https://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-jury-awards-two-women-m-in-sex-abuse-lawsuit/article_1bcabb7c-7381-574b-a2ba-e011cc0250a6.html.
montana jury awards two women $35m in sex abuse lawsuit against jehovah's witnesses .
a jury in northwestern montana awarded two women $35 million wednesday in their lawsuit against the local jehovah’s witnesses congregation and its worldwide headquarters.. .
It is actually 15 million dollars as punitive damages are maxed at 10 million dollars or 3% of the defendant's net worth whichever is least.
One article does say that there is a challenge to the punitive max that is going in Montana but that case probably won't be resolved before the trial judge enters the final decision.
so, i am trying to get my head around what the right position of elders should be when they come across crime is.. i think i get the issuess around clergy confidentiality - and how that might potentially be breached when they talk about it to other elders, let alone the police.. but if people are saying that elders - or clergy of another faith should report crime to the police when it is confessed to the, then where are the boundaries.. so if someone says they should report to police on a confessed example of child abuse, that's one thing.. how about reporting to police consensual sex between a 19year old and 15 year old - which is statutory rape in the uk.
how about criminal fraud if they come across it.
assault on a congregant?.
Well, when civil authorities carve out an exemption of reporting by clergy isn't it the clergy legal responsibility to follow those laws. If someone has murdered someone a normal person would feel regret and pain over their action. That regret may not compel them to seek out a civil authority but they may seek advice from a spiritual guide whether it be a Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, a Jewish rabbi, a Muslim imam or a jw elder. Just like if someone goes and seeks counselling, where that person has had advanced training in their field, there is an expectation that the conversation would be kept confidential.
Also, you have to remember that in most western nations the rules of evidence and the court system is not there to protect the victim or the society but it is there to protect the accused from the abuses of power from the government and law enforcement.
so, i am trying to get my head around what the right position of elders should be when they come across crime is.. i think i get the issuess around clergy confidentiality - and how that might potentially be breached when they talk about it to other elders, let alone the police.. but if people are saying that elders - or clergy of another faith should report crime to the police when it is confessed to the, then where are the boundaries.. so if someone says they should report to police on a confessed example of child abuse, that's one thing.. how about reporting to police consensual sex between a 19year old and 15 year old - which is statutory rape in the uk.
how about criminal fraud if they come across it.
assault on a congregant?.
First of all in most cases there is no law that requires that you report any law, there are very few crimes which requires someone with knowledge to report a crime. Aiding and abiding or a conspiracy after the fact, it involves more than just not reporting a crime it requires overt actions of someone concealing that a crime has been committed.
Second, in many US states, Elders do have priest-penitent privilege. This has been found in Delaware, Vermont and Ohio. The activity falls within that privilege when the elder is acting in their capacity providing spiritual advice or guidance to a parishioner. The idea that it has to be a confession is not listed in most US states laws.
Third, you have to look at the law. In some states, it says that the priest cannot be compelled to give testimony, which might mean that if a priest voluntarily provides this information than they are not being compelled to do anything. But in other states like in New York, the law states that a priest shall not give testimony or provide evidence.
whether you like him or not.... it doesn’t matter.
do you think he will be impeached?
?.
You can flip republican senators way easier than you can flip a Republican congressman. Senators have longer terms and are voted at large which means that it is harder for Trump allies to have to mobilize a larger amount of Trump supporters to vote them out of office. Also, the Senate is a much easier step to the Presidency than from the house, there are plenty of moderate Republican Senators who want to run and will vote for removal because it will make their life easier in a primary and try and bring back the Republican party to a centrist mentality. This going to the far right started 10 years ago it is not all trump and the moderate Republicans are realizing that if they don't stop it now they will lose power maybe now in the next 5 years but once the younger people start to buy homes and vote regularly they will be out forever.
whether you like him or not.... it doesn’t matter.
do you think he will be impeached?
?.
Impeachment is not a legal exercise it is a political one. High Crimes and Misdemeanours doesn't necessarily mean what it is viewed in the standard Penal Code or the US Code. it is pretty much whatever Congress says it is when the member writes up the articles of impeachment.
today a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
So there is some discussion on numbers compared to the CC. First, you can't say 400 Catholic priests out of 1.3 billion. It is 400 catholic priests out of 414,000, that number has been consistent since the 70s. obviously, some have died some have added. If you want to say the number of 1.3 billion you have to include all those that have committed child abuse who are Catholic. You have to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.
