Posts by Celestial

58

The "Secrecy Policy

by Celestial in

i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.

after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.

there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.

Celestial

Are all the Same Person who keeps getting Booted Off of JWN..

One of her Favorite Subjects..

Supporting the "WBT$ Hide the Child Molester" Policy..

There's only two active forums with some diversity;

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/

I thought the purpose of this California case was to reveal the truth about Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy. If you're going to reduce Jehovah's Witnesses to serial pedophiles or those that condone their behavior, it says something about you if suppress the speech of those that step in to the arena to respond to what they're being accused of. I'm not an active witness, but I know their not that. People callous to child abuse. If there was ever someone that was a victim of injustice related to this issue, it could inspire prejudice. It's not uncommon for people to become racist do to be being victimized by someone of another race. There's less logical construct behind something like that in comparison with an organizational practice, but the potential still exists for prejudice. Drawing on the suppression of speech practiced in their religious community as a reason to suppress their speech is a card to play. If that's how you want it.

I was kicked off here because people used profanity toward me and I cussed back. Not for my for addressing this issue. The overall behavior on these forums can be intolerant at times. I think that's why you took a vacation from this forum.

58

The "Secrecy Policy

by Celestial in

i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.

after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.

there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.

Celestial

IF A CHILD GOES TO AN ADULT THAT IS IN PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICE THAT ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT. Report the incident and let the professionals handle the situation. There are also laws in place to protect the reporter so they are not held repsonsible.

"IF A CHILD GOES TO AN ADULT THAT IS IN PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICE THAT ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT."

That's not what this California case is about and I never said a victim reporting abuse constituted a “penitential communication.” If a child were to go to an elder for help and they failed to take any common sense approach, sure they could be held liable for neglect, regardless if they were mandated reporters or not. I'll have to check the case files to see if Candace Conti claims she told the elders about the alleged abuse as a child. You would think the first person she would tell, would be her parent(s).

In this California case, two elders were called to a home meeting. The man's wife and daughter were present. Why did you think the elder's didn't report what was told to them to the police? It very well could have been that the man's wife was dead serious about what happened with her daughter and was on top of it like a hawk. If she wanted to press charges against her husband, that's a venue she would have pursued. At the time, his wife wanted to preserve the unity of her family and police involvement would have complicated this objective. Several months later, she changed her mind and reported him. I'm sure she divorced him. The 1994 conviction reveals, that the authorities didn't consider his propensity for abuse to be a threat level that required any forced intervention. How could an elder be held accountable for their actions on this matter if they weren’t mandated reporters?

There's also another issue to consider. What if an adult starts having flashbacks of childhood abuse? There's two ex in-laws in my family that had this experience. I won't go into the details because they are too horrifying to share, but it involved sexual and ritual abuse of a child by family members. I don't know who these family members were because I never asked. I'd never met them. I didn't care to meet them after this. I don't know if they were ever Jehovah's Witnesses, but they certainly weren't at the time this abuse was reported,

When the flashbacks started in 1993, my aunt's husband started acting really strange. He separated from his wife and showed up at our house to stay temporarily and started meeting with the elders. His condition progressively worsened in severity and when he attempted suicide he was admitted to a hospital. The hospital said it was the worse case of abuse they had ever seen. There was an announcement made at the Kingdom Hall that he was in a hospital and wanted no visitors. I was told it wasn't possible to prosecute the people that abused him because of the statues of limitation. You would think the hospital could substantiate the abuse and their testimony would be admissible in court. He was on full disability until 1998. I don't know what happened with him since then because no one in our family talks about him anymore.

Are you suggesting that religious institutions should become entangled in litigation in response to these types of situations involving rank-and-file members? If you can produce a case of this nature regarding similar situations, I guess you can see what comes of it.

58

The "Secrecy Policy

by Celestial in

i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.

after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.

there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.

Celestial

The Watchtower's standards are not a factor. It is not the elder's job to corroborate or substantiate evidence of an alleged crime. If they are informed about a crime the proper authorities should be notified immediately. The reason why a reporting mandate exists in 2012 is because it's a reflection of a moral standard that has always existed. A standard that the Watchtower has to be forced to comply with. The secular authorities or the "Roman Soldiers", however unpleasent they are, are the ones that mediate crime. An "elder" or a deacon of tested nobility (1 Tim 3) would be versed in moral law which is the only true law. Secular laws are just a best guess that reflect the ebb and flow of the laws of morality which have always existed in humanity from the beginning.

