by Dogpatch 74 Replies latest jw friends
This information is of extreme value in our continuing fight to free innocent minds from the tyranny of the WT society.
Thank you Barbara.
And thanks to anyone who spreads the real truth about the WT.
Many who are trapped inside have been so completely blinded to reality, that they have no idea just how much damage WT policies have caused to individuals and families over the years.
Keep up the fight for justice and freedom.
The Oracle
Thank you for this information and all your efforts, Barbara. Until today I had not taken the time to look at your documents--not out of a lack of interest, of course. I downloaded the Commentary Version 2 today and have been looking through it, and would like to comment on the Child Abuse Telememo form on page 66.
What particularly struck me was the "layers of loopholes" the Society and Elders leave themselves at the bottom of the page. There are two alternative courses of action the Legal Dept advisor could take, and they are to check one of two boxes ("NONREPORTING" or "REPORTING") depending on which course they advised the calling elder to take.
Under REPORTING (used in cases where the elder lives in a state where reporting to authorities is mandated by law). Notice the loophole in the instructions [emphasis added is my own]:
The elders have a duty to report child abuse under the ___________ child abuse reporting law. They should speak to the offender directly and find out if he is willing to turn himself in. If he is unwilling, there may be someone else who has knowledge of the abuse who will make a report. If no one who has knowledge of the abuse is willing to make a report, two elders should make an anonymous phone report from a neutral location, such as a phone booth. They should keep a written record of who made the call, to whom it was made, the date and time of the call, and other pertinent factors. This record should then be signed by the two elders and placed in congregation files as proof that a report of child abuse was made in compliance with the law. We explained the Society's policy of confidentiality and directed the elders to contact the Legal Department if they are subpoenaed. We had no legal objection to the elders handling the matter as they would any other case of serious wrongdoing. The elders should refer to the Awake! issues on child abuse (references given) in giving appropriate spiritual assistance to the family.
A later 1993 version of this form keeps this advice (different references to Awake! articles, and a reference to a July 1989 Letter to BOD). It adds more cover-our-butt language:
Encourage parties not to involve the congregation if authorities investigate ... Treat victim with extreme thoughtfulness and kindness. Is it necessary to make the sexual abuse victim, who is still a minor, confront the accused? Positive steps should be taken to prevent further abuse. The elders should monitor the situation carefully for the protection of other potential victims.
I knew about the anonymous phone report from a phone booth. However, even as an elder, I was not aware of the first two "loopholes" listed in both the earlier, and revised 1993 versions. Specifically, they first give the accuser the option of making the report, OR of letting others that know if it give the report! Only under the circumstance where these first refuse to make a report are the elders told that they should, themselves, make the report--and then, of course, in a cowardly non-effective anonymous two-witness cover-our-butt satisfy-the-letter-of-the-law manner.
I'm absolutely disgusted to read this direction from the Legal Department. There is NO guidance here to say "if the offender volunteers to turn himself in to the authorities, elders should follow up in a timely manner to verify that the required report was, in fact, made." Basically, if the offender says "Yeah, I'll go to the police and turn myself in", they're OFF THE FREAKIN HOOK!! That's NOT right...
Everything in those paragraphs, except for a small revision at the end of the 1993 version, is about protecting the appearance of the congregation, not about protecting the victim. Notice, too that the counsel to use the Awake! articles to "provide spiritual assistance to the family" is not clear on which family should be getting that attention--the offender's family (his wife, kids), or the abused child's family.
Finally, how can "Is it necessary..." be in there as a QUESTION? It should be a statement of fact that the child (minor) should not have be forced to directly confront his/her accuser!! They have "no legal objection"... what about a "MORAL" or "SPIRITUAL" objection, folks? That's not even addressed here. Everything in those instructions is a Legal Dept. "cover-our-pocketbook" statement.
Disgusting...
bttt
bttt
Just reading this little snippet of the court documents sends shivers down my spine. All of these congregations were in our backyard, and we never heard of a one, with the exception of Henderson, and that was after it was all done, and he was in prison. I am wondering if there are other "nests of activity" like this in other regions of the country.
bttt
MORLEY et al v. WATCHTOWER
This post is the first part of a summary that I have prepared on the Morley versus Watchtower court proceedings that is one of the cases on the Secrets of Pedophilia CD that Barbara and Joe Anderson have released.
