Conti Case Today

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Atlanta, GA

#339 Aug 26, 2012
If any action is to be taken outside the Christian arrangement concerning a matter like this, it would involve going to the respective authorities. That's the action that would be taken in any profit or non-profit organization. The Church Defendants (Watchtower Society) responded with the following in reference to this legal statute being inapplicable to Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DkJ3_Re8OWk/T_5donS...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J-LVAYVuuSs/UADiPsa...

They noted that the statutes that define "penitential communication" are based on traditional churches and made reference to 1 Timothy 5:20:“Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear."

The traditional understanding of "penitential communication" is not necessarily a scriptural arrangement. They called on the court to define “no third person” as no “unnecessary third person” in order to avoid an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
diogenes

United States

#340 Aug 26, 2012
-Beowulf wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you were unaware of this:
"A Napa County court in 2005 rejected the same penitent-privilege argument in a civil lawsuit that accused the Jehovah's Witnesses organization of covering up child sex-abuse allegations, according to court records posted online.
Statements by a man accused of child molestation to elders during a judicial committee are not covered by the penitent-clergy privilege, because the committee was not required by the organization's practices to keep the statements a secret, according to Judge Raymond Guadagni's decision.
The committee had to share information about potential child-molestation cases with its headquarters, the ruling said."
So here the WTS elders are claiming protection of themselves, identifying themselves in this fashion to do so, while trying to get out of responsibility for their actions. Shameless.
For your legal satisfaction, here is a legal definition for you:
"Clergy Penitent Privilege
The clergy-penitent privilege is an evidentiary privilege that keeps confidential communications between an individual and his spiritual advisor from being disclosed in court proceedings. The individual “holds” the privilege, so neither he nor his spiritual advisor can be compelled to reveal what was communicated unless the individual waives the privilege. A privilege can be waived by failing to assert it in a timely manner, by consent to disclosure or by doing something that implies consent to disclose the privileged information, e.g., voluntarily testifying about what a priest recommended during a confession. The clergy-penitent privilege is the same as the “clergy-communicant privilege.”
You worthless JW apologist's on here can't claim that JW elders are not clergy when they take the position that they are in a court of law, and the position of spiritual advisors having authority over the congregations. Parse words all you want, it only results in a lie.
Spiritual advisors are what they are by action, not because of a specific title.
You may need to borrow a few "brain cells" from your "sidekicks" to understand this.
I have always argued that elders are clergy under the LEGAL definition of the word. Anti-jw's want them to have all the responsibilities of clergy with no privileges. In other words they claim that elders must report instances of child abuse where the law says that clergy are mandated reporters. However in states that recognize clergy confidentiality they argue that elders are not clergy. They want it both ways.

So, legally speaking, are elders clergy or not?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#341 Aug 26, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
If religious leaders have been declared mandated reporters in a particular state, the Watchtower Society doesn't acknowledge the privilege of “penitential communication” as legal grounds to not report abuse. They may acknowledge the principle when assessing their legal options. This is because the principle is based on the understanding that a repentant person is “resolutely determined to avoid such conduct in the future.” If however, the elders are mandated reporters, they don't acknowledge this principle in connection with their legal obligations.
www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm
If he is not repentant, he will not be permitted to remain a member of the congregation. Even if he is repentant—is cut to the heart and is thus resolutely determined to avoid such conduct in the future—what was stated in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower applies.
The plaintiff's lawyer in this case was attacking Jehovah's Witnesses for not making a public announcement about this incident of child abuse disclosed in the Kendrick's home.
This is great. It all comes down to "legal options," or their personal determination on whether or not they feel the guilty party will be a repetitive offender.

Nothing in what you say applies doing what is right in both the eyes of society, and the eyes of God. And since they have been ruled against in the conti case, they must fail in their obligation in the eyes of the law as well.

As far as making something public (for the congregation)the WTS claim to follow Mat.18 falls well short as they do not follow verse 17.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#342 Aug 26, 2012
diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always argued that elders are clergy under the LEGAL definition of the word. Anti-jw's want them to have all the responsibilities of clergy with no privileges. In other words they claim that elders must report instances of child abuse where the law says that clergy are mandated reporters. However in states that recognize clergy confidentiality they argue that elders are not clergy. They want it both ways.
So, legally speaking, are elders clergy or not?
They are clergy.

Their actions in cases like this should be viewed no differently than those of any other religion. But, clergy-communicant privilege does not offer blanket immunity in court.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#343 Aug 26, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
If any action is to be taken outside the Christian arrangement concerning a matter like this, it would involve going to the respective authorities. That's the action that would be taken in any profit or non-profit organization. The Church Defendants (Watchtower Society) responded with the following in reference to this legal statute being inapplicable to Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DkJ3_Re8OWk/T_5donS...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J-LVAYVuuSs/UADiPsa...
They noted that the statutes that define "penitential communication" are based on traditional churches and made reference to 1 Timothy 5:20:“Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear."
The traditional understanding of "penitential communication" is not necessarily a scriptural arrangement. They called on the court to define “no third person” as no “unnecessary third person” in order to avoid an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
If you read this letter, from the WTS, you will see that more than just "two elders" as supplied in the first letter of testimony, were aware of the incident. No confidentiality there.
http://www.christianwitnesses.com/

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Atlanta, GA

#344 Aug 26, 2012
UNchained wrote:
<quoted text>When Jw's come around to a home where children live and the parents have read about the $21 million judgement against the Watchtower Society because it knew Mr. Kendrick is a pedophile and did not warn anyone about him and allowed him to work the territory you can bet that the parents are not going to treat the JW's with kindnes or understanding.

In their mind every JW who strolls down their street hawking magazines is a POTENTIAL child molestor.
__________

Dreamweaver sez:

"If he seems to be repentant, he will be encouraged to make spiritual progress, share in the field service, even have parts in the Theocratic Ministry School and nonteaching parts in the Service Meeting. This does not mean, though, that he will qualify to serve in a position of responsibility in the congregation."

Leroy and Floe down on Elm Street, Podunk City USA don't give a rats' ass if the JW pedophile ever qualifies to serve in a position of responsibility in the congregation.

THEY JUST DON'T WANT HIM KNOCKING ON THEIR DOOR AND HAVING ACCESS TO THEIR 15 YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER.

THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHO THE PEDOPHILE IS IN YOUR CONGREGATION AND NEITHER DO YOU.

THAT IS WHY WHEN YOU KNOCK ON THEIR DOOR YOU ARE GOING TO GET RUN OFF THIER PROPERTY.

The cat is out of the bag.
Actually, many people responded to the news with something like, "This is stupid... This is like someone getting raped by a Baptist and then suing the National Baptist Convention."

Those religions are politically powerful enough to block frivolous litigation.

Unless a sex offender is categorized at a threat level where he is prohibited from entering a certain neighborhood, he can go to anyone's door for any reason. Because he has a flat tire, because he's selling girl scout cookies or maybe he's staking out the neighborhood for children to eat.

Jehovah's Witnesses simply allow persons the same civil rights the federal government does.

You're so idiotic and narrow-minded, you can't see past the hole in your head.

“Real Truth Never Changes”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#345 Aug 26, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>
Wisdom and raving hatred are contradictory.
Providing facts and making baseless, emotional accusations that have nothing to do with the case at hand (or the law for that matter), is contradictory.
The liberal use of capslock and the tripe/quadruple posting doesn't help much either.
You should pick your role models better Shell.
Hey stupid, we are all to hate sin.

jehovah's witnesses are full of sin.

The cult of jehovah's witnesses is full of sin, and that is not a baseless comment, it's a fact.

You should pick your role models better, but it's too late now, you are stuck with a non-Christian, satanic cult which produces false prophecies, false doctrines, false scriptures, molested children, and two-faced fools like you.

Shell66

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#346 Aug 26, 2012
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey stupid, we are all to hate sin.
jehovah's witnesses are full of sin.
The cult of jehovah's witnesses is full of sin, and that is not a baseless comment, it's a fact.
You should pick your role models better, but it's too late now, you are stuck with a non-Christian, satanic cult which produces false prophecies, false doctrines, false scriptures, molested children, and two-faced fools like you.
A-men.
diogenes

Walker, LA

#347 Aug 26, 2012
-Beowulf wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read this letter, from the WTS, you will see that more than just "two elders" as supplied in the first letter of testimony, were aware of the incident. No confidentiality there.
http://www.christianwitnesses.com/
In 2007 the California courts ruled that the way jw's handle judicial meetings recinds the confidentiality privilege of the penintent. If the WT wanted to they could appeal that ruling to the supreme court as there seems to be an element of religious discrimination with the way jw's deal with the confessions of their congregants.

