4rationality

Joined

• started 2 topics
• posted 17 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by 4rationality

• 
  11

  Jehovah’s Witnesses sued over sex abuse claims—some 2000 cases to choose from.

  by 4rationality in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  divining liability.

  kimberlee norris began evaluating these cases in july 2002. with some 2000 cases to choose from, norris and partner gregory love came up with a rigid profile of what kind of case and where.

  love and norris decided only to take cases where they could prove the church knew its member was a perpetrator and placed him in a position of authority anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  Village Idiot,

  If best plaintiff's outcome of 57 suits filed is 9 cases settled-dismissed with prejudice, Love & Norris would probably look elsewhere for business.
• 
  11

  Jehovah’s Witnesses sued over sex abuse claims—some 2000 cases to choose from.

  by 4rationality in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  divining liability.

  kimberlee norris began evaluating these cases in july 2002. with some 2000 cases to choose from, norris and partner gregory love came up with a rigid profile of what kind of case and where.

  love and norris decided only to take cases where they could prove the church knew its member was a perpetrator and placed him in a position of authority anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  smiddy,

  RE: "all [ie 100%] related to JWs". Not likely. At the time Love & Norris was Silentlambs' go-to firm, so near 100% is reasonable.
• 
  11

  Jehovah’s Witnesses sued over sex abuse claims—some 2000 cases to choose from.

  by 4rationality in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  divining liability.

  kimberlee norris began evaluating these cases in july 2002. with some 2000 cases to choose from, norris and partner gregory love came up with a rigid profile of what kind of case and where.

  love and norris decided only to take cases where they could prove the church knew its member was a perpetrator and placed him in a position of authority anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  Divining Liability

  Kimberlee Norris began evaluating these cases in July 2002. With some 2000 cases to choose from, Norris and partner Gregory Love came up with a rigid profile of what kind of case and where. Love and Norris decided only to take cases where they could prove the church knew its member was a perpetrator and placed him in a position of authority anyway. Norris said, ”We only take extreme cases where molestation has been reported to the congregation and the organization gives him its blessing by giving him authority.”

  As of May 2004, the firm had filed 57 suits across the country.

  Best plaintiff’s outcome, it appears-- 9 cases in California, Texas, Oregon, settled/dismissed with prejudice, 2007.

  The ‘Firm Overview’ at Love & Norris indicates a different kind of practice, a more profitable direction.
• 
  42

  Conti Respondent’s Brief - Can AnnOMaly’s theory Rescue Simons’ CRITICAL FACT ?

  by 4rationality in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  simons critcal fact = defendants assigned candace to perform field service with kendrick.

  martinez testified that she saw candace and kendrick in field service together.

  was candace ever assigned to anyone else?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  Simons’ CRITCAL FACT = “defendants assigned Candace to perform field service with Kendrick.”

  Simons’ Brief: there was plenty of evidence that in fact Candace was assigned to perform field service with Kendrick. She testified that sometimes, when neither parent was available, she went to field service without them and that on some of those occasions she was assigned to perform field service with Kendrick. (6 RT 726-728.)

  FACT: Simons is mistaken. Nowhere in 6 RT 726-728 is Candace assigned to perform field service with Kendrick.

  -

  Simons’ Brief: [Candace’s] testimony was corroborated by Congregation member Carolyn Martinez, who saw Kendrick and Candace in field service together. (6 RT 662, 663, 666.)

  FACT: Simons is mistaken. Nowhere in 6 RT 662, 663, 666, does Martinez corroborate that Candace was assigned to perform field service with Kendrick.

  = The Appellate Court will NOT find Simons’ CRITICAL FACT in evidence.

  AnnOMaly has a theory = “Kendrick and Candace were seen together in FS [field service], then logically, the elders must have assigned Candace and Kendrick”.

  Let’s TEST AOM’s theory. Is the theory objective, comprehensive or NOT?

  Martinez testified that she saw Candace and Kendrick in field service together. (6 RT 663, 666)

  LOGIC: The perfect opportunity for Simons to establish his CRITICAL FACT. Just ask Martinez—When did you see that? Was that after 1993? What were the circumstances? Were they alone?— But Simons passed. Logically he had good reasons NOT to ask the critical questions. Simons DID ask Martinez two questions about Kendrick’s dog!

  -

  Martinez testified that from 1990 through 1992 her family and Candace’s family and Kendrick’s family were in the same field service meeting group. (6 RT 662, 665, 668, 669)

  LOGIC: NO doubt Martinez did see Candace and Kendrick together in field service more than once during that two to three year period. Logically any such sightings before November 1993 does nothing for Simons’ CRITICAL FACT. And since Simons decided NOT to ask the critical questions, he left his CRITICAL FACT hanging by the thread of the least probable of several possibilities. Logically he had very good reasons NOT to ask.