I am endeavoring to make this summery as brief and easy to read as possible. To this end, I am using vocabulary that is understandable by the general public and not including too many names and references in the documents. If you want more details, the court records are available for them.
Why am I preparing this summery? I want to show to the average citizens anywhere that justice does exist in the legal system for victims of child abuse, and that no organization can hide behind the rights of religious freedom to protect their reputations from the notoriety of child molestation. I wish to explain to the best of my ability the legal principles of the procedure and not so much all the details.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (pages 25 to 43)
The plaintiffs in this case, who at the times of molestation, were three young girls, the principle one named Leanna Morley. Through their team of lawyers, they are taking to court two congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses and all of the Watchtower corporations in the US, all of whom we will designate as the WATCHTOWER who are the DEFENDANTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS (page 29)
The Watchtower is a hierarchical organization. The Governing Body has absolute authority over every person and all matters in the organization and its world wide operations. They assume complete responsibility for the development, protection and
discipline of its membership, especially the children of members. They empower subordinate male members to carry out this responsibility, who develop relationships of trust with women, children and families. These elders act as counselors and advocates for handling problems which include claims of child abuse. They and all echelons up to the Governing Body decide how to handle the claims of child abuse.
In the handling of the abuse of this case the WATCHTOWER has prohibited the victim and/or the accuser from warning others or speaking of the abuse to anyone. If they do so they are disciplined. They are not permitted to report to authorities suspected cases of abuse even if reporting laws are in effect.
DON SERJEANT
The Watchtower vested Don Serjeant with leadership authority within the organization from 1955 until his death, and during this time, he was considered to be a member in good standing.
In 1962 Serjeant began physically molesting his seven year old daughter, Susan, who finally reported the abuse to the elders and asked for help. The elders told Susan not to discuss the abuse with anyone else and they would handle it. The elders reported the complaint to Serjeant, the father, who then beat her for talking to the elders. The continued beatings were reported to the Elders. The Watchtower Elders did nothing to protect Susan or other young girls from further abuse, they failed to discipline Serjeant or warn others of the threat he posed. They did not report the abuse to law enforcement authorities. Serjeant continued as a leader in good standing.
For a number of years before 1989 Serjeant was also abusing his granddaughter, Christina.
In 1984 Serjeant moved to another congregation, where he continued to be a leader in good standing. The Watchtower defendants did not warn the families in the new congregation that a sexual predator was among them and of the risk to their children. From 1984 to 1989 Serjeant repeatedly abused Leanna Morley, starting when she was nine years of age. He also, in 1986 began to repeatedly sexually assault six year old Jessica Schroeder.
About 1989 Leanna’s father found a journal that she was writing in secret, which graphically depicted Serjeant’s sexual abuse of his daughter. He gave the journal to WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS. They did nothing except to punish Leanna and told her and her family not to report the abuse to anyone, not even law enforcement authorities.
The WATCHTOWER did not help the Plaintiffs or their families deal with the trauma or help them obtain available assistance from outside agencies. Serjeant was not disciplined or assisted to obtain help for his inclinations for child abuse. The WATCHTOWER continued to allow him to act as their agent with control and supervision of children.
The Plaintiff’s attorneys summarize their arguments: The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS directly and vicariously caused foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs by, among other things:
1. By aiding, abetting and ratifying the abuse of children by leaders in the organization.
2. Blaming, humiliating, sanctioning and/or disciplining victims/accusers of sexual abuse instead of the perpetrators.
3. Negligently failing to report abuse to law enforcement agencies and governmental child welfare agencies….
4. Negligently failing to warn Plaintiffs, their families and others….
5. Negligently failing to train its Elders, volunteers, appointed overseers and other associated individuals to prevent, identify, investigate, respond to or report child abuse.
6. Negligently failing to adopt adequate policies and procedures for the protection of children……
7. Failing to properly investigate matters brought to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ attention involving child sexual abuse and/or suspicions of child abuse.
