KingDumb Halls Want Court Order To Keep Pedophile Documents Secret!

by Country Girl 67 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • undercover
    undercover


  • While Kelley was a Dumas elder, church officials learned he was sexually abusing children in the congregation but did not report the abuse to authorities or warn other church members.
  • This strikes me funny. That congregation is full of dum(b)as(s) elders.

    Seriously though, the allegations, charges and lawsuits are starting to snowball. The WTS has a real issue on their hands. If they continue on with their hardline stance and denials, it will only land them in hotter water. Hopefully many of the dubs who were quick to condem the Catholic church for it's child abuse problems will have their eyes opened to the hypocrisy in their own religion and question the validity of it.

  • La Capra
    La Capra

    Just so we're clear, the letter by Polidoro posted above was NOT in reply to the article posted as the head of this thread. Shoshana

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup
    The plaintiff's counsel seeks to strip a church of the sanctity and complete confidentiality of the confession

    The WT is not half as worried about keeping the confession under wraps as they are about all the recorded incidents which led up to the alleged confession. They are using the argument of "protected confessions" to hide everything in this guy's file that came BEFORE the confession. It looks like it the WT trains their lawyers to operate the same way they do.

    growedup

  • Gerard
    Gerard
    Just so we're clear, the letter by Polidoro posted above was NOT in reply to the article posted as the head of this thread.

    That is correct. It is only an example of Polidoro's tricks he used in past sexual abuse defenses.

    WT's lawyers have been invoking their constitutional right to religious freedom as a defense in lawsuits that blames the church for sexual abuse by a member. To say that child sexual abuse should be dismissed because they're a church and immune from civil liability because of the First Amendment is a cruel but debatable argument. Then, avoiding interference with "religious beliefs" can be achieved by not treating churches under ordinary liability laws.

    In the other hand, Brelsford is the latest action under a new state law that temporarily abolishes the statute of limitations on lawsuits dealing with child abuse cases, making it easier to collect money from churches, schools and other organizations with a history of sexual abuse. Because they deal with civil law, the lawsuits against Jehovah's Witnesses are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a California law used to prosecute priests and other alleged child molesters accused of decades-old abuse. THIS is what will make California's lawsuits a nightmare to Polidoro and the WT.

    It would be nice to let him know what you think about his strategy:

    Paul D. Polidoro Phone: (845)306-1000

  • La Capra
    La Capra

    Gerard, the substantial facts of the situation to which Pelidoro refers in his letter are quite different than the ones in the article, mainly because the article refers to an ELDER, making it fundamentally the same as the recent cases with the Catholic church: priests and church employees. I find that in the case of an elder, the claims concerning the illegality of covering up such dangerous behavior by a formal represenative of the organization is far more promising. Should WBTS lose a case for covering up abusive representatives, it will have the tendency to blow the cover off. This will help the rank and file to see that the practice (as opposed to the official policy) IS to keep a lid on it. I am not aware of the Catholic church being called to task for parishoner on parishoner abuse. However, what would distinguish JW parishoner abusers from Catholic church parishoner abusers is that JW parishoners are sent out in the public, door to door, where a known (by elders) abuser may have contact with unsupervised children...If something untoward occurred in that setting with an unwitting householder, WBTS could quite possibly be held responsible, if it was known that the perpetrator was a predator, and s/he was allowed (required, really) to go out in service unsupervised. In order to maintain a cause of action for negligence, the defendant absolutely MUST have a legal duty to the plaintiff. I think legally the WBTS is right that there is no legal duty to control the behavior of their general membership. As JWs we don't really want to see the legal difference because our behavior WAS controlled by the elders. Just because they CAN control doesn't mean they are legally bound to. As far as warning the congregation: I see no reason why an elder can't mention, as an aside to a parent with children, "I always make sure I am with my children when 'Br. Letch' is nearby." It is an absolute statement of fact that reveals no privileged information. Additionally, if the information came to an elder by a victim, then it is not privileged. Under certain circumstances, they CAN be compelled to reveal it in court if the victim consents. It is the confessor, not the confessee, that can claim the clergy privilege. Every month, it seems, it gets closer and closer for the boys at Bethel to get their comeuppance. Shoshana

  • Badger
    Badger

    I think my downfall is beginning...

