MK forum

After months of no answers to our questions about why NTM refused to move forward with GRACE in conducting further investigations of MK abuse, we may finally have our explanation.

These reasons may be found in an article which may be read in full at: http://www.rothgerber.com/files/10368_AreProtestantMinistriesaNewMarket.pdf
Be sure to read the footnotes also. They are an important part of the picture.

This article is entitled "Are Protestant Ministries a New Market? Lessons Learned from the Catholic Sexual Abuse Scandal".

It's authors are L. Martin Nussbaum and Theresa Lynn Sidebotham. According to the note at the end of the article, "Mr. Nussbaum and Ms. Sidebotham are attorneys in the Colorado Springs office of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP. They represent religious institutions nationwide."

The point of the article seems to be summarized in the first paragraph, part of which I quote:

"This article offers ministry leaders lessons from the Catholic sexual abuse scandal. These lessons are more necessary than ever as the dramatically declining settlements from Catholic institutions push plaintiffs' attorneys to develop new markets including Boy Scouts, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, some Protestant denominations, and missionary sending organizations. The Catholic prequel shapes allegations now surfacing against Protestant boarding schools. As the attack against Protestant ministries accelerates,some could face a threat of the magnitude that bankrupted eight Catholic dioceses and two Catholic religious orders." (bold-facing added for effect)

I may run up against space limitations, so I will continue my tirade in a new post to follow.

Nussbaum and Sidebotham?????
Did someone make that up?
Like Charles Dickens.
Come back, OT!
Think of the possibilities.

The article is lengthy, but for its full effect, you should read it. However, in amongst the 21 pages of save-the-Christian-organization fervor, pages 18-19 contain ten objections these two attorneys have to the "problematic investigation" that GRACE did of the horrific abuses suffered by numerous MKs and their families at NTM's school in Fanda, Senegal.

More from the article:

"Even organizations that do good work advising regarding child abuse prevention may not have the sophistication and background to do an investigation that adequately addresses all values, including potential litigation. The 2010 GRACE Final Report for the Investigatory Review of Child Abuse at New Tribes Fanda Missionary School, published on the internet, is an example of a problematic investigation.

We question its approach on the following points:

 The investigators attempted to contact every member of a large group (such as students at a missionary boarding school) without regard to whether some had chosen not to come forward for their own legitimate reasons. This process risked re-injuring persons who, for a variety reasons, wished not to participate in questions about their sexual past. Some
may have wished not to be reminded of abuse they may have suffered from a perpetrator entirely unrelated to the ministry.

 The report, discussing numerous sensitive personnel issues and naming specific employees, was released simultaneously to the board and the general public. A board should receive such a report confidentially and then decide whether the values in play are best served by public announcements.

 The report does not critically evaluate suspect types of evidence, such as repressed memory.

 The report uses theological shaming language as support for its conclusions, rather than being strictly fact-based. New Tribes had done its own investigation in 1997, so this investigation revisited the situation.

 The report conflates common psychological issues common to missionary life with abuse.

 It publishes names of the accused offenders and details of what they supposedly did without any consideration of due process.

 It usurps management's prerogative by publishing its own recommendations for specific disciplinary actions for alleged offenders.

 It usurps the board's spiritual authority by publicly making its own spiritual evaluations, personnel decisions, and practical recommendations.

 It announces that the organization owes the claimants large sums of money and publicly recommends that the organization set aside a stated sum for victims and their families.

 It proposed that victims bring financial claims against the organization and that the organization waive its statutes of limitation defense.

It is no surprise that this mission in this report has been sued. In May 2011, one of the leading abuse plaintiffs' attorneys, Jeffrey Herman, filed a lawsuit against New Tribes Mission and stated that there may be many more to come."


Okay. One or two objections to GRACE's methods I might have been okay with. But TEN of them????

CAN WE SPELL (SMELL) COLLUSION???

Attention Pat Hendrix:

Are you about to begin to think about contacting the MKs from the first NTM school you might be thinking about maybe investigating for NTM, who signs your paychecks?

Before you do, this article is a MUST-READ for you!

http://www.rothgerber.com/files/10368_AreProtestantMinistriesaNewMarket.pdf

Pay close attention to the TEN things that GRACE did wrong, as listed so comprehensively on pages 18-19.

