|
Post by rational on Apr 15, 2012 22:49:45 GMT -5
It did but Act 238 of 1975;722.622,Sec. 2.;Part (l) could easily exclude workers with: ...a priest, minister, rabbi, Christian science practitioner, or other religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized religious body, denomination, or organization.weasel words: recognized denomination organization Too late for weaseling. This issue examined this on the basis of "similar functionary" and "organization". The judge ruled that it is sufficiently an organization under this law and that Mr.Frandle's duties are a similar functionary. Appeal the ruling perhaps? The weasel words were why there needed to be a ruling even though clergy was loosely defined by the state. I am not sure you can appeal the outcome of a motion to dismiss. Perhaps the trial that results from the refusal to dismiss could be appealed. But who knows!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 15, 2012 23:20:10 GMT -5
Sharon, Jerome will never plea no contest. When you do, everyone will say you plead that way because you are guilty and he has made it very clear he does not think he did anything wrong. The previous case in Mi., she plead no contest and look what was said. So, he is not going to accept that unless he would be forced by another upper which I would think would have been done already. This does appear the way things are moving. How so? I am sure this will be raised at the trial. Why would they need an internet course? This could be. Parents are not mandated reporters in MI., are they? Are you implying it was the parents of the victim who filed the charges/reported the abuse? This is a pretty low level trial. I think I would go for the act that the mandatory reporting is under. It is directed towards child care workers. Included in the law is Public Law 93-247, 42 U.S.C. 5106a. It is also pointed toward child care workers. Traditionally priests and ministers have at times worked with children and it seems why they were included. A defense might be that they are not ordained, have no training working with children, and do not function as child care workers. still - why not plead guilty as charged and face up to the fact that the crime/incident should have been reported?
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 16, 2012 7:44:52 GMT -5
The parents were the first to report the abuse. Second came the report from the ex workers. Why would you plead guilty as charged when you knew it was wrong and should have been reported from day one. Facing the facts has not been much of a concern. How could you give the workers a status of child care workers? They are with children that are with their parents in a home or convention and etc. That isn't being a child care worker.
If we had any feelings of guilt, we would have plead guilty but, when you say you don't feel you are guilty, you aren't going to say you are. Of course, how about the many other CSA in Mi. that wasn't reported. There could be a lot of guilties to face.
No, parents are not mandated reporters. They are parents!! I know how I would feel being a parent. I would have ran, not just run, to the nearest police station around or 911 would have been dialed with a speed dial!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 16, 2012 8:30:43 GMT -5
This is what is being said about Shane leaving the work at this time: Shane has had to go home with back problems and anticipates having surgery on his back. Apparently, this has just happened within past month or so. More fallout: KY worker (and Michigan native) Shane B. has left the work...He was sporting a beard in a recent Ky special meeting photo. Now George Lee has to cover Louisville and Lexington fields. In addition to oversight over KY and TN. I think Messrs Lee and Harger need to tell the friends in a letter about the issues surrounding the former KY overseer. Darren Briggs was a special meeting visitor there a few years ago so the friends need to be told what has happened.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 8:35:26 GMT -5
The parents were the first to report the abuse. Second came the report from the ex workers. Why would you plead guilty as charged when you knew it was wrong and should have been reported from day one. Facing the facts has not been much of a concern. How could you give the workers a status of child care workers? They are with children that are with their parents in a home or convention and etc. That isn't being a child care worker. Exactly. And that would provide a possible defense. The workers are not child care so the mandatory reporting would not pertain to them. "We"? Were you charged as well? In some states they are, along with everyone else, mandated reporters.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 16, 2012 10:29:26 GMT -5
