Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious 111 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  flipper

  TRUTHSEEKERIAM had a really valid , good point on page 3 " how can we protect our children if we don't know who to protect them from ?  " And therein lies a big part of the WT Society and JW elders liability. Whenever an announcement is made of reproof or disfellowshipping in the congregations nobody usually knows WHY that person is being DFed or reproved except the people involved in the case and the elders- including child molestation many times. So parents within the congregation are NOT being informed as to WHO is a pedophile or possible child molester. And those WT policies on NOT informing parents are indeed ENDANGERING the welfare of minor children within the JW organization.

  But the blame goes all the way to the top on WT leaders for putting such secretive policies in effect in the first place. For instance all of the rank and file JW's are NOT aware of the information given to elders in the Elders manual's which  are ONLY for elders to read. Rank and file JW's are not ALLOWED to read these instructions to elders regarding the handling of child abuse or any OTHER judicial committee processes. And what is the REASON that these policies are kept secret ? In my opinion it's so that the WT Society leaders CAN have the upper hand over rank & file Jehovah's Witnesses regarding WT Society rules and regulations so Jehovah's Witnesses are kept in the dark about any rules pertaining to their welfare as rank & file members. The WT Society's policies are " out of sight out of mind " so to speak. I mean- how can rank & file JW's get upset about something they know NOTHING about or haven't been informed of. They are taught to TRUST that the GB or WT authority figures, Bethel, elders, C.O.'s, D.O.'s have their best interests at heart- when in actuality that's a lie- these appointed figureheads have the WT Society's best interests at heart- which has no concern for rank & file JW's interests . The child abuse policies prove this. It's WT financial interests that are priority, not safety of children
• 

  flipper

  TRAILERPARKPIONEER- What a horrific thing you had to observe there in the congregations you knew. It sounds like you had some really psychopathic elders running the show where you were. And THAT is one of the big reasons I exited the organization 11 years ago. You mentioned about the elder influencing these people to commit suicide - the anger I feel over this is that the WT Society has NO check systems in place to rid the congregations of dangerous criminally liable elders who rule with an iron fist. It's like Nazi Germany revisited in many congregations ! And I see the problem as being that back at WT headquarters it's like Nazi Germany revisited as well because there are enough criminals running the show back there that they don't give a rat's behind HOW elders carry out their authority - it's just important that they CARRY OUT that authority. No matter who it hurts. There are no check systems in place because we've seen the enemy and in this case it's WT leaders. My 2 cents. So it's corrupt from the top down
• 

  Separation of Powers

  One of the most telling things about this entire appeal is the effort on the part of the WT lawyer to distance the ORG from the actual relationship that appears to exist in the congregation.  The elders, in my opinion, have always been an agent of the ORG.  The ORG, at least at the time these events occurred, was in charge of appointing and removing through their representative, the CO.  The CO was not in charge, he was the middle-man, simply there to ensure that procedure was followed-through. When their appointment came in, there was a little green check next to their name, not put there by the CO but by someone at the Service Desk, the ORG's service desk.

  Today, that system has changed.  Probably because of the expected back lash from this case or others.  Now, the CO is solely in charge.  It will be his name, his liability on the line. 

  There are those on this page that are JW apologists, that is obvious.  They hold true to the belief that the ORG can do no wrong.  They believe that the ORG has only the best interests of the "brothers" in mind, I would hope that this was the case.  They forget, however, that we are talking about a huge, money driven ORG with legal and financial liabilities.  One can argue that they are simply trying to protect the Lord's earthly assets, and that argument is valid to some degree.  But, interestingly, the "Lord" that I have read about didn't care much for earthly treasures......

  I hope, for Candace's sake, that the ORG is found to have had a special relationship.  If that is the case, then we should see some extreme changes in policy.  That, if we all remember, is really all Candace was hoping to achieve.
• 

  Vidiot

  Nitty-Gritty - "I don’t understand how telling others in the congregation about a pedophile in their midst (the safety measure) would have been bad for WTS image?"

  Chaserious - "They were concerned about being sued for defamation and the like by people who were disgrunted over judicial matters."

  That was a part of it, I'm sure, and that letter shown above definitely supports the idea, not to mention that it very strongly calls into question the WTS's assertion that it is a "spiritual paradise".