8. Negligently allowing Don Serjeant to move between congregations as a leader in good standing and placing him in leadership positions with authority over children…..
9. Negligently failing to provide child abuse victims and their families with any assistance in coping with trauma of abuse and preventing Plaintiffs and their families from reporting the abuse to outside authorities and obtaining outside help to deal with the trauma of abuse.
10. Concealing from Plaintiffs and their families that the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had information that Don Serjeant was abusing young children.
11. negligently failing to undertake a sexual offender evaluation, provide sexual
Offender treatment and/or obtain psychiatric evaluation and treatment of Don
Serjeant….
12. negligently failing to properly supervise Don Serjeant as a leader in the
Organization or to monitor his activities……
CAUSES OF ACTION (page 37)
COUNT I.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
This term means: Let the principal answer.
Don Serjeant was an agent of the WATCHTOWER. As such, along with all other agents of this organization up to the Governing Body, all are responsible and liable for the sexual battery of Plaintiffsunder the legal theory of respondeat superior. WATCHTOWER is the principal entity; let them answer for the misdeeds of one of their agents.
COUNT 2
COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE
WATCHTOWER placed Don Serjeant in leadership positions with supervision and control over children, but failed to act to protect them from said harm. They breached their duty to the great harm of Plaintiffs.
COUNT 3
NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to adequately investigate, discipline, evaluate treat, supervise and otherwise monitor the conduct of Don Serjeant who was under their control.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also failed to adequately train and supervise the Elders of the local congregations to whom they had entrusted the responsibility of investigating and handling all reports or suspicions of child abuse.
COUNT 4
AGGRAVATED NEGLIGENCEBecause the Watchtower has demonstrated a conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of Plaintiffs they are entitled to amend and seek damages under Oregon law.
COUNT 5
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
Plaintiffs and their families placed their trust and confidence in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDENTS that they would not harm Plaintiffs or fail to warn Plaintiffs of potential harm. This constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs by WATCHTOWER….
COUNT 6
….FAILURE TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSEWatchtower failed to report abuse known prior to the abuse of Plaintiffs. They also failed to report abuse to Plaintiffs thereby violated Oregon law intended to safeguard and enhance the welfare of abused children.Failure to report abuse deprived the Plaintiffs from benefiting from the victim assistance program for counseling and care.
COUNT 7
FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
After receiving reports of Serjeants child abuse activities, WATCHTOWER concealed that information from Plaintiffs, other victims similarly situated and the community. WATCHTOWER led others to believe the perpetrator was a leader in good standing. WATCHTOWER also led Plaintiffs and others to believe that they would act in their best interests.
COUNT 8
RATIFICATIONBy not holding Serjeant accountable for child abuse and maintaining he was a leader in good standing,
WATCHTOWER, thus ratified, that is, showed tacit approval of his conduct.
COUNT 9
ALTER EGO AND SINGLE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
From top to bottom WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS were all engaged, at all material time, in a single business enterprise and are liable for each other’s acts.
COUNT 10
NEGLIGENT USURPATION OF INVESTIGATORY FUNCTION
WATCHTOWER DEFENDENTS assumed the duties and responsibilities of Oregon law (reporting law) but negligently failed to perform them.
DAMAGES
Plaintiffs have incurred costs and will continue to incur them for medical expenses, counseling, and psychological treatment, have lost earning capacity and suffered and continue to suffer extreme, permanent emotional stress, psychological harm with physical manifestations, embarrassment, loss of self esteem, disgrace, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and economic damages $(amount to be inserted prior to trial) and non-economic damages of $4,000,000 as to each Plaintiff.
This is the end of the first section of this case.
The next section to come will deal with DEFENDANT'S SEVEN MOTIONS (pages 46-71)
belbab
I received a pm last night, saying that they thought that I should post my comments on a new thread for greater visibility. The poster said that he/she wants to send it to some JW friends in a list of contacts. I thank that poster for appreciating my comments.
The next segment of my comments are just about ready.
Should I post them here, or not?
