Re: New here

[Guest guest]

I'll forgo that and go down the road of " I'll be ignoring any further posts

from you on the grounds that you seem to be an " everybody hates LSR "

paranoid.

------Original Message-----

-From: Steve Snyder

- " Mona calling backup. "

-Steve

[Guest guest]

I'll forgo that and go down the road of " I'll be ignoring any further posts

from you on the grounds that you seem to be an " everybody hates LSR "

paranoid.

------Original Message-----

-From: Steve Snyder

- " Mona calling backup. "

-Steve

[Guest guest]

I'll forgo that and go down the road of " I'll be ignoring any further posts

from you on the grounds that you seem to be an " everybody hates LSR "

paranoid.

------Original Message-----

-From: Steve Snyder

- " Mona calling backup. "

-Steve

[Guest guest]

Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything even resembling "AA without God." !!!!!!!!

Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have that, you don't have an XA step group.

Quite exactly! The Steps are the sine qua non of AA, and LSR ain't got no friggin' steps! We prohibit religious proselytizing at our meetings or in any other official LSR venue. Further, we are all about **self-empowerment**, and would tell someone they are "powerless" over a substance at about the same time Bill Clinton becomes a celibate monk.

I remain completely astonished that Ken Ragge, of all people, cannot see these obvious and fundamental distinctions, and understand that calling LSR AA -- with or without ANYTHING -- is beyond absurd. That accusation makes sense *only* if one thinks a support group that adheres to abstinence is akin to AA.

I honestly think Ken knows better, and that he is trapped trying to defend some ill-considered hyperbole. Just because Nicolaus said some things about Ken's book -- crticisms I do not even entirely share -- is not a good reason to attack the entire organization.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything even resembling "AA without God." !!!!!!!!

Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have that, you don't have an XA step group.

Quite exactly! The Steps are the sine qua non of AA, and LSR ain't got no friggin' steps! We prohibit religious proselytizing at our meetings or in any other official LSR venue. Further, we are all about **self-empowerment**, and would tell someone they are "powerless" over a substance at about the same time Bill Clinton becomes a celibate monk.

I remain completely astonished that Ken Ragge, of all people, cannot see these obvious and fundamental distinctions, and understand that calling LSR AA -- with or without ANYTHING -- is beyond absurd. That accusation makes sense *only* if one thinks a support group that adheres to abstinence is akin to AA.

I honestly think Ken knows better, and that he is trapped trying to defend some ill-considered hyperbole. Just because Nicolaus said some things about Ken's book -- crticisms I do not even entirely share -- is not a good reason to attack the entire organization.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything even resembling "AA without God." !!!!!!!!

Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have that, you don't have an XA step group.

Quite exactly! The Steps are the sine qua non of AA, and LSR ain't got no friggin' steps! We prohibit religious proselytizing at our meetings or in any other official LSR venue. Further, we are all about **self-empowerment**, and would tell someone they are "powerless" over a substance at about the same time Bill Clinton becomes a celibate monk.

I remain completely astonished that Ken Ragge, of all people, cannot see these obvious and fundamental distinctions, and understand that calling LSR AA -- with or without ANYTHING -- is beyond absurd. That accusation makes sense *only* if one thinks a support group that adheres to abstinence is akin to AA.

I honestly think Ken knows better, and that he is trapped trying to defend some ill-considered hyperbole. Just because Nicolaus said some things about Ken's book -- crticisms I do not even entirely share -- is not a good reason to attack the entire organization.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I've already explained it but I'll do so again on the grounds that you may

actually be listening now.

The intent of your original message read " TO ME " as though

you felt you needed support here (support about what or for what is

irrelevant to the point) which I found odd because I viewed you as a strong

individual {{{{{in need of no assistance [hence the odd part] }}}}} to hold

your own either here or anywhere. Your subsequent postings concerning your

opinions about the nature of this list's members have only served to

strengthen my opinion of my initial read of that comment. Since then, and

going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view that

original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as

you claim.

