'Conti' Court decision secures Watchtower's Policy of confidentiality

by telemetry11 67 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  telemetry11

  The Court on the rule of confidentiality of penitential communications and evidentiary privilege--.

  Decision reads:

  "The law generally protects the confidentiality of communications with clergy like those of Kendrick to the elders here."

  "If the person has a constitutional right to independence in making religious choices, the recognition of an evidentiary privilege is an apt means of protecting that autonomy. If any type of relationship deserves the protection of an enclave shored up with an evidentiary privilege, it is a consultive relationship dealing with this kind of choice."

  "[T]he public policy to protect the confidentiality of penitential communications that underlies the privilege and reporting statutes militates strongly against imposition of the duty claimed here to inform congregations of such communications."

  That California's Evidence Code expressly states the extent of the privilege is not an appropriate subject for legislation was also persuasive to the Conti Court, which cautioned other courts of intruding on this privilege.*

  The Appellate Court wrote:

  "Accordingly, we conclude that the elders of the Fremont Congregation had no duty to depart from Watchtower's policy of confidentiality ..."

  _____________

  *IMO that sticks a pin in Zalkin's 13.5 million dollar balloon.
• 

  opusdei1972

  Accordingly, we conclude that the elders of the Fremont Congregation had no duty to depart from Watchtower's policy of confidentiality ..."

  Religion must lose its protected status.
  
• 

  truthseekeriam

  This is just the first step and it's actually not over yet. The Supreme Court could take this case.

  Time will tell...it's a marathon not a race :)
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  *IMO that sticks a pin in Zalkin's 13.5 million dollar balloon

  I don't agree with your conclusion there. It appears to me that the WTS did not have the obligation to warn all the member of the Cong about this man, however it did have to obligation to protect Conti when she was involved in organized Congregational activities (such as Field Circus).

  I agree it will be a marathon.

  Doc
  
• 

  Driving Force

  So correct me if I am wrong, but this confirms the Watchtower policy of not having to inform others of a child molester, which surely is negative for the Watchtower meaning that there will potentially be even more cases in the future. The GB do not have to change anything, being detrimental for children, confirming the demonic stance of the bOrg.

  Although I look forwards to the Watchtower being hammered further on this aspect, I would rather see the problem solved and children protected.
  
• 

  zeb

  I fear for Conti that she will be caught in a grinder that will eventually do just that... grind away to nothing. The wts has limitless resources and they will go on appealing every full stop and comma until they wear they case away to nothing. Pull out girl you have proved their guilt. Take the money and go.
• 

  Fisherman

  the Watchtower policy of not having to inform others of a child molester,

  Dr. S---, a witness for the Plaintiffs, under cross examination by WT attorneys, testified that although Kendrigs was previously convicted of child abuse, neither did the Police, nor the DA, nor the Court,informed the JW congregation that a convicted child molester was among them. No one could stop them from doing so.Funny how the Courts are deciding this case and awarding damages, but it was the Court that unleashed the perp without requiring anything else at the time he was free to go.
  

  The State, having unleashed a convicted child molester into the general population, should not they have a duty to protect by informing the congregation and others that a child molester was in their midst? The Police, Courts, DA, and other agencies that knew about Kendrigs, did nothing but to unleash him into the general public.
  

  The allegations against Kendrigs by the Plaintiff were investigated by the Police. The Police do not have enough evidence to arrest him, because if they had, he would have been charged.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  WT Policy of confidentiality is nothing more than ecclesiastical privileges protected by the First Amendment. The issue in Court now that the WT is likely challenging is about WT compliance with WT Policy to keep an eye on Defendant and to keep him away from children during church sponsored activities and to protect the general population (children) from him during church sponsored activities, and whether WT had special custody relationship with Plaintiff during church sponsored activities, and WTS vicarious liability..
  
• 

  punkofnice

  Oh please. Don't let the WBT$ get away unscathed....please! this criminal organisation needs taking down.
• 

  Fisherman

  criminal organisation

  What crime are you accusing the WT of?