No Tape Recorders at Elder Schools? WTS Hanging Elders Out to Dry

by skeeter1 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • skeeter1

    Elders are not allowed to bring tape recorders to elder school or elders-only type meetings. Elders can only take hand notes, usually inside the wide margins inside the elder's book. Why?

    I think the Watch Tower Society is hanging the elders out to dry.

    1) Being an elder is an important job, let's face it. The lives of the flock are on their hands. There are even legal duties, such as when pedophilia, child abuse/neglect, or mentally or emotionally impared people rely heavily on the direction of the elders. The elders are the front line men with the flock.

    2) The Watch Tower now calls elders "independent" ministers/contractors/agents.

    3) If the elder hand writes his notes and does not have a recording, the Society has a big out. "The elder wrote down the notes wrong. We didn't exactly say that. The elder took it the wrong way." (You get the picture).

    4) When a lawsuit happens, the elders are named as individuals along with the Watchtower Society.

    5) The elders do not carry liability insurance. If the elders do something "independent" of the Watch Tower Society, the elder is sued.

    .....get the picture....

    There is no way in hell that I would be an elder. (Not that they would ever ask me.


  • BabaYaga

    Bingo. All of the regulations are either about CONTROL or protecting themselves legally!

  • yknot

    Well from the CO instruction letters I have seen it says the school is not to be recorded by any means (ie phone, video). The thing is that technically 'note taking' is a form of 'recording' I also would point out that there are many fine devices like pen recorders and they are not specifically mention unlike cell-phone and I see 'loophole'.....

    All Elders still yet to attend please consider a nice pen recorder or other device ........I would love to compare them to the ones other elders have already submitted and see if we can't hash out an outline or discern if what is said in the US is the same in other countries!!!! grocery cart down....several more to go!

  • skeeter1

    Does any of this ring a bell in the ex/current elders (or others) on this board. A little word called "Vicarous Liability" and a 2003 Canadian Supreme Court Case?

    Vicarious liability

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    This article is about vicarious liability in private litigation; for vicarious liability in criminal law, see Vicarious liability (criminal).
    Scales of justice
    Tort law
    Part of the common law series
    Intentional torts
    Assault · Battery
    False imprisonment Intentional infliction of
    emotional distress (IIED)
    Transferred intent
    Property torts
    Trespass (land · chattels)
    Conversion · Detinue
    Replevin · Trover
    Assumption of risk
    Comparative negligence
    Contributory negligence
    Consent · Necessity
    Statute of limitations
    Defense of others
    Defense of property
    Shopkeeper's privilege
    Duty of care · Standard of care
    Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur
    Calculus of negligence
    Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue
    Specific types Negligent infliction of
    emotional distress (NIED)
    Employment-related · Entrustment
    Malpractice (legal · medical)
    Liability torts
    Product liability
    Ultrahazardous activity
    Public nuisance
    Rylands v. Fletcher
    Dignitary torts
    Defamation · Invasion of privacy
    False light · Breach of confidence
    Abuse of process
    Malicious prosecution
    Alienation of affections · Seduction
    Economic torts
    Fraud · Tortious interference
    Conspiracy · Restraint of trade
    Liability, remedies
    Last clear chance · Eggshell skull
    Vicarious liability · Volenti non fit injuria
    Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
    Neutral reportage · Damages
    Injunction · Torts and conflict of laws
    Joint and several liability
    Comparative responsibility
    Market share liability
    Duty to visitors
    Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees
    Attractive nuisance
    Other common law areas
    Contracts · Criminal law · Evidence
    Property · Wills, trusts and estates

    Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agencyrespondeat 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. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability.



    [edit] Employers' liability

    Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment'). [ 1 ] For an act to be considered within the course of employment it must either be authorised or be so connected with an authorised act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it.

    Courts sometime distinguish between an employee's "detour" or "frolic". For instance, an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability.

    Neither, generally, will an employer be held liable for assault or battery committed by employees, unless the use of force was part of their employment (e.g. police officers), or they were in a field likely to create friction with persons they encountered (e.g. car re-possessors). However, the employer of an independent contractor is not held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of the contractor, except where the contractor injures someone to whom the employer owes a non-delegable duty of care, such as where the employer is a school authority and the injured party a pupil.

    Employers are also liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, "qui facit per alium facit per se", i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests. This is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of another.