  -

  Martinez testified that in the 16 or so years that she knew Candace, she never saw Candace come to field service without one or both of her parents. (6 RT 658, 660, 668)

  LOGIC: On the occasions that Martinez saw Candace and Kendrick together in field service one or both of her parents were also present. Logically Candace and Kendrick were NOT “assigned” because as Simons wrote, “when neither parent was available, she went to field service without them and that on some of those occasions she was assigned to perform field service with Kendrick.”

  -

  Martinez testified that she had been very active in Congregation activities for nearly 20 years. (6 RT 658, 661)

  LOGIC: Another perfect opportunity for Simons to establish his CRITICAL FACT. Just ask Martinez— Wasn’t Elder-assigned-field-service partners the standard order of procedure? Was Martinez ever “assigned” to Candace? Was Martinez ever “assigned” to anyone? Was Candace ever “assigned” to anyone else?— Again Simons decided NOT to ask the critical questions. Logically he had good reasons NOT to ask.

  = Logically AOM’s theory does not rescue Simons’ CRITICAL FACT. The 37 holes in Simons’ Brief still glare.
• 
  212

  Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641

  by jwleaks in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.

  (90 pages).

  http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

   

  • Candace Conti v. Watchtower

  • Respondent's Brief

  • by Rick Simons

  Justice Delayed

  SIMONS, in his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF, all but abandoned his nonfeasance arguments that so impressed Judge Robert McGuiness and the lay jurors. Why would he do such a thing? Someonemust have explained the Principles of American tort law relevant to nonfeasance liability claims.

  • “It is black-letter law that one may have an affirmative duty to protect another from harm where a special relationship exists. The critical question, therefore, is whether there existed some special relationship between [Plaintiff] and defendants which would give rise to an affirmative duty to act.” —Justice Kaufman, Supreme Court of California,1988

  • In order to survive a motion to dismiss a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts constituting the alleged relationship with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine whether, if true, such facts could give rise to a fiduciary relationship.

  • A court must determine whether a voluntary organization such as a church has a special relationship with its members that gives rise to a duty to protect those members from other members of the organization.

  • A court must have before it specific facts constituting the basic elements of a fiduciary relationship, […] specific aspects of the plaintiff’s relationship with the church that are distinct from those of its relationship with any other members, adult or child, of the church.

  POOR Simons. A better lawyer would have known better. The fact is, at trial, Simons put before the Court NO “specific aspects of the plaintiff’s relationship with the church that [were] distinct from those of its relationship with any other members, adult or child, of the church”. Regardless, via Juarez, Judge McGuiness gave Simons a “bye”. Big mistake. When hindsight— or whatever—exposed his own and the trial court’s errors, Simons attempted to salvage what little remained of his case. He only compounded his problems. 

  Ignorance or What?

  • "It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant." (Hines v. California Coastal Com 'n, Bd. of Supervisors of Sonoma (20 1 0) 186 Cal.App.4th 830, 846-847.)

  A nonfeasance theory was the thrust of Simons’ entire case at trial. Indeed, from Simons‘ opening statement through post-trial motions—including his punitive damages argument— Simons repeatedly and consistently pressed a nonfeasance theory of liability. Post-trial, however, clear and overwhelming legal precedent established that there was never a special relationship between Candace and defendants.

  A better lawyer would have known better BUT in his RESPONDENT”S BRIEF Simons simply asserts a new and wholly different theory of liability—misfeasance. Poor Simons, his Brief violated “a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried.” Could it get any worse for Simons?

  From Bad to Worse—Simons’ 37 Holes

  POOR Simons’ Brief opened with the sentence:

  • Plaintiff Jane Doe (Candace Conti) was nine years old when the elders of defendant North Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“Congregation”) repeatedly assigned her to participate with Jonathan Kendrick, a man known to them as a child molester, in the Congregation’s door-to-door ministry known as “field service.”

   

  Simons repeated versions of, assigned Candace to Kendrick, 37 times in his Brief. However, nowhere in evidence is Candace assigned to perform field service with Kendrick. Poor Simons just made it up. The Appellate Court will not find Simons’ CRITICAL FACT in evidence. The justices will see no basis for Simons’ ARGUMENT I, III, IV, and V. The justices will see the 37 holes in Poor Simons’ Brief. We can expect that the justices will be more than a little annoyed that Simons would try to blow such nonsense by them.

  Waiting for the ax to fall.

