Posts by Doubting Bro

204

Candace Conti Settles

by Nitty-Gritty in

hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.

but it's all quiet here.

are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?

Doubting Bro

Fisherman - It is a matter of fact that the Court did not order the WTS to change their policy in their ruling. In fact the Court thought so much of the WTS existing policy that they required the WTS to comply with their existing policy.
The Court found the WTS and agents liable for failing to protect Conti during Church sponsored activities. The Court also ruled that although the Conti molestations did not occur in FS, they occured while she was supposed to be in FS and held the WTS liable.
Although the lawsuit did not directly force WTS to change its policies in dealing with child molesters, you bet your booty that it forced WT to be more careful and to cover vulnerabilities to prevent future lawsuits. You betcha WT is going to deploy new policies to protect them from future suits. But the Court did not force the WT to change any policy.

I agree with what you are saying but while the Court didn't force the WT to specifically change their policy, if they don't want to get hit again then they will need to do something different. So I think the net effect of the lawsuit is going to be a policy change. So it really semantics.

I guess I look at all the cases against organizations whether religious (Catholic, JW, whatever) or secular (Boy Scouts) and believe that using the civil justice system to force organizations which are entrusted with a special relationship to take it seriously is really the only way you can force them to do anything. Organizations will always protect the status quo. I do find it a bit ironic that when the Catholic church as making headlines on this subject, many JWs (including myself) I know were talking with glee on how they were being made to pay big judgments and getting what they deserved. But know, it's against the WT, a much different tune is being sung.

I agree with you, lots of people let Candace and others in her position down. What I hope is that one day, pedophiles won't be able to use religious or community organizations like Boy Scouts, Little League, etc to prey on victims. These organizations have made progress in helping to protect those in their midst. The state laws requiring mandatory reporting and background checks (depending on what you are doing - for example, I had to go through a background check to coach a kids baseball team) have helped and quite frankly, being held accountable from a financial point of view has also helped.

204

Candace Conti Settles

by Nitty-Gritty in

hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.

but it's all quiet here.

are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?

Doubting Bro

@nitty-gritty -@ Doubting Bro, it was Conti's turn to appeal and it was Conti who settled.

Wrong - read who the pleading again. The petitioner was the WTS. They filed the appeal. Not sure if you are familiar with US law but either party could have appealed the lower court decision since both lost in various ways. However, it was the WTS that petitioned the CA Supreme Court. The procedure is not based on "turns". Are you 12 or something???

If you can't grasp the very simple concept that the WTS appealed to the CA Supreme Court then I'm not sure anyone would listen to any other argument you would make. Why is it so important to you to think Conti appealed and why would you make up that she initiated the appeal? It was in the WTS best interest to appeal and I"m really surprised they didn't move forward. Clearly there was legal advice from outside counsel that settling the matter was the best move.

204

Candace Conti Settles

by Nitty-Gritty in

hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.

but it's all quiet here.

are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?

Doubting Bro

If the WTS really thought 1) the court was definitely going to accept the case and 2) they would win, why would they settle? They already appealed once, had a portion of the verdict overturned and appealed again. Remember it was the WTS that appealed not Conti. They dropped their appeal, Conti had nothing to do with it.

This is not necessarily about the settlement if you are the WTS. It's about the precedent that was set. My opinion is they did not think the Supreme Court was going to rule in their favor and they'd rather deal with a lower court precedent than a SC precedent. So they moved to settle the case. Nothing else makes any sense.

This is about legal strategy and mitigating liability, nothing more.

204

Candace Conti Settles

by Nitty-Gritty in

hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.

but it's all quiet here.

are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?

Doubting Bro

You do realize that she won right? It was the WTS that appealed to the CA Supreme Court, not Conti. So the lower court decision that the WTS was responsible for failing to provide supervision during a church sponsored activity (field service) is a legal precedent. Given that, I' m willing to wager that they will soon change procedures on what activities those who are child molesters can participate in because if they don't they are exposed to further litigation.

