Institutional Obligation or Responsibility

[AnotherAspect]

When listening to the States Attorney General in the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse case she put forth a powerful concept. "Institutional Responsibility"

She indicated that in situations like this where many many people associated to both the College and the Second Mile group knew but looked the other way, and as such were guilty of promoting and sanctioning the abuse.

It appears to me that both in Vic and Michigan the number and knowledge of offenses would make the Truth group as a whole responsible. In my opinion they are in fact and institutional group. I feel it is only a matter of time before one of these victims level civil complaint against the group which would lead to
financial discovery.

Where would discovery in a civil case lead to I wonder?

[Deleted]

There is certainly a parallel with regard to "Institutional Responsibility". The big difference is the shadowy finances of the 2x2 institution.

Penn State has two insurers, it has annual revenues of nearly $5billion and an endowment fund of nearly $2billion. They have possibly 20 victims who would probably be able to win around $1million apiece for damages. That's $20million, and the lawyers behind the claims would know that the money is there, no question they can collect if they start a lawsuit. From the University's point of view, a $20million payout to victims would not damage their ability to operate one bit. It's also currently believed that the University is not following the usual 3 D's of handling a CSA offense like most institutions: ie Deny, Delay and Defend but are indicating they want to close the issue asap.

On the F&W side, the situation is almost the opposite. Finances are kept in the shadow. While it is believed that millions of dollars are sitting in various accounts all over the world, it cannot be confirmed by normal reporting procedures followed by every institution except this one. The 3 D's of defense is a standard pattern for the worker system which studiously avoids responsibility, accountability and transparency. There are no known insurance policies in force for such damages. None of this makes this an attractive case for a law firm which works on contingency because they cannot ascertain that they will collect even if they won the case. Such a case would probably have to be backed by a wealthy individual with a sense of justice.

I would fully expect though that if a judgment was won against a wide number of workers, overseers and elders, they would step up to their obligation and pay it......however, a judgment would not be won without a protracted fight.

[AnotherAspect]

I do not think it would be that far fetched and not all attorneys need thousands to go after someone. Of course any good attorney would turn over all rocks. All it would take is for one of the victims which others (workers) in the group knew was being abused to file a civil action. Since they are already a victim they need not prove that point, only that others in leadership knew.

All they need to do is file the civil action and then discovery can commence. It might start with papers asking workers to show all details of bank accounts of any kind. It might also include Conventions if it can be shown that the institution pooled money to enhance ground. --- You see how tricky and sticky this could become. Just saying

Jun 23, 2012 16:57:36 GMT -5 @clearday said:

There is certainly a parallel with regard to "Institutional Responsibility". The big difference is the shadowy finances of the 2x2 institution.

Penn State has two insurers, it has annual revenues of nearly $5billion and an endowment fund of nearly $2billion. They have possibly 20 victims who would probably be able to win around $1million apiece for damages. That's $20million, and the lawyers behind the claims would know that the money is there, no question they can collect if they start a lawsuit. From the University's point of view, a $20million payout to victims would not damage their ability to operate one bit. It's also currently believed that the University is not following the usual 3 D's of handling a CSA offense like most institutions: ie Deny, Delay and Defend but are indicating they want to close the issue asap.

On the F&W side, the situation is almost the opposite. Finances are kept in the shadow. While it is believed that millions of dollars are sitting in various accounts all over the world, it cannot be confirmed by normal reporting procedures followed by every institution except this one. The 3 D's of defense is a standard pattern for the worker system which studiously avoids responsibility, accountability and transparency. There are no known insurance policies in force for such damages. None of this makes this an attractive case for a law firm which works on contingency because they cannot ascertain that they will collect even if they won the case. Such a case would probably have to be backed by a wealthy individual with a sense of justice.

I would fully expect though that if a judgment was won against a wide number of workers, overseers and elders, they would step up to their obligation and pay it......however, a judgment would not be won without a protracted fight.