As you think about maybe beginning the job you were hired to do, you must be extremely cautious so that you do not in any way commit any one of the grave offenses listed in that article.

But rest assured, even if you manage to sidestep every one of those dangerous pot holes, Nussbaum and Sidebotham will be watching your every move, and who knows? Someday they may be publishing an article about you!!

Don't warn anyone, Raz.
They can find out for themselves.
We heard this line from NTM employees 2 months ago.
That's what they were being told by "leaders."
BevST, we are waiting to hear from you.
OT, we need a Community Organizer. (Remember that one?)
You can find a 3rd name.
Do a billboard search.
You must be rested up by now.
Come on part time.

The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards that States must incorporate in their statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect. CAPTA's definition of child abuse and neglect is:

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm" (bolded for emphasis)

So psychological problems resulting from the above are not a crime or abuse because they are "common" to the missionary lifestyle?

I CALL B@#$ S&^%!!!!!!

Some of Atty. L. Martin Nussbaum's qualifications for writing the article defending Christian organizations and missions can be found on his bio page of the Rothgerber Law Firm.

http://www.rothgerber.com/showbio.aspx?Show=309

Among the cases he has successfully defended on behalf of Christian clergy and organizations are these:

Connecticut House Bill 5473 (led team for Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference and testified at March 2010 Joint Judiciary Committee hearing to defeat bill retroactively reviving time barred childhood sexual abuse claims against Catholic and other non-governmental institutions).

Colorado House Bill 1090 and Colorado Senate Bill 143 (analysis, testimony, strategy, and public relations assistance for the Colorado Catholic Conference in defeating a series of bills proposed in the 2006 session of the Colorado General Assembly that would have the effect of extending or eliminating statutes of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims against Catholic and other institutions).

Melanie H. v. Doe 1, U.S. D.C. - San Diego, Case No. 04CV1596 (WQH (WMC)) (consultant in constitutional challenge against California S.B. 1779 which suspended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims targeting Catholic institutions).

James M. Hogan v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston (Case No. 02-1296H, Suffolk County Superior Court, Massachusetts 2003) (advocacy for Archdiocese of Boston, Bernard Cardinal Law, and more than 20 other church representatives invoking First Amendment to challenge court's jurisdiction to determine a "reasonably prudent bishop" standard in sexual misconduct cases filed by 360 plaintiffs).

Colorado Senate Bill 210 (persuading Colorado legislature on behalf of Protestant Coalition to substantially narrow scope of effort to make clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect).

Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 121 F.Supp. 2d 1327 (D. Colo. 2000), aff'd, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002) (dismissing of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims of youth minister and her partner because Doctrine of Church Autonomy deprives civil courts of jurisdiction to hear such claims; also, Episcopal judge need not recuse himself because of his religion).

Look what we're up against, friends.

Where, oh where is Ornery Thornery when we need him???

The spiritual authority needed usurping!!!! That's why it was so great! Well, one of the reasons . . .I'm not feeling very rational . . .

This should come as a surprise to no one. It should disgust everyone. Sadly, it probably surprises many, disgusts few.

Casting legal action in "market" terms is ludicrous, and (as no doubt intended) detracts from the real issue. Without acquiescing to such distractions, I will take the time to point out that L. Martin Nussbaum, Esq. and Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. are not involved in defending protestant ministers and ministries for purely altruistic reasons; they are making money at it, too.

Another tactic clearly being employed is mixing in indisputable facts with unsubstantiated conclusions. For example, every fair minded person will acknowledge that sexual abuse among Catholic clergy, while highly publicized, is not exclusive to that sect, nor is it characteristic of all their clergy. This is true, but is entirely beside the point of the abuse that has occurred in NTM settings and, more importantly, been covered up and lied about.

"I'm bad, but someone else is worse, so I'm OK." That's what these people are trying to say. It is not just unconvincing, it is insulting to anyone who thinks, and doubly so to victims, who have been told long enough and often enough, that they are really the ones to blame.

Nussbaum and Sidebotham sound like literate Red Barrens. . .

