Candace Conti Settles

by Nitty-Gritty 204 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Doubting Bro

  @nitty-gritty -@ Doubting Bro, it was Conti's turn to appeal and it was Conti who settled.

  Wrong - read who the pleading again. The petitioner was the WTS. They filed the appeal. Not sure if you are familiar with US law but either party could have appealed the lower court decision since both lost in various ways. However, it was the WTS that petitioned the CA Supreme Court. The procedure is not based on "turns". Are you 12 or something???

  If you can't grasp the very simple concept that the WTS appealed to the CA Supreme Court then I'm not sure anyone would listen to any other argument you would make. Why is it so important to you to think Conti appealed and why would you make up that she initiated the appeal? It was in the WTS best interest to appeal and I"m really surprised they didn't move forward. Clearly there was legal advice from outside counsel that settling the matter was the best move.
• 

  mana11

  Congrats Candace you are a HERO!
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?

  At the trial, and that is what this case is all about, Conti testified that she wanted money from the Freemont cong and the WTS to pay for damages done to her and to pay for doctor's bills. There is nothing in Conti's lawsuit requesting injunctive relief from the WT. Also at the trial, Conti first testified that she wanted Kendricks to pay, but later on she revealed at the trial, that she had made a deal with "the monster" not to collect any money from him regardless of how the jury ruled, in exchange for him not to participate in the legal proceedings.

  It is a matter of fact that the Court did not order the WTS to change their policy in their ruling. In fact the Court thought so much of the WTS existing policy that they required the WTS to comply with their existing policy.

  The Court found the WTS and agents liable for failing to protect Conti during Church sponsored activities. The Court also ruled that although the Conti molestations did not occur in FS, they occured while she was supposed to be in FS and held the WTS liable.

  Although the lawsuit did not directly force WTS to change its policies in dealing with child molesters, you bet your booty that it forced WT to be more careful and to cover vulnerabilities to prevent future lawsuits. You betcha WT is going to deploy new policies to protect them from future suits. But the Court did not force the WT to change any policy.
  

  The trial in this case also showed that the DA, the Police and Child Protective Services knew Kendricks was involved with JW congregations during the time he was being prosecuted for molesting his step daughter. During those legal proceedings, and Kendricks conviction thereafter, these government agencies, who's duty is to serve and to protect, did not inform the JW congregation that a "monster" was in their midst. They released Kendricks, and I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that the Court or the the DA ordered Kendricks or required him to agree to stay away from children as a condition in the adjudication of that case. Conti did not require any accountability from these agencies in her lawsuit. She testified that she made a deal with Kendricks, not make him pay, and now she settles with the WTS- for money. Some hero.
  
• 

  Giordano

  What the WTBTS never gets right is that hiding crimes is not in the best interest of the congregation nor the public. Both groups are still in danger of having their children exposed to the pedophiles that knock on their doors or that nice brother going out in FS riding in the back seat with little Susie sitting on his lap.

  It is apparent that the Society hides behind the confessional law in those states that still have that provision for a church. They also hide behind the two witness rule.

  The WT needs to instruct the elders that the two witness rule can NOT be applied to minors. That Elders can NOT challenge the testimony of a minor.Instead they must encourage the parent to go to the police immediately....in fact if it helps and if requested....... the Elder should escort the family to the police and offer care and consideration during a difficult time.

  
  The Society has to make it clear that a confession does not absolve the crime.......it still has to be reported to the police.

  
  
  Apparently the Society is more then willing to apply a life sentence of shunning to person’s who commit non criminal offenses like smoking........ but shies away from exposing child abuse.
  
• 

  tim3l0rd

  Fisherman,

  There have been changes probably because of Conti. The 2012 letter included some changes.

  As I've stated before, you can't put a corporation in prison. Punishment by money is the only way to punish a corporation. The government does the same thing by imposing fines to corporations who break the law. With secular corporations you can impose oversight, but with religious organizations it is very difficult due to the First Amendment. I'm not against the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion, but it does make it difficult and/or impossible to punish religious organizations.

  It's obvious that the congregations were negligent in handling a known child molester. Sending a letter of recommendation stating that Kendricks was good with kids when it was known that he molested his own daughter is an obvious mishandling of the situation. This is just one way that the congregation and the WT corporation (which legislates the BOE) were negligent.

  You can feel/say what you want, but MONEY TALKS. We live in a free market society and money is the way business is run, how the people decide which businesses prosper, and how the WBTS and all religions continues to operate.

  Do you have any examples of how other religious organizations have been punished in the US besides money? I'm asking because I know of none and would be interested to read about them.

