Notes From an Observer at the “Jane Doe vs SGM” Appeal Hearing

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” ― Elie Wiesel link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg

Statue of Themis

TWW gratefully thanks Leila for attending the appeal hearing. Leila and her family are not involved in the case against SGM.

This write up is based solely on the notes that she took at the proceeding. It should not be taken as verbatim although Leila tried to be as accurate as possible. The appeal was presided over by a three judge panel. They are not expected to release their findings for several months.

Leila also sends out her heartfelt concern for the victims and their families.  Her attendance and quick write up of the appeal speaks to that. 

Introduction:

Leila is a regular reader here, and wrote a guest post for us two years ago about her problematic experience with a classical Christian school (of the Doug Wilson model), which her children attended. She lives near the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, and felt it was important to attend the appeal hearing of Jane Doe et al vs Sovereign Grace Ministries, et al, as an interested citizen and in silent support of the victims and their families. Here are her notes from that proceeding.

– – – –

Disclaimer:

I am not a lawyer. I took notes as rapidly as I could, but much of the terminology was unfamiliar to me. In my write-up below, I’ve tried to hit what I felt were the more significant points made. Any and all mistakes are my own, and I apologize in advance for my lack of expertise in these matters. I will not review, comment on, or explain any of the original complaint here; what follows are simply my notes on the morning’s appeal hearing.

– – – –

Jane Doe et al vs Sovereign Grace Ministries Inc, et al

Monday, June 9th, 2014

The hearing was held before a panel of 3 judges, beginning at approximately 10am and lasting less than 45 minutes.

SUSAN BURKE, ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, WAS UP FIRST:

Judge 1 opens up by asking a question about jurisdiction, and whether or not all 11 claims were dismissed with and/or without prejudice. There is a discussion of whether or not there was no final judgment in the case, because that would affect the standing of the plaintiffs to take it to this level. One of the judges seems concerned that in fact there never was a final judgment decreed. This discussion lasts several minutes. Susan Burke argues why in fact there was final judgment, and the case continues.

Susan Burke states that the issue before the court is this:

In 2011 the conspiracy to cover up sexual predation was discovered and the floodgates of information opened up. Before that time, the defendants were blocked from seeking justice because they did not know about the conspiracy. That is why an appeal should be granted.

If a conspiracy is hidden and victims don’t know of it, the “cause of action” does not begin to run on the clock until the conspiracy is discovered.

Judge (paraphrase): Was that argument made in the lower court?

Susan Burke (paraphrase): A cause of action for conspiracy beings to run at discovery.

Judge (paraphrase): Can you give me case law for this? The conspiracy clock, I believe, begins ticking at the time of victimization.

Susan Burke (paraphrase): No. The underlying tort is obstruction of justice and the cover-up, not sexual predation. The statue of limitations is the same for the underlying tort. In this case, the underlying tort is that people did not understand the obstructionist role of their church until 2011. They believed their church was acting in good faith and did not realize there was a cover-up until the victims found each other.

Susan Burke concludes her initial remarks with this emphatic statement (paraphrase): The issue before this court is a factual issue – that October, 2011, was the discovery of the conspiracy.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY #1:

(States his name; representing Sovereign Grace Ministries)

Defense Attorney #1 affirms the seriousness of the allegations and notes that they were “tough to read.”  He states that we have not yet gotten to the merits of these allegations, some going as far back as 1982, but if the case were to proceed and we did get to the merits, they would, however, be vigorously contested.

Defense Attorney #1 agrees with Plaintiff Attorney Susan Burke about the underlying complaint. It is not about the abuse, it’s about the conspiracy. Defense Attorney #1 claims, however, that it should have been filed sooner. Burke’s argument, he says, is also missing a claim that the 4 counts are viable causes of action – thus they are barred by statute.

Defense Attorney #1 (paraphrase): A conspiracy claim must be tethered to some count that is a cause of action. In this cause, no underlying tort is tethered. The 3-year statute of limitations governs here. The underlying torts well pre-date 3 years prior.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY #2:

(States his name. I didn’t clearly catch whom he was representing, but I caught the words “Covenant Life” and “pastors.” I assume he is the “et al” referred to in the case title.)

