Conti Case Today
First Prev
of 23
Next Last
UGETTHAT

Melbourne, Australia

#1 Aug 14, 2012
WTBTS Lawyers FAILED in the appeal as they argued over money, the Judge has asked that WTBTS supply information of how WTBTS, are not responsible for allowing, a known pedophile, access to a 9 year old child. Hmmmmmm.
hMMMMM

Farmington, UT

#2 Aug 14, 2012
Any links?
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#3 Aug 14, 2012
interesting... is there a full story on this?
UGETTHAT

Melbourne, Australia

#4 Aug 14, 2012
I'll see if I can get links. I know there is no paperwork released yet.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#5 Aug 14, 2012
That's OK, we can just wait for chandler and weaver to explain it to us.
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#6 Aug 14, 2012
thanks ugetthat..

Since: Feb 07

RI

#7 Aug 14, 2012
Night Sentry wrote:
That's OK, we can just wait for chandler and weaver to explain it to us.
Very true. I'm sure that they will be able to inform us in great detail as to why the judge in question is either incompetent or prejudiced, or that the information is a blatant lie...and why...and why again...and again...
UNchained

Sweetwater, TN

#8 Aug 14, 2012
UNchained

Sweetwater, TN

#9 Aug 14, 2012
UNchained

Sweetwater, TN

#10 Aug 14, 2012
Page 2 says it all about what and who the jury believed:

http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/s...
UGETTHAT

Melbourne, Australia

#11 Aug 14, 2012
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true. I'm sure that they will be able to inform us in great detail as to why the judge in question is either incompetent or prejudiced, or that the information is a blatant lie...and why...and why again...and again...
My understanding of the Judge was they were trying to get WTBTS to get back to the case at hand in which damages and a guilty verdict were found and stop arguing about the money.

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#12 Aug 14, 2012
There are new papers on the court site but I don't see anything as posted in the op.

The new papers deal with the agreement not to sell wt property.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

#13 Aug 14, 2012
Night Sentry wrote:
That's OK, we can just wait for chandler and weaver to explain it to us.
To my understanding, this court will render a decision, the dishonorable judge Robert D. McGuinnes will render a decision sometime in August about the motion for a retrial. Regardless of his decision, a thorough review of the case will be undertaken by the court of appeals at a later date.

Everything that can be said about this case has been said. There are 6 key issues.

1. The most serious matter is that multiple witnesses have testified against this woman including her parents, parents that have a meticulous background in relation to the subject at hand. Her father explicitly stated he would have immediately noticed and intervened if the type of activity she described took place at the Kingdom Hall or elsewhere;

“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12

“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”

How many people have to testify against this woman before you accept that she deliberately lied to bring liability on Jehovah's Witnesses? 30, 40, 50?

2. In 99.9 percent of these incidents, there are adults involved with first-hand knowledge. Evelyn Kendrick had known about this incident for four months prior to involving the elders and she explicitly stated she didn't want the police involved, she wanted to “try and save her marriage;”

Trial transcript, day two:

Q. And you said you did not report it to the police when she told you?
A. Not initially.
Q. Okay. Why not?
A. I thought it was an isolated incident. I thought maybe because he had been drinking. I wanted to try to save my marriage. And so I called the elders instead thinking that they could help us out.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

#14 Aug 14, 2012
This incident took place well before January 1, 1997, when clergy were declared mandated reporters subject to child abuse reporting laws. Many states require any person with reasonable suspicion to make a report, not just a person in a position of responsibility. All adults should be responsible. Under such an arrangement, adults with first-hand knowledge are primarily responsible for making a report. For all practical purposes, this scenario involving the Kendrick’s would exclude the elders in terms of liability.

3. When the police were informed sometime later, they did little next to nothing in response to this incident. They charged Johnathan Kendrick with a misdemeanor and slapped him with a small fine. For all practical purposes, the actions of law enforcement involving Johnathan Kendrick would exclude the elders in terms of liability.

4. The plaintiff's attorney makes the asinine assertion that the elders should have made an announcement about Johnathan Kendrick to the congregation. One, that's not the kind of thing you make public without the backing of law-enforcement. Such unsubstantiated publicity would subject the congregation to a slander lawsuit. Two, there's not an organization on the planet, religious or otherwise that takes such measures towards its overall membership. Whatever rules are enforced for one religion/organization should be enforced for all in order to avoid an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

5. While other religions have been accused of hosting an unsafe environment for children in the facilities they're responsible for maintaining, the only organization in the spotlight associated with domestic abuse are Jehovah's Witnesses because of the twisted reasoning of some JW opposers. The fact of the matter is the organization is not responsible for domestic abuse or abuse that takes place outside the proximity of the elder's supervision.

Even within the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, there is no “Sunday School,”“church camp,” or other children's activities in which children are separated from their parents. The parents of children in the congregation are expected to guide, direct and attend to the needs of their children. The elders are there to give spiritual guidance and direction and any other practical assistance possible, but the parents are there to monitor and discipline their children. Jehovah’s Witness children are not separated from their parents for any spiritual programs or activities.

6. The plaintiff was involved in criminal mischief at precisely the same time she was addressing the organization about a “policy change.” In other words, while she was carrying out Bill Bowen's instructions, behind the scenes, she was snorting methamphetamine and breaking into people's homes, selling and buying stolen property.

It doesn't get much worse than this in terms of frivolous litigation. And what's up with this judge (Robert D. McGuinnes) interfering with the Watchtower Society selling their reinstate in Brooklyn, NY? What does that have to do with anything? At most, a defendant has to put any capital owed to a plaintiff in bond pending the outcome of an appeal. This judge obviously has some sort of vendetta against the organization.

