Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641

by jwleaks 212 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  jgnat

  So I imagine, prime, you brought up questions of evidence and credibility....for the peanut gallery? Law has settled this already.

  "The courts have also been known to make prejudicial decisions on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation. You would think you could put that aside."

  From this I am guessing you are claiming some kind of religious persecution? That a jury hearing a sex abuse case say, from a college, volunteer organization, or sports association may have been treated more kindly?

  I suggest rather that there is a greater willingness to deal with sexual abuse openly and to deal harshly with the perpetrators and the facilitators. Colleges and sport associations are being held to account just as hard.
• 

  Prime

  If an organization is being held to a level of accountability that no one else is subject to, there's obviously injustice in such a procedure and interpretation of the law.

  If that organization is taking on actions of accountability that no other organization has done or is being called out for then justice is served when precedent is set.

  That organization's policies must be amended and other organizations that could fall under the same scrutiny will also have to follow suit.

  It's noteworthy that you would compare Jehovah's Witnesses to other organizations. Jehovah's Witnesses host two meetings a week and their evangelical work (formal or informal activity on public property) where children are welcome or encouraged to participate provided they're properly supervised.

  Organizations with such a social structure generally don't have a child protection policy other than what may be required by law.
• 

  Prime

  Bingo.

  In fact, in cases where the offenses are particularly egregious and/or the organization in question has a demonstrable history of resistance to accountability, justice can also be served by the legal system making an example of said organization, and smacking them hard. In fact, it often sets a more effective precedent.

  I have suggested this before.

  I'm not sure of what you're referring to here, but everything pertaining to this case is a matter of public record. If you are referring to some preconceived notion, opinion or vendetta that has not been entered into court record, especially if it has been barred from admission or is unrelated to the case itself, you would qualify as a prejudicial judge or juror.

  Jury Trial Day 2

  Mr. Simons: Two separate problems. One is that Mr. Bowen said if we are not going to be able to entertain his opinions with regard to theocratic warfare, disfellowshipping and the two witness rule, that he really doesn't see any particular validity to this proceeding.
• 

  Prime

  So I imagine, prime, you brought up questions of evidence and credibility....for the peanut gallery?

  This place is "the peanut gallery?"

  Law has settled this already.

  A judge and twelve jurors don't represent the final authority on anything. The higher courts exist for a reason. From what I've observed, the only persons that give a plugged nickel about this case are Jehovah's Witnesses and some opposers/apostates.

  JWs, (the few I've talked to about this) care more about the real facts of the case and issues involved. Others seem to get a thrill out of any kind of adverse judgment against the Watchtower Society even it's related to something like child molestation.

  From this I am guessing you are claiming some kind of religious persecution?

  No. This doesn't directly effect me. Kingdom Halls are privately owned and are independent of the Watchtower Society. The administrative position of the organization would never ask for an increase in donations to compensate for a lawsuit. The fact remains, that courts have been known to make prejudicial decisions on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation.

  That a jury hearing a sex abuse case say, from a college, volunteer organization, or sports association may have been treated more kindly?

  I suggest rather that there is a greater willingness to deal with sexual abuse openly and to deal harshly with the perpetrators and the facilitators. Colleges and sport associations are being held to account just as hard.

  Again, it's noteworthy that someone compares Jehovah's Witnesses to other organizations.

  How about Penn State?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal

  In December 2010, assistant coach Mike McQueary appeared before the grand jury looking into the Victim 1 case. The presentment states that on March 1, 2002, at 9:30 PM, McQueary entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building at Penn State and heard what he believed to be the sounds of sexual activity coming from the shower.

  If anyone is sexually or violently assaulted in facilities you own and operate and you fail to notify the authorities in a timely manner, that's vicarious liability. The Penn State officials were also mandated reporters (professionals applicable to child abuse reporting laws) and knew Jerry Sandusky was accessing children through the children's charity he founded.

