Was the Verdict of the Candace Conti lawsuit a Win-Win for the WTS?
by rip van winkle 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Band on the Run
A quick reading of your links did not address the issue. My prior reading of other posts and newspaper articles stated that yes, clergy are mandatory reporters when acting as counselors. I believe the issue is whether clergy-pentinent privilege is erased. The privilege extends to confidential communications during confession. Perhaps I read too quickly but none of the links addressed this issue.
If the trial judge carved out an exception to privilege, I don't think it is wise. The legislature should act.
I recall reading that the judge found that privilege did not extend b/c two ministers were present. My question is how a trial judge can rule that two ministers negates privilege. Both ministers have a duty of confidentiality. True, it is not the Roman Catholic model of confession on which privilege was shaped. Also, no one here has reported what is counseling and what is confusion at the borderlines. These are powerful First Amendment issues.
To answer the question, there needs to be a specific link that addresses the privilege.
If CA does not have an exemption from regular privilege law that allows mandatory reporting laws, it seems very unlike CA, which is usually a harbinger of change in America. CA would be the one place I would expect such a movement to start. All these questions were on my mind to ask Conti's lawyer during the teleconference. I was unable to ask them.
If I am correct, too, Monsignor Lynn in Philadelphia, who was convicted of one count for covering up pedophile behavior of priests did not hear the confessions. Rather, he was doing bureaucratic church work.
I also find it very interesting that she did not settle. She has very strong convictions.
-
Band on the Run
Checking again, I believe one of your links states that clergy are mandatroy reporters but the privilege reamins for "pastoral communications." cohttp://centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/kb/cultcomp/clergy%20mandated%20reporters.pdfmmunications."
-
Scott77
Why are you so selective? Did you check previous court settlement in CA involving the Watchtower? Everything are on public record. My experiences tell me that verdicts reached by Juries are notoriously difficult to overturn.
Scott77
-
mind blown
Once again, Clergy-pentinent privilege is erased if there is more then one person during confession other then ONE clergy member and confessor it will not hold up, or a clergy filled a form and sent it to an other body of individuals, or did not state they are excercising their rite during a confession, it does and will not hold up in a court of law. This has been confirmed and fact.
This is law, why should Legislature act?
-
Band on the Run
I don't want to argue. It is not my duty to thoroughly research and report law. This forum is not set up for that purpose. Without spending hours reading all the cases and legal journals on clergy/pentinent privilege, I do know a fair amount concerning First Amendment law. The forum thread you linked is not a code or case.
Your link deals with the privilege concerning marital issues. Marriage is almost exclusively a state concern, not a federal one at all. B/c a religion is involved, First Amendment issues are raised. Again, without spending 2 weeks reading about it and writing a memo, I feel the two clergy present negating the privilege is weird. IMO. What right does the govt have to insist on one clergy.
These are my immediate thoughts. This forum is not a law forum. I made a rule when I first started posting never to research law so I would avoid giving legal advice. I have a right to raise issues, whether they are probable or not.
If the WT had no appealable grounds, their settlement offer may have increased substantially or they would just write a check the day of the verdict. We studied the history and reasons for the privilege in law school. It was not in my field so I truly don't know current privilege law in any state. The two clergy presence negating the privilege seems to raise problems b/c America is not a Roman Catholic country.
Settlements don't convey acknowledged liability. They resolve a legal issue relatively quickly. Proceeding to trial is very expensive for both parties. Juries are unpredictable. Of course, if the principle is such an integral part of your religion, it would seem that a group might opt for the more expensive and risky vindication at trial and appeals.
Besides, I am not the only poster who feels the way I do. Several people have posted the same views. Don't count your chickens until the eggs hatch.
-
Band on the Run
Juries find facts. Trial judges make rulings on law and prepare jury instructions that detail the applicable law that they are to follow. Appellate courts rarely overturn factual findings b/c the trial judge and jury had the opportunity to hear the voice and body language of witnesses. A transcript is very cold.
Appellate courts do review the trial judge's legal findings. When this appealed, the findings of fact will stand. The judge's work will be reviewed. This case might go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The verdict was so high and the precedent set are so important that it is feasable that both sides will pursue it to the highest court that will review it.
I am not a Witness apologist.
-
james_woods
It would indeed be ironic if the witness legal team has to rely on the Catholic rule of "priest - penitent anonymity" for their defense.
The witnesses have never made a claim to a doctrine of penitence or anonymous confession. In fact, they have routinely denounced this practice.
The witness judicial committee is actually a pseudo law court, not a place for regular voluntary religious confession and absolution.
-
sir82
I've written this before on other posts, but....
Isn't "clergy penitent privilege" completely blown away by the judicial committee filling out an S-77 form and sending it to the Society, where it is available for any number of persons in the service department to read? Not to mention the "letter of introduction" that is written when a child molester moves to a new congregation, which letter is shared among the entire BOE?
-
james_woods
I think that should be obvious, Sir82.
Also quite to the point is the simple fact that not even the Catholics are able to hide behind anonymous confession on this issue - as the many cases they have lost prove.