Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"

by cedars 147 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Anony Mous

  There have been laws regarding the compulsary reporting by church leaders of child abuse since the mid-80's in most states. I'm not familiar enough with the case to be able to say if that was the case here so I don't know if they would be criminally charged but there is also a statute of limitations there and I'm not familiar with that state's or even federal law.

  It is still a criminal act though to be willfully negligent and that has been on the books longer than mandatory reporting of child abuse. Willfully negligent means you know stuff is going on and you decide against doing anything about it. You can be willfully negligent for example by not restraining your child in a car seat, failing to seek help for someone in a medical emergency or other dangerous situations or not reporting certain crimes immediately.

  The case here is a jury case though. They can off course appeal and they will and they will come up with some grounds but there won't be a new jury case unless the higher courts decide something was improperly handled by the current judge. And it's really hard to overturn a jury case especially when it comes to this kind of stuff, the courts can only decide whether the case was improperly handled, the punishment is excessive or the conviction alters their rights to freedom of religion, freedom of assembly etc.

  They probably will appeal based on their first amendment rights but the fact that they have to pay out money doesn't impede their first amendment rights or their freedom of religious rights. The judge nor jury decided that they have to change their religious doctrine regarding child abuse or stop assembling.
• 

  Scott77

  	Scott, What you "stand" for is the publication of false statements. You find "substance" in lies. -144001 Mind Blown, You're not exactly blessed with vision, and your intellect . . .144001
  	exerpts from some of 144001's statements on as posted on JWN

  What does the above statements say about the character of Mr. 144001?

  Scott77
• 

  Scott77

  I've been here for over a decade but won't be here much in the future. I've enjoyed getting to know many here and reading posts on all different subjects. This is a great site and I thank Simon and Angharad for creating and maintaining this site and for putting up with me all these years! Anyone interested in contacting me can send me an email at [email protected]. Best of luck to everyone! John "144001"

  144001 [posted 14 days ago]

  This is Mr. 144001 and he is still around. Hi John, like BOTR, welcome back.-:)

  Scott77
• 

  Paralipomenon

  This reminds me of the presidential campaigns. People have made up their minds already. You need a law, not just gut revulsion.

  I do appreciate your insights from a legal standpoint, but assuming that all people are just making a decision based on emtion isn't fair.

  Initially I was confused as to why the jury ruled against the Watchtower and established such high damages. Kendrick wasn't an elder and there wasn't any legal requirement for them to report it. In fact, papal confidentiality seemed to lean against the argument.

  I am not trained in law, but still I went through the whole case and read everything. Hundreds of pages. Argument and assertions referenced previous cases and precidents set by them. I tried to put myself in the postion of a juror to see which case had more merit.

  Upon leaving the Witnesses I vowed to try to examine everything neutrally. Emotional response isn't always correct and is a large reason why so many people get snared and remain trapped as a Witness. As such I find that the judgement has legal merit. I do feel that the Watchtower has grounds for appeal, but I make no guesses as to their success.

  Using your paralel of presidential campaigns, I would agree, but don't you think that you are falling into the camp of forming an opinion based on media reports rather than actual facts? You have stated that you haven't read the court transcripts. I don't doubt your legal knowledge, but you seem to be taking a position that the judge and jury ruled in error and that the Watchtower not only has grounds for appeal, but that you feel legally their appeal carries more legal weight than the verdict.

  I'm a realist. I don't think Candice will triumph because it is a just cause. But with the motion for a new case thrown out, as I understand the appeal can only be based on the evidence and testimony already given which is weighted very heavily in Candice's favor. If I am misunderstanding your position, then I appologize. I do find it frustrating that you seem to be replying based on generic law practices rather than the arguments actually established in the case.

  You may be completely right, but professionally I find it suspect that you feel so strongly in your arguments without even examining the transcripts. To me I see that as no different then forming an opinion based on emotional weight. The jury didn't turn around a gut revulsion verdict. They deliberated and asked for clarification on numerous pieces of testimony.

  I am definately not in the "jump on BOTR" camp, but I do find it frustrating that in the time you have spent replying and arguing about the case you could have at least given the documents a review.
• 

  Band on the Run

  This is so frustrating for me. When I was in high school and college, I found lawyers to be so arrogant. It was always trust me, I know better. I am a lawyer. Altho I was warned not to do, I freely gave what I believed was good legal advice. After one week in law school, I was ashamed of my recklessness. There was no way to correct my misdeeds. I screwed people trying to be helpful.

  No one with any legal background here has ever stated that the judge and jury were wrong. Napoleonic code countries have judges as highly skilled and trained finders of fact. The Anglo way is to have the jury make finding of facts. Involving nonlegal juries allows community standards to be imposed. Certainly, our system wants moral judgment as a factor in the resolution of the case. Juries must follow the law found by the trial judge.

  Juries cannot decide anyway they choose. Trial judges are monitored by appellate courts. TRial court judges administer law at its simplest level and run the trial. If they decide the law incorrectly, an appellate court will overturn the verdict and suggest remedies to fix the situation. Sometimes a new trial is ordered.