  There is another, darker possibility, however...

  This wasn't as well-documented at the time, but by now, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the sexual victimization of young people becomes institutionalized and endemic within authoritarian hierarchies (religious or secular) due to a number of fundamental characteristics; lack of transparency and the democratic process, disdain for outward authority, a sense of infallibility and/or exclusivity, etc.

  It's virtually unavoidable, and, in fact, the only way to prevent it is to, ultimately, not be an authoritarian hierarchy.

  The WTS, however, is, at its core (and at this point, long past the possibility of reform, IMO), an authoritarian hierarchy. They have even tacitly acknowledged it.

  They cannot (and from what Irwin Zalkin reports, will not) change that fundamental aspect of themselves; it is one of the WTS's primary defining characteristics. Therefore, the sexual victimization of young people has become institutionalized and endemic within it.

  What's more, The WTS has been so successful at being an authoritarian hierarchy for so long that said victimization has no doubt proliferated to a degree which, if it became fully known - and more importantly, believed - throughout the R&F, the results would be catastrophic.

  Parents wanting to protect their kids from sex offenders in their congregations would ultimately walk out en masse, partly out of shame for having been associated with such an organization, but even more so because of the very real possibility that they'd be unable to find other congregations which were offender-free environments.*

  Know how I know? 'Cause I have kids, and it's what I would have done.

  Every authoritarian regime is terrified of a mass exodus, because - whether they want to admit it or not - the leadership is actually more dependant on the membership for its continued survival than the other way around.

  In the WTS's instance, the problem has become so extensive and unfixable that if it were all exposed all at once, they'd run out of fingers to plug the holes in the dam, and the WTS would face the very real risk of financial collapse from dried-up donational support (regardless of the liquid value of their assets and holdings).

  Why else do you think they're downsizing, consolidating, and withdrawing from an urban presence?

  They are battening down the hatches in anticipation of the storm.

  * Not to mention that the dwindling pool of "qualified" brothers willing to take on congregational duties has - I'm certain - forced the WTS to backpedal on their previously-held policy of not permitting former offenders to serve in an MS or Elder capacity.

  Chaserious - "In retrospect, that was not the best strategy in terms of shielding the organization and congregations from liability..."

  I'm sure it made perfect sense to an organization trying to keep afloat for just a couple more years until the Big A came along and bailed them out.
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @ Vidiot
  

  There is another, darker possibility, however...

  This wasn't as well-documented at the time, but by now, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the sexual victimization of young people becomes institutionalized and endemic within authoritarian hierarchies (religious or secular) due to a number of fundamental characteristics; lack of transparency and the democratic process, disdain for outward authority, a sense of infallibility and/or exclusivity, etc.

  It's virtually unavoidable, and, in fact, the only way to prevent it is to, ultimately, not be an authoritarian hierarchy.

  This is not a foregone conclusion at all, I would like to know where you got this info from.  Maybe you would like to post a link to these findings?  All the material I have read shows that child molestation and paedophilia are impossible to categorize into a specific social sphere. There are many theories out there but no real conclusions.  In fact one of the articles describes a typical pedophile as the “clean, all American boy”. You are concentrating on one organization, the JWs. Facts show that the problem of paedophilia is a problem in all societal structures regardless of race, social standing or religion. I would guess your theories are based on your disdain and bias towards JWs and your sweeping statement: “in fact, the only way to prevent it is to, ultimately, not be an authoritarian hierarchy” is rather silly!

  Parents wanting to protect their kids from sex offenders in their congregations would ultimately walk out en masse, partly out of shame for having been associated with such an organization, but even more so because of the very real possibility that they'd be unable to find other congregations which were offender-free environments.*

  Know how I know? 'Cause I have kids, and it's what I would have done.

  Not to be disrespectful, but you are not exactly a reliable measuring  gauge when it comes to leaving the organization as you have evidently left it anyway, regardless of the issue under discussion.

  In fact I do not think anyone would leave en masse at all if pedophiles was identified as being in their midst. In fact, I think that when this new policy is actually put in practice, it will make the pedophiles leave the organization, knowing they no longer have a “field” to work in because they are now identified by name.

