Bill Gothard, God, and sexual molestation

[Shoobydoo]

Okay, but what in holy hell is a "touch of affirmation"???? The very words coming out of this creep's mouth are vomit inducing.

 

(Speaking of which, didn't we used to have a barf smiley or am I imagining that?)

[Cleopatra7]

2 hours ago, Walking Cat Bed said:

Exactly. I still hope that the second generation starts to break away (especially as legal troubles make it harder to ignore the serious problems), but I can only hold on to so much hope without any evidence that they ARE leaving. 

The extent to which enrollment in ATI and IBLP has contracted even within the past ten years illustrates that few second generation Gothardites stick with it, probably because it's so restrictive and soul-crushing for parents and children alike. While the Dullards and the Seewalds are still fundie, they seem to be branching out into other forms of fundegelicalism. I guess we'll know if they continue in ATI if we see Wisdom booklets at their SOTDRTs. Hopefully by then, ATI and IBLP will be gone, but I'm sure they'll find some other odious curriculum like A Beka.

[NeverAFundie]

I've read through the thread, and I don't *think* that many of the legalish questions that posters have asked have yet been answered.  But I'm also so effing angry right now after reading that complaint that I may have missed something.

As a Degreed Law Professional^TM who used to practice law in Illinois (although I was not a litigator), these are what I believe are the answers to the legal questions that posters have raised:

1.  How good are the chances for success in the lawsuit?  It's really hard to say at this point, with the complaint being the only document of record.  I do note that at least one plaintiff has journals from the time the abuse occurred, which is always a good thing.  The vast majority of civil lawsuits settle prior to trial.  IBLP surely has an insurance carrier that provides it with general liability insurance.  If that is the case, then the insurance carrier will play a huge role in deciding whether to settle the case, since depending on the type of coverage, IBLP will petition its insurance carrier to cover all or a portion of the settlement/award. I also think that the Bill Cosby debacle is a good indicator of what it's like to claim long-past sexual abuse in the US.  The first couple of allegations were laughed off, but the more women come forward, the better the chances are at success.  If IBLP has an insurance company involved, settlement is much more likely.  Gothard's damning dogma is set out in numerous pamplets, etc.  No insurance company wants that in front of a jury of "regular people."

2.  What about the assets they are trying to sell?  As another poster(s) pointed out, the lawsuit seeks that all Illinois assets be placed in a "constructive trust."  A constructive trust is a legal fiction. That is, it's not a real trust governed by a trust document.  It would basically function as a freeze on IBLP's Illinois assets until the lawsuit is resolved and the plaintiffs receive their award or settlement, if any.  I think the complaint is one million percent accurate that IBLP has decided to sell its assets now as a way to flee Illinois jurisdiction (which is surely infinitely more liberal than jurisdiction in Texas) and liquidate assets before plaintiffs can get an award.

3.  Regarding the whole civil versus criminal angle.  The plaintiffs can (and probably have) gone to the proper law enforcement authorities and made statements.  The problem with criminal charges is that you are waiting on the government to conduct and complete an investigation, and then decide to move forward with a grand jury or criminal charges.  You're kind of at the mercy of the district attorney's office and the police.  Also, criminal charges do not result in damages being paid to injured parties.  Finally, the standard of proof for criminal charges is beyond a reasonable doubt.  The standard of proof for allegations in a civil lawsuit is much lower (and can range from "more likely than not" to "a preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence").  I do not know enough about civil law in Illinois to know what standards of proof apply to each of the allegations made.  With respect to statutes of limitation, it varies from state to state and crime to crime, but generally speaking, if civil statutes of limitations differ from criminal statutes of limitation, the criminal statutes of limitation tend to be longer than civil statutes of limitation.  After the child sexual abuse scandals in Catholic diocese over the past 20 years, there are many jurisdictions that have expanded the civil and criminal statutes of limitation for sex crimes from just a few years to as much as forever.  Remember how angry people were in certain diocese that the abusive priests couldn't stand trial because their actions occurred so long ago?  It's entirely possible that criminal charges are still on the table.  That's out of the control of the plaintiffs, and I assume they moved on their civil lawsuit now so they could get the assets placed in that constructive trust.  Time is of the essence.

