|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 4, 2007 13:42:50 GMT -5
Howdy, The latest information concerning Tim Severud is that there is a 'Settlement Conference' scheduled for October 31st. My understanding is that this is a short hearing to determine if there is anything concerning his case which can be resolved before proceeding to trial. (plea bargains??) Scott
|
|
|
Post by MMMM on Oct 4, 2007 14:10:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by go all the way on Oct 4, 2007 14:19:45 GMT -5
They should be looking at the liability of the 2x2 ministry for placing children at risk. But, I guess the "ministry" gets a free pass on that one since they aren't "organized," which is a farce!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 4, 2007 14:20:54 GMT -5
Thanks MMMM, This is from Oregon, but is probably a similar scenario here in Minnesota: The following information regarding judicial settlement conferences is brought to you as a public service by the lawyers of the State of Oregon. The following information is about settlement conferences in general, and you should check the rules of the jurisdiction in which your case is pending, to see whether there are settlement conferences, and, if so, what the rules are. The material presented is intended to alert you to possible legal problems and solutions.
What is settlement conference?
A settlement conference is a type of hearing that a judge conducts to help parties settle a lawsuit. It is scheduled either because all the courts in a county or one particular judge require a settlement conference before the case goes to trial, or because the parties and their lawyers ask the court to meet with them to help settle the case. Settlement conferences may be available in civil cases, such as personal injury and contract disputes; in domestic relations cases, such as divorces and paternity suits; and in certain criminal cases. A settlement conference usually is held in the judge’s chambers or in private conference rooms. There is no court reporter in the conference, and persons who are not involved with the case may not attend.Scott
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 4, 2007 15:07:08 GMT -5
They should be looking at the liability of the 2x2 ministry for placing children at risk. But, I guess the "ministry" gets a free pass on that one since they aren't "organized," which is a farce! The safety of the children, given their ages, are the responsibility of the parents. While the parents didn't know what danger they were placing their children in, it does not mean that the organization to which Tim belonged is responsible. Had he been a member of a union would you blame the union? The responsibility of protecting children lies with the parents. I can only imagine how they must feel after making such an error in character judgment. But at least they did the right thing and went to the proper authorities preventing this from happening to other people.
|
|
|
Post by Wondering on Oct 4, 2007 16:27:01 GMT -5
They should be looking at the liability of the 2x2 ministry for placing children at risk. But, I guess the "ministry" gets a free pass on that one since they aren't "organized," which is a farce! The safety of the children, given their ages, are the responsibility of the parents. While the parents didn't know what danger they were placing their children in, it does not mean that the organization to which Tim belonged is responsible. Had he been a member of a union would you blame the union? The responsibility of protecting children lies with the parents. I can only imagine how they must feel after making such an error in character judgment. But at least they did the right thing and went to the proper authorities preventing this from happening to other people. Highly disagree about the CHURCH not being responsible especially if they removed him from one area to cover his behavior and sent him to another area knowing he was a threat and failed to warn people who would have no reason to think their families were in any danger. Your argument is what the CC tried to suggest and failed miserably to the tune of billions of dollars. Actually I believe that knowing a crime has been committed and deliberately withholding that information makes you an accessory. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). By the way, I read that Ruben Mata passed away. Can anyone confirm?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2007 17:08:16 GMT -5
It's a bit of a red herring suggesting the safety of young children is the resposibility of their parents in the context under review.
Yes parents should be responsible for their children and take all reasonable steps to protect their children, but don't lose sight of the fact a church environment would be almost unanimously accepted as a "safe environment," and for this reason all officials, office bearers, etc should undergo security screening and measures should be introduced to protect the vulnerable. It is borders like these that make such environments "safe," or at least "safer !"
In the UK withholding information about a crime, or the whereabouts of a suspect does not in most circumstances make you an accessory to a crime since these things in themselves are not criminal in themselves. However, I understand recent changes in anti-terrorism legislation has catered for such actions to be deemed criminal.
