Judge William Groff

by UnDisfellowshipped 16 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Hawkaw,

  You know I love you and all the silentlambs.

  All I want to do is help the silentlambs and all abuse victims.

  I try my best to be in subjection to the "Superior Authorities" and to "honor them".

  You know that I applaud your efforts to help the silentlambs.

  About my statement:

  "the Judge who ruled that in New Hampshire, it is perfectly LEGAL to harbor, protect, and cover-up child molesters, and NOT warn any other Parents or Children about the molester"

  He did not say those exact words, but that is basically what his ruling was, wasn't it?

  Judge Groff said that JW Elders are protected by New Hampshire's "religious privilege" and that they do NOT have to report child abuse to ANYONE EVER, isn't that what he ruled?

  It is not my intention to "flame" anyone. I am trying to give a background history of Judge Groff's rulings.

  I am quite upset about that other Judge's ruling in the Vicki Boer case as well.

  That Judge basically called Vicki Boer a liar.
• 

  hawkaw

  No, that is not what he ruled. But I do agree with many he made a mistake in the law. But I do believe you that you do not want to flame anyone.

  And no Her Honour did not call Vicki a liar. She ruled based on the limited evidence that was presented her. I agree with her ruling 100 percent. I'm still in shock that she recognized the shunning and Vicki has NO free will in not going to a JC and she recognized the superior power of the elders have over regular JWs. Absolutely stunning.

  hawk
• 

  Will Power

  If this was a movie or a book I might think that someone was bribed or being blackmailed by something very anal about their reputation and unfettered power and had the money and legal means to do it.
• 

  Uzzah

  Just because a court case doesn't rule against the Society does not automatically make it a bad legal decision.

  Just because a judge does not rule in favor of your chosen 'side' does not mean the judge is corrupt.

  I would suggest reading the decisions yourself and base your opinions on a fair evaluation of the case presented not solely on the outcome you desire.

  Uzzah
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Hawkaw,

  I had asked you this question in my last post:

  "Judge Groff said that JW Elders are protected by New Hampshire's "religious privilege" and that they do NOT have to report child abuse to ANYONE EVER, isn't that what he ruled?"

  Then you replied and said:

  "No, that is not what he ruled."

  Are you saying that the following News Article is wrong then?

  Judge: Elders not required to report abuse
  Saturday, June 21, 2003

  Jehovah’s Witnesses’ elders were obliged not to report complaints of sexual abuse made during confidential pastoral counseling sessions, a judge ruled earlier this month.

  [...]

  The church argued, and Groff agreed, that the elders are covered by the state’s “religious privilege” rule, which protects the confidentiality of confessions or other confidential communications with religious officials.

  Groff found that Jehovah’s Witness elders are “ordained ministers” under the law, and thus the privilege applies. He also found that the meetings during which the Berrys discussed their situation were treated as confidential by the church at the time, so the elders were barred from reporting any allegations or admissions of abuse.___________________________________________________________

  According to that News Article, Judge Groff said that Elders are OBLIGED NOT TO REPORT MOLESTERS and that ELDERS ARE BARRED FROM REPORTING ANY ALLEGATIONS OR ADMISSIONS OF ABUSE.

  Is that News Article FALSE? Did they just make that Story up? Or is that what Judge Groff actually ruled?

  If that News Article is false, then I definitely want to know.

  If that News Article is TRUE, then I have every right to be extremely suspicious of Judge William Groff's rulings.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Hawkaw said:

  And no Her Honour did not call Vicki a liar.

  Well, according to the News Articles, Her Honor said that she did NOT believe Vicki Boer's claim that the Elders told her NOT to report abuse to the Authorities.

  Call it what you want, Hawkaw, but, according to the News Articles, Her Honor basically said she did NOT believe that Vicki Boer was telling the truth about the Elders telling her not to report the abuse to the Authorities.

  It doesn't make much sense either. Why would Her Honor believe Vicki Boer about the Elders making her follow the "Matthew 18:15" Rule, but she doesn't believe Vicki Boer about the Elders telling her NOT to report to the Authorities?

  Hawkaw said:

  She ruled based on the limited evidence that was presented her. I agree with her ruling 100 percent.

  Hawkaw, you agree 100% with the Judge's ruling that Vicki Boer was NOT telling the truth about the Elders telling Vicki NOT to report to the Authorities???

  Hawkaw said:

  I'm still in shock that she recognized the shunning and Vicki has NO free will in not going to a JC and she recognized the superior power of the elders have over regular JWs. Absolutely stunning.

  Well, I'm still in shock that MORE Judges cannot see the obvious truth that there is NO FREE WILL among Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  http://www.1590.com/Stories/0,1413,222~23678~1492331,00.html

  Article Published: Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 8:38:27 AM EST
  
  Witnesses to abuse

  A Superior Court ruling in late June allows elders to protect confessions of sexual abuse made to them by Jehovah's Witnesses. They won't have to report admissions of abuse to state authorities. That has dangerous implications for victims, who say their complaints have been routinely ignored by elders.

  In this case, a "confession" was made before a panel of Wilton elders, not in the privacy of a one-to-one meeting. The finding in Hillsborough County Superior Court that elders serve as "ordained ministers" protected from revealing confidences might be upheld by law, but it hurts victims past and future.

  The suit links to an increasing number of lawsuits from church members. The Wilton victims' mother told church elders about abuse from their father/stepfather, since jailed. She was told to keep quiet, pray more and strive to be a better wife. Her daughters, who filed the suit, are now grown and plan to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

  Similar reports abound of elders covering up incidents, effectively allowing suspected molesters to continue their abuse for years. In Keene in 1987, members were threatened with excommunication and eternal damnation if they pursued a complaint about a 10-year-long abuse situation. Alleged molesters are also allowed to go door to door, in the company of a second church member, once elders deem them rehabilitated.

  Looking to Catholic tragedies, one might have expected the court to protect the children. But this ruling will encourage elders to keep hushing up victims and shielding offenders.

  One hopes the Supreme Court finds a better resolution. The lower court's decision will intimidate other victims. The message is clear: Silence is now golden.