John Davis

Joined

• started 18 topics
• posted 407 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John Davis

• 
  24

  The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  lett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.

  these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  As most courts have found that Watchtower doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility i think it is mute point.

  Do they have a moral obligation certainly but legal and moral isn't the same thing.
• 
  24

  The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  lett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.

  these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  yup i heard of him. but the reason why he was able to sue watchtower was because the Betheliete was doing his job at the time. I don't know any elder whose job it is to hurt children. Again is it right, that is up to each person. But this is the law.
• 
  24

  The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  lett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.

  these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  Brokeback:

  But such as in the Conti case the appeals court ruled that Watchtower has no duty to warn nor a duty to protect. Most courts that have ruled on this have said that Watchtower has no fiduciary responsibility to it's members or to children.

  There is a case in California that a pioneer hit someone with their car while the person was leaving service. The court ruled that because the agent was not servicing in a capacity of the master the master cannot be held liable for the agent's action.
• 
  24

  The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  lett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.

  these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  Brokeback:

  completely agree. And just like Mr. Simons has said previously the Conti case was very unique because the abuse took place during a congregation sponsored activity.

  Other states along with California talk about how the employer must have approved the action of the employee for it to rise to a punitive damage. How many cases is it that the abuse took place during congregation activity.

  Is it right or not? that is up to each person, but this is reality.
• 
  24

  The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  lett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.

  these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  Brokeback Watchtower:

  Of course a really good lawyer can argue to get those tapes in but it is not a guarantee and would be a huge uphill battle. Look at what civil rights lawyers are fighting for to get coments made by President Trump prior to his assuming office, for those comments to be entered into evidence as to his true intentions. I tis not easy.

  In Lewis V Watchtower the court ruled:

  "In Vermont, the culpability required to support an award of punitive damages based on reckless misconduct requires “evidence that the defendant acted, or failed to act, in conscious and deliberate disregard of a known, substantial, and intolerable risk of harm to the plaintiff, with the knowledge that the acts or omissions were substantially certain to result in the threatened harm.”"

  Also the case in Louisana recently was dismissed due to failure to make a claim.

  In the Conti case the Appeals court ruled

  Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim. The compensatory damage award is affirmed.

  It does appear that the appeals court would require an overt action by a member of those contrcolled by the master in order to attribute punitive damanges.

  Just for example bellow is the law on

  Civil Code section 3294 provides, in part:

  (a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

  (b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.

  (c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:

  (1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

  (2) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

  (3) "Fraud" means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

  "[E]vidence of ratification of [agent's] actions by Hamilton, and any other findings made under Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b), must be made by clear and convincing evidence." (Barton v. Alexander Hamilton Life Ins. Co. of America (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1644 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 258].)

  "Subdivision (b) is not a model of clarity, but in light of California's history of employer liability for punitive damages and of the Legislature's reasons for enacting subdivision (b), we have no doubt that it does no more than codify and refine existing law. Subdivision (b) thus authorizes the imposition of punitive damages on an employer in three situations: (1) when an employee was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, and the employer with advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, (2) when an employee was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, and the employer authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, or (3) when the employer was itself guilty of the oppression, fraud or malice." (Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1151 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510].)

  " 'California has traditionally allowed punitive damages to be assessed against an employer (or principal) for the acts of an employee (or agent) only where the circumstances indicate that the employer himself was guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice. Thus, even before section 3294, subdivision (b) was added to the Civil Code in 1980, the courts required evidence that the employer authorized or ratified a malicious act, personally committed such an act, or wrongfully hired or retained an unfit employee.' The 'additional' burden on a plaintiff seeking punitive damages from an employer is to show not only that an employee acted with oppression, fraud or malice, but that the employer engaged in conduct defined in subdivision (b)." (Weeks, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154, internal citation omitted.)

  "Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b) does not authorize an award of punitive damages against an employer for the employee's wrongful conduct. It authorizes an award of punitive damages against an employer for the employer's own wrongful conduct. Liability under subdivision (b) is vicarious only to the extent that the employer is liable for the actions of its officer, director or managing agent in hiring or controlling the offending employee, in ratifying the offense or in acting with oppression, fraud or malice. It is not vicarious in the sense that the employer is liable for the wrongful conduct of the offending employee." (Weeks, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1154-1155.)

  "We have instructed courts to determine the reprehensibility of a defendant by considering whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident. The existence of any one of these factors weighing in favor of a plaintiff may not be sufficient to sustain a punitive damages award; and the absence of all of them renders any award suspect." (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra, 538 U.S. at p. 419, internal citation omitted.)

  "An award of punitive damages is not supported by a verdict based on breach of contract, even where the defendant's conduct in breaching the contract was wilful, fraudulent, or malicious. Even in those cases in which a separate tort action is alleged, if there is 'but one verdict based upon contract' a punitive damage award is improper." (Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 242], internal citations omitted.)

  "[P]unitive damages are not assessed against employers on a pure respondeat superior basis. Some evidence of fault by the employer itself is also required." (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 724, fn. 11 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 898, 882 P.2d 894].)

  "Subdivision (b) . . . governs awards of punitive damages against employers, and permits an award for the conduct described there without an additional finding that the employer engaged in oppression, fraud or malice." (Weeks, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1137.)

