Posts by berrygerry

16

Judge reprimands lawyer for failing to disclose connection to church

by aposta-Z in

i saw this link on facebook (thank you watchtower uncensored):.

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/985/judge-reprimands-lawyer-for-failing-to-disclose-connection-to-church.html .

a witness and a lawer.

berrygerry

Haven't found a follow-up on this case, as it was appealed by WTS.

The result is summarized here: http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2014/02/articles/uncategorized/sawdon-estate-v-sawdon/

Sawdon Estate v. Sawdon

By Hull & Hull LLP on February 11, 2014 Posted in Uncategorized

Earlier this month the Ontario Court of Appeal released it’s decision in Sawdon Estate v. Sawdon. The decision provides an interesting discussion on cost awards in estate matters and in particular on the right of an estate trustee to be indemnified for the legal costs they incurred. I recently did a podcast with David Smith on this decision which should be posted today, but I think the case is worth further consideration.

I will briefly summarize the facts in this case below. The deceased, Arthur, was survived by his five children. Prior to his death he transferred seven bank accounts into joint ownership with a right of survivorship with two of his sons. The total value of the accounts was slightly over $1 million. He told his sons that upon his death the money was to be divided amongst his five children equally. He also left a Will which provided for specific bequests to his children and the residue to go to a charity called the Watch Tower. His son, Wayne, was appointed estate trustee. At trial, the Watch Tower argued that the bank accounts were held on a resulting trust for the estate. Wayne and the other children of the deceased took the position that the accounts were not estate assets. At trial, the Court found in favour of the estate trustee and beneficiaries and ordered the Watch Tower to pay the costs of the estate trustee on a partial indemnity basis. Wayne sought an order that the balance of his legal costs be paid out of the estate. The trial court declined to make that order. The Watch Tower appealed the decision, including the costs order. The estate trustee cross-appealed arguing that he should be indemnified from the estate for any costs not recovered from Watch Tower. The Court of Appeal dismissed Watch Tower’s appeal and granted the estate trustee’s request for indemnification from the estate. They reviewed the basic principles with respect to cost awards applicable in the circumstances. In particular, they discussed the case law which provides that an estate trustee should be indemnified for his or her legal costs out of the trust unless they have (i) acted unreasonably or (ii) acted in their own self- interest. In my opinion the most interesting part of this decision is the point made by the Court of Appeal that although Wayne took a position that the bank accounts were not part of the estate, and therefore he was not trying to enlarge the estate assets, the litigation did benefit the estate and he was not acting in his own self-interest. Rather, he was fulfilling his duty as ab estate trustee to verify the assets of the estate and to ensure that the testator’s wishes were carried out. The Court of Appeal was not troubled by the fact that Wayne stood to benefit in his personal capacity if the bank accounts passed outside the estate. They also said that the estate trustee had an obligation to present evidence in his knowledge about the deceased’s wishes, and it would not have been proper for him not to advance such evidence and remain neutral in the proceedings. Finally the Court of Appeal said that they saw no problem with making a “blended” costs award, where multiple parties pay a certain portion of the costs award. In reaching its decision, the Court emphasized that if estate trustees are faced with the prospect of personally paying costs, then more people will decline such appointments and more estate trustees will avoid bringing proper matters before the Court. This case should bring some comfort to estate trustees as it provides further authority for the proposition that estate trustees should ordinarily be fully indemnified for their legal costs out of the estate.

Thanks for reading!

The court record is here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc4042/2012onsc4042.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHamVob3ZhaAAAAAAB

Prior to TTATT, one would never have believed the depth of lying that WTS would go to grab cash.

7

Jehovah's Witnesses win partial victory over gated communities. Too little too late?

by Balaamsass2 in

monday, november 24, 2014last update: 1:00 pm pt.

jehovah's witnesses win community access case.

by jack bouboushian .

They didn't get away with this one

by berrygerry in

at least they didn't get away with this one.. he was convicted, despite wts extreme efforts to quash a search warrant.. (a pity that the us has crazy "religious privilege" rules - canada is far more sensible)/.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc1455/2007bcsc1455.html?searchurlhash=aaaaaqahamvob3zhaaaaaaab.

.

berrygerry

At least they didn't get away with this one.

He was convicted, despite WTS extreme efforts to quash a search warrant.

(A pity that the US has crazy "religious privilege" rules - Canada is far more sensible)/

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc1455/2007bcsc1455.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHamVob3ZhaAAAAAAB

2

Another dandy Cdn JW

by berrygerry in

whoa.. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=utf-8&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww.canlii.org%2ffr%2fqc%2fqctaq%2fdoc%2f2012%2f2012canlii92987%2f2012canlii92987.html%3fsearchurlhash%3daaaaaqahamvob3zhaaaaaaab&edit-text=&act=url.

.

berrygerry

Then we inherited colony rights of usage.