The branch should not be notified about the crime. The only reason why they are involved is because they assert to have appointed the shepards of the flock of Jehovah's Witnesses by Holy Spirit. Therefore they have spiritual/legal liability for the actions of the people who they appoint. In the real world a man of nobility would simply notify the authorities of an alleged crime. Like calling 911 when you hear your neighbohr scream. But instead of calling 911 the Watchtower elders speak with a legal department first on the phone and are given instructions that are completely transparent to the secular public and the flock itself. This is immoral and unlawful. The elders of the Watchtower are not actually spiritual leaders, but part of a religious hierarchy scheme with purposes that are also transparent to the public and their own flock. You are defending the JW child protection policy, which actually harms victims. I hope one day you can see the ludicrousness of your actions in this thread. The elders are not qualified as per 1 Tim 3 and the proof is in the pudding.

The laws are not necessary a reflection of moral standards that have always existed (study the Inquisition) and laws change over time. Through the coarse of crime and punishment, a person is allowed rights to verying degrees. No rights would mean a perpetrator should be locked up forever, shot or subjected to torture and mutilation which is what happens to some of these people in prison.

Arguments are waged as to the management of those who commit crimes. Our society has at times had impoverished resources to answer such questions and limited options are available, so all too often, the answer is prison. The truth of the matter, is the government has taken programs it feels are effective alternatives to hospitalization and jails into consideration.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.cfm

As a doctrine of some faiths, clergy must maintain the confidentiality of pastoral communications. Mandatory reporting statutes in some States specify the circumstances under which a communication is "privileged" or allowed to remain confidential. Privileged communications may be exempt from the requirement to report suspected abuse or neglect. The privilege of maintaining this confidentiality under State law must be provided by statute. Most States do provide the privilege, typically in rules of evidence or civil procedure. If the issue of privilege is not addressed in the reporting laws, it does not mean that privilege is not granted; it may be granted in other parts of State statutes.

This arrangement exists in the state of California circa 2012. This arrangement obviously won't appease the mind of an atheist. The idea of repenting to a “God” and any “discipline” a church may administer as a form of corrective action. If this law should be amended in 2013, can all churches that respected it be sued into oblivion on a rank-and-file basis? I've never seen it happen.

It's been argued that the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow for “pastoral communications” to absolve them of their legal obligation to report abuse. I can't understand how this arrangement can even be deemed scriptural.

Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear. 1 Timothy 5:19, 20

The point of bringing this up, is the government has made allowance for a reason to not report abuse. In recognition of this principle, when it comes to incidents that took place before January 1, 1997, when religious leaders became mandated reporters, Jehovah's Witnesses can't automatically incur liability. They respected a principle recognized by the federal government and they obeyed the law.

It's an item of interest that this article was published on January 1, 1997.

w97 1/1 pp. 28-29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked

What if a baptized adult Christian sexually molests a child? Is the sinner so wicked that Jehovah will never forgive him? Not necessarily so.

Indeed, his sins can be washed clean if he repents sincerely from the heart and turns his conduct around. However, he may still have to struggle with the wrong fleshly impulses he cultivated. (Ephesians 1:7) And there may be consequences that he cannot avoid.

Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this.

It seems that Jehovah's Witnesses allow these people civil rights on a limited capacity. They were made aware, that a “child molester” may be lurking amongst you. I don't see that assuming this risk is any different than any other religion that respects the “confidentiality of pastoral communications” accept for the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses excommunicate those who repeat this crime.

58

The "Secrecy Policy

by Celestial in

i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.

after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.

there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.

Celestial

"Your lengthy analysis of the JW child protection policy doesn't line up with Paul's qualifications in the slightest. The moral thing to do upon hearing about pedophilia is to get involved. In this day in age the local law enforcement is usually your best bet. But you still take matters into your own hands by informing them. Yet, for whatever reason, Elders of congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, which were sworn by oath into an office of nobility under the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3, report first to the branch office for legal advice before taking righteous action. Only when the situation has first been assessed with a legal lense of the Watchtower do elders take matters into their own hands. This is like calling a snake noble. This obvious legal maneuver was never going to shield the Watchtower from it's crimes forever. It's merely a pathedic attempt to unnaturally elongate the life of a religion that should be long dead.