  There is no perfect way to handle a child molester. Some change and many don't. States at least keep a public list of convicted molesters that allow parents to find out if they have a convicted child molester living near them. Within the congregation, most parents assume that their children are safe as the elders have their best interests at heart and don't search their own congregation members. The sad truth is that this trust is what allows the child molesters to continue their practice.

  While I don't agree that their names should be announced from the platform, I do feel that more could be done by the congregation to protect the children. Known molesters should NEVER be allowed ANY position of authority within the congregation. Letters of introduction should include that this person was convicted of or admitted to molesting a child regardless of how long ago it happened. Instead of stating, "Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities," parents should be told of their rights to report the abuse to the police. Parents should not be told that they cannot speak of what allegedly happened. While this may be slanderous, it could also draw out other victims. Keeping parents quiet by threatening reproof or df helps to hide the truth and further victimizes them.
• 

  tim3l0rd

  I also think that how child molesters are handled within the congregation should be made public knowledge to all in the congregation. Then parents could see that they really need to be careful and not just blindly trust that they would be told if a child molester was in the congregation or that the elders would be vigilant in protecting the children. Keeping the policies secret continues the delusion that children are safe within the congregation.
• 

  Fisherman

  tim3l0rd try reading what the law requires, not requring what you like. Besides that,try reading.
  
• 

  Doubting Bro

  Fisherman - It is a matter of fact that the Court did not order the WTS to change their policy in their ruling. In fact the Court thought so much of the WTS existing policy that they required the WTS to comply with their existing policy.
  The Court found the WTS and agents liable for failing to protect Conti during Church sponsored activities. The Court also ruled that although the Conti molestations did not occur in FS, they occured while she was supposed to be in FS and held the WTS liable.
  Although the lawsuit did not directly force WTS to change its policies in dealing with child molesters, you bet your booty that it forced WT to be more careful and to cover vulnerabilities to prevent future lawsuits. You betcha WT is going to deploy new policies to protect them from future suits. But the Court did not force the WT to change any policy.

  I agree with what you are saying but while the Court didn't force the WT to specifically change their policy, if they don't want to get hit again then they will need to do something different. So I think the net effect of the lawsuit is going to be a policy change. So it really semantics.

  I guess I look at all the cases against organizations whether religious (Catholic, JW, whatever) or secular (Boy Scouts) and believe that using the civil justice system to force organizations which are entrusted with a special relationship to take it seriously is really the only way you can force them to do anything. Organizations will always protect the status quo. I do find it a bit ironic that when the Catholic church as making headlines on this subject, many JWs (including myself) I know were talking with glee on how they were being made to pay big judgments and getting what they deserved. But know, it's against the WT, a much different tune is being sung.

  I agree with you, lots of people let Candace and others in her position down. What I hope is that one day, pedophiles won't be able to use religious or community organizations like Boy Scouts, Little League, etc to prey on victims. These organizations have made progress in helping to protect those in their midst. The state laws requiring mandatory reporting and background checks (depending on what you are doing - for example, I had to go through a background check to coach a kids baseball team) have helped and quite frankly, being held accountable from a financial point of view has also helped.
• 

  Vidiot

  fisherman - "...the Court thought so much of the WTS existing policy that they required the WTS to comply with their existing policy."

  Oh, definitely; they just loved the WT's existing policy.

  The initial 20-million-plus in damages that they'd originally stuck to the WTS was their way of saying "well done!"

  fisherman - "Although the lawsuit did not directly force WTS to change its policies in dealing with child molesters, you bet your booty that it forced WT to be more careful and to cover vulnerabilities to prevent future lawsuits. You betcha WT is going to deploy new policies to protect them from future suits..."

  Funny.

  I'd have thought that newer, better, and more ethical policies would be ones that protect kids, rather than the Organization...

  ...but what the f**k do I know?

  fisherman - "...but the Court did not force the WT to change any policy."

  Hip hip hooray; the WTS's right to behave like a can of smashed assholes is secure.

  A true victory for religious freedom.
• 

  Fisherman

  I agree with you, lots of people let Candace and others in her position down.

  And the WT has to pay their bill.

  I agree with what you are saying but while the Court didn't force the WT to specifically change their policy, if they don't want to get hit again then they will need to do something different. So I think the net effect of the lawsuit is going to be a policy change. So it really semantics.

  In essence, that is what I said. But in this particular case, regardless of the WT compliance with their existing policy, Kendricks still would have had access to the little girl through her parents whom he had befriended. It is like going to any other church or group, you make friends with someone you meet there and then you trust them with your little girl. Nevertheless, I think that parents should be made aware, should be warned, if there is a dangerous child molester around their child. That is what I would want. At the trial, it was shown that the Police, the DA, and the Child Protective Services, in this case, failed to give warning to the JW congregation about Kendricks.