Fighting Back: Motives of Gay Couple Suing United Airlines

When I wrote my post over the weekend on this blog and posted a largely identical post on The Bilerico Project on Monday, I seriously never dreamed that the story would go nearly viral and that I'd be contacted from everyone from local media outlets to The Daily Mail in London, England   But, the story does seem to have taken on a life of its own.  Even the far right blog Free Republic has picked up the story, where much to my surprise, some of the comments - especially from women - have been supportive of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  Sadly, some of the comments on the numerous blog posts and news stories, including some on my Bilerico post have been not so nice.  Comments have ranged from thinking the situation is a hoax, to demeaning the plaintiffs for calling friends to come to their assistance, to saying that the lawsuit is all about money. 

Having been involved in this story from almost its inception - I received a call from the plaintiffs at about 1:00 AM after their experience at the Norfolk airport and,  since I am a member of the State Bar of Texas, I wrote the initial demand latter to United Continental and received the airline's, in my view, pathetic response - I feel that some of the comments need to be addressed in no particular order. Not only for the sake of the plaintiffs, but also for my own credibility as an LGBT blogger and as a contributor to The Bilerico Project.

As to the comments that the whole thing is a hoax, I have a couple of responses.  First, having talked to the plaintiffs who are long time friends right after their return to Norfolk on May of last year, I seriously doubt that anything was made up or invented.  I'm the one, in fact who told them to take plenty of photos of the desecrated luggage before they extricated their things.  In addition, the friends who they called to the airport to assist them and drive them home are both highly regarded individuals, both of whom are straight and one of whom holds top security clearances.  They will prove to be highly credible witnesses and one's position will certainly turn some of the statements of some of the Free Republic crowd on their head.

As for those who say the entire lawsuit is about money, I likewise have several responses.  The first is to admit that yes, the suit does seek money damages, especially exemplary damages (also called punitive damages in some states).   Why the damage request?  I can tell you why.  As a former in-house attorney for a Fortune 50 company coincidentally based in Houston, I know first hand that in this nation's business world there are two things that keep large corporations and, indirectly their employees in line: strictly enforced regulations and the avoidance of paying out damage settlements.   If  one wants to get corporate CEO's to do the right thing, threaten the corporation's bank account and upset the shareholders.

The other aspect of this story is that this type of outrage could  happen to anyone, gay or straight.  When one has paid to have their checked baggage transported by a common carrier such as Continental Airlines, one should not have to worry that the luggage will be vandalized with the goal of humiliating the owner of the luggage.  In this instance, there is little doubt that the intent of perpetrator(s) was to inflict deliberate emotional harm.  In this case, the zipper on the checked bag was not damaged whatsoever.  There was no need to apply tape to the bag even if it had somehow come open.  Worse yet, there was no need to apply a foul smelling substance smeared with brown particulate matter to give the appearance that the sex toy had been used.  These actions were not inadvertently done.

I'm sure that whoever desecrated my friends' luggage had a good laugh at the thought of the luggage's owner's reaction upon viewing the sabotaged bag in the midst of a crowd at the luggage carousel.  Dharun Ravi likely laughed his ass off when he secretly broadcast video of Rutgers University student, Tyler Clementi.  We all know the tragic results of that prank - Tyler Clementi's suicide by jumping off of the George Washington Bridge.  Whoever was behind this sick stunt had no way of knowing how the bag's owner might respond.  Thankfully, this situation did not lead to a tragedy.  But it could have.  The plaintiffs are from Norfolk, Virginia, after all.  I assure you, this is not New York City or Los Angeles.  LGBT Virginians live under daily, state sponsored discrimination.  I personally have suffered harassment from certain members of the Norfolk Police Department and members of the Virginia judiciary simply because I am gay.  That is the climate in which the plaintiffs had to collect their bag in front of likely well over 100+ passengers and those meeting them. 

My last response involves a point that I've made many times both on this blog and on Bilerico: bad things happen because good people do nothing and allow hateful things to happen.  It's what I sometimes call the "good German" or "good Christian" phenomenon.   In this case, the plaintiffs could have done nothing and perhaps someone else would at some point find themselves subjected to some form similar of vile humiliation.  And just maybe that person might not hold themselves together and do something drastic.  By doing nothing one can become part of the problem.

