CAM Molestation Issue

[Hats Off]

Jesus is being misrepresented in Haiti where CAM has continuously badgered Jeriah's victims with their attorneys and staff to settle for a cash payout. Those who have accepted payouts are being refused the very document they signed.

1) Can this be confirmed? 2) Why?

The CAM board has been aware of these "charges" for quite some time, but has not been able to validate or confirm any of this. If it is true, they would like to know about it. They are not trying to hide anything.

Some cash payouts were given to victims initially for "civil repair" but there was no intention to "silence the victims" from sharing about the abuse that happened to them. Some victims did sign a document agreeing to not disclose the amount of the settlement. This was made a very voluntary thing, done in conjunction with their parents and guardians, with no pressure whatsoever. Victims were told that they could talk about the abuse. The amount given to victims was based on their needs for a house or for job training, etc.
The board member who spent time in Haiti meeting with victims explains that American culture is different from Haitian culture. Americans would think of victims needing counseling. Haitian's don't think that way. They want "civil repair" for their inability to get a job in their local town or have a place to live.
CAM has moved toward giving "gifts in kind" where possible, as cash can sometimes hinder a victim's ability to succeed rather than help them to succeed. Victims are no longer being asked to sign the aforementioned document. While talking about the amount of settlement could create envy or misunderstandings, CAM does not want the victims or any spectators anywhere thinking that CAM is trying to silence victims. That has never been their intention at all.

So often in difficult situations where language may be a bit of a barrier, how something is said may lead to misunderstanding. It happens even where no language barriers exist, just based on our "common sense."

How did victims end up with the impression that they weren't allowed to talk about the settlements OR the abuse at all?

[Aurien]

The CAM board has been aware of these "charges" for quite some time, but has not been able to validate or confirm any of this. If it is true, they would like to know about it. They are not trying to hide anything.

Some cash payouts were given to victims initially for "civil repair" but there was no intention to "silence the victims" from sharing about the abuse that happened to them. Some victims did sign a document agreeing to not disclose the amount of the settlement. This was made a very voluntary thing, done in conjunction with their parents and guardians, with no pressure whatsoever. Victims were told that they could talk about the abuse. The amount given to victims was based on their needs for a house or for job training, etc.
The board member who spent time in Haiti meeting with victims explains that American culture is different from Haitian culture. Americans would think of victims needing counseling. Haitian's don't think that way. They want "civil repair" for their inability to get a job in their local town or have a place to live.
CAM has moved toward giving "gifts in kind" where possible, as cash can sometimes hinder a victim's ability to succeed rather than help them to succeed. Victims are no longer being asked to sign the aforementioned document. While talking about the amount of settlement could create envy or misunderstandings, CAM does not want the victims or any spectators anywhere thinking that CAM is trying to silence victims. That has never been their intention at all.

So often in difficult situations where language may be a bit of a barrier, how something is said may lead to misunderstanding. It happens even where no language barriers exist, just based on our "common sense."

How did victims end up with the impression that they weren't allowed to talk about the settlements OR the abuse at all?

Yes. I was wondering if something was "lost in translation."

[Ken]

So often in difficult situations where language may be a bit of a barrier, how something is said may lead to misunderstanding. It happens even where no language barriers exist, just based on our "common sense."

How did victims end up with the impression that they weren't allowed to talk about the settlements OR the abuse at all?

Yes. I was wondering if something was "lost in translation."

What was SAID to them in person may not have matched the text of the statements that they were asked to sign.

Honestly, I'm not sure why any kinds of signed statements were necessary here. Seems like another misstep by CAM. Some sort of receipt to acknowledge receipt of the payment and what it was for? Yes, that's appropriate. You don't just hand out cash to anyone. But requiring some sort of legal clause? I don't get it.

I noticed in the statement released by CAM that they say they are now doing increased trainings about sex abuse for their staff. OK, that's all well and good. But are you all confident that:

1. It was ONLY JMast who slipped through the cracks this one time and there are absolutely no others out there working on behalf of CAM who are engaged in abusive behavior? If JMast with his documented history of abuse managed to work for years on CAM's dime and on their behalf, I have to wonder if he is the only one.