Sharon, Jerome will never plea no contest. When you do, everyone will say you plead that way because you are guilty and he has made it very clear he does not think he did anything wrong. The previous case in Mi., she plead no contest and look what was said. So, he is not going to accept that unless he would be forced by another upper which I would think would have been done already. This does appear the way things are moving. How so? I am sure this will be raised at the trial. Why would they need an internet course? This could be. Parents are not mandated reporters in MI., are they? Are you implying it was the parents of the victim who filed the charges/reported the abuse? This is a pretty low level trial. I think I would go for the act that the mandatory reporting is under. It is directed towards child care workers. Included in the law is Public Law 93-247, 42 U.S.C. 5106a. It is also pointed toward child care workers. Traditionally priests and ministers have at times worked with children and it seems why they were included. A defense might be that they are not ordained, have no training working with children, and do not function as child care workers. still - why not plead guilty as charged and face up to the fact that the crime/incident should have been reported? There IS an argument against JF NOT being an "ordained mnister"....for I'm not sure that there is a sub-definition of "ordained" in the statute, is there? What I'm speaking to, there ARE letters from more then ONE worker IN THE PAST that "declares" the workers ARE ORDAINED....I think one of them actually says the same thing Paul said, "By the laying on of hands." The prosecution is apt to have taken good care of those copies of documents for I'm sure they've read on the TMB and they're getting a lot of different views offered by people that are knowledgeable of the 2x2 workership and religion! "NOT ORDAINED" will not carry for a defense motion the same as the "recognized minister or clergy" did not..... I strongly suspect that the prosecution will whittle down a lot of the information that all of us have provided on TMB and all of that information that is associated with any claims by the defense will be used to where the jury can understand that there are not many narrow seams that JF and his defense are going to squeak through.....all that is really going to happen is that JF will face MORE people who come to the same conclusion as the previous court has and that is JF IS a mandated reporter....truthfully I'm sure at the time he was not aware of even such a thing as "a mandated reporter"....few workers were, but they'll not have an excuse of that NOW.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 16, 2012 10:39:29 GMT -5
This is what is being said about Shane leaving the work at this time: Shane has had to go home with back problems and anticipates having surgery on his back. Apparently, this has just happened within past month or so. More fallout: KY worker (and Michigan native) Shane B. has left the work...He was sporting a beard in a recent Ky special meeting photo. Now George Lee has to cover Louisville and Lexington fields. In addition to oversight over KY and TN. I think Messrs Lee and Harger need to tell the friends in a letter about the issues surrounding the former KY overseer. Darren Briggs was a special meeting visitor there a few years ago so the friends need to be told what has happened. As a nurse and a post-op back surgery, I'd reccomend that IF it has only been a month since happening, I would say wait it out...take care of himself, get a lot of rest and do no exercises except walking and don't try to walk a mile at a time...take in smaller increments so that the muscles and nerves that are being irritated now do not increase the inflammatory process. Also physical therapy with pinpoint massage helps a whole lot and most of all don't give up just to have the surgery...give himself time to heal on it's own. That's my experienced reccomendation. I had surgery for the 1st ruptured disk and have had MORE ruptured discs and chanel narrowing since, but have had a doctor who worked WITH me in getting the inflammation and muscle spasms in control with mild analgesics and lots of physical therapy...with the pinpoint massage....it works better then surgery...or has so far. Even my neurosurgeon says as long as the treatment I'm on keeps me going without compromising myself, "STAY WITH IT"......he's a wonderful neurosurgeon, but he isn't knife happy! Anybody on here may send what I just said to Shane B....and I hope he considers it! Another person who did the same thing was my stepson, he was down nearly a year with his back, but we kept fighting with the anti-inflammatory meds and physical therapy and his young wife learned from the physical therapist how to do the pinpoint massages and that way my stepson didn't get in over his head with physical therapy bills....luckily his company thought enough of him to let him off that long.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 16, 2012 10:41:01 GMT -5
The parents were the first to report the abuse. Second came the report from the ex workers. Why would you plead guilty as charged when you knew it was wrong and should have been reported from day one. Facing the facts has not been much of a concern. How could you give the workers a status of child care workers? They are with children that are with their parents in a home or convention and etc. That isn't being a child care worker. Exactly. And that would provide a possible defense. The workers are not child care so the mandatory reporting would not pertain to them. "We"? Were you charged as well? In some states they are, along with everyone else, mandated reporters. I didn't know that there wasn't a state that required ALL parents to report CSA, even IF it was their partner???
