The Governing Body WILL be sued in America collectively and individually in the near future!

by notsurewheretogo 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ScenicViewer

  And just as you say that Watchtower feared to lose the person who accepts the settlement may have feared to lose too.

  I don't believe that for a second. Watchtower desperately needs a win over which it can boast and gain back a small amount of public image. If there is any way the Organization thinks it can win it will stick with the case to the end.

  When Watchtower lost the Conti case it was the first case the Organization lost since the Olin Moyle case in the late 1930s/early 1940s. In the intervening time sexual abuse cases hadn't surfaced, but now that they have it's a whole different ball game for Watchtower.

  In the Conti case, in fact, it was a victory for watchtower. It showed that Watchtower did not have a duty to warn or a duty to protect.

  No, the Conti case was a loss for Watchtower. Your reference is to the punitive damages only, not to the compensatory damages which were in the millions by themselves. What did Watchtower and Conti settle for? No one knows, but it is always Watchtower that insists on the non-disclosure agreement, indicating that if the amount was known it would be humiliating for the Organization.
  
  

  Again name one case.

  Again you are being disingenuous (but I've grown accustomed to it).
  
  
• 

  steve2

  A great big JW organization suing is just round the corner. Honest it is. Just like the end of this system of things. It's so very close.
• 

  ScenicViewer

  Please explain how Watchtower did not benefit from the appeals ruling.

  You are setting up a straw man argument. No one said that Watchtower didn't benefit from having the punitive damages removed on appeal in the Conti case. Of course they did, they saved multi millions of dollars. But the loss is still there over a child molestation case and it is not the kind of public image that Watchtower wants or needs.

  And the Conti case is the first in a line of such cases that are resulting in loss for Watchtower, whether thru verdict or voluntary settlements. No matter how you rationalize this, Watchtower can't escape the stigma that results from these loses.
  
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  I agree that in the Conti case that Watchtower did lose 2.8 million but the ruling is what mattered that they have no duty to warn or duty to protect. Also, a number of other cases even before the Conti case were won by Watchtower in the summary judgement portion. And the latest case is the Lewis case where again the court ruled that she could not prevail because Watchtower had no duty to protect.
• 

  ScenicViewer

  And the latest case is the Lewis case where again the court ruled that she could not prevail because Watchtower had no duty to protect.

  Another straw man argument. Having a duty to protect is only a portion of what constitutes liability, it isn't the whole case as you seem to imply.
  
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Then point to another case where Watchtower was held liable by either a jury or a judge other than the Conti case. If there are all of these this should be the simplest argument. I can give you a list of cases that Watchtower has won.
• 

  OUTLAW

  I agree that in the Conti case that Watchtower did lose 2.8 million..

  I can give you a list of cases that Watchtower has won. ...Richard Oliver
  

  You think losing Millions of Dollars is a Win..

  And..

  Losing Millions of Dollars over and over, is a Track Record of Wins!..
  

  ......

  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Outlaw please give instances of over and over losing millions of dollars with actual facts, not what jwfacts says or barbara anderson. a legal document that says that watchtower paid out millions of dollars.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  All of those settlements it is just speculation that Watchtower paid out millions of dollars no one knows. And it is extremely common for people to either settle out of court or in the cases of criminal cases please no contest. And the use of no contest in a criminal matter cannot be used in a civil case to show guilt because nothing was ever proven, so the same thing applies with a settlement, nothing was ever proven.
• 

  UnshackleTheChains

  Religious abstention policy would come in effect with cases such as shunning and blood issue. A Church cannot be held responsible for what has said if it is in the promotion of their truly held religious beliefs

  We are living in uncertain times Mr Oliver. Judging by that conference hosted by reveal news, I would suggest the GB members wear brown suits from now on. The new facilities in Warwick look good, but it's no ivory tower.