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

Then what did you mean in asking me about bringing in " back-up " ? If LSR/SOS

has nothing to do with your views, then what was that all about?

[Guest guest]

I've already explained it but I'll do so again on the grounds that you may

actually be listening now.

The intent of your original message read " TO ME " as though

you felt you needed support here (support about what or for what is

irrelevant to the point) which I found odd because I viewed you as a strong

individual {{{{{in need of no assistance [hence the odd part] }}}}} to hold

your own either here or anywhere. Your subsequent postings concerning your

opinions about the nature of this list's members have only served to

strengthen my opinion of my initial read of that comment. Since then, and

going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view that

original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as

you claim.

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

Then what did you mean in asking me about bringing in " back-up " ? If LSR/SOS

has nothing to do with your views, then what was that all about?

[Guest guest]

I've already explained it but I'll do so again on the grounds that you may

actually be listening now.

The intent of your original message read " TO ME " as though

you felt you needed support here (support about what or for what is

irrelevant to the point) which I found odd because I viewed you as a strong

individual {{{{{in need of no assistance [hence the odd part] }}}}} to hold

your own either here or anywhere. Your subsequent postings concerning your

opinions about the nature of this list's members have only served to

strengthen my opinion of my initial read of that comment. Since then, and

going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view that

original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as

you claim.

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

Then what did you mean in asking me about bringing in " back-up " ? If LSR/SOS

has nothing to do with your views, then what was that all about?

[Guest guest]

This came off a link I got from tommyperkins email for:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-Step_Coercion_Watch

the text of the entire document is beautifully written, but I found the exerpt I snipped to apply to what Mona and ken et al. are talking about as far as coercion...

The entire document (PDF) can be found: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+785

happy reading,

lisak

Cited: 47 Duke L. J. 785[*pg 785]

RELIGION AND REHABILITATION: THE REQUISITION OF GOD BY THE STATE

DEREK P. APANOVITCH

>>snip...

A. Right-Privilege Distinction

Under the old "right-privilege" distinction, the Due Process Clause applied only when the government took an individual's prop- [*pg 848] erty or invaded his bodily integrity.352 When the government denied an individual benefits such as employment or welfare, the Due Process Clause was inapplicable.353 This "tough-minded distinction between constitutionally protected rights and unprotected governmental privileges" bludgeoned constitutional claims associated with governmental largess.354 In 1970, the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. 355 rejected the right-privilege distinction. In Goldberg, the Court extended procedural safeguards to government benefits in order to protect recipients from unwarranted termination or denial of such benefits.356 The majority opinions in O'Connor and , and the dissents in Warner III and come perilously close to resurrecting the repudiated right-privilege distinction. An underlying but not fully articulated rationale for judges to find mandatory AA programs constitutional is the justification that the greater power to withhold a benefit includes the lesser power to condition its receipt, regardless of whether the conditions impact constitutionally protected rights.357 For example, the State of New York could do away with family visitation programs entirely and all inmates would lose the benefit of family visits. If New York decides to keep the family visitation program in place, the "greater-includes-the-lesser" rationale allows the State to condition participation in the visitation program on participation [*pg 849] in a rehabilitation program based on AA. The prisoner's price of enjoying the benefits of the program is, in effect, the surrender of constitutional rights.