For additional images and thoughts visit:  http://www.plight2171.com/

Anti-Gay Bullying Victims Turn to the Courts

While our society remains overly litigious, sometimes it seems that lawsuits are the only way to force public officials and school administrators to do things one would think common decency might already seem to require.  Things like protecting LGBT students from abuse and bullying.  But time and time again we see stories of LGBT youth who have ended their own lives after constant bullying with school personnel remaining utterly indifferent to what is happening virtually right in front of them.  Facing the prospect of large monetary judgments or cancellation of liability insurance coverage sometimes are among the few things that get the attention of school boards and superintendents.  Recognizing this unfortunate reality, parents of bullying victims and some students themselves have begun to fight back through the courts.  A piece in the Quad City Times looks at this development and notes that there ARE federal court precedents requiring schools to protect LGBT students from anti-gay bullies.  Here are highlights:

Notable bullying lawsuits   Nabozny v. Podlesny: Jamie Nabozny sued officials at his Ashland, Wis., school district for not stopping the anti-gay harassment of other students in 1994. A federal appellate court ruled that a school has a constitutional duty to protect gay students from anti-gay students. The district settled the case for $900,000 before a jury applied damages. It was the first time a court recognized anti-gay harassment in schools. The decision laid the groundwork for other legal actions against school districts by advocacy groups.

[B]ullying victims and their families have increasingly turned to the legal system for recourse. They’re going beyond pushing for criminal charges and civil penalties against bullies, they’re taking on school systems — and winning. “In general, more of these types of lawsuits are being filed, and the courts are coming out with stronger opinions,” said Sam Wolfe, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center who specializes in civil rights cases.

[A]ctions have been brought against school districts in New York, Minnesota and California that resulted in school districts paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars and/or agreeing to additional staff training and policy changes. “Lawsuits are a last resort in severe cases where school districts are not living up to their responsibilities,” Andy Mara, public relations manager for the New York-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network said in an email statement. “But lawsuits indicate that the system is broken, and all parties have already lost in some sense.”

Sharon Steckman, a retired teacher and current Democratic state representative from Mason City, .   .     has given tentative support to legislation introduced late this legislative session by Sioux City Democrat Chris Hall to hold parents responsible for the actions of their children if they bully other kids, similar to how parents are held responsible for their children who are chronically truant.  “What my bill is seeking to accomplish is to engage the parents at a certain point and put the onus on them to stay engaged,” he said.

Anoka-Hennepin School Settles Bullying Lawsuits

In a move which will cost the school division more than three quarters of a million dollars and requires strict compliance with agreed guidelines, the Anoka-Hennepin School District has settled twin lawsuits over the District's "neutrality policy" that has criticized for creating an anti-gay climate and failing to protect LGBT students from bullying. While the settlement in way replaces the needlessly lost lives of the students who were driven to suicide, perhaps the settlement will prod other school districts to implement anti-bullying policies that will stop the needless deaths. Equally important, the settlement may motivate insurance carriers to demand that such policies exist in order for districts to secure insurance coverage. No doubt spittle will be flying in Christianist circles that over the loss of a free pass to harass and denigrate LGBT students. The Washington Post has coverage on the settlement ans here are highlights:

Minnesota’s largest school district on Monday voted to settle a pair of lawsuits over a policy that was criticized for failing to protect gay students from bullying.

The Anoka-Hennepin School Board approved the settlement 5-1 at its meeting Monday evening. The district agreed to a long list of measures to help prevent and address sex-based harassment at its middle and high schools, including hiring consultants and working with federal authorities to ensure the district complies with the terms. The district’s insurance carrier will pay the six current and former students named in the lawsuits a total of $270,000, and the district will tap about $500,000 of its own funds to implement the agreement.

The students sued the district last summer over a policy requiring staff to remain neutral when the topic of sexual orientation came up in the classroom. The plaintiffs claimed the policy was a gag order that prevented teachers from effectively protecting gay and lesbian students. The neutrality policy came under fire after six students in the district committed suicide in less than two years.

The lone school board member to vote against the settlement, Kathy Tingelstad, resigned in protest, expressing concern about the costs and saying it set a bad precedent. The chairman of the school board, Tom Heidemann, said the settlement “likely saved the district millions of dollars and many years of ongoing litigation.” He said the consent decree builds on the district’s efforts to combat bullying, and begins a new five-year partnership with the U.S. Justice Department. However, Tingelstad said the district had been “drug through the mud” by advocacy groups based outside the state. She didn’t take questions from reporters. . . .

