California Supreme Court Case - S226656 (page 13)

cappytan

HEY GUYS: OJ didn't do it! He was never convicted in a criminal court of law.

SO THERE!

Checkmate, apostates!

Marvin Shilmer

For example, OJ was acquitted but later found legally liable. Notwithstanding the civil judgement, OJ was not convicted of the crime that he was accused of. A jury found that he was not guilty of the crime of murder. (HE DID NOT DO IT.) The Civil did not care about the fact that he was acquitted of the charges. Try broadcasting that he is guilty of murder.

This is what we have:

No one has said OJ was found guilty by a criminal court for actions against his ex. If people outside that criminal court want to express their belief that OJ was nevertheless guilty of murdering his ex they're entitled to hold and share that belief.

Everyone has said OJ was found guilty by a civil court for actions against his ex.

And we have this too:

No one has said Kendrick was found guilty by a criminal court for actions against Candace. If people outside that criminal court want to express their belief that Kendrick was nevertheless guilty of victimizing Candace they're entitled to hold and share that belief.

Everyone has said Kendrick was found guilty by a civil court for actions against Candace.

What Candace wanted:

Candace wanted to change an institutional policy that she felt needlessly (and perhaps recklessly) left children vulnerable to predators. She used resources available to her to that end. A court appointed jury found that Kendrick had victimized Candace and from that found Watchtower bore some culpability based on testimony of material facts regarding the incident involving Kendrick and its related policies.

This jury decided what it believed based on the rules of evidence for civil litigation just as a criminal court appointed jury decides what it believes based on rules of evidence for criminal proceedings. In each case it boils down to what a jury believes. Black-letter law would have jurors in criminal proceedings form their decisions based on a higher standard of evidence (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt) but when material evidence is left for juror deliberation whether evidence achieves that threshold is the prerogative of the jury. Again, it boils down to belief of the jury. In this case a court appointed jury in a civil action believed Kendrick victimized Candace. In other words, that jury decided Kendrick DID IT. The same jury also found that Watchtower held culpability in the victimization, which sooner or later will impact and cause an improvement in Watchtower's policy on dealing internally with allegations of child abuse/molestation, which is what Candace wanted.

Fisherman

Criminal prosecutions happen all the time too. So what?

A person has to be arrested and or charged first, the prosecuting agency needs evidence for that, that is not the case with a civil action, that is what. All that is needed to commence a civil action is a fat insurance policy or something of value that lawyers want to extract, not evidence.-It is worth a shot. And that is why it happens all of the time because there are no legal consequences to the "Plaintiff" or Plaintiff's attorneys. You don't get a Court appointed attorney for that either, if you can't or do not want to defend, you can be found legally liable by default whether or not the case has any validity. And if a jury wants to legally separate a person from his assets, so what? It is not as if the person was going to be wrongly convicted. It is inconsequential, happens all of the time. That does not happen all of the time in Criminal proceedings. The DA does not have an agenda and he does not get to win by default either. The Defendant must defend either with his paid counsel or one paid for by somebody else, but he must defend or he can admit to the charges, but he cannot be found guilty by default. So much for civil actions when they find someone liable, and when they find someone liable by default. And that is why Civil can enjoy finding someone that is not guilty liable (OJ was acquitted and then found legally liable) The Criminal justice system is not perfect. There may be a lot of innocent people in jail and a lot of guilty people acquitted, but your views and feelings and thoughts about any of these people don't matter legally. What counts is the Court's verdict. The accused defendant in the posted case did not admit to the crime that he was accused for and he has not been found guilty of that crime. His guilt for the related crime has not been proven. That is what counts, not your red herring diverting attention from this fact.

You're wrongheaded in your views from the perspective of the system of civil litigation in the USA, and state of California specifically. In the case of Candace's lawsuit a court of law charged a jury to hear evidence and decide first of all whether Kendrick had victimized Candace. If that jury had found insufficient evidence to conclude Kendrick had victimized Candace then the whole thing would have ended right there. But, and this is where you're wrong, the court did find by its charged jury that Kendrick had victimized Candace. Once that determination was made then other issues could be and were addressed by the jury, such as culpability of Watchtower.

I am sure that you enjoy believing all of this as with all of your other feelings and thoughts and arguments that you have posted, but the fact is that the findings of the civil jury does not prove that the accused defendant is guilty.

