AbusedandPissed

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 81 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AbusedandPissed

• 
  27

  Is it clergy privilege?

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

  regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

  would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  The privilege is defined by the law not what you consider yourself to be.
• 
  27

  Is it clergy privilege?

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

  regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

  would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  Parents of Minor Child v. Charlet,

  It dealt with the victim telling the priest of the sexual abuse. The victim sued the priest and the diocese over them not reporting the abuse. The victim revoked the privilege in the civil case. The priest and the diocese refused to testify because of how Louisana law is written both the priest and the person giving the communication can invoke the privilege. The diocese and priest said that it is canon law not to divulge the communication ever except within the priesthood. The court just last year ruled that because of how the law is written that the priest and the diocese are prevented from providing testimony.

  Actually very interesting that case went to the court of appeals twice for two separate issues. At one time the court actually ruled that the mandatory reporting was unconstitutional but that was overturned.
• 
  27

  Is it clergy privilege?

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

  regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

  would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  Finkelstein:

  The only problem is that there are states and countries where the privilege states that a member of the clergy is not allowed to report it. Not that it is an option or not. Louisana, for example, their Supreme Court ruled in that fashion.
• 
  27

  Is it clergy privilege?

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

  regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

  would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  The courts have looked at this both in Deleware, Vermont and Ohio.

  The case in Vermont was the Berry case and the court did not answer it because they didn't need too. But the court did raise it. The court asked if a client comes into a lawyers office and speaks with a lawyer if that lawyer then talks to people in his firm including other lawyers and paralegals does that mean that the client can't expect privilege. The court seemed to indicate that it did not think so.

  In Ohio, it is the McFarland case where someone wrote letters to the service department. The Plaintiff's attorney claimed that because the letter may have been read by a number of different people that there is no privilege. The court ruled that regardless of how many people read it or know it it is what is the expectation of the person who started the communication. The court ruled that the letters that dealt with purely spiritual matters were a privilege, those that didn't speak of purely spiritual nature were not.

  In the Deleware case where the court found that there was no privilege. The court ruled in that manner not because multiple elders knew about it, which they did say would not have been a violation or a removal of the privilege. The court ruled that there was no privilege because the elders were the ones that initiated the conversation and that the teenage boy did not go to them. They also said that it was because the boy was punished by the reproof.
• 
  15

  Randy Wall case linked to on JWdotORG

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  under "breaking news" on jwdotorg, there is a link to a court case in canada that was just resolved on may 31st.. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17101/index.do.

  it's in regard to him being disfellowshipped, and the court says they can't get involved.

  jwdotorg gives this statement about their victory:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  StephaneLaliberte

  The court in it's decision actually brought up shunning and acknowledged that it could be very distressing.

  [31] Had Mr. Wall been able to show that he suffered some detriment or prejudice to his legal rights arising from the Congregation’s membership decision, he could have sought redress under appropriate private law remedies. This is not to say that the Congregation’s actions had no impact on Mr. Wall; I accept his testimony that it did. Rather, the point is that in the circumstances of this case, the negative impact does not give rise to an actionable claim. As such there is no basis for the courts to intervene in the Congregation’s decision-making process; in other words, the matters in issue fall outside the courts’ jurisdiction.
  
• 
  15

  Randy Wall case linked to on JWdotORG

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  under "breaking news" on jwdotorg, there is a link to a court case in canada that was just resolved on may 31st.. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17101/index.do.

  it's in regard to him being disfellowshipped, and the court says they can't get involved.

  jwdotorg gives this statement about their victory:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  lastmanstanding that is just called assault and that is a crime.
• 
  15

  Randy Wall case linked to on JWdotORG

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  under "breaking news" on jwdotorg, there is a link to a court case in canada that was just resolved on may 31st.. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17101/index.do.

  it's in regard to him being disfellowshipped, and the court says they can't get involved.

  jwdotorg gives this statement about their victory:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  How is this a narrowly crafted decision? The court actually made it very broad and far-reaching. The court ruled as a precedent that it is not for civil courts to interfere with the internal operations including discipline of its members and who they choose to allow to be members. The court ruled that the only time the court can interfere is if there was a legally established legal right, such as a contract or property rights.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  This was a narrowly written opinion. It did not come close to answering the question of if someone could do this on religious grounds. The court only found in this case that the board that initially ruled on this showed bias against the baker and that he was not able to receive a fair hearing.

  BTW the court did use a JW case in their decision.
• 
  7

  Tacoma Dome regional conventions

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is the spot where most of washington state and even parts of oregon have had thier regional conventions.

  there would be as many as 4 conventions during the summer.

  this year none.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  The Tacoma Dome website does talk about the renovations. There are no events at the dome from the second part of June to the second to the last day in August.
• 
  16

  Governing Body Just got Spanked

  by Bill Covert in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  yesterday in watchtower documents there was published "flawed decrees conceal criminals.

  barbara anderson examined the rnwt revision of lev.5:1 and revealed the wtb&ts to be deceptive as to applying it to congregation members being required to "tattle" on their brothers to expose sin.

  she shows that is just not so as lev.5:1 has nothing to do with tattling.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  Actually, Barbara Anderson is incorrect in one way. HIPAA did not come into effect until 1996 and the article that she refers to in the beginning is from 1987 prior to any laws requiring the protection of health records. It may have been a policy of the hospital but not of federal law. I am not sure of any laws prior to HIPAA.