Summary of WT Appeal Brief in Conti Case (page 3)

The Quiet One

Can anyone get a copy of this letter to Candace, as it proves the WT's statement regarding appointments to be a clear deception.. "the brief statedthat “[ t]hat letter [a 1997 letter to BOE] also confirmed Watchtower's long-standing policy that a known child molester does not qualify to be appointed to a position of responsibility in any congregation.”"

DATA-DOG

Thanks for posting that Quite One, those letters should never be forgotten.

When I told my wife about the Conti case and about how the Elders keep molesters identities from the flock, she was bothered. She consoled herself by telling me that if a brother was a molester at any time he could NEVER have a position of authority. That is because there was a public lesson that said so. What the r&f do not know is the confidential letters to the Elder Bodies, and the contents of the Shepherd book.

" The WT brief alleges that "neither Watchtower personnel nor the elders and ministerial servants of North Fremont Congregation have unique positions of access to children, or positions of trust with children, because families stay together during all religious programs."

Then what exactly is a " hiding place from the wind" or " the shadow of a crag " or a " shepherd " or a " star " in Christ's right hand if not a position of trust?!!!

Listener

Thankyou for all the work you put into the summary. The WTBTS is not making itself look good through this appeal.

Regarding -

A. Duty applied to the Watchtower

They are admitting that they may have had a moral responsibility to action and failed but because their was no legal obligation they should be let off the hook. If it is by their 'works' that they vindicate themselves as being above every other religion then they are failing because their actions show that they don't take their moral responsibilities seriously. It also demonstrates how their actions are not being guided by Holy Spirit otherwise they would have known how to deal with abuse issues in a wisely manner.

I understand that in at least one state there is a 'good samaritan' principle. The law is supposed to be about justice. If by someone's inaction another person is injured then there should be a recourse. It seems their only recourse regarding their inaction is because they felt they had no legal responsibility.

Even if they win this case they have shown clearly how they neglected to act as true Christians.

B. Exclusion of Parties from Jury Verdict Form

Such a fine representation they make of themselves, let's point the fingure elsewhere and put the blame on others.

C. Government entanglement with religion

Sounds like they feel they should be above the law. The case is about a religion having some responsibility in protecting an individual and yet the WTBTS would like to establish the idea that it does not.

Oubliette

" the basis of the WT’s argument is that normally, people don’t have any responsibility to warn other people of danger, if they did not directly create the danger and the danger is at the hands of someone else. "

That's pretty funny considering the whole alleged "bloodguilt" aspect of the WTBTS's reason for insisting that all JWs preach door-to-door. - Keeping “Clean from the Blood of All Men,” The Watchtower , October 1, 1960, page 608.

Ezekiel 3:17-18: “Son of man, a watchman is what I have made you to the house of Israel, and you must hear from my mouth speech and you must warn them from me. When I say to someone wicked, ‘You will positively die,’ and you do not actually warn him and speak in order to warn the wicked one from his wicked way to preserve him alive, he being wicked, in his error he will die, but his blood I shall ask back from your own hand

So all you active JWs take heed: according to the WT lawyers you no longer need to preach. You aren't creating the "danger" of Armageddon, Jehovah is. Let him warn them!

OnTheWayOut

A. Watchtower definitely has a special relationship and duty to young members. In this case, they encourage situations that present a danger that they know about. I doubt an appeal would reverse the first judge on that one.

C. That could have merit if courts were controlled by the churches. I think the court and the public are not on Watchtower's side unless they are in their pockets.

D. I personally think there is a duty to warn even when the name cannot be revealed.

E. Thanks for explaining that some. That is one that I could see some appeal court wanting to remove because they think it sends a message too strong and tells others that it is time to sue WTS.

F. I imagine the WTS people and lawyers will be much more "likeable" this time around. They could get a reduction. I hope at least the 7 million stands.

mind blown

Kendrick IS on the sex offenders list.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/227051/1/Jonathan-Kendrick-on-the-sex-offenders-register

Chaserious

Frankie - Thanks for the link to the 1989 letter.

The Quiet One - Great job digging up those links. I knew there was material stating that a molester could qualify again.

That's pretty funny considering the whole alleged "bloodguilt" aspect of the WTBTS's reason for insisting that all JWs preach door-to-door.

Great point, Oubilette. It's incredibly ironic that they claim a biblical responsibility to warn everyone or be bloodguilty, yet when it comes time to try and get out of a money judgment, they claim they don't have any responsibility to warn anyone.

Kendrick IS on the sex offenders list.

Well, the argument is that he was not on the list between 1994-1996, which is when the abuse took place. The brief actually doesn't say for sure that he wasn't on a public database at that time. It just says that the congregation didn't know he was convicted until 1998, and they are claiming that they couldn't publicize it unless they knew he was convicted. We might have to wait for Rick Simons' brief to correct them if they are wrong about any of this. To me, the whole argument that they can't warn unless he has been convicted makes no sense at all. He confessed to elders that he molested his stepdaughter. It's not like they would even have been spreading something that is one person's word against another's.

The elder's authority is significantly higher than in a regular church. They have the power to remove members, and this is exercised much more frequently than in the church.
Congregations are smaller, so members are in closer proximity; more times a week.
Field service pairs up adults with children in an unsupervised environment.

Summary of WT Appeal Brief in Conti Case