Posts by Joe Grundy

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

"Fisherman" said:

But the conditions of "religious" confidentiality are not set by you or by what people expect or think it is the case. They are set forth by the US Constitution and you do not have to like it either. If US law protects JW version of priest/ penitent and you don't like it -too bad! JW version is entitled to same immunity provisions as Catholic versions under US law regardless of what you like or think. And US High Courts will vindicate it.

Well, this is bollocks (a technical legal term), of course, and though I claim no knowledge whatsoever of the US constitution I do claim a thorough working knowledge (and practice) of the common law which applies here.

The legal concept of confidentiality is relatively simple. If someone provides information to someone else on the basis that, and in the expectation that, the information will be held in confidence, there is a contract of confidentiality. That is, to state the obvious - no information will be divulged to anyone.

Simply put, in light of the forgoing and what is common knowledge of the JW procedures, there is no confidentiality.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

"Joe - interesting that from your perspective at the frontline, thank you. The legal background may interest you. It's a little obscure and case law dating back centuries... the ultimate endpoint in Britain is for a judge to rule that something is required for the public interest. Once that ruling is made, you can end up with Catholic priests in the dock expected to testify. (Although last properly tested back in late Victorian era!). CofE clergy are still in an odd place with the whole confession thing - legally obliged to remain silent (state church legacy) but also equally subject to a judge demanding testimony. Last I heard, they were trying to figure out how to fix that themselves.

Judges don't tend to press that hard though (the discretion under PACE) which is why it's only when dim JWs try to muck up major child abuse investigations that the stick comes out. Like it did in Newcastle not so long back. And then after months of the judge trying to persuade them to testify of their own accord. They chose to testify on the morning of the trial, rather than spend some time at Her Majesty's pleasure."

Well, yes and and no. Of course, judges can and should rule 'in the public interest'. I am not aware of any case in which a catholic priest (or a CofE priest) has ever been subpoenaed to give evidence of what occurred in a confession, and I would be interested to learn of the procedure which occassioned that. It would seem to me to be covered by PACE (excluded material).

I note your comments that 'Judges don't tend to press that hard'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the discretion under PACE'. I can tell you that the judges with which I dealt pressed hard, demanded evidenced and reasoned legal arguments, and issued orders/warrants that were never - never -overturned by higher courts.

(This is a UK (E&W) perspective.) Judges don't try to 'persuade' people. They explain the options. You don't f@@k with the judge, ever.

And here is a true story. I had a case (related to my post above about judges ordering bank information). The judge had ordered that material held by the bank (a national) must be produced to us (the police) in 7 days. It wasn't. The local, area, regional managers appeared before the judge to explain the failure. The judge ordered the CEO to appear - and advised that he bring a toothbrush. The material was provided.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

I never was a JW.

My knowledge of US law is limited. I am a retired police officer (UK) and my specialist area for many years in England & Wales involved a great deal of work in this sort of area - i.e. in what circumstances what information (material) is available, useable, must be made available. I offer this for what its worth and am open to contradiction and correction. What I say applies to the principles of law in E&W, but with the growing internationalism in law and jurisdiction the principles are useful.

In E&W, the principles were codified in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Before that, there was a mish-mash of common law and ;suck it and see'.

Under PACE 1984, information ('material') was classified in different ways - but always ALWAYS (this is important) with the principle that the person who was owed the duty of confidentiality had the rights over that confidentiality. In other words, for example, in the present case - claimed penitent/clergy confidentiality - the right to confidentiality belongs to the penitent, not the clergy, and it is his to waive, not the priest's.

To continue. Most material, not held under a duty of confidentiality, (say, for example, purchase records from a retailer) can be provided with no problem. The holder of the information could, if necessary, be compelled by a magistrates' warrant to provide material.

Move up a step. Material held under a duty of confidentiality. This would include information held by (for example) a bank or an accountant under a professional duty of confidentiality. This is called 'Special Procedure Material'. The holder of the material can only be compelled to produce it by order of a Circuit Judge (a high level Judge) where the judge is satisfied that serious crime etc. is involved. This 'Special Procedure' is not used lightly and circuit judges rightly probe every application.

Then there is 'Excluded Material'. This is information which is provided under an expectation of confidentiality and which no-one else can obtain. Full stop. Period. In E&W this includes medical records, stuff like that (e.g. phone conversations with The Samaritans) and - to get back to the subject here - penitent/clergy confessions.

I have never been a catholic, but my understanding is that if I were, and if I chose to make my confession to a priest - or if I was in any other denomination and chose to make a confession one on one with an expectation of confidentiality - there is no legal authority which could compel the person to whom I confessed to give that information to anyone.

But the central point is confidentiality. I talk to my priest on the basis that he is constrained by his duty not to pass that information on. That is the contract between us - my expectation under which I provide that information.

Now compare that to the JW scenario. Two elders, JC, a duty to report to HQ. Doesn't comply at all with the expectation/duty of penitent and confessor.

And I repeat it because it's worth repeating - the right of confidentiality belongs to the person who gave the information, not the person who holds it.

Sorry, this has dragged on.

90

Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life

by shadow in

disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.

yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.

i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.

Joe Grundy

I never was a JW.

A few days ago, my son (who works nights) was awakened by dubs at the door. He reminded them politely but forcefully that he had asked them not to call. 'Sorry', said the guy 'But there are a lot of us'. My son pointed out that the 'silent sister' with him was there last time when he had (again) asked them not to call.

The guy offered to discuss stuff - even said he had read 'The God Delusion' (Dawkins). My son told him that there was no point in discussion, even at a suitable time, because while he (my son) was prepared to change his opinion in the light of evidence the JW never would be.

They left a WT (No.1 2016 'Why Be Honest') and 'Was Life Created', which he passed on to me.

These publications are a joke. I really don't have the motivation or the interest or the time to go through them paragraph by paragraph for a critical review. I feel sorry for the dubs who peddle this crap and, TBH, if they come to my door and admit that they're dubs my response is 'I'm sorry'.

IMHO and IME it really is not worth discussing these issues with dubs.

69

Could the Independent Inquiry in England and Wales expose jw.org's child abuse failures? And how can we help?

by defender of truth in

with all the talk about the org's policies and failures regarding child sexual abuse being publically exposed in australia, i thought that it may be a good time to highlight this... i apologise if this has already been discussed, but on the 9th of july the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in england and wales was opened.

here is some information regarding it's aims.. "about the inquiry.

the inquiry offers an unprecedented opportunity to examine the extent to which institutions and organisations in england and wales have taken seriously their responsibility to protect children.. the inquiry will investigate a wide range of institutions including:.

Joe Grundy

BTTT

8

Jehovah's Witnesses accused of covering up historic sex abuse

by defender of truth in

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12073247/jehovahs-witnesses-accused-of-covering-up-historic-sex-abuse.html

Joe Grundy

PS: I ought to explain more. I never was a JW. I moved to Cyprus in 2005 when I retired from the old bill. My neighbours were a swedish jw woman, her converted GC jw husband (did jail time re national service) and two kids (3 and 5). Nice people, but utterly besotted by the WT//JW propaganda. I still think of/fear for those girls.

I know what child/sexual abuse is about. Frankly, I think I still suffer from mild PTSD from dealing with so much of it in my professional life.

WT/JW is not the only organisation to hide abuse, but it happens to be my chosen target. I continue to refer stuff I find to the UK charity Commission, to UK Enquiry Commissions, and to the media.

IMHO, WT is an evil organisation. Its policies and practices deserve to be brought to light.

8

Jehovah's Witnesses accused of covering up historic sex abuse

by defender of truth in

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12073247/jehovahs-witnesses-accused-of-covering-up-historic-sex-abuse.html

Joe Grundy

WT/JW is an admittedly centrally-regulated organisation.

The ARC investigation, with questioning of all levels of WT organisation up to and including the top (GB) has exposed WT policies and practices.

WT/JW policies, practices and attitudes towards abuse have been exposed to the world. No amount of spin/PR/back-pedalling can undo that.

They are, to use the vernacular, f*cked, and the consequences will flow.

13

Wilmington Delaware Media report in another Topic

by truthlover in

sexual abuse by a female member of a 14 year old in the congregation and elders being sued by the county --- now that co's are liable for the elders only - does that mean the elders will lose everything if fines are levelled against them, since the society has washed their hands and separated themselves by setting the co in place??

.

Joe Grundy

PS: I think most jurisdictions have moved away from the 'I was just following orders' defence.

Individuals are accountable for their actions.

I don't know how many elders are aware of this. If I was in WT land I would avoid responsibility at all costs.

13

Wilmington Delaware Media report in another Topic

by truthlover in

sexual abuse by a female member of a 14 year old in the congregation and elders being sued by the county --- now that co's are liable for the elders only - does that mean the elders will lose everything if fines are levelled against them, since the society has washed their hands and separated themselves by setting the co in place??

.

Joe Grundy

(This may only apply to the UK).

Several years ago, when Health & Safety and other legislation was coming into force, I attended several 'senior management' seminars. It was emphasised strongly that liability for breaches lay not only on corporations/organisations (mine was a police force) but also on individual managers/those with responsibility.

I don't know whether there are any/many cases of individuals being held liable, but I am aware that in lawsuits individuals are named as defendants along with organisations.

My amateur view is that in WT land, it has been established by the ARC that elders are in a position of authority (despite the best efforts of Ms Applewhite) and thus are liable to be sued. There could be an argument that WT (in its various forms) has vicarious liability for the actions of its agents/officers (elders, etc.) but I think that there is sufficient case law in various jurisdictions to indicate that elders etc. are personally liable.

12

ARC: WT cf VAG

by Joe Grundy in

(i never was a jw).. as a retired child abuse professional, i followed (and continue to do so - it's an ongoing process) the arc proceedngs closely.

my understanding is that the purpose of the arc is to establish what current practices exist in various organisations and institutions, how those practices compare with accepted best practice, and what organisations and institutions need to do to bring their procedures and policies into line with best practice.

(and to find a way to compensate victims for what's been done wrong).. wt is case study #29 in the arc process.

Joe Grundy

" I'm not sure what it is going to take for them to finally fess up."

Me neither. It doesn't get much more serious than a Royal Commission. At some points during testimony it seemed as if they were open to change - but they weren't, as evidenced by the WT response. The WT lawyers back home watching the evidence must have been shouting at the screen.

I suppose that the false modesty and humble meekness was just 'theocratic warfare' after all - blended with incompetence and ignorance. I hope it comes back to bite them on the ass. Their deceptions and other reprehensible behaviour is out there for all the world to see. I hope that it is being noted by, for example, the UK Charity Commissioners in their investigation, by the UK Inquiry into institutional abuse, and by individual lawyers world-wide in progressing cases.

Compensation for past cases is very important, of course, but what is crucial is acknowledgement of failings and putting things right for the future. That may be a forlorn hope.