Or is it just cries in a windy sandstorm in the desert?
belbab
MORLEY DEFENDANTS 1
This post continues the summary of Morley v. Watchtower. In the first part we summarized the arguments of the PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.
Now the next twenty-five pages of the court documents, that I have shoe-horned into four, present the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS response to the plaintiffs arguments. Following the arguments of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is a roller coaster ride. Watch for derailments on the curves as you mentally sway back and forth with the pros and cons.
DEPENDANTS SEVEN MOTIONS for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.
1. ….defendants move to dismiss this action with prejudice because it fails to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute any claim for relief. The meaning of with prejudice is that the Plaintiffs’ legal rights have in fact been determined and lost, extinguishing the claim that the suit was about. I assume the Defendants are saying that there are ultimate facts beyond the superficial facts that the Plaintiff has put forth.
As a matter of law,….organizations (including churches) do not have a duty to protect members fromeach other, even assuming they had prior notice of a members alleged propensity to sexually abuse minors.
First Amendment of US constitution and Oregon’s ‘free exercise of religion”
…..prohibit this type of inquiry by a secular court into the “correctness” of a
Church’s beliefs, policies, and disciplinary practices.
2. Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse….. does not provide for a civil cause action when it is allegedly violated. Also, it does not apply to defendants because of clergy client privileges. Move for dismissal.
3. Move for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for relief for Negligent Usurpation of Investigatory Function because no such claim for relief is recognized in Oregon.
4. Move for dismissal of claim: “Respondeat Superior”is not an independent cause of action.
5. Move for dismissal: “Ratification” is also not an independent cause of action.
6. Move for dismissal: Alter Ego and Single Business Enterprise is also not an independent cause of action.
7. Defendants move to strike out request for unspecified economic damages because a specific amount of damages shall be stated in the operative Complaint.
DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW (page 47)
Section A of this memorandum is an introduction and a summary of the allegations that the Plaintiffs have made in their FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. I find it interesting that in their introduction they add (who is deceased) to the name, Don Serjeant . Are they inferring that the Plaintiffs are beating a dead horse?
The only other comment in their introduction is: Plaintiffs have associated two sets of
Texas lawyers who specialize in suing the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ church around the country, and whohave drafted a 20 page…. (The defendant lawyers keep under cover the fact that there exists a cavalry of lawyers from New York riding around the country in pursuit of the Texas lawyers.) Keep note of these remarks about the Texans, references will arise about these remarks later in the procedures.
The remainder of section A of the memorandum is a review of the Plaintiffs allegations that I covered earlier in the comments on the Plaintiffs Complaints document.
B. Argument in Support of the Seven Motions (that is: for dismissal)
The Defendants extensively argue only for the first two motions. If they succeed in the dismissal of the first two, the five remaining ones become irrelevant because they are not an independent cause of action.
The Defendants introduce their arguments for their first motion with: this action should be dismissed because organizations, including churches, do not have a duty to protect their members from one another, and
The First Amendment prohibits an inquiry into the “correctness” of church beliefs and disciplinary policies.
They state, that since no appellate opinion (ie. higher court ruling) in Oregon has addressed the above issues, it is thus appropriate to consider decisions from other jurisdictions addressing these issues.
So the Defendants go across the country to the jurisdiction of the courts in Maine, and lo- and- behold they discover the court decision of Bryan R.v.Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
The Defendants file an attachment of the transcript and decisions of Bryan R case in records of the current case. They base their eight pages of arguments on this case to support their first motion of dismissal with many references to other cases and footnotes
I shall endeavor to briefly summarized the Defendants arguments drawn from this case. As an adolescent the Plaintiff, Bryan R. was a sexually abused by an adult member of his local Jehovah’s Witness congregation named Larry Baker. Baker had previously molested another adolescent and it was reported to the elders. Bryan R.’s father was a member of the three elders who disciplined and demoted Baker. They did not alert the congregation of Bakers misdeeds. Later Baker was allowed to resume activities as a church member. Bryan R alleges that Baker then was able to earn his trust and confidence because the church placed Baker in a position of leadership and respect.(but he did not specify what this position was.) .
