Posts by Chaserious

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

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.

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 in

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.

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.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

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.

Chaserious

The thing is it is not up to elders (or at least it isn't the law everywhere) to report a crime such as child molestation to the authorities unless they have personally been a witness to it, or have been specifically asked to do so by the victim and/or parents who will then have to accompany them. It is up to the victim or victim and/or parents. They are the ones who have to do the reporting.

This is incorrect. Almost all states have mandated child abuse reporting laws that apply to certain professionals such as teachers, doctors, nurses, etc. A majority of these laws apply to clergy, although not in every state. They require reporting upon reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect, not proof. Its not up to the victim or parents. The parent could be the abuser.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

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.

Chaserious

Doubting Bro - I agree that it's easy for you, me, and anyone who has been around the WT to know that they should have such a duty. I think the trial judge had the same feeling, having been exposed to enough documents and testimony to know that something stinks.

The more difficult thing is setting out a general rule that is widely applicable, which is the job of the higher courts. Would the same duty apply to a Catholic parish with 1000 members, if it involved a victim and pedophile whose role in the church is merely attending services a few times a year?

What would larger churches that are not as hands on with members have to do to discharge the duty? Make an announcement from the pulpit upon even an allegation of abuse? That seems a little severe. Would contacting authorities be enough or do they have to do more? Should it depend on the level of control a religion has over its members? That could result in putting the church doctrines on trial in each case. These are tough questions - much harder than the obvious, which is to recognize that they have been dishonest, secretive, and acted in self-interest over the years with respect to prevention of child abuse.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

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.

Chaserious

Cofty - that's a good observation. The recognition of a duty based on a child's relationship with the organization has the greatest value for precedntial effect.

In fact, if the court were to decide in Conti's favor on the malfeasance issue, it would probably not even reach the duty to warn issue. While I'm sure Candace, her lawyers and observers here would be pleased with the result, it would have limited precedntial value, as that situation, e.g. elders assigning a child to work with a known pedophile in field service, is probably unlikely to exist in other cases. It's also not a significant change in existing law as malfeasance in these circumstances is already widely recognized as a basis for liability.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

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.

Chaserious

Thanks jwleaks. Appreciate your keeping all of the docs on your site, including the trial transcripts - that's where I read up on this.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

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.

Chaserious

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.

Procedure

The attorneys for the parties will argue before a panel of three judges. There will be no witnesses or testimony, and the parties themselves are not required to attend.
The rules allow 30 minutes for the defendants and 30 minutes for the plaintiff. Since there are two defendants in this case (the Watchtower and the North Fremont Congregation), it wouldn't be unusual to allow them more time, so that they aren't limited to 15 minutes each. The defendants (or appellants, as they are called here) will go first, and will usually save time for rebuttal, so will also speak last. Only one lawyer can speak for each party, and it appears that it will be Watchtower's appellate lawyer from a private firm, and not a Watchtower in-house attorney. The congregation is also represented by a different private firm.
The lawyers might be able to speak freely for most of their allotted time, or they may be peppered with questions from the judges. It depends on the judges.
The panel will issue a written opinion deciding the appeal within 90 days.

Issues

The WTS has six arguments. (Sorry, but I'm on my tablet and don't have the links to the briefs. They can be easily found online). Four arguments go to overturning the verdict and last two relate to punitive damages only.
The biggest issue is whether a negligence verdict is supported at all under California law given the facts of this case. A major dispute is whether the evidence supports misfeasance by the Cong. & WTS (in other words, doing something affirmatively wrong, rather than failing to warn). I suspect they will take up this issue in court.
The only alleged misfeasance evidence is that, according to Candace Conti's lawyer, the elders assigned Candace to work with her abuser in field service. However, the defendants say there was no evidence of this at trial. Unless I am missing something, I tend to agree that there was not evidence of this.
There was testimony that the elders assigned people to field service groups and set meeting times, and that at some point Candace was with her abuser going door to door. But it seems there was a lack of testimony that any elder assigned Candace to specifically pair up with the pedophile in field service.
If Conti's lawyers can't win on misfeasance, their next hope is to uphold the verdict on a failure to warn/failure to prevent theory, based on a special relationship between the defendants and Ms. Conti. There is not a lot of authority for this under CA law (or at least this doesn't fit neatly into a box that there is a body of law on), so if it comes down to this issue, it may depend on whether the judges are willing to blaze a bit of a new trail. I get the sense that the trial judge had a strong feeling about this case from being closer to the facts and issues, and was not afraid to push the boundaries of established law on when a special relationship arises that gives rise to a duty to warn or protect.

