by telemetry11 67 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Enemy of the USA. I haven't followed this thread thus far...but when I see remarks like this..my mind goes to....
Funny pic. The Constitution is what the US is about, no? and that is why the people enjoy the freedoms that they do here, no?. I think that someone that fights the Constitution "by all indications" , even verbally, is fighting the people that enjoy the freedoms provided by the Constitution,no?
Fisherman34 minutes agoEnemy of the USA. I haven't followed this thread thus far...but when I see remarks like this..my mind goes to....
Funny pic. The Constitution is what the US is about, no? and that is why the people enjoy the freedoms that they do here, no?. I think that someone that fights the Constitution "by all indications" , even verbally, is fighting the people that enjoy the freedoms provided by the Constitution,no?
Dunno, mate. I'm a Brit
Fisherman, what exactly are you trying to accomplish, here?
Who are you trying to convince, of what?
(P.S.: I said "your Constitution" because I'm Canadian.)
Fisherman, what exactly are you trying to accomplish, here?
Who are you trying to convince, of what?
Who says that I have to accomplish anything here? And who says that I have to convince anyone of anything? I am just having my say. Cant you read? "HAVE YOUR SAY..." That is it.
Besides that, I am posting facts about the case. You don't seem to like them or perhaps what I post is above your ambit of comprehension and thus you resort to calling me dufus. And when I give you a reply to your remarks, you don't like it either.
For example, as information for this thread, and for those that are interested if the Appellate ruling had any adverse effect on Defendants besides the financial part, I pointed out that the Appellate decision resulted in a big loss of freedom, because based on the Appellate Court ruling, NOW the Court is ( legally ) regulating the specific CHURCH policy that does not allow child molesters known to the church, to go unsupervised during church sponsored activities. Before this decision, it was only church policy. NOW IT IS THE LAW. It is also the law that the church comply with that existing policy. That was a basis for the Appellate Court verdict AND it is the law because if the church violates its own policy again, it can be held liable again. I did not think that many on this thread realized this and I thought that the information would be interesting and informative. This is just one example of how my posts contain substance, there is more. That is my say.
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?
It's Kendrick, not Kendrigs.
What is needed in a court of law to prosecute someone is one thing, that bar is set pretty high, which should be the case when a person's freedom is at risk. But when it comes to a this incident, where there had been a complaint made, where Kindrich admitted some of the wrongdoing, where the brothers on the committee said they felt Kendrich was not bring truthful, where the wife knew at least part of it had happened, there was more than enough proof to say that this person should not have been in a position of authority or allowed to be around children.
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.
And why shouldn't she ask for money ? You seem quite eager to uphold the constitution, why aren't you interested in Candace Conti's right to sue Watchtower for the damage that was done to her? Do you understand that harm is done to a young girl when a man uses her for sexual gratification?
Fisherman - "I pointed out that the Appellate decision resulted in a big loss of freedom, because based on the Appellate Court ruling, NOW the Court is (legally) regulating the specific CHURCH policy that does not allow child molesters known to the church to go unsupervised during church sponsored activities. Before this decision, it was only church policy. NOW IT IS THE LAW. It is also the law that the church comply with that existing policy."
Okay, I get it.
Thing is, the way you've been saying it, you give the distinct impression that you feel the regulation of "church policies" by an outside party is out of line, even in the instance of something as egregious as the proclivities of sex offenders.
You even go so far as to call it a "loss of freedom".
x
How exactly do you think the particulars of this matter should be conducted?
While it is legally addressing church policy, you have to balance that with the need to take steps to ensure the safety of unsuspecting church children (Conti in this case). No freedom is absolute. The Founding Fathers got sick of having to support the Church of England via taxes and official membership which is why we wrote that into our constitution to begin with (I'm American).
Interesting that the Court only addressed the issue of having a molester participate in church sponsored activities as it relates to protecting the congregation's children. I wonder if the WTS would have been found liable in a case where a molester working alone in service (and yes I've worked streets by myself so it happens) attacked a householder. After all, it's a church sponsored activity with complete direction (territory maps, direction on which streets to work in many cases by whoever is taking the group out). I wonder if this duty to supervise will extend to harm suffered from a non-church member?
If I were the WTS, I'd simply issue a BOE letter stating anyone found guilty of molestation by either a JC or a court of law, could not participate in the door to door work. I'm not sure I'd let them even run the trolly or do street work. You are talking a very small number of individuals that is exposing them to a significant legal liability. But then again, I wouldn't ever let someone like that serve in a position of oversight and we know they allow that as well. Really doesn't make any sense to me.
Doubting Bro - "If I were the WTS, I'd simply issue a BOE letter stating anyone found guilty of molestation by either a JC or a court of law, could not participate in the door to door work."
Yes, well, that's because you actually give a shit about others' well-being.
There are certain other parties who do not.
Okay, I get it.
You don't get it."Loss of freedom" is not a remark or an opinion. I am not saying that it is good or bad. I am not implying that church sponsored activities should be conducted some other way. All that I mean is that as a result of the verdict, the church was adversely affected. Before the verdict, their policy was voluntary, yes a spiritual duty, yes necessary, but the Court never ruled making it a legal duty. The verdict made their existing policy, the law. Let me put it to you this way, just try to get the point of what I am saying and don't try to rip apart my illustration. Suppose you voluntarily swept in front of your neighbors house for years. You did this voluntarily. You were not required by law to do this. Now your neighbor claims he fell in front of his property next to yours that you were cleaning voluntarily and you got sued. The Court ruled that you are liable and that means that henceforth you must clean your neighbor's property-not voluntarily- BUT BY LAW. That is my point.
Sorry ,but I have nothing more to say to you.