Defense Attorney #2 says the 7-year statute of limitations only applies to claims against perpetrators. Defense Attorney #2 goes on at length about this with supporting arguments and statutes/case law. At the crux of this argument seems to be the statutory language “arising out of.”

SUSAN BURKE, ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

At this point, Susan Burke focuses on the 7-year issue and “arising out of” language. Burke says it is very broad. She points out that the legislature was concerned about these ill effects (of child predation); the legislature did not say “you can only sue predators.” If you’re a predation victim, you can sue for claims “arising out of” that – which legally has constantly been interpreted broadly, not narrowly.

Judge (paraphrase): How do you respond to the statement that it’s not tethered to an underlying claim?

Susan Burke (paraphrase): Of the four counts, negligence, emotional distress — they encompass this concept. The lower court’s error was in time linking to the predation. 

(Here, Susan Burke managed to slip in that in the recent Morales criminal case, a pastor admitted the conspiracy; she made her point but did not dwell on it. The Morales case has no bearing on the hearing today.) 

Susan Burke (paraphrase): The (underlying cause?) clearly rises to at least the level of negligence and emotional distress [2 of the 4 counts], therefore the 2011 discovery is not time-barred.

Here the proceedings end.

Comments

Notes From an Observer at the “Jane Doe vs SGM” Appeal Hearing — 77 Comments

  1. And on a much less frivolous note, I echo Dee’s vote of thanks to Leila for her willingness to stand up, and stand out, as a member of the body of Christ. These are things which concern us all.

  2. Leila

    Thank you for this review, and for attending the appeal hearing…

    “as an interested citizen and in silent support of the victims and their families.”

    Be blessed

  3. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    What time was it over there when you commented? I sense an unfair advantage! 🙂

    In other news, I also thank Leila for doing this. She must have incredibly fast fingers to transcribe this. I can barely remember what my wife asked me to get at the market.

    It is just so encouraging to see these things coming to light. My prayer is that the victims are encouraged, no matter what the court decides. As their story is told louder and louder, more and more people are rallying around them.

  4. It was my privilege to attend. I am frustrated, though, that I don’t understand all the legalese and the significance of what went on. From my limited viewpoint, I think it went well, but I’m just not sure. I’m hoping some attorneys will chime in here and share their take on it.

  5. @ A. Amos Love:

    Amos! I’ve been looking for you. Please send me a message on Twitter @mixmastermerks or on Facebook @Erik Merksamer. I need to bounce some nagging questions around with you.

  6. Thanks so much for the information, Leila. Much appreciated.

    And now we enter the next cycle of prayer for discernment, wisdom, and justice on the part of those in the legal system.

    In the meantime, as more documentation and evidence surfaces (as with the sworn testimony by Grant Layman), it seems that the underlying dynamics of the SGM system are coming increasingly into the light. I keep wondering if the timing on such details will prove important in the long run for establishing a “preponderance of evidence” needed in civil suits. Time will tell.

  7. Leila, thank you! I’m a survivor of sexual abuse/assault (not related to SGM). I’ve been praying all morning about the appeal hearing and I will continue to do so as the days, weeks and months go by. Truth matters. I’ve been so sick over the fact that so few leaders in positions of power (those affiliated with SGM, TGC, etc.) have spoken out against SGM. In fact, they’ve done the opposite — they’ve relentlessly DEFENDED CJ and SGM. I’ve been grateful for Boz, Susan Burke, TWW, Brent Detwiler, Tulian and others who’ve been willing to stand up and say something.

  8. Help me out here since I’m not a daily reader- is there a link to the back story- or some background about this appeal?
    Thank you.

  9. Also, Jackie, you can click the links on the right-hand column of this page that say “Links to personal testimonies of alleged SGM child abuse cover-up
    exclc noel sgmnot losingfaith happymom sgmpastor families”

  10. @ Nickname:

    Ahh- I see. I’m generally familiar with the topic as a whole – this helps with much history. I know it’s been covered in many ways here at TWW so I’m trying to get current. I appreciate your help.

