Compilation of Candice Conti brief quotes.

by zound 3 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • zound
    zound

    I'm just putting together some choice cuts from the Candace Conti brief to present to some JW's. If you want to add any or think I should take some away please let me know.

    Also is a place where the full brief is available that isn't JWLEAKS? Just for this case I'd like to direct them to a 'non-apostate' site to obtain the full brief.

    The following are some exerts from June 3, 2013 – Candice Conti v. Watchtower, Respondant’s Brief prepared by Rick Simmons – A136641

    The full 90 page brief as well as other documents relating to the case are available from

    "Plaintiff Jane Doe (Candace Conti) was nine years old when the elders of defendant North Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“Congregation”) repeatedly assigned her to participate with Jonathan Kendrick, a man known to them as a child molester, in the Congregation’s door-to-door ministry known as “field service. ” For nearly two years, Kendrick took advantage of this opportunity, taking Candace to his home where he repeatedly sexually abused her.

    Before Candace was abused the Congregation elders and the national Jehovah’s Witnesses organization, defendant Watchtower New York (“Watchtower”), had actual knowledge that Kendrick had sexually abused at least one child.

    In 1993, Kendrick’s wife Evelyn and his 13-year-old stepdaughter Andrea told the elders that Kendrick had molested Andrea, placing his hands under her clothing when he thought she was asleep. The elders blamed Evelyn for this, telling her she was not performing her “wifely” duties.

    Despite knowing the risk Kendrick posed to other children in the Congregation, Watchtower, pursuant to its national policy embodied in Exhibit 1 (8 AA 1973), instructed the Congregation to keep Kendrick’s molestation secret."

    (Respondent's Brief, p. 1)

    “Defendants claim that plaintiff’s parents owed plaintiff a legal duty to protect her from Kendrick’s abuse. (WNY AOB 40; NFC AOB 51.) They point out that the parents had received Awake! and Watchtower articles on child abuse which informed them of steps they could have taken to protect plaintiff from child abusers.”

    (Respondent's Brief, p. 54)

    “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.” (Respondent's Brief, p. 15-16)

    "1. Forseeability of harm .

    The Congregation argues there is no high degree of foreseeability that Kendrick would molest another girl in the Congregation. (NFC AOB 28-31.)

    This argument utterly ignores the evidence that defendants knew (1) that persons who abuse a child are at risk to abuse again (8 AA 2052)(2) that Kendrick had abused Andrea and had lied to them about it (3 RT 156, 157, 216, 240-241), (3) that molesters use positions of trust and participate in religious organizations to cloak their intentions (8 AA 2017, 2019, 2036, 2045; 3 RT 161, 162, 168, 258, 259; 4 RT 436), and (4) that molesters are adept at acting in secret so that persons in authority cannot detect them (3 RT 168; 4 RT 436).35

    This knowledge made it highly foreseeable that sending Candace into field service with Kendrick put her at grave risk of being molested by him. Elder Clarke called it "suicidal" to send a known molester into field service with a child. (3 RT 248.) The Congregation argues that there was no foreseeability because of the many precautions the elders claimed to have taken to prevent further molestations by Kendrick. (NFC AOB 31.) But the recognition such precautions were needed merely demonstrates the foreseeability of the harm posed by Kendrick.”
    (Respondent's Brief, p. 34-35)

    “6. Social and financial burdens
    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 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.”
    (Respondent's Brief, p. 37-8)

    "Both Watchtower and Congregation dispute that Candace was abused “during” field service because the abuse occurred at Kendrick’s home. The argument is sophistic. The evidence established that the two were assigned to perform field service together and that instead of performing field service Kendrick often took her to his home, molested her, then returned her to field service or to the Kingdom Hall."
    (Respondent's Brief, p. 36)

    “V. DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF COURT PREJUDICES THEIR APPEAL.

    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.” (Respondent's Brief, p. 69-70)

    “Exhibit 1 (A letter from the Governing Body) contentions that the purpose of keeping reports of child abuse secret was to protect the confidentiality of those involved. Nowhere does it state that the purpose was to protect either the victims or the abusers. Nowhere does it state such reports were to be kept secret regardless of the desires of the victim. (8 AA 1973-1978.)

    Instead it establishes that the real reason for this policy was to benefit defendants by helping them avoid litigation and liability. This theme is repeated throughout the document. Exhibit 1 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’ and the legal means by which they can exact punishment if such ‘rights’ are violated.” (8 AA 1974.) It warns, “If elders fail to follow direction carefully in handling confidential matters, such mistakes could result in successful litigation by those offended. Substantial monetary damages could be assessed against the elders or congregation.” (8 AA 1974.)

    The final section of Exhibit 1, entitled “Points to Remember,” reiterates this theme. It states, “Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information can result in costly lawsuits.” (8 AA 1977.) It directs elders to be careful about putting things in writing and not to make statements to secular authorities without first consulting the Legal Department. (8 AA 1977.)*

    Watchtower asserts that no witness testified that Exhibit 1 constituted a policy of secrecy. (WNY AOB 54.) But in fact Elder Clarke expressly did so. (3 RT 224.) He testified:

    Q. [B]ut parents were not separately warned that [Kendrick] had committed an act of child sex abuse?

    A. No. We don’t do that.

    Q. And you don’t do that because there is a policy that Watchtower New York has provided to you and provided to you before this that says that information is not to be divulged to the congregations?
    A. Yes…

    *Indeed, Exhibit 1 even suggests that the policy of confidentiality may be important to avoid criminal prosecutions: “In some cases where the authorities are involved, certain complications could lead to a fine or imprisonment. These possibilities underscore the need for elders to be discerning and to follow carefully directions provided by the Society. (original boldface.)” (Respondent's Brief, p. 18-20)

    Child abuse is an evil. It is an evil of our time. . . . The Bible says you should hate what is bad , and that certainly would include child abuse. . . . Our top priority is to protect the victims.”

    J. R. Brown, Organizational Spokesman for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  • Julia Orwell
    Julia Orwell

    Good summary.

  • *lost*
    *lost*

    Woe to the Scribes and the Pharisees.

    Child sacrificing evil men.

    The kind of justice I would like to see for such men/women is an 'eye for an eye'.

  • Mum
    Mum

    I say turn Kendrick and his ilk over to Lorena Bobbitt.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit