They probably have a girl who is a foot taller than everyone else and can score at will and collect every rebound. It's poor sportsmanship to run up the score like that. Even at the college level this shouldn't happen, much less high school.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
6
High school basketball coach suspended for running up the score--162-2
by James Mixon inhow in the hell can a girl basketball team score that many points??.
in san bernardino arroyo valley high, coach m. anderson was suspended 2 games for running up the score.. anderson said his team had won four previous games by at least 70 points and the team they beat had already lost a game by 91 points.. this remind me of the college calif inst of tech.
a few years ago they won their first basketball game and was front page in the sport section.. some of the brilliant minds in the world attend caltec, basketball is not first on their list.
-
-
-
111
Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14
by Chaserious inwith hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
-
-
Chaserious
I am just looking at it from a point of view of common sense. Common sense tells me that; IF the elders believed in any way that Kendrick was going to re-offend, they would have put in place some other provisions where this would be minimized.
Putting the law aside, and just looking at this from a common-sense point of view, anyone who has been a JW knows that the elders will do whatever those higher up in the chain of command tell them to do, whether that's the CO, letters from the branch, WT legal, etc. So whether or not they believed he was going to re-offend, I think that the most reasonable assumption is that they would do whatever they were directed to do.
Who in their right mind would WILLINGLY allow such a danger to exist? (same goes for the WTS)
People who are trying not to bring shame on their organization and are trying to minimize liability - that's who. The Catholic Church willingly allowed dangers to exist when they transferred pedophile priests from parish to unsuspecting parish, didn't they? What is the purpose of letters to the bodies of elders telling them to call Watchtower legal when child abuse occurs? Is it really to protect anyone besides the Watchtower? They don't have to call legal in cases of fornication or drug abuse, do they? A reasonable conclusion (and I think the one that was arrived at in this case) is that this process was in place to attempt to protect the organization from bad publicity and legal liability, with any concern for protecting children a distant afterthought, even though headquarters knew or should have known that its policy was not in the best interests of the children.
Also, while it is not contained in any official letter, there are numerous anecdotal accounts indicating that at least in the past, elders were told to discourage parents in such a situation from going to the authorities, without forbidding it or putting it in writing (out of fear of liability I'm sure). Again, anyone who has been a part of this organization knows that people will follow what the elders recommend a majority of the time.
But you and I and any reasonable person can surely see that this was not deliberate.
I don't think that any elders or the WTS wanted any child to be molested, and I think everybody acknowledges that, even those posters who may be a little over the top with the pedophile rhetoric. But getting back to the law, what the jury found (and I think appropriately), is not that it was "deliberate" as you say, but that it disregarded a significant risk of harm, and put concern for its image above legitimate safety measures.
Just one question: when you said that the jury found that “the Watchtower was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its actions, but deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences” can you explain what that means in practical terms? And what was the evidence of that if you can remember.
This is very close to the legal definition for recklessness. It means that you aren't trying to cause harm, but you should know that what you are doing is dangerous, to the point that it would be fair for a jury to conclude that you don't care very much if someone is hurt. If you accidentally get into a collision while doing 70 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, that is not going to support punitive damages (absent some other factor). If you are doing 110 MPH, on the other hand, there is a good chance you could be exposed to punitive damages, as even if you didn't want to hurt anyone, you deliberately ignored the risk. Or firing a gun without looking where you are shooting. These analogies don't exactly hold up because they deal with affirmatively causing harm, whereas the Conti case involved failing to prevent harm, which is unusual in the law. The evidence is that when the elders informed Watchtower legal about Kendrick and his stepdaughter, it instructed the elders to keep the information about him secret, in accordance with its national policy. -
111
Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14
by Chaserious inwith hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
-
-
Chaserious
In a court of law, ignorance does not equal innocence.
That's not necessarily true, but this case was not about guilt or innocence; it was about negligence or lack of negligence, and unreasonable ignorance is certainly enough to support a negligence finding.