 

[gustava]

Jana and Jill must know some of these young women.

[quiversR4hunting]

Wow.

I was shocked at Ms. Fedoriw's account. She was 15 in 2012 and now 18/19 (depending on birthday) she reported it to the Hinsdale police and the statute of limitations was already expired and she was a minor when she reported it and when it happened. unbelievable. as @NeverAFundie stated, some jurisdictions have change the statutes of limitations. I hope more follow.

As someone else mentioned, I am very curious of the male assistants (drivers) know about all of this and what they think about it. And as someone else said, I would also like a man to stand up and say what he witnessed. What is Davey "pecan" Waller doing at HQ? Wouldn't he observe some of these behaviors? I wonder what the Paine kids know.

Like others, I wish Gill Bates was also called out in the headline.

I wonder how some of these families can continue to fold into themselves. With each one of these reports there seem to be some (Alfred, for example) that keep doubling down and totally believing everything Gothard says. How can you deny abuse after it has been brought up numerous times by many sources? I just don't get it.

[AliceInFundyland]

1 hour ago, gustava said:

Jana and Jill must know some of these young women.

As well as the elder Bates girls. I'm still inclined to think that if anyone was "shielded" from what he was up to it might be Duggar/Bates girls just because of their prominence and visibility. On the other hand...the brainwashing displayed by Jill and Jessa in that interview is baffling. I think if they had inklings of any of this they would have buried and denied. Even if the girls were friends. Gothard is king.

I wonder more about Jana all the time. What she's seen and heard, what she thinks....

[nolongerIFBx]

25 minutes ago, AliceInFundyland said:

. . .

I wonder more about Jana all the time. What she's seen and heard, what she thinks....

The fact that she wasn't one of Josh's victims may have protected her from Gothard. She had no abuse to confess to him (for him to use to become aroused by).

[EmmieJ]

16 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

You are wrong about the bolded.  A mathematics error on your part?

The Bates Family was on TV on TLC/Discovery in 2012 with the "United Bates of America."  They then moved to UP in 2014 with "Bringing Up Bates."  I do agree that both TLC and UP are cable channels with limited viewership.  Thank goodness.

The Bates family is not walking a fine line so much as they are teetering on the edge of a precipice.  While they present as kinder and more relatable than the Duggars, Gil Bates is up to his neck in IBLP.  It is hard to explain to the general public that, as a family, the Bateses are not as sweet and functional as they appear on TV.  There is rot at the core of this family's beliefs.

Gothard has hit the headlines in the last year with the sexual abuse scandal.  It is time for Gil Bates to be called out for his involvement with the attempted cover-up of BG's crimes by the board of IBLP.

It is also time for UP to be called out for presenting a show about this family.  I would think that the UP network must be aware of this lawsuit, but I'd like to see it get a lot more mainstream press, to bring pressure on UP to dump the Bates entirely.

[Georgiana]

1 hour ago, quiversR4hunting said:

Wow.

I was shocked at Ms. Fedoriw's account. She was 15 in 2012 and now 18/19 (depending on birthday) she reported it to the Hinsdale police and the statute of limitations was already expired and she was a minor when she reported it and when it happened. unbelievable. as @NeverAFundie stated, some jurisdictions have change the statutes of limitations. I hope more follow.

As someone else mentioned, I am very curious of the male assistants (drivers) know about all of this and what they think about it. And as someone else said, I would also like a man to stand up and say what he witnessed. What is Davey "pecan" Waller doing at HQ? Wouldn't he observe some of these behaviors? I wonder what the Paine kids know.

Like others, I wish Gill Bates was also called out in the headline.

I wonder how some of these families can continue to fold into themselves. With each one of these reports there seem to be some (Alfred, for example) that keep doubling down and totally believing everything Gothard says. How can you deny abuse after it has been brought up numerous times by many sources? I just don't get it.

I want to start out by saying that I personally do believe the accounts of these women.

However, the thought that "If X amount of people make the same claim against a person, it MUST be true" is exactly the line of thinking that got a lot of innocent people killed for Witchcraft.

Multiple people corroborating a single event with details that match up especially under questioning?  That strengthens the chances that the event they are all speaking to happened exactly as they say as there are now multiple witnesses to the same event.  

