On November 25, 2008, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and the WSJ both posted articles about this...
SIXTH CIRCUIT: VATICAN CAN BE SUED FOR SEXUAL ABUSE
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/25/sixth-circuit-vatican-can-be-sued-for-sexual-abuse/
[...]
In a landmark ruling yesterday, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Vatican could be held liable for negligence in sexual-abuse cases filed in the U.S. It is the first time a circuit court reached that conclusion, and the opinion is considered a breakthrough by those allegedly abused by priests. Here’s the WSJ story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122756420187954231.html
[...]
U.S. COURT ALLOWS ABUSE CASE vs. VATICAN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122756420187954231.html
A federal appeals court has permitted a lawsuit over alleged sexual abuse to proceed against the Vatican, creating potential liability for the seat of the Roman Catholic faith for the activities of Catholic clergy in the U.S.
Monday's ruling, issued by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, marks the first time a court at so high a level has recognized that the Vatican could be liable for the negligence in sexual-abuse cases brought in the U.S.
The ruling is seen as a breakthrough...
[...]
Surely the WT must be nervous about this. If the big bad Vatican can be sued for pedo abuse cases that occurred in the USA, then there should be no holds barred from anyone abused in the USA by JWs not being able to sue the big bad Watchtower for the same type offenses.
Too many duped Catholics responded to the WSJ Law Blog saying it was the INDIVIDUAL priests who were guilty, not the Vatican (sound familiar?) Pfffff! Like the Vatican/Watchtower did not give orders from the top dogs to just move those pervs around to other churches/KH's rather than hanging the pedos out to dry with Johnny Lawman!
/ag
COURT RULES VATICAN LIABLE for USA PEDO CASES - Surely WT Nervous Over This
by abbagail 13 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
abbagail
-
carla
Maybe they can file as friend of the court like they did with Jimmy Swaggart!
-
abbagail
heehee, carla. I thought about that, but couldn't remember the "legal term" for filing as a "Friend of the Court." Don't they call that Amicus Brief? Yes! It came to me as I was typing the question. And I looked it up:
Amicus Brief: Document filed in a legal proceeding by an interested party who is not directly part of the case.
-------
You betcha. I even wondered if WT had not already jumped on the legal-beagle bandwagon with the Vatican to appeal this decision. Wouldn't surprise me one bit! Now wouldn't that freak out the JWs, if the Vatican and the WT go to court together, lol.
First they "ride the wild beast" with the UN.
But if they were to "get in bed" with the whore of Babylon, that should shake the very foundation of the JW masses. -
blondie
As much as I know from the SNAP organization, there is a paper trail back to the Vatican that supports this legal step. Is there a similar legal paper trail leading back to the WTS?
I wonder what Kim Norris and Jeff Anderson know?
Blondie
-
abbagail
You mean a paper-trail of the Vatican's own documents?
Doesn't WT have it's own "documents" that it keeps trying to hide (or shred?) such as the 28,000(?) names, etc.?
Last I heard from Kim, which was a LONG time ago, about the time that big settlement occurred last year, if I remember correctly she said they were working on another case that would blow the entire house down (ie, so much proof there would be no way to rebut it).
But I don't know anything specific. Maybe Barb Anderson knows...?? -
blondie
SNAP and others have been able to legally access some of the church's papers between the archbishops (other "dignataries") and the Vatican.
Reading their website can give you a broad picture of the size of their work locally and beyond.
Any legal precedents any organization develops against child abusers and organizations that protec them is a win for all children. Child abusers are found in every religious and secular organization.
Blondie
-
abbagail
Wow, good for SNAP, they have been working overtime!
Since the RCC is such a bigger fish than the WT, always good to get the big fish first, and all the little fishies will likely be just as exposed in due time.
And yes, the pervs are everywhere! -
David2002
The Southern Baptist are probably more fearful because they rejected keeping a database of pedophile clergy Baptists, and they rarely, if ever, expelled them. Interestingly, Witnesses were criticized for keeping a database of former pedophiles as well as those accused of child abuse-a database used to identify and warn elders and congregation of certain individuals. Witnesses were the first Christian group to deny anyone a teaching position or elder position or ministerial servant who is known to have been a pedophile or accused of such immoral and criminal conduct. Unlike the Catholics and Baptists, those known to be involved in such depraved conduct are immediately removed from being their teaching posts, and never permitted to hold such as post. The Southern Baptist Convention refused to keep a database of pedophiles ministers and others that have penetrated their churches. The Southern Baptist argue their churches are autonomous and independent, and they must deal with the problems on their own. This is similar to other major Protestant groups, including the other evangelicals. Time magazine recently said that the Southern Baptist decision against a pedophile database is one of top 10 un-reported stories of 2008. As it states: "while the headlines regarding churches and pedophilia remain largely focused on Catholic parishes, the lack of hierarchical structure and systematized record-keeping in most Protestant churches makes it harder not only for church leaders to impose standards, but for interested parties to track allegations of abuse."(see link below) http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1861760_1862212,00.html
-
belbab
You betcha. I even wondered if WT had not already jumped on the legal-beagle bandwagon with the Vatican to appeal this decision. Wouldn't surprise me one bit! Now wouldn't that freak out the JWs, if the Vatican and the WT go to court together, lol.
In one of the cases that Watchtower settled out of court, I believe it was the one in Oregon, I looked up on line the credentials of one of the local lawyers that the WT was using who was licenced to practice law in that State. I found it very interesting, he was a famous top-gun Roman Catholic lawyer that handled RC pedophile cases. I will try and find the references.
I doubt though, that JWs would become freaked out if they find that WT is collaborating with RC lawyers.
belbab
-
wobble
My understanding is that this case hinges on a written directive to cover up such cases,emanating from the Vatican,I think the Pope,(Cardinal Ratzinger)as the one in the vatican responsible for oversseing this at the time ,may be asked to give evidence.
I wonder if there ever was an "Elders Letter" to BOE's in the past that did not urge IMMEDIATE disclosure to the authorities,or worse to cover up,in which case scenario there would be a possibility of a class action against the WTBS.
In the BOE letters I have downloaded,it seems to me that the early one dealing with how Elders deal with abuse is missing,it is mentioned but is not in the collection I have.
The Andersons may possibly be able to locate one and see if it is of use,anybody on JWD got access?
Love
Wobble