by DesirousOfChange 59 Replies latest members private
My take on this is: The Elders had knowdge of kendrick's offending and THEY not only decided it was Ok for him to go from door to door (hey we have decided its ok for him to come into your house and talk to you even though hes a convicted child molester) it was Ok for him to be in the company of a little girl who he abused.
Someone should have said something to her parents let alone the people he was calling on from DTD.
karter.
okay Doc, I'll have a go
IF YOU'RE NOT A LEGAL-BEAGLE, go ahead and weigh in as if you were on the jury. (Try to be un-biased.)
as a member of the jury I would have liked some input from the judge regarding wiggle room that religions are given in how rules are perceived and applied internally. I think the judge is going to get some criticism from appellate judges and hopefully this will not be critical to the outcome of the case itself. This for me is the biggest point of weakness despite Mr Simmons arguments to the contrary. just my opinion based on my own reading of the case.
I feel that candace Conti & Rick Simon's are eventually going to win this case. I mean- the evidence is indisputable in my opinion in Conti's favor. It's just that the WT Society attorneys and legal team is going to drag his thing out as LONGGGGGGGG............ as they can in order to stall and avoid the inevitable millions $$$ that they'll have to pay out. Stall tactics that are legally accepted is what WT Society is doing. In time- WT Society will run out of time and options and Candace and her attorney will be paid. My 2 cents
Just about everything that been can be said about the state of evidence and liability issues has been stated here;
To answer your concern, just compare this lawsuit to any successful lawsuit filed in the United States.
There are more “Christians” in prison than those unaffiliated with a religious organization.
http://www.pewforum.org/Government/religion-in-prisons.aspx#various
On average, the chaplains surveyed say that Christians as a whole make up about two-thirds of the inmate population in the facilities where they work.
A church has never been held responsible for the actions of any given member that held no leadership position or special assignment (that indicated some trustworthiness on his or her part) with a very few exceptions.
The only time an organization has ever been held accountable for the actions of a miscellaneous member that held no leadership position, is if they allowed a person with a history of abuse to volunteer in activities sponsored for children or if there was a lack of supervision in such activities.
05-18-12 Miscellaneous Deft. Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed
Within the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, there is no "Sunday School," "church camp," or other children's activities in which children are separated from their parents. The parents of children in the congregation are expected to guide, direct and attend to the needs of their children. The elders are there to give spiritual guidance and direction and any other practical assistance possible, but the parents are there to monitor and discipline their children. Jehovah 's Witness children are not separated from their parents for any spiritual programs or activities.
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/199/141.html
This is an action by which the plaintiff, an 11-year-old girl, sued the defendant, Renee Der-Ohanian, also known as Renee K. Arakelian, doing business as Happy Valley Ranch, operator of a camp for children, for injuries and damages sustained by her through sexual abuse by an unknown person when she was a visitor at the camp.
The two little girls were assigned to a room in one of the barracks-like buildings, and no adult or supervisor was placed in the room with them. In fact, there was a decided shortage of proper supervision, and this forms the essential ground for the claim that respondent was negligent. The action is premised upon the lack of proper care for the plaintiff.
Outside of this premise, no organization has ever been held responsible for child abuse. This is why the case is being appealed.
Settlement Conference Statement of The North Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Fremont California Filed 04-19-12
Discussion of Liability Issues
Settlement Issues
If Plaintiff was abused, it was committed by Kendrick, a third party not under the control or supervision of the Church Defendants. Kendrick denies abusing Plaintiff. Further, even if, arguendo the jury should find that Kendrick abused Plaintiff in the Kingdom Hall by hugging her and having her sit on his lap while her parents were present, the damages for that alleged conduct would be minimal at best. Also, if the jury finds the Church Defendants liable for abuse of Plaintiff off of Kingdom Hall property (such as in Kendrick's private home), the Church Defendants will have little option except to appeal such a verdict. The Church Defendants could not let such a potential precedent go unchallenged. Finally, Plaintiffs description of the location, nature, and extent of her alleged abuse is contradicted by, among other things, her parents and the elders and thus lacks credibility. No demand for a settlement has yet been made by Plaintiff; however, the Church Defendants will participate in the mandatory settlement conference in good faith.
In the civil courts, a person/organization doesn't even have to violate an established statute to stand trial or a statute like "a legal duty of care" can mean anything a judge and jury wants it to during a proceeding. This is the only reason a case like this was accepted into the legal system in the first place.
This appellant court may uphold the jury verdict because the lower court carries some momentum, but I don't see how the highest court can uphold the jury verdict without expanding liability issues to an unprecedented decree.
