Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow 161 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • OrphanCrow
    fisherman: It is axiomatic that context of this discussion is the posted Court "OPINION" not the whole world. a way, the "court opinion" does speak for the 'whole world'. That is how our legal system works.

    The District Attorney represents "the people". In other words...all of "us".

    In this case, the judge sided with the DA - with "us"...the whole world.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman a way, the "court opinion" does speak for the 'whole world'. That is how our legal system works

    No it doesn't. It only applies to Delaware law. The reason the Judgement was denied was not because the related law (909) did not apply to JW but because the Court found "genuine issues of material fact" regardless of what 909 literally means or potentially can mean.

  • OrphanCrow


    Methinks we read different documents, Fisherman.

  • Fisherman
    Methinks we read different documents, Fisherman.

    So do I. But regardless what you read. The context of the posted Court decision is about Delaware child abuse reporting law.

  • Sugar Shane
    Sugar Shane
    No it doesn't. It only applies to Delaware law.

    For the time being, perhaps. But, thanks to legal precedent, this will likely apply to similar decisions in other states.

    One cannot also rule out the effects of the ARC, and the ongoing UK Charities Commission, on future legal interpretation in the US and Canada. It's all Common Law.

  • JWdaughter

    this is an interesting case and I hope we get to hear what ultimately happens.

    Here is the thing. There have been court cases that addressed this before. The kind of "confession" that the WT does is not unlike this one, other than the fact that others can be called in for judgement and possible expulsion from the congregation.

    " Massachusetts: In Commonwealth v. Drake [(1818) 15 Mass., 154], it was argued on the one side that a confession of a criminal offence made penitentially by a member of a certain Church to other members, in accordance with the discipline of that Church, may not be given in evidence. These others (who were not clergy) were called as witnesses. The solicitor-general argued that religious confession was not protected from disclosure. He also took the point that in this case "the confession was not to the church nor required by any known ecclesiastical rule", but was made voluntarily to friends and neighbours. The court held that the evidence was rightly received (not protected)."

    Chief justice Berger said this (and it speaks to why the WT does NOT qualify under this condition, ""The priest penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return."

    That has NOTHING to do with Judicial Committees. Never has, never will.

  • TipsyMangoTea

    As I read through this thread, I could only sadly think of how my very-deeply-in Mom and relatives will continue to stick it out as Witnesses while crying out, "See, the worldly governments are trying to stop us like it was foretold! The last days are truly here!"

    Wish I could throw a big box of calendars with pictures of bread at them...

  • Muddy Waters
    Muddy Waters

    DataDog, I am glad you mentioned that about the victim in this case, a 14 year old boy. He too was disfellowshipped, along with his abuser. Probably for the "practice" of fornication, uncleanness, lewd or brazen conduct, etc.

    And you are so right, this despicable action reveals much about the character of the WT cult!!! Blame the victim, punish the victim, abolish him, banish him, obliterate him, don't give him any support, help or counselling.

    I think that society still has a double standard about young boys with older women -- a situation often seen as "less bad" or even desirable, than with an older male and young female, say a 30+ year old man with a 14 year old girl.... See? Does the latter sound worse somehow? To me, both situations are abominable. I have worked with children and youths, and though some of the kids can seem pretty "mature", they are not. They are still youths and children! With many insecurities and emotional needs.

    In disfelllowshipping the young boy, the WT and its clueless leaders and followers again demonstrate the degree of their "knowledge" and empathy for a sexually abused child or youth who has been taken advantage of sexually. Despicable.


    You are all wrong. Fisherman is right. Please stop arguing with Fisherman.


  • Fisherman
    That has NOTHING to do with Judicial Committees. Never has, never will.

    And you can believe that if you like but in the posted Court decision, the Court felt that it was unconstitutional for laws to cater to one church over another and neither can the law dictate to the JW how to practice their religion when it comes to Minister Penitent, My opinion is that if any State law favors Catholic Church style confessions over JW judicial committees such law will be defeated in the US Supreme Court if it needs to get there.

Share this