Posts by Chaserious

12

Those Working or Have Worked In Accounting At Bethel Listen Up about Whistleblowers Reward

by frankiespeakin in

you can get a reward for blowing the whistle if you got information about fraud.. http://www.fraudfighters.net/?gclid=coj9z6x0p7ycfw7hqgody2waig.

if youre a whistleblower with information about fraud on the government, then you may be able to bring a qui tam lawsuit under a federal law known as the false claims act.

a qui tam lawsuit is one brought by a private citizen, but in the name of the government.

Chaserious

and numerous other types of entities that do business with the government.

The WT society is not a government contractor. I can't imagine any plausible scenario where any WT insider would have a qui tam case.

85

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown in

as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.

Chaserious

Yes, but Mind Blown, statutory duties to report have nothing to do with the Conti verdict.

"11Your deliberations are to be based solely

12 upon the evidence presented and the instructions given

13 without any consideration whatsoever as to whether there

14 was any statutory duty to report an incident of

15 suspected child abuse.

16 That, again, has nothing to do with what the

17 standards are of care and negligence issues."

That is from page 106 of this trial transcript, from the jury instructions.

For the record, I don't agree with the dating site comparison. In my opinion, one of the worst things the WTS has done is discouraged victims and their families from reporting to police, but I don't believe that is going to be the basis of the appeal because it was not the basis of the verdict. I do hope that Candace gets her verdict upheld, but I have serious concerns that the appeals court is not going to agree with this broad duty to warn/protect.

85

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown in

as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.

Chaserious

Hi Chaserious, I do not want to go into details but happened at that case?

Hi Scott,

The Bryan R case involved a boy who was sexually abused while growing up by a member of his JW congregation. The molester, a man named Larry Baker, had molested someone before and the elders knew about it, and deleted the abuser as a minsterial servant after the first abuse case, but didn't warn the members of the congregation, and then he abused the Bryan R. victim. The victim got a judgment against the abuser, but the court allowed the congregation and the Watchtower to be dismissed from the case before it got to trial and the Maine Supreme Court upheld it on appeal.

It doesn't appear that there was correspondence with the WT Society in that case, unlike in the Conti case, but I don't think it would have mattered at least for that court since the they were very clear that there was no legal duty to protect members from other members.

You might find it interesting also that the local Maine Roman Catholic diocese filed a brief with the court in support of the Watchtower in that case.

85

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown in

as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.

Chaserious

"If that was to happen the WTS will have to have a strong case, because a pure question of law or new issue will have to be presented by undisputed facts."

Well, that's true, but this is basically how all dismissal motions work, and appeals also. You basically have to say that even if we believe everything the other side says with respect to the facts, there is still no legal right to compensation, and therefore the case against you should be dismissed (or overturned on appeal).

My concern is that to my knowledge, a duty to protect ordinary members from one another on their own time has never been imposed on a religion before. Even if the California Supreme Court hasn't spoken on it either way, several other state supreme courts have said there is no such duty.

For example, from Maine:

"The creation of an amorphous common law duty on the part of a church or other voluntary organization requiring it to protect its members from each other would give rise to both unlimited liability and liability out of all proportion to culpability." Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc., 738 A.2d 839, 847 (Me. 1999).

Connecticut and New Hampshire have basically said the same thing, and likely other states as well. While the California Appeals courts are certainly not obligated to follow precedent from other states, I am concerned that they won't want to give their stamp of approval to a new duty that has been fairly widely rejected.

1

NOT on JW.ORG: Any update of this case of Jehovah's Witness Child Molestation near Boston?

by Balaamsass in

suit charges church coverup.

jehovah's witness group is blamed in abuse of girl.

by kathleen burge, globe staff, 1/1/2003.

Chaserious

Just checked into this. The Watchtower got themselves dismissed as a defendant in February 2005 in a summary judgment motion. The elder and the congregation were not dismissed. It's reasonable to assume that there might have been some kind of settlement after that by the congregation and the elder.

Regarding Watchtower, from the decision:

"The Beals fail to demonstrate that the defendant Watchtower could have foreseen Ronald Broadard's alleged assaults. The record contains not a scintilla of evidence that anyone ever informed Watchtower of Ronald's purported sexual dangerousness prior to the alleged instances of abuse. The record fails to suggest in any rational way that the Watchtower knew of Ronald's alleged propensities, and therefore summary judgment will enter in favor of Watchtower on this count of the Beals' complaint."

