California Supreme Court Case - S226656 (page 10)

truthseekeriam

Well said iwasblind!!

Victims of abuse need love and support, not interrogations and isolation.

Do you have some special insight as to why Candace Conti didn't want her abuser to testify in court? You cannot possibly put yourself in her shoes unless you've experienced what she has. From what I have read, facing the abuser is one of the worst things that an abused person will ever do. So it is very likely that she did not want to ever see his face again and therefore came to an agreement that allowed her to not confront that lowlife scum. Her lawyer obviously thought that they had enough evidence to take this case to trial.

I do side with you that Watchtower has a legal right to defend themselves and should do so to the fullest extent possible. It also makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. As others have said, if this decision stands as it is, the Society stands to lose a lot because of the legal precedent that is set. That's the reason that they and other businesses prefer to settle out of court. They can pay out money, never admit fault, put a gag order on the plaintiff, and no legal precedent is set. It's morally wrong, but businesses (including Watchtower) are unencumbered by morals.

done4good

Vidiot - Wait, what?
Is this condition something the court imposed upon them?

They were found negligent specifically because of allowing Kendrick to work with Candice in FS. The negligence charge was upheld in the appellate court. That sets a precedent.

d4g

Fisherman

if this decision stands as it is, the Society stands to lose a lot because of the legal precedent that is set. That's the reason that they and other businesses prefer to settle out of court. They can pay out money, never admit fault, put a gag order on the plaintiff, and no legal precedent is set. It's morally wrong, but businesses (including Watchtower) are unencumbered by morals.

Twaddle. You assume too much and you conclude too much. Simply put, Defendants disagree with the Court's verdict.

From what I have read, facing the abuser is one of the worst things that an abused person will ever do. So it is very likely that she did not want to ever see his face again and therefore came to an agreement that allowed her to not confront that "*!?!!$"

The accused individual, also a named Defendant in the related civil action, that you have convicted in your post, has never been convicted in a Court of Law, has never been tried, has never been prosecuted, has never been charged, has never been arrested for the crime related in the posted case, and he denies doing it. I don't know just where do you come from, but in the United States of America, the country where the related matter is being adjudicated, a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty, the same US provisions that Plaintiffs used to bring this case to Court. ( Here is a little homework for you and get back to us on this: On what basis is this case being tried in Civil if the accused individual was never convicted of the crime related to the lawsuit?)

The related lawsuit is not about guilt or innocence. It is about legal liability. But in Criminal Court, a person on trial has the right to face his accusers. One cannot assume an accused person is guilty because you like it that way, and use that as a pretext for the accuser not to face the person accused ( Sure, a person that claims to be a victim is entitled to temporary restraining orders and protective services before the trial). With the same courage you mustered up to accuse someone, use it too to face him in Court, but whether you like it or not, you must. How would you like it, if you were being tried for a crime and they were making you run around like a monkey while your accuser stayed home and did not have to show up. It does not work that way. If you accuse someone, you must face the person in Court and you must be cross examined. You just don't accuse some one and because you like it, he is guilty. You do not get to decide and neither does public opinion. In all fairness, the defense must be heard and the case has to be tried. But without a trial , unless the accused confesses or pleads guilty, he cannot be viewed as legally guilty. You don't know and I don't know. If you had to pay with your life if you were wrong about his guilt, you bet your life that is what you would say ( I do not know). You call him an abuser in the civil case. He is a named defendant. The Civil case is about extracting money from the WT, it is not about proving that the accused Defendant did it. But had he participated in the proceedings, he would have been subjected to cross examination. And if he in fact did what he is being accused of, it could have been shown.

A law has been passed by the Appellate. This law not only regulates church sponsored activities, but also governs compliance by the church to it's own policies.

Fisherman

tim 3 says:Do you have some special insight as to why Candace Conti didn't want her abuser to testify in court?

compare

Fisherman said: Plaintiffs agreed to deprive alleged child molester related to this case from being subjected to legal proceedings.

Try reading what I wrote, and not your conclusions about what I wrote.

DarioKehl

This is wonderful. Any neutral observer or doubting JW will see Fisherman's Eric Hovind style of defending himself.

It's best not to engage with an idiot. You'll invest time and energy trying to reason and it's wholly ignored. Don't cast pearls before swine. Don't play chess with pigeons. Fisherman is a troll. Don't engage him at all. We can dismantle his comments and highlight the logical fallacies and question dodging among ourselves while he chatters to himself. Do not engage him. I'm officially disfellowshipping Fisherman with my invisible authority. Shunning starts NOW.

(Talk ABOUT him all you want. You know... Like JWs do)

Fisherman

We can dismantle his comments and highlight the logical fallacies

That is what you say. Enough said.

Boeing Stratofortress

We can dismantle his comments...

They've already been dismantled. So, let's move on.

Vidiot

done4good - "They were found negligent specifically because of allowing Kendrick to work with Candice in FS. The negligence charge was upheld in the appellate court."

Ah, I'd missed that bit, and assumed otherwise.

I'd thought they just wanted to get out of paying anything, i.e. having their cake and eating it, too.

tim3l0rd

Fisherman,

I'm going to reply, only because I can't let your comment stand. My conviction of the accused is based on his prior record. He admitted to abusing one girl prior to Candace and was convicted of abusing another after Candace. That man is scum. While he was not convicted of abusing Candace, his known record indicates that he very likely did. Civil court is routinely used when justice cannot be had in criminal court. The OJ trials are a great example of how criminal court failed to produce justice, but civil court procured some justice for the family. Also, you can't take a business to criminal court, so civil court is the only justice to be had when an entire organization shares the blame.

Candace's main reason for taking this to civil court was to point out how the policies of JWs allow known child molesters to continue their depraved practice. She proved that. He was an admitted child molester and yet the elders put him together with at least one other child. Therefore, the congregation and, by extension, the organization, since the elders follow the guidelines set out by the organization, is to blame for allowing him the opportunity to molest another child. Civil court is not about proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The plaintiff, many times, only needs to show that something likely occurred. Civil court allows for grey areas and varying degrees of guilt (by way of monetary punishment).

California Supreme Court Case - S226656

Share this