To give "false" information to the Police is indeed criminal, but in most circumstances merely withholding such information is not. By giving false information the lieges may be unnecessarily subjected to suspicion or police time might be wasted on unnecessary enquiries.
These factors may not apply in other countries. In the UK we do not have Guantanama Bay to get round the law. Wait a minute, we discreetly allow them to fall into American hands !
|
|
|
Post by no agreement on Oct 4, 2007 17:29:07 GMT -5
The responsibility of protecting children lies with the parents. Ah, so the parents are now fully permitted to run background checks on the workers? I'd be okay with that. After all, they all have access to children. Teachers, social workers, and other professions which inherently come in contact with children are required to undergo background checks, fingerprint checks, drug checks, professional licensing, etc. But the workers? Nahhh.... they're automatically "trusted" just on the basis of being a worker. The parents have no assurances and no recourse. The worker system is a haven for anyone wanting unfettered access to children. And on that note, it should be viewed liable for placing children at risk. Because in these past two cases, IT DID.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 4, 2007 20:10:23 GMT -5
Howdy, In regards to: The safety of the children, given their ages, are the responsibility of the parents. While the parents didn't know what danger they were placing their children in, it does not mean that the organization to which Tim belonged is responsible.Up to a point I agree with this statement. However, because the workers live with the families is in fact putting children in harms way of pedophiles. I agree that because of this environment workers SHOULD undergo background checks, and that any sign of improper actions should be reason for immediate expulsion from the workers ranks. Of course the best course of action would be for workers to have their own rented apartment to stay in, rather than live with the families. Visits to 'out of town' Friends would be different of course, but the monetary burden of paying for an apartment would be no greater than having them stay with the different families if all pitched in to pay for rent. Most workers are assigned to established fields where a 'permanent' apartment would make more sense then to move around among the families. They would be easier to contact, and would have a base to operate from. Just my perspective.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by Johnny DeRaad on Oct 4, 2007 20:17:53 GMT -5
Scott..where did you hear this?? ..I don't understand how there can be a "settlement" anything??!!. .this is a felony criminal charge! Followed by arraignment, jury selection, trial, guilty or innocent, prison or freedom.. . .have the charges been reduced, or somehow transferred to a small claims/family court type of thing??. .let us know about this if you would?? . .
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 4, 2007 20:32:45 GMT -5
I agree with this completely. It would not be any different than workers who go to a foreign land, who rent a place for a batch as they sometimes call it. Of course it does kind of take away from the homeless preacher idea. I think the days of workers staying in the homes of the friends will some day be a thing of the past. The F&Ws can not afford too many more of these occurrences.
I do know of one place where a certain rich family has a home set up for the workers... complete with kitchen, two bedrooms, washer and dryer and maid service.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 4, 2007 20:42:37 GMT -5
Johnny, I'm not really knowledgeable on court proceedings. I got this info from the county courthouse today. Just from the way the conversation went, it sounds like an informal meeting at which both sides present evidence or information they want to be brought before the judge before a trial. I did not get the indication that it meant a reduction of the charges. Perhaps someone can give a better explanation of this procedure? Scott
|
|
therose
Junior Member
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Posts: 135
|
Post by therose on Oct 4, 2007 20:52:16 GMT -5
Didn't know about the maid service!
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 4, 2007 21:26:18 GMT -5
I could be wrong about the maid service... but something was said by the owners of the home that made me think that. If I remember right... my wife asked if we should change the sheets. She was told not to worry about it.. someone would be in latter to clean up the place ... wash and change the sheets etc. Of course it may have been just a one time thing... not sure.