  11. Leila was one of the people who visited me in the hospital when I was at Fairfax INOVA in July 2012. She and her family are just awesome! 😀

  12. @ Deb:

    U.K. TWWers are +5 hours from Eastern Standard Time (EST) – taking into consideration U.K. summer time here, correct?

    I’m +7 from EST, our friend in Dubai is +8.

    That’s as far as I go with time zones, sorry about that to our central European, Aussie and Japanese posters. 🙂 I love me some maps and time zones, actually.

    Leila – great notes, and thank you.

  13. In her radio interview with Janet Mefferd, she said that the Morales case would not be a part of her defense …

    “Here, Susan Burke managed to slip in that in the recent Morales criminal case, a pastor admitted the conspiracy; she made her point but did not dwell on it. The Morales case has no bearing on the hearing today.)”

    That would lead me to believe that she felt desperate to throw that information in there as an attempt to sway the judges that indeed, conspiracy is already a fact in the case.

  14. Somewhereintime wrote:

    In her radio interview with Janet Mefferd, she said that the Morales case would not be a part of her defense … “Here, Susan Burke managed to slip in that in the recent Morales criminal case, a pastor admitted the conspiracy; she made her point but did not dwell on it. The Morales case has no bearing on the hearing today.)” That would lead me to believe that she felt desperate to throw that information in there as an attempt to sway the judges that indeed, conspiracy is already a fact in the case.

    I would not say that Burke was "desperate" to throw it in. I think it was a calculated move to ensure the judges knew about it, even if it technically has no bearing on the case at hand. Once you say something, it can't be unsaid or unremembered, even if technically it can't be part of the record. It may, however, have a subconscious influence.

  15. Eagle wrote:

    Leila was one of the people who visited me in the hospital when I was at Fairfax INOVA in July 2012. She and her family are just awesome!

    *blushing* Aw shucks. And when are we going to hear your story, Eagle … hmmmm?

  16. Leila: I am overwhelmed and blessed that you would take your time to attend our hearing, support all of the victims and take detailed notes. Thank you for your care and support.

    And thank you to all who prayed and are praying.

    “The king’s heart [judge] is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will…To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” Proverbs 21:1&3

  17. Deb wrote:

    @ Erik:
    My guess is that Nick saw this post around dinnertime. It was posted in the early afternoon our time.

    The UK is 5 hours ahead of TWW.

    And I think there’s a lesson for us all there.

  18. Pam Palmer wrote:

    Leila: I am overwhelmed and blessed that you would take your time to attend our hearing, support all of the victims and take detailed notes. Thank you for your care and support.

    Pam, it was my honor and a privilege to support the victims in this very small way. If the case gets bumped up to the Court of Appeals, I plan on being there again.

  19. Hey Nick

    I’m still in moderation at your Blog… 😉

    ““Leadership” in a Church that already has a Head”

  20. I don’t have access to prior Maryland case law, so I can’t say how the court is going to hold. What I will point out is that if this were a matter of settled law, the court would have gone with judicial economy and denied the appeal, see Joe Schmoe v. Larry Smith (case citation). That the court took the case indicates the issue of when the clock started on the conspiracy is an open question.

    Which, by the way, is not what you would have heard from Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung and Justin Taylor in their execrable screed defending C.J. Mahaney on The Gospel Coalition’s website after the case was initially dismissed.

  21. Somewhereintime wrote:

    That would lead me to believe that she felt desperate to throw that information in there as an attempt to sway the judges that indeed, conspiracy is already a fact in the case.

    I wouldn’t say that shows desperation either….recent sworn testimony confirmed a conspiracy. I’d call her move ensuring the judges were aware of very relevant information.

  22. @ Somewhereintime:
    Actually, if memory serves me correctly, Nate Morales’ crimes were being investigated by the police awhile ago. My guess is that any testimony given to the police by Layman way back when were part of the original documentation.

    It was common knowledge that Layman had told the police about being told of Morales. The only thing that changed recently is that he said it under oath.

