Bill Gothard Ousted - IBLP/ATI scandal - Merge

[mirele]

I hope these women realize they don't have to speak to anyone unless they are subpoenaed. I don't think ATI/IBLP wants anything on the public record. These jerks just want to intimidate and silence Gothard's victims.

David Gibbs can blather all he wants, but until he files a suit accusing the women of libel (which is what it would have to be), he can't "depose" them.

I'd also note that filing a lawsuit is a two-way street. At that point, the women defendants will have to lawyer up, and they will be able to depose people in Gothard's organization, and even Gothard himself. All of this will attract even more attention to IBLP and its related organizations and perhaps even to the Duggars.

Additionally, Gibbs has a real problem here with Gothard himself. Gothard could be argued to be a quasi-public figure insofar as he (Gothard) put himself out in the public arena and sold himself to people as a reliable source of advice on marriage, family and sexuality. Consequently, in order to prove that he was libeled, not only will he have to prove that the incidents *didn't* happen, but that the accusations were made with malice (i.e., with the deliberate intent to damage Gothard). This is an EXTREMELY high standard to meet; in fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of a case where a public figure has been successful in proving this.

I can't say this enough and I would tell these women not to talk to Gibbs. If they have the money, I'd hire a lawyer pay a couple hundred bucks to tell Gibbs to fuck off or file suit. The lawyer can remind Gibbs that his client, Gothard, is a quasi-public figure and has a higher standard to meet to establish libel.

[Rebelwife]

David Gibbs can blather all he wants, but until he files a suit accusing the women of libel (which is what it would have to be), he can't "depose" them.

I'd also note that filing a lawsuit is a two-way street. At that point, the women defendants will have to lawyer up, and they will be able to depose people in Gothard's organization, and even Gothard himself. All of this will attract even more attention to IBLP and its related organizations and perhaps even to the Duggars.

Additionally, Gibbs has a real problem here with Gothard himself. Gothard could be argued to be a quasi-public figure insofar as he (Gothard) put himself out in the public arena and sold himself to people as a reliable source of advice on marriage, family and sexuality. Consequently, in order to prove that he was libeled, not only will he have to prove that the incidents *didn't* happen, but that the accusations were made with malice (i.e., with the deliberate intent to damage Gothard). This is an EXTREMELY high standard to meet; in fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of a case where a public figure has been successful in proving this.

I can't say this enough and I would tell these women not to talk to Gibbs. If they have the money, I'd hire a lawyer pay a couple hundred bucks to tell Gibbs to fuck off or file suit. The lawyer can remind Gibbs that his client, Gothard, is a quasi-public figure and has a higher standard to meet to establish libel.

I truly hope there are people from RG reading here that can make sure the victims see this information, and that they don't ignore it in the spirit of "Christian Reconciliation."

[JenniferJuniper]

David Gibbs can blather all he wants, but until he files a suit accusing the women of libel (which is what it would have to be), he can't "depose" them.

I'd also note that filing a lawsuit is a two-way street. At that point, the women defendants will have to lawyer up, and they will be able to depose people in Gothard's organization, and even Gothard himself. All of this will attract even more attention to IBLP and its related organizations and perhaps even to the Duggars.

Additionally, Gibbs has a real problem here with Gothard himself. Gothard could be argued to be a quasi-public figure insofar as he (Gothard) put himself out in the public arena and sold himself to people as a reliable source of advice on marriage, family and sexuality. Consequently, in order to prove that he was libeled, not only will he have to prove that the incidents *didn't* happen, but that the accusations were made with malice (i.e., with the deliberate intent to damage Gothard). This is an EXTREMELY high standard to meet; in fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of a case where a public figure has been successful in proving this.

I can't say this enough and I would tell these women not to talk to Gibbs. If they have the money, I'd hire a lawyer pay a couple hundred bucks to tell Gibbs to fuck off or file suit. The lawyer can remind Gibbs that his client, Gothard, is a quasi-public figure and has a higher standard to meet to establish libel.