  Negligence is not just bad acts. The most important element of negligence is a legal duty must exist towards the plaintiff. Newspapers reported that this was a first time ruling. First time rulings from a trial judge are usually reversed. Trial judges follow the law; they do not make it. Appellate courts now rarely make new law. They defer to the legislature. This is a general statement.

  The WT position has some merit. Their claims are not so frivolous that the WT lawyers can be censured for just being crazy and disrupting the system. Simons lucked out with this judge. I am not in a position to say whether either side is correct. Even if I had an opinion, which I clearly do not, my opinion does not matter. The trial judge's opinion does not matter. The appellate courts matter.

  It is exceedinly rare for appellate courts to reverse jury findings or factual findings of a trial court. They read transcripts which are a very poor substitute for seeing and hearing testimony in person. Body language is important. So the factual findings will almost certainly be upheld. They will examine whether the trial judge stated the law correctly in the jury charges.

  I don't think there is any substantial factual matter in dispute on this forum. Sadly, it seems to boil down that lawyers spot issues that seem beside the point to nonlegally trained people. All I can say is that I once agreed with you 150% but school converted me to a much more technical viewpoint. The problem here is not confined to Conti but seems to repeat almost everytime law is involved. Law school transformed my thought process. Had I not become a lawyer, I would join you in wholeheartedly focusing on emotion and a sense of justice.

  Rick Simons would agree with me. If you notice, all legally trained people raise the same issues. There is no debate among the lawyers or paralegals. The skills I acquired in law school help me tremendously but I also see how they also hinder me from perhaps a larger social good. I see no remedy.
• 

  Gayle

  Obviously, the case is not done. I am thrilled that Ms. Conti won at the "trial court" stage. Was awesome! I still am concerned at the future on this.

  I know the WTS stated they were "exonerated" back when ? the leadership went to prison. But were released, not because they were innocent but due to, as I understand, an error by the judge, as he expressed a negativity on the part of a witness.

  I realize that Mr. Simon is a very good attorney. I hope he and the judge held to any part of established law requirements. Sometimes law needs to be redefined and that is what the courts and law need to clarify, thus the ongoing time and overload in the courts systems.

  About time, this issue with religion and pedophiles has really picked up these last 20 yrs. Too many states and countries are lagging behind on this issue.
• 

  Band on the Run

  It is long overdue but fueled by the Roman Catholic crisis, American society so tied to the protection of churches is re-evaluating its laws and culture. Once Americans were made aware of the extent of the problem, regular people are demanding a revision of laws to protect children. Accused peophiles should be protected legally b/c no proof has yet been established. The laws were too generous for pedophiles.

  CA is a good example of a state that has significantly change to level the playing field for children.

  I am curious about what changed in society that we denied pedophile's massive abuse for so long. It is very reminiscent of the overhaul of rape laws.

  When I was a child, a woman fought her rapist in Central Park. She had a concealed knife and stabbed him. Without the knife, she might be dead and certainly she would have been raped. The Manhattan DA prosecuted her and she went to prison for carrying a concealed weapon. I was so young and so angry.

  Whatever the reason I am glad that the laws are changing.
• 

  mind blown

  For the record.

  Band, though you feel my comment was rude, you fail to see how your many comments of accusing board members of Rick Simons worship and various name calling (on your part), as well as some inaccurate information is not only rude but offensive. Now that being said, we all have had our days of emotional triggers.

  I did apologize to you via PM as well as on that thread when it happened. Why you continue to bring it up is only a guess......
• 

  mind blown

  "If you are being truthful, you should have no problem clarifying that for us."

  I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm accusing you of being a coward.

  And you 144001, question my intellect? For a so called college educated attorney, you're niether smooth nor smart. "Get YOUR facts straight". As stated before your rageAholic core blinds you. No one here is your whipping bitch, so F**k Off.
• 

  Band on the Run

  144,001 summed up the legal questions correctly and succintly. He may have been a bit abrupt but I am accused of the same. When you say he is a so-called college graduate, you merely point to the fact that you are not or perhaps your degree is only a fact on paper. We both were correct on legal facts and procedures. I don't believe neither of us stated an opinion on the merits of the Conti case. My recollection is that we both hope she prevails. It is interesting that you find not only fault with me but with another lawyer. You are free, in my opinion, to believe whatever you want to believe. Don't revile us b/c we explained the legal situation. Yes, you did apologize. I highlight your comments only b/c they were the most vivid of all the nastiness I have encountered on this or similar threads. It is sad that you cannot accept that on specific areas in which you have no expertise and no one would expect you have expertise, you were incorrect. I won't even use the word "wrong." Let us come and fight each other. Be rude. I mean the time we spent being nasty here distracts us from fighting the WT org. Is our purity of opinion concerning Conti, even when it comes to legal jargon, more important than supporting Conti, the gestalt of Conti? I know so few things in life. What I do know, I know. Again, whatever your field is, I would not correct your statements about it. What do I know? Cedars accepted that he made some mistatements unintentionally and correct his thread. Prudence with words is a good thing. I have been guilty of going over the top, too. Words are easily uttered or written and hard to retract. My problem is trying to be too nice. Suck it up. I don't know whether it is the crowd this forum attacts, all internet forums, or some other explanation but my real life is not composed of people, sniping at me. We can all be right here but lose sight of something far more important. Just let it drop.