuse, so the same limits on govt
should apply to any other large collective type organization
because the same power imbalance is going to happen and threaten equal protection of individuals.

That still doesn't address the fact that the Catholic church basically admitted guilt by paying off families and agreeing to relocate priest. And, yes, molestation of children was proven to be fact. Even today, the Pope has addressed the issue and has spoken against the known abuse.

So if immunity covers settlements to shush things up then Michael Jackson and Bill Cosby also have Celebrity Immunity?

I didn't know that they were found guilty. Michael Jackson was found innocent, and Bill Cosby hasn't been to court yet. I fail to see where either were given immunity. The Cosby case is still pending. There was no proof that Michael Jackson molested anyone. Rumors do not mean guilt.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, there is no immunity to criminal violations.
People were failing to report abuses by keeping the complaints "in house"
as if these are not proven and aren't treated as criminal complaints or charges yet.

This is not correct.
Even the Christian laws teach to respect civil laws and authority,
so the criminal laws do prevail.

One group that has court cases SHIELDING them from complaints,
a woman went to court against the Jehovah's Witness elders,
claiming they had hidden sexual abuse of children. And they
disfellowshipped her for trying to uncover and bring these charges to law.

Here is one website that might have that case cited:
Case Summation

I can't find the exact case, but it was a former member who used to
work at a very high level, and then got banned after she tried to expose the wrongs.

They claimed they had the right to remove her for violating
"in house" policies that she NOT go public with the conflicts
between them but continue to redress them within the group
directly with elders. But elders have more power to pressure
members to "not cause disunity," so there is no guarantee they
will try to follow up on accusations of abuse but will cover up for "unity sake."

The courts ruled that the JW group had the right to exercise their
inhouse policies, and they acted by the rules shunning the member for
not following the policies.

So they put the religious freedom to follow "in house" policies
above the civic duty to report possible child abuse.
Because there was no proof, just "hearsay" then it was hard
to get enough backing to push for criminal issues to supercede the "inhouse"
rules of religious groups that they argued the state had no authority to interfere with.

So the "innocent until proven guilty" works in favor of the offenders
hiding enough traces to prevent from proving there might be a criminal case.

If there is no proven threat of violation of criminal law,
then it's civil and religious freedom is going to be argued as none of the state's business.

Very upsetting when I found this out.

That's why I believe religious organizations and other corporations should be
required upon registration with the state to agree to the same rules of
due process and right to petition, so they don't abuse unequal
collective authority as a large group to overrun individual rights.
Too much room for abuse, so the same limits on govt
should apply to any other large collective type organization
because the same power imbalance is going to happen and threaten equal protection of individuals.

That still doesn't address the fact that the Catholic church basically admitted guilt by paying off families and agreeing to relocate priest. And, yes, molestation of children was proven to be fact. Even today, the Pope has addressed the issue and has spoken against the known abuse.

So if immunity covers settlements to shush things up then Michael Jackson and Bill Cosby also have Celebrity Immunity?

I didn't know that they were found guilty. Michael Jackson was found innocent, and Bill Cosby hasn't been to court yet. I fail to see where either were given immunity. The Cosby case is still pending. There was no proof that Michael Jackson molested anyone. Rumors do not mean guilt.

I thought the point of settling was to.drop it. I thought you were saying settlements were showing guilt indirectly. As for Cosby he had past settlements of cases, and some unofficial hush money reports by a man who did them. Some differences, some common pravctice of buying your way out of wrongs

 

[Sonny Clark]

No, there is no immunity to criminal violations.
People were failing to report abuses by keeping the complaints "in house"
as if these are not proven and aren't treated as criminal complaints or charges yet.

This is not correct.
Even the Christian laws teach to respect civil laws and authority,
so the criminal laws do prevail.

One group that has court cases SHIELDING them from complaints,
a woman went to court against the Jehovah's Witness elders,
claiming they had hidden sexual abuse of children. And they
disfellowshipped her for trying to uncover and bring these charges to law.

Here is one website that might have that case cited:
Case Summation

I can't find the exact case, but it was a former member who used to
work at a very high level, and then got banned after she tried to expose the wrongs.

