Conti Respondent’s Brief - Can AnnOMaly’s theory Rescue Simons’ CRITICAL FACT ?

by 4rationality 42 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  flipper

  4RATIONALITY- Your theory has a lot of flaws in it from the get go or beginning. You're totally not mentioning or eliminating the FACT that the elders DID have prior knowledge of Kendrick's previous child molestation charges he committed against his own stepdaughter and so the times Candace was seen leaving the Kingdom hall parking lot to go out in field service ALONE with Kendrick - right THEN and THERE the elders should have taken Kendrick aside BEFORE he got into a car with Candace and told him that they were NOT going to allow him to go in service with this minor child.

  THIS was the ball of responsibility that the elders dropped and it was their lack of paying attention to this 8 year old child who was a " sheep " in THEIR care that they failed to look out for and failed to protect her from a possible rape ( which did happen ) by Kendrick once she got in his car and he took her home and raped her. There are NO holes in Simon's defense of Candace- just holes in your avoiding putting responsibility where it squarely lies- on the irresponsible shoulders of inattentive elders shirking their duties to congregation children. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  wannaexit

  @wannaexit not true.

  First of all most publishers make appointments to work with eachother before the field service meeting. Second people are asked if they would like to work together. 3rd children are with their parents unless their parents and the child make an appointment with another person ahead of the field service meeting. In such a case parents agreed to let their child work with another adult.

  Sorry, it may have not happened where you are at but from where I am from it most certainly happens. I understand that the issue may be a regional thing.
  
• 

  OUTLAW

  First of all most publishers make appointments to work with each other before the field service meeting. Second people are asked if they would like to work together. 3rd children are with their parents unless their parents and the child make an appointment with another person ahead of the field service meeting. In such a case parents agreed to let their child work with another adult......insidetheKH

  .................Many times..No Plans are made ahead of time..

  ...................................1/2 Truths are 100%..
  

  .............
• 

  4rationality

  Conti Respondent’s Brief v. “a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice”

  • "It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant." (Hines v. California Coastal Com 'n, Bd. of Supervisors of Sonoma (20 1 0) 186 Cal.App.4th 830, 846-847.)

  A nonfeasance theory was the thrust of Simons’ entire case at trial. Indeed, from Simons‘ opening statement through post-trial motions—including his punitive damages argument— Simons repeatedly and consistently pressed a nonfeasance theory of liability.

  Post-trial, however, clear and overwhelming legal precedent established that there was never a “custody-and-control” relationship between Candace and defendants. SO, in his Respondent’s Brief Simons simply asserts a new and wholly different theory of liability—misfeasance. OOPS.
• 

  4rationality

  Conti Respondent’s Brief—Simons’ New CUSTODY and CONTROL Theory.

  Simons’ new primary theory—CUSTODY and CONTROL by “assigning Candace to Kendrick”— replaced Simons’ old primary theory—CUSTODY and CONTROL by the 1989 BOE letter.

  ABibleStudent reports the results: The oral arguments format “forces attorneys to focus on the two or three most important arguments.”

  • “Simons’ did not emphasize that the 1989 BOE letter that he introduced during the trail was a smoking gun about the special relationship between the Watchtower and [Candace].”

  Simons’ Respondent’s Brief introduced a new “smoking gun”, his new theory of choice.

  In fact, twenty-four times throughout the argument section we see Simons’ new theory— custody and control by “assigning Candace to Kendrick”— including …

  • “There was substantial evidence that defendants exerted custody and control over Candace by assigning her to perform field service with Kendrick.
  • “Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Watchtower and Congregation took custody and control of Candace by assigning her into field service, thereby creating a special relationship with her.
  • “First, … Watchtower’s liability was based not only on its failure to protect plaintiff but also on its affirmative negligence in assigning plaintiff and Kendrick to perform field service together. Second, Watchtower’s duty to protect Candace arose from its special relationships with her.
  • “[T]he fact that Candace was assigned to perform field service with Kendrick on multiple occasions supported an inference that defendants’ policy permitted a child to be assigned to field service with a known child molester.

  • The opening briefs of both Watchtower and the Congregation … omit critical facts, including the fact that the elders assigned Jonathan Kendrick and Candace Conti together in field service …

    __

    Simons’ new custody and control theory, as feeble as it is, must be greatly preferable to his old theory. It cost Simons dearly to switch horses midstream. Simons’ new theory violated “a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried.”

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  Ding

  I would feel a lot better if WT apologists were anywhere near as interested in protecting JW children from JW pedophiles as they are protecting the JW organization from justice.
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Well said, Ding! They sure care a lot about Jeehoobie's "name!" Too bad they don't love children like the Savior they claim to follow.

  You know, the WTBTS is getting what they deserve and these trolls are scared sh**less. That's why they lash out with incoherent nonsense in a hit and run manner. Were it not for exposing their ignorance, I wish Simon would ban them.

  DD
• 

  truthseekeriam

  So right on Ding!

  I have personally been effected by this and every time I hear the apologists protect the organization against the victims it feels like a personal attack.

  I just wish they could embrace the victims and support them and their families openly with the support of their leaders like you see in other religions. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. Instead I see them vilify anyone who stands up for themselves and push them away. It's really sad and completely willful.
• 

  Fisherman

  Never, ever trust ANYONE with your children. Not the school, not the teacher, not day care, relatives, no one. Your children are precious and fragile and vulnerable and fox like wolves lurk everywhere for an opportunity to devour them. Lucky is the child that has parents that love them and that is safe with them. Unfortunately, unlucky children are not safe even in their own home, how sad it is. I venture to say that the legal systems do not care about the child. They care about the law.
  

  I forget to mention. Never trust anyone with your children, not even for a moment. Never. There are good people that would never harm children but I cannot take the chance to trust anyone with my child. Never.
  
• 

  berrygerry

  Sorry.

  When I conducted the Field Service group, I arranged / rearranged the group as I saw fit. I remember the dismay of 2 "seniority" sisters when I assigned them how I wanted, when they had previously made plans to work together.

  Too bad, I'm the authorized talking penis - do what I want.