Fisherman

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 5,295 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Fisherman

• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Double post
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  some states don't, the latter being the minority.

  That seems unconstitutional.

  
  RO, why doesn wt apppeal to a higher court claiminng confidentiality?

  Watchtower has been prepared to turn over the documents as well,

  If they do, it violates confidentiality. Even if Zalkin agrees to a protective order.

  
  

  Each state has their own laws on child abuse, reporting and priest-penitent privilege.

  Appears to conflict with Federal law. Why hasn't wt taken it to SCOUS.
  
  
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  RO: It appears that state law is violating the 1st amendment when confidential comunications have to be disclosed by Court Order. What is your opinion?

  RO: ARe you saying that WT disclosed confidential information about all child abuse cases they have on file to Zalkin in comliance with a Court Order?
  
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  But the conflict is this. Wt cannot disclose child abuse communications as per US law. It violates US law. But by the same token any state can pass laws requiring wt and every other religion (or it would be unconstitutional) to report communications protected by US law under the First Amendment to local authorities in-spite of US law mandating such communications from being disclosed.

  And where do you draw the line? Should attorneys also be required to report child abuse under a protected setting? Suppose a child abuser went free and he molested again?
  
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Courts have not dismissed cases filed against the wt alleging damages to Plaintiffs resulting from wt non-disclosing child abuse communications to the authorities in-spite of wt claims of confidentiality.

  Such cases have been accepted as valid by the Courts (at least in some states) regardless of wt confidentiality privilege which is a basis for the Courts to throw the cases out of Court prima facie -they haven't.

  The precedent that is being alluded to is, Courts not having dismissed cases filed against the wt based on wt claims of confidentiality has opened the door to other similar cases also to be heard by the Courts; and for those cases to have a similar outcome: wt pays money. That is what it seems .

  I am not saying that this is what the Courts will decide as a standard for all child abuse cases involving child abuse communications; "You knew about the child abuse and you kept it confidential, that is your privilege but you are legally liable for the damages resulting from non disclosure."
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  RO: What information does Zalkin want from wt? What precedent is careful alluding to?
  
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  A strong precedent has been set

  What precedent was that?
  
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Fin, the Courts decide what is legal and what is not, regardless of the view of a case , Fin.
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  make their scandals known.....,

  What scandals?
  
  
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  It's a civil case - it's only about money.

  The statement is false.

  For example:

  Metropoiltan life vs Watchtower

  Roe vs Wade

  To name two. There must be millions of others, like wt vs village of Stratton. This case was decided by the US Supreme Court. Nobody prevents a plaintiff to appeal or at least to try to appeal to a higher court vs settling a case out of court for only money.

  A plaintiff could ask for injunctionary relief so civil cases are not only about money.

  In the Conti case, for the thousandth time, the appeals court found that watchtower did not have a duty to protect or to warn. The appeals Court also found enough evidence to find WT negligent in the supervision of Candance during a church sponsored activity, field service and that is all. This case was decided by the Courts, it was not settled out of Court but never did court rule that wt did not report child abuse to the police. In fact, US law finds abortions legal and protects the confidentiality of communications of a spiritual context in a spiritual setting as defined by the related law.