Money talks & bullshit walks.

Submitted by patti on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 07:09

Forums:

How did the reprehensible abuse in the Catholic Church finally get addressed & exposed. By lawsuits! Regardless of what the big dogs @ AA rap, they are legally responsible for what goes on in those rooms & for what any & all members do! The Catholic Church claims the disgraced, pedophile & reprehensible abusing priest's are not the entire face of the church, that's cool, however the church is still legally & financially responsible for said Priest's behavior. If a deacon or just a church member sexually abused another church member, the church would still be liable. If one fall's on someone's property or steps, etc., the property owner is responsible. It is easy for AA to stone wall & rap their double speak to a lone member who communicates their abusive & dangerous episode's to the AA big doggies. Get those same AA big dogs in a room for a deposition, in a court room with a judge & lawyers & watch how the AA stone walling gets taken apart. Additionally, one should consider along with suing AA, also suing the member who commits the abuse, the damages, etc. Also included in a suit, could be the church's & facilities who rent rooms to AA & of course the club houses. Start suing AA for their assets, the properties they own, the wealth accumulated. AA has I believe 90 paid employee's, they are responsible for not responding appropriately to complaints of criminal & abusive behaviors & actions of members. The paid employee's & also every voluntary member represents AA. All complaints should be in writing & sent via certified mail, document, document, document. All incidents should be documented in writing by the victims. All incidents should be documented with a Police force. Also prosecute via criminal court, then sue civilly both the organization & the individual. It will be every abuser for himself. Additionally, any & every thing in writing is documentation for any & all suits. The more a stepper puts in writing their convoluted & twisted stone walling & denying, the more documentation exists to submit to a court! The way to solve the damages & harm that AA cause's so many individuals, families & society @ large is to tap into their deep pockets, make them pay for being grossly negligent & for allowing abuse to occur & prevail.

Clara's picture

Clara

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 19:19

But if you cannot do it because of family, but more importantly because nothing happened to you, who is going to do it that has atual legal standing? This all sounds great but It doesn't matter if you call all the attorneys in the world because if you don't hae willing plaintiffs, what do you really have?

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

massive's picture

massive

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:18

Patti where is your post about the suicide Law suit? I cant find it.

Massive

btnben's picture

btnben

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 17:58

As most of you know I'm UK based. All I know about US law is what I've learned from Law & Order....lol. Don't you have different areas of the law in the States? AA is country wide and a lot of their operations cross State borders, don't they? Doesn't this make them answerable to Federal Law? Does this make any kind of difference? Just asking...lol

God damn it, get me a whiskey

Bill W, Deathbed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?source=patrick.net&v=Sdn3O6aaMNc

Pennywise's picture

Pennywise

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 19:51

Doesn't this make them answerable to Federal Law?

Kind of. They would be subject to federal jurisdiction, but the federal courts would apply substantive state law. For example, in a diversity case where the plaintiff and defendant are from different states, a federal court will generally apply the common law of the state in which the court sits, unless there is an applicable federal law that trumps under the Supremacy Clause.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

patti

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:04

A case can start @ a state level & if the organization/company, etc. is national, the case can become a federal case handled in federal courts. A lot of defendants being sued, prefer to be in the federal court system. The jury is chosen from all over the state. In a state case, the jury is chosen from local jurisdiction & city juries in the U.S., Phila., N.Y., Chicago, etc., etc. are known for siding with the plaintiff's & for awarding large sums! So lots of U.S. attorneys defending those being sued try to get the case kicked up to a federal level due to juries being chosen from rural areas as well as urban.

patti

Pennywise's picture

Pennywise

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:07

Good luck getting the case to a jury. It would probably be decided at the summary judgment stage.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

patti

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:18

I agree with that, it isn't that easy to bully, stone wall, do AA double speak when out of their realms. it's like bumping into the school bully when you are walking down the street with all of your big brothers, boy is that bully a different animal! AA knows more fatal to them than losing money, is bad publicity, is the truth revealed. after being sued, what judge in this country would put their own neck & career on the chopping block & future consequences by sentencing any one to AA, especially a female under 30. it can happen though, we shouldn't accept defeat. it will be difficult, that doesn't mean it can't happen. if you told any one 20 years ago the Catholic Church would be held accountable, it would have seemed unlikely. the right victim will come a long, someone in AA will abuse some one with some major juice's kid, or there will be a girl who just can't be abused & take it any longer.

patti

Pennywise's picture

Pennywise

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:29

To get an idea of where I am coming from, this is from § 315 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts:

There is no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to
prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless (a) a
special relation exists between the actor and the third person
which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's
conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and
the other which gives to the other a right to protection.

