California Supreme Court Case - S226656

by Gayle 164 Replies latest jw friends

  • cappytan
    cappytan
    I'm really starting to wonder if Fisherman is actually Jonathan Kendrick.
  • JWdaughter
    JWdaughter

    No. Kendrick is hiding, trying to pretend that NONE of this has anything to do with him. Hiding behind his wife. . . wives. And stepdaughters. And granddaughters. He doesn't give a shit about the WTS or the women or JWs or even himself. He is a dead creature, no longer even human.

    Fisherman is a deluded, defensive JW who is trying to make sense of the insane.

  • wannaexit
    wannaexit
    Haaaaaaa Jonathan Kendrick it may be. Anybody look at fisherman's bio.?
  • cappytan
    cappytan
    Haaaaaaa Jonathan Kendrick it may be. Anybody look at fisherman's bio.?

    Ugh...I've been feeding a troll. If that's not the bio of a troll, I don't know what is.

  • done4good
    done4good

    Doubting Bro - "The danger to them isn't necessarily the few millions they are going to pay out on this case, its the precedent that's been set and the future lawsuits they are concerned about."

    Vidiot - I heard that.

    Having the fines reduced isn't enough for them; they want a precedent set that'll completely immunize them from any pedo-related legal trouble in the years to come.

    From their perspective, that brass ring is totally worth the risk of having a higher court overturn the current outcome.

    This.

    WT does not care about the 1-2M they are going to lose. They have reached out of court settlements for far more.

    They are still scared shitless of the legal precedent that been been set, and this appeal proves how scared they are.

    The subtle twist that played out in the last appeal, was that even though the punitive damages were dropped, based on the court decision that churches are not obligated to inform their members of abuse offenders, WT still needs to prevent these offenders from taking part in activities involving minors, (i.e. in this case the field service), so guess what? It is basically impossible for WT to continue business as usual. They either have to make special arrangements for field service where an elder "in the know" is always taking the group out to ensure that the offender is not working with a minor, or prevent these guys from FS altogether. Either scenario is untenable to WT. Both expose the offender by default.

    The court knew what they were doing, and WT is [email protected] This is a win after all.

    d4g

  • Doubting Bro
    Doubting Bro
    done4good - They either have to make special arrangements for field service where an elder "in the know" is always taking the group out to ensure that the offender is not working with a minor, or prevent these guys from FS altogether. Either scenario is untenable to WT. Both expose the offender by default.

    Totally agree. It seems to me that they could simply ban any offender from FS altogether without necessarily tipping off anyone. Lots of "inactive" folks out there so it wouldn't necessarily mean they were guilty of anything.

    The problem as I see it is if the offender is currently a MS or elder. Then you WILL create a stir which could expose the offender. But, they are crazy from a legal standpoint from allowing someone who is a child abuser from having a position of authority in the congregation. Absolutely crazy. Take the right/wrong/moral issue off the table, just from a legal prospective this really exposes the Borg.

    I simply can't for the life of me understand why they wouldn't take action against those folks. Those guys aren't very sharp.

  • 3rdgen
    3rdgen

    Doubting Bro

    Judge Judy says, "If something doesn't make sense it isn't true. (or you don't have all the facts) If we ask ourselves WHO would originate policies that not only protect pedophiles but actually PROMOTE them to positions of authority. We have the answer. The same person/s who made the policy that a JW wife was not scripturally free if her husband committed a homosexual act with someone else. The one/s who liked to have nude Bible discussions with younger men in the sauna at Bethel. The one/s who were accused of using their authority and trust to engage in sexual acts with children and teens.

    Look closely at the ones who formed the beliefs doctrines and policies of the group. Look at their attitude about women and children.

    At this point in time the GB.2 MAY be different in nature than the founders but they are too PROUD to change and admit the foundation they sit on (sexually speaking) was not as it appeared on the outside.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    done4good - "They are still scared shitless of the legal precedent that been set, and this appeal proves how scared they are."

    I don't know if they're genuinely afraid; they are True Believers, after all.

    x

    done4good - "...The subtle twist that played out in the last appeal, was that even though the punitive damages were dropped... WT still needs to prevent these offenders from taking part in activities involving minors."

    Wait, what?

    Is this condition something the court imposed upon them?

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    DoubtingBro - "It seems to me that they could simply ban any offender from FS altogether without necessarily tipping off anyone. Lots of 'inactive' folks out there so it wouldn't necessarily mean they were guilty of anything."

    Can't.

    The WTS has always insisted that the door-to-door ministry is a command from God; it's an ironclad policy, and a fundamental aspect of a JW's identity.The rest of the congregation would wonder why "Brother So-and-so" was exempt... potential result: disunity.

    They've stigmatized "inactives" enough that a similar situation could arise, too.

    x

    DoubtingBro - "The problem as I see it is if the offender is currently a MS or elder. Then you WILL create a stir which could expose the offender.

    But, they are crazy from a legal standpoint from allowing someone who is a child abuser from having a position of authority in the congregation. Absolutely crazy. Take the right/wrong/moral issue off the table, just from a legal prospective this really exposes the Borg. I simply can't for the life of me understand why they wouldn't take action against those folks.""

    Your first point is very salient; exposure of MSs and Elders as sex offenders has the potential to cause real problems amongst the R&F.

    x

    There are a couple of darker possibilities, however (which have been discussed here on this forum)...

    ...that the sheer number of accused abusers in the Org is actually so high that;

    A) ...if the WTS forbid them from holding positions of authority within the Org, the pool of "qualified brothers" would be too small to draw from, thus crippling local congregations' ability to function, and/or...

    B) ...if their alleged offender status became common knowledge - and more importantly, believed - amongst the R&F, enough sensible (particularly soft-core) JW parents would take their kids and walk, simply because they're unable to find an offender-free congregation to switch to.

    x

    Either scenario (or worse, both together) would severely debilitate the WTS's sense of solidarity and foster (once again) disunity, and would thusly - and correctly, IMO - be regarded as a threat, in no small part because said existence is almost completely dependent on the Org's enforced unity.

    Authoritarian regimes fear mass exoduses for a reason, after all.

    Therefore, they feel as though they have no choice but to keep it as confidential as possible, for as long as possible (ethical and legal ramifications notwithstanding), for the sheer sake of the WTS's very survival.

  • iwasblind
    iwasblind

    Hi Fisherman

    I don't know your story but I wonder if you have ever sat with a grown woman who has been molested by a predator in the congregation.

    You see the tears, the total life meltdown. I read a report that said it was basically the worse thing you can do to another human because it destroys every foundation of love, trust, self esteem. It is reported that most abuse victims become substance abusers because of the deep pain.

    You see, we here are not arguing a point of law. We are saying if there is a "known" child abuser attending the parents of children in the congregation should know. At the moment the WTBTS policies actually protect the predator.

    So my point is - yes - go to court if someone is being unjustly accused of it, however where abuse has happened - FIX IT - don't hurt the victims any more than they have been hurt. Don't be proud - admit a mistake or an oversight.

    Why waste donated monies on court - our donations are paying for all these armies of lawyers to be housed at Bethel.

    I would hazzard a wager - if the brothers actually helped these victims, not disfellowshipped them and played the blame game - but had support systems in place - a huge percentage would never end up in court.

    BUT we are not interested in helping people - we are interested in building Kingdom Halls and printing really crappy literature.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit