Category Archives: Law

Updated: The Shakedown of the Catholic Church

Christianity, Criminal Injustice, Law, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Sex

On the occasion of Pope Benedict being forced to publicly capitulate to the sexual abuse industry, I’m reposting a BAB post titled “Sex, God & Greed.”

Ever wonder why the epidemic of allegations that has almost bankrupted the Catholic Church has not caught on in the UK and Europe? I venture that this is because the pop-psychology that undergirds the lion share of the allegation, and the attendant class-action law suits that ensued, is American through-and-through.

The repressed memory mythology is an American invention. As I reminded readers in my “Defense of Hierarchy & the Catholic Church,” “this victim movement has done a great deal more than try and bankrupt the Church.”

‘SEX, GOD & GREED’

In 2003, Daniel Lyons, in Forbes, hashed out all there is to say about the sexual-abuse shakedown to which the Catholic Church has been subjected. It’s worth revisiting this exceptional exposé, now that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, lamentably, has decided to capitulate, rather than fight a racket facilitated by courts that are conduits to theft. Writes Lyons:

“….The focal point of this tort battle is the Catholic Church. The Church’s legal problems are worse even than most people realize: $1 billion in damages already paid out for the victims of pedophile priests, indications that the total will approach $5 billion before the crisis is over… The lawyers are lobbying states to lift the statute of limitations on sex abuse cases, letting them dredge up complaints that date back decades. Last year California, responding to the outcry over the rash of priest cases, suspended its statute of limitations on child sex abuse crimes for one year, opening the way for a deluge of new claims. A dozen other states are being pushed to loosen their laws.”

“’There is an absolute explosion of sexual abuse litigation, and there will continue to be. This is going to be a huge business,’ MacLeish, age 50, says. A Boston-based partner of the Miami law firm of GREENBERG TRAURIG (2002 billings: $465 million)…”

Lyons and Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal are the only writers I know of to have pointed out how many of these class-action claims are, if not bogus, backed by the discredited excavation of false memories. (See my “Repressed Memory Ruse”):

The repressed memory hoax “…relies on a controversial theory that has split the world of psychology into bitterly opposing camps for more than a decade: the notion that people can wipe out memories of severe trauma, then recover these repressed memories years later… Richard McNally, a Harvard psychology professor…. thinks recovered memories of trauma are questionable. He has conducted numerous studies on memory, particularly with sexual abuse victims. He says people don’t forget a trauma like anal rape. They might forget something like being fondled as a child, but that’s because the fondling was not traumatic, he argues. ‘It might be disgusting, upsetting—but not terrifying, not traumatic.’”

“McNally’s take on this subject has set off a hometown feud with Daniel Brown, an assistant clinical professor at Harvard Medical School who is a leading proponent of recovered memory. The two archrivals have never met, engaging instead in a ‘battle of the books.’
In 1998, when Brown won an award for his 786-page tome, Memory, Trauma Treatment & the Law, McNally wrote a scathing review that criticized Brown’s methodology. In March of this year McNally published his own book, Remembering Trauma, in which he bashes repressed-memory theory and criticizes Brown’s work yet again.”

Update (April 20): To the extent that there was sexual abuse in the Church—and it was never as rampant as the $2 billion-worth of lawsuits suggests—it was mostly homosexually oriented. So sanctioning marriage would not have mitigated the abuse of small boys. I can’t imagine, moreover, that by sanctioning marriage, our reader recommends that the Catholic Church bless gay marriage.

All in all, lowering moral standards in response to a moral crisis is surely not a very elevated solution. The church, therefore, need not change its tradition of celibacy.

Updated: ‘It’s Reno Time’

Criminal Injustice, Family, Freedom of Religion, Law, The State

In 2006, I warned that yet another “prosecutorial team [was gathering] steam, this time in Utah, where the state, feds in tow, has been pursuing Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Blog discussion is here.)

Since I wrote “Remember Reno,” the “Benthamites” put Jeffs away for a hitherto-unheard of crime: rape by proxy.

Recently, as My Way News has reported, Texas “child welfare officials seized 416 children from the [polygamist] compound.”

This, based on a vague allegation of abuse by a girl the authorities have yet to locate:

“[t]he investigation began with a call from a young girl who has yet to be located by CPS. The women in the sect said they suspect she may be a bitter ex-member of the church.”

In the land of the free and the home of the brave, as one sect member—Brenda—described America cynically, children are removed from their families absent verified evidence of abuse.

Here’s what I uncovered, and wrote-up, in “Remember Reno”:

“The law is confusing. Although polygamy is banned by the state constitutions of Utah and Arizona, it isn’t a crime and is not prosecuted. Furthermore, provided parental consent is obtained and the marriage voluntary and in the best interests of the minor, the law does not prohibit minors from marrying. More material, and as Court TV has reported, ‘Under state law, it is a crime to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18 unless the parties are legally married to each other. Because a polygamous marriage can never be legal, the men marrying teenagers as second, third or fourth wives [are] guilty of statutory rape, or sexual conduct with a minor.’ Thus a determination of rape here rests not so much on whether evidence exists that a woman was forced to have sex against her will, but on her position in the harem!”

Update (April 18): HERE COMES FOSTER CARE FUN. Those of you who’re convinced that the State is justified in removing 416 children from this compound, based on false reporting, and other “evidence” that would not hold up in a court that respects the rules of evidence, please consider this:

If these kids have not been forced into sex to date, they most certainly will once they hit the foster-care circuit. Oh yeah, foster parents, bless them, are usually upstanding professional people, who collect strays out of the kindness of those big hearts of theirs, rather than for the cheque account the welfare State affords them.

