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

by jwleaks 212 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Diest

  Prime - The real issue relates back to the failure of the organization to inform the congregation or the superior authorities. They forced many to be silent with threats of DFing the people who brought reproach on 'God's Name'

  Kendrick was not a rank and file member in the same way a lay catholic person is. He is a public minister who was going door to door distributing literature on behalf of the organization.

  I wont spend too much time worry about your comments, the courts will write a much more eliquent response to the watchtower. I feel confident that the JW will loose this one, but time will tell.
• 

  Scott77

  Hi Jwleaks,
  
  Please, can you post all conti vs.Watchtower Court case documents in one and well organized PDF? Such a one large document can be updated with a new one as they arrive from the court. I think that would be a good idea for us to upload into amazon kindle reader as one readable document. perhaps someone here on JWN has already done that. Right?
  
  
  Thanks
  
  
  Scott77
• 

  The Quiet One

  @PRIME-- "The only way Jonathon Kendrick would have been able to take the plaintiff to his home, is if the plaintiff's parents gave Kendrick explicit permission to take their daughter off in a car by himself. If this did indeed happen, such a thing had nothing to do with the door-to-door ministry." ..Whether it relates legally or technically to the 'door-to-door ministry' is irrelevant to me. Perhaps you would make a fine lawyer, if all that concerns you is legalities.. From a moral point of view it would be clear to most 'normal' (I love how you use this term to try to blame her parents for trusting Candace with someone they had no reason to be wary of) people that if you do not warn parents at all that someone may be worth keeping an eye on, no details necessary, the atmosphere of trust within most congregations will lead to dangerous scenarios if someone is a predator. For example, when I was a child, my parents wouldn't have batted an eyelid about me going off on a return call or getting a lift back from the territory alone with an adult member of the opposite sex.. Because we, as Jw's, generally trust each other, don't we? Surely you don't believe that all parents in most congregations would never allow their child to get a lift to/from the territory, or to work with an adult member of the opposite sex on the ministry? (and this question would still require ignoring the fact that members of the same sex could be a potential abuser that the elders know about, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't want to discuss anything outside of this case..) . I know that I did both frequently. The moral question remains: If YOU were an elder, would you have privately warned the parents in the congregation.. Or would YOU have merely hoped they would use the magical pedophile-detecting magazine that should have given everyone sufficient warning that Kendrick was dangerous? I know you won't reply, but just think about it.. (I'll leave discussion of Watchtower policy to someone else, to me.. at the very least.. a general warning talk regarding the issue should be given at all times that molestation has been so much as accused let alone confessed, to warn people to not leave their children alone with anyone for even a short car journey, coupled with privately warning parents about an individual.. which happened at a congregation I know of once (the informal private warnings not the talk), although the person they were warned about may not have been baptised, as if that matters.. rather than merely ignoring the problem and hoping nobody gets hurt.)
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Prime has 1 post.... That is all.
• 

  Vidiot

  Congregation paints a doomsday 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:

  1. Actually keep a “watchful eye” on the molester (which defendants claim was done anyway),
  2. don’t send a known child molester out into church activities with a vulnerable child, and
  3. use the power Elder Abrahamson admitted he had to inform parents of the presence of a known child molester.

  Acutally, there might be an element of truth to this, but the implications are ugly...

  It could be considered a "burdensome responsibility" (from the WTS and the Elders' POV) for the following reasons (related to the three points listed above):

  1. The number of sex offenders imbedded in the R&F has become so indemic and widespread (and there are strong indications that this is the case), that the Elders are too busy policing alleged offenders to conduct their other congregation responsibilities to a satisfactory degree. As a result, the congregation suffers from neglect.

  2. The WTS mandates that all active JWs must engage in the door-to-door ministry to remain "in good standing" with their respective congregations. However, a small turnout for a particular service group - even on a Saturday morning - can and does happen. As such, a less experienced brother handling the group in that instance may feel that he has no choice but to place an alleged sex offender in an intimate setting (small car group, for instance) with a potential victim to avoid having that day's door-to-door ministry cancelled or otherwise compromised in some way.

  3. Congregations gossip internally. If the number of sex offenders imbedded in the R&F has indeed become indemic and widespread, and the Elders did fully disclose to all parents in the congregation who the offenders were, the information would undoubtedly be spread quite quickly, with a potential end result of a significant drop in meeting attendance and door-to-door ministry participation. After all, the vast majority of parents (even JWs) would not want their children anywhere near accused child molestors, many wouldn't want to be around them themselves, and in some cases, would be all the incentive they needed to leave the WTS entirely.

  Imagine the long-term effect that would have on the WTS's survival.

  Like I said, the implications are ugly.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Their should be some law which prohibits child molestors, and those accused of violent crimes from going door to door be it for a religion or to sell vaacum cleaners. Maybe a law that requires and person going door to door to get a security clearence picture ID to do so, be it for religious or commercial purposes, showable on demand from the householder, and a reporting # in case the house holder a complaint of harrasment or some other illegal or obnoxious behavor.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  " Their should be some law which prohibits child molestors, and those accused of violent crimes from going door to door be it for a religion or to sell vaacum cleaners. "

  I agree. I would go even further. If I was the GB, I would state that anyone even accused of molesting children could never, ever do anything but answer at meetings until found innocent by the Superior Authorities. It sounds harsh as things could drag on for years. Still, if the superior authorities were involved as they should be, and found you innocent, then anyone who really knew you would not treat you badly. In the long-run it would work out for the best, especially for children. I would add that the Authorities could also determine if there was any validity to accusations at all. Automatically NOT involving the authorities is a lose/lose in the long run for children. Then ONLY ones who benefit are the GB, the Org's reputation and bottom line ( $$$) and child molesters.

  If there was real transparency in the Org, then so many problems could be avoided. Take away the secrecy, and those who are falsely accused would have everyone's support, even though they may not be able to hold any " organizational position.

  If I was falsely accused I would gladly give up any position to protect children. I would also want everyone to know that I was found innocent. The way things are now, the secrecy hurts everyone. Sadly, the GB's hubris will prevent them from doing anything on their own. They will have to be forced.
• 

  Prime

  Prime - The real issue relates back to the failure of the organization to inform the congregation or the superior authorities. They forced many to be silent with threats of DFing the people who brought reproach on 'God's Name'

  Kendrick was not a rank and file member in the same way a lay catholic person is. He is a public minister who was going door to door distributing literature on behalf of the organization.

  I wont spend too much time worry about your comments, the courts will write a much more eliquent response to the watchtower. I feel confident that the JW will loose this one, but time will tell.

  I didn't notice that anyone was intimidated into silence in this case, especially in regards to a person's right to report a crime to the superior authorities. In fact, it appears to be a conscious choice not to have done so, on the part of the person who claims to have initially informed the elders of this matter.

  Jury Trial Day 1

  Mr. Schnack: "And you said you 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."

  According to court documents, Evelyn Kendrick reported this matter to church elders four months after the alleged abuse. The same circumstances could plausibly confront any given religious leader. These are generally not the circumstances that constitute malice in a lawsuit.

  http://www.nhcadsv.org/faith_based_sexassault.cfm

  Role of leaders

  Two out of every three Americans are affiliated with a religious, spiritual, or faith-based group or organization, and approximately one out of every four Americans is an active member of such a community. Therefore it is not surprising that many victims of sexual assault turn to religious leaders for guidance in dealing with violence.

  Note: Under New Hampshire law, any suspected abuse of a child under 18 must be reported to the Division for Children, Youth, and Families. Failure to report such abuse is a crime.

  The incident in this case took place before January 1, 1997, when religious leaders were declared mandated reporters ("professionals" applicable to child abuse reporting laws).

  If the Court of Appeal rejects the church defendant's appeal (and that's a matter for them), it will be a game changer.

  What's good for one is good for all. If any organization can successfully be sued with the same circumstances in this lawsuit as liability, I personally won't have a problem with this recent litigation attacking Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  Tylinbrando

  No matter who it is that learns a child has been sexually abused or even if the abuse is suspected, law enforcement should be called immediately.

  The abuser needs to be punished and then each person that did not alert the authorities after acquiring knowledge of the abuse should also be punished.

  If people that have knowledge that an individual is a sexual abuser of children and then they place children in the care of that molestor or fail to warn the child or the child's guardians of a molestor's propensity, then those individuals need to be punished.

  This is only one of many harsh lessons the Watchtower is going to learn.
• 

  Chaserious

  What do you think about this case? Might it go all the way to the Supreme court?

  I haven't had time to read the recently filed Conti brief yet, but if you mean the U.S. Supreme Court, I think there is virtually no chance the Supreme Court hears this case. The key issues in this case are questions of state tort law, which the U.S. Supreme Court does not review. Even if there were an important federal consitutional question at stake, the chances of any state court case making it to the Supreme Court are incredibly small.

  I think there is a good chance that the California Supreme Court hears the case, however - especially if Conti wins at the appellate level.