In 1 Timothy is speaks of leaders being "tested" before being placed into a position of responsibility. I assert that your organization's tests are completely inadequate and yield dangerously ineffective leadership. That is where the problem lies. In the Society's people taking oaths that they ought not. They aren't the kind of men of nobility that it takes to stand up to something like pedophilia. No, the company yes men are the ones that are chosen and from a pool of lesser yes men. The good ones are told to shut up or are chased out. You disgust me Celestial. I don't honestly know how you sleep at night. It's like Outlaw said: selectively stupid.

-Sab"

I wasn't just analyzing their policy, I was also analyzing this case. Mandatory reporting laws limit a person's options as to “taking matters into your own hands.” This is basically the federal government telling the Watchtower Society or any profit or non-profit organization that has deemed their authority figures or any person for that matter a mandated reporter: “What you think should be done about a select situation isn't your call, it's ours.”

A question may arise. “What if by our standards, we feel that a certain matter is, “uncorroborated or unsubstantiated?” The laws in some states are definitive on this issue.

http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm

In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law. Additionally, the victim or anyone else who has knowledge of the allegation may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

According to their public policy, the purpose for contacting the Watchtower Society's legal department is “to ensure that they comply with the law,” not simply for the purpose of receiving “legal advice.” The difference between “legal advice” and “to ensure that they comply with the law” is that the latter means they follow up and make sure that the matter is seen through to its completion. They may even obtain a police report and keep it on file if they can freely obtain such a record.

As a Bible-based religion, the Watchtower Society can't require anything from congregation elders, other than what is specified in the Bible and what the law requires of them.

Then he said to them: “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” Matthew 22:21

If this simple premise can't protect the Watchtower Society from litigation, if they can't mold their policy within this logical framework, we're entering a zone where the law, logic and principle need not apply.

Civil liability seems to make an allowance for frivolous litigation.

58

The "Secrecy Policy

by Celestial in

i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.

after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.

there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.

Celestial

What should change??

How about changing the part where the elders tell the family they can't tell anyone in the congregation about what happened?

How about the elders going straight to the police?

How about that, for a start?

The elders can't make announcements about illegal activities and it shouldn't be discussed in the congregation. If any action is to be taken outside the Christian arrangement concerning a matter like this, it would involve going to the police. That's why the government has established mandatory reporting laws.

Under this arrangement, the elders can go to the police with impunity. If a congregation members are concerned about the fact that the elders contacted the police or they don't like the outcome of the subsequent police investigation, whatever that outcome may be, they can take it up with their local congressman, because as a “mandated reporter,” an elder had no choice but to report the matter.

It may be, that the elders do contact the police in response to this issue, even if the law doesn't require them to. In the early 1990's, the elders contacted CPS about man going from congregation to congregation that was abusing his children. It was actually pretty horrifying to learn about the matter, because you would think he was normal person if you talked to him at the Kingdom Hall just to learn that behind the scenes, he was a sick-o. I could have actually done without learning of the matter as there was really nothing I could do about it.

What's stated in Jehovah's Witnesses protection policy and what goes on in their congregations may at times be two different things, but as a minimum standard, their policy is compliant with the Christian arrangement and compliant with the law.

58

The "Secrecy Policy

by Celestial in

i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.

after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.

there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.

Celestial

If somone gets off in Court for any reason it does not change what he is, a lifelong threat to the young and the vulnerable, the law is not the be all and end all of this, "God's Spirit Directed Organisation" as the WT claims to be should at least have the "Natural affection" that Paul spoke of to make absolutely certain those at possible risk are protected.

Celestial, you are making me want to come and smack your head against a wall until you understand the above, Jeez, I belong to a small voluntary association that has no money, we have a proper protection policy and a working proramme that ensures a responsible person makes sure no abuse could take place, we do much more than the law demands, if we can do that JW's can, and already should be, except that like you, all of them fulfill the scripture about having "No natural affection".

What about Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy do you want to change?

From your perspective, this a human issue, not a theological issue. The two issues are directly related, but you may not see it that way, so exclude the latter.

One of my main concerns about this case was whether or not the elders broke the law. If they did violate mandatory reporting laws, this could implicate the Watchtower Society because elders contact their legal department in the instance that accusations or confessions of child-abuse are received.

http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm

However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law. Additionally, the victim or anyone else who has knowledge of the allegation may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

http://www.jw-media.org/gbl/20071121.htm
For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse. Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide are united in their abhorrence of this sin and crime.—Romans 12:9.

We do not condone or protect child molesters. Our elders expel unrepentant sinners who commit this crime.(1 Corinthians 5:13) In the United States, over 80,000 elders currently serve in over 12,300 congregations.(Acts 20:28) During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the United States. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course, one victim is one victim too many. However, the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare.