The only time an organization has ever been held accountable for the actions of a miscellaneous member that held no leadership position, is if they allowed a person with a history of abuse to volunteer in activities sponsored for children or if there was a lack of supervision in such activities.
What? Like assigning a child to go with a known child abuser and failing to warn the parents about him?
They are guilty - get over it, wouldn't your god want wrong-doers punished? Wasn't 'his organization' punished by god when they did things wrong in the bible? Why aren't you rejoicing at this correction that your god is allowing? If he manipulates things to his will then this is his will ... why are you complaining about it?
I respectfully disagree with you Prime when you state, "Outside of this premise, no organization has ever been held responsible for child abuse. This is why the case is being appealed."
No, this case is being appealed because it will set a precedent that will financially cripple the Watchtower organization if the appeal fails. It is the fulcrum upon which the future of the organization pivots and the lever appears to be precariously teetering in the favor of Candace Conti.
A congregation knew that a guy was a predator/pedophile. Acting on orders from headquarters, they did not tell anyone in the congregation to beware. That alone might not be enough to condemn them, as people kind of sort of could argue the man's right to privacy and parents taking responsibility for their own children.
But the congregation that knew about him regularly sent Candace to work with him alone. You cannot expect a young girl to know how to stop the advances of a skilled predator. History shows that these guys get away with this for awhile, maybe never getting the child to get up the nerve to say something.
Just knowingly pairing a pedophile with a child is enough for them to lose, following orders makes it go to the deeper pockets of the Mother organization.
What? Like assigning a child to go with a known child abuser and failing to warn the parents about him?
They are guilty - get over it, wouldn't your god want wrong-doers punished? Wasn't 'his organization' punished by god when they did things wrong in the bible? Why aren't you rejoicing at this correction that your god is allowing? If he manipulates things to his will then this is his will ... why are you complaining about it?
There are nonprofit organizations, especially churches that have adopted a system for warning parents. Jehovah's Witnesses is one of them. Not before 1996 however, when the national sex offender registry was made accessible to the general pubic.
All organizations use the same methods and channel when it comes to this matter. JWs are no different.
I have no complaints as long as persons are treated the same.
Nothing I say will change the outcome of the appeal. JWs are being compelled to address the matter.
If you don't want it addressed here, no problema.
JWs are no different.
They are different. At church, not warning the parents about some predator/pedophile but telling parents to watch their kids is pretty much enough. (Not always, but tends to be.) They are not assigning your daughter or son to work alone with this fellow.
And we already establish that the elders don't keep knowledge confidential like a confession, but share it with the organization.
Besides, if you are going to be claiming you are "God's one true organization," you should be guided to know when it is necessary to protect the children and God can protect His own organization from reproach in that situation.
In the civil courts, a person/organization doesn't even have to violate an established statute to stand trial or a statute like "a legal duty of care" can mean
anything a judge and jury wants it to during a proceeding. This is the only reason a case like this was accepted into the legal system in the first place.
What is this supposed to mean? Are you saying the only reason there was a jury award is because the system is flawed? Of course you don't have to violate a statute to stand trial. Why should that be the case? Most civil lawsuits are not based on a violation of a statute. If a grocery store mops the floor and doesn't put up a sign, and as a result someone falls and breaks their arm, wouldn't you agree the victim is entitled to compensation even though there is no statute that says "you must put up wet floor signs" or "you must not mop the floor?" Most careless and reckless acts that injure others are not illegal.
Also, cases don't get "accepted into the legal system." The general rule is that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody for anything. If it's a legally deficient claim the judge will dismiss it. If not, it can be argued to the jury.
Next, a duty of care is not a statute. (Although some duties can arise as a result of a specific statues). Duty of care is a common-law element of negligence. It does not mean anything a judge wants and it certainly does not mean anything a jury wants. Juries are not entitled to decide what duties apply since that is a matter of law. The judge tells the jury what duty applies and the jury decides if the duty was discharged. Judges have to follow established law that indicates when there is a duty. The judge in this case followed established law that says if a special relationship exists between the defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant must warn the plaintiff about certain known harms. He decided that a special relationship existed. That narrow issue of a special relationship is really all this case boils down to.
You are good at persuasive writing. Some of your points are fair. Perhaps you would have been a good lawyer if it wasn't banned by the WTS for all except the chosen few. But you know JWs are not the same as every other religion. They are taught they can trust their "brothers and sisters." They have to - because their social circle is limited to those in their congregation or maybe neighboring congregations, making it all the more urgent to warn of a known predator in that insular circle. Whether or not they will be legally liable, they certainly were morally cupable in this matter.