B. The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions

The right-privilege distinction had been criticized long before its ultimate rejection. In 1926, Justice Sutherland wrote what has become the most familiar presentation of the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, the approach to government benefits that eventually superseded the right-privilege distinction: It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold.358

No case thus far considering AA as a probation condition or requirement for prisoner privileges has examined the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions as a grounds to declare state-imposed AA participation as unconstitutional. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine, however, captures nicely the dynamic of the unequal bargaining relationship between the government and an AA participant and can serve to protect constitutional liberties from government encroachment via indirect methods.359 The doctrine requires that "government may not grant a benefit on the condition that the beneficiary surrender a constitutional right, even if the government may withhold that benefit altogether."360 In Mc v. Paty,361 Justice [*pg 850] Brennan applied this idea to a Free Exercise claim and stated that "government may not use religion as a basis of classification for the imposition of duties, penalties, privileges or benefits."362 In the context of this Note, the "benefits" withheld include visitation rights, parole, or continued freedom from incarceration; the "right" surrendered is the liberty to worship or not worship a God according to the dictates of one's own conscience. The prison authorities cannot force an inmate to attend a Catholic Mass or a Jewish service; nor can they do so indirectly by offering a reduced sentence to the inmate who attends such services. Once the determination is made that AA is a religion the outcome for mandatory AA programs under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions is ineluctable: the government cannot induce AA participation through the provision of benefits to those who participate.363 Moral philosopher Nozick abstracts the effect of a coercive proposal on the weaker party in an exchange: If the alternatives among which Q must choose are intentionally changed by P, and P made this change in order to get Q to do A, and before the change Q would not have chosen (and would have been unwilling to choose) to have the change made (and after it's made, Q would prefer that it hadn't been made), and before the change was made Q wouldn't have chosen to do A, and after the change is made Q does A, then Q's choice to do A is not fully his own.364

Viewed in this light, wardens and judges who condition benefits on participation in AA programs are making religious choices for their charges, a role that the state cannot assume. The government, knowingly or not, is using its monopoly over the selection and provision of benefits in the prison and probation systems to channel inmates and probationers into religious programs. Harm is not done just to those brave or resourceful enough to assert their rights but also to the untold number who feel they have little choice but to comply.

Re: New here

OK. You are opposed to coerced attendance at "recovery" meetings but you are in favor of it. That's right Ken, kind of like I'm in favor of denying people the right to carry weapons if they are convicted violent felons, or on probation or parole. Or just like I am in favor of locking people up in cells, if they are convicted violent criminals. One loses some rights when one is a convicted criminal. It does not follow, however, that I favor coercion for non-criminals. Do you believe the state should not be permitted to punish criminals, Ken? >>It is reasonable for those who commit crimes to not commit crimes without more severe sanctions while on parole. Is the state entitled? It certainly has the power, but in my book might doesn't make right.<< You display a fundamental ignorance of what parole is. A parolee's ass belongs to the state, which is entitled to keep him/her locked up. If they are good risks, the state lets them out upon certain conditions, conditions it imposes until the expiration of the full sentence. Which is worse, Ken, sitting in a cell with Bubba, or being let out but having to check in with one's PO, stay clean and sober, and attend recovery meetings? The state has the *right to impose either scenario, during the length of the sentence. Duh. But see below. >>You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group<< As a condition of probation or parole, yes. But see below. >>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, language and world view.<< Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to stay sober. >> I don't think that is okay at all, but since you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step doctrine without God<< I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous to AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe anything you want in LSR. The only thing you cannot do is proselytize for the use of mood-altering substances. So, is that what bothers you about LSR, the abstinence doctrine? >> can only be because LSR is an abstinence-based program just as the Steppers are sure anyone who is critical of them is just because they want to drink. Am I reading you correctly?<< And here is what I mean about see below: ****LSR has no position on whether criminals on parole or probation -- whose liberty is properly in the hands of the state -- are properly required to attend its meetings.**** Everything I have said about that is my own opinion. So, what is your reason for objecting to LSR, given that your purported objection is based solely on my personal opinion, and not on LSR policy or doctrine? In light of the fact that you have conflated my personal opinion for LSR policy, how is LSR "AA without God"? Hmm? --Mona--

[Guest guest]

This came off a link I got from tommyperkins email for:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-Step_Coercion_Watch

the text of the entire document is beautifully written, but I found the exerpt I snipped to apply to what Mona and ken et al. are talking about as far as coercion...