    I don’t think it was “desperation.” It was merely presenting the scenario.

  23. @ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
    In my now well documented twitter exchange with Joe Carter, he said that the case had been thrown out the first time. It appeared to me that he was trying to make the case that the complaints were not valid. I did let him know that statute of limitations does not mean there was no crime.

    BTW, still have not heard from Carter about meeting with one of the victims.

  24. mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    What I will point out is that if this were a matter of settled law, the court would have gone with judicial economy and denied the appeal, see Joe Schmoe v. Larry Smith (case citation). That the court took the case indicates the issue of when the clock started on the conspiracy is an open question.

    Thank you, mirele, I find this very encouraging!

  25. Guys, we all need to pray for these judges. Pray that justice will be done here. Pray that the evidence will be considered. Pray that if they are to be swayed in a particular direction, or that fine details of the law are to be interpreted in a particular direction, that it will be in favour of the victims’ case. Pray that they will have a fair hearing.

  26. I am not a lawyer at all, but I’m curious about one thing.

    It seems to me that Layman’s under oath admission that he knew and didn’t report, along with the police reports that Boisart knew and did not report are both at odds with the church’s official statement that none of the pastors knew. I think Josh Harris acknowledged that discrepancy as well.

    Wouldn’t that indicate the conspiracy was still going on at least as recently as the church’s statement?

  27. DHM

    You are correct and that is why some folks are wondering if a criminal investigation could be in the offing. However, on the part of the appeal, one can only submit the information that was available to the trial which took place last year-prior of Layman's admission under oath. Also, this case which is appealed is a civil case, not a criminal case.  Many people are appalled at the statement by CLC and it is evident that Harris is as well.  Their only recourse is "Trust us, we'll tell you the truth when we can talk." They lost any appeal to trust a loooong time ago.

  28. A comment by Philmonomer: This was left under “My comment was deleted” It was so good that I didn’t want people to miss it.

     

    I tried to post this (twice) today on Joe Carter’s 9 Things You Should Know about the Southern Baptist Convention. My comment went from “Waiting for Moderation” to simply disappearing. My comment seems entirely “fair” (I think Joe does not like criticism. Or, if Joe is at the SBC annual convention today, whoever the moderator is.) Here is the comment:

    These two parts of the article don’t fit together:

    From point 3:

    As church historian Miles Mullin explains, southern Baptists desired to make slavery a non-issue, while abolitionist forces in the North (and among northern Baptists) desired the convention to take a moral stand against it. The following year group of representatives from Southern churches created a new denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.

    From point 4:

    In 1995, on the denomination’s 150th anniversary, the Convention voted to adopt a resolution on racial reconciliation that apologized for its racist roots

    If southern Baptists desired to make slavery a “non-issue” in the founding of the denomination, why did they apologize for its “racist roots?”

  29. @ Deb:

    Ok. I’m current now. And speechlessly sick. Kinda puts that recent hell discussion in a light of it’s own. I may be naive but I can’t believe that place hasn’t been set ablaze. I pray for justice and a healing that could only come from God.

  30. I saw classic appeal issues.

    First, there is the question of which Statute of Limitation applies. Abbreviated SOL (it can also effectively mean, if you are on the late side Sh** outa luck). There are a variety of potentially applicable SOLs in this case.

    Second, it appears that MD law may require a conspiracy to be tied to some underlying statute before it becomes a matter for civil recovery. Here the underlying statute is a failure to report and the subsequent cases involving the same perpetrators of abuse. It is clear that a conspiracy to cover up child sexual abuse violates the reporting statute. Tying it to the subsequent child sexual abuse events may be more difficult.

    Third, Plaintiff’s attorney is arguing that the SOL on the conspiracy counts should not begin until the conspiracy was discovered, that for SOL purposes, the conspiracy should not be tied to the date of the original abuse or the date the conspiracy began, otherwise a long lasting conspiracy would never become the subject of suit!!! A success coverup conspiracy could never be prosecuted or sued over if the SOL is tied to the underlying offense of the child abuse.

