Great analysis. Respect.
Great analysis. Respect.
There are two governing laws under the mandatory reporting exception rule.
1. is for the confession of someone.
2. is the confidential communication that takes place within a religion. If the religions normal procedure is to keep a matter confidential that is the requirement.
Confidentiality doesn't mean 1 person. As spoken of earlier a lawyer can communicate with colleagues without the privilege or confidential communication being lifted. I would even take it further. Let's say you sue someone with a lawyer's help. While preparing for the case the lawyer will interview witnesses and gather evidence. When he is interviewing witnesses he may speak about what his client told him. Does that mean that the attorney-client privilege is lifted? Or while deposing the defendant the lawyer asks questions based on what his client told him, would that remove the privilege?
The other argument is that during the punitive stage that the plaintiff's attorney wanted the jury to look at the JWs religious beliefs which have been ruled unconstitutional because no civil court can determine if a religious belief is correct or valid.
And the other arguments is that the mother of Alexis had the knowledge and responsibility to prevent her daughter from being molested by the stepfather. That twice child services investigated and twice no charges were brought. So the proximate cause of injury for Alexis was that of her mother turning her over to the stepfather.
The WT doesn't have a clergy class...
... until the WT lawyers tell a court that they do...
... Follow the money.
If they don't have a clergy class then they weren't mandatory reporters and couldn't be sued. You can't have it both ways.
JC323, yes the WTS has the specially appointed ability to speak out of both sides of their mouths.
And people here have that ability too.
I was thinking about the mother's testimony during this trial about how she turned her daughter over to her mother and stepfather because she felt that the elders did the right thing and that it was her duty to trust the elders. But when questioned about if she did everything that the elders told her to do at that time it was a no. So it was i did what the elders told me to do when it is convenient and not when it isn't
If you are abused you certainly need to hold someone accountable but you need to hold the right person accountable not just the person who has money that you can sue.
JC323...don't forget the old adage...
"There's too much smoke for there not to be a fire!"
WT has a plethora amount of sexual related child endangerment actions, complaints & lawsuits against them... worldwide! This is by no means an isolated case!
The common denominator in all these cases is WT's negligence.
A plethora number of lawsuits. Like 20. And please present actual evidence. Just like in this case the jury didn't believe that the first report was made.
Even the ARC if you actually look at the information 20% involved either unbaptized publishers or non-JW. That is why I don't believe it when people say that JWs don't report to keep Jehovah's name pure. How would that smear their reputation?
Even Watchtower in the Montana Case talks about how they contacted the state child services to confirm that they were in compliance of the law in the future.
Another old saying, JC323 that seems to be overlooked/ignored until it bites you in the ass...
"Denial is the first sign that there's a problem!"
I've personally have been in this cult for well over 4 decades and two of the main concerns have always been and still are to this day...bringing reproach on 'Jehovah' and the 'Organization'! You might say these are like...Golden Rules among the rank & file.