They claimed they had the right to remove her for violating
"in house" policies that she NOT go public with the conflicts
between them but continue to redress them within the group
directly with elders. But elders have more power to pressure
members to "not cause disunity," so there is no guarantee they
will try to follow up on accusations of abuse but will cover up for "unity sake."

The courts ruled that the JW group had the right to exercise their
inhouse policies, and they acted by the rules shunning the member for
not following the policies.

So they put the religious freedom to follow "in house" policies
above the civic duty to report possible child abuse.
Because there was no proof, just "hearsay" then it was hard
to get enough backing to push for criminal issues to supercede the "inhouse"
rules of religious groups that they argued the state had no authority to interfere with.

So the "innocent until proven guilty" works in favor of the offenders
hiding enough traces to prevent from proving there might be a criminal case.

If there is no proven threat of violation of criminal law,
then it's civil and religious freedom is going to be argued as none of the state's business.

Very upsetting when I found this out.

That's why I believe religious organizations and other corporations should be
required upon registration with the state to agree to the same rules of
due process and right to petition, so they don't abuse unequal
collective authority as a large group to overrun individual rights.
Too much room for abuse, so the same limits on govt
should apply to any other large collective type organization
because the same power imbalance is going to happen and threaten equal protection of individuals.

That still doesn't address the fact that the Catholic church basically admitted guilt by paying off families and agreeing to relocate priest. And, yes, molestation of children was proven to be fact. Even today, the Pope has addressed the issue and has spoken against the known abuse.

So if immunity covers settlements to shush things up then Michael Jackson and Bill Cosby also have Celebrity Immunity?

I didn't know that they were found guilty. Michael Jackson was found innocent, and Bill Cosby hasn't been to court yet. I fail to see where either were given immunity. The Cosby case is still pending. There was no proof that Michael Jackson molested anyone. Rumors do not mean guilt.

I thought the point of settling was to.drop it. I thought you were saying settlements were showing guilt indirectly. As for Cosby he had past settlements of cases, and some unofficial hush money reports by a man who did them. Some differences, some common pravctice of buying your way out of wrongs

Yes, I'm sure that money and status talks, it's very common. Sure, money changes hands even in high profile cases. We have a system of injustice as opposed to a system of justice. But, my point is, Catholic Priest are not put in prison even when there is proof. Or, should I say that they are rarely sentenced and placed behind bars. I remember a well documented case that occurred in Louisiana where many came forward with the same story, and the priest was sent to Seattle to another church. They just relocated him. The Catholic church has spent many $millions paying off victims and their families. The agreements were that by accepting the money, charges would be dropped. You and I could never get away with such. many cases never reach a court. This has been going on for many decades. I'm sure that you'll see what I mean with a little research.

 

[DGS49]

Sonny, no offense, but you are an idiot.

Every case stands on its own. If there is credible evidence that a crime has been committed and the statute of limitation has not expired and the perpetrator is not dead or out of the jurisdiction, these criminal cases are pursued with EXACTLY the same diligence as every other case of child molestation. It is ILLEGAL - a CRIME - to attempt to pay someone to drop criminal charges (and a private person technically can't do that anyway, its the state prosecutor's decision, not the victim's).

And a church or diocese reaching a financial "settlement" with a person who was molested HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. It is a case of tort liability (vicarious) on the part of the church organization, and a settlement reflects the negotiated best alternative to a jury verdict/award. It has nothing to do with the criminal guilt of the individual priest - who is usually impecunious; it's the vicarious liability of his employer.

You need to step back, take a breath, and figure out the difference between a CRIMINAL prosecution of an individual perpetrator, and a civil lawsuit against that person's employer.

Did I mention, you are an idiot?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Sonny, no offense, but you are an idiot.

Every case stands on its own. If there is credible evidence that a crime has been committed and the statute of limitation has not expired and the perpetrator is not dead or out of the jurisdiction, these criminal cases are pursued with EXACTLY the same diligence as every other case of child molestation. It is ILLEGAL - a CRIME - to attempt to pay someone to drop criminal charges (and a private person technically can't do that anyway, its the state prosecutor's decision, not the victim's).

And a church or diocese reaching a financial "settlement" with a person who was molested HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. It is a case of tort liability (vicarious) on the part of the church organization, and a settlement reflects the negotiated best alternative to a jury verdict/award. It has nothing to do with the criminal guilt of the individual priest - who is usually impecunious; it's the vicarious liability of his employer.