The entire document (PDF) can be found: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+785

happy reading,

lisak

Cited: 47 Duke L. J. 785[*pg 785]

RELIGION AND REHABILITATION: THE REQUISITION OF GOD BY THE STATE

DEREK P. APANOVITCH

>>snip...

A. Right-Privilege Distinction

Under the old "right-privilege" distinction, the Due Process Clause applied only when the government took an individual's prop- [*pg 848] erty or invaded his bodily integrity.352 When the government denied an individual benefits such as employment or welfare, the Due Process Clause was inapplicable.353 This "tough-minded distinction between constitutionally protected rights and unprotected governmental privileges" bludgeoned constitutional claims associated with governmental largess.354 In 1970, the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. 355 rejected the right-privilege distinction. In Goldberg, the Court extended procedural safeguards to government benefits in order to protect recipients from unwarranted termination or denial of such benefits.356 The majority opinions in O'Connor and , and the dissents in Warner III and come perilously close to resurrecting the repudiated right-privilege distinction. An underlying but not fully articulated rationale for judges to find mandatory AA programs constitutional is the justification that the greater power to withhold a benefit includes the lesser power to condition its receipt, regardless of whether the conditions impact constitutionally protected rights.357 For example, the State of New York could do away with family visitation programs entirely and all inmates would lose the benefit of family visits. If New York decides to keep the family visitation program in place, the "greater-includes-the-lesser" rationale allows the State to condition participation in the visitation program on participation [*pg 849] in a rehabilitation program based on AA. The prisoner's price of enjoying the benefits of the program is, in effect, the surrender of constitutional rights.

B. The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions

The right-privilege distinction had been criticized long before its ultimate rejection. In 1926, Justice Sutherland wrote what has become the most familiar presentation of the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, the approach to government benefits that eventually superseded the right-privilege distinction: It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold.358

No case thus far considering AA as a probation condition or requirement for prisoner privileges has examined the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions as a grounds to declare state-imposed AA participation as unconstitutional. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine, however, captures nicely the dynamic of the unequal bargaining relationship between the government and an AA participant and can serve to protect constitutional liberties from government encroachment via indirect methods.359 The doctrine requires that "government may not grant a benefit on the condition that the beneficiary surrender a constitutional right, even if the government may withhold that benefit altogether."360 In Mc v. Paty,361 Justice [*pg 850] Brennan applied this idea to a Free Exercise claim and stated that "government may not use religion as a basis of classification for the imposition of duties, penalties, privileges or benefits."362 In the context of this Note, the "benefits" withheld include visitation rights, parole, or continued freedom from incarceration; the "right" surrendered is the liberty to worship or not worship a God according to the dictates of one's own conscience. The prison authorities cannot force an inmate to attend a Catholic Mass or a Jewish service; nor can they do so indirectly by offering a reduced sentence to the inmate who attends such services. Once the determination is made that AA is a religion the outcome for mandatory AA programs under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions is ineluctable: the government cannot induce AA participation through the provision of benefits to those who participate.363 Moral philosopher Nozick abstracts the effect of a coercive proposal on the weaker party in an exchange: If the alternatives among which Q must choose are intentionally changed by P, and P made this change in order to get Q to do A, and before the change Q would not have chosen (and would have been unwilling to choose) to have the change made (and after it's made, Q would prefer that it hadn't been made), and before the change was made Q wouldn't have chosen to do A, and after the change is made Q does A, then Q's choice to do A is not fully his own.364

Viewed in this light, wardens and judges who condition benefits on participation in AA programs are making religious choices for their charges, a role that the state cannot assume. The government, knowingly or not, is using its monopoly over the selection and provision of benefits in the prison and probation systems to channel inmates and probationers into religious programs. Harm is not done just to those brave or resourceful enough to assert their rights but also to the untold number who feel they have little choice but to comply.