The defendants' second argument on appeal relates to jury instructions. I won't go into too much detail, except to say that the arguments claim that (1) the trial judge refused to give the jury the option to assign a percentage of fault to law enforcement entities and/or Candace's parents, (fault was allocated 60% molester, 27% WTS, 13% Congregation) (2) the trial judge should have explained to the jury that clergy did not have a legal duty to report abuse at the time, and (3) the judge didn't appropriately explain to the jury how the defendants could have satisfied the duty to warn.
I don't know that there is much here for the defendants to work with, but jury instructions are one of the most common grounds for reversal. Unlike the first issue (where the defendants could basically win the case if they succeed) if there is a reversal on jury instructions, a new trial would be ordered, so that different instructions can be given in the new trial.

That's about all I have time for. I think the other two issues raised by WTS are probably just noise in any event. Punitive damages I didn't really get to anyway. Hopefully some member of the JWN community will attend and report back.

-C

38

Who Benefits from the Multi-Billion Dollar Real Estate Empire that is WT?

by TTATTelder in

this thread is to formally address this subject.

this is for forum members and especially for lurkers (current witnesses reading this in secret).

please feel free to post any additional points.. there are a lot of changes happening in wt land.

Chaserious

In the US, ministers don't have to pay taxes on housing costs used in the course of providing ministerial services, whether it's free housing or an allowance. Medical expenses are not taxable for anyone. Even if you work for a for-profit company you don't pay tax on what your employer pays for your health insurance.

Same goes for hotel and plane tickets - if you travel for business for a private employer, you don't have to pay taxes on what that costs. Now if the WTS was paying for a pure vacation, it might be income. But you can bet whenever a GB member goes to Fiji, he gives a talk and thus it's the equivalent of business travel. Just one of the perks of the job.

22

Obama and Muslims

by Shanagirl1 in

in audacity of hope he writes: i will stand with the muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

the quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of the audacity of hope.. he couildn't march in solidarity.

yesterday the "political winds shift" happened.

Chaserious

What a perfect example of how the vitriolic Obama haters never let minor things like facts get in their way.

29

Conti Appeal Oral Arguments slated for 9 A.M., Jan. 14, 2014. Recap of Defendant Watchtower's Complaint of Errors for your info.

by AndersonsInfo in

conti appeal hearing-summary of watchtowers complaint of errors with plaintiff's reply.

the following statements were taken from the introduction of respondents brief a136641 -attorney richard simons' response for plaintiff.

defendants argue that the affirmative duty imposed by the trial court impinges on their religious freedom.

Chaserious

Let's say it goes all the way to CA Supreme Court and WT loses there. Can WT then try taking it to the US Supreme Court?

Yes, although they cannot appeal the special relationship/duty to warn issue to the US Supreme Court, which is probably the issue that the CA appeal court will be most interested in (and probably their strongest argument on appeal). Since that relates only to state law, the Supreme Court cannot hear that issue. Here is a link to the jwleaks post of the WTS appeal brief, which outlines the six grounds for appeal raised by WTS. It appears to me that in theory, four of the other six arguments aside from the duty to warn issue could be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Technically, they could ask the US Supreme Court to hear the case even if the CA Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal.