Legally Speaking; What Did Eddie Long Do Wrong?
- Thread starter Heist
- Start date
A fool and his money are soon parted is all I can say to that, but a fool and his asshole?!
C'mon son.
LMAO! Breach of fidicuary duty? Negilence? Failure to Warn? Fraud? LMAO! Those are going to be some very hard charges to prove.
Again, there's no state recognized oath a preacher must take. Moreover, there is no contract a parishioner signs. It's all willful and at their own discretion. How many crackpot preachers have we seen in the world. Jim Jones. The dude who thought a spaceship was in the Hale Bopp comet, etc etc.
Heist you represent the DMV turrribly
Your question was legally what did Eddie Long do wrong? The answer involves looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and asking whether Mr. Long owed a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and if he did, did he breach that duty?
There is (not surprisingly) substantial case law supporting the position that Pastors and other clergymen owe fiduciary duties to their members, and that coercing sexual acts from those members can be actionable breaches of fiduciary duties.
Here's a 2009 Georgia Appellate court case that plainly addresses this point:
"A court or jury may find that a clergyman occupies a confidential relationship toward a member of his church. Further, an actionable breach of fiduciary duty may arise when a confidential relationship is abused for purposes of sexual gratification." Brewer v. Paulk, 296 Ga.App. 26, 30 (2009).
So on it's face, the plaintiffs appear to have a valid case. Issues of credibility are left to a finder of fact to determine.
He used church money to fuck dudes. 
He better have a good accountant, cause he's about to get chewed up by the feds.
He better have a good accountant, cause he's about to get chewed up by the feds.
He used church money to fuck dudes.
He better have a good accountant, cause he's about to get chewed up by the feds.
Usually slick back Clergymen like him are smart enough to have top notch accountants because they know they're going to get EXTRA attention and scrutiny from the IRS being that they're bringing in MILLIONS UNTAXED because they're a religious organization.
We'll see though.
You are still talking as if this is a case about statutes and ordinances. This is a civil (tort) issue based on common (case) law.
Bingo.
Last edited:
^^^Correct, but even torts/common law is based on some statutes and ordinances.
(Believe me, I've been through 3 civil lawsuits regarding business in the last 5 years).
I'm trying to understand the connection between breach of fiduciary duty and coerced sex with a consenting adult.
Even if these guys held their positions becuase they were giving him boy pussy, they'd still have to prove that this was the ONLY position they did (i.e., they did no work for the church).
If they even so much as swept the floors and that was part of their job description, it would be very difficult to argue fiduciary neglience.
Again, I'm finding this all curious from a theoretic legal persective. If true - I find Eddie repulsive. And even if he didn't do it, I still find him repulsive and vain.
(Believe me, I've been through 3 civil lawsuits regarding business in the last 5 years).
I'm trying to understand the connection between breach of fiduciary duty and coerced sex with a consenting adult.
Even if these guys held their positions becuase they were giving him boy pussy, they'd still have to prove that this was the ONLY position they did (i.e., they did no work for the church).
If they even so much as swept the floors and that was part of their job description, it would be very difficult to argue fiduciary neglience.
Again, I'm finding this all curious from a theoretic legal persective. If true - I find Eddie repulsive. And even if he didn't do it, I still find him repulsive and vain.
- cmon man, somebody answered your question and this is your response?
these are legal terms man, and if they were a waste of everyones time, the courts wouldn't even be taking this case seriously...
/Thread/
Don't limit your concept of fiduciary responsibility to financial/business relationships. The fiduciary case against Long does not require the plaintiffs to have been involved in any financial exchanges whatsoever with him.
Man, why are you speaking so confidently about this topic? This sentence demonstrates that you really do not know what you are talking about.
All you need to know to satisfy your curiosity was posted by youngmoney already:
youngmoney08 said:
DONE.
More on the variety of relationships that routinely require an elevated fiduciary standard of care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Relationships
I'm not defending him or the allegations, I'm just trying to understand the Civil suit and potential FBI probe of his actions.
Maybe Jagu or Papi68 can chime in.
My question is why was it no problem when these consent and "of age" young men are getting gifts, taking trips, riding in limos, etc. they're happy to take the dick in the booty.
Then when the gifts stop, years later they starting crying about being sexually swindled and coerced into having having gay sex?
They need to look deeper within themselves. Takes two to tango. I can understand a little 10-13 year old like the Catholic Priest were doing.