-
111
Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14
by Chaserious inwith hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
-
-
Chaserious
Nitty-Gritty: Your point seems to be that the elders were well-intentioned rubes who didn't realize that their actions would put any children in danger. That may well be true, but it's enough to support the jury's findings against the congregation (at least assuming that a duty exists); the jury's award against the congregation was only for ordinary negligence. That doesn't require any kind of evil motives or intent to cause harm, any more than a negligence award for not driving a car carefully enough.
On the other hand, if you read the entire trial transcript, you know that the jury awarded punitive damages against the Watchtower, which required that the jury find that the Watchtower was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its actions, but deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences. This has nothing to do with holding the Watchtower liable for what the local elders did, or even for what Kendrick did; it related to the way Watchtower set its national policy by requiring elders to contact Watchtower legal upon learning of cases of child abuse and to otherwise keep judicial proceedings secret. The jury didn't buy that they could just transfer all of the risk to parents by publishing articles on child abuse prevention.
-
15
Resolutions to send money to society
by wannaexit induring the course of the year congregations pass a number of resolutions to send money to the branch.
this year i've resolved to count all money grab endeavors.
so far for the month of january there were two locally:.
-
-
Chaserious
Our cong resolved to send $300 a month after the new arrangement was announced. Our Hall had just finished a $130K remodeling project. Everyone saw this as the biggest blessing ever. We had not send the first payment for the project and the loan was "forgiven". Never mind that we would now donate $300 for who knows how long. Not a year later, in December, another resolution was passed to up the amount to $500 a month.
That's actually not a bad deal - even at a modest interest rate, it would take 40-50 years to pay off a $130k at $500 per month. The ones who got screwed were the congregations that have paid off or almost paid off loans and are now asked to keep paying them forever (I mean until the big A).
-
68
What I Saw & Heard in the Oral Argument Hearing on January 14, 2015
by ABibleStudent inim not an attorney and i could not record the hearing, so please forgive me if i make mistakes in relating what i remember of the oral argument hearing for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society on january 14, 2015 and the length of this post.. i arrived at the civic center/union plaza in san francisco, ca about 7:30. the area is very nice with a few homeless people sleeping in the park across from the courthouse.
it took me about 10 minutes to find the clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks office opened, the two clerks who i talked with were very polite and helpful.
the arguments for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society were scheduled 5th out of (i think) 8. while i was in the office a cameraman and another person for nbc arrived asking about the hearing for candace contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.
-
-
Chaserious
the Org certainly considers itself to have a special relationship with any publisher of the good news.
Of course they do - especially in the context from protecting from predators within. They constantly drive home that holy spirit is upon the congregation, people inside are "good association," and those outside are bad association, JWs are the most law-abiding and moral people on earth, etc. They induce a high level of trust, yet they don't want to be bothered protecting anyone when there is a known predator within.
The difficulty is making a judge understand this, especially one who didn't sit through the trial and get a feel for themselves. There can be a tendency to make a comparison to more mainstream religions that are much less insular when people don't really understand the way the WT org operates.
-
68
What I Saw & Heard in the Oral Argument Hearing on January 14, 2015
by ABibleStudent inim not an attorney and i could not record the hearing, so please forgive me if i make mistakes in relating what i remember of the oral argument hearing for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society on january 14, 2015 and the length of this post.. i arrived at the civic center/union plaza in san francisco, ca about 7:30. the area is very nice with a few homeless people sleeping in the park across from the courthouse.
it took me about 10 minutes to find the clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks office opened, the two clerks who i talked with were very polite and helpful.
the arguments for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society were scheduled 5th out of (i think) 8. while i was in the office a cameraman and another person for nbc arrived asking about the hearing for candace contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.