You don't need an elevated moral compass to identify these things. This has nothing to with the protection of children. The media has said very little about the details of this case because the most worldly people would concur that only f-cking liars and f-cking degenerates would sympathize with the plaintiff, her attorney and this judge. That's why there's nothing more to say about the case here because that's these malignant, anti-JW antagonists are. You should familiarize yourself with this Nine-Inch-Nail's song and sing it to yourself...

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/353082...

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#15 Aug 14, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>To my understanding, this court will render a decision, the dishonorable judge Robert D. McGuinnes will render a decision sometime in August about the motion for a retrial. Regardless of his decision, a thorough review of the case will be undertaken by the court of appeals at a later date.

Everything that can be said about this case has been said. There are 6 key issues.

1. The most serious matter is that multiple witnesses have testified against this woman including her parents, parents that have a meticulous background in relation to the subject at hand. Her father explicitly stated he would have immediately noticed and intervened if the type of activity she described took place at the Kingdom Hall or elsewhere;

“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12

“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”

How many people have to testify against this woman before you accept that she deliberately lied to bring liability on Jehovah's Witnesses? 30, 40, 50?

2. In 99.9 percent of these incidents, there are adults involved with first-hand knowledge. Evelyn Kendrick had known about this incident for four months prior to involving the elders and she explicitly stated she didn't want the police involved, she wanted to “try and save her marriage;”

Trial transcript, day two:

Q. And you said you did not report it to the police when she told you?
A. Not initially.
Q. Okay. Why not?
A. I thought it was an isolated incident. I thought maybe because he had been drinking. I wanted to try to save my marriage. And so I called the elders instead thinking that they could help us out.
Dishonorable judge? He didn't decide if the wt was responsible. The jury did.
You are the dishonorable one. No true JW would say that.

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#16 Aug 15, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
Dishonorable judge? He didn't decide if the wt was responsible. The jury did.
You are the dishonorable one. No true JW would say that.
Takes a stone cold heartless bitch to not to see this case as justice for a 9 year old who was intentionally put in danger of a known pedophile resulting in the abuse that she endured.

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#17 Aug 15, 2012
Mythbusters wrote:
<quoted text>Takes a stone cold heartless bitch to not to see this case as justice for a 9 year old who was intentionally put in danger of a known pedophile resulting in the abuse that she endured.
I think that's an accurate description. There is no way she is what she claims.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#18 Aug 15, 2012
DW has too many inside facts at his/her disposal. I believe he/she has been engaged by the WTBTS to do as much damage to the opposition in this, as far as reputation is concerned, as he/she can. that is why it comes across as heartless. there isn't any personal feeling involved in it. It's just a job. Also I think he/she is a male, because a woman wouldn't be appointed to represent the WTBTS in any official working capacity that it would take an elder to do.

There are several involved in this kind of capacity on the different sites, in spite of what Ynot says. They are mining for information. If anyone inside the org. happens to be dumb enough to give out personal info to them, they will be outed. The best thing someone can do to them is completely ignore their comments about this particular issue. Just post as if they aren't there, and post things that they would love to be a part of in a discussion.

sidgi
religion master

United States

#19 Aug 15, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
To my understanding, this court will render a decision, the dishonorable judge Robert D. McGuinnes will render a decision sometime in August about the motion for a retrial. Regardless of his decision, a thorough review of the case will be undertaken by the court of appeals at a later date.
Everything that can be said about this case has been said. There are 6 key issues.
1. The most serious matter is that multiple witnesses have testified against this woman including her parents, parents that have a meticulous background in relation to the subject at hand. Her father explicitly stated he would have immediately noticed and intervened if the type of activity she described took place at the Kingdom Hall or elsewhere;
“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12
“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”
How many people have to testify against this woman before you accept that she deliberately lied to bring liability on Jehovah's Witnesses? 30, 40, 50?
2. In 99.9 percent of these incidents, there are adults involved with first-hand knowledge. Evelyn Kendrick had known about this incident for four months prior to involving the elders and she explicitly stated she didn't want the police involved, she wanted to “try and save her marriage;”
Trial transcript, day two:
Q. And you said you did not report it to the police when she told you?
A. Not initially.
Q. Okay. Why not?
A. I thought it was an isolated incident. I thought maybe because he had been drinking. I wanted to try to save my marriage. And so I called the elders instead thinking that they could help us out.
I guess jehovah wanted the wt to lose the case and punish them for harboring a pedofile.Do you agree weevy?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#20 Aug 15, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that's an accurate description. There is no way she is what she claims.
I noticed that weaver proclaimed the "most serious matter" but neglected to mention the sexual molestation as the "most serious matter."

After all, it was sexual molestation of a child the court is dealing with.

But I appreciate the fact weaver showed us her sick mind.

Weaver is just as guilty as the molester here. All people who gloss over child molestations are just as guilty as the perverts who perform them.

Now we just need chandler to show his total ignorance, AGAIN.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 23
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
POSTINGS ON THE TRINITY IN 39 posts 6 min ihveit 123
YES- People WILL get OUT of HELL! (Nov '15) 7 min PrufSammy 3,079
JWs: how is your review on the book, Crisis of ... 7 min BetheljudgmentDan... 161
How Could God Essentially Turn an Angel Into God? 9 min ihveit 569
Will suicide rates increase in JW org? 2016 12 min BetheljudgmentDan... 166
Jesus DENIED being God! 13 min BetheljudgmentDan... 221
Loving the taste of wormwood. 16 min BetheljudgmentDan... 357
Who Really Is the "Faithful and Discreet Slave"? 26 min BetheljudgmentDan... 130
John 1:1 41 min Michaelangelo1992 262
Jehovah 55 min BetheljudgmentDan... 61
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 6 hr PrufSammy 24,096
More from around the web