by ABibleStudent 68 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
If you want to spend $20 for a copy of the oral arguments CD, contact the clerk of the 1st Appellate District Court.
But don't be cheap and ask for a fee waiver (i.e. free). A non party, who I assume is probably from the ex-JW community already tried that.
Hello Robert,
Just read your post. I don't know if I like this new site or not. Thank you for your hard work to keep us up to date on what is going on with the Wt. Hopefully everything will come out in the wash. I remember the letters the Wt. sent all the congregation in the Tampa Bay area back in the early 90's when the P.O. of the Clearwater congregation was arrested for child abuse. It was on all the TV news and newspapers at the time. What I remember about that letter was how scared the Wt. sounded in the letter. Saying things like don't talk to any news agencies, called the Wt. first and look out for those bad news people coming into your hall asking questions. At the time I had the thinking of them against us. So I was in agreement with it. Now I see what cowards the Wt. really are. Keep up the good work and I will talk to you soon. Still Totally ADD
The following information should help anyone contact the court to determine what and where to file a request for the CD:
I also know that Barbara Anderson is trying to obtain a CD. Hopefully, she will post the recording of the oral arguments on her website, watcthtowerdocuments.com.
@ Still Totally ADD - Thanks for the compliments.
If you would like to help JWs to critically think for themselves, please read the thread Revise Tax Code to Protect Children from Sexual Abuse and contact your Congressional Representatives requesting that they introduce a bill to Congress. Feel free to PM me if you want to read a rough draft of the bill or to forward it to attorneys with Tax Code, legislative writing, or Constitutional Law experience.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
ABiblestudent, Thanks for your report.
I wish to address your
“4. The newly introduced nonfeasance theory (i.e., failure to act when action is required) by Richard Simons was not supported by evidence.”
A nonfeasance theory was the thrust of Simons’ entire case at trial. Indeed, from Simons‘ opening statement through post-trial motions—including his punitive damages argument— Simons repeatedly and consistently pressed a nonfeasance theory of liability. Post-trial, however, clear and overwhelming legal precedent established that there was never a special relationship between Candace and defendants.
Richard Simons, in his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF, all but abandoned his nonfeasance arguments that so impressed Judge Robert McGuiness and the lay jurors. Why would he do such a thing? Perhaps someone explained the Principles of American tort law relevant to nonfeasance liability claims.
“It is black-letter law that one may have an affirmative duty to protect another from harm where a special relationship exists. The critical question, therefore, is whether there existed some special relationship between [Plaintiff] and defendants which would give rise to an affirmative duty to act.” —Justice Kaufman, Supreme Court of California,1988
In order to survive a motion to dismiss a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts constituting the alleged relationship with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine whether, if true, such facts could give rise to a fiduciary relationship.
A court must determine whether a voluntary organization such as a church has a special relationship with its members that gives rise to a duty to protect those members from other members of the organization.
A court must have before it specific facts constituting the basic elements of a fiduciary relationship, […] specific aspects of the plaintiff’s relationship with the church that are distinct from those of its relationship with any other members, adult or child, of the church.
The fact is, at trial, Simons put before the Court NO “specific aspects of the plaintiff’s relationship with the church that [were] distinct from those of its relationship with any other members, adult or child, of the church”. Regardless, via Juarez, Judge McGuiness gave Simons a “bye”. When hindsight— or whatever—exposed his own and the trial court’s errors, Simons attempted to salvage what little remained of his case. He only compounded his problems.
"It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant." (Hines v. California Coastal Com 'n, Bd. of Supervisors of Sonoma (20 1 0) 186 Cal.App.4th 830, 846-847.)
In his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF Simons simply asserted a new and wholly different theory of liability—misfeasance. Simons’ Brief violated “a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried.”
Simons’ Brief opened with the sentence:
Plaintiff Jane Doe (Candace Conti) was nine years old when the elders of defendant North Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“Congregation”) repeatedly assigned her to participate with Jonathan Kendrick, a man known to them as a child molester, in the Congregation’s door-to-door ministry known as “field service.”
