We continue to see cases of predators hunting on the rooms, grooming and stalking their prey and sometimes the children of their prey.
I submit that members aware of the criminal activity should also be held accountable. If someone in the AA rooms admits to criminal actions, others in the rooms have a responsibility to report that to law enforcement authorities.
I would submit they should be charged with obstruction of justice, and also held personally liable in civil court because of their failure to report criminal activity, such as the athletic department in the Sandusky case is now going through.
This is the real difference between the rooms of AA and grocery stores, coffee shops etc that the AA apologists continue to campare. People outside the rooms of AA do not condone or remain silent in the presence of criminal evil.
I would also submit that if there is a group effort to pass along a predator to another set of unsuspecting victims by sending the predator to another AA group, or for that matter another rehab business, that would be a willful act of coverup that RICO statutes should come into play.
Comments
Clara
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:53
Permalink
I've never questioned anyone
I've never questioned anyone on leaving AA, LFOD. Do you read my posts at all? If someone wants to leave, wish them well! I don't care if someone speaks out against AA, either. I just got hooked in when I read so much stuff here that was completely unlike anything I have experienced in AA. It's been a good thing for me. It wasn't for others. That's okay and probably true of most things in life.
What I don't get is suddenly, after 35 years, deciding you don't like something and that it never did anything for you. And it isn't just that person. I've asked Soberman the same thing. Don't drink and do as you please. Fine. But then why become part of AA, sponsor people and the whole deal for DECADES?
I really DON'T get that.
But if you want to leave, I won't stop someone from growing on with their vine of life. AA is for those that want to be there. If you don't, that is fine.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
live_free_or_die
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:21
Permalink
CLar, for the most part I do not read your posts.
And in case you have not noticed, generally, the conversations you and I have are controlled by me.
Have a nice day now.
p.s. I control the conversations I have with judge becket also. You may have noticed that as well.
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
Clara
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:30
Permalink
You are far from in control,
You are far from in control, LF. I have suggested to you to just not respond to my posts if you don't like what I write, yet here come the replies. Not only to you read them, you personally address me.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
patti
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:46
Permalink
C & E clearly wrote &
C & E clearly wrote & communicated that for the most part she does not read your posts Clara! Come on! And who is exactly that you are willing to interact with on this forum or @ meetings? What is it exactly that you will or won't do for the benefit of humanity?
patti
causeandeffect
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 15:00
Permalink
Patti, clara's posts are like
Patti, clara's posts are like Chinese water torture, aren't they? The same thing overandoverandoverandover. And it never ends. It. Just. Never. Ends.
Troll free AA critical forum
http://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
Clara
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 15:07
Permalink
And, again, Cause, nothing
And, again, Cause, nothing says you have to respond or even read them. In fact, there is this great site called recoveringfromrecovery.com where you can go. But when people get bored with the Lennon Sisters nice nice over they, they come back to OPF. Did DannyDammit make it to the chat?
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
patti
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 17:05
Permalink
C& E
C& E
yes lol like Chinese water torture. But what is really great about Clara's posts is that any doubting aa member reading them will recognize the insanity they are starting to realize is what aa's all about. Clara is validation & evidence for those starting to deprogram, get their minds & life's back & flee the cult. Clara does more to hurt the cult of aa then she has the ability, intelligence or understanding to comprehend!
patti
avogadno
Thu, 07/26/2012 - 06:59
Permalink
Let me try to give you a hint
Let me try to give you a hint about what you are going through, Clara.
AA convinces people that are powerless over their ability of controlling drinking. They convince people that other entities, such as a tree, has and uses it's power over members. In fact, anything OTHER THAN YOU (and of your choice), can keep you from drinking as long as you pray to it. You also have to confess to the tree and ask for the tree's forgiveness. However AA also convinces people that if they do drink, that it is their fault! It's a strange situation AA puts people in. Members can't take the credit for stopping, it's always the program, God, or the tree that kept them sober. At the same time if there is a weak moment, it isn't the program, God, or the tree that failed - it's the member.