Plaintiff Bryan R. sued the defendant Baker and the Jehovah’s Witness church for damages. The claims against the church (JW congregation)were dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim.
The case was appealed to the higher court and the higher court affirmed the decision of the lower court. Why? The court recognized that the plaintiff did not allege that Baker held a “clerical” position (such as, a priest, minister, or pastor); did not allege that the church affirmatively placed Baker in a position of control and supervision of children (such as a Sunday school teacher); and did not allege that the church knowingly placed Baker in a position where he could sexually abuse children in a church setting.
The Defendants say then, like the present case, the court held that these “allegations place Baker in a relationship to Bryan that was not different in quality from any other member in good standing of the church.
Further the Defendants point out the Maine higher court stated, we decline to recognize a general common law duty on the part of an organization such as a church to protect its members from each other.
As I see it, Bryan R. failed to allege that there existed a special relationship between himself and Baker with “sufficient particularity”. He failed to spell it out, so to speak; rather he made vague and unspecific mention of it.
The Defendants in the Morley case also point out that, Bryan R., the plaintiff does not allege that Baker molested him during any of the church activities.
The Defendants also point out in Bryan R, that “state courts may not interfere in matters concerning religious doctrine or organization……Allowing a secular court or jury to determine whether a church and its clergy have sufficiently disciplined, sanctioned, or counseled a church member would insert the State into church matters in a fashion wholly forbidden by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”
Defendants Second Motion for Dismissal At the time of abuse in the Bryan R. case in Maine the reporting of child abuse by clergy was not yet written into law. So it was not discussed in that case and hence the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS in the Morley case had to rely on Oregon law to defend their position.
The Defendants state: Plaintiffs’ claim for “ failure to report suspected child abuse” as required by Oregon law should be dismissed because that statute does not provide a civil cause of action for violations of the statute. Further along they explain that every state has a child abusing reporting statute, and all of the statutes classify the crime as a misdemeanor. However, there are 7 states that expressly create civil liability for injuries proximately (ie most likely) caused by the failure to report child abuse, and Oregon is not one of them. So the Defendants are claiming that since Oregon’s reporting law only considers that a failure toreport is only a misdemeanor, and doesn’t say that it is cause for civil action, it cannot be a basis for claiming damages by a victim of child abuse.
It seems that WATCHTOWER is maintaining the position that non-reporting is part of their religious beliefs, and that this non-reporting falls under the umbrella of Clergy /Penitent privileges. They discuss the law where members of clergy are not required to report child abuse where the communication to them is privileged. They point out that a member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to a member in the member’s professional character unless consent to the disclosure of the confidential communication is given by the person who made the communication.
For example, if a member reports child abuse to a body of elders in confidence and then , not receiving action regarding the communication, he reveals the information to authorities, the elders, considered as clergy, still have a right to maintain confidentiality
because the tenets and discipline of their religion require non-disclosure. Holding defendants civilly liable for failing to report child abuse would violate the “free exercise of religion” clauses of the First Amendment.
Hence, the Defendants motion for dismissal for the charges regarding the negligence of Non-Reporting Abuse.
Any questions?
More to come,
belbab
One thing that bothered me is when the elders gave talks saying how qualified they are. The elders quoted a scripture, "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, reproving, for setting things straight, that the man of God is fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."---2 Tim 3:16. The application made to that scripture sounded something like, "Because elders read the bible, they are the only help you need. Elders are more qualified than any 'worldly' therapist."
Because members were not allowed to look "outside" the organization for help, they were actually prevented from getting any real and meaningful help. The elders' kind of help allowed the abuse to continue---and sometimes the abuse got worse. If a child reported the abuse, the abuser would then be confronted by some elder, and then the abuser would go and beat his victim---on top of the other abuses already inflicted.
It would be nice if the legal system understood how badly this "elder-line-of-defence" against perpetrators fails the victims. It actually prevents or interferes with the victims getting any real help. For example, victims need to be removed from an unsafe home. The victim needs to be relocated to a "safe" home out of reach of the perpetrator.
Thank you Barbara. This thread is so vitally important.
btt
ESTEE
