Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
wow,,90 pages?,,I will try to scan thru later but would appreciate anyone's comments about this brief (? ) and highlights before I can get to it. I am sure it is good.
I wonder if there will be additional "oral" arguments after this?
Ah, my afternoon reading.
Awesome job JWLEAKS
I really liked this arguement:
Defendants also argue that the affirmative duty imposed by the trial
court impinges on their religious freedom. However, it is well established
that a religious organization cannot insulate itself from liability by
designating legally-proscribedconduct as “religious belief.” Moreover, the
Your efforts are appreciated
I like this info about the 1st amendment application limits:
The Court of Appeal rejected the arguments, observing that the
freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act is not. “‘Conduct
remains subject to regulation to protect society.’ [Citation.]” (does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid andneutral law of general applicability on the basis that to do so would violate a religious belief. ( does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid andneutral law of general applicability on the basis that to do so would violate a religious belief. ( does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid andneutral law of general applicability on the basis that to do so would violate a religious belief. ( RCALA,supra , 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 430.) The First Amendment, the court said, Ibid .) Reviewing United States Supreme Court cases, the neutral and general applicability do not require justification by a compelling state interest. ( become “a law unto himself” by designating otherwise proscribed conduct as religious belief. ( Id . at p. 431.) The law does not permit anyone to Id . at pp. 431-432.)
Just read it... I don't see a way out for the WT... Can't wait until this is finally over... It will definitely pave the way for more victims to come forward...
Thanks, JW LEAKS!!
Check this out:
E. Defendants Give Improbable And Conflicting Reasons For Their Policy Of Keeping Child Abuse Secret.Defendants proffered a number of justifications in support of their policy of keeping secret from Congregation members the fact that there was a known child molester among them.
Even though defendants viewed parents as the primary protectors against child abuse (3 RT 167), and even though they knew child molesters operated in secret and could be difficult to identify (3 RT 168, 258, 259; 4 RT 436), they nevertheless took the improbable position that knowing the identity of a child molester would not place parents in a better position to protect their children (3 RT 165, 168, 169; 4 RT 438).
Elder Lamerdin testified:
Q. . . . Wouldn't the parents be able to make a better decision of who to trust to take their child somewhere if they knew that one member of the congregation was a known child molester?
A. I would have to say no.
Elder Abrahamson took the position that providing parents with the traits and warning signs of child molesters was just as effective as telling them a molester's actual identity:
Q. And so the best way to allow parents to protect their children in the congregation is to identify for them the individuals who are positively identified already as having sexually molested a child.Don't you agree?
A. How about identifying the traits of individuals. And you can look at a person, and if he shows those traits, and then you have a suspicion, don't let your child go with that. If you have a suspicion, you are under no obligation to let your child go with that person.
Q. Well, from the last Awake Magazine that we looked at, we know that one of those traits might be they are a pleasant, well-liked church group leader?
A. That's true. That has happened.
Q. Wouldn't it have been much more helpful to the parents in the congregation to know what to look for with Jonathan Kendrick and to protect their own children if they knew that he had sexually molested a child?
A. I think this information gives them good ammunition ( the AWAKE ) to look at individuals to see how they line up to these situations, and if they would want to trust their children with them. And they can make a call on that.
This is classic!!
Exhibit 1 ( A leter from the Governing Body ) cautions that those who oppose the Kingdom's work may take advantage of legal processes in order to "interfere with it or impede its progress." (8 AA 1973.) It states,"In recent years, this matter has come to be a cause for increasing concern. The spirit of the world has sensitized people regarding their legal 'rights'19and the legal means by which they can exact punishment if such 'rights' are violated."
My brain is bruised after reading the entire response. It is very strong in supporting the original decision. I enjoyed how they threw it back on the original lawyers for the WT that they didn't object during the trial, and are whining about it now because of the decision. You cannot appeal based on YOUR mistakes.