CAM Molestation Issue

[Aurien]

It was Mr. Mast, not CAM making these crimes, why CAM does need to pay for him?

CAM knew as far back as 2012 that he sexually abused young boys and did not remove him from the mission field or report his crimes to the proper authorities.

[Ken]

It was Mr. Mast, not CAM making these crimes, why CAM does need to pay for him?

Mast did not show up to Haiti on his own. He was sponsored, funded, and placed there by CAM and his church. He was working on behalf of CAM who was paying his salary and expenses, helping process his work permits and visas, and so forth. If the organization knew that they were sending a sexual predator there to work with youth then they will indeed be found to be culpable. And rightly so.

If it turns out that they had no knowledge of his crimes and tendencies, and they were doing a proper job of vetting and supervising their staff and he just managed to slip through the cracks despite their best efforts. Then they won't be found culpable. This is where it gets tricky. If they should have known about him but didn't because they simply had poor vetting and supervisory procedures in place, or willfully looked the other way, then the courts will have to decide their degree of guilt.

Think of it in another context. If you own a plumbing or cleaning business that sends employees to work inside people's homes. And you hire people who are known to have a long history of breaking and entering and robbing people's homes. And you know they are still doing it. And then it turns out that oops, one of your employees is using your business to enter and rob people's homes. And you just looked the other way and hoped that no one would notice. Then you will indeed share in the guilt. Because people trusted your company to do an honest job and you knowingly sent thieves into their homes knowing what they were likely to do. You may not share the same degree of guilt as the actual thief and may not share a prison cell. But you may owe restitution to the victims.

On the other hand, if you didn't actually know what your employees were doing but you just did a really sloppy job of vetting them and supervising them then you still might be held liable. It depends on how negligent you were and whether or not you followed established and customary business practices and whether you SHOULD have known. What are the obligations of an organization that sends people to work with children in a position of trust? That will be the question.

[temporal1]

Nonresistance is also described in our church as being "defenseless". Ie you do not use legal means to escape consequences or hire lawyers who advise you against Scripture. If someone sues you, you give him extra.

Do you believe Ken Miller represented a good Christian witness in his situation?

[Theophilos]

Normally businesses do the background check. If the police records show no criminal record such person will have no reason to be denied job just based on rumours. On other side I know a case when a former employer went around and spread bad and false rumours about his former employee, even complaining to the church ministers and creating church problems for that employee. Of course God has taken care for that injustice. Now that businessmen is nearly bankrupt and the falsely accused former employee has a managing director position in one of the presetigious institutions in the area.

[temporal1]

Juda Macabeus said
When you invite the lawyers into the room, the Holy Spirit leaves. The predictable consequence of lawyering up.

Personally, IF justice requires I would far rather see CAM's assets being used to help the victims than used to pay lawyers....and pay them they will.

2 Peter 2:13 & 14: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

We live in a nation where it is law to have a lawyer when crimes are committed. If a defendant cannot afford a lawyer a court appointed lawyer is assigned to them. Lawyers are NOT invited, they are required. To not have a lawyer would be disobeying our country’s laws and the scriptures are very clear in not just 2 Peter, but other places, that we are to submit ourselves to the ordinances of our government, unless it violates the laws of God. And I don’t think having a lawyers is violating the laws of God.

Incorrect. You are entitled to council under the 6th amendment in criminal proceedings "and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." You have the right to retain and have council represent you. There is no REQUIREMENT to ever retain council in any criminal or civil matter. You have a right to represent yourself, which in one case I have actually done, successfully. It is normally advisable to in most matters to have a la. In civil matters (Which for CAM this appears to be) lawyers are in fact "invited" and handsomely paid for. Used to tutor American Government in college, to make money to pay tuition.

I was on a board that had to deal with the fallout from a molestation case that occurred while I was overseas. The board was all set to apologize to the victims. Lawyer enters room, "took control of situation," and convinced the board that we could not do this, because it would be an admission of guilt, and could lead to lawsuits.

The right thing would have been to have done this, and let the "chips" fall where they may.

The legally advisable thing would be to deny, and avoid any admission.

Lawyers will always advise you to do the legally expedient thing.
God tells us to do the morally and Biblically correct thing.

Which one do we listen to?
J.M.