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 16, 2012 10:53:55 GMT -5
The parents were the first to report the abuse. Second came the report from the ex workers. Why would you plead guilty as charged when you knew it was wrong and should have been reported from day one. Facing the facts has not been much of a concern. How could you give the workers a status of child care workers? They are with children that are with their parents in a home or convention and etc. That isn't being a child care worker. Exactly. And that would provide a possible defense. The workers are not child care so the mandatory reporting would not pertain to them. Again, it is my understanding that in many states, the clergy were added to the list of mandatory reports because of the abuses in the Catholic Church where pedophile priests were moved from one state to another to hide them from prosecution AND to protect the church from scandal. They were not added because of their role as child caregivers. That is why I believe they are trying to prosecute the Michigan overseer- there must be the belief that he was trying to cover this alleged offense up. Whether or not that was the overseer's motive will now have to be determined at trial. The Church with No Name has a history of cover ups that continue even to this day. Penn State learned the hard way that cover ups are hardly the way to go to protect the reputation of the institution.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 16, 2012 11:03:38 GMT -5
Exactly. And that would provide a possible defense. The workers are not child care so the mandatory reporting would not pertain to them. Again, it is my understanding that in many states, the clergy were added to the list of mandatory reports because of the abuses in the Catholic Church where pedophile priests were moved from one state to another to hide them from prosecution AND to protect the church from scandal. They were not added because of their role as child caregivers. That is why I believe they are trying to prosecute the Michigan overseer- there must be the belief that he was trying to cover this alleged offense up. Whether or not that was the overseer's motive will now have to be determined at trial. The Church with No Name has a history of cover ups that continue even to this day. Penn State learned the hard way that cover ups are hardly the way to go to protect the reputation of the institution. And hard on the heels of Penn State's education in these things comes the University of Arkansas having to come to a quick decision in regards to a primary and famous coach's immoral actions....the decision of course was for the sacredness of the university's reputation around the world. They lost a great coach with that decision, but I feel they made the only decision possible.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 11:42:22 GMT -5
...all that is really going to happen is that JF will face MORE people who come to the same conclusion as the previous court has and that is JF IS a mandated reporter.. This is not what the court found. The motion for dismissal was ruled against because the court found that JF's position was equivalent to clergy. The trial will decide if indeed JF is a mandated reporter.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 12:21:58 GMT -5
Again, it is my understanding that in many states, the clergy were added to the list of mandatory reports because of the abuses in the Catholic Church where pedophile priests were moved from one state to another to hide them from prosecution AND to protect the church from scandal. Can you provide references? The mandated reporting laws were being enacted in the mid 1070s and the first Catholic case to gain widespread attention was 1985.Really? Was it because they were preaching in front of a gathered crowd? Or perhaps because they had access to children in a way that the auto mechanic next to the church did not have? The trial is not about any coverup. It is about failure to report. Two very different charges.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 12:24:49 GMT -5
I didn't know that there wasn't a state that required ALL parents to report CSA, even IF it was their partner??? I believe there are 18 states that have ruled that every one is a mandated reporter. Including TX.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 16, 2012 12:37:02 GMT -5
...all that is really going to happen is that JF will face MORE people who come to the same conclusion as the previous court has and that is JF IS a mandated reporter.. This is not what the court found. The motion for dismissal was ruled against because the court found that JF's position was equivalent to clergy. The trial will decide if indeed JF is a mandated reporter. Could be easy for some. "Court says clergy. Law says clergy." I do not know how much court and jury can debate "well, by clergy the lawmaker meant....". A clergy is a clergy is a clergy. A clergy by any other name is still a clergy. If it looks like a clergy, and walks like a clergy, and talks like a clergy, it is a clergy.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2012 12:50:13 GMT -5