Congregation elders comply with child abuse reporting laws.(Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1) We do not silence victims. Our members have an absolute right to report this horrible crime to the authorities. The October 2007 issue of our monthly journal Awake! features the cover series,“Keep Your Children Safe!” These articles clearly show our concern for protecting children from sexual abuse.
----------

What it comes down to, is why was a settlement offered on behalf of the victims in 2007?

Read a “Discussion of Liability Issues” in court documents filed on 04-19-2012.

“Settlement Conference Statement of The North Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Fremont California”

“Discussion of Liability Issues”

At the time of the alleged abuse, Kendrick was not an agent of either the North Fremont Congregation or Watchtower of New York. He was not in any position of responsibility or authority within either the congregation or Watchtower of New York. Therefore, Watchtower of New York and the North Fremont Congregation cannot be liable for any alleged conduct by Kendrick that did not occur on Kingdom Hall property or during congregation activity.

“If, arguendo, the abuse occurred, it was by one congregation member against another congregation member. Neither of the Church Defendants can be held liable for abuse of this nature.

Further, the Church Defendants had no legal duty to report abuse of a minor to the authorities before January 1, 1997, (clergy first became mandated reporters at that time) and did not report the touching of Kendrick's step-daughter. Nonetheless, a police report was evidently made by the family and Kendrick was prosecuted.

The minister-communicant privilege is still recognized by California law. The Church Defendants could not have disclosed the 1993 incident without violating that privilege, which belonged to both Kendrick and the Church Defendants.

The fact that Kendrick later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor arising out of the 1993 incident with Andrea was never disclosed to the Church Defendants. The Church Defendants had no notice of "child sexual abuse" by Kendrick in 1993. They had a confession by Kendrick that he had inadvertently or accidentally touched Andrea's breast over her clothes, and Andrea and her mother, Evelyn Kendrick, never told the two elders anything different from what Kendrick had confessed to them (the elders).

The elders of the North Fremont Congregation removed Kendrick from any position of responsibility or authority in 1993 and watched him during church meetings and functions to see whether he acted inappropriately with any children at the Kingdom Hall. Kendrick was not allowed to engage in congregation activity around children without supervision. The elders and Plaintiffs parents never saw Kendrick abuse Plaintiff in the Kingdom Hall. The elders never saw Plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Plaintiff s parents never allowed Kendrick to take Plaintiff to his home.

“Settlement Issues”

If Plaintiff was abused, it was committed by Kendrick, a third party not under the control or supervision of the Church Defendants. Kendrick denies abusing Plaintiff. Further, even if, arguendo, the jury should find that Kendrick abused Plaintiff in the Kingdom Hall by hugging her and having her sit on his lap while her parents were present, the damages for that alleged conduct would be minimal at best. Also, if the jury finds the Church Defendants liable for abuse of Plaintiff off of Kingdom Hall property (such as in Kendrick's private home), the Church Defendants will have little option except to appeal such a verdict. The Church Defendants could not let such a potential precedent go unchallenged.

Finally, Plaintiffs description of the location, nature, and extent of her alleged abuse is contradicted by, among other things, her parents and the elders and thus lacks credibility. No demand for settlement has yet been made by Plaintiff; however, the Church Defendants will participate in the mandatory settlement conference in good faith.”

What this means is the elders complied with mandatory reporting laws. What I said about the state of California's recognition of "penitential communications" has nothing to do with mandatory reporting laws in this case.

The first child abuse reporting law in California was enacted in 1963 under the acronym “CANRA”(Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act). However,“CANRA” has been amended many times since the law was initially passed. I couldn't locate the specifics online as to when the law was amended, but evidently, religious leaders were declared a mandated reporter in California on or after January 1, 1997.

The elders never witnessed the Plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick because it very well could have never happened. I owe Candace Conti's parent(s) an apology for what I've said about her parent(s) voluntarily allowing a thirty or forty year old man to take custody of their minor daughter. Her own parents don't even back her story.

The alleged inapplicability of California evidence code section 1032,“minister-communicant privilege” was described in court document; “Motion in Limine Plaintiff's No, 6 to Exclude Evidence of and Reference to Inapplicable Privilege.”

The Plaintiff's assertions in these documents were addressed by the Watchtower Society in court documents; “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support in opposition” filed on 04-27-12 and “Defendants Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Opposition to Plaintiff's motion in Limine 6,” filed on 05-21-12.

