"mind blown," You keep a mental record of monikers and associated personal problems? You must have little contact with three dimensional people. Why don't you start a new thread with your personal problems and not derail this one?
Posts by Prime
-
212Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
Prime, your Wikipedia-informed understanding of vicarious liability is still incorrect. Contrary to what you suggest, any theory of liability that has anything to do with reporting anything is not vicarious liability; it's regular duty-based liability. The whole idea of vicarious liability is that the entity against whom the liability is being asserted didn't have to do anything wrong at all - not even negligent hiring, supervision, monitoring, reporting, or training - rather, it is held liable merely because its agent (usually an employee) committed a tort. No one in the Conti case, not even Rick Simons, has suggested that Kendrick was an agent. Similarly in the Penn State case, Penn State would probably not be vicariously liable merely because an assault occurred, even though an "agent" committed the act. Although England and many U.S. states have started holding employers vicariously liable for sexual assault, Pennsylvania still follows the traditional common law view that a sexual assault is not within the scope of employment, and therefore vicarious liability does not attach. That is why the issue of what Penn State officials knew about and reported is important in the civil cases related to Sandusky.
From reading your posts, it seems like you are trying to show that you have some kind of superior knowledge of legal theories by introducing terms like vicarious liability into the discussion although you don't fully understand them.
From reading my posts, you would think you'd arrive at the conclusion that my assertions are based on common sense. The one time I use a technical term, the conversation gets technical as you've demonstrated here, especially if the law is interpreted differently depending on what state you live in.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
No it's not. That's not close to an accurate description of what vicarious liability is - which FTR has nothing to do with what the Candace Conti case is about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.
The response by a superior to anyone sexually or violently assaulted by a violator in the facilities owned and operated by the superior or person in charge of the facility would be to immediately contact law enforcement.
Whatever the legal definition is for the actions of the Penn State officials, they were obviously responsible for maintaining a safe environment in their college. If some child is raped in the shower by psychopath Sandusky, contact the police.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
Of all the things that opposers say against Jehovah's Witnesses, that's the most offensive. I've never done anything like that. If you used to be a "Bethelite" I take it you wouldn't have "protected pedophiles" or "victimized children."
Of all the things that opposers say against Jehovah's Witnesses, that's the most offensive. I've never done anything like that. If you used to be a "Bethelite," I take it you wouldn't have "protected pedophiles" or "victimized children."
You wouldn't have done that then, you wouldn't do it now.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
I'll repeat again for the peanut gallery. And yes, that includes everyone who visits and participates on this thread, because we are not responsible for the outcome of this case:
Appeals do not revisit evidence.
The questions are all about interpretation of law or if any errors or procedure happened in the original case. Credibility of the witnesses are no longer at issue.
Nothing in my last post questioned the state of evidence, just whether or not someone other than the actual perpetrator should or can be held accountable, whether or not the organization has incurred liability. I did this by comparing this case to other organizations that have incurred liability other than Jehovah's Witnesses. When it comes to blaming someone other than the person that actually committed a crime, that only goes so far.
I will say that if the state of evidence is so shoddy, that any reasonable person should reject it, yet the judicial system is powerless to revisit the evidence, why should I care what the outcome of the appeal is?
That has happened before. There was hard evidence against a person, yet they got off for something as serious as murder because of weaknesses in the legal system or legal loopholes.
You hinted that the courts could be prejudicial - and should not be - based on .... religion. Since you've sidestepped the question, I'll rephrase.
From this I am guessing you are claiming some kind of religious persecution of the Watchtower society or its representatives in this case?
I answered that question in my last post. The answer is no.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
So I imagine, prime, you brought up questions of evidence and credibility....for the peanut gallery?
This place is "the peanut gallery?"
Law has settled this already.
A judge and twelve jurors don't represent the final authority on anything. The higher courts exist for a reason. From what I've observed, the only persons that give a plugged nickel about this case are Jehovah's Witnesses and some opposers/apostates.
JWs, (the few I've talked to about this) care more about the real facts of the case and issues involved. Others seem to get a thrill out of any kind of adverse judgment against the Watchtower Society even it's related to something like child molestation.
From this I am guessing you are claiming some kind of religious persecution?
No. This doesn't directly effect me. Kingdom Halls are privately owned and are independent of the Watchtower Society. The administrative position of the organization would never ask for an increase in donations to compensate for a lawsuit. The fact remains, that courts have been known to make prejudicial decisions on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation.
That a jury hearing a sex abuse case say, from a college, volunteer organization, or sports association may have been treated more kindly?
I suggest rather that there is a greater willingness to deal with sexual abuse openly and to deal harshly with the perpetrators and the facilitators. Colleges and sport associations are being held to account just as hard.
Again, it's noteworthy that someone compares Jehovah's Witnesses to other organizations.
How about Penn State?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal
In December 2010, assistant coach Mike McQueary appeared before the grand jury looking into the Victim 1 case. The presentment states that on March 1, 2002, at 9:30 PM, McQueary entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building at Penn State and heard what he believed to be the sounds of sexual activity coming from the shower.
If anyone is sexually or violently assaulted in facilities you own and operate and you fail to notify the authorities in a timely manner, that's vicarious liability. The Penn State officials were also mandated reporters (professionals applicable to child abuse reporting laws) and knew Jerry Sandusky was accessing children through the children's charity he founded.
