lawsuit, supposed blackmail attempt....

[_truth dancer]

So the demand for money is what I said. Either a desire for revenge. Or greed. Neither one is admirable.

There was a really disturbing case some time ago where a man kidnapped five girls and kept them locked up in a basement dungeon for years. He raped and abused them daily.

Finally when the case was brought to court, the courts determined that the abuser's estate (worth several million dollars) was to be divided up between the survivors.

According to Charity, the fact that these girls received money is either about revenge or greed. Nonsense!


~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

Charity,

"I have been badly treated. Send me money to sue the Church we all hate." Speaks for itself.

To suggest this was a quote from the plaintiff is completely dishonest.

I am respectfully asking you to stop misrepresenting people and asserting that which is not supporting by the facts.


~dancer~

[_charity]

So the demand for money is what I said. Either a desire for revenge. Or greed. Neither one is admirable.

There was a really disturbing case some time ago where a man kidnapped five girls and kept them locked up in a basement dungeon for years. He raped and abused them daily.

Finally when the case was brought to court, the courts determined that the abuser's estate (worth several million dollars) was to be divided up between the survivors.

According to Charity, the fact that these girls received money is either about revenge or greed. Nonsense!


~dancer~

I would use a word stronger that "disturbing." But surely you aren't saying that those girls would feel like what they suffered was worth the money they got? I would be horrified if you were saying that. And if not, then the money has nothing to do with the abuse they suffered. I find the "well, sure you had a nightmare life for 5 years, but at least you never have to work a day in your life" concept really disturbing.

[_skippy the dead]

So the demand for money is what I said. Either a desire for revenge. Or greed. Neither one is admirable.

There was a really disturbing case some time ago where a man kidnapped five girls and kept them locked up in a basement dungeon for years. He raped and abused them daily.

Finally when the case was brought to court, the courts determined that the abuser's estate (worth several million dollars) was to be divided up between the survivors.

According to Charity, the fact that these girls received money is either about revenge or greed. Nonsense!


~dancer~

I'm sure I've mentioned this before - but in our legal framework, typically damages are measured monetarily, even though this is obviously not a perfect system. Does our pain and suffering go away just because we got $10,000 for it? No. But someone has had to dip into his own value in an attempt to make us whole. With abuse, monetary damages can take on a new dimension. Often, many aspects of a life are affected by the abuse - adding up therapy bills isn't going to cover it (and obviously we can't accurately even determine how much that might be in the future). There may also be some unquantifiable effect on one's ability to earn the type of living one may have been able to had they not experienced the abuse. So they need to be made whole that way, too.

And there is also the "punitive damages" aspect, which is intended to punish the offender. Since a civil court can't impose physical punishment, this is essentially a fine paid to exact some sort of justice. (As an aside, this is often used to pay for attorneys, not to go to Disneyland).

So yes, lawsuits often (almost always) come down to money. That's the way the system works. And let's face it - the criminal justice system isn't always interested in punishing all wrong doers - there's just too much to do in that regard and too little time. Do we really think that Ron Goldman's family shouldn't have been able to sue OJ Simpson? They don't want the money - they want to ensure that Simpson does not go on to a happy-go-lucky life after what he had done to their son.

[/steps down off of soap box]

[_asbestosman]

I would use a word stronger that "disturbing." But surely you aren't saying that those girls would feel like what they suffered was worth the money they got? I would be horrified if you were saying that. And if not, then the money has nothing to do with the abuse they suffered. I find the "well, sure you had a nightmare life for 5 years, but at least you never have to work a day in your life" concept really disturbing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Charity so please answer this:

Do you think it would have been better if those girls did not recieve the estate?

After answering this, I think we can work out details about greed, and so on.

[_the road to hana]

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:
"I have been badly treated. Send me money to sue the Church we all hate." Speaks for itself.

I missed those two sentences on their website. Could you direct me to them?

They/she are asking for donations. Doesn't that mean to send money?

"Send me money to sue the Church we all hate" were your words. I don't see anywhere they were theirs.