It's possible the word "depose" was used incorrectly here. Could be that Gibbs is just trying to get alleged or potential victims to give voluntary statements that could later be used in court proceedings, especially if they are signed under pains and penalties of perjury or in the form of an affidavit. And if someone is alleging something inappropriate happened but refuses to cooperate with him, then at a minimum he knows who he needs to dig up some dirt on.

However, because of the reasons you've outlined I don't think Gothard would ever bring a libel/slander suit against anyone. The odds of such a suit being tossed by the court are very high and there is a huge downside for him, his former associates, and the ongoing organizations.

Depositions can also be obtained if a civil suit is brought by a victim. How likely we are to ever see such a suit, I don't know, but I'd say the odds of this happening are definitely higher than a libel/slander suit by Gothard et al.

[mrs]

Another secretary's story, Robin: recoveringgrace.org/2014/03/robins-story/#more .

[ILoveJellybeans]

OMG he made his victims have dental work done to make them look more pretty to him, and made her get a mole removed. He is just awful.

[apple1]

Unlike "Robin" (and I am not criticizing her, just a point of disagreement) -

I highly doubt that Gothard is redeemable. He has been perpetuating his abuse for decades. By what reasoning would I believe that he is going to miraculously change now? While I believe that he can be forgiven (which has more to do with allowing the victim to move on than it has to do with the offender himself), I do not believe that it will ever be appropriate for Gothard to continue in or be "restored" to his former position. Indeed, it is possible for his victims to choose to forgive him while he sits in prison paying society's mandated debt for his transgressions. (and maybe I am being overly optimistic in thinking that he will have to pay that particular debt)

[persuas1ve]

If it hasn't been posted already, starcasm.net has a story on Gathard's exposure.

[Palimpsest]

I just read Robin's story. I'm glad people are coming forward but it must be so difficult for them.

Gothard has been perpetrating this abuse for years. If you look at the chronology on RG of the victims who have come forward so far, as one young woman escapes another victim is put in her place in a matter of weeks or months. I suspect he is grooming a new one as he is pushing the limits with the current victim.

Present tense. That chronology ends in 2000, but there is no reason to assume he stopped there. Why should he? He gets his kicks from watching young women squirm and will not cease to seek new victims. It is a deeply ingrained trait. Just because he is 80 don't assume he is past molesting people. I think this will go on until his dieing day if he is not stopped now.

Victims since 2000 may well come forward soon.

[Letgo]

Robin makes 35 women who have told of inappropriate contact, I believe. 35. How many do they need to believe that Bill has issues? I really hope the Duggar family will address this. But I am not holding my breath.

[silverspoons]

If it hasn't been posted already, starcasm.net has a story on Gathard's exposure.

I wish the starcasm story and pictures could get picked up by mainstream news sources. It has great pictures including Erin's wedding b-day cake, and a nice picture with the Duggar girls and Gothard and mentions Josiah is at ALERT and that the new book is full of ATI references.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I wish the starcasm story and pictures could get picked up by mainstream news sources. It has great pictures including Erin's wedding b-day cake, and a nice picture with the Duggar girls and Gothard and mentions Josiah is at ALERT and that the new book is full of ATI references.

Gee I wonder how they got that?

[Rhetorica]

What kind of history does Gibbs have? Isn't he the guy from the Terri Schiavo case?

Back in the 1980s my minister father (and Gothard groupie, but not insider) had several cassette tapes of David Gibbs' preaching/public speaking. As I remember, he was a legal defender of church schools in the 1970s. As historians would remind us, though, at it's heart, the private/church school movement was all about "sheltering pure white kids" from the evils of segregation. With a little coaching from more savvy conservative activists, in the 1970s evangelical fundamentalists learned to mask their segregationist impulses with talk of school prayer, sexual purity, abortion, and family values. So not terribly surprising to me that Gibbs shows up here.