    If the judges focus on the fact that the conspiracy of silence and non-report was successful for a looooong time, but that that conspiracy did result in harm, they may rule for a discovery date start of the SOL for the conspiracy. Then Ms. Burke will have to prove the conspiracy and the discovery date in the trial court.

  31. @ dee:
    This is a misunderstanding of Mullin’s position (fwiw, Mullin was one of my profs while he was writing his dissertation for Vanderbuilt). When Mullin says “non issue”, what he means is that the Southern baptists wanted the issue of slave ownership to be completely unrelated to polity. The Northern baptists wanted slave ownership to disqualify one from ministry. So, the Southern Baptist Convention’s original position was thoroughly racist, and deserved an apology.

  32. @ A. Amos Love:

    Sorry about the delay – you’re on the air now! Delighted you dropped by.

    You were only in “first-comment mod” – I’ve set the bar there just so that spammers never appear. Not had to muzzle any trolls yet!

  33. Leila, thanks for writing up this transcript.

    Dee/Deb, can you direct me to Leila’s guest post about her experience with the classical Christian school? I have one foot in the classical school world (as a teacher and observer) and am currently doing an academic project on the weaknesses of the classical school movement (which may turn into an exploration of the movement’s patriarchy connections), so this is of great interest to me. Thanks.

  34. Dr Fundy

    Thank you for your input. Just so you know, this comment  as highlighted by Joe Carter in a piece at TGC is burning up the Twitterverse.

  35. “DEFENSE ATTORNEY #1”?
    “DEFENSE ATTORNEY #2”?

    SGM can afford multiple lawyers?
    That says Big Money right there!
    (HUMBLY, of course…)

  36. I’m not an attorney (had a few law classes in college and survived as a plaintiff in a 3 year civil litigation), but what seems most hopeful and significant to me is what @ An Attorney: said, and that is tying the SOL to the discovery of the conspiracy, not that actual beginning of the conspiracy. Also, if it could be shown that up into the present, the conspiracy was ongoing, that could be a factor?

    I don’t know what MD law is, and I know this is civil, not criminal, but I know that here (Colorado), in dealing with crimes involving sexual abuse of children, the SOL clock does not start ticking until the child (even if they are now an adult) is able to articulate and tells of the abuse. In my case, the abuse that happened when I was 2 1/2 still has 4 years of the 10 year SOL because that portion of my abuse did not surface into tangible memories until 6 years ago. And the reason I haven’t filed charges is the memories are not complete enough to unambiguously name the perpetrator (at least to me). Lots of circumstantial, but sadly, his face is not what dominates my memories.

    Leila, thank you for being our eyes and ears today. It is greatly appreciated.

  37. Somewhereintime wrote:

    That would lead me to believe that she felt desperate to throw that information i

    Given that the Defense attorney said they would contest the facts of the abuse, it seems natural to me that Susan would point out that the facts were no longer in any doubt…

  38. What the defense attorney did is “open the door” so that the plaintiff’s attorney could push that information into the discussion. That is a classic mistake in litigation, especially appellate litigation. The plaintiff’s attorney would have been out of order to bring up anything that arose after the trial court had ruled against the plaintiffs (by law, b/c the trial court did not have that information when the decision was made). However, once the defense opened the door by their statement, the plaintiff side was free to rebut that implication with later information.

    There are more defendants than one, so more attorneys. Not all of the defendants are perfectly aligned on the facts, etc., at issue. So there are different interests and issues to be presented by, of course, different attorneys on behalf of different defendants.

  39. Leila,
    Thank you for taking such good notes. Considering how quickly each argument was communicated, your notes are impressive and very much appreciated.

  40. @ An Attorney:
    Thank you for your input. Nate Morales went on to molest children in Nevada, for which he will also stand trial. This is allegedly after the date that Grant Layman was advised by a victim’s family. Layman also admitted to being told in a particular year and I am sure the family will have a pretty good idea when he was told.

    I hope this is good enough.

  41. In the shower this a.m., I was thinking about the lawsuit and issues of SOL. A question arose in my mind about the SOL for the crime of failing to report, and how it might relate to the lawsuit and possible criminal charges.