AA also gets people so confused to start thinking that these other entities keep them from buying shoes obsessively, or writing bad checks, even eating Ding Dongs. But even if you follow every step to a T and still buy shoes, it's your fault. Not the sponsor’s, not the meeting’s, not the tree's, and not the steps’ fault. Your fault, certainly not the program's!
You must also attend meetings every day, call your sponsor every day, pray every day, read the lit every day. Even the small print. Even the imaginary print that’s sprinkled throughout the literature. That's where it tells you that AA is not the only way to get sober. This despite what the members tell you, that you will die without AA and start drinking uncontrollably.
This same program convinces people that it isn't religious. Despite needing the program or you'll drink and die, needing to pray (and a specific way), needing to confess and turn your will and life over to the care of God, a higher power of your understanding, or over to the program.
They get people so wigged out that they think that they will die without it. Sure, people can walk away whenever they want. But if you do you will drink yourself to death or kill yourself. You decide what you want, it's your choice.
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
Clara
Thu, 09/13/2012 - 17:30
Permalink
thank you for the Boxer shot.
Thank you for the Boxer shot. They are such great dogs. We have some that come to the dog park (I think it is a club) and they are just the cutest puppish dogs even into adulthood.
Per AA, if you want to controlled drinking, co to MM and then run over people and cost them their lives just like the founder did. If you are looking to learn how to drink, AA would never be the place to feel at home. AAs learn to live life without it. I DON'T think it is religious, I find it to be spiritual, and thank you for the tree references. I find forests, the beach, the moutain space I found... to all be great places for private contemplation, prayer and meditation. But if you cannot read the steps on the wall within the first 15 minutes of being at a meeting, then I guess that's fine. I knew the first week what it was about. Don't drink for any reason (certainly not over a man!), come to meetings and to be thankful. If I have a gratitude issue today, I take a ride on I-10 and look over to Juarez and thank God I don't live there. Or I watch the woman that does my ironing get on the bus to go back and she has my husband's worn out socks in a bag to give to her husband, who will still find use for them.
I didn't call my sponsor every day, but my friend was such a mess when she got out of rehab, she literally phoned her every hour and needed to even be given instructions as to how to fill up her time. People have different needs when they come in. I called my sponsor three times a week at first. We come into AA from different places.
Maybe when you beat the booze, the need for writing bad checks, ripping off the boss and the other things can cease. I went to AA because I wanted the fellowship. The stepwork was just a nice thing that happened because I did get to clean up my life and move in a great direction. I never would have moved 35 miles by my sister after spending a lifetime away from her (literally each of us separated by the Mississippi River for 25 years), with a relationship limited to the occasional email and phone call without it. Now she's one of my best friends. I spent Monday running to Las Cruces to sign some legal documents, had lunch and went shopping with her, came home and created the soap recipe that she likes and then took it to her yesterday. This may not register to you but it never would have happened with/to the drinking Clara.
I am sorry that it doesn't work for everyone and it would have been interesting to see if I would have had a better or different experience with something like SMART, but again, the choices are simply not there because no one seems to want to help those grow. They just want to talk about them without accepting that they aren't really choices for most people. I was astonished to find that people actually faulted me for suggesting they put their support behind it by becoming a facilitator so the option could actually be a real one instead of something in blogland.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
avogadno
Thu, 07/26/2012 - 11:19
Permalink
It's not as simple as the
It's not as simple as the steps written on the wall. Trees, oceans, and moons are all beautiful, relaxing, and powerful features of our world. However they are not capable of having a will for us nor are they capable of arresting the symptoms of a supposed disease. It's a mindfuck really, if you believe that this other entity can do it and you do it yourself, then it will work. So why not teach people to just believe in themselves?
Your arguments are typical and remind me of when you encouraged Orange to try the steps to help rid his life of ickiness. They are excuses and rationalizations, "impulse buys" that get people to try the program. When the confused and tired mind walks through the doors and into the room the first few times, they are further conned so they keep coming back and trying more, and more and more. "Keep an open mind, have the willingness to try to believe, pretend as if you do. We love you, understand you, and will always be here. Don't talk, listen. Try another meeting, socialize after, make new friends here (your old ones won't understand)".
