I saw news reports about the lawsuit and the a TV broadcast with the reporter was standing in front of the Kingdom Hall.
San Diego huh? A good big metro market to get the word out.
ALERT: NEW LAWSUIT settlement - $13 MILLION
by Watchtower-Free 300 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Band on the Run
This is not an area in which I want to get involved, esp. when members here routinely post mere court filings. No one has been found liable or guilty. Proof has not been offered. Anyone, regardless of merit, can file a complaint. I have higher standards. No, I will not read court documents. I can surmise plenty. My training as a lawyer is stronger than my antiWitness bias. I suggest you are unable to understand the proceedings.
-
Listener
A new thread has been started advising of an ex JW podcast interview with the lawyer, Irwin Zalkin. It is excellant and will make everything clearer, the lawyer is very knowledgable, I would be surprised if there was a lawyer who could have gotton a better result. This is a very busy and highly sought after lawyer and he took time out for this interview.
http://www.jwpodcast.org/2014/11/03/s01e01-irwin-zalkin/
I think there couldn't be a better legal term for the Governing Body member, Garrit Losch in this instance. They identified him as being a managing agent. An agent is usually a third party and given that he is no longer a member of the WTBTS does not mean this wipes out any legal connection. Irwin Zalkin also identified the abuser as being an agent of the WTBTS also.
-
DATA-DOG
BOTR,
You sure write a lot for someone tired of explaining things. You have no "duty" to anyone here, but don't expect to make sweeping statements and not be called out.
DD
-
Listener
BOTR, although the WTBTS were barred from presenting a defence the WTBTS was found liable after a six day trial so I don't know where you get the idea that no-one has been found liable or guilty. That's not a question by the way, I wouldn't want you to send me a bill.
-
Gentledawn
BOTR: IF the WT has/had a secret database so they had notice of pedophiles in KHs, throw the book at them.
Chapter Five
Determining Whether a
Judicial Committee
Should Be Formed
[...]
10. Though this is not an exhaustive list, brazen
conduct may be involved in the following if the
wrongdoer has an insolent, contemptuous attitude
made evident by a practice of these things:
• Willful, continued, unnecessary association
with disfellowshipped nonrelatives despite
repeated counsel—Matt. 18:17b; 1 Cor, 5:11, 13;
2 John 10, 11; w81 9/15 pp. 25-26.
[...]
Evidence Establishing Wrongdoing
[...]
38. If wrongdoing has not been established
but serious questions have been raised, the body
of elders should appoint two elders to investigate
the matter promptly. For example, there may be
just one witness. If so, it would be loving for the witness
first to confront the accused and encourage him
to take the initiative to approach the elders . The elders
can then allow the accused a few days to approach
them. (For the witness by himself to confront
the accused may not be advisable in all cases—for example,
if the witness and the accused were involved
in sexual immorality together or if the witness was a
victim of incest or rape by the accused or is a child
and the victim of sexual abuse. Or it may be that the
witness is extremely timid.) Whether the witness approaches
the accused or not, the two elders appointed
should speak with the accused regarding the accusation—
w97 8/15 p. 27.
39. If the accused denies the accusation, the
investigating elders should try to arrange a meeting
with him and the accuser together. (Note: If the accusation
involves child sexual abuse and the victim
is currently a minor, the elders should contact the
branch office before arranging a meeting with the
child and the alleged abuser.) If the accuser or the accused
is unwilling to meet with the elders or if the accused
continues to deny the accusation of a single
witness and the wrongdoing is not established, the
elders will leave matters in Jehovah's hands. (Deut.19:15-17;
1 Tim. 5:19, 24, 25; w 9 5 ll/l pp. 28-29) The
investigating elders should compose a record, sign it,
put it in a sealed envelope, and place it In the congregation's
confidential file. Additional evidence may
later come to light to establish matters.---- "Shepherding the flock of God"
-
Gentledawn
BOTR: No statutory duty to report sexual abuse existed at the time of these incidents.
Not the issue.
From the legal documents in the Conti case:---
First, Watchtower explains how (A)
since Watchtower did not have a special relationship with the Plaintiff (the child of a
congregation member), Watchtower did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from
sexual abuse by Kendrick, nor did Watchtower have a duty to warn Plaintiff or her
2 parents about Kendrick's alleged past sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. Second,
Watchtower sets forth how (B) the trial court improperly excluded other parties from
sharing any responsibility for the harm claimed by the Plaintiff, and as a
consequence, targeted Watchtower's religious beliefs and practices on confidentiality
in a way that violated Watchtower's First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise
clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. Third, Watchtower
describes how (C) the trial court's imposition upon Watchtower of a duty to protect
with a duty to warn impermissibly entangled the jury in an examination and
assessment of Watchtower's religious beliefs, further violating fundamental
constitutional principles. Fourth, Watchtower demonstrates how (D) the trial court's
imposition upon Watchtower of a duty to protect with a duty to warn improperly
required Watchtower to label a person as a sex offender even though that person had
not been convicted of a crime, in violation of well-established rights to privacy,
liberty, and due process protected under both the United States and California
Constitutions.
