Last week @NancyAFrench and I published a comprehensive report detailing how a huge Christian camp enabled a superpredator named Pete Newman. This week, I describe how it tried to silence a victim who wanted to tell his story (thread): frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/kanakuk-kamp…
The camp claims it has worked cooperatively with the "overwhelming majority" of victims. But that qualification is important. When one victim (and family) balked at signing a non-disparagement agreement. They received a legal threat (/2): Image
When the parties still failed to agree on the terms of a non-disparagement agreement, the camp twice sought a court order to force them to sign. It even sought to fine the family more than $26,000. The camp failed (/3): Image
But the fight took its toll on the victim's family. As one parent told me, Kanakuk “beat us down emotionally, mentally, and spiritually with intense pressure to sign the NDA.” The camp’s efforts, she said, “left us crippled by fear and pure exhaustion" (/4):
Moreover, the camp took issue with our claim that it was on notice that Newman was dangerous. Yet we have receipts. The camp CEO testified under oath he knew the Newman engaged in inappropriate nude activities yet did not fire him (/5):
In 2003, the camp issued a disciplinary warning to the Newman. Look at the first four questions. What were they concerned about? (/6): Image
In 2008, the camp CEO Joe White even laughed when the superpredator bragged about all the time he was spending in hot tubs with campers, but not everyone was so amused (/7): Image
In 2009, when Newman was finally stopped, emails came in from anguished parents and others detailing how they tried to warn the camp. Here's one example (/8): Image
Here's another example (/9): Image
And another (/10): Image
What should happen? The camp should release victims from nondisclosure agreements (including confidential settlements and nondisparagement agreements), commission an independent investigation, release the results, and hold leaders accountable according to its conclusions. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David French

David French Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DavidAFrench

24 Mar
How Sidney Powell's legal team just clowned a huge chunk of right-wing media, a thread. /1
If you're Powell's lawyers, you've got a huge challenge. You have a client who spent weeks stating provable falsehoods that were amplified and spread to millions of Americans through some of America's most popular outlets for news and commentary. Not great. /2
You can't admit to the lie. That would essentially admit "actual malice." So, what are you left with? Let's call it the "obviously crazy claim defense." In other words, her claims might LOOK like factual assertions, but they're so over-the-top they're really something else. /3
Read 8 tweets
24 Mar
I truly appreciated Justin's piece. These are hard, complicated questions, and the more thoughtful voices engage, the better. I respect Justin a ton and always consider his arguments carefully. I've got a short response. /1
Justin asks, "What is the connection between the killer and toxic purity theology and culture?" I described toxic purity theology as having two characteristics: 1) It treats sexual sin as defining; and 2) places a burden on women to protect men from their own desires. /2
What about the killer? According to the available evidence, he 1) believed his sexual sin threatened his salvation; and 2) he needed to eliminate female temptation. In other words, the connection between the killer and the theology was his own reported words. /3
Read 8 tweets
2 Mar
Sadly, @TuckerCarlson frequently misleads his audience. Tonight is no exception. He lied about me, and it's worth exposing how. He starts at the 5:24 mark in the clip below. Apart from the various personal insults, he accuses me of hypocrisy /1:
The basic case is that I'm a hypocrite for writing this article about Trump's Syria policy in 2018 while supporting Biden's strikes again Iranian-allied militias that had killed a Filipino contractor and wounded five Americans. Here's my 2018 piece: /2 nationalreview.com/2018/04/trump-…
Tucker of course counts on the fact that his audience trusts him. His audience trusts Tucker and his team to do their homework and tell the truth. Yet if they did their homework and told the truth, they'd say my position is clear and consistent, then and now: /3
Read 11 tweets
26 Feb
War powers/law of armed conflict Twitter leaves a bit to be desired. So--in the aftermath of Biden's strikes--here's a quick legal explainer on the different kinds of military actions and the different constitutional/legal justifications, in case you're interested. /1
First, it's important to remember that presidents of both parties have largely ignored the Constitution and have stretched their Article II commander-in-chief powers up to and past the breaking point. So this thread is about what should be, not what is. /2
Presidents SHOULD seek congressional approval before initiating hostilities against foreign regimes/entities not engaged in active hostilities against the U.S. Examples--Obama attacking the Gaddafi regime, Trump attacking Assad regime. /3
Read 7 tweets
13 Jan
I'd encourage everyone who believes that Amazon MUST host Parler's content to read Amazon's brief. The power of the state should not be used to force Americans to host and help disseminate mass amounts of death threats and insurrectionary content. /1 courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
It's honestly stunning to me that many members of a movement that united to say that bakers/florists should be free to use their talents to advance only messages they approve now angrily assert that another set of Americans MUST provide platforms for the MAGA insurrection. No. /2
Again, read the Amazon brief. It presented evidence that it warned Parler for weeks of problems with threatening content and Parler was either unwilling or totally incapable of dealing with the problem. It was a sewer. Americans aren't required to host sewers. /3
Read 4 tweets
6 Dec 20
I'm getting a lot of good and thoughtful responses to my Sunday essay. I could have written 2,000 more words on the role of staff and boards in enabling abuse, but in lieu of that, here are a few tweets. /1 frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-crisis-o…
In dysfunctional religious celebrity cultures, key staff gain not just their livelihood but also their cultural clout from the proximity to the "great man." They have everything to lose if he falls, so they guard him zealously and often crush internal dissent. /2
As for board members, if they also gain prestige from their association with the "great man," they're often unwilling to hold him accountable. Again, the board member also has something to lose if the leader falls. Their own clout is at stake. /3
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!