Hi......Lara here again. This post was originally posted under "Irritable and Angry." Raz asked me to post it again here. I haven't posted often and I am not great with PC technology so.........hope this works. And Raz, you are welcome. Several SIM MK's are thinking about drafting a letter to this law firm because of the vicious attack against NTM MK's and the work GRACE did..............this hits really close to home for all abused...........especially MK's!!


The following, very lengthy discourse is in response to the article "Are Protestant Ministries a New Market? Lessons Learned from the Catholic Sexual Abuse Scandal." I am a SIM MK and I have only posted once or twice on this site but have followed your struggles closely. Due to this blog, a friend of mine created a blog for SIM MK abuse and she often writes her perspective on issues that are prevalent with respect to what NTM and other mission MK's are going through. She and I were so angered by this article, that I called their office yesterday and actually spoke to one of the co-authors, Theresa Sidebotham. Needless to say, I let her "have it" and she probably wished she had not picked up the phone. With the permission of my MK friend who wrote the following and posted on the SIM blog, I have sent it to the authors of the article and I plan on calling the lead attorney this afternoon.

I hope you will take the time to read her response and know that your stories, as well as those MK's abused by other missions are taken seriously by many. I was abused physically, emotionally, and verbally but not sexually. I have spent the past three years fighting for a friend who was very seriously wounded sexually and whose abuser confessed to me but we have gotten nowhere with this issue.

Just wanted you all to know that we all have our stories, and while you were with a different mission and have suffered terribly, you are supported by MK's from other missions and we are standing by you in your struggles for justice and compassion!