I think a plaintiff would have a difficult time showing that there is any "special relationship" between AA and its members.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

massive's picture

massive

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:30

Patti- I cant tell you how glad I am to read your posts. I have been working on this for 3 years. OMG has that much time passed.

Okay...Im gonna do some research.

Massive

patti

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:35

got it, however what about when the victim advises the first party over & over about what the third party is doing as a member of their organization, over & over. and the first party irresponsibly does nothing, over & over. there has to be a way, someone will find it. 2 patrons are in a bar, one patron assaults another person, the 1st party the bar was not involved, not legally obligated to protect the 2nd party from the 3rd party the assaulter. why can the bar, then be sued?

patti

Clara's picture

Clara

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:37

If there are dram laws and the bar personnel were serving them, the bar can be sued. If they served drunk people and it contributed to the actions, cases can be made against them...

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

Pennywise's picture

Pennywise

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:46

Yes. That is statutory exception because alcohol is served. Alcohol liability, if you will.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

Pennywise's picture

Pennywise

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:51

A snippet from a recent case:

Davis v. Dionne, 26 A. 3d 801 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2011

Davis argues that Brockway and Dionne breached a duty to comply with the Cyr invoice statement when Dionne bought alcohol before the excursion. Any duty not to purchase alcohol arising from the Cyr invoice statement would be inextricably linked to the service of alcohol and would therefore trigger the MLLA's exclusivity provision pursuant to 28-A M.R.S. § 2511. See Jackson, 1999 ME 26, ¶ 9, 723 A.2d at 1221-22. Because Davis's MLLA claims were dismissed, he has no viable claim against Brockway or Dionne based on Dionne's purchase of alcohol for the trip.

[¶ 14] Davis also argues that Brockway and Dionne had a special relationship with Davis and a fiduciary duty to him because Dionne organized and led the excursion. "[T]he general rule is that an actor has no duty to protect others from harm caused by third parties." Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2005 ME 57, ¶ 25, 871 A.2d 1208, 1217. We have recognized an exception "only in circumstances where the law will recognize both the disparate positions of the parties and a reasonable basis for the placement of trust and confidence in the superior party in the context of specific events at issue." Id. ¶ 26, 871 A.2d at 1218 (quotation marks omitted). We decline to recognize 806*806 a generalized fiduciary duty on the part of one who organizes and leads a trip to protect trip participants from one another and do not reach the issue as to whether some other factual scenario may give rise to a special relationship or a fiduciary duty on the part of a trip organizer or trip leader. See Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc., 1999 ME 144, ¶¶ 23-24, 738 A.2d 839, 847 (declining to recognize "a generalized fiduciary duty on the part of [a] church to protect members of its congregation from other members").

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

Pennywise's picture

Pennywise

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 19:11

Part of that has to do with liquor liability. Another part has to do with commercial activity. Here is a snippet from a New Hampshire Supreme Court case that explains it a bit. I boldfaced the most relevant parts:

Berry v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc., 152 N.H. 407, 410, 879 A.2d 1124 (2005):

The special circumstances exception should never be triggered by the mere failure of a citizen to report actual or suspected criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities or by a citizen's improper advice concerning an appropriate response to complaints of criminal activity. Otherwise, the general rule which imposes no duty on citizens to prevent the criminal acts of third parties will be swallowed up and civil liability unreasonably extended. The dissent suggests that if the elders had counseled Poisson to report the abuse to secular authorities they would have satisfied their common law duty to the plaintiffs, even if Poisson did not follow their advice. Apparently, knowledge by the elders of alleged criminal conduct and a failure to report it would not be sufficient to create civil liability but failure to dispense proper advice to the person disclosing the conduct would be. Poisson, however, had her own independent and overarching duty to protect her children from abuse perpetrated by her husband and had a common law obligation to intervene regardless of any advice she received. No special circumstances exist in this case to justify civil liability against Watchtower or Wilton Congregation.