Second is this thought on the ARC. If you actually listen to the full testimony you will hear that these were also cases involving child pornography, sexting between a minor and an adult or cases that involved witnesses before they were witnesses. So the number of victims even with child pornography is higher because that is easier to achieve in the volume of victims due to the nature of the abuse. Not saying that it is less evil just saying that is a simple fact. So the number of victims that was actually abused by a witness can be lower, even though the witness that watched child pornography reabused the child by watching it. But some of those cases that Watchtower was made aware, Watchtower was informed by the police, so there was no reason to inform the police again. Some were tried and convicted of the abuse and was in prison prior to them becoming a witness so again no reason to tell the police
Also on the rules. I am not sure who I saw it on here but they said that they had to go through child abuse training. Part of the training was that the first step under suspicion is to report it to their supervisor in order to ensure that the law is followed. Even in this discussion, there is talk that RV will inform the police themselves if they suspect a child is still endangered. Aren't both of these things in the new policy by Watchtower.
today a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
I am in no way saying one is right and the other is wrong or vice versa. Just asking a legitimate question. I know that the RV says that they have spoken with MPs but they are not law enforcement and have no power to investigate a criminal act or prosecute one either.
Clearly they have made a determination to keep matters private if the victim wants it to be kept private and I am no expert in Finnish law but if you say that withholding this information on Watchtower's part is a crime then shouldn't it also be a crime for RV from not going to the police themselves as an organization or individual members in compliance with the law.
today a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
in fact wouldn't by definition RV have a database of suspected criminals that they have not turned over to the police themselves.
today a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
I have a legitimate question. The Reclaimed Voices organization is saying that these reports have come to their attention by the victims. The other point is how I understand it is that under the law in the Netherlands every person and or organization is responsible to report crimes to the police for investigation. Hasn't reclaimed voices put themselves in a position where they are now in violation of the law themselves because they have taken it upon themselves to accept these reports of a crime and holding that information themselves and not reporting it to the police.
a basis for taking legal action against the watchtower society's blood transfusion policy.
.
http://ajwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/blood-misrepresented-2005-kerry-louderback-wood-1.pdf.
If you can sue someone for expressing their truly held opinion especially when that person doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility, then you can sue anyone for saying just about anything. You could sue anti-vaccinators, including President Trump because you chose not to get your kid vaccinated and then they got sick. You chose to listen to someone while not listening to the advice of your child's doctor. Something with the Blood Issue, if your doctor decides that they recommend a blood transfusion you can choose whose advice you want to apply. And yes you might feel that Watchtower has so much control over someone but that doesn't mean that you can sue over it. Even as the paper indicated that saying that people who want to give you a transfusion is from Satan.
Even in the Unitarian case that is the major basis of the article the court wrote.
[21] Leal contends she was falsely imprisoned by the Church at Boonville, at Camp K, at Boulder, at Los Angeles, and at various locations in San Francisco. fn. 16 She admits she was theoretically free to depart at any time; she was not physically restrained, subjected to threats of physical force, or subjectively afraid of physical force. She insists, however, that her "imprisonment arose from the harm she came to believe would result if she left the community." That harm, specifically, was that her family "would be damned in Hell forever and they would forever feel sorry for having blown their one chance to unite with the Messiah and make it to Heaven."
The claim cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Although Leal correctly asserts that false imprisonment may be "effected by ... fraud or deceit" (Pen. Code, § 237), her theory implicates the Church's beliefs: it plainly seeks to make the Church liable for threatening divine retribution. As we stated earlier, such threats are protected religious speech (see Fowler v. [46 Cal.3d 1124] Rhode Island, supra, 345 U.S. at p. 70 [97 L.Ed. at p. 831]; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc., supra, 535 F.Supp. at p. 1139) and cannot provide the basis for tort liability. Accordingly, we hold the Court of Appeal correctly affirmed the summary judgment for the Church as to Leal's action for false imprisonment.
