This is pretty common. Don't get your panties in an uproar. It is highly doubtful that the Judge will allow lawyer's fees. Most likely, htey will be asked to pay their own lawyer's fees.
cg
Jehovah's Witnesses asking woman to pay legal costs in sexual abuse lawsuit
by Rado Vleugel 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sf
Jim,
So when is it you will be sending Her a copy of the manuel?
It is obvious she has never laid Her eyes upon it as of yet.
Let's change that. Right now.
You or someone that can get a fresh copy, MUST do so and rush it to Her. Soon!
sKally
-
hawkaw
You are right on with respect to the law.
But you are missing the key point country girl. You have to think Optics and NOT the law.
A lot of people find it troubling that the Watch Tower is asking for Vicki (a child abuse victim) to pay their legal costs since this religious organization is publically portraying themselves as a group who "abhors the wicked" and who has told news organizations that it cares about victims of abuse and is compassionate towards them.
From a "moral" point of view, and no doubt many other people would agree, that the perception of asking for legal costs that would bankrupt a middle class person like Vicki Boer, looks more like a multi-million dollar religious group trying to take out retribution/retaliation on a child abuse victim - who, as Her Honour pointed out in her decision (pp 49-53), still suffers serious psychological problems from the abuse - rather than a religious group showing "care and compassion" to a known Jehovah's Witness child abuse victim. The thought of now losing the family's financial assets to a multi-million dollar religious group that a Court found wronged Vicki, could push this innocent and troubled child abuse survivor over the edge much like the thought of the "confrontation" with Vicki's father did. hawk -
little witch
Amazing,
You are mistaken. In US courts, each party must typically pay their own expenses. There are certain types of suits that automatically award attorneys fees for the plaintiff, but they are rare.
You can always ask the judge for an award, but often as not, it is not given.
-
sunshineToo
Amazing,
That's exactly what I've been thinking.
-
reporter
What the hell good is a $5000.00 court award when it gets sucked up and then much, much more in both Vicki's and the WTS' legal fees? Can't she at least net 5,000 out of this (for the very least)? If not, I think she should escalate this case.
?????
Hawkaw? What the hell happened there? It's a shallow ass victory if the judge rules she pay 80K of their 160K fees.
-
Jayson
It would be nice to get the court transcripts out to ever house in Canada. Then when the "good word" comes to the door in hucksters hands to talk of the "evil" in the world people can say "Why yes there is!" And share a copy with those who need it most.
-
qwerty
See below for the post I started earlier about the same thing.
-
qwerty
Post 923 of 923
from 17-Mar-01
37 y 6 m 14 dI Received this from a friend today, July 23, 2003 Re: Update on Jehovah's Witness Child Abuse Civil Trial - Vicki Boer v. Watch Tower et. al. and Possible News Story for CP on Recent July 18, 2003 Hearing Background As Mr. Oliveira reported for CP on June 30, 2003 (Note: http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030630/CPN/20587021&cachetime=15 ), Her Honour, Judge Anne Molloy, wrote a June 26, 2003 decision where she found the Watch Tower negligent for making Vicki Boer, a child rape victim, think she had to confront her father, the accused molester, on December 29, 1989 in Shelburne, Ontario. Her Honour awarded Vicki Boer 5,000 dollars for the harm caused by the Watch Tower. I noted that the court case also became precedent setting in that a highly respected Judge has now recognized that Jehovah's Witness children and adults have no free will in this religious organization. With no free will, the Court has put a huge duty on the elders of the religion to protect rank and file Jehovah's Witnesses from harm during religious activities. Suggested News Story on July 18, 2003 Court Hearing Mr Oliveira indicated in his June 30, 2003 report that "still, she [Vicki Boer] said she can't put the past entirely behind her, because she was waiting to find out if the judgment will include payment for her court fees, well in excess of $5,000". For your information there was a hearing on Legal costs (court fees) on July 18, 2003 at 361 University Ave., Room 4-4 (from 9:50 a.m. to about 10:15 am). I attended the hearing and below is my update for Canadian Press on the legal costs hearing. Colin Stevenson, the