'Conti' Court decision secures Watchtower's Policy of confidentiality (page 5)

punkofnice

I can't find doofus in the Bible Vidiot. I will have to write to the Watchtower for clarification.

Vidiot

May as well ask about the word "vidiot" while you're at it, too.

punkofnice

Holy holy holy Governing Body,

Tell me about the title Vidiot........in TOMO's name amen

I await an answer......wow my 1st prayer in years!

Boeing Stratofortress

The way you two banter back & forth (vidiot & punk), reminds me of Hawkeye Pierce & Hunnicutt/Trapper from MASH. Funny as hell.

I guess that makes me Col. Blake.

Hmmm, who's our Frank Burns?

Plaintiff testified at the trial that despite the complaint made against Kendrigs to the Police by Conti , the Police did not find evidence to arrest him. Do you think that Plaintiff should make Kendrigs pay in the civil lawsuit?

Fisherman

Why was the no witness rule versus the 2 witness rule not good enough for the Police and for the DA in this case and why were Conti's allegations against Kendrigs not good enough to have him arrested?

After Kendrigs was charged and prosecuted for the crime of child abuse, why didn't the Police, the DA, and Child Protective Services, having all of the information, and knowing for a fact that he was an active member of the JW congregation at the time and therefore around children, and knowing church confidentiality policy that the church would not warn AND DID NOT WARN other members about him , warn the JW congregation that a child molester was amongst them? And if he was a dangerous child molester, why didn't the Court order him to stay away from children before unleashing the monster?

Fisherman

A "loss of freedom" for authoritarian churches to act with internal impunity is a good thing. Increased regulation of said churches is a good thing, particularly if it protects kids.
Frankly, I can live with a "loss of freedom" like that.

Good for you. I did not comment whether it was good or bad. Just stating a fact.

You, by all indications, don't seem to want that aspect of your precious constitution changed. You, by all indications, seem hell-bend on defending it, no matter what.

You, "by all indications" are an enemy of the USA. Every public officer must take an oath to support and defend it, Lawyers, Peace Officers, The US President, even US citizens. Let me tell you something again Einstein, these legal proceedings are not about changing the Constitution. I used the example in my statement to you to show you that even the Constitution was amended in the past, how much more so a Court decision. The Court ruled in favor of abortion and it can rule in favor of anything it deems just and proper. Nevertheless, you are wrong as you always are in your posts, this case is not about changing the Constitution, It is about upholding it.

Seriously?

Tem Conti wanted $1440. That hardly qualifies for "damages".
Their entire agenda - by statement and actions - was getting the WTS to change their policy.

Under oath, Defendant testified at trial and that is what this case is about stating to the jury and in open Court what she wanted, MONEY. Regarding getting the WT to change their policy, I have already posted on that before, Can't you read ,Einstein? At the trial, and that is what this case is about, Defendant asked for money for damages and not for injunctive relief against the WT.

HeyThere

I thought he wasn't charged in the Conti case because of the statute of limitations?

And Conti has expressed numerous times she is wanting change in the org. She was not after money, she was/is after change. Money is a side effect of that, corporations typically don't change unless the risk of not changing is too great. The Cost of Doing Business has loss from various sources calculated into their budget planning as well as corporate policy.

For example, many companies will do things they aren't supposed to do knowing they will have to pay substantial fines, because they make more money even after paying the fines by doing things they aren't supposed to. This is widespread.

WTBTS being hit hard monetarily, enough for them to actually feel it, is the only way to force change. Otherwise, its just a cost of doing business.

And stop being so hostile. Its unattractive. 😜

punkofnice

fisherman - You, "by all indications" are an enemy of the USA.

Enemy of the USA. I haven't followed this thread thus far...but when I see remarks like this..my mind goes to....

Fisherman

I thought he wasn't charged in the Conti case because of the statute of limitations?

That is what you thought. One should compare our thoughts with the evidence presented at the trial, no? And the California Penal Code, surprise.

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

Share this