Notes on Child Abuse Settlement (page 2)

Mulan

a silence that the Catholic Church has NOT demanded.

In some cases this is true, but there are cases where there definitely is a gag order from Catholic Church settlements. The above comment is true in at least one diocese.

OnTheWayOut

Sooooo, it backfired on them.
Now they settled for a ton of money. On top of that they have no way to recoup the money. And on top of that their gag order is no good with the expert witness.

I recognize that you don't actually believe it BACKFIRED on them. They expected the victims to take the money.
The gag order prevents the people who "won" their settlements from telling the personal story. While many
outside of the gag order can talk, the major news won't bother with this, the victims go away, and there's just
a few people with a big grudge against the WTS talking. It doesn't really hurt them as much as negative press
if these cases went to trial and lost for the WTS. This way- victims win, WTS wins.

As mentioned, the problem is that they think so many won't file newer suits. They think there will only be a handful
more. They might very well be very wrong. Their grip on the abuse victims and their families is weak. It gets weaker
when a lawyer explains why WTS is culpable, and has payed out in the recent past. Civil suits can be old or new cases.
Time is virtually irrelevant in these cases. I would expect more- many more to file.

Amazing

144001:

The use of the term "gag order" as I've seen it used on this forum is entirely inaccurate. A "gag order" is an order from the court requiring parties and their counsel to "shut up" about a case, usually for the purpose of ensuring a fair trial. I doubt that any gag orders have been issued in any of these cases. However, it is extremely common for defense counsel to insist on the inclusion of confidentiality provisions in a settlement agreement, ...

You are absolutely correct. For the sake of discussion, I continued to employ the term 'gag order' because it is how the SilentLambs article employed it, and illustrated the misleading effect of the way the story was presented. Yes, confidentiality demands by defendants, and by plaintiffs too, are a private decision not required by the court. Thanks for highlighting an excellent distinction.

Sir82:

Do you know / can you say how much is "so much"?

Yes. It was enough to induce all 16 victims to settle. It was a lot.

M.J.:

Is this exactly what happened? When you think about a settlement in terms of this rule, it virtually is an admission of guilt. It's essentially saying, "we offered your reward up front without the formalities and expenses of the trial and you refused. So now you have to pay the expense of the trial." ... So in a civil suit, settling is like winning the case without going to trial. Seems like you can't fault anyone for taking that option.

Excellent perception on your part ... right on!

Jim Whitney

bluesapphire

I think it backfired because they *believe* that by settling they have ended the problem when in reality it is the beginning of the end for them financially.

By actually going through with the settlement they have opened up a very deep deep can of worms! And they really have no control over "mistakes" that can happen and the info to get out there anyway. Say a letter from them or a piece of one of the files, or a misplaced file...

The Watchtower is not accustomed to things being out of their control. So it makes it even more delicious.

bluesapphire

Question: What happens if someone goes against the contract and speaks anyway? Will they be prosecuted or subject to lawsuit? What are the consequences? Anyone know?

metatron

I say find out how much $ is involved in the Brooklyn property sale. Also, find out how much

was being sued for (in total) in the California cases. If the settlement took the form of answering those

claims , without negotiation, you may have an estimate.

metatron

sf

One word describes this all for me, at his point:

am·biv·a·lence (m-bv-lns) KEY

NOUN:

The coexistence of opposing attitudes or feelings, such as love and hate, toward a person, object, or idea.
Uncertainty or indecisiveness as to which course to follow.

_______________________

I will say this though, for sure:

If a gag order was a stipulation to settle, I would have outright declined.

What is PRO ductive in a settlement when the most important part of it all, is NOW being able to tell your story to the ones whom need and must hear it most...

THE PUBLIC?!

I swear, this is getting more ridiculous as each day goes by that this organization continues to be, ALLOWED BY ITS MEMBERS WHO NOW KNOW THE TRUTHS. YET STILL DO NOT PROCLAIM THEM TO THE ONES WHOM NEED TO HEAR IT THE MOST, above the rest of the world when it comes to criminal acts and downright corruption.

Perhaps it isn't ambivalence after all.

sKally

johnny cip

i know i got blasted a few days ago for saying KIM NORRIS should hav e gone all the way to trial. and i've been thinking about this, and learning, as before i posted just on emotions. I still think this costed the WTS 40-100 MILLION. MAY BE 30-70 MILLION. MOST LIKELY BETWEEN 25-60 $$$$$$$ MILLION. THESE ARE JUST gUESSES with me playing with #'s. here's the real QUESTION? have silentlambs/kim norris already filed all the cases, that they could win ie; like this one. and are finished for the most part. Or are they holding back a few dozen more cases, to hit the wt even more harder, in the next few years. if they have lots more cases ? they will start the bleed the wt dry. KIM NORRIS may be smarter than i thought. i hope this case is just a president (sp) to keep bringing the wt to it's knee's . let's see if Kim Norris has any tricks left ,or she's done all she can. Time will tell. john

Amazing

Johnny cip,

i know i got blasted a few days ago for saying KIM NORRIS should hav e gone all the way to trial. ...
Kim would not likely be the one to go to trial in most cases. Rather, it is the attorney they teamed up with in various states. However, these lawyers are very good and likely recommended a settlement when it was offered. ... and i've been thinking about this, and learning, as before i posted just on emotions. I still think this costed the WTS 40-100 MILLION. MAY BE 30-70 MILLION. MOST LIKELY BETWEEN 25-60 $$$$$$$ MILLION. THESE ARE JUST gUESSES with me playing with #'s. ...
The settlement is a lot. ... here's the real QUESTION? have silentlambs/kim norris already filed all the cases, that they could win ie; like this one. and are finished for the most part. Or are they holding back a few dozen more cases, to hit the wt even more harder, in the next few years. if they have lots more cases ? they will start the bleed the wt dry.
SilentLambs does not file cases. Bill Bowen used to be associated with me and others when he first left the JWs. We had a working group that was dealing with this issue. He spun off formed SilentLambs, a web-based help resource. He is not an attorney. Rather than run a web site, my role has been to give testimony, and to direct victims and those who know them to talk to Greg Love or Kim Norris. Thousands have turned to them for help. They are not holding back cases. But, not every case can be acted upon. Stay tuned and see what happens. More suits are likely to be filed. KIM NORRIS may be smarter than i thought. i hope this case is just a president (sp) to keep bringing the wt to it's knee's . let's see if Kim Norris has any tricks left ,or she's done all she can. Time will tell. john
The California cases, involving many victims set case law precedents in that state. These rulings may be helpful in other states as a basis for arguments before the court, but they are not binding. However, this settlement only affected three states, Texas, California, and Oregon. There are other states and other victims left to receive justice. Jim Whitney

Quandary

bttt

Notes on Child Abuse Settlement

Share this