1

Does anyone waste the court process more than JW's?

by berrygerry in

[3] ms. lohmeyer is a member of the jehovahs witnesses.

while she was unable to confirm that the central beliefs or articles of faith of the jehovahs witnesses include a prohibition against joining or providing financial support to a trade union, she testified that she personally objected to the fact that a portion of the dues that she would be required to remit might be used by the union to support a political party.

ms. lohmeyer stated that she believed this to be in violation of purported biblical injunctions against supporting organizations that might become involved in conflict.. .

berrygerry

Mrs. Sorenson asks that I vary the order I made as to costs

in her favour by awarding costs as between solicitor and client.

I accede to that request. The organization argues that the

intervention of Mrs. Sorenson was unnecessary. But the Court,

quite properly under the circumstances, accorded her standing in

the proceedings. The position of the organization that she should

be deprived of costs borders on the ironic given that the

organization maintained the litigation in the name of Mr. Lawson

to advance their own interests. Moreover, counsel for the

organization made efforts to prolong the litigation and thus

greatly increase costs on grounds which were entirely irrelevant

to the issue raised in the petition, namely jurisdiction.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1990/1990canlii1696/1990canlii1696.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHamVob3ZhaAAAAAAB

1

Does anyone waste the court process more than JW's?

by berrygerry in

[3] ms. lohmeyer is a member of the jehovahs witnesses.

while she was unable to confirm that the central beliefs or articles of faith of the jehovahs witnesses include a prohibition against joining or providing financial support to a trade union, she testified that she personally objected to the fact that a portion of the dues that she would be required to remit might be used by the union to support a political party.

ms. lohmeyer stated that she believed this to be in violation of purported biblical injunctions against supporting organizations that might become involved in conflict.. .

berrygerry

[3] Ms. Lohmeyer is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. While she was unable to confirm that the central beliefs or articles of faith of the Jehovah’s Witnesses include a prohibition against joining or providing financial support to a trade union, she testified that she personally objected to the fact that a portion of the dues that she would be required to remit might be used by the Union to support a political party. Ms. Lohmeyer stated that she believed this to be in violation of purported biblical injunctions against supporting organizations that might become involved in conflict.

[4] Ms. Lohmeyer stated that she objected to joining any trade union that required a pledge of allegiance as she viewed it as anathema to the concept that there is only one kingdom, that being the kingdom of God. Ms. Lohmeyer further objected to the payment of dues to the Union because she believed that it made political donations. She said that because of her religious beliefs she does not belong to any political party and does not vote in governmental elections.

http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/sklrb/doc/2005/2005canlii63106/2005canlii63106.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHamVob3ZhaAAAAAAB

2

Another dandy Cdn JW

by berrygerry in

whoa.. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=utf-8&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww.canlii.org%2ffr%2fqc%2fqctaq%2fdoc%2f2012%2f2012canlii92987%2f2012canlii92987.html%3fsearchurlhash%3daaaaaqahamvob3zhaaaaaaab&edit-text=&act=url.

.

berrygerry

Whoa.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canlii.org%2Ffr%2Fqc%2Fqctaq%2Fdoc%2F2012%2F2012canlii92987%2F2012canlii92987.html%3FsearchUrlHash%3DAAAAAQAHamVob3ZhaAAAAAAB&edit-text=&act=url

Oh, won't you be my neighbour?

17

Sick, sick, sick - Elder-Missionary gets off.

by berrygerry in

.

berrygerry

He recalled that Mr. Z.P. then gave he and his wife counsel with respect to forgiveness and urged them to consider Mr. P.D.’ good works as repentence.

This was a question of mine some time ago. Is repentance indicated by a spurt of "spiritual" activity? Apparently yes.

In the pic above, P Davis is on the right , end of row, 3rd row from the back .....(Of course that might not be our perp.)

He is the only P.D. (short for pedophile ???)

Weird that he is from Africa - could be South African - but the outrageous statements about his culture's attitude towards showing affection to children doesn't sound like the Dutch I know.

17

Sick, sick, sick - Elder-Missionary gets off.

by berrygerry in

.

berrygerry

They lived in Brantford until March 1970, when they were invited to a church school in New York where missionaries were trained. This training took 5 months and when it was concluded in September of 1970, the church sent them to Paraguay as missionaries.

The WT Library has Gilead graduating in Nov 1 WT, but the Library does not have the photo of the class. (Maybe they hadn't started publishing the photos back then.)

17

Sick, sick, sick - Elder-Missionary gets off.

by berrygerry in

.

berrygerry

Totally sad story.

I cannot locate the Nov. 1, 1970 WT to see this "person."

If someone can locate the photo of P.D. (probably black), can you post it?

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii44733/2008canlii44733.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHamVob3ZhaAAAAAAB

22. He recalled that Mr. Z.P. then gave he and his wife counsel with respect to forgiveness and urged them to consider Mr. P.D.’ good works as repentence. At the end of the meeting, he recalled that he and his wife C1 were very disillusioned.

25. As he testified before this Court, he agreed sadly, that nothing was done to do really assist C1.

[26] Mr. Z.P. recalled that after the meeting with C1 and the defendant, the full body of elders met to determine if the defendant could continue as an elder in the church. He recommended that the defendant be permitted to continue to serve as an elder because the events had occurred so many years before. He recalled this was a lengthy meeting and that it was a mutual discussion and mutual decision of the elders to allow the defendant to continue to serve as an elder.

[27] When testifying before this court twenty years later, he agreed that such a situation would not be handled today in this manner by the church. He testified that child abuse and other mistreatment of children has become a much more commonly discussed subject in recent years and, as a result, such issues have become more into the experience and knowledge of the elders of the church.

[29] He recalled attending a meeting in his role as a trustee at the D. Kingdom Hall. At that meeting, Mr. Z.P., C1 and her husband R. and the defendant discussed the allegations made by C1. He did not know the purpose of the meeting until he arrived. He remembered it was a long meeting and that he did not enjoy being there because he did not like what he was hearing. While he could not recall everything that was said due to the passage of time, he did recall that the defendant attempted to minimize what had happened. For instance, he remembered Mr. P.D. making a statement that his hands had slipped as if he was letting on that the touching incident was an accident. Mr. S.G. recalls that he simply did not believe that was the case. He recalled that after the matter was discussed, C1 was in tears and upset. He was emphatic that G.D. was not present at the meeting. Like Mr. Z.P., he had no notes of the meeting.

[30] Mr. S.G. recalled that after the meeting with C1 and her husband, the body of elders met to determine if the defendant should be permitted to carry on as an elder. The defendant was permitted to sit in on that meeting when the discussion took place because he was an elder of the church at that time. Mr. S.G. stated that a decision was made that the defendant would be able to carry on his duties as an elder.

[35] In the end, he recalled that Mr. Z.P. stated that the problem could not be resolved and it had to simply remain in the hands of Jehovah.

[38] Thereafter, C1 felt very uncomfortable in the D[…] community and felt shunned by many in her extended family. She testified that she had a hard time accepting that Mr. P.D. was still in the position of an elder. Finally, in 1993, she read an article that indicated he should not be in a position of control.

[40] At this meeting, C1 stated that she again repeated her verbal accusations. The defendant apparently then alleged that it was the first time he had ever heard about these allegations and C1 stated that she was amazed. Mr. L.N. indicated that the elders would have to get to the truth of the matter by speaking to the other elders who had been present at the first meeting in 1988.

[48] Mr. P.D. allegedly spoke of the culture in which he had grown up in Africa where sexual interaction with young girls was acceptable and sort of the norm. She recalled him allegedly saying that that he had done this (meaning some or all of the acts of touching and fondling alleged) because he loved C1 so much.

[58] R. testified that at that meeting, the defendant was allegedly reproved by the trustees for his behaviour. He recalled the behaviour being described as “risqué” which they considered somewhat unusual. He recalled the elders urged his wife C1 to get some counseling and to read some literature about being a victim of such behaviour. He testified that he found such comments somewhat disheartening and that his wife was not satisfied with the finding that the behaviour was “risque”.

[59] He remembered objecting when P.D. tried to hug his wife after giving the apology. He explained that he had loved her too much and he had found her to be the prettiest of his neices.

[66] Mr. M.D. had earlier given a statement to the Ontario Provincial Police as part of their investigation into this matter in 2005. In cross-examination, he was confronted with his statement which he gave to Officer Harrison. Mr. M.D. agreed that in his statement to the police, he told the officer that he was not able to describe the defendant’s response to the allegations against him because he was unable to remember. When the officer further asked Mr. M.D. if he remembered whether or not Mr. P.D. admitted to any wrongdoing, Mr. M.D. advised the officer that he was not able to recall. Clearly such questions go directly to his credibility.

[75] When the complaints were made by C1 in 1988, Mr. P.D. recalled the involvement of Mr. Z.P. as outlined above. He was emphatic that clearly nothing had been admitted because he walked out of the meetings as an elder. He disagreed with Mr. Z.P. that there had been any restrictions put on him as an elder and stated that he had never heard of a “half elder” in his church.

[100] However, occasionally she recalled him touching her bare bottom and putting his hands down her pants. She specifically recalled this occurring in the living room near a beige gas heater. She recalled that he was very friendly when he would do it and that he simply stated that his hands were cold and he put his hands down her pants. She did not recall feeling at the time that it was a wrong thing for him to do; she does remember that his hands were cold and it was uncomfortable. She never did anything about it and never complained to anyone about it. She remembered discussing it from time to time with her cousins. They s agreed that such behavior bothered them and that his hands were cold, but they just viewed it as something that he did.

[104] Mr. P.D. testified that he had a medical condition which caused his hands to be continually cold. He testified that he would heat them on the heater and put them on the children’s skin to warm them up. He indicated that in doing so, he was not intending to indecently assault or touch any of the children.

[138] Furthermore, to convict someone of a criminal offence, there must be some reliable evidence that the alleged offence at least took place in the time period(s) alleged in the indictment. While the defendant may very well have indecently assaulted the complainant in the time periods alleged in the indictments, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.

[139] I have considered the totality of the evidence relating to these charges and an not satisfied that the Crown has proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt as framed in the indictment. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the charges are dismissed.

[141] The totality of the evidence on these counts raises a reasonable doubt in my mind as to his intent to commit a criminal act.

[142] Hence, the charges of indecent assault against C3, being counts 3 and 6 in the indictment, are dismissed.