i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
Hawkaw:
I disclose that I'm not up to speed today, ask that you wait and allow me to respond as I am able, and you take advantage of my situation to continue to SHITBOMB the subject with QUANTITY, but little quality.
Well, go ahead. I'm out of the discussion until I feel better.
i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
Hawkaw:
First, let me say that with respect to posting here at JWcom, some days are better for me than others. Yesterday was not a good day, and today has started off even worse. Frankly, I could not get up the motivation yesterday to put together a decent repsonse to your extemely lengthy post, and today is no better. I will try to respond in parts today depending on how my day progresses.
Let me try to address your statements found in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 in your first lengthy post, which you followup on in your second. Yesterday, I posted one answer, which I completely changed to be more tactful. My tactful response got nowhere, so let me go back to being more straight forward.
"Fiduciary Duty" is an exception to the common law rule that Party One is not responsible for protecting Party Two from Party Three. Thus, a discussion of FD naturally involves a discussion of "ordinary negligence". The REES Opinion mixes comments about both in the section it labels as the FD discussion. The statement that I quoted applies to basic ordinary negligence. The MSC is noting that at common law, there is no obligation for churches to protect its' members from each other, thus no action under the "ordinary negligence" theory.
As I acknowledged n my thread-starting post, the MSC DID dismiss the FD allegation due to the complaint's lack of specificity. However, ALSO as I quoted, the court said that it had NEVER found a FD relationship under these circumstances. (The BERRY circ are worse, not better.) As I also acknowledged, BERRY does a much better job making a case for a FD relationship. This POSSIBLY will allow this issue to be tried, but I will be surprised if it is. If the judge instructs the jury correctly on this issue, BERRY loses. If not, Berry loses on appeal. There is no precedent for holding the WTS liable for crimes committed by a parent against his own chid in his own home. The facts of this case are TERRIBLE for testing this issue.
I will try to answer more later, if you will keep it to one topic at a time. That's the best I can do today.
i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
Francis:
My evaluation is right on. If you think otherwise, you simply display your ignorance.
i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
With regard to your comments in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, which seem to indicate that I am misusing a REES Opinion comment regarding "fiduciary duty" by applying it to the BERRY "ordinary negligence" allegation, you must understand that "fiduciary duty" is an exception to the common law rule that one party is not responsible for protecting a second party from the acts of a third party. The MSC fully outlines this in the REES Opinion. Their discussion of "fiduciary duty" includes the quoted remark pertaining "ordinary negligence".
i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
Hawkaw:
No problem. I've been trying to put together a reply for the past 3 hours, but have experienced a series of interruptions.
Rather than try to comment on all points at once, I will try to comment via a series of shorter posts.
You have put a lot of time and effort into your post, and you raise many issues. I will initially try to address those issues which I see as being the ones most "legally" important to how this case will be handled. (I will be happy to address the other points in later posts.)
The BERRY LAWSUIT alleges that the WTS/Cong is guilty of:
1. General Negligence
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
3. Negligence Per Se
In the recent REES case, the Maine Supreme Court addressed both #1 and #2.
The MSC Opinion states the following regarding #1 above:
"... we decline to recognize a [general common law duty] on the part of an organization such as a church to protect its members from each other." (brackets added)
Then, with respect to the "breach of fiduciary duty" claim, the MSC states:
"Bryan has not provided any support for his assertion that a religious organization has a fiduciary relationship with its members that requires it generally to protect those members from other members of the church who may present a danger. [Nor have we ever found a fiduciary relationship to exist in the circumstances presented here.] (brackets added)
Note carefully what the Court said in the brackets. If there had been any previous "precedent" for this type claim, the Court would have provided info about such, with directions for REES to go back and amend his claim. The fact that the REES case was dropped after this decision says much.
I have already addressed #3 in the thread-starting post, so I will reread your thoughts and respond accordingly.
i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
Since you didn't bother to post the short footnote #4 (seems to run counter to your admonition to me), here it is:
{4} . Had the clergy members of the church learned of Baker's assault on Joe Doe more recently, they would have had a statutory duty to report that information to the Department of Human Services and to the appropriate district attorney's office, unless the information was obtained during confidential communications. See 22 M.R.S.A. § 4011(1)(D) (Supp. 1998). Bryan did not raise this issue before the Superior Court, and the amendment adding clergy to the list of mandated reporters was not enacted until long after the facts alleged in the complaint took place. See P.L. 1997, ch. 251, § 1 (effective Sept. 19, 1997) (adding "clergy members" to the list of those responsible for reporting child abuse). [end quote]
The Maine SC is simply noting that the Maine Legislature had subsequently passed a "reporting law". So?
i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
The REES case has been mentioned/discussed throughout this thread and in others, and noone has yet had to ask for my help in locating the opinion.
When I started researching it couple weeks ago, and first plugged a few "key words" into Google, I believe there were about 150 or so hits, with almost every main XJW site having something about it.
So, I saw no need to post a URL which should have already been known by, or easily accessible, to anyone interested in this subject.
Why the "attitude"?
i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
Hawkaw:
I answer your assertions/questions in my very first post starting this thread.
i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.
first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.
second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.
Hawkaw:
Based on your comments in your first two paragraphs, I would suggest that you reread the Opinion-slowly!!!
the above phrase has been bandied about in the past and present, often as a form of insult when the poster disagrees with something another poster has said.. but what exactly do they mean?.
how do you think like a jw?
is there a certain code of synapses that distinguish a jw from a non-jw?.
Prisca:
All I can say is that now you know what I have dealt with for the past few weeks.
On a more positive note, one shitslinger (or more) made some sort of reference which seemed to indicate you were Single. True/false? Looking? Your geography?
Give 'em hell!!!
