Summary of WT Appeal Brief in Conti Case (page 4)

new22day

They also knowingly provided a pedophile with the opportunity to repeatedly go into the community and homes of families with young children. Talk about having access to children and information he could use later.
A sensational media campaign on this sure would raise some eyebrows -- "Do you know who's knocking on your door? Be careful. JWs think it's OK to send known pedophiles into people's homes to preach"

karter

I can personaly testerfy that there is a child rapest who is an Elder of many years.

Karter.

SaritaJ

Thanks for the summary. I have been following this case with a lot of interest and wish Candace and Rick all the best.

ItsMyLife

Thank you for that, Chaserious. It was very clear and concise - I understood it, which isn't usually the case when it comes to anything to do with law/legal issues!

As I was reading the first section about Duty, the irony hit me. The WT are saying that they have no legal liability for warning someone that there is a danger or risk to them, and therefore they shouldn't be blamed for not warning Candace or her parents and others. BUT, JW's are told regularly that if they don't go out and warn others about Armageddon and the danger Satan and this world poses to them, they are bloodguilty!

So, apparently, it's fine to not let people know that their lives might be ruined forever and their child's innocence might be ripped from them, but it's imperative that people are told that living their lives as they wish could in the future prevent them from living forever.......

Aargh!!

Edit: - Sorry, Oubliette, I see you beat me to this point! They do say great minds think alike....

BroMac

Chaserious- Thank you, I understood 95%. Which is good for me

Good luck with the Bar. Mines a Stella

geevee

Many times when taking a meeting for fs did I end up having to take other peoples children with me because they had too many and they couldn't take 3 or 4 to a door!

Thanks for the awesome summary and the extra comments and letters

sir82

So, 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.

Imagine if it were publicized, in a "non-apostate" setting, that this is the Watchtower's primary basis for appeal:

"Well, who cares about our moral responsibility - we had no legal responsibility, so we should be free and clear!"

What would be the response of the typical JW to seeing such a cold, cynical argument from the Watchtower?

I would submit that dissemination of this information in a form and manner that would be non-threatrening to JWs would be at least as damaging as the news that the WTS lost a child abuse case and owes $millions.

Sounds like a good first project for the newly formed AAWA!

frankiespeakin

Geevee,

Your right many times will out in service I had other peoples children I or my wife was watching and going door to door with. The fact that they let child molesters go door to door with no warning to children not to be a lone with the molester make them negligent of their duty to keep members out of harms way. This is terrible why they still let child molester go door to door should be a crime in itself., but to the Governing Body they are just worldly people, and the rank and file are just rank and file, members who are to do as told, or else.

So I don't see them getting out of that one.

The Song Remains The Same

I really liked the quote that Don't Call Me Shirley pulled up on another thread, and think it worth repeating here regarding their first appeal point;

"When persons are in great danger from a source that they do not suspect or are being misled by those they consider their friends, is it an unkindness to warn them? They may prefer not to believe the warning. They may even resent it. But does that free one from the moral responsibility to give that warning? If you are among those seeking to be faithful to God, the issues these questions raise are vital for you today. Why? Because God's servants in every period of history have had to face up to the challenge these issues present. They have had to expose falsehood and wrongdoing and warn people of dangers and deception—not just in a general way, but in a specific way, in the interest of pure worship. It would have been far easier to keep silent or say only what people wanted to hear. But faithfulness to God and love of neighbor moved them to speak. They realized that 'better is a revealed reproof than a concealed love.'"

(Watchtower, January 15, 1974)

LisaRose

CHASEROUS :An exception to the usual rule that there is no duty to prevent others from causing harm is when something called a “special relationship” exists. Rick Simons argued, and the trial judge agreed, that a special relationship did exist between both the congregation and the WT Society and Candace Conti. It is very important that the appeals court agree as well that a special relationship existed in order for Candace to win this appeal. There are a lot of cases in the brief cited about when special relationships do and do not exist. The WT cites some cases to the effect that the Catholic Church does not have a special relationship with its parishioners. This will probably be the most important parts of the entire appeal for Candace's legal team to reply to. I am looking forward to seeing their arguments. I imagine that one argument could be that the WT organziation is different from the Catholic Church, and another might be that maybe it is time to recognize such a special relationship since times have changed since those last cases were decided involving the Catholic Church (10-15 years ago)

Nice summary, I feel that I understand this much better. I think that the Watchtower is going to have a hard time proving that no special relationship existed between them, the congregation and Candace. There is a mountain of evidence in the publications where the Watchtower claims such a relationship. They consider themselves appointed by God to direct the congregations, they consider the elders appointed and directed by God's holy spirit, they require the elders to obey them in every thing, even very minor things, And they require the individual congregation members to follow them and the obey the elders in everything, in fact they can be disfellowshipped if they do not do so. The elders made the decision they did (removing kendrick but keeping it quiet) because they were following Watchtower instructions.

Since congregation members are told the GB are appointed by God, and elders are appointed by and directed by holy spirit, they would have an expectation that the elders would protect the congregation from child molesters. In fact they often claim that such a thing is very rare in their congregations, almost unheard of. This false sense of security, based on the teachings of the Watchtower were no doubt one of the reasons Kendrick was able to spend time with Candace without her parents being suspicious.

Summary of WT Appeal Brief in Conti Case

Share this