Fisherman that is correct. Catholic confessions are protected. The argument is two fold. First the fact that elders transmit information the branch. Second that there are times that elders initiate the hearing. As described previously, there is case law to indicate in other states that transmitting information does not negate the privilege and other case law shows that even if the clergy initiate the hearing it is still privilege. Though in Louisiana the state supreme court ruled that even if the clergy wants to keep a matter confidential if the communicant wants to release the privilege, the clergy member can no longer argue the privilege.
Richard Oliver
JoinedPosts by Richard Oliver
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
-
13
What is it like at Warwick Bethel?
by nevermind infrom reading about people's first and second hand experiences about working at wt world headquarters back in the 70s and 80s era, the hypocrisy and lovelessness caused many bethelites to quit even before their term ended, some even leaving to never again return to a kingdom hall.
that, coupled with open access back then at bethel to the literature of watchtower's early days can easily open the eyes of any rank and file jw to the society's occultish beginnings.
fast forward to the warwick bethel today.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Zeb:
In the US Government there is no Presidential Inquiries, there are congressional hearings but not Presidential Inquiries. The President doesn't have legislative powers nor investigatory powers. The Executive Branch has agencies with investigative powers but normally they do not take their directives from the president, but they are to use their investigative powers with independent discretion. The reason for this, is during the early years of the FBI, Presidents and the Directors would use the power of the FBI for political reasons. Normally, if the Federal Government would like to investigate a matter, they will use the committees of the Congress to hold hearings. But just as the ARC is not a court, there is limits to the results that can take effect following those hearings, mostly either new legislation or they can turn the information over to existing law enforcement.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
Geat Teacher:
I agree one of the reasons why Watchtower may not want to bring a case like that because they don't know how the case would turn out. For the longest time supporters and detractors of limiting some gun rights have had this same thought. The Supreme Court doesn't have a long history deciding those cases, so neither side felt very comfortable wanting to take the case to that level. They knew that once the Supreme Court rules that is about it, that is then case law for a long time, of course there are exceptions. So it could be that neither side really wants to test the waters at that level in case their side loses.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
Tech 49:
I re-read your original post. You did bring up some interesting points, and you used yourself as an example. I am not sure if you do own your own business or if it was a hypothetical of a hypothetical.
It is certainly true that settlements can make plaintiff's more embolden to start legal proceedings more often if an organization has a history of just settling cases. A not so hypothetical situation happened with criminal cases in California, due to a Federal Courts decision that California had to reduce overcrowding in jails, more criminals were released early, this caused more and more defendants from not accepting plea deals. Many plea deals that were being offered at that time included supervised release, but the defendants knew that they weren't going to serve anywhere near their full sentence even without a plea deal, and when released they wouldn't have any supervised release. This made prosecutor's jobs much harder because they had to take more cases to court and work on making sure that defendants were found guilty in order to get them to serve any kind of jail time.
But you also have to remember that Watchtower has won a number of these cases as well. They just don't get reported on, these forums and sites as much as the settlement cases are reported on. A number of cases have been won by Watchtower showing that they have no fiduciary responsibility, nor do they have a duty to warn or protect. Those are precedents that actually matter in court cases in the future. With nondisclosure settlements or settlements that Watchtower does not admit fault cannot be brought up in future court cases.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
There are two types of appeals courts. First ones that doesn't have a choice on the cases that they hear, which is what the first appeals court is. Currently, the Padron case is being heard by the California 4th Circuit Court of Appeals 1st District. The second type of Appeals court is the type that is allowed to choose what cases they will hear, which is the Calfornia State Supreme Court. When an Appeals court hears a case and makes a ruling that becomes a precedent for lower courts that they have jurisdiction over, such as for the 4th Circuit in California would include most of San Diego County, but those precedents are not mandatory for courts outside of their jurisdiction. A lawyer can still bring up that precedent even though they are not in the Appeals Court Jurisdiction but it wouldn't be a mandatory precedent but it would be a persuasive precedent. A lawyer would be able to show that another court ruled a certain way, the court that the lawyer is currently before can choose to go along with the precedent or ignore it completely. The only way that Watchtower could get all State courts in California to consider them as clergy when it comes to clergy-penitent privilege would be if the State Supreme Court took the case. And the only way for the US Supreme Court to rule on a case would be if (1) there is a federal constitutional question (2) the State Supreme Court has already ruled on the case. The other way for Watchtower to get the US Supreme Court to rule on it is, for a federal trial court to hear the case, it is appealed to a Federal Appeals Court and then the US Supreme Court can choose to hear the case or not.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
It depends on the state. Some states recognize elders as having confidential communication and some states don't, the latter being the minority. And yes Watchtower did turn over those redacted documents in the Padron case.