Watch Tower's legal counsel, and Charles Mark, Vicki Boer's lawyer, gave oral arguments and submitted briefs to Her Honour, Judge Anne Molloy. Based on my notes and observations in the court room, and through the filed court papers, I was somewhat surprised that Colin Stevenson (the Watch Tower's lawyer) asked the Court (Judge Anne Molloy) for Vicki Boer to pay for a substantial chunk of the Watch Tower's 160,000 plus dollar legal bill for this court case. I understand that Mr. Stevenson believes that the Watch Tower is entitled to some legal costs because the Watch Tower was not found negligent in some of their actions with respect to Vicki Boer. I could see Mr. Stevenson's argument if this was an outrageous false case brought by Vicki but I think on June 26, 2003 Her Honour did rule in favour of Vicki and thus giving the case merit. I also think a lot of people find it troubling that the Watch Tower is asking for Vicki (a child abuse victim) to pay their legal costs since this religious organization is publically portraying themselves as a group who "abhors the wicked" and who has told news organizations such as yourselves that it cares about victims of abuse and is compassionate towards them. It seems to me from a "moral" point of view, and no doubt many other people would agree, that asking for legal costs that would bankrupt a middle class person like Vicki Boer, looks more like a multi-million dollar religious group trying to take out retribution/retaliation on a child abuse victim - who, as Her Honour pointed out in her decision (pp 49-53), still suffers serious psychological problems from the abuse - rather than a religious group showing "care and compassion" to a known Jehovah's Witness child abuse victim. The thought of now losing the family's financial assets to a multi-million dollar religious group that a Court found wronged Vicki, could push this innocent and troubled child abuse survivor over the edge much like the thought of the "confrontation" with Vicki's father did. I think a lot of people would be very interested in this part of the legal costs story and I hope you find it news worthy. I don't think even the Catholic Church during its abuse scandal has tried using the law to its advantage in such a situation. Other Information from the July 18, 2003 Hearing Charles Mark (Vicki Boer's attorney) argued that Vicki's costs should be picked up by the Watch Tower since they were found negligent. Mr. Mark also noted (and Mr. Stevenson confirmed) that Vicki and the Watch Tower worked an offer to settle the case for 56,000 dollars (including legal costs) with an apology before the trial started in September 2002. But the offer was only acceptable to the Watch Tower if Vicki would agree to a "gag" where her or her immediate family could not publically report the abuse. It is interesting finding out about this offer because to this day, the Watch Tower has publically denied Vicki's claim, never apologized publically to Vicki like they did in this private offer and has never told their rank and file (including the Shelburne congregation that came to court every day in support of the Watch Tower at the September, 2002 trial) about the offer and apology. Her Honour had never seen this offer to settle document or previous offers. Her Honour seemed very interested in this offer to settle document in determining legal costs and other offers of settlement. She requested the Defendant's lawyer, Colin Stevenson, to produce the offer of settlements with further legal briefs in order that Her Honour could make a decision on legal costs, if any, to be awarded to the Plaintiff or Defendant. The lawyers for the Watch Tower and Vicki Boer are required to make these legal submissions within the next two weeks to the Court. Then Her Honour (according to her) is likely to rule around August 22 - 25, 2003 on legal costs. I hope the update helps and you find the story newsworthy to report. I have not heard if there are any appeals planned. I will let you know if I find out. References Judge Molloy's Decision: http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc11003.html IP: 8eE6FsdhsdV2TWJf 25-Jul-03 08:59 Jul 25, 2003 by qwerty: Correct formatting
25-Jul-03 09:01 Jul 25, 2003 by qwerty: Correct formattingGopher Re: Vicki Boer v. Watch Tower 25-Jul-03 09:18 Jul 25, 2003
Post 3488 of 3488
from 18-Mar-01
42 y 7 m 17 dI think it's terrible and harrassing that the Watchtower lawyer would suggest to poor Ms. Boer that she should pay their corporation's legal expenses related to the case that she won! Hasn't Ms. Boer been through enough already?