Many are dismayed when defense lawyers counsel (and, it does seem routine) “not guilty” pleas when evidence is overwhelming, AND, often includes confession of guilt. it can be sickening.

however, “innocent until proven guilty” is important.

add to that, people sometimes confess to crimes they did NOT commit. criminals often brag about commiting more crimes than they ever did! (there’s a horrible local-to-me murder case underway right now wherein these types of lies are suspected.) sometimes well-intended parents will confess to their children’s crimes - there are all sorts of complications that present in courts.

judges generally LOATHE self-representation. it’s legal. but.
the brotherhood of lawyers, the Bar Association, wants (practically demands) everyone have an attorney. this brotherhood seems more important to lawyers than any individual case they might represent. their highest alliance is with the Bar. (that’s my impression.)

however. it is possible to remain a Christian and navigate what’s required.
not easy! but possible. Ken Miller is one example.

i even know one attorney that i recognize to be a Christian.
years ago, he first caught my attention when i overheard him say, “i don’t take divorce cases. i don’t have the stomach for it.”

he has a busy practice. he won’t take every case that walks in the door.
he emphasizes honesty and mutual respect when negotiating cases. no exploiting circumstances.
i hope he’s not as rare as i fear.

[RZehr]

Ezekiel 33

3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;

4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.

6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

[steve-in-kville]

My concern is he pleads out. DA's play on this to get a guilty plea. There is a situation in Lancaster County (Grace would know what I am talking about) where an older lady hit two students and killed them. I am watching this with a close eye as its my old high school. The DA threw the book at her hoping her attorney will come back with a plea deal.

[Ken]

My concern is he pleads out. DA's play on this to get a guilty plea. There is a situation in Lancaster County (Grace would know what I am talking about) where an older lady hit two students and killed them. I am watching this with a close eye as its my old high school. The DA through the book at her hoping her attorney will come back with a plea deal.

What is your concern? That he will be railroaded and plead guilty to things he didn't do? Or will get off too easily?

Plea deals usually require full and truthful accounting as part of the plea. They would likely question him in great detail about every aspect of the crimes. If he lies or obfuscates or withholds information in any way and it is subquently discovered by the authorities they can have the plea deal thrown out and prosecute him.

Your example is why good attorneys are part of the legal process. It is often the case that a person is guilty of something but may not be guilty of everything they are being charged with. And yes, DAs often do this as a deliberate strategy because they neither have the time or money nor enough courts and judges to take prosecute every crime through a full blown trial.

[ohio jones]

Much smaller institutions are less prone to widespread systemic abuse and are also less attractive to power-hungry people.

Preventing and dealing with things like sexual abuse may be easier in an organization that has the resources to dedicate people to these tasks. Many small charities are inefficient or wrong-headed or ineffective or even tolerant of abuse simply because they don't have the experience or resources to do better.

Many small charities are very good too, I'm just saying there are real tradeoffs.

CAM makes a point of advertising their low overhead. Everyone seems to assume that's a good thing, but if it comes at the expense of proper vetting and supervision of workers, "head to toe" training, and other necessary tasks, it can actually become a negative. I noticed Herr Herr seemed to have quite a bit of difficulty figuring out who was where when; maybe increasing the salaries of senior field workers so there's more continuity would have helped, rather than having frequent turnover of personnel. That turnover may have helped him evade discovery longer.

On one hand larger organizations have an economy of scale and greater leverage of resources; on the other, there can be a "too big to fail" attitude that seems to be showing up in this situation.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The legally advisable thing would be to deny, and avoid any admission.

Lawyers will always advise you to do the legally expedient thing.
God tells us to do the morally and Biblically correct thing.

Which one do we listen to?

J.M.

The great irony of course is that in doing the legally expedient thing to save your organization, you may end up losing the whole thing. Donors leaving because of the hypocrisy, etc.

In being completely honest/open you risk the possibility of "losing everything" in litigation, and yet by doing so may save the soul of your ministry.

We did what the lawyer advised. I was complicit in that decision. It was the beginning of the end for that (non-Mennonite) church. It closed about 5 years later.

I regret that decision. I don’t know what the outcome would have been if we had done what was decided before the lawyer got there. Essentially it could have been little worse.

J.M.