However, when it is all different events with different details, it is a different case entirely.  Then it is just a series of "I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil" stories, where each one needs to be independently supported by some evidence or some witness. If they cannot be supported, then it is reasonable for people to doubt these stories OR otherwise not take them as fact.  This is the reason why convictions for witchcraft in New England stopped almost entirely as soon as spectral evidence was not admitted unless 2 or more people could attest to the same spectral event.  

That's the issue here.  This is not a case of many women witnessing the same event.  This is a case of many women collectively claiming the same offense occurred, but at different times, with different details, and few supporting pieces of evidence.  There is A LOT of reasonable doubt here.  What piece of independent evidence can be pointed to to prove or even suggest that each or all of these accounts are not fabrication? There really is very little that backs them up, and so it is reasonable for people who supported Gothard in the past to continue supporting him so long as it is reasonable.

A whole village accused my ancestress of witchcraft.  That didn't make her a witch.  If a whole village accuses Gothard of sexual misconduct, that doesn't mean he did it or deserves to be treated like a guilty man...unless they can prove it.   

[Toothfairy]

Well its about damn time this came out. Put Gothard and the whole IBLP in prison. 

I'm sure Gothard never married because why would he? He has tons of young virginal girls right at his feet. Sicko

[16strong]

30 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

It is also time for UP to be called out for presenting a show about this family.  I would think that the UP network must be aware of this lawsuit, but I'd like to see it get a lot more mainstream press, to bring pressure on UP to dump the Bates entirely.

It's going to take a hell of a lot to get UP to dump the Bateses. They are a small network that probably doesn't bring in a ton of money, and the Bates family are their primary money maker. TLC  brings in way more money, and dumping star players to save their very public reputation is the route that is probably more profitable for the bigger networks. Unless they're coming under extreme, direct fire, I doubt UP can afford to dump them.

[AliceInFundyland]

1 hour ago, nolongerIFBx said:

The fact that she wasn't one of Josh's victims may have protected her from Gothard. She had no abuse to confess to him (for him to use to become aroused by).

True. But hasn't she spent more time at jtth .... do we know that any of the other duggar girls did that-or that they've done any time away from home? That's what I was thinking about. And the fact that she is so very much his "type." 

It's all so sordid. If she were the one to break free in 10 years and write a book and say "yeah, mr. gothard did xyz to me," It wouldn't be shocking. And if she were to admit to being aware of other things... There's just so much denial. One of these kids is going to crack someday. It

...we all have our favorite little moments where various Duggars displayed signs of critical thinking. For me it was Jana and the "evolution might make sense" type comment she made. 

[formergothardite]

Alfred on Discovering Grace is getting schooled by the lawyer. It is great that someone who understands it all is calling him out on his bullshit excuses as to why Bill didn't do anything bad.

http://www.discoveringgrace.com/questions/#comment-1673

Quote

What is unbelievable to me is the length you are going to try to minimize the seriousness of the allegations. An allegation of course is not proof that it occurred, but for a long time you seem to be trying to minimize how serious the allegations actually are.

Alfred needs to take a long hard look at himself and wonder why he wants to downplay abuse so much. 

Quote

As I said before, and will repeat again, no plaintiff (as of right now) is suing Gothard or IBLP for battery. Two of four counts are for infliction of emotional distress, which the plaintiffs allege occurred in 2014 when IBLP/Gothard undisputably released statements saying that no criminal activity had ever occurred, etc. (The other counts are for conspiracy to commit an illegal act, and “wilful and wanton,” which is a legal allegation that the conduct was severe enough to justify awarding the plaintiffs punitive damages.) That is the actual legal charge in this case, not battery. It therefore does not matter how long ago these incidents took place, because the defendant’s alleged tortious conduct/bad acts (the statement causing emotional distress) occurred in 2014.

And Alfred has decided that it would be better for the victims to just suffer in silence than to sue for money. Alfred is scary crazy in his loyalty to Bill.

 

Quote

Christians should be prepared to be “defrauded” rather than sue for money 

 

[Palimpsest]

Julie Anne at the Spiritual Sounding Board is also covering this story.   She has a statement from Gibbs III. http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/

[singsingsing]

Hey all, we have a rule about not speculating as to the identities of potential past/future victims of Josh Duggar... maybe we need to extend the same rule to cover the identities of potential past/future victims of Bill Gothard?