  Not to mention that the dwindling pool of "qualified" brothers willing to take on congregational duties has - I'm certain - forced the WTS to backpedal on their previously-held policy of not permitting former offenders to serve in an MS or Elder capacity.

  Well you are wrong there and it is merely your opinion. The facts are that child molesters will never be able to serve in any capacity ever.

  All in all your arguments are not well though out and are actually none arguments and are evidently the result of your strong bias. As for Irwin Zalkin, he has no idea what he is talking about and says the kind of things a lawyer would say to further his case.... lawyer style. He has to make a living too. Sexual victimization of young people has become institutionalized and endemic in the whole of society world wide. Instead of apostate websites why don't you actually read some secular articles on pedophilia and child molesting? This might put things into proper perspective for you. Here are some links:

  http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

  http://www.csom.org/train/etiology/3/3_1.htm
  

  And if you really want to dig your teeth in to something scholastic then try reading this book and then come back to me with your simplistic theories.
  

  http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @ Chaserious

  If you look at the 1989 letter introduced at trial, it is obviously about protecting the organization from legal liability. It goes on and on about how litigious our society is and how opposers will want to enforce what they perceive as their "rights" - with "rights" always in scare quotes, to dismiss the idea that they actually exist.  And then it went on to say that this is why elders have to keep judicial proceedings and related matters confidential. They were concerned about being sued for defamation and the like by people who were disgrunted over judicial matters.

  In retrospect, that was not the best strategy in terms of shielding the organization and congregations from liability, but there was certainly enough there for Simons to argue that minimizing liability was a motive in forming their policy. He used the letter -effectively, I think - to rebut the argument that the confidentiality policy served a doctrinal purpose, and instead to argue that it served a financial one.

  
  

  I have read the 1989 letter to the BOE. It seems like it is talking about protecting the org. from legal liability regarding a person’s legal rights “ Ill advised statements or actions can be interpreted as violating  other’s rights”....” While we as Christians are ready to forgive others who may wrong us, those in the world are not so inclined. Worldly persons are quick to resort to lawsuits if they feel their rights have been violated”.  .  I wonder, if since all of the pedophile lawsuits have been made well after 1989, what were these lawsuits mentioned in the letter about?    

  The whole gist of the letter does not seem to involve child molesting at all. Only one short paragraph devoted to it states this: “Many states have child abuse reporting laws. When elders receive reports of physical or sexual abuse of a child, they should contact the Society’s Legal Department immediately. Victims of such abuse need to be protected from further danger. See “If the worst should happen” Awake January 22  1985 page 8” which says:

  However, if molestation—and especially incest—is discovered to have occurred, two things must be done immediately:

  First, the child—and other children too—must be protected from any further abuse. This must be done, whatever the cost. In many cases the accused molester will have to be confronted. But whatever it takes, it is important that the child should feel confident that the molester will never be able to get at her (or him) again.

  Second, the child must be given a lot of love and emotional support. Parents must make it very clear that the little victim is not to blame. The crime and anything that happens as a result of it—even if a close relative goes to prison—is not her (or his) fault. But that reassurance will have to be given many times, so that the victim comes to believe it—and to believe that the parents believe it too!

   
  

  Further the letter states: “Many of these lawsuits are as a result of a miss use of tongue.”  This does not indicate that this is referring to a child molester accusation lawsuit at all.

  Actually I am inclined to believe your statement regarding Rick Simmons: “. He used the letter -effectively, I think - to rebut the argument that the confidentiality policy served a doctrinal purpose, and instead to argue that it served a financial one”. And also I think to make it look like it pertained to child molesting cases too.

  I think it is pretty clear from the letter that protecting child molesters to avoid lawsuits (by child molesters) was not even a small part of this letter. In all practical logic, would a proven child molester have any grounds for a lawsuit at all??? Would any lawyer even attempt to defend a known child molester??? I know the WTS has made mistakes, but are you saying they are so dumb to think that reporting known child molesters would open them up to a lawsuit? As you say, the concern was over "individuals being disgruntled over judicial matters", of which I doubt convicted child molesters played any role.