    Question: When does the SOL for the crime of failure to report begin. Is it with the mandated reporter learns of the sexual abuse of a child or from some other time? That is, if the SOL only begins when the authorities become aware of the failure to report, could the fact that these events were never reported by some of the mandated reporters open the door to criminal prosecution now? An alternative would be that the SOL begins with the sexual offense, which seems weird to me. And what is the SOL on the underlying offense of sexual abuse of a child?

    I only have access to current law in my own state and a couple of others, and MD is not on that list.

    I believe that criminal SOLs for failure to report should run fairly long, to discourage cover-up conspiracies. Civil SOLs might be somewhat different.

  42. Eagle wrote:

    Leila was one of the people who visited me in the hospital when I was at Fairfax INOVA in July 2012. She and her family are just awesome!

    Cool! Thanks for your efforts Leila. I see Christ in you!

  43. An Attorney wrote:

    Question: When does the SOL for the crime of failure to report begin. Is it with the mandated reporter learns of the sexual abuse of a child or from some other time? That is, if the SOL only begins when the authorities become aware of the failure to report, could the fact that these events were never reported by some of the mandated reporters open the door to criminal prosecution now?

    I believe if you listen to Janet Mefferd interviewing Susan Burke your questions will be answered:
    http://thouarttheman.org/2014/06/07/lawyer-susan-burke-comments-on-mahaneys-statement-of-innocence/

  44. I have previously listened, and I was not clear on exactly what the SOL was and the time that the SOL FOR FAILURE TO REPORT begins. And that is different whether it is a criminal matter or a civil matter.

  45. We will have details up soon about our snap event which will be tomorrow at the SBC meeting in Baltimore. I will be blogging today about the event along with a powerful statement by Pam Palmer, (hero) who will be joining Snap leaders and other survivors tomorrow.

  46. I am not a lawyer, and I do not think like a lawyer. Take this for what it is worth. Hint: it has its advantages and disadvantages.

    A problem with going to court, civil or criminal, comes with the possibility of losing in court. And this can happen regardless of the actual evidence and, I hear, sometimes regardless of the actual law. Then the defendant(s) can go around saying that the court found them innocent of all wrong doing. Here again, regardless of what the court actually found; including if the court just said that it was an internal religious matter and not a matter for the court, or ruled on jurisdiction or time limitations.

    So, it is possible to end up worse off by going to court, including financially worse off. Risky and expensive business. I can understand why some people do it and some do not.

    I do believe it is justifiable to tell people that going to the cops is the thing to do. I do not think that getting involved in a civil suit should be seen as a moral imperative for all victims, since the consequences of losing in court might be more than some people could live with.

  47. I do find it very disturbing, though, that so many leaders find it appropriate for CLC and SGM leaders to “wait and see” how the civil ruling resolves. In almost every other situation, concerning civil suits, leaders would be encouraging repentance and reconciliation where appropriate and needed (at least this is what they have always preached to the pews.) I don’t understand why leaders who are friends of SGM and CLC leaders have not encouraged their buddies to reconcile? It is my understanding that many of the plaintiffs have sought reconciliation, but were refused the process. Why is it okay for leaders to refuse to reconcile, but the folks in the pews are often forced to reconcile or be shunned? Double standards are never okay.

  48. Nancy wrote:

    A problem with going to court, civil or criminal, comes with the possibility of losing in court.

    A friend of mine who spent 30 years as a court reporter once told me that in every court case, the side with the best lawyer wins. Sad, but true.

  49. Bridget wrote:

    I do find it very disturbing, though, that so many leaders find it appropriate for CLC and SGM leaders to “wait and see” how the civil ruling resolves. In almost every other situation, concerning civil suits, leaders would be encouraging repentance and reconciliation where appropriate and needed (at least this is what they have always preached to the pews.) I don’t understand why leaders who are friends of SGM and CLC leaders have not encouraged their buddies to reconcile? It is my understanding that many of the plaintiffs have sought reconciliation, but were refused the process. Why is it okay for leaders to refuse to reconcile, but the folks in the pews are often forced to reconcile or be shunned? Double standards are never okay.

    exactly. nailed it.