So what? Criminal courts have found lots of innocent people guilty and lots of guilty people innocent. Because a finding is reached in a criminal prosecution does not mean the result is iron-clad accurate.

So what, the verdict is the law. That is what counts not your commentary. The US legal system is not on trial on this thread. In the related civil case, the accused defendant was never convicted. That is what counts. In the civil case, I am sure that know, that it does not make any difference if the defendant is guilty or innocent, he can still be found to be legally liable even if he is not guilty. That is why you avoided my question and why you refuse to admit that the defendant has not been found guilty but you divert attention to the civil judgement to delude your followers into believing that he is. I have no way of knowing or forming a conclusion that the accused defendant did the things that he was accused of in the related case. But I do know that the Appellate Court found flaw in the lower Court's verdict. Based on your premise, if the SC throws out the civil case, the civil findings about accused defendant go out too. And this is where you are wrong and you know it, the civil case is not about proving guilt. The civil findings about the accused defendant and the other named defendants do not establish accused defendant's guilt although that is what you are trying to mislead people into conclude with the wording in your posts. The real target in the civil case is not the accused but WTS bank account. They are happy with WT money and not making alleged abuser pay. The alleged abuser was deprived of cross examination. I know what questions I would have asked him. Evidently, that was not as important as WT bank account.

I can form a conclusion in my mind on the OJ case but there is not enough information for me to form a conclusion about accused defendant for this related case. But I can say this, OJ was found not guilty and the accused defendant in this case was never arrested or charged with the crime that he was accused for.

Fisherman

Everyone has said Kendrick was found guilty by a civil court for actions against Candace.

That is not what everyone is saying, that is what you want everyone to conclude.

This jury decided what it believed based on the rules of evidence for civil litigation..
(e.g., beyond reasonable doubt)...

We know that.

In other words, that jury decided Kendrick DID IT.

The jury decided that Defendants are legally liable. I am not going to tell you what you already know and understand and you are not going to teach me anything about it. The Jury did not find accused defendant guilty. It is a fact that the jury did not find the accused defendant guilty.

You keep repeating Plaintiff's motive for the lawsuit again and again and again and gain in all of your post. as if repetition would have me know Plaintiff's motive. What I do know is that Plaintiff wants what is in WT deep pocket. That is a fact.

brandnew

A person has to be arrested, and or charged first......

GREAT ! ! ! ! ! NO CALLING ELDERS, NO CALLING LEGAL DEPARTMENT, .. ! ! ! ! !

CALL THE POLICE ! ! ! ! !! AGAINST ALL WT POLICY

CALL- THE-POLICE ! ! ! !

brandnew

I swear, if any one of my children told me they were molested......

Yeah.....that person better hope he was behind bars where i couldnt get ahold of him....and even then...........

freddo

@Fisherman

The Plaintiff wants the Defendants to be legally liable. Is that the same as wanting "what is in WT deep pocket."? Might the Plaintiff not have had "what is in WT deep pocket." by settling out of court?

Marvin Shilmer

That is not what everyone is saying, that is what you want everyone to conclude.

Forgive me. I meant to say everyone who can read has said Kendrick was found guilty by a civil court for actions against Candace. The verdict form is out there for everyone to read. The first question asked of this jury was "Did Johathan Kendrick sexually batter Candace Conti? ___YES ___NO"

Guess which line was ticked?

The jury decided that Defendants are legally liable.

The question of any liability of Watchtower was secondary to the question whether Johathan Kendrick sexually battered Candace.

Had the jury in this civil case not found that Kendrick had sexually battered Candice then no other questions presented to the jury would have been answered. Not one. Including that of any liability of Watchtower.

In all your many words you've done nothing to show that a court appointed jury did not find that Kendrick had victimized Candace. People have not just jumped to this conclusion. A court appointed jury made these decisions based on evidence in the form of documents and testimony put before them.

Here: VERDICT FORM

Can you read?

What Candace wanted:

She wanted to compel Watchtower to improve its policy regarding how allegations of child victimization are dealt with internally. That was the whole point of filing her lawsuit in the first place.

Fisherman

everyone who can read has said Kendrick was found guilty by a civil court for actions against Candace.

Not including your followers, anyone who can read should know that in the US, the Civil Court does decide guilt. You know this.

3rdgen

Fisherman has been out in the boat too long. Smells fishy

California Supreme Court Case - S226656

Share this