22

How the new US gay marriage ruling could cause trouble for the WTS

by sir82 in

jw
friends

here are a couple of ways that come to mind:.

-- suppose a married gay couple, or even one of the partners, starts studying the bible with jws and decides he wants to baptized?

would the jws require him to get a divorce?

Doubting Bro

The intent wasn't to force various religions to change their practice but rather to provide equal protection under law (spousal rights, children issues, taxation issues). No effect from that standpoint and quite frankly there are a bunch of other fundamentalist religions that have been railing on about the ruling so JWs will continue to be lumped into that camp in the eyes of the public.

18

Time Magazine Article: Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions

by AndersonsInfo in

jw
friends

http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/?xid=newsletter-brief.

june 28, 2015 .

nows the time to end tax exemptions for religious institutions.

Doubting Bro

Agree 100% and have thought this way for a long time. As long as everyone is treated the same, I don't believe taxing these entities based on their profits (the same way every other business is taxed) would infringe on their 1st amendment freedom to worship as they please.

26

Sir David Eady to give judgement on the Watctower Appeal in the Otuo v Morley and Watch Tower case at the High Court tommorrow

by Adwoa Kromo in

sir david eady sitting as high court judge will hand down judgement tomorrow at 11:00am in the appeal of the decision from master leslie for refusing to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.

in his judgement in november 2014 he stated in his judgement delivered ex-tempore " i am bound to say that this case causes me a good deal of trouble".

from notes that i have from the hearing last week, i will be utterly surprised if the retired judge sir david eady takes a different view.

Doubting Bro

So the WT lost their appeal on summary judgement and the case will move forward?

8

Watchtower Society Recalls Demon-infested Literature

by maksutov in

the international bible students association has issued an urgent product recall for the october 2015 public edition of the watchtower magazine in the uk.

several copies of the magazine were found to contain demons, having been infected after a worker at the british branch office attended a yoga class.

the worker has now been disfellowshipped, but the ibsa reports that contaminated magazines had already been shipped to congregations across the uk.branch office spokesman andrew morris ivx said: "this product recall affects the printed public edition of the october 2015 watchtower only.

Doubting Bro

LOL

48

Candace Conti Case

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

filed:.

letter dated june 22, 2015, notifying the court that petitioners, watchtower and fremont congregation have reached a settlement with respondent, conti.. .

click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case..

Doubting Bro

At this point, everything is public so a gag order doesn't matter. I'm actually shocked the WTS settled. I think they realized the CA Supreme Court was not likely to take the case.

67

'Conti' Court decision secures Watchtower's Policy of confidentiality

by telemetry11 in

the court on the rule of confidentiality of penitential communications and evidentiary privilege--.. decision reads:.

"the law generally protects the confidentiality of communications with clergy like those of kendrick to the elders here.".

"if the person has a constitutional right to independence in making religious choices, the recognition of an evidentiary privilege is an apt means of protecting that autonomy.

Doubting Bro

While it is legally addressing church policy, you have to balance that with the need to take steps to ensure the safety of unsuspecting church children (Conti in this case). No freedom is absolute. The Founding Fathers got sick of having to support the Church of England via taxes and official membership which is why we wrote that into our constitution to begin with (I'm American).

Interesting that the Court only addressed the issue of having a molester participate in church sponsored activities as it relates to protecting the congregation's children. I wonder if the WTS would have been found liable in a case where a molester working alone in service (and yes I've worked streets by myself so it happens) attacked a householder. After all, it's a church sponsored activity with complete direction (territory maps, direction on which streets to work in many cases by whoever is taking the group out). I wonder if this duty to supervise will extend to harm suffered from a non-church member?

If I were the WTS, I'd simply issue a BOE letter stating anyone found guilty of molestation by either a JC or a court of law, could not participate in the door to door work. I'm not sure I'd let them even run the trolly or do street work. You are talking a very small number of individuals that is exposing them to a significant legal liability. But then again, I wouldn't ever let someone like that serve in a position of oversight and we know they allow that as well. Really doesn't make any sense to me.