I do know that they have lawn service because when my family was there to spend the night we were awakened early the next morning with five or six men running around with lawn equipment. It must be nice to not have to mow your own lawn. I sometimes get tired of it, but most of the time I enjoy the exercise.
|
|
|
Post by huh on Oct 4, 2007 21:36:44 GMT -5
The responsibility of protecting children lies with the parents. Ah, so the parents are now fully permitted to run background checks on the workers? I'd be okay with that. After all, they all have access to children. Teachers, social workers, and other professions which inherently come in contact with children are required to undergo background checks, fingerprint checks, drug checks, professional licensing, etc. But the workers? Nahhh.... they're automatically "trusted" just on the basis of being a worker. The parents have no assurances and no recourse. The worker system is a haven for anyone wanting unfettered access to children. And on that note, it should be viewed liable for placing children at risk. Because in these past two cases, IT DID. Trust a background check?? I agree there is huge amounts of trust put in the workers, BUT what about the Worthington, MN Chiro that was given a clear 'ok' by Helping Hands to provide respite care to a child that he's now admitted to molesting. So what good is a background check? This man supposedly cleared it with flying colors when he was hired by Helping Hands to 'care for this child', but then when this charge comes out, oops, guess what, he has victims from 30 yrs ago....he's out on bail, waiting for trial and STILL has his MN chiropractic license and is practicing......what's wrong with this picture, HELLO Minnesota Chiropractic Board, where are you?? This case has been well publicized in the Worthington Daily Globe, and he's admitted it!! Unfortunately, the jerks are so smooth at being a pedophile, even the background check didn't work, I wished it would have!!
|
|
|
Post by MMMM on Oct 4, 2007 21:46:28 GMT -5
Ah, so the parents are now fully permitted to run background checks on the workers? I'd be okay with that. After all, they all have access to children. Teachers, social workers, and other professions which inherently come in contact with children are required to undergo background checks, fingerprint checks, drug checks, professional licensing, etc. But the workers? Nahhh.... they're automatically "trusted" just on the basis of being a worker. The parents have no assurances and no recourse. The worker system is a haven for anyone wanting unfettered access to children. And on that note, it should be viewed liable for placing children at risk. Because in these past two cases, IT DID. Trust a background check?? I agree there is huge amounts of trust put in the workers, BUT what about the Worthington, MN Chiro that was given a clear 'ok' by Helping Hands to provide respite care to a child that he's now admitted to molesting. So what good is a background check? This man supposedly cleared it with flying colors when he was hired by Helping Hands to 'care for this child', but then when this charge comes out, oops, guess what, he has victims from 30 yrs ago....he's out on bail, waiting for trial and STILL has his MN chiropractic license and is practicing......what's wrong with this picture, HELLO Minnesota Chiropractic Board, where are you?? This case has been well publicized in the Worthington Daily Globe, and he's admitted it!! Unfortunately, the jerks are so smooth at being a pedophile, even the background check didn't work, I wished it would have!! wow.... ....renting an apartment for the workers appears to be the ideal solution from any angle.
|
|
therose
Junior Member
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Posts: 135
|
Post by therose on Oct 4, 2007 22:58:40 GMT -5
You are probably right because they do have a maid for the main house for sure. Just never thought about the guesthouse using it too - but hey why not? This house is also used by the kids when they come home from college in the summer so they don't have to be under Mom and Dad's all seeing eyes! Knew about the lawn service as the owner gets very upset if there are "lines" showing in the grass where the mower was after the grass is mowed! Heck, I would just be happy I wasn't doing the mowing although I kind of like it sometimes! Oh well, will never have to worry about a lawn service so looks like I am safe with things as they are. ;D As for the abuse by the worker that has been discussed here, it is so extremely sad that little children that have been taught that workers are beyond reproach for the most part, have had their trust totally destroyed and their lives will never ever be the same. This abuse will be a part of their lives forever - always lurking there. I am glad we were never exposed to this by the workers we knew in our area over the years.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2007 0:32:57 GMT -5
Highly disagree about the CHURCH not being responsible especially if they removed him from one area to cover his behavior and sent him to another area knowing he was a threat and failed to warn people who would have no reason to think their families were in any danger. You hit the nail on the head with the word "if". Did anyone know Tim was a danger? Was he moved from an area where there had been problems to another? I believe the answer to both of those questions is no. So I stand by my original statement that the organization can not be found at fault because one of their members commits a crime. Your position, if I am reading what you wrote correctly, is that if parents are not warned of a specific danger they have no reason to think their children might be in danger. That would be a foolhardy decision for any parent to make.