  
  In retrospect, that was not the best strategy in terms of shielding the organization and congregations from liability

  Proof that the letter was not meant to shield the org. or congregations from the kind of liability we are talking about!
• 

  Chaserious

  NittyGritty,

  First off, I tend to agree with you about Vidiot's comments.  It seems rather speculative to connect the hierarchical nature of the organization with the prevalence of child molesters, and a bit far fetched to claim that child abuse will automatically become institutionalized in such an organization.  Aside from the lack of evidence, it doesn't even logically hold up in a situation like the Cont case, where the abuser was not even very high up in the chain of authority.

  As for the 1989 letter, as I said, it didnt have anything to do with avoiding liability for child abuse.  I'd have to go back to the trial transcript, but I don't think that Rick Simons even claimed that it did. I think that came from assumptions that people made on this forum.  You are right that they may not have been specifically contemplating suits by child molesters. But I dont think that matters. The point was that the overall policy of confidentiality had financial purposes; not that it specifically related to child molesters. Rather than consider in each case whether it made sense to maintain strict confidentiality, they just decided it was easier (and maybe cheaper) to just have a blanket policy.

  Additionally, I dont think you are looking at it correctly by saying that a child molester would never sue.  If someone was merely accused, but not convicted of any assault, and felt wrongly branded as a pedophile, there is a very good chance they might sue.  Have you followed the story in the news in the last month or so about Alan Dershowitz? He practically exploded and went on the warpath in the media and in the courts upon being accused of having sex with underage girls.
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  As a jury member, I would think, " No transparency? 8 guys at the top who's lawyers say they have a hierarchy like the RCC?? They tell their church Elders to call the legal department BEFORE the police? What about protecting the children first??" 

  Again, a layman with no bias or attachment to the WTBTS is probably going to smell a rat. The legalese will be over their head, their moral center will lead the way. 

  When an authoritarian religion that makes a billion in tax free dollars has their lawyers point the finger at the parents and police in a calculating manner while refusing to accept any blame, the phrase,"What if that was my kid?", probably comes to mind. 

  Something may not be technically required, it may not be technically illegal...yet, but what about ethics and morals? What about human decency?

  The jury saw through the smoke and mirrors without being legal "experts".  That's pretty cool if you ask me. 
• 

  ScenicViewer

  Nitty-Gritty said: The facts are that child molesters will never be able to serve in any capacity ever.

  This is of interest to me.  Do you have a source for this remark?  Is it in Watchtower publications?  Any references would be appreciated.

  The information I have seen til now suggests the opposite is true, that child molesters can become servants or elders later on.

  I.  The current Elder's Manual, if I'm reading it correctly, says it's possible for a known child molester to become an elder.  Notice the last sentence of par 20 below.

  
  

  

  
  

  "For example, the sin may involve past child abuse, and this would likely disqualify him for many years."

  So a known child molester could be disqualified from being an elder for "many years," but not permanently, and only "likely" so at that, not definitely so.

  II.  This is what happened in the recent legal case of victim Jose Lopez, handled by Irwin Zalkin, who was molested by Gonzalo Campos.

  The information below is according to the U-T San Diego online newspaper.  Complete article is here, 

  http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/31/jehovahs-witness-sex-abuse-judgment-lopez/ 

  After Lopez reported the molestation to his mother she approached the elders.  Then the article says,

  "According to trial evidence, the church judicial committee looked into the allegations and found that Campos was repentant.  It monitored his behavior for a period of nine months but did not expel him from the church.

  "In fact, Campos went on to rise through the ranks of the church, continuing to teach Bible studies to young children and ultimately becoming an elder in 1993.  At one point he left the Linda Vista congregation and moved to one in La Jolla.  He was ultimately kicked out of the church in 1995, after another victim surfaced, but was reinstated in 2000, court records show." (By Christina Davis, Oct 31, 2014)  Highlighting added.

  Granted, news papers can get facts wrong, but if this is accurate it illustrates what the Elder's Manual says, and Campos became an elder after being a known molester.

  Again, any references to support your remark that this can't happen would be appreciated.
• 

  ScenicViewer

  I should have mentioned that Campos abused Lopez, age 7 at the time, in 1986.  According to the news report linked above, Campos became an elder in 1993, about 7 years after the abuse happened.

  Putting the information together, if Campos was 'disqualified for many years' from being an elder, then in Watchtower thinking 'many years' is about 7 years.