Posts by Chaserious

41

Guess who...

by sooner7nc in

jw
friends

...just passed his last nursing final and is now a graduate nurse?.

Media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from ABC News New York

by Londo111 in

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

see last item:.

"media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from abc news new york".

Chaserious

For anyone who knows how to read this, could this have anything to do with society (appellant) attorneys having to jaunt about the country putting out fires (eg the Zalkin cases)?

OA means "Oral Argument" and in this context probably means other appeals arguments, of which I don't think there are any other WTS cases scheduled for right now. Their lead attorney on appeal is with a private law firm specializing in appellate advocacy, so it probably just relates to other cases not connected to the WTS.

75

Media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from ABC News New York

by Londo111 in

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

see last item:.

"media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from abc news new york".

Chaserious

blames the elders and the WTS policies for the reason of why it is not reported to the authorities.

As far as I am aware, none of these lawsuits are about the elders/WTS not reporting the plaintiff's abuse to the authorities. They are about the congregations/WTS having knowledge that these men were molesters from previous incidents and continuing to allow them to occupy positions of responsibility in the congregation. And this in an organization that routinely expels people, thus giving the impression to gullible parents that it would never allow such a person to occupy a position of trust.

Sir82: this is for the Conti case.

75

Media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from ABC News New York

by Londo111 in

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

see last item:.

"media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from abc news new york".

Chaserious

Well, that was probably not a docket entry the WTS team was happy to see. The media triggered the intense scrutiny against the RCC probably more than the financial impact of the lawsuits. The Boston Globe reporting really set the whole thing off.

300

ALERT: NEW LAWSUIT settlement - $13 MILLION

by Watchtower-Free in

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/135m-awarded-to-bible-teacher-gonzalo-campos-alleged-abuse-victim-jose-lopez-281031832.html.

(published thursday, oct 30, 2014).

thursday, oct 30, 2014 updated at 11:58 pm pdt.

Chaserious

Isn't there a criminal element in action here. Obstruction of justice maybe, that seems to be intended to protect the monetary interest of an organization at the expense of the safety of children in the present and even the future.

Obstruction of justice in California is rather narrow; obstruction is much easier to prosecute under federal law when it occurs in a federal court. In a civil case, it would probably need to rise to the level of subborning perjury, bribing a judiical officer, or something of that magnitude. Also, prosecutors would have to identify who specifically committed a crime and charge them, and whoever is charged would be entitled to a jury trial. In reality, a defendant is never going to be criminally charged in a civil case for discovery violations (probably not even in federal court), especially when they believe they have a colorable basis for whatever their position is.

The plaintiff was awarded everything he sought and more (more in the sense that he didn't have bear the time and expense of a full trial), so that's the end of the story from the court's vantage point. As far as protecting children, that may be an observer's view of things or a take on the effect of the big picture effect of multiple lawsuits, but that's not part of the relief in a case like this. The relief is money, pure and simple.

Contempt is another question; in practice it is hard to hold corporate insiders individually liable for corporate contempt, such as by placing them in custody until the contempt is purged. I am fairly certain that most U.S. courts would agree that would not be appropriate in the case of a civil corporate defendant; who can just be made to lose the case instead.

300

ALERT: NEW LAWSUIT settlement - $13 MILLION

by Watchtower-Free in

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/135m-awarded-to-bible-teacher-gonzalo-campos-alleged-abuse-victim-jose-lopez-281031832.html.

(published thursday, oct 30, 2014).

thursday, oct 30, 2014 updated at 11:58 pm pdt.

Chaserious

What I don't understand is why they weren't forced to hand them over WHEN ORDERED. If the court in San Diego has enough jurisdiction to order a 501(c)(3) in New York to pay 13 million in damages then how the hell does it not have the jurisdiction to send in officers to arrest those in violation or, at the very least, force compliance?

Doesn't really have anything to do with religion. In a civil lawsuit, the ultimate purpose of the lawsuit is to recover monetary damages, so the "ultimate" sanction is the award of those damages. Discovery sanctions aren't allowed to be punitive; they can only be calculated to accomplish the objects of discovery. So, the terminating sanctions that were awarded are the most drastic allowed under the law; not to mention that is what the plaintiff moved for.

