The Danger of Settlements (page 13)

Landy

....responsible in the Fessler case?

I have no idea what that is - have you got a link?

Actually, Watchtower has been repeatedly shown that they have no fiduciary responsibility toward members. Also they have been found not to have a duty to warn nor a duty to protect. Most of the time, you cannot be held responsible for not doing something. If I am a layman person and I am on the side of the street and someone stops breathing and I do nothing, I cannot be held liable for not jumping in and attempting to do CPR. Following the appeal in the Conti case, Watchtower was only held liable for their actual action of assigning Conti to work with Kendrick in service not for any action that they did not do.

dubstepped

Richard, as I previously stated, Watchtower cannot know everything that goes on and therefore cannot be held accountable. I don't know why someone of your intellect couldn't see that.

Fisherman

Actually, Watchtower has been repeatedly shown that they have no fiduciary responsibility toward members.

A third party would be vicariously liable if a fiduciary relationship existed. WT has not been found to have such a relationship as you have stated correctly.

In Conti, the Court decided that "wt" regulated the church sponsored activity and found wt vicariously liable in that instance.

Richard Oliver

So as my specific question is. For the ARC you don't believe that Watchtower should be held financially liable for all those cases?

dubstepped

Look, horrible abuses went on in the house next door growing up. They were JWs, and unfortunately they studied with my mom and fucked over the next three decades of my life. My best friend was next door. I had no clue what was going on until it all came out decades later. Nobody knew, including the congregation, and nothing could have been done. Had it been known we would have reported it. Why? No legal reason, it's just part of being a good person. Sadly, JWs don't really care about being good people, they only care about technicalities and written rules and miss out on chances to help.

In their own religious doctrine, failure to report what you know is implied consent to what happened and you could be disciplined for not speaking up. Yet those bastards know the kids are likely being raped and do nothing. They share responsibility for what goes on, by their own doctrine, and are hypocrites at best.

dubstepped

I don't have lnowledge of every case in the ARC situation. If they knew though, which apparently they did or things wouldn't have been documented, then yes they should be responsible for not reporting, even as their own doctrine would have them do.

Richard Oliver

Dubstepped:

You are conflating legal and moral things. Morally yes, it should be reported. Legally is a different story. There is privilege that cannot be broken. Legal is about technicalities. Many people here want to join those two things together. That Watchtower should view these acts as a crime and not a sin, and in the same breath say, even if a privilege bars them from reporting it, the moral thing to do is to report it. If you want to say that it is a legal issue then you have to stick with the legal aspect of it. If you want to say it is a moral thing than you have to stick with that.

Finkelstein

Watchtower was only held liable for their actual action of assigning Conti to work with Kendrick in service not for any action that they did not do.

You seem to be leaving out some important information there Richard Oliver.

The WTS was also held responsible for suggesting that Kendrick was good for children in a supportive way to the new congregation of where he went to and did not make mention of his passed conviction for pedophilia.

Richard Oliver

Finkelstein:

No the Appeals court reversed that. The Appeals court only found them liable for the assigning of Kendrick with Conti. Read the full decision. The court ruled that Watchtower nor the congregation had a duty to warn or a duty to protect.

The Danger of Settlements

Share this