WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown 85 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Chaserious

  Yes, but Mind Blown, statutory duties to report have nothing to do with the Conti verdict.

  "11Your deliberations are to be based solely

  12 upon the evidence presented and the instructions given

  13 without any consideration whatsoever as to whether there

  14 was any statutory duty to report an incident of

  15 suspected child abuse.

  16 That, again, has nothing to do with what the

  17 standards are of care and negligence issues."

  That is from page 106 of this trial transcript, from the jury instructions.

  For the record, I don't agree with the dating site comparison. In my opinion, one of the worst things the WTS has done is discouraged victims and their families from reporting to police, but I don't believe that is going to be the basis of the appeal because it was not the basis of the verdict. I do hope that Candace gets her verdict upheld, but I have serious concerns that the appeals court is not going to agree with this broad duty to warn/protect.
• 

  CaptainSchmideo

  In the book "Judging Jehovah's Witnesses" by Shawn Francis Peters (a very good read, by the way. Goes into great detail about the Gobitas Flag Salute case and the resulting cases after that), the writer observed that at the local trials, the defense of the ministry by the Witnesses and their lawyers was amazingly inept. A lot of court time was wasted with preaching of doctrine instead of arguing the free speech or freedom of religion merits of the case. Invariably, the lower courts would decide AGAINST the Witnesses, and then the appeals process would begin, with the legal maneuvering designed to get the case moved up as high as it would go, and eventually, some of these cases made it to the Supreme Court.
  
  The Society is like that good ol' boy used car salesman: friendly, unthreatening in appearance, easy to talk to, makes you think that YOU are getting the better of HIM, and then, end result, you got sold a hoopty, and he took every cent you got, and the gold fillings in your teeth besides. This is not going to be over any time soon. Sorry, folks!
• 

  Resistance is Futile

  mindblown, I believe there is loop hole in CA law about clergy having to report abuse. Many states still have "clergy exemptions" to reporting child abuse. These laws must be changed, and I think if the public was made aware of these exemptions there would be a lot of pressure put on state legislators to modify the child abuse laws. The following was copied directly from your link:

  10. Are clergy mandated to report? Yes. Beginning January 1, 1997, all clergy members are mandated to report known or suspected instances of child abuse to a child protective agency. Clergy members are exempt from their mandated reporting responsibilities only if the knowledge or reasonable suspicion of child abuse was obtained during a "penitential communication". (P.C. 11165. ( c)( (1))."Penitential communication" means a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret. (P.C. 11166( c)(2)).

  Although, if an elder in California reports back to headquarters in NY I would think that the person in Bethel is now under NY state law, and could be prosecuted for not notifying law enforcement. Perhaps someone here with legal experience could clarify the reporting requirements in such a situation.
• 

  mind blown

  Resistance is Futile even then, penitential communication has to be between "one" Clergy member "in confindence", in "private", no second or third party, no sharing records/files at all, no other witnesses to the confession, no one else overhearing, or it will not be upheld.

  Again, Clergy in Calif are mandated to report. http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/entres/forms/English/PUB132.pdf

  Also, Kendrick was already on file with police as a pedo. Elders knew. He is supposed to be kept at certain distance from Children. They still had him near children, and going door to door.
• 

  Resistance is Futile

  Resistance is Futile, even then, penitential communication has to be between "one" Clergy member "in confindence", in "private", no second or third party

  Do you have a source for the quote above? Any legal precedent? Because the text of the law in the link you provided doesn't mention those specifics.

  It seems that Watchtower lawyers could argue that this exemption should still apply even though their confessional arraignment is different from the Catholic Church in that other elders are present during these "private, in confidence" penitential communications.
• 

  mind blown

  I first read it here, http://forum.freeadvice.com/marriage-domestic-partnerships-other-family-law-matters-45/clergy-confidentiality-47138.html then confirmed this with Rick Simons himself.
• 

  metatron

  There are too many examples of the WTS hiring outside legal help (as with this case) to conclude that their home office legal staff is as powerful or distinguished as it once may have been.