|
|
|
Post by Laurel Hardy on Oct 5, 2007 1:32:31 GMT -5
"Parents who sit on their laurels are foolhardy." Stan and Oliver were excellent parents.
|
|
|
Post by what a twist on Oct 5, 2007 3:14:34 GMT -5
So I stand by my original statement that the organization can not be found at fault because one of their members commits a crime. You really are desperate to keep 2x2ism out of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 5:04:51 GMT -5
Today at 12:32am, rational wrote:
So I stand by my original statement that the organization can not be found at fault because one of their members commits a crime.
Reply:
This statement only holds merit within its own confines and limitations. In truth many members have or are alleged to have committed crimes or moral indiscretions and it has largely been the influence, control and authority of the system that has inveigled many members into a trusting mindset, which in turn has produced a fertile climate for offences to occur and also a largely protective environment and culture for the perpetrators.
Someone has to be responsible. It is those who produce or promote this environment that should take responsibility for what they support. Perpetrators and those in charge of the system should be accountable. It happens in other walks of life. Yes parents need to look at themselves as well, but the "conditioning" which often results from being born and raised in this way produces parents vulnerable to the type of circumstances and offences we have heard about. Protection from this "conditioning" needs to be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on Oct 5, 2007 6:13:58 GMT -5
While I myself have had to undergo 2 intense background checks from the state and fingerprinting it is not a fool proof way to stop anything. It just shows if PREVIOUS problems exist.
I think asking workers to go through a background check is pretty drastic although if I were to have them sleeping in my house Im not so sure I wouldnt at least have them checked out by some means.
Most ministers arent ever background checked that I know of yet they have very close dealings with children often
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 6:48:09 GMT -5
IllinoisGal, background checks are basically that. They check the "known" criminal or security background of a person. Often a person is "clean" when later on they may prove otherwise by future actions. There is no foolproof system, but one reason such practices are even law (at least in the UK) nowadays is to show that employers, charities, churches etc, have taken all reasonable steps to ensure those they employ (paid or otherwise) to work or associate with vulnerable people, are of no risk (as far as can be established). Such checks nowadays, even when they are not legally prescribed are used as a good yardstick to measure an organisations actions and responsibilities in this area.
At the Baptist Church that I attend, anyone taking Sunday School, or otherwise engaged with the children in the fellowship "must" have such background checks made. I presume our Pastor will have been subject to same prior to his appoinhtment.
Backgound checks are not "fool proof." However, better to be able to show you have taken all measures that can reasonably expected of you to prevent abuses than to be "proved a fool" for not having taken the trouble to do so.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2007 6:58:15 GMT -5
So I stand by my original statement that the organization can not be found at fault because one of their members commits a crime. You really are desperate to keep 2x2ism out of this. Not nearly as desperate as many are to dump the blame on the 2x2s. I have no ax to grind either way. I have not been to a meeting of any kind in several decades. But to claim it was the fault of the 2x2 group because Tim molested these children when there was no knowledge that he presented a danger is wrong. I am not blaming the parents. I have left my children with people I trusted and although nothing happened it could have had a similar outcome. That being said, the responsibility for the safety of the children still rested with parents.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2007 7:08:28 GMT -5
Reply: This statement only holds merit within its own confines and limitations. In truth many members have or are alleged to have committed crimes or moral indiscretions and it has largely been the influence, control and authority of the system that has inveigled many members into a trusting mindset, which in turn has produced a fertile climate for offences to occur and also a largely protective environment and culture for the perpetrators. However, this discussion revolves only about the situation with Tim. A background check would have probably shown nothing. In the documents available there is no mention of earlier problems. So, in this case, we are talking about a person with no prior history of molesting children is caught by the parents of the child molesting the child. The parents did the correct thing and and reported the crime to the authorities. They acted and Tim is in custody. Explain how the 2x2s, as a group, are in anyway responsible. Someone needs to be responsible?? Someone needs to accept the responsibility. Bad things happen. If you send your child to a school and they have done everything they can, and are required to do, to be certain all of the staff are not child molesters and your child is molested at that school by a staff member, the school is not responsible. People have to understand we do not live in a perfect world and something things happen that are out of everyone's control.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2007 7:18:24 GMT -5