    I was asked by an elder about abuse and what I would do, and answered,"As a teacher, I'm required to go to the autorities and follow district procedure."

    "What about society procedure?"

    "I think protecting children trumps that."

    Stay tuned...

  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    Here are the mandatory reporters in the State of Texas, and the penalties for failure to report if "suspected" abuse is occurring:

    Reporting Laws for this State

    Clergy as Mandated Reporters
    Statute: Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 261.101
    (West, WESTLAW through End of 1999 Reg. Sess.)
    Law:

    A person having cause to believe that a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been adversely affected by abuse or neglect by any person shall immediately make a report as provided by this subchapter.

    The requirement to report under this section applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner, a social worker, a mental health professional, and an employee of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services.

    Mandatory Reporters for this State

  • Health Care Professionals
  • Education/Child Care Professionals
  • All Persons
  • Statute: Family Code §§ 261.101(a)-(c); 261.102
    Professions that must report
    Others
    • Juvenile probation or detention officers
    • Employees or clinics that provide reproductive services
    Standard
    Have cause to believe
    Privileged Communications
    Clergy/penitent privilege denied

    Reporting Penalties for this State

    Statute: Fam. §§ 261.107(a)-(b); 261.109
    Failure to Report
    Standard
    Knowingly
    Penalty
    Class B misdemeanor
    False Reporting
    Standard
    Knowingly or intentionally
    Penalty
    Class A misdemeanor
    State jail felony, if there is a prior conviction

    This shows that EVERYONE is required to report. No exceptions. End of story. There is no exception for clergy or priests or rabbis or anyone.

    I do not know the attorneys in this case. I live far, far, away from Amarillo. Shutterbug might be able to answer more specific questions, since he lives there and knows some of the people involved! I will continue to watch these papers, though, and report if I read anything.

    What I would like to add, however, is that sooner or later the JWs are going to have to decide whether they *are* clergy or not. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. However, if this goes to the Texas Supreme Court, or higher, to decipher whether constitutional provisions have been violated.. it's gonna take a lonnnnnnng time!

    CG

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    Badger -

    I've copied and pasted a WT article Elsewhere posted - well - elsewhere! Anyway, thought you'd find it interesting. I'm not trying to hijack the thread here, just wanted to get this info to Badger. The rest of you - As You Were!!! :-)

    growedup

    *** Watchtower Sept. 1, 1987 pp. 12-15 "A Time to Speak"?When? ***

    "A

    Time to Speak"?When?

    MARY works as a medical assistant at a hospital. One requirement she has to abide by in her work is confidentiality. She must keep documents and information pertaining to her work from going to unauthorized persons. Law codes in her state also regulate the disclosure of confidential information on patients.

    One day Mary faced a dilemma. In processing medical records, she came upon information indicating that a patient, a fellow Christian, had submitted to an abortion. Did she have a Scriptural responsibility to expose this information to elders in the congregation, even though it might lead to her losing her job, to her being sued, or to her employer?s having legal problems? Or would Proverbs 11:13 justify keeping the matter concealed? This reads: "The one walking about as a slanderer is uncovering confidential talk, but the one faithful in spirit is covering over a matter."?Compare Proverbs 25:9, 10.

    Situations like this are faced by Jehovah?s Witnesses from time to time. Like Mary, they become acutely aware of what King Solomon observed: "For everything there is an appointed time, even a time for every affair under the heavens: . . . a time to keep quiet and a time to speak." (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7) Was this the time for Mary to keep quiet, or was it the time to speak about what she had learned?