But when you're 17-20, you've pretty much developed a strong sense of your sexual identity and general values.
You can't tell me in anyway possible that ANOTHER MAN can convince you to let him pound you in the ass if you are 100% heterosexual. If you did, you did it because you were being tricked on and enjoyed the gifts and fringe benefits of being around him.
Or you got slicked talked into fucking. That's been happening for millenia - not illegal, you're just weak minded.
But my general point is, legally:
- It wasn't prostitution, because there was no exchange of gifts and money for sex.
- It wasn't sexual harassment, the window to file those charges long since expired.
- It wasn't coercion, because these guys were not on his payroll or his employees, so there was no threat of losing income or their jobs.
- It wasn't an inappropriate relationship (legally), because he's not governed under the same laws a school teacher would if say they screwed one of their students.
... So what is it exactly that they think they're going to get out of him or the suit? Civilly or Criminally, I don't see where this is a win for these guys outside of ruining his reputation even if the allegations are proven to be true.
he groomed those kids for the dick in the booty shit...... he been in their heads .... pretending to be some sort of father figure / mentor........ their parents trusted him with their children....... sexual abuse is a process.... the fact that he didnt start fucking & sucking them till they were "old enough" dont really matter...... if it were girls im quite sure that you would have a different point of view...... either way it goes.... he basically turned out those kids..... he's a faggot preacher & a pedophile......
I think you are missing the point - the connection between breach of fiduciary duty and sex is that he (Long) used his position to gain their trust which had an effect on their thought process in order for his sexual gain. Through his act of gaining their trust as their "bishop" he had broken his fiduciary duty, allegedly.
I think its been mentioned plenty of times but this is a difficult case to prove which will likely end in a settlement. However, it has been proven before as mentioned by others in the thread.
Do you know how easy it is to allege, file suit in court and actually get the court to hear the case?
Don't let a filing or court hearing date be your measuring stick for how serious the court is about a case. They have to treat all suits seriously.
I've had tenants file suit against me for emotional distress and harassment because I removed the mailbox, pulled the fuse on the power garage door opener, and called them up after 9pm and at work because they were 2 months behind in rent and wanted to know when I can expect payment.
But the cherry was their daughter said I was making sexual advances towards her. She said I said that if she let me fuck her, I would stop the eviction process, forget the rent and let her and her family stay in the home.
They got a hearing date. The charges were eventually dismissed, but they still got a hearing date and made me take off 2 fucking days and spend $5,000 on legal fees which I could NOT recover.
(One of the reasons people are crying for TORT reform in the US Legal System).
Hell, if you really want to get fucking absurd. Nicole Bell, widow of Sean Bell - the young man in Queens who was shot at 50 times and killed by NYPD while committing no crime whatsoever.
Well one of the cops who SHOT HIM DEATH, he filed a Civil Personal Injury suit against Nicole Bell and Sean Bells' estate stating his foot sustain injury during the shooting when Sean ran it over (Like if someone was shooting at you, you wouldn't try to get the fuck out of there?!
)Guess what --- the case is being heard. Go figure.
I believe one of the reasons why the FBI was called upon was because although the age of consensual sex in GA is 16, it is not for some of the other states that Eddie Long may have frequented with these boys/young men.
If the FBI can prove that he engaged in sexual acts with these guys before they (the boys/young men) reached the age of consent in other states then Eddie Long will be facing serious jail time.
The plaintiff's atty ,B.J. (Brenda Joy) Bernstein, is the same high profile lawyer that got Ginarlo Wilson out of prison, he's the kid that went to prison for having "consensual sex" with a white girl who was 15 when he was 16. She knows exactly what she is doing and it is "rumored"(not trying to turn bgol into a rumor mill) that she has some very "racy pics" of Eddie Long with these kids.
Eddie Long has really messed his life up...he's the black Ted Haggard. The only thing about this is Ted Haggard's congregation (overwhelmingly white) forgave him and he's back to preaching (smaller venue of course) but Eddies's congregation (overwhelmingly black) will probably not be so forgiving because of the "gay" stigma.
The sad thing about all of this is I've been hearing about Eddie's secret rendezvous's for at least 10 years now...it seems as if they have finally come to light.
If the FBI can prove that he engaged in sexual acts with these guys before they (the boys/young men) reached the age of consent in other states then Eddie Long will be facing serious jail time.