“Elders do not allow unnecessary third parties to be a party to a confidential communication. At times more than one elder may be a party to the conversation. For instance, it is Jehovah's Witnesses religious belief and practice to have at least two elders present during a judicial investigation and at least three elders present during a judicial committee. (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18: 15-17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19)”

“Jehovah's Witnesses believe that men are imperfect and, therefore, three elders serving on a judicial committee can provide more full and complete spiritual counsel and advice based on a broader range of experience and knowledge than can a single elder alone. Before one becomes one of Jehovah' s Witnesses, he is made aware of this provision.”

Defendants Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Opposition to Plaintiff's motion in Limine 6,” filed on 05-21-12:

“The elders in this instance spoke with the Kendrick family at their home. That conversation was intended to be confidential an d the elders were there as ministers or religious leaders of the local Jehovah's Witnesses congregation under circumstances requiring them to maintain confidentiality. This was clearly a penitential communication within the Jehovah's Witnesses faith. The members of Kendrick's family present were not "unnecessary third persons to the communications." It is necessary for the Court to view "no third person" to mean no unnecessary third person in order to avoid an unconstitutional establishment of religion. This Court and society in general may be more familiar with confessions of those involving one priest (clergyman) and a penitent. However, this does not allow that to be the standard for "penitential communications" for all religions. The procedures an d protocols of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith require at least two elders to speak to a penitent and that conversations with families of the penitent are still considered confidential and must be maintained as such by the elders. This was particularly true in this instance where the two elders were required by the Bible to counsel and reprove Kendrick before all onlookers to his sin (i.e., Evelyn and Andrea).(1 Timothy 5:20.) This Court cannot require one religion's standard to be the standard for all religions. This would result in the Court becoming overly involved in the purely ecclesiastical disciplinary matters of a religion or favoring one religious practice over another.”

The discussion of liability issues in this case reveal that this recent ruling by a California jury could very well be overturned in a court of appeals as it seems to have no legal precedent, no constitutional foundation and multiple witnesses that contradict the testimony of the Plaintiff. Candace Conti could very well end up with thousands of dollars in legal expenses. This man “Bill Bowens” drags these “victims” through hell to accomplish his “mission” that makes no logical sense. The mission is to attack the Watchtower Society like a pit-bull regardless of expense. There's nothing human about that.

I'm still in the dark as to "What about Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy needs to change?"

This case reveals why the Watchtower Society offered a settlement in 2007, “for the sake of the victims,” not to “cover anything up.”

58

The "Secrecy Policy

by Celestial in

i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.

after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.

there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.

Celestial

I can't begin to tell you how furious I was to read this unadulterated offal from Celestial. The penitent privilege cannot be invoked in any case because first and foremost, the confidentiality that is necessary is never respected, honored, or safeguarded. That privilege has room for only two people, the penitent and the clergyman/confessor/spiritual adviser who is told. JWs invoke a judicial committee of three or more men to hear the confession, keep notes of the meeting, open and maintain files in the congregation's records, and notifies the WTS Legal Department. Any one of these actions voids the claim that the privilege exists. And don't even get me started with the thinly veiled assertion that pedophilia and homosexuality should be viewed in the same light.

This long and drawn out post is nothing more than verbal diarrhea. Just the same, I'm glad to see it because it tells me there is still much work to do and deep malice to overcome still when people like Celestial enter a discussion of this type.

Quendi

I found out what this California law means:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1030-1034

1033. Subject to Section 912, a penitent, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege.

This means a person can confess to child molestation even if a pastor, elder or member of clergy has waived his rights to section 1032. This means a molester can confess to an elder abuse and regardless of the severity, the molester can prevent the elder from disclosing this information to anyone else.

Under this arrangement, an alleged molester, even if the molester is an elder, could not be stripped of his position, disfellowshipped or reported to the secular authorities without subjecting the Watchtower Society to a lawsuit from the molester.

Who really enforces a secrecy policy in religious institutions? The federal government or Jehovah's Witnesses?

This has something to do with why two elders were in the room when Kendrick confessed or why two elders are arraigned when called to any kind of meeting.

