i thought we needed carpenters and plumbers in paradise...oh well... the hypocrisy.
to all bodies of elders in the united states branch territoryre: experienced attorneys and paralegals needed at bethel.
dear brothers:.
We are hoping to locate several experienced attorneys and paralegals who have exceptional analytical, research, and writing abilities.
This is awfully picky considering the compensation they are offering, isn't it? Given the higher-education ban (reaffirmed in this letter, no less) they impose, I'm guessing that any JW with a law license and the ability to fog a mirror qualifies, analytical abilities be damned.
in his first talk of the week the co mentioned that people don't get df'd for joining the military or registering to vote because they are already gone, as compared with smoking secretly, which would merit df'ing.. i have been toying around with registering to vote in the next election (us) so this intrigues me..
I thought voting was a "conscience matter" now, no?
i thought we needed carpenters and plumbers in paradise...oh well... the hypocrisy.
to all bodies of elders in the united states branch territoryre: experienced attorneys and paralegals needed at bethel.
dear brothers:.
Wonder if they have them sign a confidentiality agreement so they can't talk about what they defend..
Lawyers don't make for very good whistleblowers, whether they have signed any agreement or not.
If a lawyer wants to break his or her duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the client and blow the whistle on something, it sure better be some kind of ongoing, serious criminal conduct, unless he or she wants to risk being disbarred.
christian congregation of jehovahs witnesses.
2821 route 22, patterson, ny 12563-2237 phone: (845) 306-1100.
january 13, 2015. to all bodies of elders in the united states branch territory.
So do they have to be licensed in NY? Around here you have to be licensed in every state you work in, not just the one you are currently employed.
To be a corporate in-house counsel in NY you do not need to be admitted to the bar in NY unless you regularly appear in court on behalf of your employer. You just have to register, which is basically a formaility. The same or similar rule goes most everywhere. It doesn't matter where the office is that the attorney works out of. To appear in court, you have to be licensed in the jurisdiction in which the court sits, either permanently or for that case only (pro hac vice).
with 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.
NG: I neglected to respond to this
That’s what I don’t get. How does one “minimize liability" by not reporting cases of child molestation? Please explain that to me in legal terms, as a lawyer.
If you look at the 1989 letter introduced at trial, it is obviously about protecting the organization from legal liability. It goes on and on about how litigious our society is and how opposers will want to enforce what they perceive as their "rights" - with "rights" always in scare quotes, to dismiss the idea that they actually exist. And then it went on to say that this is why elders have to keep judicial proceedings and related matters confidential. They were concerned about being sued for defamation and the like by people who were disgrunted over judicial matters.
In retrospect, that was not the best strategy in terms of shielding the organization and congregations from liability, but there was certainly enough there for Simons to argue that minimizing liability was a motive in forming their policy. He used the letter -effectively, I think - to rebut the argument that the confidentiality policy served a doctrinal purpose, and instead to argue that it served a financial one.
with 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.
That is well and good, but remember that Law should always be objective and blind. Even if you have some sort of serious grudge against Watchtower, justified or not, that should have no bearing whatsoever on the correct application of Law in this particular and specific case. Work on separating your very sharp legal mind from your emotions.Oh please. Thanks for the lesson about established legal principles and what I should work on. Get over yourself with the justice is blind shtick and I should know better. This is an internet forum, and I'm free to express my opinion on both the legal merits of the case and the moral culpability of the Watchtower organization. You are responding to my view on the latter. There are all kinds of reprehensible behavior that the law does not usually punish. It doesn't mean that just because I'm an attorney I can't hope for an outcome that I believe to be just from a normative perspective, regardless of established law.
My opinion is based on what happened in this case, not a general grievance with the Watchtower organization or my "emotions." I have commented numerous times on this forum that I think plaintiffs who sue for shunning should lose, so I am certainly not forming my opinion just because Watchtower is a defendant.
To illustrate my point about reprehensible behavior, I point to the story of David Cash, Jr. Google his name if you don't know the story. He did nothing while his friend raped and murdered a little girl in a casino bathroom. There was no law under which he could be charged under the "established legal principles" that you refer to. Just because someone is an attorney doesn't mean they can't recognize that something bad was done and support a novel theory to charge him if one existed, does it? Or do attorneys have to get on a soapbox and say you can't do anything to this guy, because there has never been a duty to act ever since the English common law, and so on.
being that this is not "ex jws" and in fact, more driven by atheists talking a bunch of crap, im not even going to address you people like you know anything about jws because you dont.
nor am i going to assume you know the bible because none of you do.. and yes, im speaking down at you all because you men have actually went out your way to make a site to speak down at an entire group of people.
yet i bet you cant even handle a single uswer talking down at you, like you talk down about jws can you?.
the movie american sniper is breaking box office records and of course there is some irony that a movie about a sniper is released on martin luther king day (who was shot by one).. but of course there is a world of difference between an assassin and a military sniper ... or is there?.
some are making a big stink about it and claiming that "snipers are cowards".
it seems unfair to me.
the movie american sniper is breaking box office records and of course there is some irony that a movie about a sniper is released on martin luther king day (who was shot by one).. but of course there is a world of difference between an assassin and a military sniper ... or is there?.
some are making a big stink about it and claiming that "snipers are cowards".
it seems unfair to me.