Some defended the old policy as a way to prevent public schools from spreading what they consider “homosexual propaganda.”

In the lawsuit, the six plaintiffs contended the district failed to protect them from severe bullying and harassment, including physical abuse and verbal slurs. Four of the plaintiffs identify themselves as gay or bisexual and two do not.

The proposed settlement was reached between the district and the plaintiffs. The Department of Justice, which began a civil rights investigation, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights were involved in developing the consent decree, which still needs formal approval from a federal judge.

Yes, the district was "drug through the mud" and rightfully so for its callous refusal to protect all students and lack of adequate spine to stand up to Christian Right bigots. Let's hope other school divisions - such as the nearby York County school division - will learn from the settlement. And perhaps Michele Bachmann will get the hint that the anti-gay bigotry she disseminates literally kills. Tammy Aaberg pictured above lost her gay son to suicide because of the old "neutrality policy" that left him an undefended target.

Vermont Diocese Claims Sex Abuse Lawsuits Violate Church's Religious Freedom

When I first read the headline, I thought I was mistaken, but no, the Catholic Diocese of Vermont is actually claiming that lawsuits and damage awards against the diocese violate the First Amendment and violate the Church's religious freedom. It's obvious that the Church has long thought itself above the law, but it is still somewhat incredible that it would openly admit it much less make the argument in court. One of the fears on the part of the diocese is that more damage awards may force it to close. That's something the Church hierarchy should have worried about before it launched its worldwide conspiracy to cover up the rape and molestation of of children and youths. Frankly, closing down the diocese would be a good thing because it would send a huge message that churches are not above the law. Here are some highlights from the Burlington Free Press:

The prospect of paying more big damage awards to victims of long-ago priest sexual abuse will put the state’s Roman Catholic diocese out of business and violate constitutional protections regarding religious freedom, the diocese is claiming in papers on file at U.S. District Court in Burlington.

“The State cannot infringe on a protected freedom by imposing damages and penalties that the church cannot pay,” the diocese said in a motion asking Judge William Sessions III to throw out a lawsuit filed in 2010 by a man alleging that as an altar boy he was molested in Rutland by the Rev. Edward Paquette in 1974.

“If the protections of the First Amendment are to mean anything, the government should not be allowed to shut the doors of a church and put it up for sale,” church lawyers Kaveh Shahi and Tom McCormick wrote.

The church’s contention — and the admission that it could face closure if it’s hit with more damage awards — represent a new line of defense for the state’s Catholic diocese. Since 2002, the diocese has been named as a defendant in 46 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse of children by priests, mostly involving incidents in the 1970s.

The Vermont diocese reached what it thought was a final resolution of its priest sexual abuse cases in May of 2010 when it agreed to a $17.6 million “global settlement” involving 26 pending cases, a move that caused the diocese to sell its Burlington headquarters property for $10 million. The 2010 settlement, however, did not close the book on priest sex abuse cases in Vermont. Since then, the church has been sued by other alleged victims nine more times.

Jerome O’Neill, the lead lawyer representing the alleged victims, scoffed at the tack taken by the diocese. “It further illustrates that the diocese does not care about the survivors of abuse by priests,” O’Neill said in an interview. “The church knows its argument is a completely baseless strategy which is nothing more than a design to drag out these cases as long as possible and make life as difficult as possible for the survivors.”

In papers opposing the diocese’s request to dismiss the case, O’Neill and co-counsel John Evers wrote that the church was wrongly trying to use the First Amendment to dodge responsibility for hiring and continuing to employ priests such as Paquette after knowing they had molested children.

“The First Amendment’s religion clauses are not a refuge for criminal or tortious behavior that harms children,” O’Neill and Evers wrote in their reply to the church’s motion.

Cheryl Hanna, a Vermont Law School professor and constitutional scholar, said the diocese will have an uphill battle trying to persuade Sessions to agree with its stance. “I know of no jurisdiction that has recognized that argument,” she said referring to the First Amendment’s religious protection clause. . . . . "You can’t use the cloak of the First Amendment to commit crimes or to shield yourself from the liability that would result from the crimes you committed,” she said.

The church has argued, in this case as it did in the earlier ones, that the molestation claim is moot because the alleged victim should have filed his claim within the six-year statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit after turning 18 or realizing the effect of the abuse. That argument has been rejected by judges presiding over Vermont priest abuse cases.

“The diocese cannot survive if it sustains another verdict of the size it experienced previously,” Hoak wrote. “It would not be able to take an appeal to have the record reviewed.”

In my view, the argument is ridiculous and the attorney making it ought to face sanctions. Meanwhile, the case further demonstrates that the Church leadership is morally bankrupt. How anyone can continue to grovel to and financially support the criminal enterprises known as the Church hierarchy is dumbfounding.

Michele Bachman BFF Bradlee Dean Sues NBC, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, The Minnesota Independent Newspaper

Michele Bachmann BFF and "preacher" friend Bradlee Dean - a certifiable lunatic, in my opinion who has definitely blimped out big time compared to his younger and cuter days - has filed a $50 million defamation lawsuit against NBC, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, The Minnesota Independent Newspaper. Apparently, the in my view mentally challenged Dean has taken offense with news coverage that has stated that Dean supports the execution of gays. His case is based on the equivalent of a debate over the number of angels that can stand in the tip of a needle. Dean is on record as lauding Islamic extremists who apply Islamic law to execute gays, but somehow in Dean's small and simple mind, lauding those who execute gays isn't the same as supporting the execution of gays. Both MSNBC and the Minnesota Independent are standing by their stories and blowing off Deans possibly attention getting lawsuit. The down side of the lawsuit, of course, is that it will underscore the unsavory elements of Bachmann's religious extremist supporters. It's one thing to be a Bible beater and something far different to be an extremist endorsing murder and violence, especially in the wake of the horrors in Norway a week ago. Fellow Bilerico contributor, Jillian Weiss looks at this batshitery from the untethered Dean. Here are highlights:
*
Bradlee Dean, the controversial heavy metal minister of the anti-gay organization "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International," filed a lawsuit yesterday in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The suit alleges defamation and false light invasion of privacy against NBC, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, The Minnesota Independent Newspaper and its reporter, Andy Birkey. The suit seeks $50 million in damages.
*
According to the suit, Dean is upset about this article from May, 2010 in the Minnesota Independent:GOP-Linked Punk Rock Ministries Says Executing Gays Is 'Moral'. The article quotes Dean as saying the following on his radio show:
*
Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America." This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.
*
If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that, that is what you are seeing in America."
*
The bottom line is this... they [homosexuals] play the victim when they are, in fact, the predator. On average, they molest 117 people before they're found out. How many kids have been destroyed, how many adults have been destroyed because of crimes against nature?"
*
In the lawsuit, Dean does not deny making these statements, but says he told the Independent's reporter that he does not advocate execution of gays. He also says Rachel Maddow repeated the Independent's allegations. Although he admits that she noted that Dean had said that he doesn't advocate execution of gays, the lawsuit says that she was insufficiently sincere in making this disclaimer.
*
The rambling complaint also alleges that the defendants, by broadcasting Dean's statements, "sought to significntly harm the 'big political prize' which they loathe, Christian conservative presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, who they sought to link to Plaintiffs. Congresswoman Michelle Backmann [sic] is regularly and maliciously disparaged, defamed and held in a false light on many other NBC and MSNBC cable shows, including but not limited to the broadcasts of television hosts Chris Mathews, Ed Schultz, and Lawrence O'Donnell. In sum, by destroying Plaintiffs, Defendants Maddow, MSNBC and NBC sought to destroy Bachmann, a Christian conservative presidential candidate who they despise and hate for her religious and political beliefs."
*
Dean's lawsuit has a very tough row to hoe. If Dean is, as he seems to be, a public figure by virtue of his relentless public relations campaign to tout his anti-gay ministry and his success in his attempts to achieve media coverage, then the law will require him not only to prove negligence by NBC, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, The Minnesota Independent and its reporter, but also "actual malice," meaning that they knew the statements to be false and defamatory and intended to harm him. Since the evidence seems to point to the fact that Dean did, in fact, say what he is alleged to have said on his radio program, and he did not deny it in his suit, then he cannot prove an essential element of his claims -- that the media coverage was false.
*
I would imagine that the Bachmann camp is livid over this lawsuit. It's just not what she needs right now, to be lumped together with a rabid anti-gay publicity hound who is claiming that everyone is out to get him because he is "Michelle Backmann's" number one fan.
*
In my view, Bradlee Dean has long been in need of a serious mental health intervention. But, then, the same is true for Michele Bachmann and her husband "Marcia" Bachmann.

Bishop Eddie Long Settle's Se Abuse Lawsuits

Remember how Atlanta's Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, said how he'd fight the sex abuse suits filed some time ago by four young men who alleged that Long took advantage of them sexually? Well, Long is now reported to have settled the lawsuits in order to avoid having to go on the record and either tell the truth or, if he lied, face possible perjury charges. I suspect that Long realized that if the trial proceeded, much damaging testimony would likely come out and effectively kill his extremely lucrative pastor gig. CBS News has coverage as does its affiliate WGCL-TV. Here are some highlights:
*
Last September, Bishop Eddie Long stood before his congregation at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church a week after gay sex allegations surfaced between him and four teenage boys, and he told members he was going to fight the allegations.
*
But Long chose not to fight in court. Instead he reached a settlement and paid off the four young men who accused the mega-church preacher of using his power to influence them into sexual relationships with him.
*
"You can interpret that any way you want, but usually people do not settle cases unless there is some reason to do so," said former DeKalb County Prosecutor J. Tom Morgan. Morgan said he is familiar with cases like Long's. "They had to reach a settlement if they did not want any statement by the Bishop on record," said Morgan.
*
Because Long settled out of court, some DeKalb County residents question his innocence. "It says that he's hiding the truth," said Robyn Senior.
*
And just how much did Long pay to settle the case? "Nobody knows what the numbers are. I would be sure it's in the millions," said Morgan. Morgan estimated Long paid millions because that's what he said a Catholic church paid victims in a similar case that he prosecuted.

New Lawsuit Alleges Jesuits Ignored Warnings About Predator Priest

Having just reached a near record $166 million settlement in the Pacific northwest, the Society of Jesus, a/k/a the Jesuit order has been hit with a new lawsuit in the Chicago area that alleges that leadership within the order ignored and/or kept secret numerous reports over a period of decades that a prominent priest was sexually abusing teenage boys. It's the same sick and familiar pattern that we have seen time and time again all around the globe where the sexual predators were/are protected by the Catholic Church while zero care or regard is shown to the young victims. As a parent, words do not adequately express the revulsion I feel for such falsely pious hypocrites who knowingly and callously endangered children and youths. These individuals and the Church hierarchy deserve no respect and no deference. Indeed, many of the "princes of the Church" ought to be behind bars. Here are highlights from the New York Times:
*
Jesuit leaders in Chicago largely ignored or kept secret numerous reports, spanning four decades, that a prominent priest was sexually abusing teenage boys, lawyers for victims charged on Monday in a motion for punitive damages in a Chicago court.
*
Included in the motion were more than 65 recently obtained church documents and depositions that, the lawyers said, demonstrated “a reckless disregard for the safety of others in the face of repeated reports of sexual misconduct” on the part of Chicago Jesuit leaders.
*
The newly public documents date from the early 1960s, when a concerned Austrian priest, in imperfect English, first observed in a letter to Chicago Jesuits that Father McGuire, newly ordained and studying in Europe, had “much relations with several boys.” The reports extend into the last decade, when Father McGuire reportedly ignored admonitions to stop traveling with young assistants, molesting one as late as 2003, as law enforcement was closing in. The legal motion argues that Father McGuire’s superiors in Chicago turned “a blind eye to his criminal actions.”
*
Terence McKiernan, president of BishopAccountability.org, a victim advocacy group that has long monitored the church’s response to sexual abuse charges, said that the series of warnings given to Jesuit leaders by parents and fellow priests was unusually long and clear.

“I have never seen such detailed and frequent notice received by the priest’s superiors, so many ‘directives’ regarding the priest’s future behavior, and so much evidence presented to his superiors that those directives were being violated, without the priest being removed from ministry,” Mr. McKiernan said. His group has posted a history of the case and many of the key documents.
*
The motion filed on Monday charges that the church misled prosecutors in 2006, with its lawyers claiming that they had little information about the priest — despite the lengthy record of complaints.
*
For about two decades, starting in the early 1980s, he was a spiritual adviser to Mother Teresa, who put him in charge of retreats for the nuns in her worldwide order, Missionaries of Charity. Several times each year, in India, the United States, Russia and other countries, he led retreats for the sisters. In these travels he routinely took along a teenage boy as an assistant,
*
As late as 1998, the new documents show, the Chicago provincial wrote a letter of “good standing” for Father McGuire to allow him to minister in a diocese, stating that “there is nothing to our knowledge in his background which would restrict any ministry with minors.”
*
Father McGuire was formally removed from the priesthood in February 2008 after a conviction in Wisconsin and after a federal indictment had been issued in Illinois.