Re: New here

OK. You are opposed to coerced attendance at "recovery" meetings but you are in favor of it. That's right Ken, kind of like I'm in favor of denying people the right to carry weapons if they are convicted violent felons, or on probation or parole. Or just like I am in favor of locking people up in cells, if they are convicted violent criminals. One loses some rights when one is a convicted criminal. It does not follow, however, that I favor coercion for non-criminals. Do you believe the state should not be permitted to punish criminals, Ken? >>It is reasonable for those who commit crimes to not commit crimes without more severe sanctions while on parole. Is the state entitled? It certainly has the power, but in my book might doesn't make right.<< You display a fundamental ignorance of what parole is. A parolee's ass belongs to the state, which is entitled to keep him/her locked up. If they are good risks, the state lets them out upon certain conditions, conditions it imposes until the expiration of the full sentence. Which is worse, Ken, sitting in a cell with Bubba, or being let out but having to check in with one's PO, stay clean and sober, and attend recovery meetings? The state has the *right to impose either scenario, during the length of the sentence. Duh. But see below. >>You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group<< As a condition of probation or parole, yes. But see below. >>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, language and world view.<< Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to stay sober. >> I don't think that is okay at all, but since you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step doctrine without God<< I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous to AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe anything you want in LSR. The only thing you cannot do is proselytize for the use of mood-altering substances. So, is that what bothers you about LSR, the abstinence doctrine? >> can only be because LSR is an abstinence-based program just as the Steppers are sure anyone who is critical of them is just because they want to drink. Am I reading you correctly?<< And here is what I mean about see below: ****LSR has no position on whether criminals on parole or probation -- whose liberty is properly in the hands of the state -- are properly required to attend its meetings.**** Everything I have said about that is my own opinion. So, what is your reason for objecting to LSR, given that your purported objection is based solely on my personal opinion, and not on LSR policy or doctrine? In light of the fact that you have conflated my personal opinion for LSR policy, how is LSR "AA without God"? Hmm? --Mona--

[Guest guest]

>

>I'll forgo that and go down the road of " I'll be ignoring any further posts

>from you on the grounds that you seem to be an " everybody hates LSR "

>paranoid.

>

>------Original Message-----

>-From: Steve Snyder

>

>- " Mona calling backup. "

>-Steve

>

I didn't say that at all, , and you know it.

On this thread, I've only commented about regular posters, and you know that

too.

Since you're one of them, you obviously don't mind the label.

Of course, I see some of this coming from the top down... Ken's post just

brought the curdled cream to the top.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

>I'll forgo that and go down the road of " I'll be ignoring any further posts

>from you on the grounds that you seem to be an " everybody hates LSR "

>paranoid.

>

>------Original Message-----

>-From: Steve Snyder

>

>- " Mona calling backup. "

>-Steve

>

I didn't say that at all, , and you know it.

On this thread, I've only commented about regular posters, and you know that

too.

Since you're one of them, you obviously don't mind the label.

Of course, I see some of this coming from the top down... Ken's post just

brought the curdled cream to the top.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

>I'll forgo that and go down the road of " I'll be ignoring any further posts

>from you on the grounds that you seem to be an " everybody hates LSR "

>paranoid.

>

>------Original Message-----

>-From: Steve Snyder

>

>- " Mona calling backup. "

>-Steve

>

I didn't say that at all, , and you know it.

On this thread, I've only commented about regular posters, and you know that

too.

Since you're one of them, you obviously don't mind the label.

Of course, I see some of this coming from the top down... Ken's post just

brought the curdled cream to the top.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>I've already explained it but I'll do so again on the grounds that you may

>actually be listening now.

>

>The intent of your original message read " TO ME " as

>though

>you felt you needed support here (support about what or for what is

>irrelevant to the point) which I found odd because I viewed you as a strong

>individual {{{{{in need of no assistance [hence the odd part] }}}}} to hold

>your own either here or anywhere. Your subsequent postings concerning your

>opinions about the nature of this list's members have only served to

>strengthen my opinion of my initial read of that comment. Since then, and

>going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view

>that

>original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as

>you claim.

