Just 2 questions regarding the U.S. law around sex abuse

by joe134cd 11 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  joe134cd

  i just have 2 questions regarding the U.S law around sex abuse.

  (1) In this country It is quite common for the events of a sex abuse trial, to have suppression orders placed on it. One I can think of was when the offender was given name suppression because to identify the abuser would also mean identifying the victim, so hence both were given name suppression. Now with regard to the out of court settlements and gag orders by the watchtower, and yes I do realise that the Wt would have the most to benefit by doing this. But could the reason that this was chosen by both parties was to not have this thing dragged out in the eye of the public. I could imagine that it would be quite a traumatic experience for the victim, and they would of been compensated as such. For Wt to have offered it, the victim must of been only to willing to except it. So hence it was a win win situation for both parties. I'm not here trying to minimise or to hurt victims of sex abuse but I have notice everyone is quick to slam the Wt for offering hush money but I don't see anyone criticizing the victim for accepting it.

  (2) I noticed with the Lopez case Wt got thrown out of court when they failed to supply internal documents, and a witness to their internal policies. I heard on a Zaklin law firm video that they were doing the exact same thing in another trial as well. How can they get away with putting forth this argument again when the outcome is still pending in another trial.
• 

  rebel8

  Victims aren't always compensated. I think people in other countries tend to be told our justice system depends upon lawsuits, but that's not true. There's criminal courts too.

  People who are angry probably want the perps to be held accountable. Perhaps being given money that requires the victim to keep quiet to protect perp's reputation makes them more angry. I can't say I blame them. Sometimes they were coerced into silence after the crime, so it could feel like the same thing is happening again.

  wts, as a religion that claims to be god's one and only true channel, with rules about keeping the congregation clean, should be transparent. They used to practically announce reasons why they were dfing individuals right from the platform--the only reason they stopped that is probably because someone sued them for defamation (Barb Anderson?). That's their doctrine--we didn't make that, they did. Yet here they are doing the opposite of what they teach and practice otherwise. Hypocritical. Again, I don't blame anyone for pointing that out.
• 

  the girl next door

  For a victim to be dragged through trial is horrific. Defense attorneys are ruthless. So yes many victims settle out of court to avoid the pain of trial. This also happens regularly in criminal court. You can not fault a victim for this choice. WT gets picked on in these cases because they are viewed as the bad guy. Also, WT doesn't just write out fat settlements. They argue and fight and threaten to get the victim to settle for as little as possible.

  Zalkin did nothing wrong in the Lopez case. WT chose to be in contempt. It would not make sense for Zalkin to follow any other procedure than what has found success.
• 

  Chaserious

  A couple of things: first, there are not typically suppression orders on the entire trial. Rather, most states have a rule preventing the parties from publicly filing documents with the alleged victim's full name. If the case goes to trial there is a strong presumption in favor of open and public trials, both civil and criminal. It is very rare to have a closed-door trial, even in sex abuse cases.

  It is very traumatic for a victim to go through a trial of this type, and no one should ever fault one for settling. It takes a lot of courage to reveal such awful details about a horrific event that happened to you in front of an entire courtroom that may include the abuser. Even if the defense attorneys go relatively easy on the victim (which is the more common defense approach in these cases) it has to be awful.

  At the same time, I wouldn't assume that every defendant who settles is culpable. Sometimes insurance is involved and its a dollars and cents game where the defendant is pretty much forced to settle. Or there could be other valid reasons. With the WTS, its not really a whodunit. Everyone knows what they did; its just a matter of whether knowingly harboring sex abusers makes them liable.
• 

  joe134cd

  With all due respect to the victims of abuse. I noticed in a news conference Zaklin held for an abuse victim they came out all guns blazing at how wicked and unethical it had been by watchtower settling out of court with a gag order, and yet they failed to mention that they had brokered these very same settlements e.g remember there were also other victims in Gonzalo Campos case that were settled out of court as well. I also noticed to that the victims were only to willing under the circumstances to except the hush money. The point I'm making is shouldn't all 3 parties be equally responsible for the terms and conditions. If zaklin was so concerned about airing this to the public and letting the truth be told why didn't they refuse to take this to trial in the first place, when they knew that this was going to be the outcome.
• 

  blondie

  Laws regarding child sexual abuse are regulated at the state not federal level and that varies from state to state.