[...]
Over Watchtower's objection, the trial court further ruled that based on Juarez
v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) and Rowland v. Christian
(1968), Watchtower had a "special relationship" with Plaintiff
which gave rise to "a duty to take reasonable protective
measures to protect Candace Conti from the risk of sexual abuse by ... Kendrick."
The trial court also ruled, over Watchtower's objection, that it would instruct
the jury that in determining whether Watchtower took reasonable protective
measures, it "may consider the following: (1) The presence or absence of any
warning; (2) Whether or not any educational programs
were made available to plaintiff, her parents, or to other Jehovah's Witnesses from
the Fremont Congregation . . . for the purpose of sexual abuse education and
prevention; and (3) Such other facts and circumstances contained in the
evidentiary record here as to the presence or absence of protective measures."
Over Watchtower's objection, the trial court further instructed the jury that the
issues of privileged communications and mandatory child abuse reporting were
issues for the court to determine, not the jury. Watchtower objected to the court's privileged
communications instruction on grounds that it was not needed, it was incomplete, and
it would confuse and mislead the jury respecting the reasonableness of Watchtower's
claim of confidentiality based on church doctrine and policy regarding the reasons for
not warning congregation members about Kendrick's prior abuse of his stepdaughter.
Watchtower similarly objected to the court's mandatory child
abuse reporting instruction on the ground that it would confuse and mislead the jury
into believing that perhaps the North Fremont Congregation did have a legal duty to
report Kendrick's abuse of Andrea to the authorities in 1993, as Dr. Salter had
testified, even though California had no such reporting duty for clergy in 1993.
Verdict and Post-Verdict Proceedings.
On June 13, 2012, an Alameda County Superior Court jury returned a
compensatory damages verdict in favor of Plaintiff and against Appellants and
Kendrick for $7.0 million in general and special damages, finding Kendrick 60% at
fault, Watchtower 27% at fault, and North Fremont Congregation 13% at fault, and
further finding that Watchtower alone acted with malice.
The next day, the jury further awarded Plaintiff $21,000,001 in punitive
damages exclusively against Watchtower.
After a hearing on August 13,2012, the trial court entered its post-trial orders on August 24,
2012, denying Watchtower's JNOV motion and conditionally granting a new trial on
the punitive damages awarded against Watchtower unless the Plaintiff accepted
judgment in her favor on punitive damages claim in the amount of $8,610,000.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff accepted the reduced punitive damage
amount, and the court entered an Amended Judgment on September 17, 2012, in the
total gross sum of $11,488,000 against Watchtower and the local congregation.------------
As the old TV spots used to state: "reading is fundamental".
-
Heartofaboy
Get over yourself BOTR.
-
AnnOMaly
This is not an area in which I want to get involved, esp. when members here routinely post mere court filings. No one has been found liable or guilty. Proof has not been offered. Anyone, regardless of merit, can file a complaint.
You have a lot to say for somebody who does not want to get involved, BOTR. I have no idea why you are saying "no one has been found liable or guilty" and "proof has not been offered." It went beyond 'complaint'; it went to trial; evidence was presented; judgments were made; Watchtower was found liable. Whether those judgments will be upheld on appeal, we will have to wait and see.
I have higher standards. No, I will not read court documents. I can surmise plenty. My training as a lawyer is stronger than my antiWitness bias. I suggest you are unable to understand the proceedings.
What's this? You say you are a lawyer and yet here you are surmising about this case without bothering to check the relevant facts first; you're somehow above doing that? I'm sure they didn't teach that approach at lawyer school.
I don't get you, I really don't.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
BOTR: I'm not checking but I believe both Conti and this case happened before CA's legislature enacted a mandatory reporting law for clergy. The WTBTS can argue that it had no notice that its behavior would subject it to liability.
The core of all these judicial proceedings/judgments is based squarely on the fact that WT policies encourage non-reporting of these sex crimes, regardless of whether a specific law requires them to or not. The fact that WT advises elders to keep these matters "in house", instead of alerting the authorities, and WT adds insult to injury by disciplining victims who do choose to contact the authorities, is what the court recognizes. The Conti case clearly demonstrated that Watchtower policies are the problem, and the court ruled accordingly.
BOTR...for someone who "doesn't have time" to read anything, you sure have strong opinions. A lawyer who doesn't bother reading court documents...go figure.
BOTR: No! If you want me to read legal documents, pay me legal fees
I'll pay $.01 for your opinions. Where do I send the check? *
.
* I feel this is overpaying.
