http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D066606.PDF
If anyone is interested in recent lawsuits concerning org.
KENNETH DELGADO vs. LAS LOMAS SPANISH CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, SAN DIEGO, CA Court Docs
by LAWHFol 3 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
LAWHFol
-
LAWHFol
Here is an unrelated PDF File summary re Conti on Page 97 :
"Conti v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1214 April 13, 2015 In 1994, Jonathan Kendrick was convicted of a misdemeanor after he admitted to touching his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter’s breast. In the year leading up to Kendrick’s conviction, he and his family discussed the molestation incident with elders in their church, the North Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. One of the Congregation’s elders reported “a case of child abuse” to the Congregation and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (“Watchtower”), the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ headquarters at the time. The Fremont Congregation removed Kendrick from his role as a ministerial servant, and, in keeping with Watchtower policy, information about the molestation was kept confidential. Kendrick was told that he could not work with children as part of his service with the Congregation, and he was further informed he would be watched closely by all of the Congregation’s elders. The elders told Kendrick’s wife that it was her decision whether to report the incident to police, which she did, ultimately leading to Kendrick’s conviction. Later, Kendrick found his way into the family of Candace Conti, who were fellow members of the Fremont Congregation. According to Conti, Kendrick began molesting her around the time she turned nine years old in late 1994. The molestations continued several times a month for some two years, generally occurring at Kendrick’s home after Congregation meetings and during “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members went door-to-door preaching in the community. During field service, in particular, Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti. Conti sued Watchtower, the Fremont Congregation, and Kendrick for damages for sexual abuse. Conti alleged willful acts by Kendrick and negligence in the defendants’ failure to warn members of the Congregation that Kendrick was a child molester, and in failing to restrict and supervise his participation in church activities. Conti included a cause of action for “acts of malice” supporting punitive damages against Watchtower, based upon its “secrecy policy” in relation to child sexual abusers despite knowing of their likelihood of re-offending. At trial, the trial court instructed the jury that the defendants had a duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Conti from the risk of sexual abuse by Kendrick, and that the presence or absence of any warning was a factor that the jurors could consider. The jury found Kendrick, Watchtower, and the Congregation liable, and apportioned fault 60% to Kendrick, 27% to Watchtower, and 13% to the Congregation. Conti accepted a reduced punitive damages award, and the judgment was entered accordingly Page | 98 Disclaimer: This white paper is provided as general information only and is not intended to be or to replace legal advice. © Stone | Dean LLP The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded the action with directions. The Court held that the church had no duty to warn its congregation or a child molestation victim’s parents that a church member molested another child in the past. The court held further that the church did have a duty to limit and supervise the child molester’s “field service,” which involved door-to-door preaching in the community, in light of his history of child molestation"
-
Divergent
Zalkin comes to kick the WT's ass again! -
prologos
LAWHFol8 hours agohttp://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D066606.PDF
At about 11:00 or 11:15 a.m., the four women completed their work for the day. They were "standing around chatting . . . after preaching," and two of the women were going to walk home. But Sojo offered to take them to have lunch with her at a Burger King restaurant and then drive them home after lunch.This seems to be a case where an accident victims sought additional money from WTBtS for damages that occurred while driving in the "service". (Insurance had already payed up}. wt argued, it was after service and won. but
what red-blooded witness quits service at 11am? and go home? not take a coffee break at Burger King, rather than early lunch.-- and then drive to a "call" the four of them counting and to finish time? the opposing team missed that. interesting read. about the greed.