Whatever are your voyeuristic ideas about the sex life on a polygamist compound, you can take this to the bank: The children seized in this raid lead a protected, relatively innocent and insulated life. The gravest abuse still awaits the kids of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as they become intimately acquainted with the loose, licentious, foster-care system.

Their mothers, scorned by moron media, may be quaint, deficient, and demure (not to mention thin!) ladies, but thankfully, these children will soon encounter the libertine, promiscuous life-style fostered under the state.

(I’m dripping cynicism, of course.)

Spitzer Also Edited The Harvard Law Review

Business, Constitution, Democrats, Ethics, Justice, Law, Natural Law

(The title of the post is a tad unfair to Obama, I know. But editing The Harvard Law Review is clearly no litmus test for purity of intellect or ethics.)

One thing is for sure, Spitzer did not forge his political and fiscal fortunes by means of voluntary exchanges on the free market. The Spitzer piranha didn’t give law teeth; but used bad law to bite business to the bone.

Daniel Gross of Slate had this to say back in 2004:

Spitzer made maximum hay out of the “New York State’s Martin Act. The 1921 legislation, as Nicholas Thompson noted in this Legal Affairs piece, gives extraordinary powers and discretion to an attorney general fighting financial fraud. He can ‘subpoena any document he wants from anyone doing business in the state,’ make investigations secret or public at his whim, and ‘choose between filing civil or criminal charges whenever he wants.’ Extraordinarily, Thompson notes, ‘people called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. Combined, the act’s powers exceed those given any regulator in any other state.’”

Spitzer embodied abuse of power. As a government goon, he was an extortionist extraordinaire. “He didn’t simply indict. He issued press releases. When Spitzer published a press release detailing a shocking betrayal of trust by” this or the other “of Wall Street’s most trusted names,” the company would lose billions in market value in a matter of days and would quickly settle with the thug.

I know I’ve defended the naturally licit actions of scum such as Scooter Libby against naturally illicit prosecutions. And yes, I support the decriminalization of prostitution (but not its moral elevation). Yes again: I believe Spitzer’s funds are his to move about, and that his transactions were perfectly licit. So call me inconsistent on this count, but this character is so evil, contemptible, and uncontrollable (and nauseatingly hypocritical), I consider it a mitzvah that he has been removed from office and taken DOWN, if by unjust means.

I want to see Spitzer’s name live on in infamy; he ought to ultimately die disgraced, and if we lived under a just legal system, be prosecuted—but for his crimes against innocent members of the business community. Unfortunately—and I guess I’m nothing if not consistent—I’m with Alan Dershowitz on the following count: Spitzer ought not to be prosecuted for his moral failings. Although I’m filled with schadenfreude at the spectacle of Spitzer, there is no case to be made for his prosecution in libertarian law.

More later on Spitzer’s ho—or rather on the manner in which media have infantilized the girl and turned her into a victim.

Posting Policy For BarelyABlog.com

Barely A Blog, English, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, Law

If you intend to post comments to BarelyABlog.com, you must have a valid e-mail address.

Please keep your comments concise—200 words, at most. The forum is moderated and missives edited for style and taste. Please do me (and yourselves) the courtesy of running a spell check. There is just so much editing I have time for (I oversee BarelyABlog.com and IlanaMercer.com). I ask too that you try as best as possible to be grammatical and avoid posting letters in capitals.

Please note that “Barely A Blog” is private property. Posts are published at the proprietor’s discretion. Abuse you host’s hospitality, and your pixelated presence will be terminated. Posts will be deleted if they are misleading, incoherent—ungrammatical, full of spelling mistakes—abusive, libelous or defamatory, off-topic, threatening, profane, obscene, offensive, false, or all of those. It is also possible that your ideas were deemed unsuitable to this classical liberal forum. If your post has failed to appear, assume your comment has violated the specified requirements.

Barely a blog is not the cyberspot for theological debates.

I generally don’t post comments that misrepresent my words, unless I’ve been careless and incoherent, and have failed to explain myself properly. In this case, the writer’s distortion is understandable. Moreover, the companion site BarelyABlog.com was established to generate debate about the essays on IlanaMercer.com, ILANA MERCER’S work. Readers participating on BarelyABlog.com are cordially asked to familiarize themselves with their host’s arguments. If readers prefer to showcase their “argumentation,” or that of the scribes they favor and patronize, we suggest they pay for their own domain. This site is, after all, paid for by the host and her generous donors.

DISCLAIMER. By posting comments on BarelyABlog.com, you agree that ILANA MERCER assumes no responsibility for consequences resulting from your access to, and use of, the Content available on IlanaMercer.com and BarelyABlog.com, including Content obtained through linked Internet addresses. Ilana Mercer is not responsible for and expressly disclaims all liability for comments readers post on BarelyABlog.com. Participants on BarelyABlog.com retain all ownership rights in what they post here and agree to relieve ILANA MERCER from any and all liability that may result from those postings. By posting comments on BarelyABlog.com, posters further agree to grant ILANA MERCER a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, license to store, use, transmit, display, publish, reproduce, or otherwise distribute their comments without limitation, as well as to make such additional uses of them as seen fit. No information or content of any kind that you submit or make available to ILANA MERCER, or post to BarelyABlog.com, shall be deemed confidential. Once posted, blog posts will not be removed on request.

BY CONTINUING TO USE ILANAMERCER.COM AND BARELYABLOG.COM, YOU AGREE TO ABIDE BY ALL THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Please be sure to familiarize yourselves with these Terms of Use for IlanaMercer.com and BarelyABlog.Com.

Thanks for your valued contribution.