Don't defend the indefensible. They are on an anti-Mormon website, asking for money because they are suing the Church. Put it together, road. You are a smart cookie.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Actually, I've followed this over on the other board somewhat. I'm aware that they went on RFM anonymously just to discuss the lawsuit.

The blog, which is NOT on RFM, came after RFM removed their posts from the board.

If you're going to ally them with all people who've ever set up websites for legal defense funds, they'll be in very significant company.

[_truth dancer]

I would use a word stronger that "disturbing." But surely you aren't saying that those girls would feel like what they suffered was worth the money they got? I would be horrified if you were saying that. And if not, then the money has nothing to do with the abuse they suffered. I find the "well, sure you had a nightmare life for 5 years, but at least you never have to work a day in your life" concept really disturbing.

How can you miss a point so completely?

Let me be more clear.

Receiving monetary compensation for horrible suffering and pain is not about greed or revenge.
Do you understand this?

~dancer~

[_the road to hana]

If you think Hugh Nibley was wealthy, you're living on another planet.

SHE WROTE A BOOK AND SOLD IT TO A PUBLISHER! She went around on book tours selling her book. She made money on the book. The more sensational the book the more money she made!

Martha Beck was a published author before she wrote her memoirs, which included a great deal of material other than any allegations of recovery of repressed memories of sexual abuse.

I assume you didn't read that book, and aren't familiar with her as an author otherwise.

I think Martha Beck is likewise innocent until proven guilty. Don't you?

She wasn't accused. She put herself out there. You can read her words. She convicts herself.

She's been accused by you, here.

I have read her words. I assume you haven't.

I'm unaware how the cases are related. It seems to me they aren't. You think that the plaintiff said to herself one day, "Gee, I think that Hugh Nibley's daughter is probably going to make a claim of abuse against her father a few years from now, so I think I'll get the jump on her and report my own?"

Beck's book was published in 2006. And the federal suit was filed Dec 26, 2007. Which came first?

The plaintiff in this case reported the abuse to her uncle many years prior to Beck's book being published.

Allegedly she did. Is the uncle still alive? Is he named in the suit?

According to the complaint, the uncle worked for the Boy Scouts of America and was successful in having the plaintiff's father removed from volunteering with the BSA. It sounds at least like he was one person who took her allegations seriously.

You might want to read lines 22-25 of the complaint, now that I've posted it in more readable form for you.

[_charity]

I would use a word stronger that "disturbing." But surely you aren't saying that those girls would feel like what they suffered was worth the money they got? I would be horrified if you were saying that. And if not, then the money has nothing to do with the abuse they suffered. I find the "well, sure you had a nightmare life for 5 years, but at least you never have to work a day in your life" concept really disturbing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Charity so please answer this:

Do you think it would have been better if those girls did not recieve the estate?

After answering this, I think we can work out details about greed, and so on.

I think the money is irrelevant in the question of guilt or innocence or reparations. Money can never make up those girls for what they suffered. I doubt that years of therapy can either. But if that would do any good, I'm all for that. If those girls are going to go on to have reasonably successful lives, it won't be because of any sum of money.

I would even think that the "I have this house or this car because of what I went through" would not be a good thing psychologically. Like somehow you earned it?

If there are money damages in order to punish the guilty, I think they ought to go to some kind of a fund which would prevent future problems. This is my philosophy about all tort cases, not just this particular one.

[_The Nehor]

I'm especially skeptical of remembrances decades after the fact.

I'm not one who's experienced recall of repressed memories personally, but I can imagine that severe traumas in childhood can result in them. It also makes sense to me that victimized minors have difficulty either realizing they are being abused (particularly by people they are supposed to trust), or feeling comfortable reporting the same.

In the same vein, someone like the plaintiff I assume is taught, like I was, that confiding in clergy was appropriate. If she told an uncle (as she claims), and then clergy (as she claims), and still nothing was done, what is the point of children being told they should report incidences of abuse?

How differently do you think her claims would have been regarded had she made them as a child? Do you think her father, if he were guilty, would suddenly be out of church leadership positions and high profile business? Or do you think they'd have been swept under the rug even then, and she'd have been patted on the head and told to press on?

I have no idea what would have happened back then and can't speculate. I do question where the line is between repressed and manufactured memories.