The indoctrination isn't just in the step work but also within the repetitive daily readings and the shares. "AA saved us, when I left I drank, if you leave you will drink, if you drink you will die." At first powerless means over the desire but later it is a powerless over everything. All aspects of member's lives are controlled by their HP. If it doesn't make sense, they tell you to pretend like it makes sense. Fake it until you are convinced. I seriously wonder if people just fake it for their membership duration. That is, those that don't go nuts or aren't nuts to begin with.
It doesn't matter if people that oppose AA support SMART or anything else. Not doing so doesn't make it any less of a religious cult. I prefer that AA isn't pushed down people's throats regardless of what else is or isn't available. AA is worse than nothing at AA because too many get worse by attending after a while. That's bound to happen when they teach people that they don't have control over their behaviors and it gives them an excuse to continue. There are also many people like myself that prefer not to be in groups at all. IMO meetings and/or group therapy is over-rated. Trying to adapt to just that was personally a stressor for me.
The fact that you "don't understand", isn't a good reason to not respect others. I don't understand a lot of things in life but for the most part I assume it's my problem. I either try to understand or I leave it be. If you contend that we are wrong, you can at least give us the benefit of the doubt about our experiences and life. Hounding us and others like us doesn't do anybody any good and it might even cause some people distress.
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
becket
Thu, 07/26/2012 - 12:15
Permalink
It's not the power that lives
It's not the power that lives within the tree or the ocean that people invest in. It's the power within the human mind to believe that there is something within the universe on which they can focus their fear and dejection and fury and failure and sadness. That focus, that partnership, is what has the power to lead people out of the depths. avogadno acknowledges that not all people are able to develop and cultivate such a partnership as AA describes it, and I don't disagree. We are of all stripes of mindsets, some vulnerable, some susceptible, some suspicious, some superficial, some pre-loaded with religious dogma, some atheists, and many other types. This in part explains why AA does not work for everybody. By the time we get into meetings we are dragging a shitload of baggage, even the 15-year-olds. AA is not psychotherapy, it is not biofeedback, it is not motherly coddling, it is not analysis. If you find it doesn't serve you, there is nothing external that is keeping you from leaving. If you are finding improvements in your life due to following the suggested steps, again, there is nothing keeping you except your own desire to pursue improvement.
I don't always agree with avogadno's characterizations of contemporary AA, but I don't find within her posts the all-consuming drive to crush it, as can be found in most of the anti-AA posts here. I think she has found deficiencies and control issues and such that she feels exposed her to some sort of danger. It was the right thing for her to get out and find alternative sources of support. Anyone on this forum who did not find help in AA did the right thing by getting out and finding those same alternative sources. But when it comes to the fifth-grade playground shit, where children learn the power of a lie, and the power of gossip, and the power of libel and epithetic mischaracterizations, the discussion devolves and time is wasted addressing the hyperbole. If posters here would eliminate the bullshit, maybe Clara and billybudd and First Things First and alkieanon and I wouldn't have much to hang our watchful hard hats on. Maybe we might take a holiday. But as it is now, there is so much leveling and countering to be done, we'll never catch a break.
You create your own realities, people. If you quit feeding the machine with crap it will run better.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
live_free_or_die
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 06:36
Permalink
And some of the more susceptible
kills themselve because of the hokey religious cult dogma billshit.
AA/12 steps kills people.
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
Persephone In Exile
Sat, 07/28/2012 - 15:47
Permalink
I'm SOOO happy that the
I'm SOOO happy that the extreme poverty faced by many Mexicans exists solely to provide aa source of gratitude for an AA member! How lucky that those people are there just to lift the spirits of AAs living close to the border! If those people didn't serve as an example for comparison or a source of cheap domestic labor, they'd be just completely useless, wouldn't they? I haven't felt this nauseated since seeing The Help.
