The Watchtower policies in dispute are those requiring local bodies of elders to immediately go through the legal department of the Watchtower before any consideration of notifying the proper authorities, as required by law, and which seek to protect the image of the Watchtower organization at all costs, even if it means covering up repeated and scandalous actions toward the vulnerable and the very young by deliberately failing to inform and warn others in congregations within the Jehovah’s Witness community.
What evidence do you have of anything like this, that the legal department instructs the elders to break secular law? According to official documentation, it’s conversely the opposite. October 1, 2012 TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS Re: Child abuse; “Most states have child-abuse reporting laws that, depending on the facts, mandate elders to report an accusation to the authorities. Thus, when elders learn of an accusation of child abuse, two elders from their congregation should immediately call the Legal Department for legal advice. If the individuals involved are in different congregations, each body of elders should arrange for two of their elders to call the Legal Department.”
If the Feds had any real reason to believe the Watchtower society's legal department is instructing the elders to break the law, they’d investigate. I remember an Oklahoma district attorney once made some preconceived accusations, but nothing in the way of evidence ever materialized. I have yet to hear of an elder charged with breaking a mandatory reporting law, albeit there have been several reports of school and church officials being charged and/or convicted for the crime of not-reporting. I'm not necessarily defending anyone's decision in failing to report simply because they weren't compelled by law, I'm just dispelling rumors about the Watchtower Society's legal department.
http://www.nhcadsv.org/faith_based_sexassault.cfm
"Two out of every three Americans are affiliated with a religious, spiritual, or faith-based group or organization, and approximately one out of every four Americans is an active member of such a community. Therefore it is not surprising that many victims of sexual assault turn to religious leaders for guidance in dealing with violence."
I will say that police involvement and other legal entanglement with crimes punishable law in large communities is generally not what church volunteers sign up for, that they should get hammered for their response especially when more times than not, the people telling them things are adults.
No profit or non-profit organization has a system or policy of warning their members outside of what's instituted by the federal government. Some churches have a registered sex-offender policy, but nothing outside this channel.
http://www.hamiltonchurch.com/PDFs/HCC%20Sex%20Offenders%20Policy.pdf
"Policy for individuals on a state Sex Offenders Registry attending Hamilton Community Church.
It is the policy of Hamilton Community Church that individuals on a state Sex Offenders Registry (SOR) are welcomed to become a member and worship at Hamilton Community Church."
Elder bodies forwarding outstanding recommendations as introductory reports to other congregations on behalf of dangerous and habitual pedophile sexual predators, while they refuse to even acknowledge the testimonies of victims because of not having second or third witnesses to the crimes (which basically would never happen during sexual assaults on young children), certainly do not, in my opinion, in any way constitute even a basic and minimal due diligence in protecting the congregation – the flock – of which elders are supposedly assigned to do by their God-appointed position. That is what is at issue – the policies sanctioned and systematically implemented by a self-serving, arrogant, and corrupt organization.
The requirement for two-witnesses is not a policy instituted by the Watchtower society. In fact, it's not even just a “Bible-rule,” it's common law.http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01750.htm"The "two witness" rule, derived from common law, governs the proof required for a perjury conviction under Section 1621. Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 609 (1945). The rule means that a perjury conviction may not rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.”
There may be times when a crime goes unsolved, even a murder because of a lack of corroborating evidence. This doesn't change the fact that matters have to be corroborated as the legal premise of any functional society.
Read the case files. There are others things that will surface as a motivating factor for lawsuit. Nothing "policy" related has validity when compared with the rest of society.