  Before the END Simons wants to speak to the justices at oral argument. We can expect that it's more Simons doing what he does..
• 
  59

  Just talked to Witnesses at my door for Hour about Watchtower Child Abuse

  by flipper in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  it happened again like in july when i talked to an elder and his wife about child abuse, but this time i got a hold of rank and file members who fortunately i was able to play like a fiddle as they had no idea what they were up against here.

  so brother middle age ex-hippie convert ( as he told me later ) and sister middle age hair in a bun offered me the awake on death or our view of death.

  i graciously accepted gaining their trust saying yes, i had close loved ones who had died over the years but didn't know if i believed in a resurrection or hereafter.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  Divining Liability

  Jehovah’s Witnesses sued over sex abuse claims

  Kimberlee Norris began evaluating these cases in July 2002. With some 2000 cases to choose from, Norris and partner Gregory Love came up with a rigid profile of what kind of case and where. Love and Norris decided only to take cases where they could prove the church knew its member was a perpetrator and placed him in a position of authority anyway. Norris said, ”We only take extreme cases where molestation has been reported to the congregation and the organization gives him its blessing by giving him authority.”

  As of May 2004, the firm had filed 57 suits across the country.

  Best plaintiff’s outcome, it appears-- 9 cases in California, Texas, Oregon, settled/dismissed with prejudice, 2007.

  The ‘Firm Overview’ at Love & Norris indicates a different kind of practice, a more profitable direction.
• 
  68

  What I Saw & Heard in the Oral Argument Hearing on January 14, 2015

  by ABibleStudent in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  im 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 clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks 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 contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  
  

  Chaserious,

  Simons’ new primary theory-- CUSTODY and CONTROL by “assigning Candace to Kendrick”-- replaced Simons’ old primary theory--CUSTODY and CONTROL by the 1989 BOE letter.

  Robert reports the results: The oral arguments format “forces attorneys to focus on the two or three most important arguments.”

  • “Simons’ did not emphasize that the 1989 BOE letter that he introduced during the trail was a smoking gun about the special relationship between the Watchtower and [Candace].”
  •  

  Simons’ response to Watchtower’s AOB introduced a new “smoking gun”, his new PRIMARY theory of choice.

  1. Starting with Simons’ unresponsive INTRODUCTION then to his somewhat responsive argument section:

  INTRODUCTION

  Plaintiff Jane Doe (Candace Conti) was nine years old when the elders of defendant North Fremont Congregation  .of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“Congregation”) repeatedly . assigned her to participate with Jonathan Kendrick, a man known to them as a child . molester, in the Congregation’s door-to-door ministry known as “field service.”

  [R]egardless of whether defendants owed an affirmative duty to protect plaintiff, their . conduct in actively assigning her to participate in field service with a man they knew to be . a child molester constituted a misfeasance.

  ARGUMENT

  I. … IN ANY EVENT, THEY COMMITTED ACTUAL MISFEASANCE BY ASSIGNING HER TO FIELD SERVICE WITH KENDRICK.

  I. B. Regardless Of Whether Defendants Owed An Affirmative Duty To Protect Plaintiff, They Committed Misfeasance By Assigning Plaintiff To Perform Field Service With Kendrick.

   

  2. Now past the “approximately two pages” Simons continues to argue, advance, promote, amplify his NEW “smoking gun”, his new PRIMARY theory. In fact, twenty four times throughout the “approximately twelve pages” we see Simons’ new PRIMARY theory-- custody and control by “assigning Candace to Kendrick”--including …

  • “There was substantial evidence that defendants exerted custody and control over Candace by assigning her to perform field service with Kendrick.  
  • "Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Watchtower and Congregation took custody and control of Candace by assigning her into field service, thereby creating a special relationship with her.
  • “First, … Watchtower’s liability was based not only on its failure to protect plaintiff but also on its affirmative negligence in assigning plaintiff and Kendrick to perform field service together. Second, Watchtower’s duty to protect Candace arose from its special relationships with her.
  • “[T]he fact that Candace was assigned to perform field service with Kendrick on multiple occasions supported an inference that defendants’ policy permitted a child to be assigned to field service with a known child molester.
  •  The opening briefs of both Watchtower and the Congregation … omit critical facts, including [1.] the fact that the elders assigned Jonathan Kendrick and Candace Conti together in field service …

  3. Watchtower’s opening brief devoted some thirteen pages contradicting Simons’ “smoking gun about the special relationship between the Watchtower and [Candace]” So we would expect Simons’ response brief to include-- of necessity and not by choice-- “approximately twelve pages” defending the old theory.

  4. Simons’ new PRIMARY theory, as feeble as it is, must be greatly preferable to his old theory. It cost Simons’ dearly to switch horses midstream.

  • "It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant." (Hines v. California Coastal Com 'n, Bd. of Supervisors of Sonoma (20 1 0) 186 Cal.App.4th 830, 846-847.)

  Simons’ new PRIMARY theory violated “a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried.”

