I’m 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
clerk’s office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.
Once the
clerk’s 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 Conti’s case.
The courtroom
for the 1st Appellate Court is on the 4th floor and takes
up most of that floor. Before entering
the courtroom all electronic devices needed to be given to the California
Highway Patrol officers (CHP) and then visitors go through an additional metal
detector before entering the court. The
courtroom was very nice with seating for over 100 people and a beautiful
painted mural of Mount Whitney viewed from near Highway 395 in the Lone Pine
Area of California.
Arguments were supposed to start at 9:00, but
were slightly delayed because Justice Martin J. Jenkins was delayed due to a
transit problem with the BART mass transit system. Justice Jenkins arrived after the 1st
arguments were heard.
During all
the oral arguments the presiding justice was very strict about allowing 15
minutes (in total) for the appellants’ attorney(s) to present arguments, 15
minutes for the respondents’ attorney(s), and then 5 minutes for rebuttal by
the appellants’ attorney(s). It was up
to individual attorneys not to exceed the total time allocation for each side. IMHO this format favors appellants over
respondents and forces attorneys to focus on the 2 or three most important arguments only.
During the 1st
four arguments for other appeals, the various justices asked a few insightful
questions of the attorneys with their body language projecting thoughtful
review and a familiarity with the issues and arguments being presented by the
attorneys.
Associate
Justices Stuart R. Pollak (presiding justice), Peter J. Siggins, and Martin J. Jenkins heard the oral arguments for Candace
Conti’s case starting at approximately 10:55.
Jon R. Williams
argued for the appellate (i.e., the WTBTS) first for about 10 minutes and James M. McCabe argued for the
Freemont Congregation second for the remaining 5 minutes of the allocated 15
minutes. Rick Simons argued for the
respondent (Candace Conti) for 15 minutes with Kelly I. Kraetsch
sitting next to him. After Rick Simons’
submittal, Jon Williams rebutted for a few minutes and then James McCabe for a
couple of minutes.
From what I could
remember and read from my scribbling notes, Jon Williams was a well-dressed
lawyer who was unfazed by questions from the justices, had a plan to appeal the
judgment, and executed his plan. Heck
even his suit didn’t show wrinkles! Jon
Williams made the following points:
- Separate punitive damages from criminal actions. The elders and Watchtower did not sexual
abuse Candace.
- The Watchtower does not have a “special relationship” with the local
congregation and is not responsible for how the elders conducted themselves.
- The 1989 BOE letter was a key defense that protects the Watchtower.
- The newly introduced nonfeasance theory (i.e., failure to act when
action is required) by Richard Simons was not supported by evidence.
James McCabe was a kindly looking man in a wrinkled suit. James McCabe played the religious beliefs
cards and stated that:
- JWs are just practicing their religious beliefs – not that JWs are
pressured and indoctrinated to participate in FS and may be marked for not
participating.
- There was no testimony or evidence that the elders specifically paired Jonathan
Kendrick with Candace Conti. Putting
Kendrick in the same group as the Conti family does not count.
- Candace Conti’s parents should have been responsible for protecting
Candace from Kendrick. [My retort] Why
didn’t the elders warn Candace’s parents about Kendrick, especially when the
Watchtower and elders indoctrinate all JWs that “JWs are the kindest, most
moral, most trustworthy, honest people in the world??!!
- Kendrick did not sexually abuse Candace while in FS but afterwards.
Based on
their body language all of the justices were very interested in what attorneys
for both appellants said. I almost
thought that the justices knew that something was wrong with what the attorneys
were saying but couldn’t put their fingers on it. Just like I knew something
was wrong with the Watchtower’s propaganda and how JWs behave, but didn’t know
how to prove it to myself until I read Steven Hassan’s book “Combating Cult
Mind Control”.
I liked the
actions of and questions from Justice Jenkins before and during the
arguments. He left the courtroom and
returned with an arm-load of papers weighing about 30 lbs before the arguments. He asked a question of attorney McCabe about
the elder’s actions/inaction using an analogy about talking about a problem in
a tent when the problem was with a camel that was outside the tent.