300

ALERT: NEW LAWSUIT settlement - $13 MILLION

by Watchtower-Free in

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/135m-awarded-to-bible-teacher-gonzalo-campos-alleged-abuse-victim-jose-lopez-281031832.html.

(published thursday, oct 30, 2014).

thursday, oct 30, 2014 updated at 11:58 pm pdt.

Chaserious

I had a little time to finally do some more reading on this case this morning and had an interesting observation. Gerrit Losch's personal lawyer in this matter is a man named Donald Ridley (you can see here on p.4 that it refers to "Mr. Losch's personal cousel Donald Ridley," or here at Exhibit 35, "Mr. Losch's lead counsel, Donald T. Ridley").

This attorney is in private practice in NYC, and my understanding is that he was an one time an in-house WTS lawyer. What was interesting to me is that on his firm's website, one of the several practice areas that they advertise is Gay and Lesbian family law. From their website, it says the founder of the firm:

"was a pioneer in the New York Marriage Equality Movement as a longtime proponent of equal rights. He and the other attorneys of The Mandel Law Firm proudly marched across the Brooklyn Bridge in support of this cause." (I'm guessing Mr. Ridley didn't march across the Brooklyn Bridge for gay rights?)

What occurred to me is how many rank-and-file JWs were pressured over the years to quit or turn down jobs where the employers were involved in "unscriptural" practices. I recall people who were told they shouldn't work at a job where they have to handle tobacco products, do construction work on churches, etc. Yet the JW elite can work for a gay-rights lawyer (it is not clear from the website whether Ridley is a partner or an associate/employee). I wonder how Mr. Ridley's firm's gay and lesbian clients would feel if they knew that a lawyer at the law firm they patronize represents members of the governing body that teaches its millions of devout followers to shun their gay and lesbian children and other family members, and preaches that homosexuals are involved in a fashion conspiracy to induce men to wear tight pants.

17

Do you think the GB ever mentions these abuse cases directly?

by thedepressedsoul in

the title says it all, do you think that the gb will ever bring up these cases in their literature or in a talk?

i'm not talking about them just mentioning "persecution" i'm talking about actually bringing up child abuse cases and trying to justify it.. or will it just remain the elephant in the room until years have passed?.

.

Chaserious

Doubt it. I would think in excess of 90% of active JWS who are not awake to TTATT have no idea about these cases. There is no mainstream national coverage of them, and even locally they amount to a 2 minute bit on the evening news or a story buried on the local newspaper's homepage or a day or two. Combine that with the fact that your average JW is probably less up on the news than your average person.

I can't see them addressing something that is not an issue for most of their followers. Plus, look at their record in admitting when they are wrong or responding to legitimate criticism.

9

US Supreme Court rejects JW blood transfusion case.

by Emily24 in

jw
friends

http://www.minbcnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=1129875#.vh1mijhf_ng.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/01/supreme-court-religious-beliefs-appeal/19734249/.

"washington (ap) -- the supreme court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.. the justices on monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of gwendolyn rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.. rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ.

Chaserious

This so smacks of a "Cake-and-Eat-It" mentality.

Well, technically it's a cake and your heirs eat it mentality; and the cake is being dead. Agreed that it's the right decision, but remember that it's one person who decided not to take blood (who, sadly is now dead), and another who decided to sue. We don't know that the Ms. Rozier herself would have wanted to sue, or that the person who sued supported her no blood decision.

There was zero chance SCOTUS would hear this, whether it was decided right or wrong. This is not really about any constitutional rights, despite the plaintiff's attempt to cast it that way.

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.

i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.

unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.

Chaserious

Debating a law isn't debating a case. Some laws were clearly unjust and in need of reform.

I think he was referring to the Dred Scott case, which found that slaves were property and thus couldn't sue in court. Korematsu is another example, where the Supreme Court allowed people to be placed in internment camps based upon their race, or Bowers v. Hardwick, which found that sodomy could be considered a felony. Often the two overlap. The Zimmerman case related to laws that some may have believed were in need of reform, e.g. self-defense/concealed carry statutes.