The plaintiff's atty ,B.J. (Brenda Joy) Bernstein, is the same high profile lawyer that got Ginarlo Wilson out of prison, he's the kid that went to prison for having "consensual sex" with a white girl who was 15 when he was 16. She knows exactly what she is doing and it is "rumored"(not trying to turn bgol into a rumor mill) that she has some very "racy pics" of Eddie Long with these kids.
Eddie Long has really messed his life up...he's the black Ted Haggard. The only thing about this is Ted Haggard's congregation (overwhelmingly white) forgave him and he's back to preaching (smaller venue of course) but Eddies's congregation (overwhelmingly black) will probably not be so forgiving because of the "gay" stigma.
The sad thing about all of this is I've been hearing about Eddie's secret rendezvous's for at least 10 years now...it seems as if they have finally come to light.
Last edited:
the case is filed but I didnt hear any court date.
- very true. I misspoke. it looks as though it is heading that way b/c these dudes are actively seeking a trial and a jury to determine what it is they get out of all of this
but i am jumping the gun with that comment.
Heist...you gay.
Do we really have to explain why its wrong for a man to fuck underage boys in the asshole to you?
Do we really have to explain why its wrong for a man to fuck underage boys in the asshole to you?
Heist...you gay.
Do we really have to explain why its wrong for a man to fuck underage boys in the asshole to you?
It's morally wrong, but it's not illegal.
And they were NOT underage. They were of the legal age to consent.
Pay attention to the question next time.
Yeah, the case just got filed. There will be lots of pre trial motions and hearings before the actual case is tried if at all.
Last edited:
I got so many of those shit, I swear to tell the truth and the whole truth when I'm ordering pizza.
2006-09 I went through 5 different business suits. It was fucking ridiculous some of the charges. We really need tort reform and a loser pays system.
Gotcha! I don't know why fools talking like Heist posted a stupid question. I wanted to know the same. What exact crime did he commit if all the boys are considered competent adults. As was mentioned before this is being done out of revenge. Good post Heist. 
I thought the answer was pretty obvious, its not a criminal case.
Even Civil cases must have some basis in law. That's why I asked. I didn't understand the charges vis-a-vis how they could prove them and then ask for damages?
Especially since the sex was consentual. You can't help stupid.
He used Jesus to take their cheeks.
Wait, isn't the picture of white Jesus Cesare Borgia? I guess he wasn't lying to the kids.
Civil cases don't have to be based on law. You can sue someone after an accident. For being negligent. For embarrassing you. There doesn't have to be a law against it.
Its A hustle the people that goes to black church's are getting rip off. Black church's are a scam.
He used Jesus to take their cheeks.
Would you like to buy a T-Shirt.
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=528802
Yeah there is some serious cash to be made in the preaching game. That's why young Malcolm when he was Red called it a hustle. All you have to do is be a good actor and speaker, claim you got the callin, start spitting Bible verses, gather a small flock of mostly women and tons of single females will begin knocking your door down.
You will receive a small salary at first but if you work it right all of your bills and expenses will be paid tax free. You don't have to have thousands of members either. It's a smooth hustle. I just come from a religious background. I couldn't run a scam like that in good conscience. It would be easy to do but I couldn't go out like that.
Ok fuck the law it/s fucked up and crooked anyway. So stop all that is it legally wrong shit
We as black people are beginning to look at life like the nasty ass white man. Was it wrong for a man/pastor to fuck with a 17 year old boy YES just like it would be wrong to fuck with a man of any age.
This man is supposed to be a man of god he is benefiting from being the leader of a church. Thus he should be severely dealt with by the church, demoted, given counseling, and prayed for to deliver his fucked up mind from the pits of disfunctionality. Homosexuality is a fucked up mental disorder plain and simple.
We as black people are beginning to look at life like the nasty ass white man. Was it wrong for a man/pastor to fuck with a 17 year old boy YES just like it would be wrong to fuck with a man of any age.
This man is supposed to be a man of god he is benefiting from being the leader of a church. Thus he should be severely dealt with by the church, demoted, given counseling, and prayed for to deliver his fucked up mind from the pits of disfunctionality. Homosexuality is a fucked up mental disorder plain and simple.
What's funny is that his name takes on a whole new meaning now.
He's got a Gay Porn Star name.
He's got a Gay Porn Star name.
Similar threads
