Posts by Richard Oliver

24

Press in SPAIN report JW members go to JW headquarters to file a complaint for not receiving documents on cases of abuse they requested

by AndersonsInfo in

http://www.lainformacion.com/politica/derechos-humanos/exmiembros-testigos-jehova-denunciaran-entregarles_0_990801892.html.

http://www.telecinco.es/informativos/sociedad/exmiembros-testigos-jehova-denunciaran-entregarles_0_2308950586.html.

https://okdiario.com/sociedad/2017/01/16/ex-miembros-testigos-jehova-acusan-organizacion-ocultar-ley-miles-casos-abusos-sexuales-menores-671613jehovah's witness members will report to the organization for failing to provide them with documents regarding child abuse.

Richard Oliver

Is there a law in Spain that states that a person can request any information that an organization has on themselves?

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

On this site and others people have repeatedly stated that child abuse is a crime and not a sin. I view it as both a crime and a sin. But lets go with the fact that it is a crime. So morality should not come into a factor on this, only the legality of the instance. If it was just a morality issue then yes the "minutiae" of the legality of it wouldn't come into this case as a factor. The legal details matter greatly. First, it doesn't matter if Watchtower views Elders as clergy, the law views them as such. Each state that gives clergy-penitent privilege defines what a member of the clergy is. Some states have very broad definitions and some have extremely narrow defined. Second, again the law defines what is considered a confidential communication. If it was only given to Catholic confessionals, that would be unconstitutional and be struck down. Most states define the privilege as communication that is part of the beliefs and discipline of their faith, and that both the communicant and the clergy member recognize as a confidential matter. Even if that communication occurs in front of other people, who are also providing "spiritual" help. Third, the person who is the communicant is the one that holds the privilege, not the clergy member. As pointed out in People v Bragg, only the communicant can release the clergy member from that privilege, even if the clergy member divulges the information to a third party, because it is the moral thing to do. So yes, if you want to think of child abuse as a moral issue that Watchtower's actions are reprehensible, but if you look at it from a legal point of view they are doing what they are supposed to do.

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

Yes ScenicViewer:

It does matter if more than one person knows about it and each are mandatory reporters. In California the statute prescribes the following when multiple mandatory reporters:

When two or more persons, who are required to report have joint knowledge of a known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect, and when there is agreement among them, the telephone report may be made by a member of the team selected by mutual agreement and a single report may be made and signed by the selected member of the reporting team.

Also in some states it is required that the information be transmitted to the person in charge and that is the extent of the reporting requirement.

If a person is required to report child abuse because that person attends to a child as part of the person’s duties as an employee of or volunteer at a hospital, school, social agency, or similar facility, that person shall notify the person in charge of the facility, or the designated delegate thereof, and the person so notified shall report or cause a report to be made in accordance with this section. An employee or volunteer who makes a report to the person designated shall be deemed to have fully complied with this subsection

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

I know that many of you want to hide your head in the sand and think that the moral thing and the legal thing is the same thing. But it is not. That is not how the law works. There are a number of technicalities that make the legal thing not the moral thing. Just like some have claimed that elders should never not give their names when reporting these instances, and again that is why they are instructed to call the legal department, is because each statute has a requirement. Some states require that a name be given and some statutes require no name, just an investigation would automatically start. Paul Polidoro said under oath in a deposition before Irwin Zalkin, that the reason that Elders are instructed to call Legal is not to hide the case but to ensure that the case is handled properly. Some statutes require if multiple people find out about an instance, that all of those individuals must report, or only one has to report or the first person has to report, or a supervisor has to report or the head of an organization has to report it. It is the technicalities of the law hat require a consultation with counsel before a report can be made.

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

Also, I have seen statements that the disclosure of information to a third party by the clergy member destroys the privilege. In People v Bragg, the Michigan Appeals court ruled that even though the Baptist Minister divulged the information to the victim and their family, that did not destroy the privilege. Only the communicant can revoke the privilege and allow the minister to testify. The minister even indicated, in a sense, that it was his moral duty to report the confession to the victim and to the authorities. He testified:

He immediately qualified his statement, indicating that disclosing the “confidential” communication with the victim's familyand the police was not a violation of Baptist doctrine and was “the right thing to do.” Vaprezsan indicated that part of dealing with the “aftermath” was to notify the victim's family of defendant's admission so that they could pursue legal recourse.

The court rejected the privilege and allowed the minister to testify. When the defendant was found guilty of a horrific rape and child abuse case, he appealed the decision to allow the priest confession in.

Unlike other evidentiary rules that exclude evidence because it is potentially unreliable, privilege statutes shield potentially reliable evidence in an attempt to foster relationships.... While the assurance of confidentiality may encourage relationships of trust, privileges inhibit rather than facilitate the search for truth.... Privileges therefore are not easily found or endorsed by the courts. “The existence and scope of a statutory privilege ultimately turns on the language and meaning of the statute itself.”

The court also ruled that the minister could not waive the privilege even though he felt that it was the moral thing to do.

"It is well settled that privileges belong to the holder alone and may be waived only by the holder."

So there is precedent that even if it is a horrible crime, the privilege still exist unless the person who confesses to it has either implied or expressly revoked the privilege. Like in the Fessler case, the plaintiff removed the privilege during the court proceedings by bringing the court proceedings forward. But unless it is expressly or implicitly revoked the privilege stands.

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

Again I never said that John Redwood did receive any privileged information. I even said that I doubt that he did. I said it was a cautionary thing. Even Watchtower is contemplating moving for sanctions against Irwin Zalkin personally because he violated the protective order that was agreed upon when he gave part of his interview to Trey Bundy. In the Lopez case Watchtower said that they are contemplating filing that motion for sanctions. If courts think that you have received privileged information, and someone files a motion and can prove it, they will take action. Again it could be monetary when it comes to the plaintiff or monetary or disciplinary actions if it is the counsel for one of the sides.

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

And Orphan crow. John Redwood never stated that he is basing his value of much more on the 1.9 million that she was asking for in the complaint. He never used that number in that statement. He said that in his opinion that she could have won more, but won more based on what number. Either he is taking a shot in the dark as to what the number is or he knows that the number is. That is what any lawyer worth his salt would question. And either John would have to confirm that he doesn't know all the facts or confirm that he was told the final settlement amount.

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

You also have to include the fact that he has made it clear that he is a ardent supporter of her and is very close to the case. He has stated at least in private to me that he speaks with these attorneys and plantiffs all the time. Individuals who make those type of claims has to be extra careful about how they talk because it can be construed that way.

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

DId I say that I construed it. He just has to be careful how he says it because she could loose a good portion of money if she does tell people what the end result was in financial terms. Watchtower could go back and sue her for a portion of what was paid out.

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

Richard Oliver

John Redwood:

You may want to be careful. You stated:

In Stephanie's case, she would have, in my opinion, won a much larger amount, possibly in the tens of millions.

I am sure you were not told. But it could be construed that there was the possibility that you were told the final settlement amount. That would be a violation of the non-disclosure clause that have been reported as part of the settlement, that would cause sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel if that clause was violated.