As it turns out, the attorney, Rick Simons said in “Motion in Limine plaintiff's No, 6 to exclude evidence of and reference to inapplicable privilege:”

“Defendants Watchtower New York and Fremont Congregation have each argued that they could not warn of Jonathan Kendrick's propensity for sexual abuse, nor inform the Congregation of the reason for his removal as a Ministerial Servant, because to do so would violate the Clergy-Penitent and "Spiritual" Privileges. The Court has previously rejected the argument as to the specific evidence regarding Jonathan Kendrick in this case, both in two separate Motions to Compel Discovery and in Plaintiff's Punitive Damage Pleading Motion. Neither Defendants' agents, nor its Attorneys, should be permitted to testify or argue to the jury that Clergy-Penitent or Spiritual Privileges would have been violated if remedial action regarding Jonathan Kendrick was taken in 1993.”

“In order to apply in California, the Clergy-Penitent Privilege, as codified in Evidence Code section 1032, there must be a "confidential communication."

It's interesting that he excludes Evidence Code section 1033.

“The statements made by the stepdaughter, Evelyn, and Jonathan Kendrick at a family meeting with the Elders in 1993 were all made in the presence of third persons.”

Something else about this case and statements made by Simons, is he is unduly focused on the policies of Jehovah's Witnesses while ignoring the relationship between the Watchtower society and the federal government. Notice, that in this statement, he never makes mention of alerting the police.

“There is simply no factual or legal basis to claim or apply Clergy-Penitent Privilege as to the information received by the Elders in the Kendrick home meeting, or the subsequent actions of Defendants in disciplining him. Therefore any testimony, argument, or evidence that Clergy-Penitent Privilege prevented warning the Congregation or its adults and parents that Jonathan Kendrick was removed from his position as a Ministerial Servant because of an act of child sexual abuse is without legal or factual basis.”

This case seems to be more about what Jehovah's Witnesses do in their congregations than whether or not they alert the authorities.

If the legal options of this lawsuit are exhausted and the Watchtower Society has to settle on behalf of the plaintiff, they'll simply adjust their current policy. They'll state that “Clergy-Penitent Privilege doesn't not protect a penitent because of standards and practices within Jehovah's Organization.”

This doesn't mean they'll make “announcements” about an alleged molester, they'll automatically route all confessions to the respective authorities. All the authorities did with Kendrick in 1994 was convict him of a misdemeanor and slap him with a small fine. If the authorities don't send a molester to prison or place him on the sex-offender registry, how can anything more be expected from the congregation?

I think this case will be overturned in a court of appeals because any reasonable person should see that the statutes of the Clergy-Penitent Privilege in the state of California are more problematic than the policies of the Watchtower Society and the actions of law enforcement were no different than that of the elders.

58

The "Secrecy Policy

by Celestial in

i've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions.

after examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what i've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement.

there's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable.

Celestial

I've given this recent lawsuit quite a bit of thought and come to sound conclusions. After examining other organization's child-protection policies (namely churches), what I've come to realize is there's a one-size fits all solution that's socially acceptable; all information obtained through witnesses and confessions by organizational personnel is be used to aid and abet law-enforcement. There's no in-between or anything short of this objective that's socially acceptable. Pedophilia is believed to be a sexual orientation like homosexuality, in that it's hardwired into a person's biological makeup and thus incurable. Pedophiles should thus be locked up and the key thrown away or shot.

I'm half a JW or maybe a fourth, but I know Jehovah's Witnesses believe a person can change. What I am confused about, is what about Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy needs to change?

http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm

In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law. Additionally, the victim or anyone else who has knowledge of the allegation may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

If, when confronted, the accused confesses that he is guilty of child abuse, the elders take appropriate congregational action. If he is not repentant, he will not be permitted to remain a member of the congregation. Even if he is repentant—is cut to the heart and is thus resolutely determined to avoid such conduct in the future—what was stated in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower applies. The article said: “For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation.
----------------------------------------

In view of the above statements, congregation elders can do little next to nothing to aid and abet law-enforcement by collecting information from their congregants. At best, they can route information to the respective authorities, but ultimately, an eyewitness has to cooperate with the authorities and corroborate their observations in a court of law. In all practicality, it shows initiative on the part of an eyewitness to contact the authorities from the onset.

The only other way an elder would know anything is if a molester voluntarily confesses something to an elder.

The circumstances in this recent lawsuit falls somewhere in-between these two sources as a means to gather information. I looked up the laws relative to mandatory reporting in the state of California in 1993 and came up with the following:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=evid

Article 8. Clergy Penitent Privileges ......................... 1030-1034

1030. As used in this article, a "member of the clergy" means a priest, minister, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church or of a religious denomination or religious organization.