[umsami]

I can't stomach the whole lawsuit.  Too rage-inducing.

I really hope People, Fox, and others pick this up.  I want this broadcasted loud and clear.

I hope those girls bankrupt the fucking IBLP....and Bill Gothard personally.  I hope he dies disgraced and broke and goes to hell.  

4 hours ago, Toothfairy said:

Well its about damn time this came out. Put Gothard and the whole IBLP in prison. 

I'm sure Gothard never married because why would he? He has tons of young virginal girls right at his feet. Sicko

See, I really thought that Billy boy played for the other team.  Apparently, I was wrong..or he's bi...or he's like a lot of abusers and will abuse whatever is available.

WTF people would take marriage and child-raising advice from a man who claimed he had never even kissed a girl is beyond me.  I mean, come on.

[quiversR4hunting]

5 hours ago, Georgiana said:

I want to start out by saying that I personally do believe the accounts of these women.

However, the thought that "If X amount of people make the same claim against a person, it MUST be true" is exactly the line of thinking that got a lot of innocent people killed for Witchcraft.

Multiple people corroborating a single event with details that match up especially under questioning?  That strengthens the chances that the event they are all speaking to happened exactly as they say as there are now multiple witnesses to the same event.  

However, when it is all different events with different details, it is a different case entirely.  Then it is just a series of "I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil" stories, where each one needs to be independently supported by some evidence or some witness. If they cannot be supported, then it is reasonable for people to doubt these stories OR otherwise not take them as fact.  This is the reason why convictions for witchcraft in New England stopped almost entirely as soon as spectral evidence was not admitted unless 2 or more people could attest to the same spectral event.  

That's the issue here.  This is not a case of many women witnessing the same event.  This is a case of many women collectively claiming the same offense occurred, but at different times, with different details, and few supporting pieces of evidence.  There is A LOT of reasonable doubt here.  What piece of independent evidence can be pointed to to prove or even suggest that each or all of these accounts are not fabrication? There really is very little that backs them up, and so it is reasonable for people who supported Gothard in the past to continue supporting him so long as it is reasonable.

A whole village accused my ancestress of witchcraft.  That didn't make her a witch.  If a whole village accuses Gothard of sexual misconduct, that doesn't mean he did it or deserves to be treated like a guilty man...unless they can prove it.   

I see your point.

My point was these families in the cult are hearing the rumors (I assume) and how many times does a person have to hear rumors about the same type of act from different people over different decades, yet still believe his innocence? As a parent and I heard rumors of a leader having numerous people saying he was sexually harassing girls, I would be backing away and not letting my daughters near him.

When did the parents loose their "gut check" or intuition about this stuff? ...I know, I know the cult thinking takes it away. It's unfathomable to me.

[GeoBQn]

Time to post links to the lawsuit en masse on TLC and UpTV's Facebook pages, even just to raise awareness.  I doubt Up will do anything.  They removed 7th Heaven reruns after it came out that Stephen Collins had molested underage girls, but then brought back the reruns since the show was a fan favorite.

[Georgiana]

36 minutes ago, quiversR4hunting said:

I see your point.

My point was these families in the cult are hearing the rumors (I assume) and how many times does a person have to hear rumors about the same type of act from different people over different decades, yet still believe his innocence? As a parent and I heard rumors of a leader having numerous people saying he was sexually harassing girls, I would be backing away and not letting my daughters near him.

When did the parents loose their "gut check" or intuition about this stuff? ...I know, I know the cult thinking takes it away. It's unfathomable to me.

I think in this case, it's a case of that Gothard chose his victims wisely.  He chose already "fallen"  or "suspicious" women on the edge of the religious community.  Again, that's what happened in witch trials.  The community already mistrusted them to a certain degree, so when the accusations came out, there was more doubt from the believing community.  People were ready to believe them to be liars and in the work of satan, so it wasn't hard to convince them that was the case.

These are women that the ATI community for the most part considers fallen, suspect sinners.  It's not going to be hard to convince them that THEY are lying rather than pure Mr. Gothard.  After all, it goes along with EVERYTHING they've been taught.