What might be nice as well is not forcing people into ANY "program". How about trusting people to do the right thing without some self help group to answer for them? Not everyone needs a program!! To keep insisting on that line of thinking is just bizarre. Why would some people here, who are also as unwilling to put their support behind any established program, want to become facilitators for one? Seriously, more power to someone who wants to become a SMART facilitator (though I know next to nada about SMART myself), but not everyone here would want to put their weight behind that sort of thing. Especially a bunch of people who already feel like they were manipulated and jerked around by one program out there. Quite a few of us are a little gun shy when it comes to this subject. In some cases these suggestions of yours come across like someone telling someone who just had a bad experience with Christianity to just go try a different denomination. No thanks!!
Apologies, I realize not everyone feels that way, but I know I do and that at least a few people around here feel the same.
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
Clara
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 08:23
Permalink
PIE, I am sure that there are
PIE, I am sure that there are a few people around here that will always find fault with an AA no matter how (s)he might feel about anything.
I've never seen The Help, but Avo's response did take some people aback on a blog I am in. It isn't a response to "cheap labor". It is a response to their government and how those people are treated. Sorry that you can't read enough of the posts to figure that out. I can find an American in MB that will do that ironing for the same money for an hour. I am sure that I could have found a GoodWill that has a larger American clientele that would buy dontations from GoodWilll, too. But I don't live there anymore. I am an Anglo, living in a city where Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are the majority. But that doesn't change what I see when I look over the border into a country where the government cares little and provides little for its people.
If you don't need a program, that's fine. I have never said everyone needs one. You might not be one that is screaming that choices should be on offer while not being willing to become involved so that it is a realistic option. I mean, gosh, PIE, it just could be possible that it isn't about you at all.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
avogadno
Thu, 09/13/2012 - 17:53
Permalink
Originally posted by Clara on 7/26/12
"thank you for the Boxer shot.
Thank you for the Boxer shot. They are such great dogs. We have some that come to the dog park (I think it is a club) and they are just the cutest puppish dogs even into adulthood.
Per AA, if you want to controlled drinking, co to MM and then run over people and cost them their lives just like the founder did. If you are looking to learn how to drink, AA would never be the place to feel at home. AAs learn to live life without it. I DON'T think it is religious, I find it to be spiritual, and thank you for the tree references. I find forests, the beach, the moutain space I found... to all be great places for private contemplation, prayer and meditation. But if you cannot read the steps on the wall within the first 15 minutes of being at a meeting, then I guess that's fine. I knew the first week what it was about. Don't drink for any reason (certainly not over a man!), come to meetings and to be thankful. If I have a gratitude issue today, I take a ride on I-10 and look over to Juarez and thank God I don't live there. Or I watch the woman that does my ironing get on the bus to go back and she has my husband's worn out socks in a bag to give to her husband, who will still find use for them.
I didn't call my sponsor every day, but my friend Dena was such a mess when she got out of rehab, she literally phoned her every hour and needed to even be given instructions as to how to fill up her time. People have different needs when they come in. I called my sponsor three times a week at first. We come into AA from different places.
Maybe when you beat the booze, the need for writing bad checks, ripping off the boss and the other things can cease. I went to AA because I wanted the fellowship. The stepwork was just a nice thing that happened because I did get to clean up my life and move in a great direction. I never would have moved 35 miles by my sister after spending a lifetime away from her (literally each of us separated by the Mississippi River for 25 years), with a relationship limited to the occasional email and phone call without it. Now she's one of my best friends. I spent Monday running to Las Cruces to sign some legal documents, had lunch and went shopping with her, came home and created the soap recipe that she likes and then took it to her yesterday. This may not register to you but it never would have happened with/to the drinking Clara.
I am sorry that it doesn't work for everyone and it would have been interesting to see if I would have had a better or different experience with something like SMART, but again, the choices are simply not there because no one seems to want to help those grow. They just want to talk about them without accepting that they aren't really choices for most people. I was astonished to find that people actually faulted me for suggesting they put their support behind it by becoming a facilitator so the option could actually be a real one instead of something in blogland."
--Of course she is changing her original posts so that if anyone checks out the link she appears to be saintly. It is one of her "tricks". Unfortunately for her, I saved them all.