  50. Nancy wrote:

    Then the defendant(s) can go around saying that the court found them innocent of all wrong doing.

    That may very well happen, but I believe saying that would be a misrepresentation. I think a court can only find the defendant(s) guilty or not guilty. They may not be innocent at all. There may be lack of sufficient evidence to find them guilty; therefore they are not guilty.

  51. Or let off on what is typically called a technicality, but usually is a right guaranteed by the Constitution or a law. E.g., witness not showing up vs. right to confrontation. SOLs are usually called technicalities but are part of a basic right to be able to confront the witness and the evidence. If it has been too long to prove the alibi (dead witness that had said someone else did it) then one cannot put on a defense, but should not be held to account by the court.

  52. Nancy wrote:

    A problem with going to court, civil or criminal, comes with the possibility of losing in court. And this can happen regardless of the actual evidence and, I hear, sometimes regardless of the actual law.

    I read people who are in jail, even though they claim to be 100 percent innocent, because they pleaded guilty to a lesser crime to avoid the litigation risk of going to court to fight a more serious charge.

  53. Joe2 wrote:

    I read people who are in jail, even though they claim to be 100 percent innocent, because they pleaded guilty to a lesser crime to avoid the litigation risk of going to court to fight a more serious charge.

    So I hear. And I gather from the news that sometimes they actually were innocent and sometimes apparently not. I am thinking there must have been enough evidence to convince them that a plea deal was to their best interest. But you never know.

    My son prosecuted a child abuse case once which included a signed confession from the father, but during the trial the mother went bonkers and shouted down the court room, and it turned out she was the one who had done it. The father was genuinely surprised because he actually thought he had done it. Things happen. Apparently sometimes even like on TV. Who knew. But this is the south. I am fairly certain nothing like that would happen elsewhere–maybe in Texas but nowhere else surely. (I am not revealing secrets. This all made it to the local evening news when it happened.)

  54. dee wrote:

    Their only recourse is “Trust us, we’ll tell you the truth when we can talk.” They lost any appeal to trust a loooong time ago.

    Exactly! So outrageous.

  55. Please check-out: “Standing Together for Victims of Abuse”

    Statement from Pam Palmer of the SGM Civil Lawsuit

    On Monday, June 9, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals heard our Appeal. We are hopeful but must now await the release of the Judges’ ruling, which should come in a few months. Whether we have a favorable ruling or not, the plaintiffs and their attorneys are committed to going forward with civil litigation for the cover-up of sex abuse in Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). These concerns were outlined in our Legal Complaint (2nd Amended Complaint,5-14-2013) as well as testified about, under oath, in the criminal case of the now convicted sex predator, Nate Morales.

    The alleged cover-up of sex abuse by now convicted sex predator John Langworthy, a former youth Music Minister at Prestonwood Baptist Church, Plano Texas is eerily similar to the case of Morales, Youth and Worship Leader from Covenant Life Church….”

    – See more at: http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/#sthash.d4ZMzdV2.dpuf

    http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2014/06/standing-together-for-victims-of-abuse.html

  56. I have a friend who, when he was a scrawny 14 year old was falsely accused of abuing a five year old cousin. He was threatened with a lengthy sentence in adult prison as a sex offender, which would have made him a target to become a “queen” in an adult male prison — a sexual outlet for the prisoners, and the threat was very real. He was offered an 18 month sentence in juvenile lockup and ten years registering as an RSO, and took it. The state juvenile justice people put him through a rehabilitation program, kept him until he was 18, and then released him. He has been continually harassed by the police, and if a crime happens anywhere near where he is, he gets arrested and charged, until someone figures out it was not him. Just imagine your life under those circumstances and have some pity on people who accept plea deals. BTW, in most states, when you accept a plea deal you agree to waive the right to appeal.

  57. @ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
    The Plaintiffs could appeal the Circuit Court’s decision as a matter of right. There was not under a petition for writ of certiori or discretionary appeal. The Court of Special Appeals was required to hear the appeal-from a Maryland attorney of 29 years.