    Circumstances can vary greatly. Hence, it would be impossible to set forth a standard procedure to be followed in every case, as if everyone should handle matters the way Mary did. Indeed, each Christian, if ever faced with a situation of this nature, must be prepared to weigh all the factors involved and reach a decision that takes into consideration Bible principles as well as any legal implications and that will leave him or her with a clear conscience before Jehovah. (1 Timothy 1:5, 19) When sins are minor and due to human imperfection, the principle applies: "Love covers a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8) But when there seems to be serious wrongdoing, should a loyal Christian out of love of God and his fellow Christian reveal what he knows so that the apparent sinner can receive help and the congregation?s purity be preserved?

    Applying

    Bible Principles

    What are some basic Bible principles that apply? First, anyone committing serious wrongdoing should not try to conceal it. "He that is covering over his transgressions will not succeed, but he that is confessing and leaving them will be shown mercy." (Proverbs 28:13) Nothing escapes the notice of Jehovah. Hidden transgressions must eventually be accounted for. (Proverbs 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:24, 25) At times Jehovah brings concealed wrongdoing to the attention of a member of the congregation that this might be given proper attention.?Joshua 7:1-26.

    Another Bible guideline appears at Leviticus 5:1: "Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error." This "public cursing" was not profanity or blasphemy. Rather, it often occurred when someone who had been wronged demanded that any potential witnesses help him to get justice, while calling down curses?likely from Jehovah?on the one, perhaps not yet identified, who had wronged him. It was a form of putting others under oath. Any witnesses of the wrong would know who had suffered an injustice and would have a responsibility to come forward to establish guilt. Otherwise, they would have to ?answer for their error? before Jehovah.

    This command from the Highest Level of authority in the universe put the responsibility upon each Israelite to report to the judges any serious wrongdoing that he observed so that the matter might be handled. While Christians are not strictly under the Mosaic Law, its principles still apply in the Christian congregation. Hence, there may be times when a Christian is obligated to bring a matter to the attention of the elders. True, it is illegal in many countries to disclose to unauthorized ones what is found in private records. But if a Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah. There are times when a Christian "must obey God as ruler rather than men."?Acts 5:29.

    While oaths or solemn promises should never be taken lightly, there may be times when promises required by men are in conflict with the requirement that we render exclusive devotion to our God. When someone commits a serious sin, he, in effect, comes under a ?public curse? from the One wronged, Jehovah God. (Deuteronomy 27:26; Proverbs 3:33) All who become part of the Christian congregation put themselves under "oath" to keep the congregation clean, both by what they do personally and by the way they help others to remain clean.

    Personal

    Responsibility

    These are some of the Bible principles Mary likely considered in making her personal decision. Wisdom dictated that she should not act quickly, without weighing matters very carefully. The Bible counsels: "Do not become a witness against your fellowman without grounds. Then you would have to be foolish with your lips." (Proverbs 24:28) To establish a matter conclusively, the testimony of at least two eyewitnesses is needed. (Deuteronomy 19:15) If Mary had seen only a brief mention of abortion, she might have decided conscientiously that the evidence of any guilt was so inconclusive that she should not proceed further. There could have been a mistake in billing, or in some other way the records may not have properly reflected the situation.

    In this instance, however, Mary had some other significant information. For example, she knew that the sister had paid the bill, apparently acknowledging that she had received the service specified. Also, she knew personally that the sister was single, thus raising the possibility of fornication. Mary felt a desire lovingly to help one who may have erred and to protect the cleanness of Jehovah?s organization, remembering Proverbs 14:25: "A true witness is delivering souls, but a deceitful one launches forth mere lies."

    Mary was somewhat apprehensive about the legal aspects but felt that in this situation Bible principles should carry more weight than the requirement that she protect the privacy of the medical records. Surely the sister would not want to become resentful and try to retaliate by making trouble for her, she reasoned. So when Mary analyzed all the facts available to her, she decided conscientiously that this was a time to "speak," not to "keep quiet."