In both Iannelli and Remsburg, on which the dissent relies, the defendants were engaged in commercial activity and were held to have a duty to prevent foreseeable criminal activity directed either to patrons on their premises or to individuals about whom they were selling otherwise private or hard-to-gather information. In both cases the defendants exercised control, either over commercial property or information they sold to third parties. Their activities and conduct created a condition or enhanced a foreseeable risk of criminal conduct which they could independently and affirmatively control. Ianelli, 145 N.H. at 193-95; Remsburg, 149 N.H. at 153-55. The same was true in Dupont, where workplace supervisors allegedly did not act appropriately in protecting an 415*415 employee from a criminal attack on workplace premises. Dupont, 147 N.H. at 713-14.
.
.
.
The common law narrowly defines those responsible civilly for failure to prevent criminal assaults by third parties. If mere knowledge of alleged criminal conduct or imprudent advice offered in response to a disclosure or discovery can create a "special circumstance," then close friends, neighbors and extended family will find themselves at risk of civil liability for situations they did not create and over which they exercise no control. Without sufficient control that would give rise to a duty, a private citizen should be immune from civil liability for failure to prevent criminal acts of others.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

DeConstructor's picture

DeConstructor

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 18:55

although it would be great if that could be in a court.

I was actually refering to the human costs, from suicides, drunk driving incidents, etc.

patti

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 19:11

Pennywise,
got it, ty. however, some one tenacious will come along & get battered in AA & fight & win. they have been sued for the 3rd party's action, case in N.Y., suicide victim, AA settled out of court with the victim's surviving family. said family sued AA due to it's member's verbal "suggestions" to the victim, they "suggested" he stop taking his medication, he complied & killed him self, off his meds. AA settled out of court, quickly, quietly. Some day, some powerful person's kid is going to get abused in AA, they are going to tell their poweful parent's what happened. AA is accustomed to member's who are downtrodden, uneducated, those who remain usually have a dependent personality disorder, sheep, the vulnerable, the not very bright, easily led, easily manipulated & exploited. One of these days the wrong person is going to be abused in AA & that will be the catalyst. ty for your information, very informative, I have the spirit as you wrote. I have such an aversion to bullies & abusers, always have since childhood, although I was very small, I was like the littlest kid on Bad News Bears, the original movie. I can't fight this fight, I'm not a victim of AA sexual abuse, but someone will come along, who will fight this fight. I know it, just know it, it is inevitable & they will win. thank you again for your information, I appreciate it.

patti

massive's picture

massive

Sat, 04/28/2012 - 12:31

Patti- thanks for telling us about this lawsuit. Very interesting. Yes I agree. Eventually some rich Hollywood kid or someone like that will f###k with the wrong rich smart family and all hell will break lose.

Massive

Clara's picture

Clara

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 20:31

Why not Charlie Sheen? There have been rich Hollywood types in AA for decades. Of course, Charlies was just bored and went back out, if you believe his interviews. I just find some of these things with no more than \"he\" or \"someone\" to be a bit farfetched. Why isn\'t there more info available?

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

Clara's picture

Clara

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 20:29

Patti, you make these claims, but you don\'t cite anything that someone could check out. If they \"have been sued,\" there would be a paper trail even if they settled out of court. Not saying that it couldn\'t happen, but I would like to read something about this for myself. And nothing happens as quickly as you say it does. AA has been in litigation for a number of things over the years, and it isn\'t quiet or swept under the rug. It is also hugely time consuming.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

becket's picture

becket

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 20:48

Clara, I\'ve asked for resources or links for the shit she spews - she will not provide it. At least JR Harris puts up his links, I\'ll give him that. patti is a shit stirrer, that\'s all. Don\'t even worry about it. It\'s clear there\'s no corroborating evidence behind what she says - not even a scientific study to make Ironic happy. And yet everyone rallies around her as if she were handing out hundred dollar bills. It\'s pathetic.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Clara's picture

Clara

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 08:45

That\'s because most seem to feel that suing AA is some sort of answer when we\'ve yet to see what has happened with the suits already active. It\'s wrong to make it out as if it is an easy thing to do, and that money falls from the sky because AA is willing to settle quickly and quietly. The fact that AA suits go on for a decade don\'t seem to matter. None of these people talking about suits and settlements can provide anything more than something they\'ve heard.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

JR Harris's picture

JR Harris

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 08:56

Face it, we have more and more examples everyday of the con men and women that will fabricate and lie to further the proliferation of the cult. We are getting verified reports nearly daily of the problems in AA. At one time they thought that the catholic church could never be sued either.

