Someone clarify where I may be wrong on this, but I thought back when the news of the settlements first broke, and there were some discussions as to "why' this may have happened, I thought it was brought up that in the U.S, if a settlement is offered by a defendent that is potentally more than what could/would be awarded in any jury trial, then the plantiff was under some kind of obligation to accept the settlement, or at least risked being countered sued themselves, if they refused the offer and went through with the jury trial; even if they eventually did win the jury trial. Can someone with more legal understanding than myself refresh my memory of what I am referring to?
The 16 sexual abuse cases settled this year
by WTNightmare00 23 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Burger Time
Hmm...I think that usually only corporate entities put gag orders on victims....which is what speaks volums about the WTS. Also WTnightmare this is more of a lawyer desicion. Another thing to ponder on is that if these people were lieing, shouldn't the WTS relied on Jehovah to clear things up? This is what they are always telling people to do, why didn't they?First - it is not unusual to impose gags on out of court settlements.
Second - The WTS obviously feared an open court judgement far more than a private pay out.
Third - The lawyers for the plaintiffs likely encouraged the victims to agree to the settlement rather than to drag them through the courts and force them to relive the pain again. Further - they we probably advised that this was the one way that they knew the WTS would be made to 'pay'.
While it is always possible that people might lie on either side - usually the liars are found on the side that stands to loose the most - in this case that would be the.... oh I am not going to tell you who that is.....
Jeff
-
jimbo
I think that Hoping4Change is correct that if the settlement was rejected it could open them to counter-suite and at least a much smaller settlement.
Also I think that the WTBTS made the offer in the hope that it would be accepted and they would not be required to reveal their lengthy pedofile data-base that they maintain at headquarters if proceedings were to continue.
Win, win for both parties, but a loss for those of us that would like to see that data-base revealed.
Also if the law suite hit the news and all the details were made public the rank and file JWs would all be privy to the secrets at brooklyn and probably stop contributing to the "world wide work" of paying for all of the pedofile lawsuites.
jimbo (of the follow the money class) -
purplesofa
I have not read all the posts,
but I would like to comment that I can only imagine how beat down these court cases have made the victims.
I wanted to fight Rent-A-Center, and Comcast and after just a few weeks of fighting, the first week I quit with RAC
and with Comcast, after months with them, I recovered about half. They screwed me out of $60 that I will never get, simply because It was costing me more to get it.
purps
-
katiekitten
Gagging orders are absolutely standard practice for out of court settlements.
Also, you wouldnt believe the pressure that is put on plaintiffs to settle out of court. Its not just the amount of money offered, its the legal pressure put on plaintiffs by persuasive and bullying lawyers.
When my partner sued the police, even though he had a water tight case, all the other plaintiffs made out of court settlements for a very small amount of money. How did they do it? Because we were threatened that if we did not settle the court would view us as unreasonable, and the other side would apply for us to pay thousands of ££££ in costs, and because we were being unreasonable by not settling it was highly likely that we would be landed with the costs.
We were told we were being unreasonable because they were not contesting that they were at fault, and therefore by offering us an out of court settlement they were saving court time. They said the court would only award what they were offering anyway (which turned out to be true) and that by insisting on a court hearing instead of accepting an out of court settlement we would be deemed to be wasting the courts time, and this would make the court view us very dimly.
As all the other plaintiffs fell one by one as the clock ticked towards the hearing (it was a joint case) the pressure on us to accept out of court grew and grew. We didnt, and as threatened we were only awared what they had offered us anyway, AND they made an application for their costs to be paid - which would have wiped us out. I was nearly in tears. The judges adjourned to consider the application and luckily it was denied.
But I can see how plaintiffs may easily be bullied into accepting out of court. Its not always about having a water tight case. There are many other legal considerations that are not to do with the actual details of the case.
-
LittleToe
Justice costs a fortune in money and emotional resource. In many cases the investment to pursue a case is huge compared to the return. It becomes a process of diminishing returns. When an out of court settlement is on the table it is often best to call it a day and a gagging order is a usual part of the settlement.
It sux, but its understandable.
-
katiekitten
Its true, and the lawyers play heavily on that.
They know by the time you have got a date fixed and you are at the court house you are emotionally wrung out and exhausted. Its like being offered a comfy bed after a month of sleepless nights in a thunderstorm in a leaky tent.
