Scott, You simply don't understand the legal issues. Wrongs may be committed and they are not necessarily illegal. You expect a causal relationship between justice and the law. I once believed that the law upheld the just. The law primarily upholds the established status quo. The WT situation is complicated because a publisher/person who studies is not an official of the WT. The WT proclaims it has no ministers. (of course, next they claim pentinent clergy privilege). As CA law existed at the time of the incident, it is not clear that they had any legal duty to warn the congregation.
The fact that the legislature subsequently enacted a law that would mandate that church officials must notify the authorities can lead one to conclude that no legal duty existed. Many years ago common law courts changed the law. IN fact, if I recall correctly, the major cases involved the highest appellate court finding a new duty. Trial courts conduct trials by applying the law, procedure, and court rules. Appellate courts determine what the law is. If the jury does not correct findings of law by the judge, an appellate court will reverse the verdict.
No one is arguing that the WT is correct. They are clearly wrong by any human measure. Whether or not there failure to act (as opposed to actually committing pedophilia) is cause for liability is a very different issue. It is unfair to make someone due something to comply with a law when they have no notice what the law is. This is a powerful argument against Conti's position.
I have repeatedly said that I have not read the CA cases. The appeals court will apply CA law, not a moral sense of justice. I decided to go to law school because of my mom's experience as a JW. Sometimes law is just. Law basically favors the powerful. I had a chance to work for poverty agencies in college and then govt. and corporate law after law school. The difference in available resources and talent is stunning. My personal view is that true justice is rarely done.
When I worked on Wall Street, I never felt corrupted b/c I represented one massive corporation fighting another massive corporation. The playing field was level. If I ever represented a corporation screw an individual (which does happen), I would find something else to do. One can say that they support Conti and acknowledge that the WT has decent appellate grounds. Besides, I expect with so much money at stake, they would appeal anyway. When I read the appellate grounds for the WT in the documents, they are not zany or reckless. They have a point. Personally, I would like the jury verdict to stand b/c that would equate to justice in my view.
We are talking about legal issues here, not who has the moral or correct position. I don't see anyone here disputing that Conti has the moral high ground or that a Conti win would be just. If I had a Ca client, any client, though, I would want them to know what their liability could be.