  Most people believe their negligence was to maintain a superficial organizational (football) image.

  Unless an organization hosts activities specifically for children, all an organization is responsible for, is maintaining a safe environment in the facilities they own and operate and that their officials in a position of leadership or authority are irreprehensible. If an organization hosts activities specifically for children, even volunteers that work in this capacity must also have a clean record.

  No organization has ever been found responsible for the alleged misdeeds of a member who held no position of leadership or authority for domestic abuse, or abuse outside the perimeters of their organization, especially if they had no knowledge that the abuse was occurring.
• 

  jgnat

  Boy, you're slippery.

  I'll repeat again for the peanut gallery. And yes, that includes everyone who visits and participates on this thread, because we are not responsible for the outcome of this case:

  Appeals do not revisit evidence.

  The questions are all about interpretation of law or if any errors or procedure happened in the original case. Credibility of the witnesses are no longer at issue.

  You hinted that the courts could be prejudicial - and should not be - based on .... religion. Since you've sidestepped the question, I'll rephrase.

  From this I am guessing you are claiming some kind of religious persecution of the Watchtower society or its representatives in this case?
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Threads like this become interesting when posters like Prime come from out of nowhere to bring in the smoke-and-mirrors to try to hide the fact that WT has established a history of protecting pedophiles and victimizing children.
• 

  Prime

  I'll repeat again for the peanut gallery. And yes, that includes everyone who visits and participates on this thread, because we are not responsible for the outcome of this case:

  Appeals do not revisit evidence.

  The questions are all about interpretation of law or if any errors or procedure happened in the original case. Credibility of the witnesses are no longer at issue.

  Nothing in my last post questioned the state of evidence, just whether or not someone other than the actual perpetrator should or can be held accountable, whether or not the organization has incurred liability. I did this by comparing this case to other organizations that have incurred liability other than Jehovah's Witnesses. When it comes to blaming someone other than the person that actually committed a crime, that only goes so far.

  I will say that if the state of evidence is so shoddy, that any reasonable person should reject it, yet the judicial system is powerless to revisit the evidence, why should I care what the outcome of the appeal is?

  That has happened before. There was hard evidence against a person, yet they got off for something as serious as murder because of weaknesses in the legal system or legal loopholes.

  You hinted that the courts could be prejudicial - and should not be - based on .... religion. Since you've sidestepped the question, I'll rephrase.

  From this I am guessing you are claiming some kind of religious persecution of the Watchtower society or its representatives in this case?

  I answered that question in my last post. The answer is no.
• 

  Prime

  Of all the things that opposers say against Jehovah's Witnesses, that's the most offensive. I've never done anything like that. If you used to be a "Bethelite" I take it you wouldn't have "protected pedophiles" or "victimized children."

  Of all the things that opposers say against Jehovah's Witnesses, that's the most offensive. I've never done anything like that. If you used to be a "Bethelite," I take it you wouldn't have "protected pedophiles" or "victimized children."

  You wouldn't have done that then, you wouldn't do it now.
• 

  jgnat

  I see. So you hold yourself accountable only as far back as your last post.

  Prior to your last post you quoted sections of witness testimony and questioned their credibility. That point is moot. I won't belabour it any further unless you hazard to try it again.

  So if you are not implying a religious prejudice from the courts, why bring it up in the first place?

  I see you've now moved on to suggesting legal loopholes and shoddy evidence. There's a reason appeals are structured the way they are and why they are limited to procedure and interpretation. There has to be integrity and respect for the system.

  Regarding the duty of publishers and pioneers. This is an obligation of all active Jehovah's Witnesses, is it not? This is a ministry, not merely a membership formality.
• 

  Chaserious

  If anyone is sexually or violently assaulted in facilities you own and operate and you fail to notify the authorities in a timely manner, that's vicarious liability.

  No it's not. That's not close to an accurate description of what vicarious liability is - which FTR has nothing to do with what the Candace Conti case is about.