Just wondering if any body knows about the cases that the Zaklin law firm is pursuing.
What is the latest on the Candace Conti case ?
Band on the Run - "Next, we will wait what seems forever for the CA Supreme Court to rule."
Vidiot - Think it'll go even higher?
With $15 million (or whatever the new amount is) at stake, you can bet the WTS will run it out as long as they can. It's good business. I seriously doubt they are paying 10% for a bond as they have plenty of assets to use as security with the bonding company (even though the court would not accept it). In fact, they may even be making a profit by investing the $15 million as time ticks by, but more importantly they are selling off their assets and shuffling their cash out of the US before new lawsuits are filed and lost.
Remember all of those KH mortgages they had on the books? Gone.
Remember all that valuable prime real estate in Brooklyn? Gone.
And just where do you think all of that ca$h is now? Chase-Manhattan? I doubt it. I suspect it's had to be donated to help foriegn branches (Caymans, Turks, Brazil, Switzerland). You know.....places where they are experiencing growth.
It depends on the CA Supreme Court majority decision. The "confession" was not a confession under CA law. I was certain that the US Supreme Court would hear religious freedom issues. I skimmed the case law, however. Whether or not a legal duty existed to inform the KH and local authorities is a state matter. There was no mandatory reporting statute when the incident occurred. Did the WT have notice that they had a legal duty? The absence of a statute is not good for Conti. Sometimes, though, a statute merely states existing law. I suspect the legislative history will be important.
I bet the snakes are going to get out of it. But slowly in the eyes of the public this will erode their credability, and their ability to recruit and retain its members. It just makes me so made how an organization that has caused so much hurt can now use the law to wipe their hands of the very problem they created.
BOTR:There was no mandatory reporting statute when the incident occurred. Did the WT have notice that they had a legal duty? The absence of a statute is not good for Conti.
Thanks for your input on this, Band.
Even if there was no requirement to report the incident(s) to the State, does that absolve them of the responsibility to protect a child from a known predator? It seems that Elders who knew the circumstances allowed the Perp to be in the company of minor children (FS car groups, etc) and that the WT Policy prevented them from taking any action to protect the children in their care.
Ruling against the entity that caused or allowed a child to be victimized would certainly be the politically correct thing to do, but the Hobby Lobby decision (SCOTUS not CALIF) certainly didn't go the way of political correctness.