by Celestial 58 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Cofty is so right.
I'd like to add that older teens who were molested even once, 15/16/17 YOs need to be protected and taken seriously. Even if they are not as traumatized as a small child or are using the molestation as blackmail or whatever... need sympathy, not contempt.
Yes, that's a random comment. Sorry. Carry on.
I can't begin to tell you how furious I was to read this unadulterated offal from Celestial. The penitent privilege cannot be invoked in any case because first and foremost, the confidentiality that is necessary is never respected, honored, or safeguarded. That privilege has room for only two people, the penitent and the clergyman/confessor/spiritual adviser who is told. JWs invoke a judicial committee of three or more men to hear the confession, keep notes of the meeting, open and maintain files in the congregation's records, and notifies the WTS Legal Department. Any one of these actions voids the claim that the privilege exists. And don't even get me started with the thinly veiled assertion that pedophilia and homosexuality should be viewed in the same light.
This long and drawn out post is nothing more than verbal diarrhea. Just the same, I'm glad to see it because it tells me there is still much work to do and deep malice to overcome still when people like Celestial enter a discussion of this type.
Quendi
I found out what this California law means:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1030-1034
1033. Subject to Section 912, a penitent, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege.
This means a person can confess to child molestation even if a pastor, elder or member of clergy has waived his rights to section 1032. This means a molester can confess to an elder abuse and regardless of the severity, the molester can prevent the elder from disclosing this information to anyone else.
Under this arrangement, an alleged molester, even if the molester is an elder, could not be stripped of his position, disfellowshipped or reported to the secular authorities without subjecting the Watchtower Society to a lawsuit from the molester.
Who really enforces a secrecy policy in religious institutions? The federal government or Jehovah's Witnesses?
This has something to do with why two elders were in the room when Kendrick confessed or why two elders are arraigned when called to any kind of meeting.
As it turns out, the attorney, Rick Simons said in “Motion in Limine plaintiff's No, 6 to exclude evidence of and reference to inapplicable privilege:”
“Defendants Watchtower New York and Fremont Congregation have each argued that they could not warn of Jonathan Kendrick's propensity for sexual abuse, nor inform the Congregation of the reason for his removal as a Ministerial Servant, because to do so would violate the Clergy-Penitent and "Spiritual" Privileges. The Court has previously rejected the argument as to the specific evidence regarding Jonathan Kendrick in this case, both in two separate Motions to Compel Discovery and in Plaintiff's Punitive Damage Pleading Motion. Neither Defendants' agents, nor its Attorneys, should be permitted to testify or argue to the jury that Clergy-Penitent or Spiritual Privileges would have been violated if remedial action regarding Jonathan Kendrick was taken in 1993.”
“In order to apply in California, the Clergy-Penitent Privilege, as codified in Evidence Code section 1032, there must be a "confidential communication."
It's interesting that he excludes Evidence Code section 1033.
“The statements made by the stepdaughter, Evelyn, and Jonathan Kendrick at a family meeting with the Elders in 1993 were all made in the presence of third persons.”
Something else about this case and statements made by Simons, is he is unduly focused on the policies of Jehovah's Witnesses while ignoring the relationship between the Watchtower society and the federal government. Notice, that in this statement, he never makes mention of alerting the police.
“There is simply no factual or legal basis to claim or apply Clergy-Penitent Privilege as to the information received by the Elders in the Kendrick home meeting, or the subsequent actions of Defendants in disciplining him. Therefore any testimony, argument, or evidence that Clergy-Penitent Privilege prevented warning the Congregation or its adults and parents that Jonathan Kendrick was removed from his position as a Ministerial Servant because of an act of child sexual abuse is without legal or factual basis.”
This case seems to be more about what Jehovah's Witnesses do in their congregations than whether or not they alert the authorities.
If the legal options of this lawsuit are exhausted and the Watchtower Society has to settle on behalf of the plaintiff, they'll simply adjust their current policy. They'll state that “Clergy-Penitent Privilege doesn't not protect a penitent because of standards and practices within Jehovah's Organization.”
This doesn't mean they'll make “announcements” about an alleged molester, they'll automatically route all confessions to the respective authorities. All the authorities did with Kendrick in 1994 was convict him of a misdemeanor and slap him with a small fine. If the authorities don't send a molester to prison or place him on the sex-offender registry, how can anything more be expected from the congregation?
