So, does this mean that the 10 000 000+ award for the appearance refusal of Loesch is geloescht? (extinguished)? Can the GB members now ignore court orders subpoenas with impunity? Superior to the superior authorities after all?
Article: Reveal News-California court guts child abuse ruling against Jehovah's Witnesses
by AndersonsInfo 47 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
never a jw
Quite inconsistent for the 3 judge panel to affirm negligence on the part of the WT, but then say the WT should not pay any punitive damages. I believe that the judge who wrote the opinion wanted to emphasize that the argument for punitive damages did not pass their test, but the judge also implied that Simmons rested his case only in that one argument. In other words Simmons failed to gather more arguments to make his case for punitive damages more solid. Oh well. let this be a lesson for the lawyers suing the WT in the near future. -
jwleaks
So, Jehovah's earthly organization has no responsibility to warn the little children against potential harm within the congregation or within the community. Let the heavens rejoice. Jehovah must be so proud. The children might not be safe but at least the money is.
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 18:10
-
smiddy
The law is an ASS , 28 million$ cut down to 2.8 million $ .
3 more years of appeals and poor Candace , the victim will probably have to pay the Watchtower Org.
Justice not only has to be done , justice has to , seem to be done .
Failure on both counts.
The law is an ASS.
True , the Watchtower fighting these lawsuits in the courts , dragging them out for years with their tactics of appeals against victims of child abuse , should not go unnoticed by child protection agencies .It should not be seen as a favourable outcome .
smiddy
-
konceptual99
The point about duty to warn the congregation is covered in the court documents:
https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/04-13-2015-appeals-court-final-decision-a136641.pdf
Check page 12 onwards - there is several pages of legal reasoning.
The punitive damages were based on the duty to warn the congregation. Since the ruling was there was no LEGAL duty to warn the congregation then the punitive damages were removed.
When you real the documentation you can see why this was not upheld and what the broader implications are should this duty have been established as a legal responsibility.
Of course, this does affect the MORAL responsibility to protect the congregation as far as is possible. It does not mean that some policy cannot be formulated that helps protect the congregation as much as possible from the risk of child molestation without exposing the congregation to the broader implications of a duty to protect from the risk of one congregation member committing a crime of any sort against another.
It is bizarre that the WTS is so ready to spout on about when things, such as building projects, have been done to a standard way beyond that required by the law yet on this matter seem only too happy to go only as far as the law requires them to go and not implement the best practice that so many other organisations have adopted.
-
AFRIKANMAN
1 - God can never be Culpable
2 - We are Gods only approved channel on earth
Therefore 1 + 2 = We are never culpable !
-
-
floriferous
Matthew 5:40
"If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too."
In other words go beyond mans law to do what is good to others.
Matthew 18:6
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
The the men comprising the Governing Body of the Watchtower Organisation who claim to be Christs spiritual brothers have nothing to crow about. Yes their millions of $$$$$ are safe for the time being however their victory is a hollow one & the world can see it.
-
EdenOne
The court must decide what's LEGAL, not what's MORAL. I understand the court's decision to drop the charge on the legal duty to warn. I understand that the legal ramifications and unclear boundaries of such duty are too complicated. It would open an unimaginable legal can of worms, and no doubt the court didn't want to establish jurisprudence in that direction. But no doubt the Watchtower had the moral obligation to take reasonable measures to alert the new congregation about the danger lurking within. It baffles me the letter of recommendation from the first congregation not only failing to mention the child molestation case, but even mentioning that he was good with children. I think the legal team of Candace Conti made a mistake when they put all their chips regarding punitive charges on the faillure to warn, rather than also base their case on the faillure to supervise the field service activity.
Eden
-
floriferous
I understand what you're saying Eden.
However the Watchtower has always taken the moral high ground on every matter & has continually wagged its finger at 'false religion' (their terminology not mine)
The Watchtower can now be seen as being no better than any 'worldly' law bound corporate religion operating in 'Satan's old world' (their terminology not mine)