Now, if someone in good standing from the community comes forward with accusations (Michael or Erin Bates, for example), then a lot of heads will turn.  People often weigh the source of the information (whether it is trusted or not) over heavy when determining if they want to believe the information.  Fox News could run a story for WEEKS, but until it ends up on CNN, I'm probably not paying attention.  I think it's much of the same case here.  

[AliceInFundyland]

 As one who mentioned it I agree that it is a good idea to have a consensus on the "speculating about Gothard's victims" point. It's hard not to wonder, considering the details we are learning, and the people we know are involved with Gothard, and all of our (over?)active critical thinking skills. I could see it getting out of hand. I won't mention it again myself until we have more thoughts on the matter.

[CyborgKin]

15 hours ago, molecule said:

Love, Joy, Feminism has a very helpful post up about the suit and the various allegations: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/a-summary-of-allegations-against-bill-gothard-and-iblp.html. (My apologies if this was posted earlier in the thread and I missed it. I did check first!)

Thanks.

Quote

Now a more detailed summary. As you read this, if you choose to do so, please remember that these women have come forward not to give people more fodder to use to mock “fundies” but rather to bring accountability to IBLP and bring Gothard to justice. They are have told their stories not to initiate a snark fest but rather to bring change. Many of the women involved in this lawsuit are still strong believers in God and the Bible. This isn’t about making a strike against religion, it’s about making a strike against abuse and brining meaningful change.

Hmm I wonder who that's aimed at?

[Palimpsest]

4 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

Thanks.

Hmm I wonder who that's aimed at?

Well, thanks to Josh Duggar a lot of places are mocking Fundies these days, not just FJ. 

She probably does mean us, though.  It stings a bit, but I'm going to say that I think Libby Anne makes a very good point. 

I try (but don't always succeed) only to mock and snark on people for what I see as their hypocrisy about religion, not because of their faith, per se.  I respect other people's genuine faith when I see it, even if I don't share it. 

These women are being incredibly courageous.  They are survivors of the Gothard cult and their present faith in Christianity should be off limits for snark.  In my opinion.

I also strongly agree with the people above about stopping all speculation about the identity of Gothard's victims.

 

[Walking Cat Bed]

I'm another vote against speculating about Gothard's victims. Until they name themselves, they are Jane Doe. 

 

It takes a LOT of courage to be part of a lawsuit like this, even without revealing your identity, so I'm going to stick with supporting these women (named or anonymous).

[doggie]

Does anyone have a thought on why Gothard never married?  He didn't right, if Wikipedia is correct.

It's rather odd, that's all, for a person with his belief system to never marry.  In men of his age/generation, I often make the assumption (could be wrong, I know) that it's because they're gay and just haven't come out.   In his case, it does seem there is a perverse attraction to young women/girls.    

Just odd.  Am I off base on evening wondering about this?   I don't, by the way, think it's "odd" for people not to marry (in general).    I have friends, relatives who have chosen not do for a myriad of different reasons. 

Just that in his case, the union between "one man and one woman" seems so important; I can't figure out why he did not enter into such a union.

????   

He did not marry because he could not marry a young girl. He is a perv who chose to hide behind celibacy then marriage.

Plus r

It made him seem more godly with his big sacrifice

[formergothardite]

Gothard is explaining to Alfred so that he can explain to the rest of us what really happened back in the 80's and why he would never be capable of doing anything bad. See, Steve, Gothard's brother was having some issues with this whole purity thing. So Gothard and his dad decided the answer was for him to get married, so they shipped a young woman up to be isolated with Steve in hopes that it would lead to marriage because that was the biblical thing to do. It didn't. It led to all sorts of awful things, but marriage didn't happen, but none of that was their fault because they had good motives. Kind of like assault wasn't Gothard's fault because when he ran his hands and feet up the legs of teen girls he only meant it in a good way. 

Gothard also claims that Gibbs III tricked him by coming to his house and acting like the lawsuit would be dropped and that Gothard would be put back in charge of IBLP. The man is delusional and he should probably get a lawyer that tells him to shut the fuck up. Alfred isn't helping Gothard at all with this website, he is just making him look like creepier.