[MamaJunebug]

Back in the 1980s my minister father (and Gothard groupie, but not insider) had several cassette tapes of David Gibbs' preaching/public speaking. As I remember, he was a legal defender of church schools in the 1970s. As historians would remind us, though, at it's heart, the private/church school movement was all about "sheltering pure white kids" from the evils of segregation. With a little coaching from more savvy conservative activists, in the 1970s evangelical fundamentalists learned to mask their segregationist impulses with talk of school prayer, sexual purity, abortion, and family values. So not terribly surprising to me that Gibbs shows up here.

The bolded may have been true in the 1970s, for churches that previously had not sponsored their own schools. For Catholics and Lutherans, parochial day schools (grade and high) are a longstanding tradition to provide religion and culture on a daily basis; they've also always been an outreach tool, as unchurched parents choosing their kids' education are welcomed to consider membership in the church for the whole family.

Yes, in the 1970s those schools saw an influx of kids whose parents wanted to avoid desegregation, but that was never the intent of the founders of those schools. Footnote ended, go in peace. ;)

[Rhetorica]

The bolded may have been true in the 1970s, for churches that previously had not sponsored their own schools. For Catholics and Lutherans, parochial day schools (grade and high) are a longstanding tradition to provide religion and culture on a daily basis; they've also always been an outreach tool, as unchurched parents choosing their kids' education are welcomed to consider membership in the church for the whole family.

Yes, in the 1970s those schools saw an influx of kids whose parents wanted to avoid desegregation, but that was never the intent of the founders of those schools. Footnote ended, go in peace. ;)

You're right. That's what I get for making sweeping statement like that. :) I would be more correct to say that there was a white-flight private school movement that was a response to desegregation, and that the fundamentalist church school movement was linked to similar motives. (E.g., Bob Jones University's refusal to admit black students resulted in the IRS revoking its tax-exempt status in the early 1970s, and this event was key in mobilizing what would become the foot-soldiers of the Religious Right who vowed to get "big government [federal desegregation laws, etc.] off our backs.")

[FlorenceHamilton]

You're right. That's what I get for making sweeping statement like that. :) I would be more correct to say that there was a white-flight private school movement that was a response to desegregation, and that the fundamentalist church school movement was linked to similar motives. (E.g., Bob Jones University's refusal to admit black students resulted in the IRS revoking its tax-exempt status in the early 1970s, and this event was key in mobilizing what would become the foot-soldiers of the Religious Right who vowed to get "big government [federal desegregation laws, etc.] off our backs.")

This is all correct. I was a child in the 60's and a teen in the 70's. When I was little, there were longstanding Parochial schools. In my area most of them were Catholic and Jewish. The education the kids got in these schools was filled with hard science, evolution and progressive ideals. I went to Public School, but since we freely commingled with these kids in sports and play, the only difference between us was that the Publics did not wear uniforms. (In some public schools, uniforms are the norm, now).

When anti segregation led to bussed integration, I remember a flight of kids into the established Parochial schools. I remember my (very liberal) parents being against the bussing and being really fearful about these new kids coming into our school. They framed their fear in the resentments that might cause violence between the children who were from the neighborhood (mostly white) and those who were brought by the bus (not white). We approached each other with great suspicion at the beginning. There were also many new, small private schools that popped up as well. In my area, they were secular for the most part and the motivation was strictly fear of people of color. Only a few of these schools succeeded on the long term (Then the Charter School thing happened after I grew up...someone else will need to speak to that.) In my somewhat fearful, but generally forward thinking area, by the end of the first year of bussing, the kids had integrated pretty well. It wasn't perfect, but familiar faces become people you know once you know them....which was exactly the point.

Interestingly, when I lived for 2 years in the rural south, there were multiple tiny Christian private schools. Some were affiliated with a church and others not. The Christian school where most of the doctor's kids attended had a specific policy that they believe in doctors and proper medical care. They did, however, teach creation science. There were a lot of homeschoolers as well. One of the doctors in my practice I am almost certain was ATI. It was VERY CLEAR that the South Carolina motivation for the schools was racially motivated. They did not even try to hide it. It was very east to see how integration led to the proliferation of private schools and how they morphed eventually into the homeschool movement that has been co-opted by the religious fundamentalists.

