View Full Version : Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co is funding to protect pedophile for profit.

01-12-2011, 10:02 PM
Boy Scouts argue perversion files should be secret


By NIGEL DUARA, Associated Press Tue Jan 11, 5:12 pm ET

SALEM, Ore. An attorney for the Boy Scouts of America told the Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday that 20 years worth of so-called "perversion files" should be kept secret despite a trial judge's order to open them.

Robert Aldisert said in oral arguments that a Multnomah County judge abused his discretion when he ruled to open the files.

That launched an exchange between Aldisert and Justice Robert D. Durham, who questioned whether there was a "logical stopping point" to Aldisert's argument that the judge overstepped his bounds.

"Where is the line?" Durham said. Aldisert said the answer was to treat every case individually.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge John Wittmayer had ruled the Boy Scouts' ineligible volunteer files, from 1965 to 1985, could be used in court, and in June, he ruled that they should be opened to the public. The Boy Scouts of America appealed and the files have remained sealed pending the legal review.

The files keep track of suspected pedophiles and others who violate the Boy Scouts of America's rules in an effort to keep them from volunteering again.

The circuit court said 1,247 files could be released, of which more than 1,000 involve allegations of child abuse. The only other time the documents are believed to have been presented at a trial was in the 1980s in Virginia.

A lawyer for news organizations suing to release the records, including The Associated Press, argued the judge acted correctly. Charles Hinkle said anything introduced in court should be considered a public record.

"Once something is admitted into evidence, that becomes part of the public's business," Hinkle said.

The news organizations intervened on behalf of six plaintiffs, who sued the Boy Scouts, the organization's Cascade Pacific Council and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for sex abuse they suffered by an assistant Scoutmaster in the 1980s.

The media organizations filed a petition with the Oregon Supreme Court that argued for the release of the files without a review and asked for the files in unredacted form.

The Boy Scouts also petitioned the state Supreme Court, challenging the release of the files. The Scouts argue that opening the files could unfairly affect those who are named in the files but were never convicted of abuse, as well as prejudice potential jurors in future trials. They face at least two more lawsuits.

The Supreme Court combined the media and Boy Scouts petitions.

A coalition of crime-victim advocates and abuse survivors networks argued in a brief that the release of the files will help society recognize and prevent abuse, but it argued against the media companies' request to include the names of the alleged victims.

A trade association that represents major multinationals including Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co. has argued in a brief that the court should rule for the Boy Scouts. A ruling against them, the association argues, would leave no judicial protection of trade secrets and make companies afraid to do business in Oregon.


01-13-2011, 12:51 PM
Companies doing business in Oregon have nothing to fucking fear about their trade secrets being exposed if they are doing business LAWFULLY in Oregon UNLESS those same trade secrets are part of a legal action and are introduced in court.



01-13-2011, 01:50 PM
There are two ways of looking at this. In the first, the case could set a legal precedent that could be further used to explore other cases of abuse on a grand scale, such as within the Catholic church. In the second, and certainly more dangerous case, you have to know exactly how in depth these allegations of abuse were investigated, and by whom. What if, in certain situations, the allegations by the claimant were untrue, manufactured or merely unproven? It would not be the first time that someone with an agenda (be it enraged parents, prosecutors or psychiatrists working with them, or even an embittered acquaintance with an ax to grind) had persecuted an individual under false pretense.

01-13-2011, 02:09 PM
The real point should be about releasing the names of the victims. Specifically the names of victims that were not part of a sexual abuse claim. Many would be adults now.

01-13-2011, 02:22 PM
The real point should be about releasing the names of the victims. Specifically the names of victims that were not part of a sexual abuse claim. Many would be adults now.

That makes spectacularly little, if any sense. How can someone be a victim of record if they never filed a claim?

01-13-2011, 03:30 PM
Boy Scouts' ineligible volunteer files <- includes more than just pedophiles. There are many reasons that a person may be ineligible volunteer.

• C-Criminal (murderers, robbers and such)

• F-Financial (thieves who steal from the Scouts or others)

• M-Moral (gays banned from Scouting)

• L-Leadership (bad-tempered or mean volunteers)

• R-Religious (atheists or agnostics banned from Scouting)

• P-Perversion (pedophilia, rape, child pornography, public lewdness and other sex-related crimes or incidents)

Sexual abuse victims have protection, but the cubs and scouts that informed, took part in, or witnessed other disqualifying circumstances such as theft or"ill-temper" would not enjoy the protection given to sexual abuse victims.


Allow me to reword your statement, so it is not as hostile toward me. :)

"That makes spectacularly little, if any sense. How can someone be a victim of record if they never filed a claim?"

"How can someone be a victim of record if they never filed a claim?"

01-13-2011, 03:38 PM
Here is a lengthy article that covers more information.

The files should be opened, at the very least to academia.

Boy Scouts officials shield their 'perversion files' used to vet volunteers
By Associated Press

Published September 16th, 2010


01-13-2011, 03:46 PM
How does any of that deal with the totally incomprehensible statement you posted, that the names of the victims should be released, regardless of the fact that they never reported the instances of abuse, so therefore gathering a list of their names would be utterly impossible? :duh:

01-13-2011, 03:52 PM
Is there some sort of reason why you are being so hostile toward me?

Not all abuse claims are sexual in nature.

Not all claims (in the files) are abuse related.

01-13-2011, 04:05 PM
I give up, forget it. http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/confused/stupid.gif (http://freesmileyface.net/free-confused-smileys.html)

01-13-2011, 04:06 PM
i love lamp