Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation (page 12)

Vidiot

Dagney - "...this argument has failed at all levels..."

And like I said before, if that's all they got left to work with...

...they got nothing.

Vidiot

Fisherman - "And US High Courts will vindicate it..."

a) Because God's got the WT's back...

b) Because those child abuse victims are a bunch of unrepentant apostates, anyway, and...

c) Because f**k you, that's why!

"Joe - interesting that from your perspective at the frontline, thank you. The legal background may interest you. It's a little obscure and case law dating back centuries... the ultimate endpoint in Britain is for a judge to rule that something is required for the public interest. Once that ruling is made, you can end up with Catholic priests in the dock expected to testify. (Although last properly tested back in late Victorian era!). CofE clergy are still in an odd place with the whole confession thing - legally obliged to remain silent (state church legacy) but also equally subject to a judge demanding testimony. Last I heard, they were trying to figure out how to fix that themselves.

Judges don't tend to press that hard though (the discretion under PACE) which is why it's only when dim JWs try to muck up major child abuse investigations that the stick comes out. Like it did in Newcastle not so long back. And then after months of the judge trying to persuade them to testify of their own accord. They chose to testify on the morning of the trial, rather than spend some time at Her Majesty's pleasure."

Well, yes and and no. Of course, judges can and should rule 'in the public interest'. I am not aware of any case in which a catholic priest (or a CofE priest) has ever been subpoenaed to give evidence of what occurred in a confession, and I would be interested to learn of the procedure which occassioned that. It would seem to me to be covered by PACE (excluded material).

I note your comments that 'Judges don't tend to press that hard'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the discretion under PACE'. I can tell you that the judges with which I dealt pressed hard, demanded evidenced and reasoned legal arguments, and issued orders/warrants that were never - never -overturned by higher courts.

(This is a UK (E&W) perspective.) Judges don't try to 'persuade' people. They explain the options. You don't f@@k with the judge, ever.

And here is a true story. I had a case (related to my post above about judges ordering bank information). The judge had ordered that material held by the bank (a national) must be produced to us (the police) in 7 days. It wasn't. The local, area, regional managers appeared before the judge to explain the failure. The judge ordered the CEO to appear - and advised that he bring a toothbrush. The material was provided.

Vidiot

Joe Grundy - "...The judge had ordered that material held by the bank (a national) must be produced to us (the police) in 7 days. It wasn't. The local, area, regional managers appeared before the judge to explain the failure. The judge ordered the CEO to appear - and advised that he bring a toothbrush. The material was provided..."

Nice.

Piss off the secular authorities enough, and sooner or, the gloves'll come off.

I'm sure it's why Jackson (eventually) appeared on the Aussie RC last year, and why the WTS lost the Campos case earlier.

x

We're used to powerful people not answering for their sins, but it does happen if enough victims kick up a fuss (and if the powerful sinners are stupid or deluded enough).

Joe Grundy

"Fisherman" said:

But the conditions of "religious" confidentiality are not set by you or by what people expect or think it is the case. They are set forth by the US Constitution and you do not have to like it either. If US law protects JW version of priest/ penitent and you don't like it -too bad! JW version is entitled to same immunity provisions as Catholic versions under US law regardless of what you like or think. And US High Courts will vindicate it.

Well, this is bollocks (a technical legal term), of course, and though I claim no knowledge whatsoever of the US constitution I do claim a thorough working knowledge (and practice) of the common law which applies here.

The legal concept of confidentiality is relatively simple. If someone provides information to someone else on the basis that, and in the expectation that, the information will be held in confidence, there is a contract of confidentiality. That is, to state the obvious - no information will be divulged to anyone.

Simply put, in light of the forgoing and what is common knowledge of the JW procedures, there is no confidentiality.

Joe Grundy

"I'm sure it's why Jackson (eventually) appeared on the Aussie RC last year"

I have to say that having watched the ARC proceedings I was impressed by the way that HHJ McClellan and CA Stewart in a caring, empathetic, way ensured that Jackson gave evidence. It wasn't their fault that Jackson was such a doofus. He did that all on his own.

OrphanCrow

Fisherman - "And US High Courts will vindicate it."

I don't think so. That is wishful thinking. Clergy-penitent privilege already does not apply in several states when it concerns child abuse.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf#page=2&view=Privileged Communications

This privilege, however, is not absolute. While clergypenitent privilege is frequently recognized within the reporting laws, it is typically interpreted narrowly in the context of child abuse or neglect. The circumstances under which it is allowed vary from State to State, and in some States it is denied altogether. For example, among the States that list clergy as mandated reporters, Guam, New Hampshire, and West Virginia deny the clergy-penitent privilege in cases of child abuse or neglect. Four of the States that enumerate “any person” as a mandated reporter (North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Texas) also deny clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse cases.

Dagney

What confounds...well practically everybody in the world except for JW elders and the WT corporation, is that there is so little regard for the victims in these cases.

We are talking about statutory rape here in the OP...and there are now 12 pages on this thread regarding a corporation's "right" to not report a crime.

It is sad they lack such empathy and have such a disconnect to fellow humans. From the top down it is so cold...protect the corporation at all costs. And cost them...it has and it will.

Fisherman

the clergy person is singular. It does not read, "clergymen,

Since government does not have any authority to interpret the Bible or any other religious code, it also lacks authority to interpret that "confession" is restricted to one clergy person. Government restricting "confession" to one priest or minister is unconstitutional because it is defining and interpreting and restricting how a religious act should be done. Who should impose the standard of how the religious act of confession should be done and with how many clergymen present? Funny that Delaware law uses Catholic shop talk.

In my opinion if this definition has to go to go all the way up to the US Supreme Court for clarification, the JW version of confession will continue to enjoy immunity same as a Catholic priest or clergy.

OrphanCrow

fisher: In my opinion if this definition has to go to go all the way up to the US Supreme Court for clarification, the JW version of confession will continue to enjoy immunity same as a Catholic priest or clergy.

heeheeheee...good luck with that

the JW version of confession

heeheehee hahaha!

The JWs do NOT rule the world. You do know that, right, fisherman?

The JWs cannot, and will not be allowed to, define the legal concept of "confession".

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

Share this