  "Section 3294 is no longer silent on who may be responsible for imputing punitive damages to a corporate employer. For corporate punitive damages liability, section 3294, subdivision (b), requires that the wrongful act giving rise to the exemplary damages be committed by an 'officer, director, or managing agent.' " (White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 19, 981 P.2d 944].)

  "[I]n performing, ratifying, or approving the malicious conduct, the agent must be acting as the organization's representative, not in some other capacity." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 723.)

  "[T]he concept [of managing agent] assumes that such individual was acting in a corporate or employment capacity when the conduct giving rise to the punitive damages claim against the employer occurred." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 723.)

  "No purpose would be served by punishing the employer for an employee's conduct that is wholly unrelated to its business or to the employee's duties therein." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 723-724.)

  " 'The determination whether employees act in a managerial capacity [i.e., are managing agents] does not necessarily hinge on their "level" in the corporate hierarchy. Rather, the critical inquiry is the degree of discretion the employees possess in making decisions that will ultimately determine corporate policy.' " (Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co., Inc. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, 421 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 457], internal citation omitted.)

  "[W]e conclude the Legislature intended the term 'managing agent' to include only those corporate employees who exercise substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decisionmaking so that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy. The scope of a corporate employee's discretion and authority under our test is therefore a question of fact for decision on a case-by-case basis." (White, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 566-567.)

  "In order to demonstrate that an employee is a true managing agent under section 3294, subdivision (b), a plaintiff seeking punitive damages would have to show that the employee exercised substantial discretionary authority over significant aspects of a corporation's business." (White, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 577.)

  " '[C]orporate policy' is the general principles which guide a corporation, or rules intended to be followed consistently over time in corporate operations. A 'managing agent' is one with substantial authority over decisions that set these general principles and rules." (Cruz v. Homebase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167-168 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 435].)

  " '[R]atification' is the '[c]onfirmation and acceptance of a previous act.' A corporation cannot confirm and accept that which it does not actually know about." (Cruz, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 168.)

  "For purposes of determining an employer's liability for punitive damages, ratification generally occurs where, under the particular circumstances, the employer demonstrates an intent to adopt or approve oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious behavior by an employee in the performance of his job duties." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 726.)

  "Corporate ratification in the punitive damages context requires actual knowledge of the conduct and its outrageous nature." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 726.)

  
  
• 
  24

  The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  lett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.

  these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  It probably wouldn't be allowed in court for two reasons. First that the Governing Body are not directors or agents of any corporation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. A lawsuit would be against the corporations where they legally don't make policies for nor do they answer to those corporations.

  Second, is that in the US a court cannot interpret what a member of the clergy says is right or wrong as long as it is their truly held religious beliefs and that it doesn't promote the breaking of a civil law. Neither of those clips promotes breaking of any civil law and would probably never be admitted.

  Also on top of those two things, courts have consistently ruled that suits against Watchtower should not include punitive damages in most cases. That is what the Conti Case saw and what happened in Vermont just this year.
• 
  31

  August 31, 2017 BOE Re: Procedure for Handling Certain Cases of Wrongdoing

  by wifibandit in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  august 31, 2017 to all bodies of elders re: procedure for handling certain cases of wrongdoing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  The letter is for those who are active in a form of special full-time service. It could also be that before the last few years it was rare for a remote worker and construction volunteers did not fall under the same classification.
• 
  35

  September 1, 2017 BOE Re: Protecting Minors From Abuse?

  by wifibandit in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i have it in spanish for now: .

  1 de septiembre de 2017 a los cuerpos de ancianos asunto: protección de los menores contra el abuso.

  please send this letter to me from any branch you have access to, in any language.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  Darkspilver. I can even see where it can be even more complicated let's look at just the US for congregations that maybe on a border of a state or a foreign language congregation that has members in different states but meeting in the same congregation. Each state would have their own laws and it would depend on where the act took place and that is how the law would determine things.

  Even in Europe where it is common for people to travel quite frequently to other countries within the union if the offense took place in one country where it might be legal for that to have occurred but was reported in another country where the age of consent is higher. How do you deal with a situation like that?
• 
  35

  September 1, 2017 BOE Re: Protecting Minors From Abuse?

  by wifibandit in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i have it in spanish for now: .

  1 de septiembre de 2017 a los cuerpos de ancianos asunto: protección de los menores contra el abuso.

  please send this letter to me from any branch you have access to, in any language.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  thank you darkspilver that is interesting. https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Education/Youth/Laws.cfm says that the law says that the age of majority is 21 but that 18 year olds are treated as adult with some exceptions. But that the parents are still liable for their child until the age of 21. The law is an extremely complicated thing and isn't always cut and dry.
• 
  35

  September 1, 2017 BOE Re: Protecting Minors From Abuse?

  by wifibandit in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i have it in spanish for now: .

  1 de septiembre de 2017 a los cuerpos de ancianos asunto: protección de los menores contra el abuso.

  please send this letter to me from any branch you have access to, in any language.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  yes darkspilver and to make things even more consuming is in the US there is a range of age of consents between 16 and 18 depending on the state, this is even though the age of majority is the same in all states 18. And even to make it even worst is in some countries there are different ages of consent depending if it is heterosexual sex vs homosexual sex.