Fisherman

Joined

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

Posts by Fisherman

• 
  49

  ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

  by jwleaks in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  not one representative from Brooklyn

  In all fairness, Spinks offered to have wt lawyers represent wt legal position, go back and listen to that part of the video.

  And Spinks & O'Brien are getting eaten alive!

  ARC is not a trial.
• 
  49

  ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

  by jwleaks in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  doesn't mean that they are an agent of that religion

  That is true, US case law shows that the Courts have ruled that there is no fiduciary relationship between the watchtower and its members.
• 
  11

  Taped Broadcast of March 10, 2017 ARC hearing - youtube

  by OrphanCrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  thank you to john redwood for making this available so quickly.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzqvj0z7_ya.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Interesting.
  
• 
  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

  Richard Oliver, thank you for kindly answering my questions without any color added.
  
• 
  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

  The appeals court ruled that the documents are allowed to be given over, with third party information redacted,

  both sides can go on a fishing expedition

  With party names redacted, who can they fish for or what? And has wt handed over those documents?
  
• 
  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

  And yes since the holder is the communicant then the clergy is bound by it.

  So what about the Padron case where wt is being compelled do disclose privileged documents?
  
• 
  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

  Apparently, there is not a lot of case law on this subject since about 1980.

  Then, albeit state laws that mandate reporting, the church still has a Constitutional basis for claiming the privilege?

  Yes or No?
  
• 
  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

  Of course if a federal court has ruled that a state law is unconstitutional then that would take precedence over a state court's ruling.

  So, are you saying that church protected communications cases have only been decided upon on a State level but not on a Federal Court level which could interpret Burger's decision even more?

  Albeit state mandatory reporting laws, are church privilege communications also governed separately and concurrently under Federal Rule 506? Do State laws mandating church privilege disclosure immunize from liability under Federal law, for example 506 or the 1st Amendment? Do state mandating reporting laws nullify Federal law granting church non disclosure privilege?

  Richard Oliver, I am saying that on a state level a state is in effect nullifying Federal law when it in essence revokes non disclosure privilege with statutory mandate reporting because it violates the confidentiality of the penitent even if the reported disclosed communication could not be used as evidence at a trial. Do you follow what I am saying?
  
• 
  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

  Federal law does provide civil liability immunity if the report is made in food faith.

  What I am referring to is Berger's decision on protected communications grounded on the 1st Amendment versus state law granting immunity for good faith reporting.
  
  
• 
  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

  What a lot of people do just to be safe than sorry when it comes to anything legal that may involve them legally is to as ask an attorney first -one may have good intentions but the Courts may bnot see it that way and could get a person in trouble.