I didn't know that there wasn't a state that required ALL parents to report CSA, even IF it was their partner??? I believe there are 18 states that have ruled that every one is a mandated reporter. Including TX. I have not looked at many states, but here in Ontario, Canada, everyone is a reporter according to the legislation, but penalties are only assessed to certain professionals. The laws here provide certain protections, esp anonymity, to those who report, and that is why everyone is covered.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 16, 2012 13:44:04 GMT -5
JF was determined a clergy. The judge said he was a clergy. That is a proven fact by court papers. But, is it a recognized clergy that would be a responsible person for reporting the CSA. I wonder if the defense isn't going to use that as to whether he would be a mandated reporter. An ordained clergy has a paper stating that they are ordained and are a recognized clergy. Therefore, they can perform legal duites. JF is not allowed to perform legal duties, so is he going to be considered a fly by night clergy that just some religious group accepted as a leader but not recogonized as being of any importance to any other person. If he is deemed unimportant as a clergy, he may be no different than the guy down the street to report a crime. It would be the parents obligation. There are clergies that pop up here and there, but they are of no importance to anyone that doesn't believe in them. This religion is known to all of us on the board, but it sure isn't important or even known by the general public. In fact if you go to explain the religion to many, the expression you receive about tells you how important it is or how different it is or how out of the box it is. I have been told it is radical.
Rational, we, was used in general comment, so, quite the english teaching lesson. Being critical about everything, when it is just a comment, is looking for fault.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 16, 2012 13:54:25 GMT -5
When Saucerdotal stated that there was a cover up, that is because, we all know of the cover-ups that take place. This is not a mystery to people that are aware of the religion. And, JF didn't report the CSA because, it was a cover up and that is a known fault of the religion. It was covered up for a couple of years from the police. Not reporting a CSA is the charge, but, by not reporting it, it was covered up. JF can be glad that the prosecution hasn't as yet, charged him with covering up a crime. That could lead to evidence of more cover ups that won't make the religion very appealing to say the least. And could provoke other prosecutors to do some charging.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 14:19:45 GMT -5
An ordained clergy has a paper stating that they are ordained and are a recognized clergy. Therefore, they can perform legal duites. I have one somewhere from an internet site. What legal duties can I preform?? Yes, I guess it was quite a lesson. Was it a fault? I read what you wrote and, since you used the first-person, plural personal pronoun 'we' I had no way of knowing if your use of 'we' was nosism or Pluralis Majestatis. It does make a difference to the meaning of your comment. For example it could establish a close connection between you and other people being discussed which would shed light on some of your concerns and comments. If I were finding fault I would point out the interesting spelling of 'quit'. Is that something like " Ye Olde Bake Shoppe"?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 14:55:29 GMT -5
When Saucerdotal stated that there was a cover up, that is because, we all know of the cover-ups that take place. What was stated was: That is why I believe they are trying to prosecute the Michigan overseer- there must be the belief that he was trying to cover this alleged offense up.They are not trying to prosecute JF they are prosecuting him. And the reason has nothing to do with a cover-up (I believe that would be a much more serious charge) but because he might have known/suspected that there had been abuse and did not report it. It appears that it is. Has JF been charged with covering up abuse?Do you know this as fact or is kit your speculation? No, by not reporting it it was not reported. Unless JF went out of his way to cover up the event, as did the priests in the Catholic church. Or perhaps he did not cover up a crime. Ignoring is not covering up. Maybe someone will be motivated to bring new charges against JF. Odd that they didn't start with the more serious crime, assuming they has the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 16, 2012 16:44:51 GMT -5
