Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641

by jwleaks 212 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • LisaRose

    When I first read about this case I thought it amazing that they had won, it is not as clear cut as some other cases involving priests or clergy. But Rick did a fantastic job of proving the Watchtower's guilt due to its practices. What convinced me was the fact that any brother on the JC (that dealt with Kendrick) would never, ever let their own child go off with Kendrick, nor would they have let their daughter spend the night with Kendricks daughter, yet the others in the congregation were left in the dark due to Watchtower policies that are designed to protect the Watchtower, not children.

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad

    Thank you jwleaks. Its' like Christmas in June in JW apostate land. Excellent Thread.

  • jhine

    wot else is scary is that the new bloke on the bloke has not long urged parents to FORCE their children to go out in field service ! They do not learn .

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    So what happens on 1st July? Will the judge give his verdict then? On the court website under Sheduled Actions:-


    (Don't know why the above link isn't clickable.)

  • Chaserious

    Thanks for posting, JWleaks!

    So what happens on 1st July?

    July 1st is the date the WTS reply brief is due. It's a shorter brief where they are able to respond to the arguments in this latest brief. Then it will be fully briefed, and an oral argument date will be set.

  • Julia Orwell
    Julia Orwell

    Something tells me they'll drag this on as long as possible, wear the plaintiffs out by dropping huge amounts of money into their defense til the plaintiff has no more money to pay to continue, or else she'll end up with nothing. Rich cults just wear their opponents out financially if they can.

  • jgnat

    At this point, Julia, every day this drags on costs the WTS interest on the judgement.

  • AnnOMaly

    I thought this was amusing.

    6. Social and financial burdens

    Congregation paints a doomsday [love the choice of word!] picture of what it terms the "extremely burdensome" responsibility of protecting its members and their children from further acts of molestation by a known child molester in their Congregation. (NFC AOB 40.) The Congregation's scenario is highly exaggerated. The actual burden and can be summed up in three minor responsibilities: ... ... (Respondent's Brief, p. 37-8)

    The reference North Freemont Congregation, AOB, p. 40-1 has this huge list of "vexing questions" meant to show how objectionable and unworkable it would be to protect the congregation from molesters 24/7. The irony is, JWs are urged NOT to shy away from their 'burdensome' responsibility of spending as much of their time and effort as possible in trying to warn and protect whoever they can of the non-JW public from being harmed at Armageddon! Is the well-being of their own children less precious than that of non-JWs?

    Also this from p. 69-70:


    Rule 8.204(a)(1)(2)(C) of the California Rules of Court requires an appellant’s opening brief to provide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record. The opening briefs of both Watchtower and the Congregation violate this rule. Each omits critical facts, including the fact that the elders assigned Jonathan Kendrick and Candace Conti together in field service, the expert testimony of Dr. Salter and Carl Lewis, and the testimony of Carolyn Martinez and Evelyn Kendrick.

    Furthermore, defendants fail to cite controlling authorities relied on by the trial court. (See, e.g., RAB 1-3, 6, 7, citing RCALA; 6 AA 1607, 1608; 7 AA 1810, citing Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.; RAB 105, citing Wilson v. Ritto, Denton v. City of Fullerton and Thompson v. County of Alameda; RAB 106, citing Romero v. Superior Court and Chaney v. Superior Court.)

    Defendants’ tactics are not unlike those in Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky LLP (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 534, 539-540, where misrepresentation of the record and refusal to discuss established case law without explanation or justification justified sanctions. Here, defendants’ omission of critical evidence and failure to discuss controlling law is a tacit acknowledgment that their appeal has no merit.

    We're seeing this MO all too often. If the position is on a wobbly foundation, cherry-pick and misstate the record (see e.g. on p. 56) to make it look like the argument is stronger than it is. Not to mention the red herrings and straw men (duty to warn violates Constitution; BOE letter was about the scriptural stance on confidentiality; Simons' alleged closing arguments regarding mandated reporting).

    I guess, if it's a strategy often used by the Writing Department, it should be no surprise to see the same in the Legal Department.


    I love how he thwarts the WTS attempt to bring in constitutional issues so as to open the door to future appeal to CA and/or US Supreme Court.

    Me too! He cuts right through and demolishes it.

    Thanks for this, jwleaks!

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    After reading this, I can't help but believe that the District Convention talks about "apostates" are an effort to pressure the sheeple into ignoring all the bad publicity around this and other cases that Watchtower is losing.

    And the drama that starts with the announcement of a ban on Jehovah's Witnesses is a switch from the actual scenario where the announcement will be that Watchtower Corporation loses millions in landmark settlements for their efforts to protect pedophiles and subject children to abuse at the hands of repeat offenders.

  • life is to short

Share this