A Bullying Suicide Close to Home

I'm not sure how I missed this story other than the fact that during the week after Christian Taylor's suicide the boyfriend and I were in Ft. Lauderdale and then Key West and as a result I did not see the initial stories. Fortunately, blogger friend Mike Rogers shared a link to a follow up story in the Washington Post to those that had run in the Daily Press earlier in the year. While Christian Taylor (pictured at left) was not gay, the pattern is all to familiar: (1) those who are deemed different are tormented and (2) indifferent school administrators and indifferent law enforcement officials who do nothing to protect the victims of bullying. First a little background on York County, Virginia, where Grafton High School is located: York County (located about 20 minutes from Hampton) is VERY Republican and is pretty much mutually exclusive with the word progressive. When one of my sisters liver there in 2006 and had yard signs up in opposition to passage of Virginia's anti-gay marriage amendment, she worried that the sign and/or her home might be vandalized. True to form, the haters of all things different tend to be the "godly Christian" and uber-patriot set. Here are highlights from the Washington Post story:
*
The birthday boy is dead. He killed himself five months before the party. Christian Taylor's friends and family say he was bullied to death, harassed daily until he would rather die than go to school another day. The grim birthday party was the best way they could find to deal with the horrible way they lost him.
*
"I'm all cried out," Ariel Mullins, 13, told me, after she and others released balloons into the sky at 5:58 p.m. on Nov. 5, the moment when Christian was born 17 years ago.
*
For those left behind, a world of could-haves and should-haves. "That was one of the signs I really missed. He said he didn't want to go to school, and I kept telling him he needed to go to school," said his mother, Alisa Williams, who has filed a $10 million lawsuit against Grafton High School officials. The suit alleges that they failed to protect Christian from his tormentors.
*
Taylor's mother has done the right thing in suing school administrators (I suspect that the school system was not a named defendant because typically in Virginia public school divisions invoke the defense of sovereign immunity, leaving the aggrieved plaintiff only able to sue individual employees of the school division). I also agree with Taylor's mother that their need to be statutes imposing liability on both those who bully and their parents. If individuals and school officials will not stop severe bullying for the right reasons, then I'll settle for good behavior motivated solely out of fear of crippling financial liability. For more background, here are a few highlights from previous Daily Press stories. First, the June 3, 2010 Daily Press:
*
Christian Taylor, a freshman at Grafton High School, committed suicide Monday and his mother said he had been bullied at school ever since the family moved here in January. "All I remember is looking into my son's eyes, because he had the most beautiful blue eyes, and he was staring and he was cold," said Alise Williams.
*
She said Taylor, 16, hung himself at the family home Monday. The military family had moved to York County from Fort Hood, Texas, in December and Taylor's step-father is currently deployed to South Korea with the Army.
*
"He didn't want to get in trouble because my thing is don't fight, take it out and tell an adult so it can be handled on a different level," Williams said. "That happened on a Monday, then on Tuesday this kid said to my son you need to just go commit suicide and get it over with. Not only that, but said something to my son's girlfriend, who had her head down on the table at lunch. I don't know how my mood was, but he told her to just go slit her wrists and die.
*
A second June 3, 2010 Daily Press story:
*
Williams said she contacted the York-Poquoson Sheriff's Office about filing charges against the student, but officials refused to take her report. Alise Williams said she contacted officials from the York County School Division and York-Poquoson Sheriff's Office about her son's harassment by another student, but she didn't feel school officials did enough to alleviate the situation.
*
"They didn't do anything," Alise Williams said. "I had five meetings. I asked them if I needed to pull my son out of school to keep him safe, and they assured me that he would be safe."
*

And then a later Daily Press stry after a local court rejected the defendant school officials' attempt to have the law suit dismissed:
*
A civil lawsuit against four York County School Division employees alleging negligence for not protecting a student from bullying will proceed, but a school security officer was dismissed as a defendant Thursday.
*
Alise Williams of York County filed a $10 million wrongful death suit against a Grafton High School principal, two assistant principals, a counselor and school resource officer. Williams claims that the officials failed to protect her son, Christian Taylor, from bullying at school and that it contributed to the teenager committing suicide on May 31.
*
Substitute Judge R. Bruce Long heard a demurrer — essentially a motion to dismiss the case — in York-Poquoson Circuit Court Thursday. It was the first court date for the suit, which Williams filed July 30.