" Again, the Beals offer no evidence that Watchtower knew of Ronald Broadard's deviant tendencies . . . . the Beals are unable to show any conduct made by Watchtower towards them specifically that would amount to a representation of anything. Summary judgment shall therefore enter in favor of Watchtower on this claim as well."

" based on the lack of any evidence tending to show that Watchtower was situated to prevent the Broadards' conduct, their motion for summary judgment is allowed."

The citation for the full court decicion is 19 Mass. L. Rep. 114

85

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown in

as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.

Chaserious

The notion of the WTS being deprived of due process is ridiculous since the Courts ARE due process and punitive damaged are, well, punitive.

Well, having your case heard before a court does not by itself satisfy due process. There have been thousands of appeals in the history of the United States on due process grounds where the parties had their case heard by a lower court. And if you follow the link to the State Farm case in the prior post, you will see that not all punitive damage awards are constitutional.

As to the 10th Amendment limiting federal judicial powers, that certainly is not a theory that has ever been endorsed by the Supreme Court. It may be a minority academic view that some agree with, but I don't think you would get very far with that argument in the federal courts.

73

Congregation had to relocate Memorial...thanks to me

by Shepherd Book in

so, the two local congregations were planning to hold their memorial together at 7:30 at the local community center, but they had to make a last-minute change to their own hall, and i'm pretty sure it was because of me.. let me explain.... at work on monday afternoon, a co-worker returned from her lunchbreak and showed me the memorial invitation that was waiitng in her door when she went home for lunch.

i noticed the sticker on the back indicated the memorial was being held, not at the local hall, but at the community center.

from a past (non-jw) event i attended there, i knew they didn't allow alcohol (unless you pay for security guards), so i wrote to the center's coordinator:.

Chaserious

I don't really think the OP did anything wrong, especially since he says his intention was not to get them kicked out. However, for all those saying "nobody is above the law" and "rules are rules" and that kind of thing, I'm assuming you don't have a problem when the WTS does little petty things to enforce laws the violations of which seem kind of harmless. Like getting websites to take down materials for copyright violations and that kind of thing.

85

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown in

as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.

Chaserious

Farkel:

I agree that it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would ever hear this appeal. First, the California Supreme Court would have to agree to hear it, which is a discretionary appeal. Even if that happened, only about 1% of cases appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court are actually heard by that court. But the test for whether it can hear an appeal from a state supreme court doesn't have anything to do with the 10th Amendment. The test is whether the case meets the requirements of a federal statute, 28 USC 1257. The case must also meet the requirements of Article III of the US Constitution.

Since punitive damages are involved in this case, it is possible that these would be grounds for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have heard state-law cases involving punitive damages in the recent past, such as State Farm v. Campbell. The theory is that the improper award of punitives or excessive award of punitives can be a violation of due process, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Watchtower could argue that awarding punitive damages for the purposes of forcing a change in policy is a due process violation, and that would be grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

So, that's my amateur roadmap to how the U.S. Supreme Court could hear the case. I think it's extraordinarily unlikely, but not impossible.

85

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown in

as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.

Chaserious

At this point it's a situation of who presents the best argument - was there a legal error(s) during the civil trial that led to the judgement against the WT Society. Or, should the lower court's judgement stand.

Am I correct? And is this the process in California?

What you said seems about right. It's a panel of three judges, where two out of three wins. I believe California is a state that guarantees the right to oral argument (unless waived by the parties), although in some states the judges have to grant it.

It's not just the possibility of a legal error during the trial, in the strict sense of the term, that can be appealed. Many appeals are based on the argument that the case or a party should have been dismissed before there was even a trial. I am sure one of the WT's arguments will be that they should have been let out of the case by the trial judge before there ever was a jury trial.

85

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown in

as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.

Chaserious

I am almost certain there is no tsunami of pedo cases waiting to see what happens here. It seems like a lot of people think that, but I just don't see it. That's not how plaintiffs' lawyers operate, unless there is a case that overturns old law, which is not applicable here. If they have a case, potentially worth millions, they don't sit with their thumbs up their behinds on it. Statutes of limitations get closer or run out, potential witnesses could move away or die, and the plaintiff could decide to jump ship to a different lawyer.

The WT is probably appealing this case because they don't want to pay the judgment, and because this verdict was the first of its kind and they think they have a good chance of getting it overturned by a more academic and dispassionate review by an appeals court. Although there is always the angle that the institutional defendant can try to outlast the individual plaintiff to pressure them to settle, but I don't think they view Conti as someone who will settle on their terms.