It's a bit of a red herring suggesting the safety of young children is the resposibility of their parents in the context under review. Remember, the context here is this one case, Tim molesting these children without ant previous indication that he was a danger. Should be? What is the difference between a church or a day care center or a boy scout troop? Would you trust your children with just any church official? Would you trust your children with anyone just because they has passes a background check? If you would you are living in a fool's paradise. And it is people like you, living with the belief that the background checks will make this safer that put children in danger by leaving their safety in the hands of others. Protecting children from known criminals is the easy part. But in the specific case we are discussing, there was no prior knowledge. And you have Egypt, just as the US does for the extreme "wet" work that needs to get done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 9:59:00 GMT -5
Rational, it may be convenient to you to take this one case in isolation, but I think this "one" case in itself has every thinking and concerned person wondering about all other cases and how to prevent re-occurrence. Making background checks and taking every other reasonable course of action to prevent possible abusers entering your workplace is very much part and parcel of every day life for organisations, employers, churches etc. Should an unfortunate incident occur by someone who has a clean record, the security measures undertaken will exonerate the organisation when questions are asked "why did they employ them in the first place" and will prove the company had taken all reasonable measures not to employ anyone with a suspect background. This type of thing comes in handy when questions such as culpability and civil liability kick in. Remember nowadays more and more groups, organisations and company's have corporate liability for the misdeeds of their workforce even when they are unaware of their misdeeds. They have to show they had taken every measure possible to prevent such things. This affects all the workforce, not just the small number of potential abusers.
One difference with "this way" is that many from their birth up have been indoctrinated about this perfect way, not to ask questions, to revere the workers who are God's cream of the crop, to defer to them and to the system. This nullifies a lot of clear unbiased thinking and lures folks into a false sense of security. If you do not have the background, it is likely you will not understand this. If you do have the background, then I'm surprised you are debating this.
This way psychologically "disarms" many of its born and raised adherents, removing their natural caution in many circumstances connected with the fellowship. Call us fools if you like, but no one in authority ever told us not to have such trust or to allow workers lots of liberties we would not normally have granted to the guy across the road. Yes, we often wonder, "how were we so gullible," but as I've said the Irvinistic system from our youth up, robbed us of our natural cautions in the Worker environment.
Let me re-iterate, background checks are not foolproof. They only stop known abusers from entering the environment. However they do show the responsibility of the organisation. Other measures are usually put in place such as there always being two of the workforce involved at any one time. This protects those employed (from false accusations) and the vulnerable. On other threads I have suggested appropriate measures which woulfd go a long way to protecting Workers, friends and the vulnerable from abuses and false allegations. I don't live in a fool's paradise, though I once did, partially !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 12:18:17 GMT -5
Some excellent discussion on this topic, thanks to all. While I don't agree with "rational"'s assessment, he/she provides very thoughtful commentary.
Responsibility for evil doing does not have to be an "either/or" proposition. There can be many layers and levels of responsibility and imo, it's good to not ignore any of them. For child molestation, parents do have to take #1 responsibility after the molester, that is the natural order of life where parents are designed to be the #1 protectors of their children. However, this does not mean that there are no responsibilities beyond the parents and the molester. In the case of the f&w church, if there are doctrines and other teachings which lead to undue risk exposure for children to molesters, then clearly those who establish and perpetuate those doctrines are culpable as well in a broad sense.
In the case of coverups, I'm not so sure the larger group can be held responsibile. In those cases, those who know about molesters and choose to hide and cover up their crimes and expose others to undue risks should be held responsible on an individual basis.
|
|