The one thing I do know, is that if you do not try, it will not happen. In earlier time if you went against the church you could have been burned at the stake, that is no longer the case(in most countries). What needs to be done is the liars of AA need to be called on their BS every time they give it and every legal avenue exhausted. AA members should be considered no different than Monies or Scientologists and both of those cults are being sued.

"Tradition 10 - Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the AA name ought never be drawn into public controversy." Please follow orders from the Interchurch Center if you are an AA member and don't comment.

Ironic's picture

Ironic

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 09:20

I\'m not doing any rallying without tangible evidence, but I do find it really rich that you are complaining about said lack of evidence.

The trolls on this site regularly refuse to acknowledge hard evidence in the form of scientific studies, so why should patti even bother sourcing herself? The trolls will call bullshit either way, just like they always do when the Vaillant study is brought up.

That being said, @patti, I would personally like to see the papers for this court case but I don\'t believe you are lying in the case you cant provide them.

DeConstructor's picture

DeConstructor

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 19:56

seems somewhat useless in this situation.

It is very obvious from the posts here that people have been hurt badly because of this organization and the misinformation and disinformation they market.

btnben's picture

btnben

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 05:49

both work under the system of precedent? AA is a nice target. They are known all over the world. A court case against them would be the most damaging thing possible for them. The truth, once out can never be unlearned. I wonder if no imaginative lawyer has picked up on this because they simply don't know about it. AA is SO wrong on SO many levels, there must be some way to highlight it nationally, or internationally even. It may not be the most ethical approach, but when have ethics had anything to do with the law?...lol

God damn it, get me a whiskey

Bill W, Deathbed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?source=patrick.net&v=Sdn3O6aaMNc

avogadno's picture

avogadno

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 07:34

This may not be a popular pov, especially from an anti AA, but I loathe the "suing" AA talk. Not that it wouldn't serve a purpose and get them to face responsibility for harm. Perhaps open the eyes to millions, drawing attention to the devious nature some of us have witnessed - or experienced.

It appears that there is some pushing going on though. Take for instance a member that was hurt, coming to the OP to get education and maybe start to heal. Putting pressure on people to get involved in a lawsuit that could cause them more suffering seems like ambulance chasing or something. It's like some people aren't thinking about the affect it could have on an individual, and only about a "cause". To me, that's group talk.

I imagine a poor soul that is still struggling with their sobriety, facing the fact that they joined a religion, and maybe just wanting to deprogram and carry on with their lives could be further "hurt' by getting swayed to sue AA rather than get support. I've noticed dozens of times where a new, former member has shared their "why i left AA" and didn't get what a lot of us claim we are here for - which is showing support. Not enticing them to get involved in the "cause" by jumping in saying, "Hey, you have a lawsuit, lets sue them". That's insensitive and out of line.

I’m not trying to say that this topic isn’t called for and shouldn’t be discussed. And I’m not singling people out and making accusations. Also, for the record, I’m not claiming it is happening hear, in this particular discussion. It’s something I’ve noticed from time to time though, and I’d like to see “newcomers” in OPF or wherever just given some room to breathe, rather than getting jumped on to get involved with exposing and activism right away.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

btnben's picture

btnben

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 08:11

I totally agree Avo, and I'm sure everyone else will too. That's the problem with activism - the enthusiasm dial sometimes gets turned up to 11. Don't apologise for bringing it up - everyone's got the right to say what they want and to disagree with what they want. Could this be the inception of the Newcomers Rescue League's Newcomers Rescue League?...lol

