http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
Village:
believe Candace Conti asked for 25 million in damages. The accumulation of multiple lawsuits could easily be a 100 million and I believe the society is worth several 100 million so that would be a good chunk of their 'hard earned' money.
Asked for, yes. But didn't receive. Hopefully, other lawsuits in the pipeline will hit the WT in their pocketbook.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
Fisherman, in response to my example of a school's duty to protect a child, you said...
It is not the same, the school has a custody relationship with the child, and so does a day care. You leave the child with them. They are legally liable. They have a legal duty to protect the child. Didn't you read the Court transcripts posted on this Forum for this case?
Whereas, in a subsequent post, you admitted to the 'special custodial relationship' between the church and child...
Wrong! The Appellate Court ruled that the church formed a "special custody relationship" with the child,and that was one basis for the award of damages to Plaintiffs.
Fisherman. First, you assert that the church had NO custodial liability. Then you admit that the church formed a 'special custody relationship' with the child. Since you are so well versed in legalese, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us on the DIFFERENCE between these relationships.
Also, you had previously stated that the elders in Conti's case had merely 'screwed up,' because they were 'imperfect.' Since you now seem to agree that there WAS, at least, a 'special custodial relationship' between the church and child. Would you not also agree that the elder's misstep in this case went well beyond a simple 'screwing up?' In almost any similar position of responsibility, they would be considered 'grossly negligent' and 'derelict in their duties.' A small business would likely fire a person so incompetent, and the military would court martial. I guess the standards of these JW elders fall well below that of most 'WORLDLY' people such as myself. Sad.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
Again.
Violating confidentiality breaks church law and subjects the violator to church discipline, It is against church law.
Fisherman, it's YOUR church law. Not mine. Your church's disciplinary actions. Not those of my church.
Church discipline?? You mean Kingdom Hall style discipline, as in what Jonathan Kendrick received? Hahahaha. What DISCIPLINE did he receive? A slap on the wrist, followed by full reinstatement as an elder IN GOOD STANDING! How absurd. That bastard should be in jail.
If some sick S.O.B. were to molest my child, he needn't worry about congregational 'discipline.' He'd incur the wrath of MY justice, and MY law, well in advance. Remember the movie "Scarface" with Al Pacino??
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
Fisherman. This goes way beyond mere 'imperfection,' or 'screwing up,' as you put it.
Suppose your kid's school administrator hires a gym teacher, knowing FULL-WELL that this individual has a criminal conviction for kiddy-porn. Suppose that same gym teacher sexually molests YOUR child in the locker room when no one was around.
I guess you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, "well, the administration just 'screwed' up. They're 'imperfect.'" Right? Is that what you'd do? If so, then you disgust me.
And as for not trusting others with the 'little ones,' are you telling me that you attend school with your kids?
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
Lock & load boys!
It's on.
got an update email about the conti case.
maybe someone can tell us what it means.. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641 .
got an update email about the conti case.
maybe someone can tell us what it means.. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641 .
Hmm. So, the WT presumably blew right through that 10 day window.
It sounds as if the 'SS Watchtower' has a (legal) crack in her hull, and is about to get torpedoed with more lawsuits? These recent money grabs sound analagous to bailing water from a sinking ship.
These other lawsuits must be hush-hush. Perhaps they're under gag orders in some states? It just seems awfully quiet out there since the Conti appeal case, and the Lopez case before that.
got an update email about the conti case.
maybe someone can tell us what it means.. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641 .
Ok...so WHEN will the Watchtower make their decision to:
a) Take it to the Federal level (Sup. Court).
b) or, take what they've got & try to deal with it?
There MUST be a deadline for them to 'fish or cut bait.' X number of days since the California appellate court's decision?