[rational]

Jun 23, 2012 16:57:36 GMT -5 @clearday said:

There is certainly a parallel with regard to "Institutional Responsibility". The big difference is the shadowy finances of the 2x2 institution.

I think that the fact there is no legal 2X2 organization might be even a bigger difference.

There are no known insurance policies in force for such damages.

Who would hold the policies and who would be insured?

Such a case would probably have to be backed by a wealthy individual with a sense of justice.

Wouldn't the better course, if this was the predetermined outcome, be to settle now?

One reason would be is the accused did not want to plead guilty to something that he believes he is not guilt of.

I would fully expect though that if a judgment was won against a wide number of workers, overseers and elders, they would step up to their obligation and pay it......however, a judgment would not be won without a protracted fight.

With no clear (legal) chain of commend and no organizational reporting policy do you see a large group of workers getting indicted on a single case? Take the current LW case, how many workers were involved at the beginning who did not report (ignoring the fact that there was no requirement)?

[rational]

Jun 23, 2012 23:48:08 GMT -5 @AnotherAspect said:

I do not think it would be that far fetched and not all attorneys need thousands to go after someone. Of course any good attorney would turn over all rocks. All it would take is for one of the victims which others (workers) in the group knew was being abused to file a civil action. Since they are already a victim they need not prove that point, only that others in leadership knew.

They need to prove they are indeed a victim and then show damages for the civil suit. The damages can usually be determined but there can be tricky bits regarding the support of the charges in the civil matter.

All they need to do is file the civil action and then discovery can commence. It might start with papers asking workers to show all details of bank accounts of any kind. It might also include Conventions if it can be shown that the institution pooled money to enhance ground. --- You see how tricky and sticky this could become. Just saying.

Have you been involved in a lot of civil trials?

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2012 8:16:00 GMT -5 rational said:

Jun 23, 2012 16:57:36 GMT -5 @clearday said:

There is certainly a parallel with regard to "Institutional Responsibility". The big difference is the shadowy finances of the 2x2 institution.

I think that the fact there is no legal 2X2 organization might be even a bigger difference.

In order to exist as an institution with responsibilities there is no requirement to be a legally registered organization.

Who would hold the policies and who would be insured?

The point is that no known insurance policies exist for successful collection of a judgment. That is simply one item that would discourage counsel from doing a contingency case. I suspect that would be one of the first questions asked of a potential plaintiff: "is there insurance here?"

Wouldn't the better course, if this was the predetermined outcome, be to settle now?

No idea what you are talking about with "predetermined outcome". That sounds like an oxymoron.

In the Penn State case, they have a significant incentive to settle now, but the potential claimants also have a significant incentive to settle now.

One reason would be is the accused did not want to plead guilty to something that he believes he is not guilt of.

It is conventional wisdom to initiate a civil lawsuit after the outcome of a criminal case. This makes sense because the case has already been vetted by a jury making a judgment "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a higher standard than for a civil case. However, that doesn't prevent a civil case being brought to trial before, or in the absence of a criminal trial.

In the OJ case, the civil case waited for the outcome of the criminal case. The criminal case was unsuccessful for the victims but the civil claim proceeded anyway, and was successful in obtaining a judgment.

I would fully expect though that if a judgment was won against a wide number of workers, overseers and elders, they would step up to their obligation and pay it......however, a judgment would not be won without a protracted fight.

With no clear (legal) chain of commend and no organizational reporting policy do you see a large group of workers getting indicted on a single case? Take the current LW case, how many workers were involved at the beginning who did not report (ignoring the fact that there was no requirement)?

None would be indicted in any potential case, as indictments are formal charges for criminal actions.

You would have to ask legal counsel as to how they would proceed with naming defendants in a case of institutional responsibility, but a common strategy in civil claims is to name anyone with even slight connections to the case, proceed with discovery, then eliminate names from there. It would be anyone's guess as to whose or how many names would remain on the claim for the trial.

