California Supreme Court Case - S226656

by Gayle 164 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Fisherman

  What's worse? Breaking confidentiality or endangering children? Because those ARE the choices.

  Those are not the choices. Parents should not trust anyone to begin with.
  

  What makes you think that church elders don't protect the flock without violating confideniality? Everyone has children that go to church. But no one is perfect and sometimes imperfect church elders screw up. Wake up call for parents. Do not trust anyone with your precious little ones. They depend on you for protection. Trust no one.

  You think church leaders are stupid, they have kids of their own that go to church and so do the other parishioners and church members. Of course they have any person that poses a potential threat on their radar. But sometimes they just screw up.
  
• 

  cappytan

  What makes you think that church elders don't do that. Everyone has children that go to church. But no one is perfect and sometimes imperfect church elders screw up. Wake up call for parents. Do not trust anyone with your precious little ones. They depend on you for protection. Trust no one.

  Obvious apologist is obvious. Brother Lett, is that you?

  You still didn't answer the question that I asked.

  What's worse? Breaking confidentiality or endangering children?
• 

  Fisherman

  You still didn't answer the question that I asked.

  What's worse? Breaking confidentiality or endangering children?

  Confidentiality is not only a legal provision but also church law. Neither laws can be broken. Remember the movie "And justice for all with Al Pacino" The law is not how you like it cappytan.
  
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Fisherman. This goes way beyond mere 'imperfection,' or 'screwing up,' as you put it.

  Suppose your kid's school administrator hires a gym teacher, knowing FULL-WELL that this individual has a criminal conviction for kiddy-porn. Suppose that same gym teacher sexually molests YOUR child in the locker room when no one was around.

  I guess you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, "well, the administration just 'screwed' up. They're 'imperfect.'" Right? Is that what you'd do? If so, then you disgust me.

  And as for not trusting others with the 'little ones,' are you telling me that you attend school with your kids?
• 

  JeffT

  The Supreme Court is asked to hear about seven thousand cases a year. It takes about a hundred of them. Generally, it is looking for cases that have a major impact on Constitutional issues, or major Federal policy. I don't think this case will rise to that level.

  In any event it would have to go through the Ninth Circuit first, and they would have to render a decision that the USSC didn't like. All that gets expensive, at some point the lawyers would cut a deal, which may be what the WTBS is hoping will happen.
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Cappytan, It looks as though Fisherman finally answered your question. He maintains that church-confidentiality is indeed more important than child welfare. Note how he bases his premise on 'church law,' not Federal Law.
• 

  Fisherman

  The Supreme Court is asked to hear about seven thousand cases a year.

  So what, I will bet dollars for doughnuts that they will hear a WTS case. They will get to it.

  Who knows what the WT reasons are?. But if they feel that they are responsible, they will want to settle. But the purpose of the appeal is not to negotiate a financial settlement. It is for legal reasons, and if that is the case, money is no object for the wt. No matter how expensive it gets
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Note how he bases his premise on 'church law,' not Federal Law.

  Need I respond to this epiphytic fern?

  Again.
  

  Violating confidentiality breaks church law and subjects the violator to church discipline, It is against church law. Violating confidentiality violates confidentiality and subjects the violator to legal proceedings.

  The Appeal is not about church confidentiality. Can't you read. The Court upheld church confidentiality in this case.
  
• 

  ron rawson

  OK....perhaps this makes me look dumb, but has anyone figured out --beyond a shadow of a doubt, for a fact-- who filed the appeal?? Candace and her team; or the We Teach Bull & Total Shit henchmen? I've tried to keep pace, but that either hasn't been cleared up, or I missed it.
• 

  Fisherman

  Why in the world would the Plaintiffs want to file an appeal?