God damn it, get me a whiskey

Bill W, Deathbed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?source=patrick.net&v=Sdn3O6aaMNc

becket's picture

becket

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 11:04

This, from btnben Friday, 4/27/12, at 11:11:

<strong>\" . . . everyone\'s got the right to say what they want and to disagree with what they want.\" </strong>

I\'ll be referring to this post in the future as \"11:11\". I hope you\'ll remember it, too.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

btnben's picture

btnben

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 11:09

When I said \"everyone\" I meant all normal people. I\'m sure you would agree that, by no stretch of the imagination could this include you....lol

You\'re dismissed now. I\'ll give you a poke when I want to taunt you some more...lol

God damn it, get me a whiskey

Bill W, Deathbed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?source=patrick.net&v=Sdn3O6aaMNc

becket's picture

becket

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 20:50

Taunt me? Hilarious! Keep \'em comin\', britshit.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Brett

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 11:23

Bloody good point, only thing worse \'ud be one of our trolls getting in ya face.

Brett

patti

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 08:06

I appreciate your insight & thoughts. Sometimes what a victim of abuse needs is justice. This helps them heal & move on. Sometimes, confronting the abusing party & bringing in a 3rd & objective party, the court system & the abusing party being held accountable & responsible & having to provide retribution for damages is exactly what a victim needs. It is all relative & depends upon the individual & what will help them to heal & move on. I have submitted this information to this forum, for the purpose of it becoming a link if someone search engines suing AA. For me I left with a few people, I was lucky, I had support & validation that things were not quite right in AA & that our brains were being washed & that any time any of us communicated any critical thinking we were advised we were sick & on the verge of relapsing. Others leave alone, are terrified due to being terrified that they will drink & die by leaving & no longer attending meetings, they have been battered, brow beat & nagged to the point of being very vulnerable & fragile. The support here is evident, you & I are here to provide that support to advise the brain washed & battered, that no they aren't sick & yes it is okay to leave AA & yes we validate & have experienced bad incidents & bad behaviors of unhealthy people in an unhealthy environment. I guess what we provide & what one needs after leaving AA is to feel their feelings & problems with the program & it's members is validated by others with similar experience's. One eventually reach's the plateau of realizing that AA & it's members are comical, similar to the Church Lady character on SNL & this is a healthy plateau. People who leave AA, recover from AA & maintain their sobriety & regain their mental, emotional & physical health & well being, that's why I am here to provide to former members that there is sober & healthy life & being, post AA. My biggest emotion & feeling when leaving for good was relief! Often one is fragile when first leaving, they have been manipulated & told over & over that they owe, owe, owe, that they have multiple & many character defects, that they are sick, helpless & powerless without the program & giving their will to a higher power of their choice, definitely battered & brow beat into a submissive role & being. However, the fact that they left is the beginning of self empowerment. Every one is different once they leave, there will be individuals who need & chose justice, who need & chose retribution & punitive damages, who want to stop the madness & abuse, put a dent in it & shut it down. It all depends upon the individual how they chose to heal. I chose to throw this information out there, in case there is any one who wants justice, who has sexually abused & then abused again by members who will not validate the abuse & advise them what goes on in AA, stays in AA. I think what is worse than the abusers, is the people who will cover up for the abusers. The cover uppers in the Catholic Church were worse than the abusers to me. I appreciate what you say, but this isn't a group think situation to me, if someone decides to sue, I just want them to know that there are others who support & agree with said decision. The people who sued the Catholic Church, stepped up & admitted they were sexual abused, which takes courage, it is a humiliating experience, of course & have helped many other victim's, both prior, present & future. Also, they have definitely deterred some future abuse's from occurring. There is so much more to a lawsuit against an organization that allows abuse to exist & prevail, there is future safety for others, there is retribution & justice for many. If individuals chose not to attempt to sue, that is cool also, whatever works for each & every being is cool. I do believe in my heart that someone will come along, a victim of sexual abuse & will want the justice of a law suit. The grounds exist.

patti

patti

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 08:37

Also, there will be former members who were abused that want justice, want is the operative word. I do agree with your insights, it all depends upon the individual & what works for their healing, maintaining sobriety & health. We all have different ways of dealing with AA & it's the aftermath's of attending. Considering suing the abuser isn't the only advise one deprogramming gets here. There are victims of abuse who eventually or have reached a plateau of wanting justice & are feisty & stand up for self & justice. It's okay for me to say AA should pay, what any individual does with the info & support they read here, is their choice. I'm pro sue, you are pro heal & deprogram, take a breath, cool. I've already accomplished that & have a friend whose life is in shatters due to the abuse she endured, @ this point she is too beat up from the abuse to pursue justice, she just wants peace & quiet right now. It really just depends upon the individual & what they want. You pointing out that maybe just deprogramming & maintaining sobriety is a good thing is definitely true & I'm glad you wrote it for those who need that support, truly I'm glad you provided this info. I genuinely, truly would not want to or need to push anyone into a path or action that isn't good for them or right for them. I also genuinely & truly do not want to promote group think. I understand the insensitivity you write of & agree & do need to remember the main objective here is to provide compassionate support to those who need it. I genuinely was insensitive & do not want to be insensitive to any one, particularly the vulnerable. I am feisty, I am a fighter, I want justice for those abused people, but it's not all about what I want. I am genuinely going to be as conscious as possible & make sure that I am sensitive. I genuinely write of these options to help others to heal & the possibility exists that what I've written may help someone, again it depends upon the individual & what they are seeking, support, emotional, etc. or justice, etc. Thank you for your insights, you are an insightful & kind person & I really appreciate your thoughts & words.

patti

massive's picture

massive

Sat, 04/28/2012 - 12:39

Patti - I agree with you. There is a statue of limitations and for me my sexual harassment was so long ago. But it really pisses me off that it is still going on and that is it much worse now. I would like to see justice served by the law.

Massive

avogadno's picture

avogadno

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 09:32

The apology comes from me not wanting myself to appear as if I oppose action. Not assuming I will have this affect, but to be clear, I also don\'t want anyone to think that getting involved on a group level is wrong.

It\'s the \"feeling\" of coming across as if being part of societal change is more important to personal growth. Like the damn traditions and group conscience, b.s, something many of us speak against.

I know that when I left AA I was so angry I wanted to peruse getting redemption but I realized that I still had a plate full. I hadn\'t even feeling comfortable in my own skin yet, my clean \"time\" was minimal, and my brain was still full of AA mush. I needed to put my family and self first. A year has gone by since that time, so I personally am in a different and safer place. I just don\'t want to forget what it\'s like to find myself fresh out of a cult and tending to my personal needs. It\'s like childbirth, we forget what it\'s really like. Making a decision isn\'t exactly hard, but doing it. Minutes seem like hours, and those like days. Let the storm settle a bit before sailing, take a breathe and heal first. Yep, we are all in a different place.

I agree that action can help heal, and Patti, you are right. For some, that is the way. Anyone that takes that route has my support. I think I’m capable of rooting them on too, if it’s what they choose. Not what is chosen for them. Others, like me, may think it\'s the way but need to step back and not let those OCD tendencies take control. I think I could have sued the hospital I was in, and it may have forced them to make a change. The process could have killed me as well though. It\'s hard to feel selfish, but if I\'d of jumped into that I think I\'d of regretted it. If getting clean was easy we’d of never ended up in AA to begin with. It is rough. Getting rid of that AA thought is rough too, it’s like washing grease off.

For those that says OP or forums for discussion don\'t help, well I am one it has tremendously helped. I\'ve read that over and again on different sites, being thanking for knowing that we weren\'t alone in how we felt was very helpful. That\'s part of what kept me trying to work the impossible. I thought, everyone else must know, after all my brain is fried. But whew, that wasn\'t the case.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Clara's picture

