Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

I have three stories from three different people that all indicate that Danny has known about this problem for years. So one obvious question is whether Danny ever reported it to the authorities, and if not, why not.

I think this pretty much says it all.  This couldn't be any kinder or anymore factual than it is.


------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:26:23 -0600
From: Walt Thompson
CC: Danny Shelton

Now Sam, I cannot but conclude that you are intentionally and blatantly lying in stating that what Walt wrote is factual. You know very well that Dryden lived 800 miles away until 8 years after Tommy's license was suspended.

And you know very well that in 2003 Tommy was asked to apologize for deceit and inappropriate behavior to a church he pastored from about 1995 till about 2001, making the allegations as recent as 3 years old when Walt did his so-called "investigation."

So please explain on what basis you call Walt's email "factual"?

And why move on if the issues have not yet been resolved? Roger Clem told Tommy when Tommy asked him what he wanted him to do, "I want you to register as a sex offender." Sounds reasonable to me. If Tommy is really repentant and has really made things right, he shouldn't have any trouble with that.

Did you know that it is now a matter of court record that one of Tommy's alleged victims stated that Tommy tried to perform oral *** on him? It's in the guy's own handwriting from what I recall. And yet Walt claims that there was no physical action at all?

[ex3abnemployee]

This subject needs to be dropped.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Walt Thompson, quite frankly, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. If he wants the facts, why doesn't he call me or some of the other victims, as he should have done to begin with?

[Sam]

This subject needs to be dropped.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Walt Thompson, quite frankly, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. If he wants the facts, why doesn't he call me or some of the other victims, as he should have done to begin with?

Say what you want....I can't quite get my mind around a 20 year old man being a victim.

[Snoopy]

Yet another low blow.  It rather looks as though there are quite a few things you can't get your mind around, sammy...

This subject needs to be dropped.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Walt Thompson, quite frankly, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. If he wants the facts, why doesn't he call me or some of the other victims, as he should have done to begin with?

Say what you want....I can't quite get my mind around a 20 year old man being a victim.

[Petunia]

I have three stories from three different people that all indicate that Danny has known about this problem for years. So one obvious question is whether Danny ever reported it to the authorities, and if not, why not.

I think this pretty much says it all.  This couldn't be any kinder or anymore factual than it is.


------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gailons last email to me. "We got a problem"
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:26:23 -0600
From: Walt Thompson
CC: Danny Shelton

Now Sam, I cannot but conclude that you are intentionally and blatantly lying in stating that what Walt wrote is factual. You know very well that Dryden lived 800 miles away until 8 years after Tommy's license was suspended.

And you know very well that in 2003 Tommy was asked to apologize for deceit and inappropriate behavior to a church he pastored from about 1995 till about 2001, making the allegations as recent as 3 years old when Walt did his so-called "investigation."
So please explain on what basis you call Walt's email "factual"?

Bob Pickle, could you please clarify the bolded statement above?  Were there allegations that incidences of abuse took place only 3 years before Walt Thompson made his inquiries?  Or, had it been 3 years at that point since anyone had made allegations that they were abused at some past point?

And why move on if the issues have not yet been resolved? Roger Clem told Tommy when Tommy asked him what he wanted him to do, "I want you to register as a sex offender." Sounds reasonable to me. If Tommy is really repentant and has really made things right, he shouldn't have any trouble with that.

Did you know that it is now a matter of court record that one of Tommy's alleged victims stated that Tommy tried to perform oral *** on him? It's in the guy's own handwriting from what I recall. And yet Walt claims that there was no physical action at all?

In which court is this document a matter of record?  Mass?  Is it a part of this defamation per se law suit or was it evidence in a trial some time in the past. Is it an allegation or has it been given proven fact status?

[Petunia]

This subject needs to be dropped.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Walt Thompson, quite frankly, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. If he wants the facts, why doesn't he call me or some of the other victims, as he should have done to begin with?

Say what you want....I can't quite get my mind around a 20 year old man being a victim.

