Civil suit?

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[DarthVader]

So I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV. I understand that the original claims of abuse are beyond any criminal, and likely civil, statute of limitations...totally get that.

But..in 2018 which, we'd all agree is not beyond ANY statute of limitations, ECC published a tweet in which they totally denied all allegations - specifically "Suzanne was full heard", "mediator was fully satisfied", "gift of $1M" was made.  If it turns out much of that was false (and I'm not presuming it is, but it could be), wouldn't Suzanne have a pretty good case for a civil suit against ECC for 2018 defamation based on those possible public falsehoods? Doesn't ECCs 2018 public denial of the allegations leave them exposed?  All Suzanne has to do is show all the social media posting by ECC supporters (maybe including this site) as evidence that ECCs false statements negatively impacted public perception of her character.  I'd think public social media attacks by JDD would be excellent evidence as well. 

In fact, even if the BOT rules the allegations are false (in fact whether they are declared true or false by the BOT) I'd think Suzanne has a court case because of the 2018 denial, which she could then go to court to prove her abuse claims were true and therefore ECC's 2018 denial is false and therefore defamatory.  Does any one know enough law to know if I have this generally right or totally wrong?  If ECC had just said "we don't know if the claims are true or false" I'd think they'd be off the hook, but no one who read the Feb 5 tweet would read it that way.  It also explains the need for a lawyer with attorney client privilege to be the investigator - otherwise all the material Joan collected could be use by the Van Dyck's attorney in a subsequent civil suit based on the 2018 falsehoods publicly told by ECC and it's employees in their tweet, The Reckoning, etc... 

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Interesting thought. I wonder if you have to prove harm was done.

For me, the most compelling reason to do this would be to subpoena Joan's report.  And as a message to other churches that choosing anything other than transparency could be legally detrimental (ethics aside). 

Your wondering makes me wonder if she could sue them if they declare she was fabricating allegations (or misinterpreting), especially if she has reason to believe Joan's report says otherwise.

Obviously this is based on speculation, which isn't an all together futile exercise.  I think it supports critical thinking and the ability to be proactive rather than reactive.

[DarthVader]

Joan’s report would be protected from subpoena by attorney client privilege. I think..

[Huldah]

Joan’s report would be protected from subpoena by attorney client privilege. I think..

I think you're right.

In a different thread, I had brought up the idea of the report being subpoenaed, but I was forgetting Joan's attorney-client privilege with the ECC.

But I wonder who is technically the client with the privilege? Is it the BOT? The pastors? The church as a whole? Just who holds the privilege of seeing the report? If church funds were used to pay for the report, then couldn't a case be made that the report belongs to the entire church?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, either.

[Greentruth]

DV? And even if what you say is true, which it isn’t to my memory, what good is this kind of talk at this point?   Law suit? Run Suzanne through another hurtful episode of WHAT, for what?  A lot of nothingover nothing, again. And some wonder why the word gossip is used here.

[Badger]

https://www.laborandemploymentlawcounsel.com/2017/08/got-privilege-when-it-comes-to-internal-investigations-think-again/

Interesting read.  Thought you might find it interesting.

[DarthVader]

Wow. Good read. Attorney client privilege has more holes than I thought!  Thanks!

[Badger]

"In other words, by publicly releasing the report, WMATA had only waived privilege on the subject matters that were actually contained in the public report." - from the above reference.

To me, this is another reason I would not be surprised to see ECC BOT not include found information in the report to the congregation.  It becomes a limit your legal liability issue.  It is morally wrong, in my opinion, for a church and its board to cover up potential sin and abuse while mitigating their legal liability.  But church after church has found it palatable to act in this way.  We'll have to wait to find out how ECC BOTs does.  I hope they have as much integrity and character as many of you have voices; I really do.

[Badger]

Wow. Good read. Attorney client privilege has more holes than I thought!  Thanks!

Right back at you.  I really appreciated the article you posted on Hebrews 13.

[OneOfMany]

https://www.laborandemploymentlawcounsel.com/2017/08/got-privilege-when-it-comes-to-internal-investigations-think-again/

Interesting read.  Thought you might find it interesting.

If I understand this correctly, the Attorney telling Suzanne that she has the letter/s has the result of making those items public. They are no longer protected under attorney client privilege.

[DarthVader]

I wonder if ECC thinks they have no liability because of statute of limitations. But I would argue ECC’s feb 5 tweet creates 2018 liability. I found that tweet offensive without knowing the truth of it. - if it was untrue, it becomes malicious, especially in an official church communication. The subsequent backlash against Suzanne in social media is clear proof of reputational impact she suffered. If her claims are largely proven true she is due recompense in my view.

[Badger]

I wonder if ECC thinks they have no liability because of statute of limitations. But I would argue ECC’s feb 5 tweet creates 2018 liability. I found that tweet offensive without knowing the truth of it. - if it was untrue, it becomes malicious, especially in an official church communication. The subsequent backlash against Suzanne in social media is clear proof of reputational impact she suffered. If her claims are largely proven true she is due recompense in my view.

I would agree.  I hadn't thought about that angle until your brought it up earlier.  The statement is potentially libel and  of defamation of character.

[HughHoney]

Who is responsible for the ECC tweet?

[DarthVader]

I heard Mark Bowen primarily.  I wonder if they ran it by their attorney first? If not that could be a costly mistake.

[DarthVader]

BTW, Suzanne's FB post today seems to settle that there is either no or limited attorney client privilege. I was hard on ECC using an attorney because I was thinking they would use attorney client privilege to protect the results of the investigation, but this seems not to be the case, which means I may have been unnecessarily hard on ECC.

Quote from SVD FB page - "However, it was interesting to note that during our face-to-face meeting she said that if the other victims and I were to ever sue EC, she could not represent EC or us victims. At that point she would be a witness that has evidence"

[Huldah]

I took Suzanne's post to mean that there is privilege: " A day or so after meeting with Joan, I called to ask her how I could get a copy. She said because they were not turned in by me she could not give them to me as she was hired by the EC BOT and they would "belong" to them."

To a non-lawyer like me, it's all a bit murky.

Didn't Suzanne say something back when the investigation began, about asking Joan whether there was privilege? And didn't Joan tell her that privilege applied? I don't have time to look through thousands of posts but I seem to recall this. Anybody else remember this?

[DarthVader]

If Joan has attorney client privilege, then she could definitely not be a witness..(in my non-lawyer law opinion)

btw - for those interested, Statute of Limitations in MN below (it varies by cause of action).

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/minnesota/minnesota-statutes-of-limitations.html

Assault and battery: 2 years
Contract (oral or in writing): 4 years or 6 years
False imprisonment: 2 years
Fraud: 6 years
Legal malpractice: 6 years
Libel: 2 years
Medical malpractice: 4 years
Personal injury: 2 years)
Product liability: 4 years
Property damage: 6 years
Slander: 2 years
Trespass: 6 years
Wrongful death: 3 years

[Greentruth]

What you people are trying to paint here could be a best selling who done it novel.  It’s a beautiful weekend, get out, enjoy family and pay tribute to our veterans.   But I guess some have a higher priority here. Enough, off to the lake! Happy bloviating!

[DarthVader]

Thank you for not saying Caterwauling..I have to sand decks later so this is a good way to procrastinate (in addition to Caterwauling at the same time) 

[Linda]

Not an attorney, but I took it to mean that if there was some type of class action lawsuit, it could be subpoenaed as evidence, but it would require legal action. She just can’t hand it over if asked. Maybe I misunderstood.