Clara

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:03

I have never thought that you oppose action, but I have often wondered how some of these actions were actually going to help. That is why I thought Anti\\\'s constant refrain was also a call to the wild. Hot horny broads and innocent children at AA meetings. One man\\\'s warning is field call to others. One man\\\'s loss is another\\\'s opportunity or any number of similar sayings. As Penny said pretty wisely, an orgnazation isn\\\'t responsible for third party actions. While anyone can bring a lawsuit these days for almost anything, is it even the best course of action? Monica used to make it out as if these things were simple. For example, she said it is illegal to text and drive. But how many of us still do it those jurisdictions? Here in EP, you\\\'ll get pulled over more quickly for talking on your phone (500. fine) than you will for not wearing a seatbelt (25.00) and neither get reported to insurance. She used to tell Anti to get the laws changed in Daytona, as if it would happen next week, because that is what happened in CA. The laws don\\\'t need CHANGING there. They need to be CREATED. All of these things take huge amounts of time and effort. It sounds so easy on a board.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

massive's picture

massive

Sat, 04/28/2012 - 12:40

Clara- Monica used to make it out as if these things were simple. For example, she said it is illegal to text and drive. But how many of us still do it those jurisdictions?

can you STOP TALKING ABOUT ME !!!!!!!!!! GIVE IT a f####king rest. THat is not what I said.

Massive

Clara's picture

Clara

Sat, 04/28/2012 - 15:17

I didn\'t know that you cannot post about a person\'s post. Gosh, perhaps people should take your advice.

Thetruth is you DID list a bunch of things that are in fact laws, but that few people probably follow. It also takes enforcement to make any law matter. Are you telling me that my response to yours is wrong in substance?

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

JR Harris's picture

JR Harris

Sat, 04/28/2012 - 12:48

So have you confessed to your current AA group that you think they are low life and you wish you were back in Myrtle Beach with the elite scum of that Alcoholics Anonymous coven yet?

"Tradition 10 - Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the AA name ought never be drawn into public controversy." Please follow orders from the Interchurch Center if you are an AA member and don't comment.

becket's picture

becket

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 20:42

By reputation, do you mean a ubiquitous, spontaneous and highly efficient mechanism of social control in natural societies?

Are you compelled to control others because you cannot control yourself? Or do you just bore yourself, JR Harris?

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

patti

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 09:42

No personal growth is definitely the main objective. And I understand the fragile state you & others are in when first rolling from AA, the brain is fried! If we had only known that joining AA is like jumping from the frying pan into the fryer! As I stated, I was lucky I was not on my own when leaving, when the doubt began, when realizing the people in AA & fellowship were seriously out there & detrimental to my & others well being. A law suit is grueling & one has to be prepared & ready to take it on, it is a fight. And healing is the main objective. Take care.

patti

dandammit's picture

dandammit

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 09:51

patti, I\\\'ve been enjoying your posts and hope to read a lot more since they are a comfort.
I don\\\'t have the social grace skills to put into words what I would like to say about AA so thanks again for your blogs.

Trapped, hurting...

dandammit's picture

dandammit

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 09:52

What\\\'s with the ////?? I didn\\\'t do that!

avogadno's picture

avogadno

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:03

lol, I thought you were teasing me, Dan, my posts have been doing the same!

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

flannigan

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:41

Thanks for your link concerning the Baldwin Research Institute\'s $20 million lawsuit against AAWS which was initiated in April,1997. I have e-mailed Balwin and asked for any info/outcome re: this lawsuit. I will let you (and any other interested parties on OPF) know when and if I get a response from Baldwin.

disclosure

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 08:17

Settled out of court with a non disclosure clause.

Pennywise's picture

Pennywise

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 08:31

If I remember right, that case involved Baldwin suing AAWS for defamation. Baldwin alleged that AAWS made defamatory statements about Baldwin.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

flannigan

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 11:05

disclosure-
Why do you think it was setted out of court with a non-disclosure clause?

Pennywise-
Yes, it was a defamation lawsuit initiated in 1997. The question is how was it ajudicated.

Clara's picture

Clara

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 20:35

But there is a trail that indicates a suit took place, just not th eoutcome. Why can\'t we find out about the lawsuits that Patti claims took place when someone commited suicide? It just seems to be too easy to say \"I heard\" or something along that line, and then make it sound easy to do. \"Oh, they settle quickly due to the Traditions.\" These can be irresponsible statements to make.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

flannigan

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 08:40

I agree with Clara concerning this. What are the details: who sued?, on what grounds?, who did they sue? (surely not \\\"AA\\\" since \\\"AA\\\" is not a legal entity), who settled out of court? (AAWS, GSB, Grapevine, intergroup, AA group, individual member?). Without these details this lawsuit is just another urban legend.

Pages