  In addition, the Australia situation suggests their counsel was caught foolishly unaware. As to the Conti case, I find it astounding if they were blindsided by a jury verdict. Juries can do what they want and JW's may not be seen as pathetic victims anymore - but rather just another corrupt, uncaring, lying religion that hides molestation.

  There may be a gap - as is often the case with authoritarian organizations - between an ignorant, stubborn leadership and the real needs of competent administration. Need I elaborate?

  metatron
• 

  DNCall

  We live in a 24/7 news world where so much of the time is filled with speculation. I can't pretend to be unaffected, so here is my speculation:

  Should the WTS open the door, just a crack, for the uniquiness of their activities to be brought into play, the argument that they cannot be held liable for the actions of one member toward the other might not stand. The amount of time that adult members and child members spend with each other each week, week in and week out, is somewhat unique. Not all that time can be supervised, but there are policies in place to assume supervisorial responsibility (i.e., the elders will "keep an eye" on a known child abuser). The public ministry is less supervised, where you have a known pedophile interacting with households that include children. This narrows the field of liability considerably as respects the WTS.

  I'm not sure the WTS wants to open that door.
• 

  Farkel

  Chaserious,

  You said:

  : As to the 10th Amendment limiting federal judicial powers, that certainly is not a theory that has ever been endorsed by the Supreme Court. It may be a minority academic view that some agree with, but I don't think you would get very far with that argument in the federal courts.

  What kind of shit are you smoking? That's not a theory, that is what the 10th Amendment SAYS! Your argument is that the 10th amendment is worthless and that the US Supreme Court has the legitimate power to do whatever they want.

  Even an idiot like myself knows that the Supreme Court cannot tread in the waters of legitimate and duly exercised powers by the States. The States are sovereign in their rightful exercise of their own powers as is the Federal Government in theirs.

  If the States exceed their powers and/or violate through the inclusionary rules the United States Constitution, SCOTUS can intervene, but only in that situation.

  You must be so young and brainwashed that you think the Feds can do whatever they want, if they don't like what the States are doing. Often they do, but each and every time they trump lawful and legitimate activities by a State, they are trampling on the rights of every US citizen.

  Farkel
• 

  Chaserious

  Chaserious said:

  As to the 10th Amendment limiting federal judicial powers, that certainly is not a theory that has ever been endorsed by the Supreme Court.

  Farkel said:

  What kind of shit are you smoking?

  Well, if it has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, why don't you tell me in what case they did so. I think you are wading into territory that you don't understand very well, Farkel. You may also be confusing the federal legislative power with the federal judicial power. While the 10th Amendment has (rarely - I believe 2-3 times in U.S. history) been held by the Supreme Court to limit the legislative power of Congress from infringing on the rights of the states, it has never been held in the Supreme Court, and probably in any court of law, to limit judicial power in any way. I am not a proponent of unlimited federal power. I'm just explaining to you what the black letter law is.

  Farkel said:

  That's not a theory, that is what the 10th Amendment SAYS!

  Actually, every sentence of the Bill of Rights, except for the 10th Amendment, uses the word "shall." The Tenth Amendment just says that the powers not delegated to the United States and not prohibited by the Constitution "are" reserved to the states or the people. Federal judicial power is delegated to the federal courts elsewhere in the constitution in Article III (with some limits), which also gives Congress the right to further define the judicial powers. Therefore, every court is going to look at what Article III says, and what the statutes promulgated by Congress pursuant to Article III say, when deciding if federal jurisdiction applies in a given case. They are never going to look at the 10th Amendment.

  You see, Article III already makes the federal courts into courts of limited jurisdiction. There must be both a constitutional hook and a statutory hook for every case brought in federal court. Therefore, the 10th Amendment saying that rights that aren't in the constitution are reserved to the states adds nothing to Article III. There already has to be an explicit constitutional right to bring any given case into federal court.

  Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

  You must be so young and brainwashed that you think the Feds can do whatever they want

  You must not have read my original comment. I don't think the Feds can do whatever they want. I just explained that the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited by other material and not by the Tenth Amendment.