by jwleaks 212 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
My name is Ryan.
Ah thanks. I forgot to include that one. You have bad-mouthed this site on topix and beliefnet and said you wouldn't return to this "cesspool of scum," as you once termed it, so I'm surprised to see you here.
A lot of the issues you raise in your first post were already discussed, countered and/or refuted on beliefnet. Why do you think you'll get a more agreeable audience on JWN - especially with your history?
"Cesspool of scum", eh? Cool, sounds a bit like Mos Eisley... Anyway, I'll talk to anyone who is decent enough to respond to me. Anyone's welcome at this wretched hive of scum and villainy, surely..
Ah thanks. I forgot to include that one. You have bad-mouthed this site on topix and beliefnet and said you wouldn't return to this "cesspool of scum," as you once termed it, so I'm surprised to see you here.
A lot of the issues you raise in your first post were already discussed, countered and/or refuted on beliefnet. Why do you think you'll get a more agreeable audience on JWN - especially with your history?
I simply responded to what was stated here:
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/29365013/?pg=last#533139347
FYI, if anyone wants to read the Appeal briefs, they are available HERE .
A few days ago, the Conti side filed their response to Watchtower's and N. Freemont Congregation's Opening Briefs.
Discussion about it HERE .
You were on my thread. Since when does "discussion" mean "read only?"
This isn't the first time you've been unable to follow the logic in a discussion.
tenyearsafter - "The WTS doesn't want to settle...they would rather fight to preserve their dubious reputation, and prefer to villify the victim instead of "man-ing" up and admit responsibility, and more importantly, institute change. Me thinks the Conti case will just be the tip of the iceberg..."
Not just you thinks; lotsa people thinks, including Team Conti themselves.
This is why I expect the WTS to fight and appeal this all the way up if they have to; victims are less and less willing to accept settlements these days, so a victory for Team Conti can set a damning precedent for any similar cases in the future. However, if the WTS can get a win at the SCOTUS level, that, too, can set a precedent that will effectively immunize them from further litigation. That prospect may be worth the risk to them.
If so, they are, essentially, playing a high stakes poker game with a losing hand (IMO), and are hoping to bluff themselves a win for the whole pot.
The problem of the institutionalized sexual abuse of young people is not going away, but with the advent of the Information Age, it's no longer Western society's Dirty Little Secret, and what's more, that genie can never be put back in the bottle. More and more people are shocked and outraged over the issue, and before too long, the Justice System will need to take more serious efforts:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/240287/1/Something-occurred-to-mee280a6
You were on my thread. Since when does "discussion" mean "read only?"
Um, the point is, you hate this place, you hate 'apostates,' you think engaging with them is a waste of your time and, on more than one occasion, you indicated you would not return to JWN. I'm expressing my surprise, that's all. Why do you think your odd take on this case will get more of a hearing ear on a board populated by people you despise so much?
Um, the point is, you hate this place, you hate 'apostates,' you think engaging with them is a waste of your time and, on more than one occasion, you indicated you would not return to JWN. I'm expressing my surprise, that's all. Why do you think your odd take on this case will get more of a hearing ear on a board populated by people you despise so much?
Posting Guidelines
10.Posting an off-topic comment.
@RYAN-- Ah, now I see where you're coming from.. So, if you had been in the same position as these elders, you would have put the wishes of a woman (who perhaps feared the breakdown of her marriage) in an emotionally difficult position to not immediately report to the police, before the potential safety of the children in your flock?
WTBTS's statements:
I. INTRODUCTION Childhood sexual abuse is an abhorrent, wicked act that must not be tolerated. That does not mean, however, that trial courts can ignore law and reason to compensate abuse victims. Yet, that is what the trial court did to the Fremont Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses even though the congregation had neither custody of the minor victim in question, nor control over the perpetrator. Indeed, the congregation was unaware of the abuse when it occurred, did not condone that abuse, and did not cover it up. California has long held to the principle that when allegations are founded upon nonfeasance, one has no duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party absent a special relationship. To establish a special relationship, there must be an element of "custody or control" between the parties. As this appeal demonstrates, the undisputed evidence in the case below shows that: (1) the Plaintiffs claims against Fremont Congregation are based on nonfeasance; (2) the Plaintiffs parents 1 and her abuser were all rank-and-file members of Fremont Congregation; and (3) Fremont Congregation never had custody or control over the Plaintiff or her abuser, Jonathan Kendrick ("Kendrick'} Thus, Fremont Congregation owed no legal duty to Plaintiff as a matter of law. The trial court, however, deliberately departed from those firmly entrenched principles and erroneously created a new duty for religious organizations - and by extension to all volunteer organizations - that requires them to protect a member 24 hours a day from another member's tortious or criminal acts, whether committed on or off church property. Such a result cannot stand.
