publication court of appeal, fourth appellate district division one state of california osbaldo padron, plaintiff and respondent, v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc., defendant and appellant.findingwatchtower has abused the discovery process.
it has zealously advocated its position and lost multiple times.
yet, it cavalierly refuses to acknowledge the consequences of these losses and the validity of the court's orders requiring it to produce documents in response to request number 12. and, in a further act of defiance, watchtower informed the court that it would not comply with the march 25, 2016 order 39 requiring it to produce documents responsive to request number 12. the court, following lopez, supra, 246 cal.app.4th 566, as an incremental step toward terminating sanctions if watchtower persists in its unjustified conduct, imposed monetary sanctions.
The names of perpetrators are not to be redacted. However, all of the information is subject to a court-ordered protective order and cannot be made public at this time
There should be some worried people out there who's names are in those files. There goes confidentiality for child molestors if they see those files and now who is next when a Court orders to see anybody's file if wt has a record on anyone. It could be yours.
i'm gobsmacked.. the 7 rock star popes in warwick know darned well that the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.. geoff (whacko jacko) jackson was at the australian royal commission and should have seen first hand what a vile man made law the 2 witness rule is.. my question is, why do they still insist on this pervert protecting rule?.
i know it's a highly controlling cult but still...........................stuff my old boots, mate!.
the above is more a rhetorical question.
I asked this question myself since he had a previous conviction, he would have gotten a even longer sentience -Finkelstein
Or at least charged with a crime. The Defense argued that child welfare and law enforcement knew about Kendricks and did nothing to stop Kendricks from joining a church and when he did, they did nothing to warn the congregation.
And when it was decided by a preponderance of the evidence that he molested Candace, they did nothing.
i'm gobsmacked.. the 7 rock star popes in warwick know darned well that the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.. geoff (whacko jacko) jackson was at the australian royal commission and should have seen first hand what a vile man made law the 2 witness rule is.. my question is, why do they still insist on this pervert protecting rule?.
i know it's a highly controlling cult but still...........................stuff my old boots, mate!.
the above is more a rhetorical question.
You would think that with all of the evidence presented in the Conti case that Kendricks would be convicted of a crime but he wasn't even charged -at least not till this date.
i'm gobsmacked.. the 7 rock star popes in warwick know darned well that the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.. geoff (whacko jacko) jackson was at the australian royal commission and should have seen first hand what a vile man made law the 2 witness rule is.. my question is, why do they still insist on this pervert protecting rule?.
i know it's a highly controlling cult but still...........................stuff my old boots, mate!.
the above is more a rhetorical question.
A while back, I went to a doctor for a visit and at his office there was a sign that stated "We report evidence of child abuse to the authorities." When I went in to see him, I asked: "Doc, you get many children here that you have to notify child welfare?" He said: "None, so far." So I tell him: "Who is going to bring you their child if they know you are going to report him? Why don't you take down the sign?" He said: "Legal reasons."
i'm gobsmacked.. the 7 rock star popes in warwick know darned well that the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.. geoff (whacko jacko) jackson was at the australian royal commission and should have seen first hand what a vile man made law the 2 witness rule is.. my question is, why do they still insist on this pervert protecting rule?.
i know it's a highly controlling cult but still...........................stuff my old boots, mate!.
the above is more a rhetorical question.
In one of the cases wt defended involving church confidentiality, wt told the Court something to the effect of: "I wish you would make things easy for us." That is because, as wt claims, it is challenging for the church to both be required to report and at the same time be required to keep protected information confidential. All that needs to be done in the US is to unify all reporting laws in every state, amend the Constitution and to nationally abolish all privacy rights between the church and congregant in cases involving child abuse. The church could then be concerned with providing spiritual assistance to those child abusers behind bars. The gov could also proscribe child abusers from joining any churches. ... In the meantime, legislation is what it is.
i'm gobsmacked.. the 7 rock star popes in warwick know darned well that the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.. geoff (whacko jacko) jackson was at the australian royal commission and should have seen first hand what a vile man made law the 2 witness rule is.. my question is, why do they still insist on this pervert protecting rule?.
i know it's a highly controlling cult but still...........................stuff my old boots, mate!.
the above is more a rhetorical question.
"Fair point, on the other hand, again, as I said before...." --Konceptual
Again, same point.
i'm gobsmacked.. the 7 rock star popes in warwick know darned well that the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.. geoff (whacko jacko) jackson was at the australian royal commission and should have seen first hand what a vile man made law the 2 witness rule is.. my question is, why do they still insist on this pervert protecting rule?.
i know it's a highly controlling cult but still...........................stuff my old boots, mate!.
the above is more a rhetorical question.
They are simply told to make sure the victim and family are informed they can go to the authorities but given no support to do this. They should be doing everything possible to support the victim and help them get the right help as well as ensure the authorities are able to investigate an allegation so that the risk of leaving a predatory sexual abuser free to do whatever they want is minimised as far as humanly possible.
That is arguable. Any accusation of wrong against the church is considered on a case by case basis.
i'm gobsmacked.. the 7 rock star popes in warwick know darned well that the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.. geoff (whacko jacko) jackson was at the australian royal commission and should have seen first hand what a vile man made law the 2 witness rule is.. my question is, why do they still insist on this pervert protecting rule?.
i know it's a highly controlling cult but still...........................stuff my old boots, mate!.
the above is more a rhetorical question.
the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.
Relating to church doctrine and practice, the "2 witness rule" applies but concurrently with that, the church also complies with all statutory requirements for reporting any allegation of child sexual abuse and child abuse to competent authorities as mandated in the local jurisdiction the church operates.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
@Search RE: Factual Submissions by both parties.
"That is your side of the Story" -Fisherman
"Which, as my lawyer said to the Supreme Court, is precisely why we have judges." -Search
The "100% facts" that the elders submitted is for the legal proceedings that decide whether or not you get to have your day in Court. Your related posts apparently confuses that with the Judicial Review - if you win..
because he was shunned by his customers?.
as my lawyer said to the Supreme Court, is precisely why we have judges.
IF the Court takes you case.