You need to step back, take a breath, and figure out the difference between a CRIMINAL prosecution of an individual perpetrator, and a civil lawsuit against that person's employer.

Did I mention, you are an idiot?

A little research might do you wonders. How many cases have you researched? Just curious. Do you know every single detail concerning each case over the past 40 plus years? Just curious.

 

[DGS49]

You made a ridiculous, outrageous, unsubstantiated claim.

If you were not an idiot you would realize that the burden is on YOU to put forth an example or two of guilty priests who were not prosecuted, even though there was good evidence and the statute of limitation had not expired.

But then again, you are an idiot. And a lazy one, too.

 

[Sonny Clark]

You made a ridiculous, outrageous, unsubstantiated claim.

If you were not an idiot you would realize that the burden is on YOU to put forth an example or two of guilty priests who were not prosecuted, even though there was good evidence and the statute of limitation had not expired.

But then again, you are an idiot. And a lazy one, too.

Ha Ha Ha. Very good. Have it all off your chest now? Afraid to research it yourself, for fear of what you may find? Do you deny that it happens? And, you've never before heard about any of this? It's all made up and fabricated? Ha Ha Ha ( By the way, your personal attacks and name calling is silly and very childish. In addition to being uncalled for. Care to discuss the issue in a civil and adult manner? )

 

[Katzndogz]

You have the Catholic Priest immunity confused with the Michael Jackson immunity.

 

[Sonny Clark]

You have the Catholic Priest immunity confused with the Michael Jackson immunity.

Very good. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.

 

[emilynghiem]

DOES ANDREW HAVE IMMUNITY?
It is not known whether Prince Andrew is covered by legal immunity simply by being a royal because this has never been tested in international law.

However, the prince may be entitled to diplomatic immunity against questioning in any criminal inquiry because some of the allegations relate to when he was a Whitehall-sanctioned business envoy. Diplomatic immunity protects foreign diplomats from legal action in the country where they work.

Extradition lawyer Karen Todner said the prince could be formally asked to give evidence 'only in criminal proceedings'. If he refused to co-operate, he could in theory be banned from entering America.



Virginia Roberts denies she had relations with Bill Clinton Daily Mail Online

 

[emilynghiem]

You made a ridiculous, outrageous, unsubstantiated claim.

If you were not an idiot you would realize that the burden is on YOU to put forth an example or two of guilty priests who were not prosecuted, even though there was good evidence and the statute of limitation had not expired.

But then again, you are an idiot. And a lazy one, too.

Hi DGS49 I think Sonny Clark is talking very generally. Legally and literally yes, of course, no guilt until proven.
Given past conversations with Sonny Clark, he may be easier going but is not lazy or an idiot.
Seems very centered and on point with reforming govt and wake up to this nonsense of letting it run amok.
Even liked the idea of creating jobs for Vets to reform the Post Office, and maybe take on the VA and other messes from there.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Sonny Clark
this letter to the editor made me think of this immunity issue:

Tuesday letters Campus assaults pot profit Clint Eastwood - Houston Chronicle

Campus assaults

Regarding "Senator revives campus sexual-assault bill" (Page A3, Friday), kudos to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and the other legislators who are committing to work on the issue of campus sexual-assaults. Clearly, it is much-needed and long overdue. However, instead of creating a law that would "incentivize" colleges to report and resolve campus assaults, why not bypass the collegiate system altogether by having women report these incidents to the local police?

I've never quite understood why colleges and the military are allowed to play the role of judge and jury for crimes committed there. If a crime is committed inside an Exxon building or a Chevrolet assembly factory, we don't allow those companies to do the investigating, decide the legal ramifications and dole out the punishment.

The United States has federal laws that govern criminal activity and trained personnel to gather evidence and get cases through our legal system. Internal investigations by colleges have proven to be inherently biased. The preservation of an institution's reputation has repeatedly trumped justice.

A sexual assault committed on American soil should be handled by the police, regardless of whether it occurs in a downtown alley, a college dorm room or anywhere else.

Susan Ellis Brittain, Houston

 

[DGS49]

"...and the military..."?

It's a jurisdiction issue, you silly goose. For a crime committed by a military person against a military person on a military base, neither any state nor a local municipality have jurisdiction to prosecute.