Hmm.
This forum is NOT real life.
I don't know what that means. This is a forum where matters pertaining to real life are discussed.
I have no duty to read legal documents.
Nobody here has a 'duty' to read legal documents but reading at least one of them is helpful if we want to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.
The issue of notice to WTBTS is pending in the Conti appeal. I'm not checking but I believe both Conti and this case happened before CA's legislature enacted a mandatory reporting law for clergy. The WTBTS can argue that it had no notice that its behavior would subject it to liability. We don't pass laws in the United States making past conduct that was lawful at the time unlawful. Larger issues than the WTBTs are at stake.
You're not checking, so you are unaware that the mandatory reporting issue was not a factor in the judgment against Watchtower in the Conti case.
Unless the legal department had actual notice and counseled Witness elders to ignore the pedophile behavior, I feel it is unfair to impose liability on the WT.
You haven't checked, so you are unaware of what Watchtower and the elders were actually found liable for.
Fundamentally, I just don't see how you ignore a discovery order. ... The legal system cannot work unless you produce yourself and documents.
Precisely. That was what exasperated the court, and the Plaintiff argued the latter point. I'm glad you've now read the short UPI news report at least. However, may I respectfully suggest, BOTR, rather than spend lots of time reading this thread and typing posts saying how you have no time or duty to read legal documents but offering an opinion anyway, why not use a little of that time to scan through one of the documents so that any comments you wish to make about this case are more on the mark. Given your time constraints, I recommend THIS ONE. As I say, it's a respectful suggestion.