  Chaserious, perhaps your objection to my “abandoned” is fair. Watchtowers’ Reply Brief characterized it as “relegates to the background”--not quite “all but abandoned”. What do you suggest?

   
• 
  68

  What I Saw & Heard in the Oral Argument Hearing on January 14, 2015

  by ABibleStudent in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  im 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 clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks 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 contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  Chaserious, Happy to answer your question. It will take a few days.

  No doubt the false assumptions in your first two sentences serves your purpose.

  My comment above RE — “4. The newly introduced nonfeasance theory (i.e., failure to act when action is required) by Richard Simons was not supported by evidence.”— serves to correct the error. Simons’ newly introduced theory was misfeasance, not nonfeasance.

  Note:

      A nonfeasance theory was the thrust of Simons’ entire case at trial.

      In his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF Simons simply asserted a new and wholly different theory of liability—misfeasance.

  If you had fixed it I would not have commented.
• 
  68

  What I Saw & Heard in the Oral Argument Hearing on January 14, 2015

  by ABibleStudent in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  im 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 clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks 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 contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  ABiblestudent, Thanks for your report.

  I wish to address your

  “4. The newly introduced nonfeasance theory (i.e., failure to act when action is required) by Richard Simons was not supported by evidence.”

  A nonfeasance theory was the thrust of Simons’ entire case at trial. Indeed, from Simons‘ opening statement through post-trial motions—including his punitive damages argument— Simons repeatedly and consistently pressed a nonfeasance theory of liability. Post-trial, however, clear and overwhelming legal precedent established that there was never a special relationship between Candace and defendants.

  Richard Simons, in his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF, all but abandoned his nonfeasance arguments that so impressed Judge Robert McGuiness and the lay jurors. Why would he do such a thing? Perhaps someone explained the Principles of American tort law relevant to nonfeasance liability claims.

  “It is black-letter law that one may have an affirmative duty to protect another from harm where a special relationship exists. The critical question, therefore, is whether there existed some special relationship between [Plaintiff] and defendants which would give rise to an affirmative duty to act.” —Justice Kaufman, Supreme Court of California,1988

  In order to survive a motion to dismiss a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts constituting the alleged relationship with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine whether, if true, such facts could give rise to a fiduciary relationship.

  A court must determine whether a voluntary organization such as a church has a special relationship with its members that gives rise to a duty to protect those members from other members of the organization.

  A court must have before it specific facts constituting the basic elements of a fiduciary relationship, […] specific aspects of the plaintiff’s relationship with the church that are distinct from those of its relationship with any other members, adult or child, of the church.

  
  

  The fact is, at trial, Simons put before the Court NO “specific aspects of the plaintiff’s relationship with the church that [were] distinct from those of its relationship with any other members, adult or child, of the church”. Regardless, via Juarez, Judge McGuiness gave Simons a “bye”. When hindsight— or whatever—exposed his own and the trial court’s errors, Simons attempted to salvage what little remained of his case. He only compounded his problems.

  "It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant." (Hines v. California Coastal Com 'n, Bd. of Supervisors of Sonoma (20 1 0) 186 Cal.App.4th 830, 846-847.)

  In his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF Simons simply asserted a new and wholly different theory of liability—misfeasance. Simons’ Brief violated “a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried.” 

  Simons’ Brief opened with the sentence:

  Plaintiff Jane Doe (Candace Conti) was nine years old when the elders of defendant North Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“Congregation”) repeatedly assigned her to participate with Jonathan Kendrick, a man known to them as a child molester, in the Congregation’s door-to-door ministry known as “field service.”

  Simons repeated versions of his— assigned Candace to Kendrick— 37 times in his Brief. However, nowhere in evidence is Candace assigned to perform field service with Kendrick. Simons just made it up. The Appellate Court will not find Simons’ CRITICAL FACT in evidence. The justices will see no basis for Simons’ ARGUMENT I, III, IV, and V. The justices have observed, no doubt, the 37 holes in Simons’ Brief.

  
  

   
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  4rationality

  Divining Liability

  Jehovah’s Witnesses sued over sex abuse claims

  Kimberlee Norris began evaluating these cases in July 2002. With some 2000 cases to choose from, Norris and partner Gregory Love came up with a rigid profile of what kind of case and where. Love and Norris decided only to take cases where they could prove the church knew its member was a perpetrator and placed him in a position of authority anyway. Norris said, ”We only take extreme cases where molestation has been reported to the congregation and the organization gives him its blessing by giving him authority.”

  As of May 2004, the firm had filed 57 suits across the country.

  Best plaintiff’s outcome, it appears-- 9 cases in California, Texas, Oregon, settled/dismissed with prejudice, 2007.

  The ‘Firm Overview’ at Love & Norris indicates a different kind of practice, a more profitable direction.