  Except in limited circumstances, federal laws typically do not apply to child sexual abuse matters that takes place wholly inside a single state. These matters are therefore generally handled by state or local authorities and prosecuted under state laws. However, if the sexual abuse of a child occurred on federal lands, the offense may be prosecuted under federal law. Federal lands include areas such as military bases, Indian territories, and other government– owned lands or properties (See 18 U.S.C. §7).

  http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_sexualabuse.html

  https://www.rainn.org/public-policy/laws-in-your-state
• 

  flipper

  6

  JOE- It's not a black and white situation for Zalkin and his law firm. Some of the child abuse victims his firm represents may indeed have chosen to settle out of court for their own privacy or not wanting to go through the horror of living through the abuse again in courts- like some have said here : that is their right and cannot be faulted for that. It would be horrific to go through that again. Then on the other hand some of the victims WANTED it to go to court so as to expose the liability of the WT Society in not reporting the child abuse to police authorities trying to handle it " in house ". And you have to admire child abuse victims who DO that because it takes an enormous amount of strength and fortitude to sit there in court hearing all of the details of how you were abused sexually being brought back out in court. BUt these victims going to court are doing so to expose the WT Society AND to get the WT Society to change their child abuse policies so it will protect future victims of child abuse from going through what they went through.

  So some of these cases will go to trial, some will be settled out of court- that doesn't lessen IN ANY WAY the criminal conduct or liability the WT Society has regarding hiding, aiding, and abetting child molesters within their organization. WT leaders are still guilty any way you slice it. AND - If they are NOT guilty - ask yourself this question : Why are they continuing to stand in contempt of court by NOT releasing documents the courts request concerning child abuse and preventing a GB member from testifying in court ? What does WT Society have to hide ? Think about this. Personally- I believe they have a lot to hide, one reason they would rather pay out 13.5 million $$$$ than give up information that might open up more incriminatng evidence against them. Not many things are black and white in this world, many things are shades of gray. My 2 cents here, Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  blondie

  I feel the important thing to remember are the victims/survivors. They aren't tools to bring the WTS down; their feelings have to be considered first by us or we can become no better than the WTS hurting them for our own benefit.

  BTW I was molested by my father and not protected by my jw mother. I have gone up against a BOE, CO, and DO and a WTS rep...but not pressuring the victim (my siblings) to pursue it and cause harm to themselves.
• 

  Chaserious

  Joe, what Zalkin is doing is important, because it exposes this organization's failure to protect its children. But he's not doing it just for the love of justice. His firm hopes to reap tens of millions of dollars in attorney's fees from these lawsuits. There's nothing wrong with that, and he'll deserve what he gets, but when he comes out with guns blazing, as you say, it's part of his litigation strategy; and not necessarily righteous indignation.

  He wants the WTS to fear him and his firm, and to know when they see a new lawsuit with his name on it, it should be taken seriously. It therefore is immediately perceived as having a higher dollar value than a similar suit by another attorney, and also is going to have bad press that comes with it. The reality is that even he does not want to take all of these cases to trial, whatever he might say to denounce the WTS for settling cases. His preference would probably be to take a case or two to trial if necessary, with a plaintiff who is prepared for that kind of fight. Then if he can demonstrate that he is the best at winning this particular type of case, it will drive up the value of out of court settlements in the rest.

  I doubt his firm has the resources to take 15+ of these cases to trial in the period of a couple of years, and even if they did, they are not paid by the hour. If he can get close to the same amount in a settlement as he expects to win at trial, I'm sure his concern for airing this out to the public would disappear quickly when he can save the weeks it may take to try a case, not to mention hundreds of hours of pretrial preparation and travel around the country taking depositions. And that doesn't even take into account the effect on the victim.

  One other thing - he is not necessarily to "blame" for any settlements his clients may enter into. Attorneys must communicate every settlement offer to their clients, and are required to settle if the client wants to, even if the attorney does not want to.

  Blondie - How absolutely awful. You are absolutely right about the victims.
• 

  joe134cd

  Trust me nothing would bring me greater delight than seeing the end of this religion. I think it's unfair that everyone is prepared to bad mouth Wt over offering the hush money. Yet we fail to acknowledge that a lawyer would of had to of presented it to the victim and given his recommendations on it, for the victim in turn agreeing to the terms and conditions. How do we know that the victim didn't want this in the first place. Yet despite this Wt is seen as been concealing evil when no one acknowledges that there are also 2 other parties involved. I believe all 3 parties are equally as guilty and innocent as each other for the terms and conditions and yet only one party is taking the majority of the blame.