Run WT Run

by silentlambs 24 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  SusanHere

  Hi, Silentlambs,

  I have read many of your postings and commend you for your efforts. Certainly children need the protection of all good people everywhere.

  As for this case, I'm not sure it really relates all that closely to others I have read about on this and similar boards. For one thing, in this case, the abuser had never been charged with abuse, or even molestation of any type, legally. Nobody had brought charges. In the Mormon Church, we are encouraged to use all legal means available if such abuse has occurred. Had they had proof, the parents in 1980s would most certainly have been advised to report the incident themselves to the proper legal authorities, as well as Church authorities. If they weren't given such advice, somebody made a serious mistake. On the other hand, it is possible there was no definite assertion other than something vague like "inappropriate touching", which back then didn't raise the red flags it does today.

  Also, the records of him being an abuser wouldn't have followed with him, again since there was no real crime being charged. Isn't this a very good reason why as parents we NEED to make sure there IS a charge filed? The Bishop who testified in the case states he did not know of prior abuse problems with the individual. If the information was not there back in the 80's, how could the current Bishop, in yet another state, have access to it?

  And again, the Bishop in question advised the child's family NOT to take the man into their home. The reasons given were not important. They were cautioned. That they ignored the caution and proceeded against counsel should have been at their own risk. Only after the fact they say, gosh, he was worse than we thought, so now we'll sue.

  Lastly, it is a sad fact that in today's society, lawsuits are settled daily without regard to guilt, simply because litigation has become so expensive and fighting even a very small lawsuit is usually not worth the expense. It's often cheaper to settle, guilty or not, just to make it go away and end the ongoing legal fees.

  Nonetheless, I do hope this case can be used to protect children from those who DO know of abusers in their congregations, whatever the religion involved. The protection of children is the responsibility of us all.

  Susan
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Fact: What today is one man’s emotional hype and another man’s morality, tomorrow becomes the law of the land because enough people decide to view one man’s emotional hype as their standard of morality.

  Law is not set in concrete. Law is a living thing.

  Fact: Attorneys can reference a judge’s attention to any details of any case they desire to.

  Fact: Judges decide what arguments are considered valid and which ones will not be considered valid in a pending case in their court.

  Fact: Judges decide what facts are deemed precedent in any particular case before them.

  Fact: Attorneys do not get to decide what is or is not precedent setting for any specific pending case.

  Fact: Unless there is a judge in our mix, none of us get to decide what is or is not precedent setting for any specific case.
• 

  joelbear

  I also hope the child molestation stops.

  But, I think dreams of major changes or that this will somehow majorly affect the Watchtower society are dreams that are destined to come to nothing.

  Sorry, as one poster said somewhere, the Watchtower has learned a lot from the Catholic church and neither one is going anywhere.
• 

  Winston

  Joelbear,

  Why do you sound so negative?

  You don't really beleive that do you?

  Former elder turned apostate (by WT definition)[:)}and proud of it!
• 

  joelbear

  Hi,

  Not trying to be negative. I think the fight is well worth it to makes children safer. Bravo!!!!! for those efforts.

  But this organization is well prepared to stick out this fight for a long long time and has the resources to do it.

  Phillip Morris ain't going no where, neither is the Watchtower Society.

  Even if they do come under financial pressure, I guarantee you that millions will send them money including people in my own family.

  Sorry, but I think thats the realistic view.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  When can we expect to see the DateLine program? What was this revelation that was due out at the end of July? What of the "What do they have in common" Thread? Who shot JR?

  YERUSALYIM
  "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
  [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]
• 

  MadApostate

  Marvin:

  Fact: What today is one man?s emotional hype and another man?s morality, tomorrow becomes the law of the land because enough people decide to view one man?s emotional hype as their standard of morality.

  Law is not set in concrete. Law is a living thing.

  Response:

  Nice stump speech, but what does it have to do with whether this Mormon case sets any legal precedent for any JW case?

  Fact: Attorneys can reference a judge?s attention to any details of any case they desire to.

  Response:

  Marvin, this is not the first time I see you "stating the obvious" like it somehow is at issue. Yes, attorneys can do whatever they like to a point, just like I can do whatever I like to a point. However, whether "details" are RELEVANT to a court case or not is a completely different story. An attorney can recite a nursery rhyme if they so desire, ...

