California Supreme Court Case - S226656

by Gayle 164 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Boeing Stratofortress says: *.*
  

  Learn to read. LOL
  I will not respond to you anymore for your failure to read and to think before you post.

  Fisherman cannot answer my simple questions, therefore he evades, insults, and attempts to deflect the topic. You are well trained Fisherman. I would expect nothing less from an obviously 'hard-core' JW such as yourself. You're attitude is no different from various elders with whom I've debated doctrine. I gave you an excellent opportunity to differentiate between forms of 'custodial relationships,' and you've resorted to a tactic I've seen so often among your eldership. When they are asked to explain the unexplainable, they duck & cover, tell me I just don't 'understand,' and refer me to "Insight of the Scriptures," or some other piece of literarary rubbish.

  You suggest I learn to 'read.' I have a better idea, why don't you learn how to THINK. And I mean critically thought, not the autonomous rote style of thinking for which you've been programmed over the years. Anyone can regurgitate the LETTER of the law, it takes humility, patience, and a free mind to understand the SPIRIT of said law.

  As I stated, you had a perfect chance to 'educate' us, and you've gone into 'duck and cover' mode.

  I'm sure you're quick to warn others in your congregation to avoid 'apostate' sites like this one. I'm sure you are told to avoid them as well. If that's true, then I have even less respect for you than whatever small amount I might've had at the beginning of this thread.
• 

  Fisherman

  Asked for, yes. But didn't receive. Hopefully, other lawsuits in the pipeline will hit the WT in their pocketbook.

  
  

  You see! It is not about the Plaintiff's cause of action. It is about using legal proceedings to get back at the WT.

  then I have even less respect for you than whatever small amount I might've had at the beginning of this thread.

  I don't care what you think.
  
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Yes, it's a civil case attempting to levy punitive damages in order to force a change of behavior. Namely the two-witness rule, and it's impact on child protection, or lack thereof. I don't think there is any disagreement there.

  What is your point, Fisherman??
• 

  airborne

  Fisherman

  This is an apostate website. PLEASE GET OFF IT.
• 

  Lieu

  A JC is NOT a Confessional, in any way shape or form. It is an accusatorial process to protect the WTBTS from lawsuits wherein the "victim" has no anonimity.

  Rape & sexual child abuse laws could care less about religious rules. It's not like the scumbag is going to bring other people along to watch.
• 

  Lieu

  Also. Where in the Bible does it say the "two witnesses" must be human? Are not Christ & Jehovah credible witnesses? What about the angles, particularly the Watchers?

  I'd use them as my witnesses were I in such a situation.

  It would be interesting to see the WTBTS try and counter that in Court. The only way to prove they didn't "witness" it is to say they don't exist.
• 

  prologos

  As these appeals pile up, reducing the awards, whittle away at the benefit left after fees, both "victims" and their legal teams will be more reluctant to start action. If that is wt's aim, they choosing the right path, for the wrong reasons.

  If elders were more vigilant to forestall all kinds of sexual predation, the disfellowshipping rate for this would be less?
• 

  RubaDub

  This is an apostate website. PLEASE GET OFF IT

  airborne ...

  I thought this was a general mixture of JW's website. I am not an apostate unless your definition includes anyone who shares ones thoughts or questions the Society.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  cappytan

  Confidentiality is not only a legal provision but also church law. Neither laws can be broken. Remember the movie "And justice for all with Al Pacino" The law is not how you like it cappytan.

  You still didn't answer my question, Fisherman.

  All you commented on is giving a factoid about confidentiality being a "legal provision" and "church law." And asserting that these laws can't be broken is wrong. All laws can be broken. I am violating a "church law" right now by being on this discussion forum. So, it is physically possible to break these laws.

  The "legal provision" you speak of doesn't require the religious leader to keep confidentiality. It just allows them to keep the confidentiality without legally being required to divulge the confidential matter.

  Again, I say, which is worse? Violating confidentiality or failing to protect a child?

  I'm not asking about the legality of a matter. I'm asking which course of action would be the worst course of action from a moral standpoint.
• 

  NVR2L8

  If you followed the case, Candace Conti asked for a symbolic sum of $1440.00 for damages. Anything over that amount would be a gain. But mostly she wanted to force the JW to change their policy on child abuse so no other child had to go through the same thing she experienced.