    [edit] Principals' liability

    The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been loaned, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent, if the driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the owner. Courts have been reluctant to extend this liability to the owners of other kinds of chattel. For example, the owner of a plane will not be vicariously liable for the actions of a pilot to whom he or she has lent it to perform the owner's purpose. In the United States, vicarious liability for automobiles has since been outlawed with respect to car leasing and rental in all 50 states.

    One example is in the case of a bank, finance company or other lienholder performing a repossession of an automobile from the registered owner for non-payment, the lienholder has a non-delegatable duty not to cause a breach of the peace in performing the repossession, or it will be liable for damages even if the repossession is performed by an agent. This requirement means that whether a repossession is performed by the lienholder or by an agent, the repossessor must not cause a breach of the peace or the lienholder will be held responsible.

    This requirement not to breach the peace is held upon the lienholder even if the breach is caused by, say, the debtor objecting to the repossession or resists the repossession. In the court case of MBank El Paso v. Sanchez, 836 S.W.2d 151, where a hired repossessor towed away a car even after the registered owner locked herself in it, the court decided that this was an unlawful breach of the peace and declared the repossession invalid. The debtor was also awarded $1,200,000 in damages from the bank.

    [edit] Parental liability

    In the United States, the question of parental responsibility generally and the issue of parental vicarious liability for the torts of their children is evolving. What is clear is that parents can be held liable for their own negligent acts, such as failure to supervise a child, or failure to keep a dangerous instrument such as a handgun outside the reach of their children.

    [edit] The liability of corporations in tort

    In English law, a corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the frauds of its directors or senior officers.

    If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and it must be attributed to the company. In Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v. Securities Commission[1995] 2 AC 500, two employees of the company, acting within the scope of their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired those shares.

    The Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority (see Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) or as employees acting in the course of their employment (see Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.

    So if a director or officer is expressly authorised to make representations of a particular class on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a Third Party causing loss, the company will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he was authorised to do. The extent of authority is a question of fact and is significantly more than the fact of an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud.

    In Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has administrative responsibilities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable.

    [edit] Employers' indemnity

    The principle of vicarious liability can also be bypassed with a legal instrument known as Employers' indemnity. When an employer is successfully sued, they have the option of suing the tortfeasor for an indemnity to recover the damages back. This principle is greatly criticised when used in the case of Lister v Romford Ice Cold Storage

    [edit] Ecclesiastical corporations

    In the 2003 decision Doe v. Bennett, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in cases of abuse scandals involving Catholic priests, liability derives from the power and authority over parishioners that the Church gave to its clergymen. [ 2 ]

  • cantleave

    Has anyone uploaded the marginal notes for the Flock book yet?

  • yknot
    Has anyone uploaded the marginal notes for the Flock book yet?


    and if anyone is interested in giving it a once over......

  • wasblind

    " 2) The Watch Tower now calls elders "independent" ministers/contractors/agents "


    I thought the word independent was a no no in Watch Tower world.

  • satinka

    5) The elders do not carry liability insurance. If the elders do something "independent" of the Watch Tower Society, the elder is sued.

    Skeeter, are you saying the Society can't get sued, or are you saying the society will sue the elder if the elder does something "independent"...?

    Or are you saying the society can't get sued, only the elder can get sued...?

    Perhaps no one will step up to be an elder any more... if one is smart!


  • life is to short
    life is to short


    I called the legal department last June and the brother I spoke to kept calling the elders independent agents with regards to the handling of the child molesters in my hall. He must of said it four or five times. I kept asking why the elders were allowed to handle the child molesters the way the are, letting them hold children take care of them, go out in service with no one knowing of their past.

    The brother in the legal department just kept repeating that the elders have clear direction on how to handle child molesters, I kept asking him why then were they allowing the stuff to happen that did and is still happening. He kept saying the elders are independent agents with clear direction on how to handle things. We just kept going in a circle over and over till I gave up.

    Yes it is very scary to be an elder, what if you do not agree with the body but you are the lone voice what do you do, you will feel you have to go along. You will be hung out to dry with the rest of the elders and Bethel will not be anywhere near to help you.

    It is truly scary for wifes and children of elders if they get sued the wife and kids will be affected horribly.


  • daringhart13

    It was at my last KM School that a light bulb went on in my head.

    The brother from Bethel gave a talk where he related a story of meeting one of the Governing Body members in the elevator.....a conversation ensued......and the GB member said " know we just guess at it all and see what happens?"

    He said it right from the stage.

    I remember closing my Flock book and just staring in disbelief.

Share this