MK forum

@ Gene: just another instance of where GRACE can recommend (as is their right and correct purview) but NTM can either disregard or minimize what was done while allowing those complicit to slither away relatively unscathed.

Why oh why cannot NTM's leadership see that to deal properly with these cases of abuse, they need to go further than simply 3/4 of a mile, but all the way past 2, 3, 4, or 5 miles in their indignation, condemnation, and setting things aright????

I continue to be astounded at their obstinacy, notwithstanding their "trip down south with Cap'n Jack & the Black Pearl" to meet with Bubba and the PO-lice (my goodness, now I'm sounding like OT!)

Scott Ross if you are reading this, we need some sort of explanation for this letter? And if it's truly the way it sounds, then we need you to acknowledge your failure to do what needed to be done. Please take responsibility for how damaging this letter was. I want to believe you were always on the victims side. Please don't let us down. You need to make amends somehow for this.

Agreed. Let's see if Scott responds.

I, for one, wouldn't want to have 80 child abuse allegations put on my desk and try to take care of them. Let alone do so in a community that is not clear on what actually constitutes child abuse. IMHO, Scott has done more than anyone I know to raise the awareness of child abuse and protect victims in NTM. So it seems fair to give him a chance to speak for himself.

OT, answer me this please as a lawyer, "Isn't Scott Ross just doing what a good corporate lawyer should?" Thanks.

It seems to me that even if Scott Ross has 10,000 cases of child abuse on his desk, or even if he was following "protocol" of a good corporate lawyer...

His response was (and maybe 'is'?) still wrong.

And that is the vicious cycle of NTM and how they've dealt with these crimes. Cover themselves legally. Don't reveal more than what's revealed by someone else, then scurry around to try to make it sound nice. Don't go ONE STEP beyond what they have to and instead save themselves, their public image, their good name, and whatever else it is they're trying to save (which, IMVHO, isn't just souls).

Honestly! When Larry and his men went down south to deliver what they did, they knew for sure, 100%, without a doubt that they would not, could not, be prosecuted for anything they were bringing "to light." They didn't put anything on the line.

This letter is just not even worth the paper it's written on. It is beyond unbelievable. It is sickening. I know this sounds ludicrous after all I've written, but... I'm speechless. I can't even think of words to form to say how I really feel about this. And that's the truth.

JerryB, I think you put the nail on the head. Conflict of Interest. OT can correct me if I am wrong. Of what benefit is it to NTM to put anywhere, in any document, that one of their members was abusing a child? An in-house attorney is just that...in-house...he is part of the house...he answers to the people who keep the light bills paid...his job is to protect the house. Do you see now why Fanda MK's needed GRACE? Even if Scott has helped some...his alligiance is to the "house." There is no way he can be objective...even if he wanted to be.

Courageous, your name is so appropriate. I am so sorry you are going through this again! I hope you are feeling validated in your righteous anger and frustrations. ...they really didn't take you seriously...and they were planning on sending that freak back to the mission field...unbelievable!!

Courageous, I love you and I'm so proud of you!

Our dear Courageous, You are a woman of God--His trophy--this undeserving mom can only bow before Him and you. I love you!

Our dear Courageous, You are a woman of God--His trophy--this undeserving mom can only bow before Him and you. I love you!

Antarctica hasn't seen abuse cases solely for the reason that it is unpopulated by humans. I won't touch upon the other perversions talked about in Leviticus. However, I will point out that all such perversions were deserving of death under the Mosaic Code. . . . .


If you want help OT, I'll gladly join as researcher (won't have to do much as it is all documented anyway . . .the paper trail is LONG and detailed!) or strategist. I'll even help conduct the "murder boards" for argumentation purposes.

Momof4 is correct; under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer's first allegiance is to protect the client's interest. Here, Mr. Ross operated first, and foremost, as the attorney for NTM, NOT for the sundry missionaries (or MKs) that were wronged. His job was to look out for the interests of the corporation. Which means, as COURAGEOUS now knows (perhaps she suspected it then), his allegiance was NOT to you. (NOW do we begin to see the blurred lines talked about by Gene Long when NTM desired to operate as a pseudo-church in fact, while taking cover under the umbrella of legalese!?!) However, I would point out that most Rules of Professional Responsibility state that when the client demands/desires the attorney to do that which would be wrong, unethical, or in any way not in keeping with the standards of the profession (yes, attorneys DO have standards!!), then they may either seek permissive withdrawal from representation, or if necessary, mandatorily withdraw (meaning they MUST do so) from representing such a client. If, for example, the client desired to commit perjury and got on the stand to do so, the lawyer who mandatorily withdrew then has the ethical duty to inform the court of the former client's actions.

To my mind, it would appear Mr. Ross violated the spirit, if not the letter, of conduct under the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Even if he is hiding out in Idaho or Timbuktu, he should be reported, in my view, to Florida state bar officials, or to whatever jurisdiction awarded his bar license.

As with OT, I'm still counting! (Jefferson, for all his deistic tendencies, did manage to get quite a few things right . . .the quote, for example, is one.)