I think this case will be overturned in a court of appeals because any reasonable person should see that the statutes of the Clergy-Penitent Privilege in the state of California are more problematic than the policies of the Watchtower Society and the actions of law enforcement were no different than that of the elders.
(marking)
If somone gets off in Court for any reason it does not change what he is, a lifelong threat to the young and the vulnerable, the law is not the be all and end all of this, "God's Spirit Directed Organisation" as the WT claims to be should at least have the "Natural affection" that Paul spoke of to make absolutely certain those at possible risk are protected.
Celestial, you are making me want to come and smack your head against a wall until you understand the above, Jeez, I belong to a small voluntary association that has no money, we have a proper protection policy and a working proramme that ensures a responsible person makes sure no abuse could take place, we do much more than the law demands, if we can do that JW's can, and already should be, except that like you, all of them fulfill the scripture about having "No natural affection".
If somone gets off in Court for any reason it does not change what he is, a lifelong threat to the young and the vulnerable, the law is not the be all and end all of this, "God's Spirit Directed Organisation" as the WT claims to be should at least have the "Natural affection" that Paul spoke of to make absolutely certain those at possible risk are protected.
Celestial, you are making me want to come and smack your head against a wall until you understand the above, Jeez, I belong to a small voluntary association that has no money, we have a proper protection policy and a working proramme that ensures a responsible person makes sure no abuse could take place, we do much more than the law demands, if we can do that JW's can, and already should be, except that like you, all of them fulfill the scripture about having "No natural affection".
What about Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy do you want to change?
From your perspective, this a human issue, not a theological issue. The two issues are directly related, but you may not see it that way, so exclude the latter.
One of my main concerns about this case was whether or not the elders broke the law. If they did violate mandatory reporting laws, this could implicate the Watchtower Society because elders contact their legal department in the instance that accusations or confessions of child-abuse are received.
http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm
However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law. Additionally, the victim or anyone else who has knowledge of the allegation may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.
http://www.jw-media.org/gbl/20071121.htm
For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse. Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide are united in their abhorrence of this sin and crime.—Romans 12:9.
We do not condone or protect child molesters. Our elders expel unrepentant sinners who commit this crime.(1 Corinthians 5:13) In the United States, over 80,000 elders currently serve in over 12,300 congregations.(Acts 20:28) During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the United States. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course, one victim is one victim too many. However, the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare.
Congregation elders comply with child abuse reporting laws.(Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1) We do not silence victims. Our members have an absolute right to report this horrible crime to the authorities. The October 2007 issue of our monthly journal Awake! features the cover series,“Keep Your Children Safe!” These articles clearly show our concern for protecting children from sexual abuse.
----------
What it comes down to, is why was a settlement offered on behalf of the victims in 2007?
Read a “Discussion of Liability Issues” in court documents filed on 04-19-2012.
“Settlement Conference Statement of The North Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Fremont California”
“Discussion of Liability Issues”
At the time of the alleged abuse, Kendrick was not an agent of either the North Fremont Congregation or Watchtower of New York. He was not in any position of responsibility or authority within either the congregation or Watchtower of New York. Therefore, Watchtower of New York and the North Fremont Congregation cannot be liable for any alleged conduct by Kendrick that did not occur on Kingdom Hall property or during congregation activity.
“If, arguendo, the abuse occurred, it was by one congregation member against another congregation member. Neither of the Church Defendants can be held liable for abuse of this nature.
Further, the Church Defendants had no legal duty to report abuse of a minor to the authorities before January 1, 1997, (clergy first became mandated reporters at that time) and did not report the touching of Kendrick's step-daughter. Nonetheless, a police report was evidently made by the family and Kendrick was prosecuted.
The minister-communicant privilege is still recognized by California law. The Church Defendants could not have disclosed the 1993 incident without violating that privilege, which belonged to both Kendrick and the Church Defendants.
The fact that Kendrick later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor arising out of the 1993 incident with Andrea was never disclosed to the Church Defendants. The Church Defendants had no notice of "child sexual abuse" by Kendrick in 1993. They had a confession by Kendrick that he had inadvertently or accidentally touched Andrea's breast over her clothes, and Andrea and her mother, Evelyn Kendrick, never told the two elders anything different from what Kendrick had confessed to them (the elders).
