Brooklyn is off the hook in the Amarillo TX case

by Nathan Natas 20 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/040404/new_abusecase.shtml

    Web-posted Sunday, April 4, 2004
    Abuse case going to trial
    Jehovah's Witnesses national groups dropped from suit

    By JIM McBRIDE
    [email protected]
    The Amarillo Globe-News

    A sex abuse lawsuit against Jehovah's Witnesses groups in Amarillo and Dumas will go to trial in the wake of a judge's ruling, but national Jehovah's Witnesses groups from New York and Pennsylvania have been removed from the suit.

    The case centers on the claims of an Amarillo woman, Amy B., who sued Larry Kelley and several Jehovah's Witnesses organizations last year, claiming Kelley sexually abused her and church officials took no action to halt the abuse.

    Church groups have denied the suit's claims.

    According to the suit:

    Kelley used his position as Dumas church elder to sexually abuse children.

    While Kelley was a Dumas elder, church officials learned he was sexually abusing children of the congregation, but they did not report the abuse to authorities or warn church members.

    In 1988, Kelley transferred to the Amarillo congregation and sexually abused the plaintiff, who was 8 years old at the time. In 1992, Kelley was convicted of indecency with a child/sexual contact and served 10 years of shock probation.

    Kelley has filed a legal response admitting he committed indecency with a child, but denied some allegations in the suit.

    During a court hearing last week, 251st District Judge Pat Pirtle heard legal arguments on the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

    Pirtle overruled defense claims that sought to bar the case from moving forward, based on a statute of limitations.

    Also at issue in the case is whether national and local Jehovah's Witnesses groups had a legal duty to the plaintiff.

    In his ruling, Pirtle said the court considered various factors, including the risk of harm and whether the actions that led to Amy B.'s suit were foreseeable.

    "Additionally, the court must consider whether or not one party had superior knowledge of the potential risks, and, the court must consider the nature and the extent, if any, of the right or ability to control the conduct of the alleged wrongdoer," the ruling states.

    Pirtle ruled that no legal duty could be imposed on two national Jehovah's Witnesses groups, but said legal duty existed between the Dumas and Amarillo Jehovah's Witnesses groups and Amy B.

    "On balance ... the court is of the opinion that a duty exists as between the plaintiff and the defendants, Dumas Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Amarillo-Southwest Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses," Pirtle's ruling states.

    In a separate ruling, Pirtle granted the plaintiff's requests for some church documents referring to allegations of sexual abuse by Kelley. Attorneys for Jehovah's Witnesses groups had argued that such documents were protected from disclosure because of a "clergy-penitent" privilege.

    Christopher Jensen, one of the attorneys representing Jehovah's Witnesses groups, said the defendants were pleased with some aspects of the judge's ruling.

    "I think that it was obviously well-considered. We disagree on a couple of points with the court. We are obviously pleased with other parts of it," he said Friday.

    The Globe-News was unable to reach Hartley Hampton, the plaintiff's attorney, for comment on the ruling.

  • Shutterbug
    Shutterbug

    I live 50 miles from Amarillo, and I read the Amarillo paper this morning (Sunday April, 4) and missed it, but will look it up. Thanks for posting. Bug

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    The WTS must be rubbing their hands in glee. In this case, the national headquarters gets off the hook. In the earlier Minnesota case, the local elders got off the hook.

    So apparently the courts think it's just an oddball here and there among JW's molesting young girls, and that it is not an institutional problem.

    Note this quote from the Texas judge:

    In his ruling, Pirtle said the court considered various factors, including the risk of harm and whether the actions that led to Amy B.'s suit were foreseeable.

    Well there may be no risk of harm -- if you mean molestation, going forward. But Amy B. is scarred for life. The harm has been done. Were the actions leading to the suit foreseeable? The court seems to think not. But the "two eyewitness rule" enforced by the JW's almost guarantees that things like this will go unpunished.

    Some court somewhere has to hold the Brooklyn headquarters accountable. Perhaps it'll take a case at the US Supreme Court level. '

    Who knows, maybe they won't bother.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    I think that it was obviously well-considered. We disagree on a couple of points with the court. We are obviously pleased with other parts of it," he said Friday.

    Wow, I agree with a JW lawyer! lol.

    It boggles my mind that we can't get people to see that there is ZERO difference between "two national JW groups" and "the local congregations". The latter is merely an appendage of the former.

  • blondie
    blondie

    My husband has always said the the WTS will leave the elders holding the bag on this issue. Watch out elders!

    Blondie

  • observador
    observador
    It boggles my mind that we can't get people to see that there is ZERO difference between "two national JW groups" and "the local congregations". The latter is merely an appendage of the former.

    I had the same thought.

    What would happen if the congregation is eventually found guilty and the amount ordered by the judge for compesation, if any, is beyond the cong's finances? Just wondering...

  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    It is my prediction that this case will run very smoothly through the Texas court, and harmful liability found with the local congregations because of their failure to report to the authorities (against the law in Texas, everyone is a mandated reporter here) in the first place, and obviously some scenarios occurred in which they (perp and child) were placed in situations together, since the thing is going to trial.

    Even if it does set precedent, it will likely be appealed and eventually the question of just *how* negligent, and the extent of personal liability for each of the defendants. Eventually, however, the question of the extent of Brooklyn's liability will come into the picture in ONE of these cases (maybe even this one), when they get a Judge that understands the full scope of the control of the organization over the congregations. It's one thing on paper, another in practice. Luckily, in Canada, this has already happened.

    That's just my most humble opinion..

    country girl

  • Special K
    Special K

    Never thought of it that way Blondie.

    You are probably very right on that one

    The WTS will leave the individual elders holding the bag on these cases.

    To be in Elder now.. is really putting yourself on the line.

    sincerely

    Special K

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    WTF!!!!!

    Did not the Judge understand that the congregation elders do NOT make a move unless they are directed to do so by policy or actual direction from Brooklyn.

    Get the appeal or leave to appeal forms out!

  • little witch
    little witch

    No doubt the society in NYC will say that the Kingdom Hall is owned by the corporation should a verdict be levied.

    One way the plaintiff can get to it anyway is to "peirce the corporate veil". They could prove that there is a strong aliance between the local congregation and that Brooklyn is the originator of the directives.

    At any rate, just as Six mentioned they are so closely connected that hitting one will hurt the other in some way.

    Just as brooklyn governs and decides policy from the top downward, rebellion and change will most likely come from the bottom to the top.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit