From tilman@berlin.snafu.de Sun Dec 20 09:29:43 1998
If this is upheld on appeal, it would mean that the USA would come more
into the 20th century. I see this not only in the context of the Tony
Strawn case (scientology tried to prevent Mother from reporting her
child-rapist husband to the police, no additional civil lawsuit filed),
but also in a general context: for example, in California there is an
additional burden to pass before suing a "church".
Btw, the "procedural grounds" mentioned below is that the LDS Church
does not exist. It is not incorporated.
================================
Attorney Michael G. Sullivan Releases Court Report Saying
PR Newswire
Court Rules Mormons Cannot Escape Sexual Abuse Lawsuit
BECKLEY, W.V., Dec. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The office of
In a ruling that carries national significance, a West Virginia
court ruled recently that the First Amendment does not protect
religious organizations from civil liability merely because of
their status as a church.
Raleigh County Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick made the ruling in
response to a suit, filed by a young girl and her mother, that
seeks $750 million in damages from the Mormon Church. In
their complaint, the young girl, identified only as Jane Doe,
contends the Mormon Church knew that her father was
sexually abusing her for five years and failed to report it as
required by state law. Jane Doe alleges that not only did the
Church fail to report knowledge of her abuse, but it has
actually suppressed evidence of the abuse of hundreds of
other Mormon children over the years.
The Court's ruling represents a serious setback for the
Mormon Church and its team of lawyers who have raised this
defense in similar suits throughout the country. The Mormon
Church has been sued at least 26 other times for their failure
to report the sexual abuse of children.
In the past, the Mormon Church has vigorously defended
sexual abuse suits by relying upon the First Amendment,
which calls for separation of church and state. "Because of
the Court's ruling, the Church will need to re-examine its
strategy in dealing with reports it receives of sexually abused
children," said Michael Sullivan, the lawyer representing Jane
Doe and her mother.
The Mormon Church has centered most of its arguments on
the question of when does the state's interest in protecting
children override a church's First Amendment rights to avoid
government control. The Court responded by saying the
state's interest in protecting children from the horrors of
sexual abuse "will override even the most sincerely held
religious convictions."
The Court, in an exhaustive opinion, examined each of the
Mormon Church's First Amendment claims and found that
they did not shield the Church from this suit.
The Court also found that Jane Doe and her mother "have
alleged sufficient gross, wanton and reckless conduct such
that a jury may award punitive damages." Awards of punitive
damages are designed to punish a defendant in order to
deter similar bad conduct in the future.
Although Judge Kirkpatrick had earlier dismissed the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as defendants on
procedural grounds, after hearing arguments from the
plaintiff, the Court allowed them to amend their complaint and
return the Mormon Church as defendants in the suit.
Church lawyers have attempted to distance the Mormon
Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, from the local
church in Beckley, claiming its members were not acting for
the Mormon Church itself when they failed to report the sexual
abuse of Jane Doe. The Court found this contention by the
Church unpersuasive and ruled that a jury should decide
whether or not Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City exercise
control over their local churches.
"This defense too has been widely used by the Mormon
Church in similar suits, and its rejection by the Court presents
the Church with a difficult choice," Sullivan said.
In 1994, after five years of abuse, Jane Doe's father was
arrested and convicted on 37 counts of sexual abuse of a
minor. The father is currently serving a 184-year sentence in a
West Virginia prison.
Jane Doe alleges that her father, a member of the Mormon
Church, began sexually assaulting her when she was three
years old. Her brother, who was seven years old at the time,
was also repeatedly abused. The father told the children's
grandfather, a bishop in the Church, who notified a senior
Church official of the abuse. The children lived alone with their
father at this time.
The complaint further alleges that the Chief Executive Officer
of Raleigh General Hospital at the time, Kenneth Holt, also a
member of the Mormon Church, too knew of the abuse of the
children. No church members reported the sexual abuse. The
suit contends that local church leaders, mimicking Mormon
authorities around the country, acted to suppress evidence of
this abuse for five years.
The plaintiffs contend that the conspiracy to suppress
evidence of sexual abuse of Mormon children is motivated by
the Church's desire to continue its phenomenal growth, and to
prevent any interference with the donations it receives. It is
the fastest growing evangelical Church in the world. Members
are required to donate a tenth of their gross income to the
Mormon Church each year. All tithes from around the world
are sent to a bank in Salt Lake City, Utah, every week.
One of the first cases dealing with the issue of religious
freedom in this country coincidentally involved the Mormon
Church and its belief that polygamy was a basic tenant of its
religion. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Mormons
were free to believe what they wished, the secular law against
plural marriages would have to be followed.
"This ruling re-affirms that in America, not the President nor
any church is above the law," Sullivan said.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal
Subject: First Amendment Does Not Shield Churches from Civil Liability
From: tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:29:43 GMT
First Amendment Does Not Shield Churches from Civil Liability
15.12.1998
Michael G. Sullivan, P.C., Attorney At Law today released the
following:
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.