I saw someone being interviewed on TV and complaining about the movie because his grandfather was killed in war by a sniper, or something like that. While it's sad that his grandfather died, I think the distinction is dumb; war is war. Would it make a difference if he was killed by a land mine or a grenade? Are bomber pilots cowards because they drop bombs on unsuspecting people?
Taking the criticism to its logical conclusion, any person shooting a gun at someone in war would be a coward, since the target is unable to directly repel the attack, and only those who fight with swords and bayonets are true war heroes.
I suppose the distinction people would draw is that they kill without being in the line of fire themselves, but war is dangerous. I'm sure there is a real risk of their positions being compromised and being killed on any given mission.
with 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.
I believe that Elders and Ministerial Servants are considered employees of Watchtower by Law.
Absolutely not. What makes you think that? A volunteer does not equal an employee.
A conclusion is not reasonable when there is no support for it. The most we could hope to reasonably support is the liability claim, but everything else is merely assumption and speculation based on no evidence. I would not say that they intended to protect children, but I would also not say that they didn't intend to protect children. I simply can't read minds or personal intentions.
Well, the trial judge believed there was enough evidence that they disregarded the risk of harm to send punitive damages to the jury, and the jury accepted Rick Simons' argument that the WTS was at least indifferent as to preventing abuse. I think you have it backwards; you say the most we can reasonably hope to support is the liability claim. I think that there is a good chance that the entire verdict is tossed because the appeals court finds no special relationship existed as a matter of law. On the other hand, I would be surprised if the verdict is allowed to stand but punitive damages alone gets reversed. I think if a duty is found to exist there is enough evidence to support the punitive damages award; regardless of whether or not the appeal court thinks the jury got it right.
Anecdotal accounts are not to be used when making general conclusions. Their value is next to nothing. But what we do know for a fact is that at least in this case, nobody was discouraged from reporting to police; and indeed, the parents of the first teenager did report to police after meeting with the elders, though they never told anybody about it. And if memory serves correct, the Boer case had similar accusations of Elders warning not to report to police, but the appeals judge threw those claims out and sided with Watchtower.
I realize that anecdotal evidence is not relevant to this or any other case. However, I was responding to another poster who seemed to want to discuss moral culpability, rather than legal. And based on what has been reported and my own experience in the organization, I don't doubt for a second that elders have been told by headquarters to discourage victim reporting without explicitly saying not to. There is a reason that the instructions are to call legal on the phone, and not to write or email. At least in the past, their fear of "bringing reproach on Jehovah's organization" practically rose to the level of being a fetish.
You acknowledge that your examples are irrelevant to the case at hand yet you go with them anyways. That is no bueno. Intentional causing of confusion in the mind of the lay reader. The more relevant Principle of Law (that you yourself even hint at) is:
There exists no general duty to protect others from harm, absent a clear special relationship.
I was asked to explain the standard for punitive damages and I did so, acknowledging (as I did in my OP) that damages for failure to act is unusual and has only been applied historically in limited circumstances. If anyone is causing confusion, it is you. A judge in a court of law found that in this case, there IS a duty to protect others from harm. Unless and until that is overturned by an appeals court, that is the law. There may well be examples of punitive damages being awarded in a failure to warn case, but I am not going to research that issue to answer a question on a forum. My examples answered the question that someone raised and didn't mislead anyone.
I myself haven't been a Witness for years, and I still find the Conti ruling terrifying, as should you, being a Man of Law yourself.
I agree that it will be difficult to formulate a general rule upholding the verdict that will not have unintended and unfair consequences when applied to other situations. If such a rule can be formulated, I will leave that to the appeals justices, who I am sure are smarter and more experienced than I am. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if the verdict is overturned on the basis of no special relationship. But putting legal principles aside, I believe that the WTS deserves to eat this one. It is unconscionable to teach that this is the one true religion, the congregation is the safest place there is, JWs are the most moral and trustworthy people and everyone else is bad association, and then to keep your lips sealed and eyes closed when you know there is a predator loose in the small group who God has allegedly declared to be the only good and approved association.