Simons repeated versions of his— assigned Candace to Kendrick— 37 times in his Brief. However, nowhere in evidence is Candace assigned to perform field service with Kendrick. Simons just made it up. The Appellate Court will not find Simons’ CRITICAL FACT in evidence. The justices will see no basis for Simons’ ARGUMENT I, III, IV, and V. The justices have observed, no doubt, the 37 holes in Simons’ Brief.
James McCabe was a kindly looking man in a wrinkled suit. James McCabe played the religious beliefs cards and stated that:
- JWs are just practicing their religious beliefs – not that JWs are pressured and indoctrinated to participate in FS and may be marked for not participating.
- There was no testimony or evidence that the elders specifically paired Jonathan Kendrick with Candace Conti. Putting Kendrick in the same group as the Conti family does not count.
- Candace Conti’s parents should have been responsible for protecting Candace from Kendrick. [My retort] Why didn’t the elders warn Candace’s parents about Kendrick, especially when the Watchtower and elders indoctrinate all JWs that “JWs are the kindest, most moral, most trustworthy, honest people in the world??!!
- Kendrick did not sexually abuse Candace while in FS but afterwards.
So let's examine that.
1. Forgetting for a bit that it's a total lie, they say they don't MAKE Witnesses go out in field service or mark them when they don't.
2. They only put them together in a field service group, not as a pair. She could have refused to work with him.
3. Her parents should have known without any prior knowledge or warning that someone they PLACED in their field service group was not to be trusted.
4. It happened afterward anyway.
So why are they arguing that they didn't make her go in field service in any way if that isn't the issue?
So why are they arguing that they didn't make her work with him in field service if that isn't the issue?
"Your honor, I never met that woman before entering this courtroom, she's lying. I didn't rape her. I was out of town that day. Besides, it was consensual when I had sex with her that day and she said she liked it. Anyway, the woman I raped was much taller, so that isn't her anyway."
km 10/12 pp. 5-6
2 Take the Initiative: Field service groups are generally the same size that book study groups were. By working in the ministry “side by side” with others, a close bond can result. (Phil. 1:27) How many in your group have you worked with? Could you “widen out” in this regard? (2 Cor. 6:13)
Richard Simons, in his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF, all but abandoned his nonfeasance arguments that so impressed Judge Robert McGuiness and the lay jurors. Why would he do such a thing? Perhaps someone explained the Principles of American tort law relevant to nonfeasance liability claims.
Chaserious, Happy to answer your question. It will take a few days.
No doubt the false assumptions in your first two sentences serves your purpose.
My comment above RE — “4. The newly introduced nonfeasance theory (i.e., failure to act when action is required) by Richard Simons was not supported by evidence.”— serves to correct the error. Simons’ newly introduced theory was misfeasance, not nonfeasance.
Note:
A nonfeasance theory was the thrust of Simons’ entire case at trial.
In his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF Simons simply asserted a new and wholly different theory of liability—misfeasance.
If you had fixed it I would not have commented.
A nonfeasance theory was the thrust of Simons’ entire case at trial.
In his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF Simons simply asserted a new and wholly different theory of liability—misfeasance.
If you had fixed it I would not have commented.
I knew what you meant - you are right that the theory at trial was nonfeasance. But I think my point still stands. He put 2 pages in his brief arguing misfeasance. It's just a long-shot, alternative basis to uphold the jury verdict. It's not abandonment of his original theory; that is what lawyers are supposed to do on appeal. Although you may be right that when he started writing the appeal brief, he realized that the body of existing law supporting the trial judge's ruling was rather thin.
No doubt the false assumptions in your first two sentences serves your purpose.I didn't think I made any assumptions; I just described your posts. Isn't it true that you explained why you believe the law doesn't support a verdict for Conti?