1031. As used in this article, "penitent" means a person who has made a penitential communication to a member of the clergy.

1032. As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.

1033. Subject to Section 912, a penitent, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege.

1034. Subject to Section 912, a member of the clergy, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege.

I could be wrong, but section 1033 and 1034 seem to allow for a third or fourth member to the "party" if relevant to "penitential communication."

Excerpts from court documents:

Filed April 27, 2012

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALLEGE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

“She also ignores California's statutorily-imposed obligation of a clergyman to preserve the confidentiality of information provided by a penitent. Clearly, Dr. Salter's biased and factually unsupported declaration is no justification for allowing Plaintiff to claim punitive damages in this case.”

“That statutory provision, often referred to as the "Clergy-Penitent Privilege," creates an obligation on the part of clergymen to keep penitential communications confidential. While there are obvious exceptions to the Clergy-Penitent Privilege, it is the clergyman's duty to maintain the privilege of the penitent, unless and until the privilege is waived by the penitent.”

“Plaintiff criticizes Watchtower's letter for instructing elders to call Watchtower's Legal Department immediately upon learning of the abuse of a child. Plaintiff is apparently unaware that the Clergy-Penitent Privilege differs widely across the nation, making a standard that can be articulated to all elders across the nation impossible. For example, in Texas, the Texas Family Code section 261.101, mandates that clergy report all suspected child abuse regardless of the existence of a claim of clergy-penitent communication. Thus, Texas elders would be instructed by Watchtower's Legal Department to report all suspected abuse of children to the police no matter how they gained their information. In California, the duty of elders to report to the police depends upon the source of the information and the applicability of the Clergy-Penitent Privilege. Thus, the law of California recognizes and respects the clergy-penitent privilege. Plaintiffs criticism of the letter attached as Plaintiffs Ex. 1 ignores this law as she seeks to paint Plaintiffs Ex. 1 as a mere attempt to avoid civil liability. Plaintiffs critique is both contrary to law and out of sync with the true intent of the letter, which intent is obvious from its content.”
“The Problems with Dr. Salter”

“Dr. Salter's opinion invades the province of the Court. Without citing to a single statute, court decision, promulgated rule, or other source of standards, she opines that a duty existed in 1993-1995 to notify various persons and entities about a confirmed abuser in a congregation's midst.”

“The opinion of Plaintiffs is invalid for another reason. Her opinion fails to meet the California standards for acceptance of expert opinions. Cal. Evid. Code section 801. The foundation of her opinion is inadequate as a matter of law.”

“However, it remains the province of the legislature and the courts, not psychologists, to determine whether a duty arises.”

“The cases offered by Plaintiff to support her claim that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff because they failed to warn or report their "knowledge of the employee or volunteer's history of sexual abuse and failed to warn or protect children exposed to the . abuser" (Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law, p. 6, part II A) are inapplicable to the facts of this case. They impose liability on a principal whose employee (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828), spouse (Pamela L . v. Farmer (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 206), or appointed volunteer agent-Boy S court leader (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America (2000) 8 1 Cal . App.4th 6 377) were known to the defendants in those cases to have abused children in the past. None involved a mere congregation member. None involved a person about whom an allegation was unconfirmed or involved a confession by the perpetrator, given in the presence of the accuser and the accuser 's mother, that he had "briefly and inadvertently" touched her breast over her clothing.”

“None involved a mere congregation member.”

“For Plaintiffs expert to be allowed to provide her opinion that churches must report "confirmed" child abuse to parents, other adults, and public officials, the Court must rule that her opinion is now the law in California, and the California Clergy-Penitent Privilege is no longer good law.”

“Dr. Salter's opinion is further objectionable since she failed to qualify to provide an expert opinion about the status of the law concerning reporting alleged child abuse to authorities or to others in 1993. Further, she did not provide an expert opinion on the propriety of clergy violating the clergy-penitent privilege in order to disseminate information about what the penitent confessed to the elders.”
--------------------------------------

I haven't completely read all of the court documents, but an item of interest is this: “Were the elders protected from litigation under California Clergy-Penitent Privilege? Was a clear explanation of the California statute delivered to the jury?”

Clergy-Penitent Privilege can be abused. In a lawsuit involving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the American Boy Scouts, Timur Dykes acknowledged in early 1983 that he had abused 17 Boy Scouts. That's a far cry in terms of severity from the lawsuit currently underway attacking Jehovah's Witnesses.