Also in the Lopez case, Watchtower has been prepared to turn over the documents as well, but Zalkin and Lopez will not agree to a stipulation for a protective order.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
Zalkin in the Lopez case was asking for all of Watchtowers documents on child abuse cases that have been reported to them. That was the basis for the 13 million dollar sanction back in 2015. The Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that Lopez and his attorney are entitled to those documents as part of the discovery process. The Court ruled that the documents and files may or may not be admissible in a trial court, they did not decide that part of it. The question before the Appeals Court was, does Lopez have the right to the documents, whether the documents can be used in court or not, and the Court ruled that he is entitled to the documents, even if it is just for a fishing expedition. The Court though never had before them the question of how much of those documents could be redacted, the court ruled that third party information is private and can be redacted by Watchtower. Subsequently, in the Pardon case both sides stipulated to a protective order on the documents. That is what Zalkin talked about in the Trey Bundy interview, that he has all of these documents but he cannot talk about them. The protective order basically states that the plaintiff's attorney and those working with them, in a legally established activity, can look at the documents, read them, and determine how best to use them in their current civil case, but those documents cannot be shared with anyone else nor can they be used in any other legal matter. In fact part of the order is that once the case is resolved within 30 days all the documents must be destroyed by Zalkin.
In the Padron case Watchtower redacted all third party information including abuse victim's names, abuser's names, congregation names, witnesses' names, elder's names and so forth. Zalkin argued that the redaction was too onerous and that the information could not be used. The judge, in that case, asked Zalkin what the purpose of the documents would be used for. Zalkin stated that his intention to use that information was to get statistical data to show a jury that Watchtower has all of these unreported cases. The judge asked why can't you use the redacted information to gather that statistical data, since you are not going to tell the jury third parties personal information. Zalkin responded that he and his investigators want the full information so that they can check to see if Watchtower has provided him with all the information that they have, by checking on legal authority or media reports. In essence he stated that the Court cannot trust Watchtower to turn over all of the documents. Watchtower said that Zalkin is trying to use the information in order to get more clients in suing Watchtower. They point to Lopez, where the plaintiff had no desire to sue or want to even talk about what he went through until Zalkin's investigator-initiated contact with him about what happened to Lopez and encouraged him to become a client of Zalkin.
The other argument that Watchtower is using for keeping the documents redacted is that it would force a California court to rule on the laws of other states. The data that Zalkin is requesting is not limited in time or geographic location but he wants all documents held by Watchtower. Each state has their own laws on child abuse, reporting and priest-penitent privilege along with their own common law precedents which would require the court to rule on those laws.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
That is one of the reasons that Watchtower is fighting to redact information from the reports. Zalkin says that the reason they want the file is to gather statistical data. Even the judge in the Pardon case asked Zalkin if they used a numbering system wouldn't that gather the needed information. Zalkin responded no, he says that the court cannot trust Watchtower in providing all the information that Watchtower may have. Watchtower says that Zalkin only wants the data so that he can fish for new clients. The court of appeals did say in California that a fishing expedition is legal. What Watchtower is saying int he Padron appeal is that third party personal information should be kept confidential, if the plaintiff wants statistical data they are entitled to that data but personal information they are not entitled too.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
If a lawyer works off of contingency it can be based on levels. Some lawyers will say if a lawsuit is awarded the first X number of dollars is at Y percentage, then the second set of dollars is at a different percentage and so on and so forth. So the attorney may be taking a number of different percentages at different award levels all for the same case.
Also, many courts require that plaintiff's at least attempt to settle the case out of court. This is because the back log of the American Judicial System. Also, there is non-binding and binding arbitration and mediation that many courts require plaintiffs and defendants to go through before a case can be docketed. Many times the arbitration and mediation would lead to an automatic non-disclosure agreement because it was not adjudicated in a court.
-
221
Judge sanctions WTS - $4k per day penalty for not producing sex abuse documents
by Simon injudge sanctions jehovah's witnesses.
imposes $4000-a-day penalty for not producing documents in sex-abuse case.
by dorian hargrove, june 24, 2016. a san diego superior court judge has ordered the church of jehovah's witnesses, also known as the watchtower bible and tract society of pennsylvania, to pay $4000 a day for every day that it fails to produce documents requested in a civil lawsuit brought by former parishioner, osbaldo padron, who claims a church elder sexually abused him when he was seven years old.. in a june 23 ruling, expected to be made final today, judge richard strauss admonished the church for willfully ignoring a court order to produce all documents associated with a 1997 body of elders letter that church leaders sent to parishes around the world in a quest to learn about sexual abuse of children by church leaders.. over the course of the past year, the watchtower society and its lawyers have fought hard to keep the letter confidential, claiming that turning over the documents would infringe on the privacy of those mentioned in the letter that were not associated with the case.. in march 2015, the church turned over a heavily redacted version of the letter.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Lopez also filed a motion for sanctions against Watchtower in the Lopez case. Lopez wanted an Ex Parte hearing on sanctions earlier but the Court decided that the motion for sanctions will be heard in oral arguments in April when the motion for summary judgement arguments will be heard as well.