New document available: brief for petitioner (plaintiff) filed in the Supreme Court of Utah on November 12: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2019/11/Williams-Brief-for-Petitioner.pdf
Elders accused of playing rape tape to victim, 15; case goes to Utah Sup. Court
by Corney 42 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
-
road to nowhere
Cliff notes? Lawyers sure can be wordy
-
Corney
The Utah Supreme Court has recently published all legal briefs filed in this case, including (previously unavailable) Watchtower's brief: https://www.utcourts.gov/utc/appellate-briefs/2020/03/04/20190422-williams-v-kingdom-hall/
-----------------------
road to nowhere,
Let me begin with the factual issues. You're apparently aware of them but I hope someone will found that helpful.
Here is how plaintiff's allegations are summarized in the amicus brief:
A fourteen-year-old church member was sexually assaulted and raped by another church member [in 2007]. The church member insisted to church elders that the fourteen-year-old victim had consented to his assaults. Apparently believing that it would help his defense, the church member gave the church elders an audio recording of one of the rapes.
A group of three church elders, all men, responded by convening a “judicial committee” [in the spring of 2008] to determine whether the victim had consented to the assaults. The elders brought the victim in for questioning. The victim participated because she knew that she risked being disfellowshipped if she did not attend and participate.
At the hearing, the elders revictimized her and caused her additional harm. They played the audio recording of her rape, pausing repeatedly to ask her questions and refusing to continue until she had answered. During all of this, the victim was shaking, crying, and begging for the elders to stop. The interrogation lasted more than five hours.
The victim sued the church and asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed her complaint, ruling that the church’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment. (citations omitted)
So far, no court decided on the correctness of these allegations, and the Utah Supreme Court won't consider this issue too, it will decide only if they are justiciable. But some things are known:
- first, the Utah Department of Human Services found them at least partially credible and in 2009-10 decided that the judicial committee elders "had engaged in 'Emotional Maltreatment', defined as 'subject[ing] a child to psychologically destructive behavior'” (appellant's brief, p. 10; amicus brief, p. 4);
- second, the alleged rapist has not been charged with a crime;
- third, ten years later, at least two tapes were still kept in congregation files and have been provided to the court. They are described as "only six minutes long" and "consist[ing] of [the alleged rapist] unsuccessfully pressuring 14-year-old [plaintiff] to take nude photos." The plaintiff "has repeatedly denied that these recordings ... are the correct ones" (appellee's brief, p. 6 footnote 3, p. 25-6 fn. 7; appellant's reply brief, p. 3 fn. 1).
I think at this point it's impossible for us to establish whether and to what extent the allegations in question are true. I would defer to a jury on this issue. The question before the Utah Supreme Court is whether claims of such nature arising out of religiously motivated conduct are justiciable and can go to trial - or whether they are barred by the First Amendment.
In case you're interested about legal arguments, the plaintiff's lawyers argue that her claim depends on "an independent and religiously neutral principle of civil law" and its adjudication would not require a court to "resolve a dispute over religious doctrine or the truth of a religious belief", “to review and interpret church law, policies, or practices" or to "create a standard specific to religious authorities" ("[t]he applicable standard — outrageousness — already exists and applies to everyone")."That a defendant has a religious motive does not mean that a court must choose between competing interpretations of doctrine or in any other way sponsor one religious view to the detriment of another." Also, "[t]he immunity that Defendants seek for religiously motivated disciplinary conduct would generate dangerous results. Religious actors would be free to engage ... in a range of ... harmful conduct under a claim of pursuing religious discipline. For example, they could, without consequence, induce breaches of doctor-patient confidentiality or repeatedly strike a child in the face."
Watchtower asserts that allowing the suit to proceed would unconstitutionally authorize a court to review “the beliefs, practices, and doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses", of the "reasonableness of the elders’ ecclesiastical decisions" etc. Adjudication of the plaintiff's claim "would require a court to create a standard of care applicable to religious organizations’ conduct in training, investigating, and questioning congregant members regarding biblical sin, and in encouraging congregant members to repent for their sins." "Appellant’s allegations implicate key religious questions, including what questions can be asked by religious organizations about in membership-related proceedings, the reasonable duration of such a proceeding, at what age a member of a religious organization can commit sinful conduct or be questioned about such conduct, and what evidence or materials can be used by a religious organization to question members regarding sinful conduct. If this Court were to find review of religious tribunal practices constitutional, it would have far-reaching consequences. Applied to the LDS religion, Appellant’s theory would permit courts to dictate the manner and method by which LDS church leaders may question members about sinful conduct in proceedings to obtain a temple recommend or at a disciplinary counsel. The court could also now determine what discussions are off limits in the confessional box in the Catholic church. Such a result would impermissibly entangle the courts in religion."
Surely, this summary is not complete or perfect; maybe later I or someone else will provide a better one. BTW, each brief includes a short summary.
-
Corney
Update: the Utah Supreme Court will hear that case on November 9 via Webex video conference. The argument will be streamed online.
https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/cal/calendar.php?court=sup&month=11&year=2020#
-
vienne
Personally, I hope she wins.
-
DesirousOfChange
Gotta worry about Government getting its hands into religious debates.
I think if it went to SCOTUS, they'd side for the religion. (esp after Amy is seated)
-
Diogenesister
Gotta worry about Government getting its hands into religious debates.
DOC are you serious? This goes way, way further than “religious debates”. I would go as far as to say those elders participated in CRIMINAL behavior.
-
smiddy3
When the law allows religion to get away with these types of crime`s simply because of "Religion" then I believe the law is an ASS ,
There is a saying never to discuss religion or politics with your friends . Touchy subjects.
If the first Amendment protects religious freedom maybe it should have also included political freedom.
just saying.
-
TD
I would sue the elders for obtaining, having and exposing a child to child pornography.
Right?
Why are there not accompanying criminal charges in addition to the civil suit?