-
-
Chaserious
On Watchtower having a special relationship with congregations-
I don't want to contradict Robert's detailed report since I wasn't there, but I have read the briefs (and am an attorney), and the only special relationship issue raised in the briefs was whether WTS and/or the congregation had a special relationship with Candace Conti (and to a lesser degree Kendrick), and not with each other. Since parties are not allowed to raise new arguments that they do not address in the briefs, I wonder if this could have been a misunderstanding.
In this context "special relationship" has a legal meaning under California law, rather than a special relationship in the everyday meaning of the words. Generally no duty to warn or prevent harm from occurring to someone exists except in the case of one with a special relationship to the potential victim. This case did not involve agency or vicarious liability, where the WTS was held responsible for the elders' actions. Rather, the jury found 27% of the blame was with WTS for its own negligent actions.
-
68
What I Saw & Heard in the Oral Argument Hearing on January 14, 2015
by ABibleStudent inim not an attorney and i could not record the hearing, so please forgive me if i make mistakes in relating what i remember of the oral argument hearing for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society on january 14, 2015 and the length of this post.. i arrived at the civic center/union plaza in san francisco, ca about 7:30. the area is very nice with a few homeless people sleeping in the park across from the courthouse.
it took me about 10 minutes to find the clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks office opened, the two clerks who i talked with were very polite and helpful.
the arguments for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society were scheduled 5th out of (i think) 8. while i was in the office a cameraman and another person for nbc arrived asking about the hearing for candace contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.
-
-
Chaserious
Thanks for sharing so much detail about your observations! Nice job with the report. -
111
Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14
by Chaserious inwith hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
-
-
Chaserious
I think Candace's lawyer's arguments revolved around that the elders did fulfill their duty of care towards Candace sufficiently. I think this came out when Candace Conti's lawyer questioned the elders regarding what safety measures they had put in place to prevent Kendrick from ever working in the field service with children. If this aspect is significantly important then surely it would not matter so much that Candace did not (and was not asked by her lawyer directly enough to) testify to being assigned to work with Kendrick?
I think you may be missing that there are two alternative theories of liability at play here: misfeasance and nonfeasance. What you are describing sounds like nonfeasance; that they didn't do enough to warn or protect her. You are correct that the attorneys do not have to show that they were assigned together in field service to prevail on that theory.
But Rick Simons also argued on appeal that even if there is no such duty, the verdict should be upheld due to misfeasance, and the only evidence he points to for that is the field service issue. I was only commenting that there had to be enough evidence at trial for a jury to conclude there was misfeasance for the judgement to be upheld on that basis.
Conti's team doesn't have to show a basis for both theories; only one. Since juries don't have to explain themselves, if the court finds one of the two theories viable under the law (and assuming the WT doesn't win on one of its other arguments) the jury verdict will stand, assuming that the jury accepted that basis.
I agree that it's sad that only the threat of legal liability works to force their hand to protect their children.
-
111
Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14
by Chaserious inwith hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
-
-
Chaserious
I'd guess the kid that got raped as a result might remember. The point is sound though, there's not likely to be any clear testimony on this topic and even if there was it would be easy to dismiss due to the time that's passed. I can't think how there'd ever be any hard evidence of such an assignment, either.
This isnt really the issue in terms of misfeasance. You don't need "hard" evidence - testimony is enough. If Candace testified that the elders assigned her to work in field service with her abuser, the jury would be entitled to believe it and return a verdict, no matter how long ago. The issue is that her lawyer is saying on appeal that they were assigned to work together, but he never directly asked her that question when she testified at trial.
That suggests to me that Candace couldnt testify to it - either because it didn't happen or she can't remember. If she could testify to it, and Rick Simons just didn't ask her when she was testifying, that would be a very bad job of lawyering - it's an extremely important piece of testimony.
The only other thing I can think of is that the lawyer didn't understand how JW field service works and he thought the papers on the information board actually said who the door-to-door partners were. That seems unlikely though - he seemed to otherwise have a good grasp of WT and congregation policies.