The law firm Rothgerber Johnson & Lyon recently published an article titled Are Protestant Ministries a New Market? Lessons Learned from the Catholic Sexual Abuse Scandal. This authors are L. Martin Nussbaum, primary contact for the Religious Institutions Group, and Theresa Lynn Dixon Sidebotham, formerly an MK in Indonesia. This article discusses child abuse in the Catholic church, in Protestant religious groups (including mission boarding schools) and in government settings such as schools and juvenile facilities. I am responding to his statements about MK abuse, which show a lack of understanding of MK issues, in spite of the fact that an MK is named as an author.
The authors state that sexual abuse lawsuits against religious organizations come in waves, and reasons that these waves are a result of marketing by lawyers in order to expand their business, since settlement amounts for Catholic plaintiffs are dropping off. There might be lawyers doing this, but there are other explanations for the wave of allegations being brought forward by MKs. Demographics alone can explain it. During the 60s and 70s, boarding school attendance was at its highest numbers, and this is when much of the abuse occurred as well, at least in SIM schools. The MKs from that time are just now reaching a point in their life where they feel safe reporting the abuse, or when they can no longer ignore the effects it has had on their lives. You can read more about this in my post Delayed Disclosure of Abuse on the Mission Field. The internet, and social networks such as Facebook and Twitter are also playing a big role, as MKs are becoming aware that they are not the only ones who suffered from abuse, and are being empowered by each other to tell their stories. It is easy to do this today, to a world-wide audience, in a way that the mission cannot edit or censor. The fact is that most MKs present their stories to the mission first, sometimes for a long time without results. When an investigation is opened it is done by an independent panel, not in the courts. Lawsuits are more of a last resort with MKs, so the wave of stories coming out today is hardly the result of influence by marketing lawyers.
The authors state that the "theory of repressed memories is junk science. The almost universal human experience is that traumatic events are more memorable, not less." I am not a psychotherapist, but then neither are either of these authors. What is passed off as a factual statement is based on the work of Elizabeth Loftus, in The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse (1996). Elizabeth Loftus' theories are just that - theories - which have been highly criticized by some of her colleagues and labeled as inconclusive, abstract, and invalid. Her main argument for her theories is that there are no controlled scientific experiments to prove that repressed memories actually exist.
I disagree with the statement that it is universal human experience that traumatic events are more memorable. I know many MKs, including myself, with huge memory gaps and fuzzy memory. Memory loss is a natural survival skill, a coping mechanism and sometimes I believe it is a gift from God. Memories can resurface when you are ready to process them, or can be triggered by an event or a sensation, causing severe symptoms such as PTSD. Dissociative amnesia is inability to recall important personal information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature. For more information on studies in this area see Jim Hopper's page on Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse. I have to make clear here that the abuse stories I know of at SIM schools are not the "fuzzy" type, they are clear memories that can be corroborated by several MKs.
The article states that "Some allegations of abuse in missionary boarding schools conflate actual abuse with typical MK issues, or confuse the two. Most MKs have feelings of disorientations, dislocation, abandonment, and rejection, whether or not they attended a boarding school....These experiences, though painful, were often not abusive, but an outcome of a particular choice of lifestyle and occupation by the parents. For a missionary child to face a boarding school separation is no more abusive than for military children to have their fathers sent to Iraq for a year.
Really! Do these people think that we can't tell the difference between homesickness and rape? No one is bringing allegations of disorientation or abandonment and trying to pass them off as abuse. Sure, the separation was a root cause of the problem, because if the parents had been present the perpetrators would not have had their power, however the real issue here is rape of children by staff, rape of children by other children, severe punishments and humiliations inflicted on children by dorm parents and teachers.
The article cites the documentary "All God's Children" as an example, stating that "it appears to assume that growing up as an MK is abusive by definition." I am flabbergasted by this statement - did they actually watch the movie? Are they suggesting that the event at Mamou were a normal part of growing up as an MK, and not abuse?
The article states "Some investigators assume the guilt of the organization and the truth of every claimant's report. Many accusations are true, but a substantial percentage are exaggerated or untrue." There are two things wrong with this statement. The first is that all the investigation reports I have read showed meticulous research by the investigators, interviewing and corroborating all of the allegations. In fact in the Mamou investigation one perpetrator was never named because only one victim would testify against him, and he was still employed by the mission. Secondly, it is insulting and unsubstantiated to say that a large percentage of claims are exaggerated or untrue. Although many of the statements made in this article are cited in footnotes, this one is not. I can only assume it is a personal opinion without any factual basis, and it certainly shows a derogatory attitude towards abused MKs.
This article takes the GRACE organization to task for several reasons, and I disagree with a few of their points, but one of the most important is their statement that "The report, discussing numerous sensitive personnel issues and naming specific employees, was released simultaneously to the board and the general public. A board should receive such a report confidentially and then decide whether the values in play are best served by public announcements." According to this article, the mission board should be able to decide what to do with the results of an investigation. This exact situation happened with the Mamou investigation. The investigating panel handed the results over to the mission, who refused to release parts of the report, even to the MKs who were victims! The MKs felt like they were being further victimized by this withholding of information. It is just more of the same behaviour that brought these problems about in the first place - the secrecy surrounding abuse. It is WRONG to keep information about abusers a secret, because it creates an environment where victims think they are the only ones suffering, and are reluctant to come forward. It shelters the perpetrators and allows them to keep on committing these crimes. A mission board that receives a report confidentially and then withholds information from victims and the public is just continuing to participate in the cover-up.
The article ends with a few open-ended questions. "Is there a moral statute of limitation for the person who offended 30 years earlier, reformed his life, and provided good ministry without blemish thereafter?" No, there is no moral statute of limitations! This law office should know that sexual abusers do not just strike once, they abuse over and over again, and most likely that perpetrator did not have a ministry without blemish.
Does it matter whether the boundary violation with a child was slight or severe? NO! This is a call that can only be made by the victim themselves. It would be presumptuous for the mission or a lawyer to tell a victim that their abuse was only "slight".
What does the forgiveness preached by the ministry mean when it comes to disciplining a perpetrator? The ministry often preaches a skewed message of forgiveness, meant to keep the victim quiet by telling them to forgive and forget. Are these authors implying that victims should be forgiving their abusers and not asking that they be held accountable? See the Thoughts on Forgiveness in the pages on this blog.
This article concludes by saying "We hope that this paper might help facilitate such learning. The risks are great. Now is the time to prepare." These lawyers are drawing the battle lines for missions who wish to protect themselves against an onslaught of sexual abuse lawsuits. Advice like this will only make missions even more secretive, more cautious and protective of themselves, and less willing to listen to abused MKs and to help them. In spite of having their own MK on staff (who may or may not have attended a boarding school), it is clear that these authors don't know or understand abused MKs and their issues.
Mission, and especially SIM, seem much more concerned about the legal defense of their resources and their reputations than they are about helping MKs who were abused by their own staff.[/b]