I don't know if this has been read by any who are on this forum. I have only received it in the last few minutes. It is a good document in that, it is easy to understand, it's not full of legal jargon.
Conti v WT court documents
by umbertoecho 10 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
umbertoecho
A portion of the WTs defence tactics contained in the document listed a few minutes ago. I hope someone is keeping these documents. I do.
The letter addressed the elders’ “duties that may involve legal issues or questions.” Watchtower instructed the elders they “must be careful not to divulge information about personal matters to unauthorized persons. . . . Elders must give special heed to the counsel: ‘Do not reveal the confidential talk of another.’ (Proverbs 25:9) . . . Improper use of the tongue by an elder can result in serious legal problems for the individual, the congregation, and even the Society. [¶] . . . Worldly persons are quick to resort to lawsuits if they feel their ‘rights’ have been violated. Some who oppose the Kingdom preaching work readily take advantage of any legal provisions to interfere with it or impede its progress. Thus, elders must especially guard the use of the tongue.” The letter continued: “The spirit of the world has sensitized people regarding their legal ‘rights’ and the legal means by which they can exact punishment if such ‘rights’ are violated. Hence, a growing number of vindictive or disgruntled ones, as well as opposers, have initiated lawsuits to inflict financial penalties on the individual, the congregation, or the Society. Many of these lawsuits are the result of the misuse of the tongue. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] The legal consequences of a breach of confidentiality by the elders can be substantial. If the elders fail to follow the Society’s direction carefully in handling confidential matters, such mistakes could result in successful litigation by those offended. Substantial monetary damages could be assessed against the elders or congregation.” The letter went on to discuss “what to do in specific cases,” such as “[s]earch warrants and [s]ubpoenas,” “[c]rimes and [c]riminal investigations,” “[w]hen [l]awsuits
-
The_Doctor10
I don't understand the WTS stand on this issue, just tell the BOE to always inform the congregation when there's a known pedophile amongst them, how hard is that?!
When an accusation is made, even if only by one person, the BOE should actually recommend taking it to local law enforcement, that'd absolve them of all responsibility for whatever happens thereafter.
Having a pedophile do something may look bad on the WTS, but with proper measures they could completely avoid any blame. Instead they not only have pedophiles doing things, their policies only help shield a pedophile from being properly held accountable, and even worse keep the pedophiles around to harm more children.
Why the WTS is so committed to being on the wrong side of this argument is mind-boggling to me.
-
Fisherman
It happens at the trial. The Court formed an opinion, decision, verdict from the trial.--Not that the Court is right or wrong, but it has the power rule notwithstanding errors of law. You can form your own opinion by reading the trial transcripts besides the posted Court's verdict. -
Splash
Worldly persons are quick to resort to lawsuits if they feel their ‘rights’ have been violated.
Says the WT who are one of the most litigious groups "if they feel their 'rights' have been violated."
And putting 'rights' in quotes like that tries to convey that these are somehow illegitimate. Well, WT, these aren't legal 'rights', they are legal rights.
-
rebelfighter
How many of you caught this line:
Substantially monetary damages could be assessed against the elders or congregation.”
-
Giordano
I think this is when the Society lost the trial.
Allen Shuster, a Watchtower official in New York, testified that Watchtower policy allowed a known child molester to continue to perform field service, but not alone or with a child. 2
2. When Shuster was asked whether a person known to be a child molester “can be sent out as a baptized publisher into neighborhoods to spread the word of the gospel?” the following testimony ensued: “A. Yes. But not by themselves or with a child. [¶] Q. “Is there in writing anywhere the caveat that you just gave to us? I haven’t seen it in any of the exhibits. [¶] A. I believe we have something in writing, yes. I couldn’t put my finger on it right now, but yes. [¶] Q. Is it here with us today? [¶] A. I don’t know if it is here. I don’t recall. [¶] . . . [¶] “Any reason why, if there was a policy that specifically prohibited baptized publishers who were known to have molested children from going into field service with a child, that that written policy wouldn’t be right in front of you right now?
-
Fisherman
It was immaterial at the trial whether Conti was molested or not. They just believed that she was (The Police could not find evidence to arrest Kendricks). The real focus was, assuming that she was molested, what duties did the WT and agents have towards Conti. The Court found that a special custody relation was formed at church sponsored activities (FS) and that the local congregation did not comply with its own policy to keep an eye on Kendricks. It also found WTS vicariously liable, citing that WTS regulates FS. Court also decided that although Conti was not molested at FS, WT was liable (based on case law) because she was molested when she was supposed to be at FS. That is it. WT was negligent in protecting Conti during FS. I thought that it was very funny that the Court did not find the Police, the DA or Child Services responsible for not warning the congregation after unleashing Kendricks. It was brought out aat the trial that Conti had made a deal with Kendricks not to collect any Court awarded judgement from him in exchange for him not to participate in the proceedings. I thought that was very funny particularly because Kendricks was pro rata found to be aprox 60 percent liable. It would seem that Conti would want Kendricks to pay most of all, especially because it was him that harmed her, but nope, he does not have to pay a dime. I found it interesting that during cross examimation by WT lawyers, Conti first testified that she wanted Kendricks to pay and said nothing about her deal with him, but later on she admited that she made the deal with him. But all the Court did was to find Wt responsible for not protecting Conti during FS. -
JWdaughter
The appellate court gave the reasons why unnamed parties that you and the WT think should be held responsible were NOT held responsible. You should read the appelllate ruling.
The deal was that he not interfere with the judicial process by intimidating witnesses. And I am sure that she WOULD like him to have to pay for what he did to her, but the WT being held responsible does a greater good.
You know like you can die for one friend, or like Jesus die for all of mankind? She could get the one criminal, or the creepy group that protects MANY criminals and promotes their infiltration into the congregation, looking like innocent, decent brothers who are 'ordained' ministers.To people at the door, telling them you are an ordained minister gives you instant credibility and authority. It does in the congregation too as you are always going on about what a holy people you are compared to the worldly people.
There was a rot deeper than Kendricks and the testimony from even the elders confirmed that that is what Candace was trying to change from the inception of her discussions with them about her abuse.
-
Fisherman
The appellate court gave the reasons why unnamed parties that you and the WT think should be held responsible were NOT held responsible. You should read the appelllate ruling.
I am so sorry, I missed reading the apart that you refer to in the Appellate Verdict; Can you show me please.
There was a rot deeper than Kendricks and the testimony from even the elders confirmed that that is what Candace was trying to change from the inception of her discussions with them about her abuse.
she WOULD like him to have to pay for what he did to her, but the WT being held responsible does a greater good.
I am sure Kendricks thanks you (you are kind and sweet with your view). He gets away with raping a child ( Police could not find evidence to arrest him) and He made a sweet deal with Conti. Based on your logic, it would be ok for the Boston Marathon bomber to get away with what he did, because there is a deeper rot. (I really think you mean deeper pockets, the WTS!!)