I've come to the conclusion with their vast sums of money they are never going to get screwed over in court by child sex abuse. Sure they have lost a few but was quickly solved by a pay out to keep it out of court. I have a feeling with this Conti case they will just keep appealing and appealing until they get a decision that they want.
WTBS ain't ever gunna get screwed over in court by sex abuse
by joe134cd 4 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sir82
There's only so many appeals they can launch. There is not an infinite number of courts to appeal to.
The Conti case is a big deal. It might take many more years, but eventually they will run out of courts to appeal to.
If the verdict stands, it may well open a floodgate of similar suits.
-
joe134cd
I doubt it.
-
blondie
SNAP (www.snapnetwork.org ) started in 1988 but did not have real movement in abuse by church workers, priests, etc., until 2002 and here we are in 2014 with numerous successful cases all over the world and their work is not over. The RCC has great funds as an international group and legal resources and religious blackmail and influence with their members.
Additions and strengthening existing laws will benefit everyone who has such a case against religious institutions and secular institutions like the Boy Scouts. Can you help by lobbying for new reporting and statute of limitations laws in your area (by state in the US)? Can you see what you can do to work with SNAP?
-
Band on the Run
Conti may open a few more cases. Simons says it on youtube. Conti is about notice. The WT had notice and did nothing. The elders had notice but parents in the congregation had none. Conti is not a typical sex abuse case. Also, the CA legislature passed the mandatory reporting for clergy statute after the Conti case. Without reading the legislative history, it is hard to know for certain. If you needed subsequent legislation to create a legal duty, a legal duty did not exist at the time of the Conti incident. You can't create legal duties without notice to possible defendants. Simons took this case because of the large money involved. If it were a relatively small claim, I bet he would pass.
He wants to do more Witness cases but cases where notice existed.