Most people believe their negligence was to maintain a superficial organizational (football) image.
Unless an organization hosts activities specifically for children, all an organization is responsible for, is maintaining a safe environment in the facilities they own and operate and that their officials in a position of leadership or authority are irreprehensible. If an organization hosts activities specifically for children, even volunteers that work in this capacity must also have a clean record.
No organization has ever been found responsible for the alleged misdeeds of a member who held no position of leadership or authority for domestic abuse, or abuse outside the perimeters of their organization, especially if they had no knowledge that the abuse was occurring.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
Bingo.
In fact, in cases where the offenses are particularly egregious and/or the organization in question has a demonstrable history of resistance to accountability, justice can also be served by the legal system making an example of said organization, and smacking them hard. In fact, it often sets a more effective precedent.
I have suggested this before.
I'm not sure of what you're referring to here, but everything pertaining to this case is a matter of public record. If you are referring to some preconceived notion, opinion or vendetta that has not been entered into court record, especially if it has been barred from admission or is unrelated to the case itself, you would qualify as a prejudicial judge or juror.
Jury Trial Day 2
Mr. Simons: Two separate problems. One is that Mr. Bowen said if we are not going to be able to entertain his opinions with regard to theocratic warfare, disfellowshipping and the two witness rule, that he really doesn't see any particular validity to this proceeding.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
If an organization is being held to a level of accountability that no one else is subject to, there's obviously injustice in such a procedure and interpretation of the law.
If that organization is taking on actions of accountability that no other organization has done or is being called out for then justice is served when precedent is set.
That organization's policies must be amended and other organizations that could fall under the same scrutiny will also have to follow suit.
It's noteworthy that you would compare Jehovah's Witnesses to other organizations. Jehovah's Witnesses host two meetings a week and their evangelical work (formal or informal activity on public property) where children are welcome or encouraged to participate provided they're properly supervised.
Organizations with such a social structure generally don't have a child protection policy other than what may be required by law.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
Prime, a jury of peers found the girl's testimony credible.
Evidence is not revisited on appeal. All that can be questioned is procedure and interpretation of the law.
Why would you revisit witness credibility? Is it damage control for when the Watchtower loses the appeal and current Witnesses need some sort of straw to hang on to? The girl used drugs when she was a teenager. The parents were negligent. The lawyer is only in it for the money.
All smoke screen for the negligence of an elder body that allowed a pedophile to continue in the ministry, with access to children. ...and oh, yeah. The appeal fails and the Watchtower will be on the hook for all the other cases where elders had a confessed pedophile in their midst and did not take adequate care to protect children in the congregation. Can we spell c-l-a-s-s a-c-t-i-o-n?
Interpretation of the law is an issue. You take a legal statute like "a legal duty of care" that doesn't specify anything definitive. Meaning the statute is broad in scope and application and a judge and jury decide what constitutes a "legal duty of care."
With such a premise, a legal duty of care can mean anything you want it to. If an organization is being held to a level of accountability that no one else is subject to, there's obviously injustice in such a procedure and interpretation of the law.
The courts have also been known to make prejudicial decisions on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation. You would think you could put that aside.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw 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/.
-
-
Prime
According to Evelyn Kendrick, the elders were told the full extent of the abuse. She says they weren't "overly concerned" and blamed her for her husband's behavior because she wasn't "performing her wifely duties" in bed! According to Andrea, although she couldn't recall meeting with the elders, she testified that she always stuck to the same story with everyone she told, and that she never felt she had to lie to cover up for Kendrick. So it was the elders who played the whole incident down to the WTS. Nevertheless, it was still recognized as 'child abuse.'
I'm aware of what was stated by Evelyn Kendrick and Andrea.
Jury Trial Day 2
Mr. Simons: Now, sometime later, there was a meeting in at your home in which your mother and stepfather and two elders from the Jehovah's Witnesses were present. Were you there for all of that meeting?
Andrea: No.
Mr. Simons: When that meeting was going on, were you there at all?
Andrea: I don't recall being there at all.
Mr. Simons: Your mother and the elders said that you were there for at least part of the meeting. Do you recall any of that?
Andrea: No, I did not.
Evelyn's daughter Andrea didn't corroborate anything. If she had no memory of the 1993 home meeting with the elders, why would she have any memory of keeping quite while the adult's talked, corroborating or contradicting anything that was stated during that meeting? I believe she remembers the 1993 meeting and what was stated just like her mother and the two elders that were present. She's taking the 5th because she can't incriminate her mother (because it's her mother) or the elders (because she knows they're telling the truth).
Even if you scratch what I just said, it's strictly one person's word against another. There still evidence that what was told to the police was more serious than what was told to the elders.
Then why did the elders insist under oath that they were keeping an eye on him, that they counseled him against having close contact with children in the congregation, that he wasn't allowed to do FS without an elder present? Why make those claims if they didn't determine there was a danger Kendrick may repeat his crime?
For the same reason the court put him on probation upon the 1994 misdemeanor conviction. Standard procedure. The point I made is that law enforcement obviously couldn't predict his future actions with any real certainty.