I don't know if this legal tactic that the WT lawyer is using is common or not. It just seems downright inhumane to me.
And since Vicki won the case, it seems to me that she owes that selfish greedy WT corporation absolutely nothing. They should be thanking their lucky stars or their God Jehovah or whatever that the judgment amount in Vicki's favor was only $5000.
Edited to say: It seems they're trying to punish her for speaking the truth rather than settling in advance of the trial. I applaud Vicki and others like her (such as Heidi Meyer) who boldly tell the truth about the way Jehovah's Witnesses treated them.
Shame on the Watchtower Society for trying to further crush the victims of their poor policies.
IP: 2OJ4tD2NJux4m1sd 25-Jul-03 09:20 Jul 25, 2003 by Gopher: Correct formatting qwerty Re: Vicki Boer v. Watch Tower 25-Jul-03 09:53 Jul 25, 2003
Post 924 of 924
from 17-Mar-01
37 y 6 m 14 dGopher exactly!............ On August 25, 1998, Vicki Boer commenced this action. She alleges that the individual defendants Brian Cairns and Steve Brown acted negligently and in breach of a fiduciary duty owed to her in forcing her to go through the traumatic experience of recounting particulars of her father's sexual abuse in the presence of her father on two occasions. She also alleges that Messrs Cairns and Brown were concerned only for the reputation of the congregation and for her father. They attempted to "cover up" the abuse by trying to keep it inside the community, by telling her not to get medical help for herself, and by telling her not to report it to the secular authorities. This deepened the trauma which the plaintiff had experienced and prevented her from starting a healing process until many years later. The defendant John Didur was a senior elder at the Watch Tower head office and was involved in an advisory capacity in respect of the steps taken by Sheldon Longworth and by Messrs. Cairns and Brown. The plaintiff alleges that Mr. Didur and Watch Tower instructed and supported the other Jehovah's Witness elders in their handling of this matter and are equally responsible for the damages she has sustained.
She's a brave girl.
Qwerty
IP: 8eE6FsdhsdV2TWJf obiwan Re: Vicki Boer v. Watch Tower 25-Jul-03 13:24 Jul 25, 2003
Post 845 of 845
from 31-May-02
34 y 3 m 26 dBut the offer was only acceptable to the Watch Tower if Vicki would agree to a "gag" where her or her immediate family could not publically report the abuse. Hear no evil, see no evil...pisses me off!! Anything to save face. I wonder though, will other victims come out of the woodwork when the settlement offer becomes public record? If the judge looks at this offer to determine damages wouldn't that be included in the court records?
This could put a serious crimp in the wt, and quite possibly catapult the wt into the spotlight just like the catholic church....squirm baby squirm.
IP: 4NnA0imBnRwNa/dB hawkaw Re: Vicki Boer v. Watch Tower 25-Jul-03 13:30 Jul 25, 2003 Post 2856 of 2868
from 22-Mar-01Obiwan, You exactly correct regarding the final offer.
When you hear someone say that Vicki was suing for the money. Remember, it came out in court that she was all for accepting the 56,000 dollars which included legal costs and an apology as long as she wasn't "gagged".
All she wanted to do was tell her story and that is what the offer proves.
As for its public release. It will be part of the court record in the coming weeks. Have about two months patience and behold something might appear before your eyes on this board (hint).
hawk
IP: KX4iyKrjWJ9KV16g obiwan Re: Vicki Boer v. Watch Tower 25-Jul-03 14:12 Jul 25, 2003
Post 846 of 846
from 31-May-02
34 y 3 m 26 d(jumping up and down clapping) Can't wait, can't wait, can't wait! -
reporter
Remember, it came out in court that she was all for accepting the 56,000 dollars which included legal costs and an apology as long as she wasn't "gagged".
Gagging simply isn't acceptable.
The decision in and of itself underlines the fact that this was not a frivolous case.