  Fact: Judges decide what arguments are considered valid and which ones will not be considered valid in a pending case in their court.

  Response:

  Again, you state the obvious like it somehow is at issue.

  Fact: Judges decide what facts are deemed precedent in any particular case before them.

  Response:

  Your use of the word "facts" in this statement and the word "details" above indicate that you really don't have a good grasp of the legal principle of "precedent".
  Go study, and then come back and rationalize their usage.

  By the way, any single trial judge's decision(s) are reviewable (can be overturned) by an appellate court.

  Fact: Attorneys do not get to decide what is or is not precedent setting for any specific pending case.

  Response:

  Again, you state the obvious as if it were somehow at issue.

  Fact: Unless there is a judge in our mix, none of us get to decide what is or is not precedent setting for any specific case.

  Response:

  WRONG! Even a judge in our "midst" doesn't get to make the decision. Refer to one of your "obvious" statements above.

  Question:

  Marvin, you state a lot of obvious "facts" not at issue, but do you know what is the single biggest "precedent" issue in the Mormon case? What about number 2?

  Please do not start your answer with "the earth is round", I'll concede such.

  ------
  TYPOS EDIT.
• 

  hawkaw

  Look forward to a copy of the transcript Amasing.

  I have already tried going through the internet state court site for Oregon and could not find the decision.

  hawk
• 

  MadApostate

  Hawkaw:

  Look forward to a copy of the transcript Amasing.

  I have already tried going through the internet state court site for Oregon and could not find the decision.

  hawk

  Geez whiz, I wonder why?
• 

  silentlambs

  To Susan;

  Regarding your comments I would like to make the following observations,

  You said,
  "As for this case, I'm not sure it really relates all that closely to others I have read about on this and similar boards. For one thing, in this case, the abuser had never been charged with abuse, or even molestation of any type, legally. Nobody had brought charges."

  Is is precisely the point, within the wt most abusers are never charged or brought to the police. This case opens up the very real possibility of uncharged pedophile being dealt with. This point alone hits WT between the eyes.

  You said,
  "In the Mormon Church, we are encouraged to use all legal means available if such abuse has occurred. Had they had proof, the parents in 1980s would most certainly have been advised to report the incident themselves to the proper legal authorities, as well as Church authorities."

  If this is the case it is a good policy. However it is not WT policy which covers up the crime unless mandated by local laws.

  You said,
  "If they weren't given such advice, somebody made a serious mistake. On the other hand, it is possible there was no definite assertion other than something vague like "inappropriate touching", which back then didn't raise the red flags it does today."

  This again opens up a can of worms for Wt especially for older cases that exist and were never handled properly.

  You said,
  "Also, the records of him being an abuser wouldn't have followed with him, again since there was no real crime being charged."

  Another good point as no record follows accused child molesters in the USA. A difference appears to be with Britian WT policy.

  You said,
  "Isn't this a very good reason why as parents we NEED to make sure there IS a charge filed?"

  Not an option unless you want to go against the "glorious ones" and be destroyed like Korah. If the elders advise differantly as they often do you obey them first.

  You said,
  "The Bishop who testified in the case states he did not know of prior abuse problems with the individual. If the information was not there back in the 80's, how could the current Bishop, in yet another state, have access to it?"

  Similiarly elders often do not know of child molesters who move into their congregation, this case shows they possibly could not be free from liability.

  You said,
  "And again, the Bishop in question advised the child's family NOT to take the man into their home. The reasons given were not important. They were cautioned. That they ignored the caution and proceeded against counsel should have been at their own risk. Only after the fact they say, gosh, he was worse than we thought, so now we'll sue."

  This certainly opens the door for weaker cases and show that being an elder will not be as fun as it once was. What an elder says can cost him in more ways than one.

  You said,
  "Lastly, it is a sad fact that in today's society, lawsuits are settled daily without regard to guilt, simply because litigation has become so expensive and fighting even a very small lawsuit is usually not worth the expense. It's often cheaper to settle, guilty or not, just to make it go away and end the ongoing legal fees."

  I am sure some of the many victims will take the 3-10 million settlements of "World Wide Work" money and be satisfied with the Society's admission of no guilt.

  You said,
  "Nonetheless, I do hope this case can be used to protect children from those who DO know of abusers in their congregations, whatever the religion involved. The protection of children is the responsibility of us all."

  I could not agree more.