California Supreme Court Case - S226656

by Gayle 164 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  If the purpose of the lawsuit is really to use legal proceedings to force WT to change, they failed.

  That's rubbish. The GB will not ADMIT the need for change, because they are deluded by their own beliefs. The fact that they haven't changed, only serves to expose their flawed policies for what they are, and opens the door to further lawsuits by those who may have been molested...say, during field service. The GB are shooting themselves in their collective feet.

  It's no more of a failure than Neville Chamberlain's declaration of 'peace in our time' in response to Hitler's actions. Well, guess who eventually won the war?
• 

  Fisherman

  Anyway, a conviction is not the same as guilt by default which is a legal provision for the Civil Court.

  "guilt by default" (default judgement) Funny no? My point is that Civil Court does not decide guilt and neither is a person found guilty by default. I have always used the term liable referring to the Civil verdict. In the posted case, the jury found the named Defendants liable in the verdict, not guilty. In a civil case, if person does not defend, a default judgment is entered, but does that mean that the defendant is "guilty by default" or does it mean that the defendant is not guilty because there was a default judgment but no trial? Or does it make a difference? A civil case is about liability and compensatory damages not about guilt. MS knows all of this.
• 

  Fisherman

  double posted
  
• 

  telemetry11

  Actually the Conti Appellate decision secures Watchtower's Policy.

  Decision reads:

  
  - "Conti argued that the Fremont Congregation elders had a duty to warn members of the Congregation that Kendrick had molested a child ..."

  
  

  - "Conti ... identifies no authority for any such duty ..."

  - "We disagree with Conti that they had a legal duty to warn the Congregation about Kendrick."

  The Court concluded that the burden the duty to warn would create, and the adverse social consequences that the duty would produce, outweighed its imposition. Finding that such a burden would be unworkable the court remarked: "The burden would be considerable because the precedent could require a church to intervene whenever it had reason to believe that a congregation member is capable of doing harm, and the scope of that duty could not be limited with any precision."

  The Appellate Court wrote:
  

  - "No moral blame can be cast on defendants for adhering to that public policy."
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Actually the Conti Appellate decision secures Watchtower's Policy.

  Certainly, insofar as 'duty to warn' is concerned. Unfortunately for the Watchtower, their negligence for 'lack of field service supervision'...was affirmed.

  They have 1 win, and 1 KO.

  Point being, that 'Jehovah's organization' doesn't exactly come out of this looking pristine.