by DevonMcBride 70 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
I believe His Honour accepted the defence in the other case .... but ....... and a big but ..... the court did not have all the facts or the case law ....... Based on the case law I have seen up here ... Groff's decision was the wrong one.
Also, that case dealt with an "accused" making a statement to an elder. This is a mother coming seeking advice as to what to do and needing help ...
That's why the hearing is set for mid-March or else he would have thrown it out this past month.
hawk
The case that the reporter cites is State of New Hampshire v. Blackstock, 00-3-0393, ordered by Judge Groff on May 7, 2001.
The court will review evidence rule number 505 to decide all of this.
hawk
Hello hawkaw,
If it is indeed as huge as you say it 'is', then why isn't it 'making news' nationally, internationally, locally? I mean, how huge can it be when it's only as huge as cyberspace?
The way I view huge is when this 'schtuff' actually IS news, by being ON ALL NEWS, EVERYWHERE! Now THAT'S 'huge'! This? This of late is not as huge as it COULD be. Why not make THAT happen too? Sir. Respectfully. How's about you put a few calls into all the national cable news orgs such as FOX and CNN and MSNBC? Get that old goat O' Reilly off his selective reporting butt, if ya can. I mean this is huge!! Right?? Make it ENORMOUS Hawk!!
Love ya, sKally
(((((((((hawk)))))))))))))))) I have no idea why you - never a jw - put up with us or fight the Watchtower. But many of us appreciate it. And every jw child saved from fondling, digital penetration to full rape will have you somewhere in the deal - to thank. Along with a host of other workers too. It's just that you're so vocal!
"Obviously, we feel badly for the two plaintiffs, but neither Watchtower (the church’s national governing body) nor the congregation are responsible for what happened," Donald Gardner of Manchester said.
"We’re confident that when Watchtower and the elders present their evidence, the facts will clearly show that neither (the church nor its elders) . . . knew of any child abuse until years after it had stopped, by which time the authorities already were involved." - news article
Isn't this an outright lie in view of what Judge Groff stated?
Here let me read part Judge Groff's SUMMARY JUDGEMENT for you people in saying why a "common law duty" has been placed to the WTS and its elders.
"... In this case, the plaintiff's mother [Sarah] sought the elders' advise and counsel regarding the sexual abuse of her children by her husband [Paul Berry], a member of the congregation. The overwhelming risk of harm to the plaintiff [Holly Berry] from the continuing abuse by her father, and the magnitude of that potential harm to her must necessarily have been apprehended and understood by any reasonable person. This rendered the elders' conduct unreasonably dangerous in view of the horrific consequences to the plaintiff by not taking steps to report the abuse or properly counsel the plaintiff's mother ....
The burden only requires common sense advice to the church member and a reporting of the abuse to the authorities. Clearly the social importance of protecting the plaintiff [Holly Berry] from her father's continued brutal sexual abuse outweighs the importance of immunizing the defendants from extended liability. " Judge Groff
When the trial happens, this whole case will centre around the mother, Sarah, going to the elders ... some 10 times. Watch the WTS turn every stone and push every button to discredit Sarah. ...
As for clerical privilege. For years the WTS tries to use the same old song and dance .... that because the WTS's elders are "ordained ministers", the elders deserve the same privilege rights as priests. That is what will be the next argument before the court in March.
The problem with this is .... and the Courts in Canada have already recognized .... that what the elders do with the JWs information, does not meet the definition of clerical "privilege". Canadian and USA law is very similar on this point. What comes out in evidence in these cases is that the elders actually try to obtain evidence and investigate complaints when JWs go to elders. Privilege is NOT expected at all by all parties including the JW who went to the elders. Thus, the courts in Canada have thrown out this idiotic defence a few times now. Watch for the same to happen in this case. The key is the "flock book". Remember "confidential" to an elder, (who contacts other elders, writes letters to the servce department and legal) does not meet the same definition as "privilege" in the eyes of the law. hawk
The other issue of privilege that needs to be considered is what do the elders do with the information presented to them.
For example Suzy publisher goes to Elder1 and confesses to fornication. Elder 1 goes to the Presiding Overseer and tells him Suzy has committed fornication. Bro P.O. then picks two other Elders to form a judicial committee to look into the allegation.
At what point does the Clergy privilege dissappear and if it is so sacred of a trust as they claim in court, can Sister Suzy sue Elder 1 for breach of trust?
Now in an abuse case, Little Mary tells her Dad that Brother Pervert touched her and did things to her. Her Dad goes to Brother PO with this news. Brother PO calls Bethel Legal as he is directed and tells them all the details. He is told to investigate further and call them back. He assigns 2 other elders to form an investigation committee. They approach Brother Pervert and confront him with the allegations. He denies it.
Even by this point haven't they already broken the trust of the intent of the clergy/penitant trust both by telling other elders and then calling Brooklyn?
What about Brooklyn's breach of trust? After Brother Lawyer takes the call he gives his notes to Sister WifeofLawyer to type up and create a file and to enter the name into their sexual crimes database. Considering the Society's view of women does this not breach the trust the congregation put into the MEN of the organization? (Hey look I know it's archaic thinking too but that is how they will view it).
This is one reason why it pisses me off that the WT tries to hide behind the clergy/penitant privilege in court yet they hold no respect for it in practice. Could anyone go up to an elder and confess without it being reported to the other elders? NO! In fact there are articles telling everyone that it is their responsibility to turn each other in, this includes elders who hear confessions.
Looking forward to having this argued in court!!
Uzzah
Yayyyyyyyy Uzzah!!
How right you are! The elders are always sharing what happens when a "sinner" confesses. You are not allowed to only tell one elder and keep any dignity, but no, sometimes up to 5 elders hear your case (my s-i-l had 5 elders on her committee). My ex not only had his committee but then an appeal (so far that's 6) and then all the way to Brooklyn, and so how many is that?????
I also think they stink in the way they are using Clerical privelege to keep Sarah's charges private. She was not the penitant/confessor! According to clergy law, I believe on the confessor is the one whose granted the privacy.
sf .... your not thinking clearly. Look what has happened. For the first time in the USA .... ever ... a Judge has said to the Watchtower ... you have a "common law duty" to protect the children from very danagerous situations that your agents (elders) know about. It is a major turning point. Think it though ... sf .... think it through .... the safe door just opened up for 100s of survivors! You guys just cracked the code.
Waiting ... the WTS lawyer is not misleading the press. This is a summary judgement decision. This means the Judge looks at the "writ" (claim) and assumes everything that the plaintiff stated is true. Assuming what the plaintiff states is true, the Judge then reviews the writ to confirm if the plaintiff truly has a case (ie. there is a duty on the defendant, there is a standard of care and the plaintiff was harmed) . In the Berry case, the Judge ruled that, for the first time, yes the plaintiff does have a case because elders have a "common law duty" to protect children if they become aware of the abuse. Now the plaintiff can take her case to court and prove, in front of jury, that the facts are true. Of course the WTS will try to prove the facts ( ie Sarah did not come to them ... 10 times .. and reported the abuse) are NOT true.
Uzzah and Met .... the fight in mid-March will be over rule 505. Here ... let me state rule 505 for you ....
"A priest, rabbi or ordained or licensed minister of any church or a duly accredited Christian Science practitiioner shall not be required to disclose a confession or confidence made to him in his professional character as spiritual adviser, unless the person confessing or confiding waives the privilege."
So in this Berry case we have Sarah going to one or more elders asking for advise, as per WTS doctrine, because she has a problem .... the husband is abusing her daughters. Both of you know that once the elders are told something ... they send it up the line or talk to other elders. In other words ... they break the privilege (found in law) as per the Flock book.
The question is .. is this considered a "clerical privileged" conversation(s) as per New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 505.
In my mind it has to be "no" based on the case law I have seen and as per the comments Uzzah correctly points out.
hawk
"your not thinking clearly"
Begging (not on my knees) your pardon, my head is clearer than you think. My post has much to consider as well.
I understand the indications here hawkEYE. Yes, I am pleased. Yet! Make it bigger! That is what I am 'thinking'.
".... the safe door just opened up for 100s of survivors!"
Excellent! Yet! Many victims and VICTIMS TO BE, are NOT SAFE behind their doors in which a predatory jw, relocated to NEW (FRESH) TERRITORY and/ or kingdom hall, preach (prey, scope, survellience).
Do you understand a bit better MY thinking, now? All this news is fabulous, yes. Yet!!...
It isn't as huge as it could be! Each head of household should be duly warned, alerted and armed with facts about the Jehovah's Witnesses ORGANIZATION hawk, so as to be well prepared should they 'prey' on that household. And we know this happens, as we WITNESSED it on Dateline.
Now, what about those calls to O' Reilly and perhaps Sean Hannity @FOXNEWS and filling Connie Chung and Greenberg in on the 'updates'. Surely they too will view this as huge news worthy for our nation to WITNESS. And from what I've seen from you so far, you are the one who can accomplish getting this update to the people it needs to get to in order for it to be reported nationally and even worldwide.
Now THAT'S H-U-G-E- hawk.
Sincerely, and you know just how sincere, sKally
"A priest, rabbi or ordained or licensed minister of any church or a duly accredited Christian Science practitiioner shall not be required to disclose a confession or confidence made to him in his professional character as spiritual adviser, unless the person confessing or confiding waives the privilege.
So in this Berry case we have Sarah going to one or more elders asking for advise, as per WTS doctrine, because she has a problem .... the husband is abusing her daughters. Both of you know that once the elders are told something ... they send it up the line or talk to other elders. In other words ... they break the privilege (found in law) as per the Flock book. The question is .. is this considered a "clerical privileged" conversation(s) as per New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 505.
Well, imho, ANY jw who goes to the elders KNOWS that it is NOT confidential to that elder.
1. If it is a "grave sin" ----he will tell other elders, Even if it isn't a grave sin....elders will talk together supposedly seeking "biblical counsel." Sometimes the assholes will just sit around talking about others in "pre-counsel work". That means gossiping for the rest of us.
2. The committee will be formed.
3. Also, we know that the PO will be told
4. .....and records sent to The Society
5. and infor. put on our publisher card.
6. All this occurring with at least one - or more - phone calls to the Society for guidance.
7. Written records in different files on our sins - either in the cong. and/or at Headquarters.
Now, if this is child molestation, the one reporting KNOWS that the accused is going to be spoken to. If it's a child, the parents will be brought in.
If it's a sin with witnesses..........lol, the witnesses will be spoken to for "further clarification." The sinner has no say-so in the matter. All JW's know how their system works.
All JW's also know that when they talk to an elder.......it is NOT a confessional ---it's the start of a chain of events & people who know what you've done - or have been reported upon to supposedly have done.
Did the elders EVER talk to Brother Berry about the accusations against him - even once when Sarah went those 10 times? Wouldn't that be breaking confidence? Now, if the elders argue that Sarah wanted them to speak with her husband, then she was giving her consent.
But wouldn't any jw be giving consent for elders to talk to others .......because that's how it works in the jw religion. Therefore, there is no confessional situation. There are no true secrets for a confessed sinner - or someone seeking counsel.
Sorry for being so "round-about" in thinking. I just never tried to distinguish clergy priveledge against the WT arrangement. There really isn't a one-to-one confessional. None. All JW's know this.
waiting
Hi Waiting,
You said: "There really isn't a one-to-one confessional. None. All JW's know this."
You and I and "all" JWs know this, but the Court does not know that in the same way that we do. The court will allow the WTS an opportunity to prove its claim. Lets hope that the plaintiff's council is sharp enough to counter the WTS' attempts to misrepresent the facts.
Sam