Defending Criminal Hypocrites

I have never been one to handle criminal law matters because I do not want to put myself in the position of defending an individual who I believe is guilty. Morally, I simply do not want to compromise my integrity. True, even the guilty are entitled to a defense. I simply could not effectively represent someone who I believed deserved to be punished for their crimes. On occasion a similar moral dilemma can arise in the civil law context where a party that is guilty of morally bankrupt behavior seeks to be defended from much deserved consequences of their actions. Sometimes the client in that setting is an individual is a single person. Other times it's a corporation or institution. This is the role now facing Jeffrey Lena, the attorney defending Pope Benedict XVI from a deposition motion in a case involving child abuse by clergy in a suit pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The facts revealed to date make it clear that Benedict XVI and his less than saintly predecessor were up to their eyeballs in the cover up of sexual abuse by predator priests. Now Lena is working to protect the Vatican from the consequences of its disgusting behavior and actions in this case and many others. In the sex abuse related cases, in my view, true justice dictates that he hopefully is not successful. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
Lena is arguing that the Vatican cannot be tried for transferring a predatory priest from Ireland to Oregon. In Mississippi, he is defending the Vatican against accusations that it participated in a money-laundering scheme. In New York, Lena is defending the Holy See in a commercial-licensing dispute about the use of images belonging to the Vatican Museums. Wherever it is in the United States that the Vatican stands accused, Lena is there to protect it.
*
Victims' groups say Lena's deft navigation of legal loopholes is anathema to an institution built on the revelation of truth. But Vatican supporters say he is effective, and that his immunity defense has broader applications for international law beyond the current scandal. What is clear is that through his newly voluble response to media inquiries about the Vatican's actions, the down-to-earth lawyer has emerged as the pope's de facto spokesman.
*
In 2002, the abuse victims' lawyer Jeff Anderson brought John V. Doe v. the Holy See in Portland, Ore. After many years of litigation, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Vatican did not have blanket immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act because of an exception for harm suffered at the hand of a foreign entity in the United States.
*
In 2005, abuse victims filed a putative class action lawsuit in Kentucky, which does not have the burden of proving that priests are employees of the Vatican. In that case, the plaintiffs are trying to show that negligent bishops, in their capacity as Vatican officials, caused injury on U.S. soil by failing to report predatory priests to civilian authorities.
*
Last month, Lena filed documents with the U.S. District Court in Louisville claiming that the pope is immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts because he is the head of a sovereign state; Lena also is claiming that American bishops are not employees of the Vatican. Lena also will dispute that the 1962 church policy required clerics to keep sex abuse cases secret from civil authorities.
*
Since then, the clerical abuse that Benedict has lamented as "filth," and the resulting lawsuits that many prefects in Rome once considered endemic to a uniquely "litigious" American culture, is now at the doors of St. Peter's. According to several church insiders, Lena has expressed frustration that Vatican officials in Rome have failed to get the church's point across clearly, that too many cardinals were chiming in off-message and that the church had to speak out more because the lawyers on the other side were speaking out.
*
Again, I could not in good conscience defend individuals who are so clearly involved in protecting monsters who raped and violated thousands of children and youths. Indeed, in some respects the Mafia looks to be a pillar of integrity and honor compared to the Vatican and the Catholic Church hierarchy.