I saw it simply as Mona's observations about the state of this group. If you

interpreted it as being divisive, maybe its because you already saw a divide

there?

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>I've already explained it but I'll do so again on the grounds that you may

>actually be listening now.

>

>The intent of your original message read " TO ME " as

>though

>you felt you needed support here (support about what or for what is

>irrelevant to the point) which I found odd because I viewed you as a strong

>individual {{{{{in need of no assistance [hence the odd part] }}}}} to hold

>your own either here or anywhere. Your subsequent postings concerning your

>opinions about the nature of this list's members have only served to

>strengthen my opinion of my initial read of that comment. Since then, and

>going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view

>that

>original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as

>you claim.

I saw it simply as Mona's observations about the state of this group. If you

interpreted it as being divisive, maybe its because you already saw a divide

there?

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>I've already explained it but I'll do so again on the grounds that you may

>actually be listening now.

>

>The intent of your original message read " TO ME " as

>though

>you felt you needed support here (support about what or for what is

>irrelevant to the point) which I found odd because I viewed you as a strong

>individual {{{{{in need of no assistance [hence the odd part] }}}}} to hold

>your own either here or anywhere. Your subsequent postings concerning your

>opinions about the nature of this list's members have only served to

>strengthen my opinion of my initial read of that comment. Since then, and

>going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view

>that

>original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as

>you claim.

I saw it simply as Mona's observations about the state of this group. If you

interpreted it as being divisive, maybe its because you already saw a divide

there?

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Ahhh... I have finally popped over to unhooked and have found a candy store of full of wonderful reading, references and ideas. Thank you.

lisak

Re: New here

I am very much interested in the work you are doing (planning on doing?) with the 12 step lawyer clearing house and would like to know where you'll be in cyberspace so that I may keep my finger on the pulse of your activities... , you will certainly always be able to track me via LSR, at unhooked.com. I'll change my email address there when I have a new one. Thank you very much for the encouragement and support. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Ahhh... I have finally popped over to unhooked and have found a candy store of full of wonderful reading, references and ideas. Thank you.

lisak

Re: New here

I am very much interested in the work you are doing (planning on doing?) with the 12 step lawyer clearing house and would like to know where you'll be in cyberspace so that I may keep my finger on the pulse of your activities... , you will certainly always be able to track me via LSR, at unhooked.com. I'll change my email address there when I have a new one. Thank you very much for the encouragement and support. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Ahhh... I have finally popped over to unhooked and have found a candy store of full of wonderful reading, references and ideas. Thank you.

lisak

Re: New here

I am very much interested in the work you are doing (planning on doing?) with the 12 step lawyer clearing house and would like to know where you'll be in cyberspace so that I may keep my finger on the pulse of your activities... , you will certainly always be able to track me via LSR, at unhooked.com. I'll change my email address there when I have a new one. Thank you very much for the encouragement and support. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

, that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just

about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and

myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel

attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different

ball of wax.

It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than

any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation.

As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can

sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of

twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of

people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate

the Eighth Amendment.

If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated,

the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

, that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just

about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and

myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel

attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different

ball of wax.

It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than

any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation.

As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can

sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of

twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of

people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate

the Eighth Amendment.

If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated,

the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

, that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just

about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and

myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel

attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different

ball of wax.

It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than

any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation.

As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can

sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of

twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of

people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate

the Eighth Amendment.

If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated,

the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

No Mona.

It's not about LSR.

It's about you.

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

and the LSR plot would now be running smoothly

and clandestinely.

--Commander Holland--

[Guest guest]

No Mona.

It's not about LSR.

It's about you.

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

and the LSR plot would now be running smoothly

and clandestinely.

--Commander Holland--