Tech, businesses and large entities do not get to decide whether or not to setlle case except those that are self insured. They have delegated that decision to the insurance company that covers them from commercial general liability. For insurance companies, they don't look at whether or not Plaintiffs have a case. It is cheaper to settle and usually isurance companies offer some money with a stipulation agreement stating no admission of liability in essence saying here go away. Settlements establish no precedent except that an entity can be sued. And large companies with deep pockects are the entities that lawyers find are worth suing. As RO stated wt has a very large legal team and a law firm suing wt may have to tie up its entire office doing so, having to devote all time and resources to one case. Also to consider is that challenging someone legally may wind up costing you money or something else as you never know how thi ngs will turn out legally.
Fisherman
JoinedPosts by Fisherman
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini 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).
-
-
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini 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).
-
-
Fisherman
States can legislate laws that govern child abuse reporting and States can also legislate laws that that qualify cp privilige; cp privilege is a Priviledge and not a Right, Rights are guaranteed, they cannot be revoked, Privlidges can be revoked.Priviliges can be subject to qualification and may be licensed such as the privilege to operare a motor vehicle. Bergers decision states that cp is based on the 1st Amendment, he did not say that cp is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. Berger also did not determine that all cp circumstances qualify; they are subject to the purpose of the communication and the role the minister is taking at any instance. Therefore, there is legal grounds to challege cp privilege.
Richard Oliver pointed out that Watchtower cp privilege has not been decided by California Supreme Court, such decision legally establishing a legal precedent in all jurisdictions in the State of California. Lacking such decision, any other California state court decision can only be used as case law in the jurisdiction where the decision was made and subject to acceptance in other jurisdictions. Therefore, the only Precedent that can legally matter statewide affecting wt cp is one from SCOC.
But even if California was to recognize WT cp privilidge, California can still pass laws mandating clergy to report child abuse. And that applies to other states also such as in the Fessler case where wt argues that wt does not have a paid clergy while clergy is being mandated to report child abuse under the related state statute; and whether or not doing so violates Berger's decision, has not been decided by the Courts.
What is interesting is that wt is believed to have subpoenable information, confidential or not, about child abusers, which, has or has not, is or is not, will or will not, affected, affecting or will affect the safety of children.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini 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).
-
-
Fisherman
How can California dictate to the church how they should practice cp. Shouldnt all religions be recognized equally under cp in every state as defined by Burgers decision? Since cp is the subject matter of a Federal Court as it relates to the 1st Amendment, why hasnt wt taken the case to federal court?
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini 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).
-
-
Fisherman
Double post
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini 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).
-
-
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 ini 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).
-
-
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 ini 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).
-
-
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 ini 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).
-
-
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 ini 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).
-
-
Fisherman
RO: What information does Zalkin want from wt? What precedent is careful alluding to?
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini 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).
-
-
Fisherman
A strong precedent has been set
What precedent was that?