I really felt
that the justices would affirm the judgment against the Watchtower until I
heard the questions that the justices asked Richard Simons and his responses.
I don’t really
remember much about what Richard Simons said.
When the justices asked him questions, I did feel that he was like a
fighter against the ropes and on the back of his heals. If he had a plan, his plan did not account
for possible questions from the justices.
The four most important things that I remember were:
- Simons said that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury about
“protecting” Candace should by inference include warning Candace and her
parents about Kendricks’ previous abuse.
- Simons said that it was obvious that the Watchtower was responsible for
the actions of the congregation elders.
[My retort] The WTBTS is very careful so it would be very difficult to
show a significant amount of documentation during the trail to demonstrate a “Special
Relationship”.
- Simons did not emphasize that the 1989 BOE letter that he introduce
during the trail was a smoking gun about the special relationship between the
Watchtower and the elders. [My retort] Why
would the WTBTS write that letter in the first place, unless there was a reason to be afraid of liability and wanted
to reduce it?
- When Justice Siggins asked attorney Simons about why the jury assigned
the congregation 13% liability and the Watchtower 27% in the judgment, Simons
responded that it was probably because the jury felt that there were
inconsistencies with testimonies from Watchtower representatives. [My retort]
Lucky break for Candace that the justice gave Simons a chance to address how
WTBTS’s representatives behave.
Hopefully, the
justices will agree with the trial judge’s instructions to the jury and trust
the jury’s decision about the WTBTS’s liability being twice that of the
congregation.
After the appeal
was submitted approximately 30 people left the courtroom including Candace and
Kathleen Conti; attorneys Irwin Zalkin, Alexander Zalkin, and Devin Storey; and
Trey Bundy, an NBC investigative reporter.
Candace Conti and Richard Simons went to complete interviews with the
media.
I overheard
Irwin Zalkin and Trey Bundy console Kathleen Conti to not to be concerned about
the questions that the justices asked Richard Simons.
While waiting
to retrieve my cell phone and laptop, I talked with Devin Storey for a couple
of minutes. Devin Storey said that he
learned a lot from listening to the hearing and was anxious about returning to
his office in San Diego, CA.
After the
hearing I went to the nearby Museum of Asian Art, had lunch there, called
Barbara Anderson to let her know what I saw and heard, and then toured the
Museum. I would really recommend seeing
paintings by Tetsuya
Ishida in the museum and on line.
After observing the
oral argument hearing, IMHO future civil sexual abuse lawsuits against the
Watchtower will need to either show an overwhelming amount of evidence that the
Watchtower does have a “special relationship” over local congregations for
juries (and appellate judges), and/or subpoena GB members. If GB members are subpoenaed, hopefully the
Watchtower would ignore a court order or the GB member would behave like Freddy
Franz did in a Scottish
courtroom. Since the Watchtower is
very careful about what it writes, the following information would probably
need to be introduced as evidence:
- Time slip records of JWs to demonstrate how much control the WTBTS has
over JWs,
- Emphasize that the WTBTS pressures elders to practice the “Two-Witness”
Rule, contact the legal department before calling local police, and that JWs
are indoctrinated not to bring reproach on the WTBTS. The Constitution guarantees that government
is not allowed to infringe on an individual’s beliefs but can regulate an
individual’s actions.
- Testimony from JWs/ex-JWs in a congregation about how they are
influenced by Watchtower propaganda,
- Pertinent Watchtower and Awake! articles about shunning, going in FS,
blindly following instructions by the GB and elders, that JWs are the most
honest and trustworthy people in the world, etc.
- Testimony from experts about undue influence, BITE control, mind manipulation
techniques, and affects of using thought-stopping platitudes.
- Any documentation from the WTBTS like the 1989 BOE letter that demonstrates
how the WTBTS controls local congregations.
Peace be with
you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