They play heavily on how hard its going to be in court, and that the oppositions lawyers are going to questioning you really toughly. Now this wasnt a problem for us because it was a fairly emotionless issue, but if it was a sexual abuse case it would mean you having to relive every horrible little detail in a court full of men, being questioned by a man whose job it was to make you look like a total liar.
Plus, if they have offered a settlement they have accepted liability, whether they say they have or not. All of a sudden the only issue left is how much money the court is going to award. They have already worked out how much the court will award based on previous cases. They say 'look we are offering you what you would get in court anyway without all the hassle, and without the worrying possibility that it might not go your way. So what are you going into court for? If you go into court you will only get what we are offering, you have to re-live the whole thing, you might end up with nothing cos weve got the best lawyers money can buy, and you might end up with less than nothing when we apply for our costs'.
Its so tempting. In fact it amazing that any cases ever get to court in the first place.
-
Hermano
It tells me the WTBS does not trust Jehovah, and is not confident that Almighty God can ensure that truth reigns. If they did trust Jehovah, they would have gone to court and cleared up their good name instead of paying god knows how much to settle out of court and brush the scandel under the rug.
-
looking_glass
in the U.S, if a settlement is offered by a defendant that is potentially more than what could/would be awarded in any jury trial, then the plaintiff was under some kind of obligation to accept the settlement, or at least risked being countered sued themselves, if they refused the offer and went through with the jury trial; even if they eventually did win the jury trial. Can someone with more legal understanding than myself refresh my memory of what I am referring to?
No, this is not true. A plaintiff is not under any obligation to settle. I think you might be getting this confused with high/lows that can be reached prior and/or during trial. A high/low relates to when the parties reach a settlement (example between 1 mil and 500k). So if the jury comes back w/ 1.5, the plaintiff only gets 1 mil or alternatively if the jury comes back w/ zero, the plaintiff at least gets 500k. There is something that is called bad faith, but that is another matter and too long to explain as to how it might relate to settlements. Also, a judge can make a recommendation during a pretrial conference and in some cases if the jury reaches the same conclusion as the judge, (award in favor of the defendant as plaintiff failed to met the burden of proof based on their cause of action) some defendants will move (under the various laws of that state) for payment of their attorney's fees. But again that is another type of action and again it depends on the state. A counterclaim and or cross claim is something different.
A gag order is generally put in place during the course of the pending cause of action. Once a settlement has been reached then a settlement agreement is entered into and there are provisions w/i the settlement agreement that prevent the various parties from discussing certain things (such as dollar amounts or specific names of parties and their testimony). Again, I don't know enough about CA law, but a gag order has been throw around here and I believe the use of the term is incorrect.
I am sure those people who were molested by the Catholic priests were none to happy when out of court settlements were reached and they too were under a confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement and were unable to speak. Any organization that is at a huge risk of harmful information getting out is going to seek having it contained. I would have been surprised if the WTBTS had NOT entered into a confidentiality agreement with the settling parties.
As for the toll it takes on the plaintiffs (and their attorneys) ... it is huge. Plaintiff work is very hard on various fronts. If you work for a large firm they have the resource to bank roll the case. However, Love & Norris is not a big firm. It is my understanding that Ms. Norris took out a mortgage on her house in order to continue to pay staff and continue to work on the case. Based on what some of the plaintiffs went thru and their emotional state, the plaintiffs' attorneys had to act not only as counselor at law but also therapist and parent. It was emotionally taxing for everyone and there was no promise that some of those plaintiffs would make it thru a trial.
The risk you run in a trial is losing. Think about how much of a blow this would have been to some plaintiffs. We here, with all our righteous disgust, feel that surely everyone will see what we see. But they DON'T. That is the reality of life. A 12 person jury could feel that the evidence was just not there. What would happen to those fragile plaintiffs if the jury had returned a verdict in favor of the defendant? Would they take it as an affirmation that they are not to be believed by anyone? There were many risks that were run by all the parties in these lawsuits.
I suppose I see things a little differently. I don't see the confidentiality requirements that are in place (what little I know of them) as all that strange. In most cases we enter into a settlement agreement and don't file it with the court because we don't want anyone to know what we settled to, we just enter an order saying the matter was settlement. Only if someone breaches the agreement do we go back in and seek the court's assistance.
If the parties had not settlement the matter may still not have gone to trial and in turn certain events that took place that allowed for the releasing of documents from the OR case may not be at our disposal now. Those documents will be, and are, far more damning to the WTBTS then any settlement they entered into because the documents speak for themselves.
-