Posts by Richard Oliver

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

dubstepped and Finkerstein:

You have proven one of the issues with these types of debates. You believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you are trying to protect pedophiles or have their heads up their butts. This is a complex issue that requires investigation from all sides. And it is not just you but a lot of people on this forum and just in general. They feel that if you are not vehemently arguing for harsher laws on child abuse cases then you are just protecting pedophiles. You have states that want to either extend or eliminate the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse. According to the proponents of those measures it is all upsides, but as experts have pointed out there are number of downsides too. Witnesses forget or die, evidence gets lost or contaminated, victims get confused just to name a few. Are those experts who oppose extending the statute of limitations are they trying to protect pedophiles? No, they are trying to preserve justice. I know that very few if anyone here would think that Watchtower is trying to do the same. But it is that just because someone doesn't agree with you on this doesn't mean they are trying to protect pedophiles, they are just looking at it from different angles than you.

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

Finklestein:

Would you only limit it to pedophiles? People who have abused drugs in the past can relapse and commit crimes against family and friends, should religions inform their members that a new member is a former drug addict? How about should a religion inform it's members that a new member is a schizophrenic, because they can cause harm to people around them at times? How about chronic gamblers because some steal from family and friends? Would you also limit it to just convicted people or people accused? How about people found innocent of the crime but some people still suspect it. If organizations are required to inform every member of what another member did, where does it end? There have even been constitutionality challenges against requiring sex offenders to register forever. Where is the limit for society to know what a person has done in their past.

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

And I agree with you by the way. Things have to change but that involve new legislation. It involves getting the will in legislatures to make changes not just complaining and wishing things would get better.

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

Finkelstein:

I am not spinning the decision. That is literally what the court ruled. If you want to read the decision I have a copy of it I can send it to you.

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

Finkelstein:

No the Appeals court reversed that. The Appeals court only found them liable for the assigning of Kendrick with Conti. Read the full decision. The court ruled that Watchtower nor the congregation had a duty to warn or a duty to protect.

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

Dubstepped:

You are conflating legal and moral things. Morally yes, it should be reported. Legally is a different story. There is privilege that cannot be broken. Legal is about technicalities. Many people here want to join those two things together. That Watchtower should view these acts as a crime and not a sin, and in the same breath say, even if a privilege bars them from reporting it, the moral thing to do is to report it. If you want to say that it is a legal issue then you have to stick with the legal aspect of it. If you want to say it is a moral thing than you have to stick with that.

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

So as my specific question is. For the ARC you don't believe that Watchtower should be held financially liable for all those cases?

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

Finkelstein:

Actually, Watchtower has been repeatedly shown that they have no fiduciary responsibility toward members. Also they have been found not to have a duty to warn nor a duty to protect. Most of the time, you cannot be held responsible for not doing something. If I am a layman person and I am on the side of the street and someone stops breathing and I do nothing, I cannot be held liable for not jumping in and attempting to do CPR. Following the appeal in the Conti case, Watchtower was only held liable for their actual action of assigning Conti to work with Kendrick in service not for any action that they did not do.

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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 you have I must be an idiot. Please answer it?

182

The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 in

jw
friends

i 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

My question is do you think that Watchtower should be liable for the actions of a third party's illegal actions just because they are an associate of a congregation?

And I do believe that if Elders don't report due to a good faith belief that they are barred from doing so under the clergy-penitent privilege then they should not be held liable.