2. Have they really fixed their vetting process?

3. That ALL the people responsible for aiding and abetting JMast have been removed from positions of authority?

[joshuabgood]

There is also a credibility issue with CAM right now, frankly, so for some it may take more than more messaging by CAM to alleviate concerns. Simply put, initially CAM reported they had not authorized any payments...when Trudy was in fact reporting, from her convo's with victims that they were. Trudy's reports were denied in the second written statement by CAM and it wasn't until the Pittsburgh Gazette also reported the payments that CAM then issued another statement acknowledging in fact they had authorized early payments and that they were then supposedly stopping the payments until further study was done. Now perhaps there are worthy explanations for the discrepancy's in CAMs messaging, however, it doesn't look good. And going to CAM alone for answers to Randal's allegations, is insufficient. One also needs to actually talk to the victims. Because the actions of CAM are actually the ones in question...a just investigation of those allegations also needs the voice of the victims. Were the legal documents signed by victims reviewed by their legal counsel prior to signature? If not why not? Did CAMs attorneys write or review the documents? If so why wouldn't the victims have counsel review those documents? What exactly were the legal injunctions of the agreement. Were copies provided to the victims? If not why not? What were the terms of the agreements?

What would have been ideal would have been an independent third party investigation by a group like GRACE. I'd like to know why they chose not to.

[Ernie]

I'm sorry but I don't know the answers to your questions. I provided the information that I could verify and I don't know more.

[Josh]

I'm sorry but I don't know the answers to your questions. I provided the information that I could verify and I don't know more.

Thanks, Ernie. I really appreciate your honesty and transparency here.

I feel like CAM is making progress. Things were pretty awful just 6 months ago. But real change is happening despite various bad individuals trying to stop it.

[Ernie]

Simply put, initially CAM reported they had not authorized any payments...when Trudy was in fact reporting, from her convo's with victims that they were. Trudy's reports were denied in the second written statement by CAM and it wasn't until the Pittsburgh Gazette also reported the payments that CAM then issued another statement acknowledging in fact they had authorized early payments and that they were then supposedly stopping the payments until further study was done.

I am not seeing this information on CAM's website. Which statements are your referring to?

[joshuabgood]

Simply put, initially CAM reported they had not authorized any payments...when Trudy was in fact reporting, from her convo's with victims that they were. Trudy's reports were denied in the second written statement by CAM and it wasn't until the Pittsburgh Gazette also reported the payments that CAM then issued another statement acknowledging in fact they had authorized early payments and that they were then supposedly stopping the payments until further study was done.

I am not seeing this information on CAM's website. Which statements are your referring to?

Trudy initially reported victims were offered settlement awards. In CAMs second statement (July 9 on their website) the second question, they stated that no settlement awards had been authorized indicating no payments were authorized or made. In fact settlement awards, as Trudy reported were both offered, made, and accepted.

The Pittsburgh Gazette in fact independently confirmed that payments were made as Trudy reported. When they ran that story here...

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/pittsbu ... 3573058572

In response to that story, CAMs lawyer told the reporter, as also reported in the story, that in fact CAM had made some payments but that they were "now calling them to a halt."

This is contrary to what was explicitly posted publicly by their last July 9 statement under point 2, at that time. This was mentioned also in the article.

The whole time, Trudy was accused of making up untruths about these payments, CAM itself said that no payments were authorized, and then, later admitted to the Pittsburgh Gazette they were made but were then being halted.

Now perhaps CAM can argue we never said they weren't made we just said they weren't authorized. That is quibbling over semantics and doesn't become letting your yes be yes or your no being no. And further, if it were really secretive payoffs the board knew nothing of, that is a staggering lack of oversight.

[Ernie]

I'm trying to understand what is creating distrust. I would like to make an inquiry into this but don't want to bother anyone with a flawed argument. CAM said on July 9 they had not authorized any payments. The Pittsburgh article is dated Sep. 2. Couldn't payments have transpired between July and September and that be the explanation?

[joshuabgood]

I'm trying to understand what is creating distrust. I would like to make an inquiry into this but don't want to bother anyone with a flawed argument. CAM said on July 9 they had not authorized any payments. The Pittsburgh article is dated Sep. 2. Couldn't payments have transpired between July and September and that be the explanation?

Maybe...but then they should have amended their public position. It clearly misled the Pittsburgh Gazette reporter.

That said, there is reason to question that timeline based on Trudy's early reporting which made this exact claim. These reports, it seems is what led CAM to issuing this response to this specific query. It was reported that payments were being offered, and CAM issues that July statement clarifying their official position, indicating it wasn't happening. I'd like to know, to re-establish credibility, when in fact were the first offers made for monetary compensation? Were they as Trudy reported?

Once payments were being offered and made, why wasn't the statement amended to reflect what they were doing? Unfortunately it created a misleading situation at best. Why would it take a public story to get them to officially change the messaging almost two months later?

Also...it seems clear from Mr Flores' comment that something seems to have transpired to get CAM to walk back those 8-10 grand offers and payments. Or halt them as he said. What was that? When did it happen? How many payments were made? Were there legally binding agreements signed? Did the victims have counsel present to review these documents? Did CAMs counsel review these documents?