a friend uncovered this doing research on his own.
i have never heard of it before and i suspect its not known.
seems legit and like a bombshell.
Ah.... Well it seems like a huge deal to me. How did they weasel out of this one?
Evidently the short version of the supposed story is either that they were erroneously listed as a shareholder and it was corrected, or that the interest was left to them by someone without their prior knowledge.
a friend uncovered this doing research on his own.
i have never heard of it before and i suspect its not known.
seems legit and like a bombshell.
It has been discussed in a number of prior threads. Type "Rand Cam" or "Reg Tech" into the search function and they will show up. Here are a couple:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/41208/3/W-T-S-RESPONSE-TO-RAND-CAM-ALLEGAT
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/249627/2/Who-are-the-men-that-REALLY-Run-the-WT
http://www.blacklistednews.com/new_studies%3a_%e2%80%98conspiracy_theorists%e2%80%99_sane%3b_government_dupes_crazy%2c_hostile/27293/0/38/38/y/m.html.
actually, i think creating conspiracies is one of the primary products of modern government.
if citizens aren't responsible and involved enough, then crafted lies follow.. .
How objective can this story really be when the title calls people who are not conspiracy theorists "government dupes?"
"jws leaders need to mandate elder bodies to uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction; prohibit elders from being involved in any investigative process to decide guilt or innocence in place of the authorities; do away with the two-witness rule to determine, as if they were magistrates, guilt or innocence of someone accused; prohibit so-called repentant molesters from engaging in the door-to-door ministry, and always inform the congregation if a convicted or confessed molester is meeting with them.
" -barbara anderson .
this is another reason why the watchtower society doesn't require that the elders uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction.
You are 100% right, wha happened. I'm done feeding this one. Shame on me for taking so long to realize it.
"jws leaders need to mandate elder bodies to uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction; prohibit elders from being involved in any investigative process to decide guilt or innocence in place of the authorities; do away with the two-witness rule to determine, as if they were magistrates, guilt or innocence of someone accused; prohibit so-called repentant molesters from engaging in the door-to-door ministry, and always inform the congregation if a convicted or confessed molester is meeting with them.
" -barbara anderson .
this is another reason why the watchtower society doesn't require that the elders uniformly report abuse to the authorities no matter what jurisdiction.
Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution reads: ....
The Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with this. Prime said:
it declares that federal law takes precedence over all forms of state law.
That is not quite correct. The Supremacy clause only means that valid federal law takes precedence over inconsistent state law. Is there some federal law that you think is inconsistent with the state laws that GLT pointed out? I'm not aware of any federal reporting law. In any event, your initial statement about the WTS requiring more than the federal government is just silly. Of course the " administrative position of Jehovah's Witnesses" has "the right to require more from the elders than the federal government." They require that elders (and other Jehovah's Witnesses) not own handguns, don't they? Doesn't that go beyond what the constitution allows, in that a state or city could never ban its residents from owning handguns? They can require whatever they want from the elders. They like to boast about being the most morally pure people out there. So why not set the example in prioritizing the prevention of abuse over bad publicity against the organization? Whatever the government requires is a floor, not a ceiling. If you want to boast about your morals, don't do the minimum.
http://www.htrnews.com/viewart/20130710/man0101/130710036.
.
The girl’s attorney, assistant state public defender Shelly Fite...
Interesting that the JW minor was assigned a public defender to argue that she should have been able to refuse blood. I'm not sure what the law is in Wisconsin, but I wonder if this was what they had in mind when whatever law was passed (which is probably why this would occur) allowing a state-paid attorney to be appointed to represent minors when they need protection.
jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.
(90 pages).
http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.
The one time I use a technical term
It's not the only time you've gotten technical in this thread.
my assertions are based on common sense.
Then why would you bring in a term like "vicarious liability" that nobody else used? Is that the kind of term you use in your everyday conversations? Also, I don't know that I agree that you are just here arguing common sense. You have strongly implied that the rulings of the trial judge in the Conti case were based upon bias. That requires the conclusion that some of his rulings were legally incorrect, because of course if they were based upon the law, legal doctrine would be the foundation of the rulings, rather than bias.
jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.
(90 pages).
http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.
Prime, your Wikipedia-informed understanding of vicarious liability is still incorrect. Contrary to what you suggest, any theory of liability that has anything to do with reporting anything is not vicarious liability; it's regular duty-based liability. The whole idea of vicarious liability is that the entity against whom the liability is being asserted didn't have to do anything wrong at all - not even negligent hiring, supervision, monitoring, reporting, or training - rather, it is held liable merely because its agent (usually an employee) committed a tort. No one in the Conti case, not even Rick Simons, has suggested that Kendrick was an agent. Similarly in the Penn State case, Penn State would probably not be vicariously liable merely because an assault occurred, even though an "agent" committed the act. Although England and many U.S. states have started holding employers vicariously liable for sexual assault, Pennsylvania still follows the traditional common law view that a sexual assault is not within the scope of employment, and therefore vicarious liability does not attach. That is why the issue of what Penn State officials knew about and reported is important in the civil cases related to Sandusky.
From reading your posts, it seems like you are trying to show that you have some kind of superior knowledge of legal theories by introducing terms like vicarious liability into the discussion although you don't fully understand them.
jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.
(90 pages).
http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.
If anyone is sexually or violently assaulted in facilities you own and operate and you fail to notify the authorities in a timely manner, that's vicarious liability.
No it's not. That's not close to an accurate description of what vicarious liability is - which FTR has nothing to do with what the Candace Conti case is about.
originally due this monday, the parties have stipulated to an extension of 30 days to july 31. .
All defendants "take their time" with litigation. I don't see this case going on for an unusually long time. That usually happens when a new trial gets ordered and everyone goes back to square one, and then of course whatever happens in the new trial court inevitably gets appealed. I could be wrong but I don't think there will be a new trial. If Conti wins at this stage, the WTS will appeal to the CA Supreme Court and they will probably take the case and that will be it. If either appeal court vacates the jury award, I don't think the remedy would be a new trial, at least with the WTS still in the case. If the WT wins on the duty question it seems they would get out.