Come on Rational. This CSA was reported to JF, and he decided he would just take Darren home, and it was a cover up. When he was asked why Darren went home, he stated he didn't know why he just wanted to go home and he was just as surprised as everyone else. But, the whole incident was handled as JF wanted it to be. And when he sent out letters to the members, he actually stated that if he knew the extent of Darren's wrestling, he would have done things different. But, he did know of Darren's wrestling and why he took him home, but, he covered it up to his own people. Of course that letter came out after Darren was reported to the police. Now he says, he doesn't think he did anything wrong because, that is the way CSA was handled in the religion before. If he didn't know the extent of the wrestling, why would he know how to handle the CSA as others have done? Many members are still thinking that Jerome did what he thought he should do, and that is what was always done and how terrible to go against him for not reporting. OIf course with the gossip and everything, this CSA was a whisper among many for the two years before it was reported. But, no one would say anything about how it was handled because it was handled by an overseer and you accept that. So, the only ones that ignored the crime was the members and not JF. Everyone now knows that CSA is a dirty little secret and no one likes it, but no one is going to confront the big guns. How ever they handle it, that is the way it should be as they are never wrong. And, one way JF covered it up was by pretending he didn't know anything. He was aware of the fact that the members would not fault him and still don't so pretend poor me. Darren was able to plea bargain so that charge wasn't big like Peter's second charge. That would be the serious one for a different prosecutor to pursue. Are you arguing to the fact that CSA has been hidden for years and that it isn't such a big deal? Everyone is just speculating when they mention these crimes? These crimes were just ignored and that is fine? Taking someone clear to NY is rather out of your way from Mi. to cover an event wouldn't you think? And pretending not to know anything, would you say that is covering up or just being cautious for poor DB that just wanted to go home.
Note: You should have said, assuming they have the evidence, not assuming they has the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 16, 2012 19:33:29 GMT -5
This is not what the court found. The motion for dismissal was ruled against because the court found that JF's position was equivalent to clergy. The trial will decide if indeed JF is a mandated reporter. Could be easy for some. "Court says clergy. Law says clergy." I do not know how much court and jury can debate "well, by clergy the lawmaker meant....". A clergy is a clergy is a clergy. A clergy by any other name is still a clergy. If it looks like a clergy, and walks like a clergy, and talks like a clergy, it is a clergy. And the law says clergy are mandated reporters does it not? I've wondered exactly why it has to go to trial as the judge has already ruled that JF is "clergy" for his religion but maybe it will have to be debated whether his religion is a recognized religious organizationj... Maybe someone can send the prosecutor the newspaper clippings from the times that the New York newspaper reporters have been to the convs. there and have shown in the news "this religion" little known about....I'd think of the millions that read the NY papers became aware of that little known religion. So wouldn't that make it a recognized religious organization?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 16, 2012 19:36:58 GMT -5
Come on Rational. This CSA was reported to JF, and he decided he would just take Darren home, and it was a cover up. When he was asked why Darren went home, he stated he didn't know why he just wanted to go home and he was just as surprised as everyone else. But, the whole incident was handled as JF wanted it to be. And when he sent out letters to the members, he actually stated that if he knew the extent of Darren's wrestling, he would have done things different. But, he did know of Darren's wrestling and why he took him home, but, he covered it up to his own people. Of course that letter came out after Darren was reported to the police. Now he says, he doesn't think he did anything wrong because, that is the way CSA was handled in the religion before. If he didn't know the extent of the wrestling, why would he know how to handle the CSA as others have done? Many members are still thinking that Jerome did what he thought he should do, and that is what was always done and how terrible to go against him for not reporting. OIf course with the gossip and everything, this CSA was a whisper among many for the two years before it was reported. But, no one would say anything about how it was handled because it was handled by an overseer and you accept that. So, the only ones that ignored the crime was the members and not JF. Everyone now knows that CSA is a dirty little secret and no one likes it, but no one is going to confront the big guns. How ever they handle it, that is the way it should be as they are never wrong. And, one way JF covered it up was by pretending he didn't know anything. He was aware of the fact that the members would not fault