Sam, some years ago Danny Shelton interviewed a couple on a 3abn Today program.  They run a ministry called The Hope Of Survivors.  The woman was in her 20s or early 30s when an SDA pastor counseled the couple when they were having relationship problems, gained her trust and convinced her she was in love with him.  It lead to a physical relationship that only in retrospect did the young woman realize was pastoral abuse.

It matters not the gender of the young person, these things really do happen.  When a predatory pastor, a person of authority, gets someone who is vulnerable or troubled to trust them, the intended victim is really quite easy to control and manipulate into doing things they might otherwise not do.

[GRAT]

Also, the frontal lob of the brain is not fully developed until somewhere between the age of 25 to 30.  Dr. Neal Nedley spoke at our campmeeting this year and he said age 30.  I have heard other experts say around 23 for females and 25 for males.

[Gregory]

Say what you want....I can't quite get my mind around a 20 year old man being a victim.

I understand your statement as it is one that many people would make.  Allow me to challenge your thinking, if you will and if I am able to do so:

My 85 year-old mother-in-law is a resident of a nursing home and lacks the  mental capacity to understand and to make certain decisions about her life.  If she were to enter into a sexual relationship with a male employee of the nursing home would she be a victim?

I immagine that you would agree with me that she would likely be a victim due to her lack of capacity to understand and make decisions about her life.  You would then likely state that the 20 year-old male you referenced has never been claimed to have lacked the mental capacity to give consent.  O.K.  I am just attepting to illustrate that one can not make an automatic judgement that one is not a victim based upon chronological age.

Professional societies have some very clear rules as to the relationships that are proper for their members and clients. Physicians are not allowed to enter into a sexual relationship with their patients.  Counselors are not allowed to have sexual relationships with theri clients.  Lawyers are restricted from sexual relationships with the peple whom they represent.  I could go on and on.

The general understanding for all of these prohibitions comes from the knowledge of the dynamics of the relationshlips that often are formed between a client who is in trouble/pain/distress/etc. and the individual who is the saviour who attempts to relieve them from that  trouble/pain/distress/etc.  Those dynamics are often considered to be such that the individual is thought to be unable to freely give consent.  When the law is based upon that understanding, the law is called statutory rape.  As an example, a teacher may be convicted of statutory rape of a 14 year-old.  In this case the teacher will not be allowed to defend with a claim that the 14 YO consented.  To expand futher, under the law a professional may be convicted of statutory rape of a 35 year-old.  In such cases, age in not the question.

Unfortunately, clergypersons are not as clearly defined in State laws in regard to statutory rape as are other professionals.  In other words,while in some cases a clergyperson might be prosecuted for a criminal violation in regard to sexual contact with as congregational member, in other places no such criminal violation would have occured.

But, in my thinking, the law is not the central issue to me.  The central issue is not in my mind whether or not a clergyperson could be charged and convicted of statutory rape.  To me the central issue is that of the dynamics that take palce between a clergyperson and the congregational member.  Those dynamics are powerful enough that I can well think of a manipulative clergyperson (I believe that pastors have their share of manipulative people.) could manipulate a troubled congregational member to enter into a sexual relationship that the person would never enter into if they were in fully aware of what was going on in the dynamics of the relationship.

In other words, I can consider a 20/30/35/40/50 year-old to be a victim of a predator clergyperson.
 

[Bob Pickle]

Bob Pickle, could you please clarify the bolded statement above?  Were there allegations that incidences of abuse took place only 3 years before Walt Thompson made his inquiries?

If Tommy was asked to apologize for deceit and inappropriate behavior to a church he pastored from about 1995 to about 2001, then that very request suggests that there may have been sexual misconduct between those dates. And anyone responsible for following up on Dryden's concerns in 2003 would need to look at that rather than merely say that the allegations were all 30 years old.

In which court is this document a matter of record?

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Case No. 07-cv-40098.

Is it an allegation or has it been given proven fact status?

