Church petitions court to reveal identities of teenage sexual abuse victims who sued

[AndaliteBandit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7116671.html

Westside Family Church wants to release the identities of two girls under 14, whose families accused the church of allowing a known sex abuser to volunteer with children

A Kansas church is asking a court to punish two young girls who sued them over sexual abuse by a former Bible school volunteer by forcing them to reveal their identities.

The volunteer, Kessler Lichtenegger, pleaded guilty last year to attempted rape and attempted electronic solicitation involving two girls under the age of 14, who attended the church.

The girls and their families filed a lawsuit last month, alleging that Church officials at Westside Family Church in Lenexa, Kansas knew about Lichtenegger’s history of violent and sexual crimes involving children, and still allowed him to volunteer.

The suit alleged that one of the girls was raped on church property, and that Lichtenegger had forced her to perform sexual acts on him by threatening that he would go after her younger sister if she did not comply.

Lichtenegger was sentenced to 17 years in prison after reaching a plea deal.

During the case, the identities of the two girls were not revealed, as is usual under ‘rape shield’ laws which protect the identity of rape victims, as well as restrictions when it comes to releasing the identity of a person under 18 who has been a victim of a crime.

Westside Family Church has petitioned the court to release the identities of the girls' families, and accused the support organisation SNAP (Survivors Network of those abused by Priests) of leaking their complaint to the press without first informing the congregation they were being sued.

Why, so you can prove why their anonymity has been deemed to be necessary in the first place?

[primalmatter]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7116671.html



Why, so you can prove why their anonymity has been deemed to be necessary in the first place?

Well to be honest the ability to sue anonymously opens up real bad precedent in the justice system. It isn't something we really want to allow.

[AndaliteBandit]

Well to be honest the ability to sue anonymously opens up real bad precedent in the justice system. It isn't something we really want to allow.

It can't set a precedent, as that precedent has already been well-established. If the plaintiff’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s interest in an open court proceeding, and will not unduly prejudice the defendant, the plaintiff may proceed anonymously.

[PosPosPos]

Well to be honest the ability to sue anonymously opens up real bad precedent in the justice system. It isn't something we really want to allow.

Not when it involves underage plaintiffs. Which is generally the law in most, if not all developed and civilized nations for a good reason - to protect them from further harassment and social stigma.

Still waiting on you to say something concrete on what "real bad precedent" means, else I am just going to chalk it up to some asinine attempt at shock value. And no, your borderline obsession to know every detail for whatever unnamed degenerate purpose doesn't count.

[primalmatter]

Simply playing devils advocate. I didn't know that it was done before.

[Hyve]

Aren't they anonymous for the basis that their age is an issue?

The fact is that the Church can demand this all they want because they want to punish the teenagers, but if these two girls were raped at the hand of someone of that Church, then that's a morally disgusting move to make. Punishing someone and making them a social outcast because they were raped... Sounds familiar, oddly familiar to another group of religious nutters on the other side of the world, for which these particular religious nutters often don't get along with on the basis of "My god is the real god"...

Point is, these are young girls who went through a horrific attack. They were rightly protected under two different systems, and it should remain this way.

[wheresmywoft]

Well to be honest the ability to sue anonymously opens up real bad precedent in the justice system. It isn't something we really want to allow.

Eh? they're not suing anonymously. The information is known to the defendant is it not? It is just not public knowledge.

[PosPosPos]

Simply playing devils advocate. I didn't know that it was done before.

"I didn't know the earth was round"

"I didn't know I exist"

"I didn't know that minors are protected by the law in most nations that prohibits any party from revealing their identities"

Tragic regardless of the case that you are just lying or telling the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh? they're not suing anonymously. The information is known to the defendant is it not? It is just not public knowledge.

I know right? It's quite obvious to anyone who have so much as done a little critical thinking of the facts involved.

[Felya]

Why, so you can prove why their anonymity has been deemed to be necessary in the first place?

It's the same as a prosecutor threatening to put a kid on the stand. The goal is to have the family settle, in order to avoid harming the kid.

[Tijuana]

Eh? they're not suing anonymously. The information is known to the defendant is it not? It is just not public knowledge.

Correct. The ability to redress your accuser in court is in the 6th Amendment of the Constitution.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

You don't see a lot of talk about the 6th, and this is the second recent story about it, after the laughable sit-in law that didn't pass congress a couple of weeks ago.

[primalmatter]

"I didn't know the earth was round"

"I didn't know I exist"

"I didn't know that minors are protected by the law in most nations that prohibits any party from revealing their identities"

Tragic regardless of the case that you are just lying or telling the truth.

- - - Updated - - -



I know right? It's quite obvious to anyone who have so much as done a little critical thinking of the facts involved.

O get over yourself. Not everyone knows every countries legal system by the back of their hand.

[Hotmail]

Not surprised in the least considering their history of victim shaming.

http://carloswhittaker.com/2007/04/d...ment-736906217

[Espe]

Clearly the church is just doing god's work

- - - Updated - - -

O get over yourself. Not everyone knows every countries legal system by the back of their hand.

But you knew enough to immediately attack the victims of abuse.

Sounds legit.

[primalmatter]

Not when it involves underage plaintiffs. Which is generally the law in most, if not all developed and civilized nations for a good reason - to protect them from further harassment and social stigma.

Still waiting on you to say something concrete on what "real bad precedent" means, else I am just going to chalk it up to some asinine attempt at shock value. And no, your borderline obsession to know every detail for whatever unnamed degenerate purpose doesn't count.

Clearly the church is just doing god's work

- - - Updated - - -



But you knew enough to immediately attack the victims of abuse.

Sounds legit.

Yes that was clearly a barbed attack...

How is tumblr these days?

[McFuu]

Well to be honest the ability to sue anonymously opens up real bad precedent in the justice system. It isn't something we really want to allow.

I would agree that a plaintiff should lose the right to anonymity if the case they brought to court isn't very strong (ie: they lied or their tale is far grander than what actually occurred.)

But in this case where it seems the Church who hired the defendant is also culpable the anonymity should stand. There is zero need to know who was a victim of the attack, it doesn't change the facts that the attack occurred on church grounds with a sanctioned volunteer whom the church knew had past discretions relating to sexual abuse.

[Milchshake]

I read the Bible a few times. I missed the part where Jesus said to "cast stones at the victims".

Is it even a real church. Or are they just hiding behind tax-exempt status in order to buy gaudy shit?



Maybe god is angry because their cross doesnt have enough neon?

[Deleted]

Correct. The ability to redress your accuser in court is in the 6th Amendment of the Constitution.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Wait up a second. Are you saying that the identities of the victims are not known to the accused? Is it not the case here that they want to publicise the names of victims, whose names were known to the court and the accused, while parts of the proceedings were held, or prepared to be held, in camera? How would such provisions to protect the vulnerable be in violation of the 6th?

[Aori]

Not surprised in the least considering their history of victim shaming.

http://carloswhittaker.com/2007/04/d...ment-736906217

What victim shaming is going on the link? I don't see it. Also history is one event from 5 years ago?

[Kapadons]

Can we keep faith and abolish religions?

The older I get the more cultish they all seem to be.

[Powerogue]

But you have to reveal their identities, so the church can hate and ostracize the girls for daring to speak out against their misdeeds! It takes a lot of effort on the church's part to shelter child molesters, just ask the catholics.