    Now Mary faced an additional question: To whom should she speak, and how could she do so discreetly? She could go directly to the elders, but she decided to go first privately to the sister. This was a loving approach. Mary reasoned that this one under some suspicion might welcome the opportunity to clarify matters or, if guilty, confirm the suspicion. If the sister had already spoken to the elders about the matter, likely she would say so, and Mary would not need to pursue matters further. Mary reasoned that if the sister had submitted to an abortion and had not confessed to this serious transgression of God?s law, she would encourage her to do this. Then the elders could help her in accord with James 5:13-20. Happily, this is how matters worked out. Mary found that the sister had submitted to an abortion under much pressure and because of being spiritually weak. Shame and fear had moved her to conceal her sin, but she was glad to get help from the elders toward spiritual recovery.

    If Mary had reported first to the body of elders, they would have been faced with a similar decision. How would they handle confidential information coming into their possession? They would have had to make a decision based on what they felt Jehovah and his Word required of them as shepherds of the flock. If the report involved a baptized Christian who was actively associated with the congregation, they would have had to weigh the evidence as did Mary in determining if they should proceed further. If they decided that there was a strong possibility that a condition of "leaven" existed in the congregation, they might have chosen to assign a judicial committee to look into the matter. (Galatians 5:9, 10) If the one under suspicion had, in effect, resigned from being a member, not having attended any meetings for some time and not identifying herself as one of Jehovah?s Witnesses, they might choose to let the matter rest until such time as she did begin to identify herself again as a Witness.

    Thinking Ahead

    Employers have a right to expect that their Christian employees will ?exhibit good fidelity to the full,? including observing rules on confidentiality. (Titus 2:9, 10) If an oath is taken, it should not be taken lightly. An oath makes a promise more solemn and binding. (Psalm 24:4) And where the law reinforces a requirement on confidentiality, the matter becomes still more serious. Hence, before a Christian takes an oath or puts himself under a confidentiality restriction, whether in connection with employment or otherwise, it would be wise to determine to the extent possible what problems this may produce because of any conflict with Bible requirements. How will one handle matters if a brother or a sister becomes a client? Usually such jobs as working with doctors, hospitals, courts, and lawyers are the type of employment in which a problem could develop. We cannot ignore Caesar?s law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah?s law is supreme.

    Anticipating the problem, some brothers who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so forth, have prepared guidelines in writing and have asked brothers who may consult them to read these over before revealing anything confidential. Thus an understanding is required in advance that if serious wrongdoing comes to light, the wrongdoer would be encouraged to go to the elders in his congregation about the matter. It would be understood that if he did not do so, the counselor would feel an obligation to go to the elders himself.

    There may be occasions when a faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based on his knowledge of God?s Word, to strain or even breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law. Courage and discretion would be needed. The objective would not be to spy on another?s freedom but to help erring ones and to keep the Christian congregation clean. Minor transgressions due to sin should be overlooked. Here, "love covers a multitude of sins," and we should forgive "up to seventy-seven times." (Matthew 18:21, 22) This is the "time to keep quiet." But when there is an attempt to conceal major sins, this may be the "time to speak."

    [Footnotes]

    Mary is a hypothetical person facing a situation that some Christians have faced. The way she handles the situation represents how some have applied Bible principles in similar circumstances.

    In their Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch state that a person would be guilty of error or sin if he "knew of another?s crime, whether he had seen it, or had come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore qualified to appear in court as a witness for the conviction of the criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses."

    [Picture on page 15]

    It is the right and loving course to encourage an erring Witness to speak with the elders, confident that they will handle the problem in a kind and understanding way

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    CG -

    Privileged CommunicationsClergy/penitent privilege denied

    This is great info!

    Would you happen to know of any other states with this law?

    growedup

  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    Sure! Here is a link to a table that has all the states and their reporting requirements!

    http://www.gcfa.org/ChSexAbuseStat.pdf

    (Adobe Reader is required. Here is link to download if you don't have it: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/alternate.html).

    Also a link to the Texas Department of Public Safety's sexual offender roster, with a link to Larry Kelley:

    http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soDetail.cfm?ShowNav=False&dps_number=04670049

    Cheers!

    Country Girl

  • Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit