http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
@jwleaks. The point Richard Oliver is making is 3rd party liability as it relates to Watchtower. For example, if an agency relationship existed between someone and Wachtower, Wt is vicariously liable for the actions of the agent towards a 3rd party. Fiduciary duty and vicarous liability is explained below.
http://www.giottoslibrary.com/giotto/ebooks/fiddut3.nsf/fCNTPgRMRead3?OpenForm&Cat1=LA4&Cat2=LB6
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
@jw leaks post facts not colors.
I did not say members of the Corporation.
As for case law read Richard Oliver post on WT and fiduciary relationship with any of its members. (members of the religion) He also posted an illustration on how it applies and so did I using members of Costo. I did not say that Costo members were corporate members. Read it and then I am sure you will understand what I mean. (vicarious liability and wt: acts of agent same as act of principal.
Have a cup of tea mate.
As for context on this thread re-read my post again as it relates to the post that I was responding to.
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania is a non-stock, not-for-profit organization[1] headquartered in Warwick, New York. It is the main legal entity used worldwide by Jehovah's Witnesses to direct, administer and develop doctrines for the religion and is often referred to by members of the religion simply as "the Society". It is the parent organization of a number of Watch Tower subsidiaries, including the Watchtower Society of New York and International Bible Students Association.[2][3] The number of voting shareholders of the corporation is limited to between 300 and 500 "mature, active and faithful" male Jehovah's Witnesses.[4] About 5800 Jehovah's Witnesses provide voluntary unpaid labour, as members of a religious order, in three large Watch Tower Society faciliti
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
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.
ARC is not a trial.And Spinks & O'Brien are getting eaten alive!
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
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.
thank you to john redwood for making this available so quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzqvj0z7_ya.
Interesting.
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).
Richard Oliver, thank you for kindly answering my questions without any color added.
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).
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?
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).
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?
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).
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?
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).
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?