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
becket
Thu, 07/26/2012 - 11:51
Permalink
What's up with the wonky
What's up with the wonky formatting of this post? Couldn't you reduce the size of your photos so they wouldn't take up two football fields' worth of space?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
live_free_or_die
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 07:48
Permalink
Willy Wonka
Bat. Shit. Crazy. This one is.
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
becket
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:03
Permalink
" It is our contention that
" It is our contention that AA is a cult.” (Alexander & Rollins.)"
Well, then. There's not much use at looking at the subject any further, is there? The edict has come down from on high: It is their contention that "AA is a cult". Put your pencils down. Time's up.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
live_free_or_die
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 07:50
Permalink
Who is more qualified
you or them judge feckit?
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
patti
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:51
Permalink
Clara
Clara
people deprogram from being brain washed by aa & they quit all the time! Do you get that?
patti
massive
Tue, 07/24/2012 - 20:23
Permalink
Thank you JR HARRIS!
Thank you JR HARRIS!
Massive
Clara
Tue, 07/24/2012 - 20:44
Permalink
I agree that it is horrifying
I agree that it is horrifying under any circumstances, Cause, but I was trying to find out why JR needed to add sensationalism to it. I couldn't find an AA link to it, so it seemed unnecessary to bring it to the forum.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
alkieanon
Tue, 07/24/2012 - 21:23
Permalink
Hearsay
"Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone."
Clara
Tue, 07/24/2012 - 21:31
Permalink
How about just spinning some
How about just spinning some BS about something he doesn't like?
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
JR Harris
Tue, 07/24/2012 - 21:35
Permalink
The majority of these acts were tried by a court of law....
The majority of these acts were tried by a court of law and the Judges name is usually available. Courts don't allow hearsay alkieanon, your argument is moot.
Don't you have a sober home, rehab or some other AA related cult member producer to tend to? Better yet, why don't you go and help Bill from Sunrise Detox, I'm sure he would love to listen to your weak arguments with no substance, innuendo and hearsay.
"Tradition 10 - Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the AA name ought never be drawn into public controversy." Please follow orders from the Interchurch Center if you are an AA member and don't comment.
alkieanon
Tue, 07/24/2012 - 22:07
Permalink
Who, What, Where, And When?
Who, what, where, and when?
JR Harris says: "Courts don't allow hearsay alkieanon, your argument is moot." Then DeConstructor's argument is moot.
DeConsructor says: "I submit that members aware of the criminal activity should also be held accountable. If someone in the AA rooms admits to criminal actions, others in the rooms have a responsibility to report that to law enforcement authorities.". So there is nothing to be done because the "courts don't allow hearsay".
JR Harris says so and puts the smack down on DeConstructor. Case closed.
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 04:00
Permalink
Exceptions to the hearsay
Exceptions to the hearsay rule:
http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule804
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.
(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:
(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and
(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.
(5) Recorded Recollection A record that:
(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;
(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and
(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:
(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;
(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and
(C) neither the possible source of the information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:
(A) it sets out:
(i) the office’s activities;
(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or
(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and
(B) neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.
(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that:
(A) the record or statement does not exist; or
(B) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind.
(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.
(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:
(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;
(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and
(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.
(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.
(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:
(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;
(B) the record is kept in a public office; and
(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.
(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.
(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.
(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.
(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:
(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and
(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.
If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.
(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.
(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.
(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.
(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:
(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;
(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;
(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and
(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.
The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.
(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:
(A) was essential to the judgment; and
(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.
(24) [Other Exceptions.] [Transferred to Rule 807.]
Return To Top
Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness
(a) Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant:
(1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies;
(2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so;
(3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter;
(4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness; or
(5) is absent from the trial or hearing and the statement’s proponent has not been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure:
(A) the declarant’s attendance, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(1) or (6); or
(B) the declarant’s attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(2), (3), or (4).
But this subdivision (a) does not apply if the statement’s proponent procured or wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the declarant from attending or testifying.
(b) The Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former Testimony. Testimony that:
(A) was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, whether given during the current proceeding or a different one; and
(B) is now offered against a party who had — or, in a civil case, whose predecessor in interest had — an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
(2) Statement Under the Belief of Imminent Death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant, while believing the declarant’s death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.