The above is dishonest. In so much as any member of Jehovah's Witnesses is conditioned and required to obey " theocratic arrangements " and duly appointed Elder's, or face real consequences, show's that the Fremont Congregation Elder's had control over Kendrick and Conti. The Governing Body, DOs CO's, Elders , accept custody of all whom they shepherd. They also have a special relationship. Just listen to the song Ever Loyal. Jehovah's Witnesses trust their Elders and other brothers " taking the lead " implicitly for the most part.
With respect to Jonathan Kendrick being a " rank-and-file " member, another dishonest statement emerges. All baptised members are " Ordained Ministers ", not rank and file members. If Candice was baptised then she was also an " ordained minister."
The claim that a " new duty " was created is quite frankly disgusting. It is the duty of Christ's " brothers " the Governing Body of Jehovahs Witnesses to take resonable steps to proptect the flock at all times. The same goes for the Elders. The failure to deal with child molestation appropriately for decades, constitutes failure. Quite simply, if it happened on your watch, then you bear responsibility. Especially if you know that a member of your congregation has been guilty of sexual misconduct with children before. Not warning other parents of a danger to thier children is inexcusable.
The GB, the most humble, spiritually insightful group of men, in all of human history, THE FDS of bible prophecy, are more concerned with legalities than morals. That speaks volumes as to their true character. All human beings have a moral responsibility to protect each other, especially children. In fact, many Circuit Overseers are fond of using a certain story to explain why Bible Priciples always trump laws. The spirit of the law is superior than the letter of the law, always. This is the example that the Governing Body aprroves of Circuit Overseers using to teach Jehovah's Witnesses the importance of morality.
Morality:
Suppose that you are driving your car through a neighborhood. Do you drive as fast as you want? Of course not. Why? As Christians we obey the superior authorities. The law dictates that we operate our vehicles at a safe speed. What happens if you break the law? You could recieve a ticket! So we obey the law in this case.
How does this relate to our discussion about morality? Well there are laws, and then there are principles. Principles are superior to laws. How so?
Imagine again that you are driving. The speed-limit is clearly posted. It's 35 miles per hour. You come around a curve and see many children playing near the edge of the road. The are laughing, and playing catch, and not paying attention as children do not always realize certain dangers exist. What will you do?! There is not much of a shoulder, one false-step and the children will be in the road! Will you slow down out of concern, based on the principle of love? Or will you reason that you have the legal right to drive at the speed limit. You are not breaking the law, and besides, where are the Parents?! It's not your responsibility to look after their children.
What would you do? Principles should always take precedent over laws. The principle of love should guide our actions, always.
So, I ask this. How are the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses doing in this regard? Based on the court transcripts and their responses, are they accepting community responsibility, or any responsibility? Are they guided by the principle of love? Are they more concerned with the letter of the law than the welfare of children?
In case what I said in my last post makes no sense to others who are reading only THIS thread (don't think it does without quoting his post), I was referring to Ryan's post on the thread that he started on beliefnet.. "There's two very simple reasons why the elders didn't initiate police involvement. 1. This incident took place well before January 1, 1997 when religious leaders were declared mandated reporters ("professionals" applicableto child abuse reporting laws). 2. There were other competent adults involvedwith first hand knowledge. Read the “Day two” jury trial transcript: Mr. Schnack: "And you saidyou did not report it to the police when she told you?" Evelyn Kendrick: "Not initially." Mr. Schnack: "Okay. Why not?" Evelyn Kendrick: "I thought it was an isolated incident. I thought maybe because he had been drinking. I wanted to try to save my marriage. And so I called the elders instead thinking that they could help us out." Under what constitutional or legal arrangement did the elders have to impose on the liberties of Evelyn Kendrick if she chose not to go to the authorities at the time the elders were notified of her family situation? If she wanted the authorities involved at that time, she would have pursued this course of action. After all, she had known about this matter for four months prior to the elder's being contacted." http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/29365013/What_Part_did_Gary_Abrahamson_Play_in_the_Candace_Conti_Court_Case?pg=1
Posting Guidelines
10.Posting an off-topic comment.
You cheeky monkey LOL!
Again, you are re-hashing the same ol' baloney here as you did on beliefnet, that the WTS and the elders were not liable for Candace's abuse because (according to what your comments were implying in post #1),
- eye-witnesses could not corroborate, and Candace did not tell the truth, about the opportunities for and circumstances of her abuse; she wouldn't have been assigned to work with Kendrick in FS; it was not normal to sit on an unrelated grown man's lap at the meetings and so,
- her parents consented to Kendrick's odd behavior with Candace and facilitated the abuse, therefore they should be liable;
- that Rick Simons (and the court system) is targetting JWs; he and the Plaintiff are only doing this for the money.