How to Stop Gay Bullying

There has been much in the news of late concerning bullying, both in schools and online. In a number of instances, the bullying has lead to the suicide deaths of worthwhile, promising lives. I find the phenomenon beyond disgusting. What makes the issue even more sickening is the fact that whenever school divisions seek to impose anti-bullying programs, the main opponents of such programs are invariably Christianists who want a free license to demonize and torture anyone who fails to conform to their religious dogma. I do not want to sound like a litigious attorney, but the reality is that sometimes nothing short of a lawsuit will help solve the problem, whether it be a lawsuit against a negligent school division or against parents who have failed to stop the malicious actions of their children (check applicable state statutes on parental responsibility for torts of their minor children). An attitude of "boys will be boys" can be a deadly prescription. Well thought out lawsuits can make negligent school boards and/or parents wake up - especially if their insurance carriers either drop their coverage or jack up their insurance premiums. Here are highlights via 365gay.com of an article by a law school professor advocating for strategic lawsuits:
*
How can we stop the bullying against LGBT students? It turns out that sometimes, unfortunately, you have to sue the bastards. Recently, a lawsuit was settled between a bullied, gay high schooler from upstate New York and the school district and officials who permitted the mistreatment to go on for more than a year. Jacob, (or J.L., as he was known in the complaint) will receive $50,000 in damages, as well as legal fees and the cost of therapy. And the school district has also agreed to conduct anti-harassment training of employees.*
*
The complaint, filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union, is painful to read, as it details physical violence and injury, death threats, destruction of property, name-calling (including “pussy,” “bitch,” “cocksucker,” and “faggot” to name just a few), and the heart-breaking, unrelenting misery that Jacob suffered.
*
His father, whose repeated efforts to get the school officials – especially the principal – to do something, went unheeded. Over time, in fact, it became clear where this guy’s sympathies lay: He told Jacob’s dad that he wasn’t going to change what the school was doing in order to “cater to homosexuals.” Even though the school has a clear policy against bullying, policies don’t help if the principal is oblivious, or worse.
*
The evidence and the New York State law were clearly on Jacob’s side, and then his case received an unexpected and welcome jolt – the Obama Department of Justice moved to intervene on behalf of the bullied kid.
*
“[We] hope that the Mohawk Central School District can serve as a model for other school districts confronting issues of bullying and intolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and gender non-conforming students.”

Vatican Could be Sued Over Sex Abuse Cover Up

Back in 2003 it came out that the the Vatican issued a directive 40 years ago instructing senior Catholics to cover up cases of sexual abuse or face excommunication. The order, written in Latin, was sent from the Vatican in 1962 and is marked with the seal of Pope John XXIII. The document states: "Matters should be pursued in a most secretive way . . . they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence . . . and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way . . . is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office . . . under the penalty of excommunication." Now that document may be about to bite the Vatican in its big, corrupt, swishy queen ass. As the UK's Telegraph is reporting, the Vatican may be forced to come clean - or at least cleaner than it ever has to date - and face the music on its conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse of children.. Here are some story highlights:

*

Three men who claim they were abused by priests in America have succeeded in naming the Vatican as the only defendant in a lawsuit, The Guardian reported. The men hope that Pope Benedict XVI, who headed the Vatican department charged investigating abuse by clergy for 24 years, will give evidence in the case.

*

The plaintiffs are allowed to proceed with their case that Vatican officials covered up evidence of sexual abuse by American priests after the 6th US circuit court of appeal ruled that they could.
Previously, the Vatican has been immune from most lawsuits because it is seen as a sovereign state.

*

William F McMurray, who represents the men, said the document makes the Vatican liable for any crimes that were kept secret because of the directive, The Guardian reported. The men allege that they were abused between the 1920s and 1970s and are seeking class action status on behalf of all US victims, it was reported. The Catholic Church in America has already paid out more than £1.3bn since 1950.

Suspended Law Student Sues Regent University

I posted an article or two last year about the Regent University Law School student who was basically thrown out of the school for being what some might describe as disrespectful to Pat Robertson. Subsequently, he filed a federal lawsuit against Pat Robertson and Regent University in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas since the student lives in Spring, Texas, which is near Houston, as reported in this Boston Globe story. The case survived Robertson's and Regent's motion for a summary judgment dismissal and has now been transferred to the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia based in Norfolk for trial.

*

I have been contacted by Texas counsel for the law student and been asked to serve as Virginia associated counsel on the case since it is a requirement that out-of-state counsel associate Virginia counsel to assist in the case and be local counsel of record. Since I am (1) admitted (a) both in Virginia and Texas, and (b) to both the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (as well as the 5th and 11th Circuits) and (2) apparently viewed as someone not afraid of the wrath of the Christian Right, I guess I seemed like a good attorney to ask. In any event, after reviewing the Complaint and speaking with Texas counsel, I have agreed to act as associated counsel.

*

It will be interesting case. It will also be interesting to see if I end up being described as a "militant, radical homosexual activist" by the Christianist news services once my involvement becomes widely known.