In the LW case, I don't know why a civil case would be filed against a broad cross section of the 2x2 institution, nor do I have any idea why you are introducing the LW case into this thread. This is a case of an accusation of rape of one person against another. What institutional responsibility do you see surrounding these allegations? Perhaps you could share the information you have which indicates there is responsibility for anyone else in the 2x2 organization. Do you have information which is not posted on this forum which leads you to that conclusion?

[JO]

Jun 24, 2012 8:54:40 GMT -5 @clearday said:

This is a case of an accusation of rape of one person against another. What institutional responsibility do you see surrounding these allegations?

Would the victim be considered a member of LW's staff?

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2012 20:02:33 GMT -5 JO said:

Jun 24, 2012 8:54:40 GMT -5 @clearday said:

This is a case of an accusation of rape of one person against another. What institutional responsibility do you see surrounding these allegations?

Would the victim be considered a member of LW's staff?

Even if that were the case, it would be difficult to place responsibility on others for LW's alleged offenses. The institution would have to be seen as allowing or encouraging that behaviour imo.

Where others would be subject to legal claims would be if overseers knew of other offenses and did nothing about it, then there was another offense after the risks were revealed. In that case, they would deserve to have a big damage claim slapped on them.

[Scott Ross]

This article is pretty much in keeping with the thread title.

From the BTS board:

wingsbts.proboards.com/index.cgi

Jun 24, 2012 15:00:02 GMT -5 Admin said:

This is an interesting article regarding the moving of clergy members. Something for any worker/pastor/priest to think about.

It is a more serious charge than Failure To Report:

Guilt by association

Philly monsignor is first to be convicted of covering up priest sex abuse
By Karen Keller Saturday, June 23, 2012



Monsignor William Lynn was found guilty of child endangerment.

A Philadelphia clergyman yesterday became the first Catholic Church official in America to be convicted of enabling the sexual abuse of children by covering up for a pedophile priest.

Monsignor William Lynn, 61, was never accused of molestation. Instead, prosecutors successfully argued that he endangered a child by moving an alleged pedophile priest to another parish within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia after abuse claims about the priest had surfaced. A boy in the new parish was then abused.

Lynn faces up to seven years in prison.

However, Lynn was acquitted of a more serious conspiracy charge alleging he helped dozens of alleged pedophiles transfer to unsuspecting parishes. Lynn was also found not guilty of a second child endangerment charge.

Lynn’s attorney had characterized him as law enforcement’s fall guy for the real villains, the abusers. Lynn had tried to get some of the alleged abusers — numbering 37, according to a secret list kept in a safe by the archdiocese that was revealed during the trial — to get treatment, his defense claimed. And he didn’t have the legal power to defrock them, his attorney said.

“I did my best with what I could do,” Lynn testified.

Lynn, who served as as the archdiocese’s chief investigator on clergy misconduct from 1992 to 2004, was tried along with a fellow priest, the Rev. James Brennan, who was charged with sexually abusing a 14-year-old boy. Jurors deadlocked on that charge and a mistrial was declared.

Another co-defendant, former priest Edward Avery, was also charged but he pleaded guilty earlier this year to molesting a boy and is currently serving 2½ to five years in prison.

The nearly three-month trial featured testimony from about 20 alleged victims.

Philadelphia District Attorney R. Seth Williams called the verdict against Lynn “historic” and said other clergymen could be investigated.

“Many people of many generations have unclean hands when it comes to this silence,” Williams said.
[e-mail]
@karenakeller

[/color]

www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/23/062312-news-church-abuse-case/[/quote]

[Deleted]

Thanks Scott. It's good to see the cover-ups are being considered criminal issues now.

I suspect that civil damage claims would be very easy for a plaintiff against senior management practicing cover-ups.

In the F&W system, cover-ups typically involve sending the offender overseas. Not all all overseas workers are offenders, (far from it I hope), but moving them from one state to another doesn't provide enough cover anymore.