In this incident, the Clergy-Penitent Privilege exercised by elders in 1993 was principled even if any legal technicalities conflict with their actions.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12225753-jehovahs-witnesses-ordered-to-pay-more-than-20-million-to-woman-who-said-she-was-sexually-abused?lite

"The ultimate goal of the lawsuit was to have a change in policy, to be able to ID these people, child molesters, to the congregation to protect children," Conti told msnbc.com . "Secondarily, to have silent ones come forward and tell their stories and to bring to light that overall issue of violence and the hush-hush policy."

If the Clergy-Penitent Privilege is destroyed on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses, they'll have no means to “ID these people” through the process of confession.

Mandatory reporting where Clergy-Penitent Privilege has no application: If a suspected abuser has confessed in counseling to the pastor about abusing a minor, the pastor is obligated under as a “mandated reporter” to contact the proper civil authorities. The pastor should state that he/she is a “mandated reporter” to the person seeking counseling or confession prior to the start of the initial session. Pastoral privilege may or may not exist in the event of prosecution; that is, the pastor cannot legally be compelled to testify, but this doesn't mean he won't.

In other words, “Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

It's highly unlikely anyone will confess to wrongdoing if an initial session is tantamount to a police interview. Any strangulation on a perpetrator's right to confess in confidence won't aid and abet Jehovah's Witnesses or the legal system because the arrangement won't exist.

This is what happened in the case of Candace Conti,

The legal system doesn't always step in to efficiently protect society. Johnathan Kendrick was convicted of a misdemeanor 1994 and he wasn't even placed on the California sex-offender registry let alone imprisoned. All the authorities did was slap him with a small fine.

California has had a sex-offender registry since 1947. The government did absolutely nothing to inform anyone of anything. Law enforcement did absolutely nothing to monitor this man's whereabouts, let alone restrict his activities.

The bottom line, is the government didn't consider him to be a dangerous sex-offender. Why should the elders be implicated and condemned in a lawsuit if the elder's opinion was synchronous with that of law enforcement?

All things considered, Jehovah's Witnesses seem to have an effective child protection policy. An internal policy, a Christian arrangement that's tolerant to these individuals rights to constitutional religious freedom while depending on the secular authorities to act when needed.

As for the current policy, it seems that a premise exists to address any and all associated individuals involved child-protection in a fair and balanced standpoint.

http://www.jw-media.org/gbl/20071121.htm

We do not condone or protect child molesters. Our elders expel unrepentant sinners who commit this crime.

Congregation elders comply with child abuse reporting laws. (Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1) We do not silence victims. Our members have an absolute right to report this horrible crime to the authorities.

From many perspectives, congregation elders gave Jonathan Kendrick the benefit of the doubt, by not reporting the activities of his family confessed in good-faith only to get stabbed in back.

It appears the Watchtower Society's “secrecy policy” was rendered obsolete in many states prior to it's scathing criticism.

5

The Bombshell Memo

by Celestial in

http://wcfcourier.com/news/national/calif-jury-awards-m-in-jehovah-s-sex-abuse-case/article_e0667684-7053-573c-a597-fec48ae78bfd.html.

"conti also claimed in her suit that the religion's national leaders formed a policy in 1989 that instructed the religion's elders to keep child sex abuse accusations secret.

congregation elders followed that policy when kendrick was convicted in 1994 of misdemeanor child molestation in alameda county, according to simons.".

Celestial

http://wcfcourier.com/news/national/calif-jury-awards-m-in-jehovah-s-sex-abuse-case/article_e0667684-7053-573c-a597-fec48ae78bfd.html

"Conti also claimed in her suit that the religion's national leaders formed a policy in 1989 that instructed the religion's elders to keep child sex abuse accusations secret. Congregation elders followed that policy when Kendrick was convicted in 1994 of misdemeanor child molestation in Alameda County, according to Simons."

I have the "unclassified" documents accessible on the latest Watchtower CD and http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm pertaining to this ruling.

Are there any aspects of this 1989 policy and subsequent revisions not included in public information disseminated by the Watchtower Society?

4

Recent Sex-Abuse Lawsuit: three questions

by Celestial in

i'm drawing my conclusions from what was reported from msnbc.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12225753-jehovahs-witnesses-ordered-to-pay-more-than-20-million-to-woman-who-said-she-was-sexually-abused?lite .

i plan to retrieve the actual court documents from an official source.

Celestial

The fact that that lawyer is on six screens is disturbing. If someone knows the answer to my questions, fine. If not, thanks anyway. Ryan