The elders of the North Fremont Congregation removed Kendrick from any position of responsibility or authority in 1993 and watched him during church meetings and functions to see whether he acted inappropriately with any children at the Kingdom Hall. Kendrick was not allowed to engage in congregation activity around children without supervision. The elders and Plaintiffs parents never saw Kendrick abuse Plaintiff in the Kingdom Hall. The elders never saw Plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Plaintiff s parents never allowed Kendrick to take Plaintiff to his home.
“Settlement Issues”
If Plaintiff was abused, it was committed by Kendrick, a third party not under the control or supervision of the Church Defendants. Kendrick denies abusing Plaintiff. Further, even if, arguendo, the jury should find that Kendrick abused Plaintiff in the Kingdom Hall by hugging her and having her sit on his lap while her parents were present, the damages for that alleged conduct would be minimal at best. Also, if the jury finds the Church Defendants liable for abuse of Plaintiff off of Kingdom Hall property (such as in Kendrick's private home), the Church Defendants will have little option except to appeal such a verdict. The Church Defendants could not let such a potential precedent go unchallenged.
Finally, Plaintiffs description of the location, nature, and extent of her alleged abuse is contradicted by, among other things, her parents and the elders and thus lacks credibility. No demand for settlement has yet been made by Plaintiff; however, the Church Defendants will participate in the mandatory settlement conference in good faith.”
What this means is the elders complied with mandatory reporting laws. What I said about the state of California's recognition of "penitential communications" has nothing to do with mandatory reporting laws in this case.
The first child abuse reporting law in California was enacted in 1963 under the acronym “CANRA”(Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act). However,“CANRA” has been amended many times since the law was initially passed. I couldn't locate the specifics online as to when the law was amended, but evidently, religious leaders were declared a mandated reporter in California on or after January 1, 1997.
The elders never witnessed the Plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick because it very well could have never happened. I owe Candace Conti's parent(s) an apology for what I've said about her parent(s) voluntarily allowing a thirty or forty year old man to take custody of their minor daughter. Her own parents don't even back her story.
The alleged inapplicability of California evidence code section 1032,“minister-communicant privilege” was described in court document; “Motion in Limine Plaintiff's No, 6 to Exclude Evidence of and Reference to Inapplicable Privilege.”
The Plaintiff's assertions in these documents were addressed by the Watchtower Society in court documents; “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support in opposition” filed on 04-27-12 and “Defendants Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Opposition to Plaintiff's motion in Limine 6,” filed on 05-21-12.
“Elders do not allow unnecessary third parties to be a party to a confidential communication. At times more than one elder may be a party to the conversation. For instance, it is Jehovah's Witnesses religious belief and practice to have at least two elders present during a judicial investigation and at least three elders present during a judicial committee. (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18: 15-17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19)”
“Jehovah's Witnesses believe that men are imperfect and, therefore, three elders serving on a judicial committee can provide more full and complete spiritual counsel and advice based on a broader range of experience and knowledge than can a single elder alone. Before one becomes one of Jehovah' s Witnesses, he is made aware of this provision.”
Defendants Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Opposition to Plaintiff's motion in Limine 6,” filed on 05-21-12:
“The elders in this instance spoke with the Kendrick family at their home. That conversation was intended to be confidential an d the elders were there as ministers or religious leaders of the local Jehovah's Witnesses congregation under circumstances requiring them to maintain confidentiality. This was clearly a penitential communication within the Jehovah's Witnesses faith. The members of Kendrick's family present were not "unnecessary third persons to the communications." It is necessary for the Court to view "no third person" to mean no unnecessary third person in order to avoid an unconstitutional establishment of religion. This Court and society in general may be more familiar with confessions of those involving one priest (clergyman) and a penitent. However, this does not allow that to be the standard for "penitential communications" for all religions. The procedures an d protocols of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith require at least two elders to speak to a penitent and that conversations with families of the penitent are still considered confidential and must be maintained as such by the elders. This was particularly true in this instance where the two elders were required by the Bible to counsel and reprove Kendrick before all onlookers to his sin (i.e., Evelyn and Andrea).(1 Timothy 5:20.) This Court cannot require one religion's standard to be the standard for all religions. This would result in the Court becoming overly involved in the purely ecclesiastical disciplinary matters of a religion or favoring one religious practice over another.”