It makes me sad to think about the fact that the entire change in education, including the current disrepair of the public schools was fueled so much by racial hatred in the first place.

[salex]

Apparently IBLP was hemorrhaging cash, interesting...

from religionnews.com/2014/03/06/conservative-leader-bill-gothard-resigned-following-abuse-allegations/

So, like we have wondered about The Tool, people would put up with a bit of grab and tickle until the money issues came up. guess we know what is important.

[ncb]

Has anyone been posting these articles on the twitter feeds of Josh Duggar and Zach Bates? Seems like it would be a good idea for them and their leg humpers to see that these pics have not gone away.

[RosyDaisy]

I think Jim Bob and Michelle might put the blame on their daughters. They might tell them is was their fault for being sinful and/or having impure thoughts :angry-banghead:

Sadly, I really believe that is exactly what they would do

[Palimpsest]

Robin makes 35 women who have told of inappropriate contact, I believe. 35. How many do they need to believe that Bill has issues? I really hope the Duggar family will address this. But I am not holding my breath.

Is Robin one of the original 34 women and RG is spreading out publishing the stories for maximum impact? Or has she come forward recently and that makes the total count 35?

[apple1]

Is Robin one of the original 34 women and RG is spreading out publishing the stories for maximum impact? Or has she come forward recently and that makes the total count 35?

I don't think this question has been answered anywhere.

[apple1]

So, like we have wondered about The Tool, people would put up with a bit of grab and tickle until the money issues came up. guess we know what is important.

I don't think that is the case here. I do think that the money problems may coincidentally speed the demise (and would eventually take this particular system down anyway), but the expose by RG, IMO, is separate from the money issues.

As far as I know (?), the identities of the RG people has not been made public. I did see one name mentioned in some article I read, but it is my understanding that RG is several individuals who were raised under Gothardism but are not any longer part of the Gothard system.

We have Stockholm syndrome. We have young women, who were as powerless as they come in this system, as the victims. It has taken time, and a venue (RG), for these victims to even have a voice. I do not think these victims are money (or lack thereof) motivated in the telling of their stories.

[congusto]

I don't think that is the case here. I do think that the money problems may coincidentally speed the demise (and would eventually take this particular system down anyway), but the expose by RG, IMO, is separate from the money issues.

As far as I know (?), the identities of the RG people has not been made public. I did see one name mentioned in some article I read, but it is my understanding that RG is several individuals who were raised under Gothardism but are not any longer part of the Gothard system.

We have Stockholm syndrome. We have young women, who were as powerless as they come in this system, as the victims. It has taken time, and a venue (RG), for these victims to even have a voice. I do not think these victims are money (or lack thereof) motivated in the telling of their stories.

I could be wrong here Apple1, but I took this to mean that monetary concerns were ultimately the reason the Board finally decided to act, not why victims are speaking out.

[apple1]

I could be wrong here Apple1, but I took this to mean that monetary concerns were ultimately the reason the Board finally decided to act, not why victims are speaking out.

OK, gotcha, I can see that meaning now. I didn't think of it that way before.

Could be.

[lemonhead]

"Rachel" who posted her story at RG, says in the comments to this post that there are actually "more than 50" women who have come forward. She commented a couple of different times.

heidistjohn.com/homeschooling/dont-turn-away-trouble-in-the-homeschool-movement

There are some rage-inducing comments there for me, but there was some interesting back-and-forth.

[apple1]

"Rachel" who posted her story at RG, says in the comments to this post that there are actually "more than 50" women who have come forward. She commented a couple of different times.

heidistjohn.com/homeschooling/dont-turn-away-trouble-in-the-homeschool-movement

There are some rage-inducing comments there for me, but there was some interesting back-and-forth.

There sure are. (shaking head)