I'm not sure your question makes sense. Are you asking whether someone videotaped the alleged abuse? What in your mind would give an allegation proven fact status?

And what would it matter if we are talking about whether Walt properly investigated  the child molestation allegations? Allegations don't have to be proven before an organization can be opened up to considerable liability.

[Petunia]

Say what you want....I can't quite get my mind around a 20 year old man being a victim.

I understand your statement as it is one that many people would make.  Allow me to challenge your thinking, if you will and if I am able to do so:

My 85 year-old mother-in-law is a resident of a nursing home and lacks the  mental capacity to understand and to make certain decisions about her life.  If she were to enter into a sexual relationship with a male employee of the nursing home would she be a victim?

I immagine that you would agree with me that she would likely be a victim due to her lack of capacity to understand and make decisions about her life.  You would then likely state that the 20 year-old male you referenced has never been claimed to have lacked the mental capacity to give consent.  O.K.  I am just attepting to illustrate that one can not make an automatic judgement that one is not a victim based upon chronological age.

Professional societies have some very clear rules as to the relationships that are proper for their members and clients. Physicians are not allowed to enter into a sexual relationship with their patients.  Counselors are not allowed to have sexual relationships with theri clients.  Lawyers are restricted from sexual relationships with the peple whom they represent.  I could go on and on.

The general understanding for all of these prohibitions comes from the knowledge of the dynamics of the relationshlips that often are formed between a client who is in trouble/pain/distress/etc. and the individual who is the saviour who attempts to relieve them from that  trouble/pain/distress/etc.  Those dynamics are often considered to be such that the individual is thought to be unable to freely give consent.  When the law is based upon that understanding, the law is called statutory rape.  As an example, a teacher may be convicted of statutory rape of a 14 year-old.  In this case the teacher will not be allowed to defend with a claim that the 14 YO consented.  To expand futher, under the law a professional may be convicted of statutory rape of a 35 year-old.  In such cases, age in not the question.

Unfortunately, clergypersons are not as clearly defined in State laws in regard to statutory rape as are other professionals.  In other words,while in some cases a clergyperson might be prosecuted for a criminal violation in regard to sexual contact with as congregational member, in other places no such criminal violation would have occured.

But, in my thinking, the law is not the central issue to me.  The central issue is not in my mind whether or not a clergyperson could be charged and convicted of statutory rape.  To me the central issue is that of the dynamics that take palce between a clergyperson and the congregational member.  Those dynamics are powerful enough that I can well think of a manipulative clergyperson (I believe that pastors have their share of manipulative people.) could manipulate a troubled congregational member to enter into a sexual relationship that the person would never enter into if they were in fully aware of what was going on in the dynamics of the relationship.

In other words, I can consider a 20/30/35/40/50 year-old to be a victim of a predator clergyperson.
 

Eloquent the words of explanation from one who knows.  Thank you, Gregory.

My rhetorical question is... why isn't state law more uniform when it comes to clergy as, clearly, the dynamics can be the same between them and those who are vulnerable and gain their trust.

[Gregory]

It would be highly unusual for a State law to say the above.  None of the laws of which I am aquainted make "belief" a condition of the requirement to report.

That's the way the statute I quoted was worded.

Bob:

You are correct.  Here is better information:

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 626.556, Subd. 3(a) (LexisNexis through 2007 Reg. Sess.)
A person who knows or has reason to believe a child is being neglected or physically or sexually abused...shall immediately report the information to the local welfare agency, agency responsible for assessing or investigating the report, police department, or the county sheriff if the person is...employed as a member of the clergy and received the information while engaged in ministerial duties, provided that a member of clergy is not required to report information that is otherwise privileged under § 595.02(1)(c) [pertaining to clergy-penitent privilege].

NOTES:

1)  I am required to cite my source for the above quote of MN law.  I thought  I had the URL saved so I could post it, but I seem to have lost it.  My source was the Child Welfare Information [something].  If I am able to reconstruct the source, I will post it.