The discussion of liability issues in this case reveal that this recent ruling by a California jury could very well be overturned in a court of appeals as it seems to have no legal precedent, no constitutional foundation and multiple witnesses that contradict the testimony of the Plaintiff. Candace Conti could very well end up with thousands of dollars in legal expenses. This man “Bill Bowens” drags these “victims” through hell to accomplish his “mission” that makes no logical sense. The mission is to attack the Watchtower Society like a pit-bull regardless of expense. There's nothing human about that.
I'm still in the dark as to "What about Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy needs to change?"
This case reveals why the Watchtower Society offered a settlement in 2007, “for the sake of the victims,” not to “cover anything up.”
This case reveals why the Watchtower Society offered a settlement in 2007, “for the sake of the victims,” not to “cover anything up
—----------
This whole line of reasoning falls apart at the summation when the reader is aware of the FACT that the settlements also have a gag-order attached.
This only serves the "sake of the WTB&TS" and helps "cover their mistakes up"!
Goshawk
Long winded posts on a BullShit Thread..
I'm still in the dark as to "What about Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy needs to change?"...Celestial
Thats because your Selectivly Stupid
Jehovah`s Witness`s don`t have a Child Protection Policy..
Jehovah`s Witness`s have a "Hide the Child Molester Policy" given to them by the WBT$..
The Courts have finally made the WBT$ pay for their Dirty Deeds..
It`s going to cost 28 million dollars this time..Hopefully more next time..
They should make you pay part of it..For posting this WatchTarded Thread..
Actually you are..
It`s your money the WBT$ will use to pay Candace..
You and 7 million other Dumb Ass`s..
Who don`t know how to pick up a phone and call the police..
When a Child is being Molested..
............................ 
...OUTLAW
Celestial
What you and othe WTS apologists fail to recognize is the limited scope of "expertise" that elders and/or religious leaders have or should be permitted to have. Elders are allowed "freedom" to exercise authority as it relates to spiritual issues for their adherents. Religious freedom allows for adherents to seek spiritual assistance from "qualified" ministers who they look to as spiritual leaders. However, when the issue crosses spiritual limitations and enters the arena of being illegal, elders should remove themselves from such matters and defer to trained professionals who have the experiance, authority, and resources to address such matters in harmony with the law.
The WTS by discouraging members from taking "brothers to court" thus encourages them instead to go the elders first. The WTS by reequiring the elders to first contact the "Legal Department" presumes to place its relative authority above the existing superior authorities. When it's a matter of serious illegal activities like child abuse, rape, or murder, the elders and the WTS is obligated by common sense and love for their adherrents to refuse to handle such matters beyond the realm of spiritual encouragement and counsel. They cannot and should not presume to offer or render legal advice or intervention. The moment they do, they have placed their policies at the mercy of litigants and the courts.
In summary, elders, whether of the congregation or the WTS, are limited in the scope of their authority to being spiritual advisers and counselors. Clearly child abuse, rape, and murder are not spiritual weaknesses, they are heinous crimes that render "repentance" to be irrelevant as to whether the legal authorities get involved.
Your reasoning is completely devoid of this fact and literally makes me throw up!
So... the wt wants to protect jw kids from a toy..(sparlock) but they refuse to protect them from the pedophiles in thier midst by warning others in the congregation about the danger...
Yeah...that makes perfect sense..... Oh..and if you question this outrageous nonsense and leave the organization...you are mentally diseased!
Quit making excuses for these idiots and face reality!
Coffee
I cannot believe that "Celestial" can look in the mirror and not say "who is that wanker ?"
We have spelled out to you in no uncertain terms what is wrong with your beloved WT/JW religion and its heartless lack of care for "widows and orphans", i.e the vulnerable, and you come back with the total Bull***t that it depends on if they have broken the law and other such rubbish.
Take a good honest look at yourself and what you represent, you snivelling apologist for paedophiles, are you that way inclined yourself, do you cherish an organization that will keep you safe to carry on perpetrating some of the most evil acts possible for humans ?