  58. @ An Attorney:

    These cases really do happen, all too tragically, as you rightly point out, An Attorney. I note the crucially important words in your first sentence: falsely accused. As a result of this false accusation he was essentially threatened with many years of what amounts to state-sponsored and violent sexual abuse himself.

    Nobody here needs teaching how catastrophic the consequences of false accusation can be – it’s obvious enough. Being falsely accused of child abuse is, in most environments, socially more dangerous than being falsely accused of theft or drink driving. But however revolting the crime of abusing a five-year-old cousin, the 14-year-old was innocent of that crime. That’s why I hate the idea of jumping to conclusions when someone is accused of sexual predation, and I hate the short-cutting of due and proper process. It’s not about whether there are “mitigating factors” – it’s whether they actually did what they’re accused of doing. (If a certain imprisoned mega-church pastor really is about to try to get his sentence reduced by saying that she “seduced him”, all he’s doing is further asserting his guilt, imho.)

    It is often said that only a minority of abuse allegations are false. But only a minority of people are transexual. The broad consensus of comments on the other current thread here is that we should acknowledge this minority, both compassionately and intelligently. Supportings victims mostly involves support minorities.

    This might seem slightly off-topic in a thread concerning a subset of SGM whose culpability in enabling sexual abuse has now been declared openly in a court of law. But it’s not: that’s my point. Precisely because the Morales trial was a fair trial, the victims were heard. And the complicity of SGM’s management culture can now be addressed without its being belittled out of the way as “the attacks of wounded people”.

  59. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    You’re right – this is an important point. It is also tricky. In my experience, the most common phrase I hear as a reason not to report abuse is, “I don;t want to make a false accusation….” said, not because they know the accusation is false, but because they are more concerned about that then finding out if it is false. And I don’t know the answer to that…..

  60. @ Jeannette Altes:

    If in any doubt, report it!!! Let the investigators first determine if there is evidence to sustain a criminal charge and the judge/jury system decide if there is enough to convict, or the defendant decide whether to take the plea offered or negotiated. Failure to report a suspicion is a crime and it should be prosecuted, even if the non-reporter is a pastor.

  61. Nickname wrote:

    A friend of mine who spent 30 years as a court reporter once told me that in every court case, the side with the best lawyer wins. Sad, but true.

    It’s not true. I’ve been a judge since 1995.

  62. @Leila – thank you for attending the Appeal Hearing and documenting it here on this site. My family attended a SGM church for a few years and realized it was not a safe place to raise our children, as well as recognizing it to be a cult. We are praying for the victims and court cases. Reports such as yours help in knowing how to pray specifically.

    In reading your report, realizing you had left a Classical Christian School because of it’s culture that was and is based upon the Logos School in Moscow, Idaho was SHOCKING. My family left a classical school in TN for very similar reasons, as has many families in recent years. This school in TN takes great pride in it’s “culture”. Both Doug Wilson and N.D. Wilson have been to the school to assist the Board. There is a haughty attitude among school leadership that this classical model is the very best educational choice for Christian parents in this area. Yet many children have been spiritually abused and have lost faith in God, and have left the school. Let’s just say that reading the 2012 posts at this site about your experience with the Annapolis school, and commentator Rosemary Huskey of Moscow, Idaho was a “gold nugget” for me, and a shocking one upon discovering that this “culture” here in TN is not isolated within Classical Christian education. Idolizing the teachings of Doug Wilson, Family Integrated Church Movement, Vision Forum, Bill Gothard, SGM seems to produce the “fruit” of spiritual legalism and spiritual abuse and incorrect theology of ‘biblical womanhood and manhood”.

  63. @ An Attorney:
    From a forum discussion after the Morales trial, between the prosecutor and an observer who posted on SGMS: The prosecutor “said that Grant [Layman’s]….failure to report was NOT a crime.” The prosecutor also explained that in 1992, 2007, and now: “Mandatory clergy reporting is not part of MD law.”

    I had thought that by now it was mandatory in every state. Makes me wonder how many other states don’t have mandatory clergy reporting yet.