2) Note, the above citation is still not clear as to what responsibility Bob Pickle may have had to report.  I could argue a case on both sides of the question.  As to what my actual opinion is:  As it is not an informed opinion, I will not state it.  Rather those who think they know can continue to argue their position.   

3) My source was: Child Welfare Information Gateway.

4) The URL was:  www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.cfm

5) Those who are interested should click on the above URL.  I has a great article on the opening page and some good links that will give you more information.

[ex3abnemployee]

This subject needs to be dropped.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Walt Thompson, quite frankly, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. If he wants the facts, why doesn't he call me or some of the other victims, as he should have done to begin with?

Say what you want....I can't quite get my mind around a 20 year old man being a victim.

First of all, I was 19. Second, he was my pastor and had been since age 5. Third, unless this has happened to you personally (and I pray it hasn't) no, you probably can't understand it.

Again I say, comments such as the one above are why it takes some victims years to come forward, and still others take it to the grave.

[Gregory]

Eloquent the words of explanation from one who knows.  Thank you, Gregory.

My rhetorical question is... why isn't state law more uniform when it comes to clergy as, clearly, the dynamics can be the same between them and those who are vulnerable and gain their trust.

A couple of responses:

1) People simply often do not understand the issues relating to the interpersonal dynamics that take place in a professional counseling relationship.  They simply do not understand how a sexual relaltionship between two adults could have one person as a victim. 

2) The issues of clergy-penitent privilege are fundamental to the First Ammendment of the Federal Constiltution.  That is a severe (major) legal issue.

[Johann]

Eloquent the words of explanation from one who knows.  Thank you, Gregory.
My rhetorical question is... why isn't state law more uniform when it comes to clergy as, clearly, the dynamics can be the same between them and those who are vulnerable and gain their trust.

A couple of responses:

1) People simply often do not understand the issues relating to the interpersonal dynamics that take place in a professional counseling relationship.  They simply do not understand how a sexual relaltionship between to adults could have one person as a victim. 

2) The issues of clergy-penitent privilege are fundamenetal to the First Ammendment of the Federal Constiltution.  That is a severe legal issue.

I believe this places a much heavier responsibility on clergy. People have the right to expect a much higher standard of a person promoting the Gospel and the teachings of Jesus Christ. That responsibility extends to any person employed or doing voluntary work on behalf of a Christian society.

[Gregory]

Here is what the IL Statute says:

Citation: 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/8-803 (LexisNexis through 2007 Reg. Sess.)


A clergyman or practitioner of any religious denomination accredited by the religious body to which he or she belongs shall not be compelled to disclose in any court, or to any administrative body or agency, or to any public officer, a confession or admission made to him or her in his or her professional character or as a spiritual advisor in the course of the discipline enjoined by the rules or practice of such religious body or of the religion that he or she professes, nor be compelled to divulge any information that has been obtained by him or her in such professional character or such spiritual advisor.

Citation: 325 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/4 (LexisNexis through 2007 Reg. Sess.)


Any member of the clergy having reasonable cause to believe that a child known to that member of the clergy in his or her professional capacity may be an abused child as defined by law shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to the department.
Whenever such person is required to report under this act in his or her capacity as...a member of the clergy, he or she shall make a report immediately to the department in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may also notify the person in charge of such...church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or other religious institution, or his or her designated agent that such report has been made. Under no circumstances shall any person in charge of such...church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or other religious institution, or his or her designated agent to whom such notification is made, exercise any control, restraint, modification or other change in the report or the forwarding of such report to the department.

The privileged quality of communication between any professional person required to report and his or her patient or client shall not apply to situations involving abused or neglected children and shall not constitute grounds for failure to report.

A member of the clergy may claim the privilege under § 8-803 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

NOTE:

1) The above came from the Child Welfare Informaiton Gateway, as I referenced in a post above.

2) The above is present law.  It may not represent the law at a previous time which is the situation under discussion.