Napa WT Child Abuse Case
Two important court decisions, which came out of Napa Valley, CA, are now available for us to post on JWD. These significant rulings overturn objections regularly made by the Watchtower in recent lawsuits and may serve as a precedent for future lawsuits. As we would expect, Watchtower has fought this case tooth-and-nail all the way.
For your information, it is Case #: 26-22191, filed in Napa County, California, on August 13, 2003 by Attorneys Love & Norris. The case alleges that around 1972 Watchtower-appointed elder Edward Villegas sexually abused a young girl aged 3 or 4, and continued to do so for the next 12 to 13 years.
Around 1978 Villegas began sexually abusing another young girl aged about 7, but she told her father who reported it to the congregation elders. Following Watchtower instructions, the congregation elders gave Villegas private reproof. but they neither reported the abuse to the authorities nor warned congregation members, which allowed Villegas to continue to molest other children. Over the next 20-plus years, Watchtower continued to appoint Villegas to leadership positions within the organisation.
Watchtower previously claimed that the matters complained of involved the inner workings of the church and that the First Amendment barred the court from investigating ecclesiastical affairs and practices. The court ruled, on November 21, 2003, that Watchtower cannot be shielded from these allegations by the First Amendment.
1. Submitted Motion to Quash Service of Summons
Next, Watchtower claimed that as they are a Pennsylvania corporation with no physical presence in California, California courts have no jurisdiction over them. On August 31, 2005 the court heard their Motion to Quash Service of Summons. The ruling came on October 5, 2005.The judge ruled that the evidence did not support their claim.
2. Submitted Motion to Compel Production of Documents
At the same hearing on August 31, 2005, the Plaintiffs' submitted their own motion asking the court to compel Watchtower to produce documents. Watchtower claimed they should not have to produce these documents because they were confidential, in that they contained information given in private to members of the clergy; they also claimed other documents requested were covered by attorney-client privilege. The ruling came on September 29, 2005. Again, the judge rejected these arguments and required them to produce the documents requested by the Plaintiffs'.
If all goes according to plan, scans of the court’s rulings on these two motions should appear below!
(See also http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/56453/1.ashx and http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/88548/1.ashx.)
Napa Valley, CA Child Abuse Court Case Victories
by AndersonsInfo 87 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
AndersonsInfo
-
IT Support
These are the court decisions Barbara referred to above (you can either download the individual pages, or, if you click on the document title, a pdf file of the whole document):
1. Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summons (Oct 5 2005)
Page 1: http://www.hostimage.org/img/3852080.jpg
Page 2: http://www.hostimage.org/img/724185.jpg
Page 3: http://www.hostimage.org/img/1463547.jpg
Page 4: http://www.hostimage.org/img/98686913.jpg
Page 5: http://www.hostimage.org/img/8297929.jpg
2. Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Sep 29 2005)
Page 1: http://www.hostimage.org/img/613071874.jpg
-
Jourles
Watchtower claimed that as they are a Pennsylvania corporation with no physical presence in California, California courts have no jurisdiction over them. On August 31, 2005 the court heard their Motion to Quash Service of Summons. The ruling came on October 5, 2005.The judge ruled that the evidence did not support their claim.
If they own KH property in CA, then they have a physical presence. End of story.
-
Virgochik
Excellent news ! If this does turn out to be precedent setting, they're in deep, deep doo doo!
-
TooOpinionated
Great news! We've all been waiting for something like this.
-
hartstrings
Barbara, Thank you for posting this info. There attempts at hiding behind ecclesiastical law are hilarious. You know all I could think while reading your comments and the court reports was how the Watchtower talks about how in Rev. the governments will strip Babylon naked and take away all her resources. They should really look in the mirror.
Do you know when the case will go to court? I noticed that this process took place last fall. I know that this stage can take quite a while.
HS
-
AlanF
This is great!
I particular liked the stuff about "penitential privilege". The court cited the law's definition, which included the notion that it "means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who . . . has a duty to keep those communications secret." This, of course, is designed to protect the Catholic Confessional. The court then stated that the privilege does not apply because:
(1) "The Judicial Committee's purpose is to investigate sins for which disfellowship is a potential penalty."
(2) "The privilege does not apply because the Judicial Committee was under no duty to keep the communications private. In fact, the evidence establishes that the Judicial Committee was required to communicate information it obtained regarding potential cases of child molestation to the Watchtower Society Headquarters."
This huge! If this sets a precedent for other cases, then no longer can Watchtower judicial proceedings be claimed as "privileged communications" not subject to secular judicial review. Judge Guadagni is cutting right through the Watchtower Society's obfuscations.
The California law explicitly states that confession is made to ONE member of the clergy, which automatically disqualifies a COMMITTEE.
That the committee is required to communicate with the Society proves that the judicial committee is required not to keep the "penitent's" communications private.
If this court case is finally won, it will have a major impact on how the Watchtower handles judicial cases.
AlanF
-
stillconcerned
Cases still pending....
When we have trial dates, i will post.
Kimberlee D. Norris
-
AndersonsInfo
All of us are anxiously awaiting the date the judge will set for trial.
Barbara -
inbyathread
The WTS will settle out of court. Lots of dollars and a non-disclosure agreement. They will never allow this to go to a jury.
