by Gayle 164 Replies latest jw friends
This is my last reply to you on this topic.
Thank you. It is a waste of my time giving you the courtesy of having to read your ridiculous posts.
I remind you again that it does matter. You convicted him in your previous post or did you forget. Your conclusion was the context of my posts to you or can't you read.
'My conviction of the accused is based on his prior record.'
You admit to convicting a man for a crime that he never admits that he did and that he was was never convicted of in a Court of Law. And then you say that it does not matter.. You are ridiculously funny.
Funny. Besides your thoughts and feelings and views,seems to me that you admit that he did not admit.
Am I correct?
In response to my comments that's more red herring. A jury was left to decide whether there was sufficient evidence that Candance was victimized by Kendrick. The jury found he had done so.
But Candance was not as concerned about Kendrick as she was about an institutional policy that gives perps room to victimize more children. Having this policy remedied was Candace's reason for filing a lawsuit. Her goal was not to spend any more time on the worthless POS Kendrick then she had to in order to meet her goal of pushing Watchtower's policy in a better direction.
... he was was never convicted of in a Court of Law.
In the civil trial a jury was asked to decide whether Kendrick had victimized Candace. That jury found Kendrick had victimized Candace.
n response to my comments that's more red herring. A jury was left to decide whether there was sufficient evidence that Candance was victimized by Kendrick. The jury found he had done so.
More funny. Again, The Defendant that you have mentioned by name was never convicted in a Court of Law for the crime that he is being accused of. You have not shown otherwise.
Civil Law suits happen all of the time. Lawyers and others going after deep pockets, insurance companies, etc., in this case, extracting money from the WTS. All the jury had to do is to believe more likely than not, that it happened, even if he was not guilty (they do not care about that). I am sure you know this.
For example, OJ was acquitted but later found legally liable. Notwithstanding the civil judgement, OJ was not convicted of the crime that he was accused of. A jury found that he was not guilty of the crime of murder. (HE DID NOT DO IT.) The Civil did not care about the fact that he was acquitted of the charges. Try broadcasting that he is guilty of murder.
An awful lot of pledges & contributions down the sewer!
Could not have said it better!
Civil Law suits happen all of the time.
Criminal prosecutions happen all the time too. So what?
Lawyers and others going after deep pockets, insurance companies, etc., in this case, extracting money from the WTS.
Nothing new about that. It's part of the judicial system in the USA. So what?
All the jury had to do is to believe more likely than not, that it happened, even if he was not guilty (they do not care about that). I am sure you know this.
So what? Criminal courts have found lots of innocent people guilty and lots of guilty people innocent. Because a finding is reached in a criminal prosecution does not mean the result is iron-clad accurate.
You're wrongheaded in your views from the perspective of the system of civil litigation in the USA, and state of California specifically. In the case of Candace's lawsuit a court of law charged a jury to hear evidence and decide first of all whether Kendrick had victimized Candace. If that jury had found insufficient evidence to conclude Kendrick had victimized Candace then the whole thing would have ended right there. But, and this is where you're wrong, the court did find by its charged jury that Kendrick had victimized Candace. Once that determination was made then other issues could be and were addressed by the jury, such as culpability of Watchtower.
Under US federal and state law Candace had a cause of action to take against Watchtower and she acted on it. Her goal was not to spend more time of the POS Kendrick, an admitted child molester. Her goal was to change an institutional policy that left children needlessly vulnerable to people like Kendrick. Apparently this bothers you a great deal.