him and still don't so pretend poor me. Darren was able to plea bargain so that charge wasn't big like Peter's second charge. That would be the serious one for a different prosecutor to pursue. Are you arguing to the fact that CSA has been hidden for years and that it isn't such a big deal? Everyone is just speculating when they mention these crimes? These crimes were just ignored and that is fine? Taking someone clear to NY is rather out of your way from Mi. to cover an event wouldn't you think? And pretending not to know anything, would you say that is covering up or just being cautious for poor DB that just wanted to go home. Note: You should have said, assuming they have the evidence, not assuming they has the evidence. Maybe this continued "innocent" tactic of Jerome's may be the reason it is said a worker filed the complaint against him?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 19:57:56 GMT -5
Come on Rational. <snip> up or just being cautious for poor DB that just wanted to go home. All of this is great but I was responding to: That is why I believe they are trying to prosecute the Michigan overseer- there must be the belief that he was trying to cover this alleged offense up. a post that ignored the fact that the court was prosecuting JF for failure to report, not covering up. Makes you wonder why the state did not go for the more serious charge. Looking at your post it does bring new information to the table. If I follow your narrative correctly it certainly could be viewed as covering up. The earlier story was that JF took DB home to his parents so he could get treatment. Could have been made up! Thanks - actually I meany 'had' instead of 'has'. Fat finger error!
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 16, 2012 19:59:00 GMT -5
Maybe this continued "innocent" tactic of Jerome's may be the reason it is said a worker filed the complaint against him? I think Jerome is going with innocent because he thinks he is innocent. On the arrest warrant the victim/claimant is a trooper and the complaining witness is a det sgt. Who are the Burton's?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 20:14:54 GMT -5
And the law says clergy are mandated reporters does it not? I've wondered exactly why it has to go to trial as the judge has already ruled that JF is "clergy" for his religion but maybe it will have to be debated whether his religion is a recognized religious organizationj... The judge has only ruled that the motion to dismiss was denied (page 55 - line 10). Millions?? The population of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metro area is less than 900,000. The largest newspaper has a circulation of less than 70,000. So maybe thousands read about the conventions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 21:08:46 GMT -5
And the law says clergy are mandated reporters does it not? I've wondered exactly why it has to go to trial as the judge has already ruled that JF is "clergy" for his religion but maybe it will have to be debated whether his religion is a recognized religious organizationj... The judge has only ruled that the motion to dismiss was denied (page 55 - line 10). A court "finding" is synonymous to a "ruling". A finding is specifically "the result reached by a judge or a jury". You may want to check the transcript for the Court's findings, there were at least a couple of findings: 1.The Court found that Mr.Frandle was a member of the clergy. 2.It also found that his activities were part of an "religious organization", and more specifically, that Mr.Frandle belongs to a "recognized religious body or organization". Those findings are on Page 54.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2012 21:54:30 GMT -5
You may want to check the transcript for the Court's findings, there were at least a couple of findings: 1.The Court found that Mr.Frandle was a member of the clergy. 2.It also found that his activities were part of an "religious organization", and more specifically, that Mr.Frandle belongs to a "recognized religious body or organization". Those findings are on Page 54. The outcome of the hearing was that the motion to dismiss was denied and the court found, as a matter of law, that JF is a member of the clergy. Whether JF is a mandated reporter or not is a matter of fact which will be determined by a jury.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2012 22:06:26 GMT -5
You may want to check the transcript for the Court's findings, there were at least a couple of findings: 1.The Court found that Mr.Frandle was a member of the clergy. 2.It also found that his activities were part of an "religious organization", and more specifically, that Mr.Frandle belongs to a "recognized religious body or organization". Those findings are on Page 54. The outcome of the hearing was that the motion to dismiss was denied and the court found, as a matter of law, that JF is a member of the clergy. Whether JF is a mandated reporter or not is a matter of fact which will be determined by a jury. Are we still working on that one? LOL.
|
|