California Supreme Court Case - S226656

by Gayle 164 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  freddo

  Matt 23 v 23 - 25
• 

  Fisherman

  In referring to a Civil verdict, I think, that using the term guilty is a confusing misuse of the word that should only be used to apply to a criminal charge.
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  In referring to a Civil verdict, I think, that using the term guilty is a confusing misuse of the word that should only be used to apply to a criminal charge.

  Of course you feel that way. Because it conflicts with what you want readers to think. You've been parsing words and threading needles through this whole discussion, the whole time avoiding the fact that a jury found Kendrick perpetrated sexual battery on Candace.

  That is a finding of guilt in everyone's book (including Websters!!!) except for yours apparently.

  Candace wanted to compel Watchtower to improve its policy regarding allegations of child abuse. She used resources at her disposal for that purpose. She did it. Get use to it. It is not imagination or simple opinion of readers that Kendrick victimized Candace. A sitting jury decided based on evidence (documents and testimony) that HE DID IT.
• 

  Fisherman

  Of course you feel that way. Because it conflicts with what you want readers to think. You've been parsing words and threading needles through this whole discussion, the whole time avoiding the fact that a jury found Kendrick perpetrated sexual battery on Candace

  I do not have any readers, you do. The one parsing words and threading needles is you. The word guilty is not found in the Civil Jury's verdict. And neither did the verdict say that he was found guilty by the jury. The terms guilt and guilty (you answered yes) are terms that you have selected to describe Civil Court findings but they are not used in any legal way in the Civil Court documents to apply to its findings. Neither was the accused cross examined. And the jury was able to decide against the accused defendant without his participation, imagine that.. And a Civil Court can find a person liable by default, without a trial! And that is why a civil Court verdict does not carry much weight in deciding whether the person actually did it. It is not about that. That is what Criminal Court is about. Civil is about the money. Besides this, as I have posted previously, Appellate already found error in the Jury's findings. It challenges the Jury's judgment in its findings.
  
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  . The one parsing words and threading needles is you

  That's hilarious! So Fish says, just before launching into a word-parsing tirade. Classic!

  It reminds me of Steve Lett's video where he declares that the WT doesn't ask for money, followed by a lengthy pledge drive.

  Hahaha!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The word guilty is not found in the Civil Jury's verdict. And neither did the verdict say that he was found guilty by the jury. The terms guilt and guilty (you answered yes) are terms that you have selected to describe Civil Court findings but they are not used in any legal way in the Civil Court documents to apply to its findings.

  I use words to communicate. Saying Kendrick sexually battered Candace Conti and saying Kendrick is guilty of sexually battering Candace Conti are both communicating the same thing: Kendrick did something very, very bad to Candace Conti. When a jury makes this finding based on evidence (documents and testimony) then it is not mere opinion; it is a judicial finding.

  Neither was the accused cross examined. And the jury was able to decide against the accused defendant without his participation, imagine that..

  My recollection is that had Kendrick wanted to object to aspersions being caste upon his character he could have attended the trial and had his say.

  And a Civil Court can find a person liable by default, without a trial!

  But that didn't happen in the Candance lawsuit. There was a trial. Testimony and documents were entered and heard as evidence. The court appointed jury found Kendrick had victimized Candace.

  And that is why a civil Court verdict does not carry much weight in deciding whether the person actually did it. It is not about that. That is what Criminal Court is about. Civil is about the money. Besides this, as I have posted previously, Appellate already found error in the Jury's findings. It challenges the Jury's judgment in its findings.

  This has already been addressed. In a jury trial despite black-letter law stipulating a higher standard of proof, when material facts are left for a jury to decide upon whether a defendant is found guilty is based on the belief of the sitting jury. Lots of innocent people have been found guilty by criminal courts and lots of guilty people have been found not-guilty by criminal courts. Both civil and criminal courts have limitations, but each also has their benefits. In this case Candace wanted to compel Watchtower to improve its policy regarding allegations of child molestation. The civil courts system was arguably better suited to that end, and she made use of it. That seems to really rub you wrong. I don't know why. But that's how it seems.

  In the meantime you've been embarrassing yourself throughout this discussion by pretending Kendrick might not be a child predator. A court appointed jury found the man guilty of sexual battery of a child.
• 

  Splash

  fisherman The word guilty is not found in the Civil Jury's verdict. And neither did the verdict say that he was found guilty by the jury. The terms guilt and guilty (you answered yes) are terms that you have selected to describe Civil Court findings but they are not used in any legal way in the Civil Court documents to apply to its findings.

  By this reasoning, the following phrases "do not appear in the Bible" so therefore should not be taught:
  

  New Scrolls
  New Light
  Faithful and Discreet Slave Class
  Governing Body
  Emblems
  Paradise Earth
  New System
  Christ's millennial reign
  Wait on Jehovah
  Growing to perfection
  Where else can we go?
  Live up to our dedication
  Dedicated and baptised
  Spirit Directed
  Judicial Committee

  
  

  Just sayin'
• 

  done4good

  Folks-

  Don't feed the troll. Trolling is all about fishing, hence this guy's pseudonym. He is just looking to argue. He thinks he is smart, but really being a dumb ass.

  d4g
  
• 

  cappytan

  fisherman The word guilty is not found in the Civil Jury's verdict. And neither did the verdict say that he was found guilty by the jury. The terms guilt and guilty (you answered yes) are terms that you have selected to describe Civil Court findings but they are not used in any legal way in the Civil Court documents to apply to its findings.
  

  By this reasoning, the following phrases "do not appear in the Bible" so therefore should not be taught:
  

  New Scrolls
  New Light
  Faithful and Discreet Slave Class
  Governing Body
  Emblems
  Paradise Earth
  New System
  Christ's millennial reign
  Wait on Jehovah
  Growing to perfection
  Where else can we go?
  Live up to our dedication
  Dedicated and baptised
  Spirit Directed
  Judicial Committee
  Just sayin'
  By this reasoning, the following phrases "do not appear in the Bible" so therefore should not be taught:

  
  LOL...awesome Splash!
  BURN!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Don't feed the troll.

  Trolls and engaging trolls can be useful... sometimes.