(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:
(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and
(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
(4) Statement of Personal or Family History. A statement about:
(A) the declarant’s own birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, even though the declarant had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact; or
(B) another person concerning any of these facts, as well as death, if the declarant was related to the person by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the person’s family that the declarant’s information is likely to be accurate.
(5) [Other Exceptions.] [Transferred to Rule 807.]
(6) Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Declarant’s Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.
Return To Top
Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay
Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.
Return To Top
Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility
When a hearsay statement — or a statement described in Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E) — has been admitted in evidence, the declarant’s credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit evidence of the declarant’s inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination.
Return To Top
Rule 807. Residual Exception
(a) In General. Under the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804:
(1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;
(2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and
(4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.
(b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if, before the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement and its particulars, including the declarant’s name and address, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 04:07
Permalink
Plus, nothing prevents the
Plus, nothing prevents the cops from using hearsay to get evidence that could be used to corroborate a statement against interest exception provided in 804(b)(3):
(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:
(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and
(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Clara
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 07:20
Permalink
Don't cops even have
Don't cops even have permission to lie in the pursuit of evidence?
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 07:26
Permalink
Generally, yes.
Generally, yes.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
alkieanon
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 05:25
Permalink
803
You copied and pasted the all the text, but the URL is wrong. This is the correct link:
http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule803
This is an easy way to remember the hearsay exceptions found in 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoJ6fgIKYy8
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 07:34
Permalink
Not all the exceptions are in
Not all the exceptions are in 803. 803 covers exceptions that apply regardless of whether the person is available to testify, whereas 804 cover exceptions that apply only when the person is unavailable to testify.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 07:47
Permalink
And the exceptions in 804 are
And the exceptions in 804 are important, especially since a person is unavailable if he refuses to testify or exercises a privilege not to testify, such as pleading the 5th or not taking the stand.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
alkieanon
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 08:57
Permalink
First Person
First person.
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:25
Permalink
?
?
By person, I mean the person who spoke the statement that is being offered as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. For example, during a meeting, a stepper might talk about his rapes. Someone might turn him in and offer to testify about what was said. The stepper's statements are hearsay, but if the stepper refuses to take the stand, the witness will be allowed to testify about what he heard because the statements fall under the statements against interests exception to the hearsay rule.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Clara
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:25
Permalink
I would assume you would also
I would assume you would also have to have a victim or the DA isn't going to be interested in pursing it. It just not enough to say that "John Doe was in my 5:30 meeting and he said he raped someone." "Did he say who he raped, ma'am." "Well, no...." or
"I don't know who this guy is in this AA room, but he claimed he raped someone. ... No, I'm sorry, I don't know how to reach him or find him. ... Well, I think he goes by John but it might have been Joe..." ... "Okay, here's something. He said he was from Miami." ... Well, no I guess I don't know if that is Miami, Florida or Miami, Oklahoma. I didn't know there was a Miami in Oklahoma."
Anyone understand what I mean by now?
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:27
Permalink
That's probably not enough to
That's probably not enough to convict, but that's irrelevant as to the question of whether the stepper's statements would be admissible in court.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
alkieanon
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:37
Permalink
If A Case Was Tried In A Court
If a case was tried in a court.
Clara
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:39
Permalink
Of course. I guess I got
Of course. I guess I got carried away with this "you should report..." stuff. I think it needs to be weighed carefully.
