Has the Org's comment on the Candace Conti case been removed from JW.ORG? If not, can someone give me a clue how to retrieve it please? Thanks for any help.
CANDACE CONTI - REMOVED FROM JW.ORG?
by The Searcher 14 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
-
jworld
This is a great line:
J. R. Brown, a spokesman at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses, commented: “The fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse and strive to protect children from such acts is well-known. The individual members of any organization must ultimately bear the responsibility for their own actions, particularly when the acts are so flagrantly against the morals and principles of the organization and society.”
This does fall in line with past thinking from the Watchtower, its individual members that thought the end would come in 1975 and they should bear the responsibility on their own!
Now for the flip side. By this reasoning the Catholic Church should get a free pass too since child abuse is against the morals and principles of the Church. We all know that only the Watchtower gets a free pass though and all other organizations will be held to account for what their members do.
-
The Searcher
Thanks CEDARS
A sister (friend) in another country (unaware of TTATT) is asking questions about Candace.
Softly, softly!!
-
frankiespeakin
I would like to compare this statement of Watchtower, with Rick Simons, Candace lawyer and see how they compare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFYWYvy9aNM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0rblLU0VqM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFN8e0VbSoA
Jehovah’s Witnesses to appeal jury verdict in California case
NEW YORK—Jehovah’s Witnesses will appeal the decision of a California jury in a court case involving alleged acts of child abuse.
The jury rendered a multimillion-dollar damage award to a woman who claimed that she was molested as a child by a member of a local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. At trial, the plaintiff claimed that the policies of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society contributed to the alleged abuse. “We respectfully disagree with the jury’s decision. This is the first time that an organization was found responsible for the alleged misdeeds of a member who held no position of leadership or authority,” states James McCabe, an attorney representing Watchtower in the case. “We are very sorry for whatever harm this young lady may have suffered. However, the organization is not responsible. We now look to the Court of Appeals for a thorough review of this case.”
J. R. Brown, a spokesman at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses, commented: “The fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse and strive to protect children from such acts is well-known. The individual members of any organization must ultimately bear the responsibility for their own actions, particularly when the acts are so flagrantly against the morals and principles of the organization and society.”
-
ABibleStudent
I tried posting the following comment to the propaganda on Jehovah's Witnesses to appeal jury verdict in California case but could not. Therefore, I posted my comment to Google+ to the article Jehovah’s Witnesses Told to Pay in Abuse Case that is still on the NY Times website.
Jim McCabe, a lawyer for the congregation, comment is correct that rank & file Jehovah's Witnesses abhor child abuse, so why do JWs blindly follow Watchtower leader's orders to shun JWs who speak out publicly against the Watchtower's doctrines? How is the Watchtower more capable than law enforcement to protect JWs and children? Is this an example of Theocratic Warfare Strategy or lawyer speak? I learned how BITE control techniques are used to victimize JWs by visiting www.freedomofmind.com.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
frankiespeakin
Notice the qualifiers for Watchtower attorney:
“We respectfully disagree with the jury’s decision. This is the first time that an organization was found responsible for the alleged misdeeds of a member who held no position of leadership or authority,” states James McCabe, an attorney representing Watchtower in the case.
So this leaves open that some have had position of authority which the organization was found responsible for, Olin Moyle comes to mind and perhaps others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olin_R._Moyle
Moyle was disfellowshipped by his congregation, [ 4 ] which wrote a letter to The Watchtower stating that they had not read Moyle's letter, but disapproved of his actions and "never listen to accusations against Brother Rutherford". [ 4 ] [ 12 ] In 1940, Moyle sued the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York over the response in The Watchtower. Rutherford presented a public resolution at a 1941 convention against Moyle, with reference to the September 15, 1941 issue of The Watchtower. [ 13 ] Moyle won his suit, and the court awarded him $30,000 in damages, which was reduced to $15,000 on appeal in 1944. [ 14 ]
The initial jury verdict was affirmed twice on appeal; first by the five member Appellate Division, 2nd Department (3-2); and second, unanimously, by the seven members of the state's highest court, The Court of Appeals, in the capitol at Albany. [ 15 ]
-
mP
@frankie,
The attorney basically admitted they have been guilty in the past, its just this time they got caught by the US gov.
-
Larsinger58
I don't quite get it.
If a guilty person admits something to his attorney or someone has a compromising medical condition his doctor knows about, the right to privacy protects that person. Further, I think the WTS considers themselves much like the Catholic priests who hear confessions but are bound by secrecy to reveal them to anyone else.
Seems like the WTS got caught in a loophole involving their legal responsibilities and their Biblical responsibilities. When in conflict, they always take the Biblical authority as higher.
If the WTS feels it did no wrong, then it means they would do the same thing they did before. It seems the courts recognized that the WTS subculture contributed to the abuse and so held them responsible. Plus, the WTS is big on the "at the mouth of two witnesses..." and thus accusers are often left on their own if there are no other witnesses.
On the other hand, it probably not clear precisely what elders must do in situations like these. But I suspect clarification of actions and specific rules will be coming forth with regard to future cases, so there has come some good from this about coming forward and standing up for the truth.
-
Phizzy
The statement about it being "the first time an organization has been held responsible for the alleged misdeeds of ........." is a strange claim.
The lowliest employees of some organizations have been found to bring their employer in to the picture if what they did or didn't do (negligence) was on the employers time or on their behalf.
The WT is not claiming it was the offender's employer are they ? An employer is not responsible for what an emplyee does in his own time away from the place of employment, but a JW is not an emplyee, he is more in the position of a member of a club, if the offender is aided in commiting the offense by the Club not having proper procedures in place the Club may be sued.
I attended a seminar on that very subject a couple of years ago, it surprised me the extent of a Club's responsibility, but a WT Lawyer is well aware of this.
Their defense looks mighty shaky if that is the best they can do.