Governing Body's Lawyers Unconsciously Driven To Giving Destructive Advice To The Corporation's CEO

by frankiespeakin 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DesirousOfChange

  I think the legal advise has been good so far, but the tide is changing. Juries/judges/people are fet up with legal loopholes and are making decisions accordingly. The WTS Legal NEVER expected the Conti case to go against them siince the perp was not and Elder or MS or Pioneer. HOW could they hold the Organization responsible. Everyone is tired of the legal manipulating regarding child abuse. AND, enough people have been affected, either directly or via a loved one, and thus there is the inclination to "set matters straight". The Conti decision was a real WAKE UP CALL for the WTS. Unfortunately for them, there are 100s more waiting in the wings.

  JMHO

  Doc
• 

  Chaserious

  I think the legal advise has been good so far, but the tide is changing. Juries/judges/people are fet up with legal loopholes and are making decisions accordingly. The WTS Legal NEVER expected the Conti case to go against them siince the perp was not and Elder or MS or Pioneer. HOW could they hold the Organization responsible. Everyone is tired of the legal manipulating regarding child abuse. AND, enough people have been affected, either directly or via a loved one, and thus there is the inclination to "set matters straight". The Conti decision was a real WAKE UP CALL for the WTS. Unfortunately for them, there are 100s more waiting in the wings.

  JMHO

  Doc

  I hope it was a wake up call, but to be honest I think the Conti verdict is going to get overturned on appeal and she is going to walk away with nothing, or at least nothing from the WTS. They didn't expect the case to go against them because this kind of case never gets decided against the religious organization. If as a lawyer, you give your client advice to try the case instead of settling (and as I understand it, Conti didn't want to settle anyway, so really the lawyers had no choice but to go to trial) because there is a 99% chance of winning and a 1% chance of losing, and you are the 1% that loses, it doesn't mean you gave you client bad advice. The real cost is the bad publicity, not the $28 Mil, since I don't think they are going to end up paying it, and even if they do it's a drop in the bucket compared to all the real estate they're liquidating.
• 

  Vidiot

  Assuming the GB actually listens to Legal's advice, a strong argument could be made, I think.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I'm thinking did legal give advice to the GB about calling them first before going to the police in a child molesting case?

  Did Legal advise them in the content of the secret letter to the Elder bodies?
• 

  Chaserious

  "I'm thinking did legal give advice to the GB about calling them first before going to the police in a child molesting case?

  Did Legal advise them in the content of the secret letter to the Elder bodies?"

  There is no way to know this unless someone involved is willing to tell. But my guess would be that in the 1980's/early 90's (which is the time period at issue in recent litigation) they didn't give legal advice on what to put in the literature or in letters sent to elders because molestation cases weren't a big thing yet. Now, you can bet your ass they get legal advice. I'm sure that whatever policies are currently in place makes the WTS absolutely bulletproof for any molestation that happens now going forward. You would probably have to be molested by a CO/DO/GB member at this point to be able to squeeze any money out of the WTS.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Chas,

  Sounds like a good guess. Do you think a personality clash with the new GB members and the older legal team could also come into play as a to giving bad advice that appears to be good, playing on the vanity and delusions of the Governing Body?
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I wonder if this new F&DS understanding along with the new video for instructing elders to step up the disfellowshipping has opened the eyes of some in Legal to see the Governing Body as just a bunch of control freaks, who need a good lesson in humility?
• 

  Chaserious

  "Chas,

  Sounds like a good guess. Do you think a personality clash with the new GB members and the older legal team could also come into play as a to giving bad advice that appears to be good, playing on the vanity and delusions of the Governing Body"

  My own opinion would be that the legal team would not intentionally give bad advice for two reasons:

  1) It's not in lawyers' nature to give their own clients bad advice. Usually if there was some kind of schism they would terminate the representation before doing that, although that is difficult as an in-house Watchtower lawyer. It also could be grounds for losing one's law license, although it might be hard to prove in a lot of cases. If it was done in connection with a public matter like a case it could also look bad if that lawyer were to be looking for another job.

  2) Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? These lawyers are WTS heavies and probably enjoy the prestige associated with that. And to be honest if all they have done their entire legal career is WTS work, such as in the case of the ones the WTS put through law school, despite the law degree they are probably going to have difficulty finding work elsewhere if they leave the organization, and it's doubtful many have the capital to start up their own practice. There is a limited market for lawyers who can defend shunning and church pedophile lawsuits. Real estate contracts and knowlege of NYC law therein is useful, but that is mostly handled by big firms that want lawyers with a pedigree.

  Now as to whether they would uninentionally give bad advice, as I said earlier I doubt it -- but maybe that's a question for a psychologist to answer.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Chas,

  Lawyers are human, with human frailities, and an unconscious part that may be perculating all sorts of conflicting counter actions not consciously recognized because of a cognitive dissonance struggle going on in the psyche.

  So consciously they support the GB, but at a deeper level they may be sabatoging such efforts as even perhaps even the GB are doing so. This date making thing with repeated failures is a bitch leading them to an ever inevidable precipice of organiztional suicide, to which coarse they seem locked with no way out.