But I have always believed it could be admissible in Court. Look at Skakel and the kids from Elan that testified that he agreed he killed Martha Moxley. Of course, it also sounds as if that was a very stressful and situation of duress. I probably would have admitted to having sex with Hitler if it would have gotten it to stop.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
patti
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:14
Permalink
Clara
Clara
if an aa member had a conscience & was not a brain washed zealot zombie they could gather information such as the confessors license plate. Additionally maybe listening to a criminal confess their crime would be the wake up call a doubting aa attendee needed to hear to begin to deprogram. Any member or person forced to attend could gather information from the confessed criminal such as their full name & where the crimes where committed. Its aa after all the wonderful place where people gather & all are trustworthy & the group & members come before family, friends & even self & sanity! If the crime confessed was a sexual assault or rape there is a very good possibility that if reported the rape kit used @ the hospital would include DNA evidence. The confessed but not convicted or punished criminal could be questioned by Police & asked to submit a DNA sample. Police, FBI & all law enforcement agencies retain evidence for a very, very long time & DNA evidence is available for testing now & may not have been a technology available when the crime was committed. Also federal computers have DNA for all convicted sexual criminals so if an aa confessor has even been convicted of any other sexual assaults his/her DNA will be available in the computer system. As you well know aa is full of paroled criminals who have been in prison & could likely be in the federal DNA computer. So sorry your absurd argument that poor aa members just don't have enough info to report to the Police or for the Police to act upon is just straight up billshit. Also the victim is not going to be present or available to take to the Police but the crime may have been reported & documented & the evidence retained. Anyone can go to local Police & inform them of a crime that was confessed to them whether it occurred in a different location or any other details such as the date, year etc. Its easy to get an aa member to babble on & on about themselves. Any one @ an aa meeting can question the confessor & take a shot @ learning necessary information & then do the right thing & act upon it & report the crime. Not really that hard to accomplish successfully. Problem with it happening in aa is that aa itself & the members lack consciences, morality & decency.
patti
causeandeffect
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:43
Permalink
It was absolutely despicable
It was absolutely despicable Patti, I wish you had been there. Not everyone believed it at first, but the point was made that even if there was the slightest chance it was true, it's a given that the confession should have been reported to the police.
http://www.orange-papers.org/forum/node/1103
Troll free AA critical forum
http://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
Clara
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:13
Permalink
Patti, I am going to save you
Patti, I am going to save you some effort. I don't read your rambling posts.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
patti
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:41
Permalink
Clara,
Clara,
I don't believe you! LOL. Last stepper card to play "I'm going to take my marbles & go home!". When all other stepper cards fail! LOL.
patti
alkieanon
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:32
Permalink
Second Person
Second person.
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:34
Permalink
I'm not playing hide the ball
I'm not playing hide the ball. If you have an objection, state it.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
causeandeffect
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:38
Permalink
Penny, what would happen if a
Penny, what would happen if a victim reported being raped but the police didn't have much to go on, and someone confessed to that rape in AA and it leads to an arrest?
Troll free AA critical forum
http://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:08
Permalink
If the defendant refused to
If the defendant refused to take the stand, testimony about the confession would be admissible to prove the truth of the confession. If the defendant took the stand and denied doing the rape, the confession would likely be admissible not to show that the confession is true, but rather, to impeach the credibilty of the defendant's testimony by showing that he made a prior statement that is inconsistent with his trial statements (provided the judge did not rule that allowing the statements would be unduly prejudicial).
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Clara
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:45
Permalink
So you have a guy denying he
So you have a guy denying he did it, a victim that won't agree that he did it, and a guy that says he did it. I'm assuming that you don't have a rape kit, either, since the victim didn't report the rape or seek medical care.
I have to admit that I am not sure I would want to get involved in that. I might have to let karma work on that one.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Pennywise
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:06
Permalink
Again, that is all irrelevant
Again, that is all irrelevant to the evidentiary question of what is admissible and for what purpose.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
causeandeffect
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:18
Permalink
Nobody said the victim won't
Nobody said the victim won't agree that he did it. The victim reported the rape to the police, and the police were able to identify and arrest the rapist because someone reported a confession made in an AA meeting. The witness could have just as easily assumed the rape hadn't been reported (like you assumed) and assumed that since he didn't have the name, address, telephone number, car description, mother's maiden name, and social security number of both the perpetrator and the victim (like you assumed) and decided that it's too crazy to confess to an actual crime in a meeting (like you assumed) and decided to not reported it. There would have been no arrest, no conviction, no justice, and the rapist's next victim could be YOU. I say that because obviously you care only about your own experience and nobody else's.
Troll free AA critical forum
http://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
Pages