I am just looking for answers to that question. I have no intention to respond to any statements that give an answer to that question. Many people on here have thought about this for a long time. I just want to get an answer.
Richard Oliver
JoinedPosts by Richard Oliver
-
47
What do you think the Australian Government will do?
by Richard Oliver ini am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
-
-
-
47
What do you think the Australian Government will do?
by Richard Oliver ini am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
-
-
Richard Oliver
I am not wanting to start a fight. I just want to hear what people think. Honestly and realistically, what do you think the Australian Government will do, with Watchtower, when they receive the full ARC report?
I am looking for realistic expressions, this is when you consider section 51 and 116 of the Commonwealth's Constitution.
-
49
ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017
by jwleaks inhttp://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
-
-
Richard Oliver
I am not here to start a fight and I won't respond to any of the statements left following this question. Just want to get an honest answer from people here.
What do you, honestly and realistically, think that the Austrailian Government will do following the final report from the ARC with regards to Watchtower?
-
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
Yes watchtower turned over the redacted documents in compliance with the court order.
Also Watchtower may not have standing to sue over the clergy privilege. Watchtower does not possess the privilege the communicant does. Watchtower has been able to appeal on Lopez and padron because of the sanctions.
-
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
The court has issued a legally prescribed order for those documents. Watchtower is doing what it can do to protect the third party confidentiality of those documents. The appeals court ruled that the documents are allowed to be given over, with third party information redacted, but that doesn't mean that the information can be used. The court ruled that both sides can go on a fishing expedition but doesn't mean that any of the documents will see the light of day in a court room.
-
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 a number of states that provide the privilege in cases like this. And yes since the holder is the communicant then the clergy is bound by it. If the communicant wants to lift the privilege then the clergy member has no longer any privilege to keep it quiet. Again that is why in the Conti case Simmons ask Kendrick's Ex Wife and Step Daughter if they wanted the communication to be kept private, because he knew that the privilege would still apply unless they somehow can prove that they lifted the privilege.
And like you brought out what a ministers sees with their own eyes that is not privileged. Such as in the Fessler case, even though the father was an elder, he found out about the abuse as his role of a father not as an elder.
-
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
http://federalevidence.com/blog/2010/may/rare-case-federal-clergy-communicant--privilege
Apparently, there is not a lot of case law on this subject since about 1980.
-
49
ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017
by jwleaks inhttp://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Yes Data-Dog how dare in a legal proceeding legal details come into play.
-
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
A federal court that is hearing a diversity case, would rule in a like manner of how a state court would rule. So if there is precedent that a state appeal's court has decided, the federal court would rule based on that precedent. Of course if a federal court has ruled that a state law is unconstitutional then that would take precedence over a state court's ruling.
-
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
Federal law does provide civil liability immunity if the report is made in food faith. But federal law on this is limited to crimes that took place on federal land or federal buildings.
If you mean would the immunity from civil liability still apply in federal court? There are two ways a civil trial would be handled in federal court. One is if there is a federal question or the federal court is a party to the case. The second is if there is a dispute in citizenship, if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states, and the value of the controversy is over 75000. If it is the second option, the court will generally rule in like manner of a state court in the plantiffs state, though the court wouldn't make a ruling that would be out of line of the federal rules.