But they won't appeal. Why? Because they merely want to follow the law of the land. If the law says they way jw's handle judicial meetings are confidential, then they will follow the law. If some states, like California, says the those meetings are NOT privileged, then they will likewise follow the law.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#348 Aug 26, 2012
diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
In 2007 the California courts ruled that the way jw's handle judicial meetings recinds the confidentiality privilege of the penintent. If the WT wanted to they could appeal that ruling to the supreme court as there seems to be an element of religious discrimination with the way jw's deal with the confessions of their congregants.
But they won't appeal. Why? Because they merely want to follow the law of the land. If the law says they way jw's handle judicial meetings are confidential, then they will follow the law. If some states, like California, says the those meetings are NOT privileged, then they will likewise follow the law.
The fact that they try to claim the privilege, but then publish statements like these...

“IN THE New Testament and during the early apostolic times there is no mention of clergy or laity,” wrote professor of theology Cletus Wessels. The Encyclopedia of Christianity states:“There gradually arose a differentiation into clergy as the officeholders and the laity as the rest ...‘Ordinary’ church members now came to be seen as an unqualified mass.” That differentiation became prominent during the third century C.E.—more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ!
If, then, the clergy-laity distinction is not based on the model set by Jesus’ apostles and other early Christians, does that make it wrong? According to the Bible, yes."

"The clergy-laity distinction “All you are brothers,” said Jesus to his followers.(Matthew 23:8) The early Christians, including the Bible writers, had no clergy class. This Biblical pattern is the one that Jehovah’s Witnesses follow."

blows a hole in your apologetics of just trying to follow the law.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#349 Aug 26, 2012
Awake! 4-8-99 "In Australia a review of the book The Battle and the Backlash: The Child Sexual Abuse War commented on child abuse by clergymen and others in positions of trust. It said that the organizations involved appeared to be concerned with limiting the damage to their own image and protecting themselves rather than protecting vulnerable children."

If this doesn't reflect the behavior of the WTS, I don't know what does. Pot, meet kettle!

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#350 Aug 26, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Ignoring Jace's delusional rantings for a moment, and pulling the thread back on topic, when is the next actual update for the Conti case expected? Wasn't there supposed to be some sort of decision right around this time?
Everyone over on JW.net was huddled together singing kumbaya and projecting 'positive energy' with their minds, but they weren't giving any updates either :/
At least you know where to go to get updated information.
Apostate sites 1 - Wts 0
diogenes

Walker, LA

#351 Aug 26, 2012
-Beowulf wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that they try to claim the privilege, but then publish statements like these...
“IN THE New Testament and during the early apostolic times there is no mention of clergy or laity,” wrote professor of theology Cletus Wessels. The Encyclopedia of Christianity states:“There gradually arose a differentiation into clergy as the officeholders and the laity as the rest ...‘Ordinary’ church members now came to be seen as an unqualified mass.” That differentiation became prominent during the third century C.E.—more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ!
If, then, the clergy-laity distinction is not based on the model set by Jesus’ apostles and other early Christians, does that make it wrong? According to the Bible, yes."
"The clergy-laity distinction “All you are brothers,” said Jesus to his followers.(Matthew 23:8) The early Christians, including the Bible writers, had no clergy class. This Biblical pattern is the one that Jehovah’s Witnesses follow."
blows a hole in your apologetics of just trying to follow the law.
Well there you go confusing the legal meaning of the word clergy and the religious meaning. Note this confusion would not be there if the law chose to use a term like "spiritual supervisors" or "spiritual advisor". But since they use the term "clergy", then those that don't have the capacity to grasp the difference will continue to argue the point in perpetuity.

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#352 Aug 26, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, many people responded to the news with something like, "This is stupid... This is like someone getting raped by a Baptist and then suing the National Baptist Convention."
Those religions are politically powerful enough to block frivolous litigation.
Unless a sex offender is categorized at a threat level where he is prohibited from entering a certain neighborhood, he can go to anyone's door for any reason. Because he has a flat tire, because he's selling girl scout cookies or maybe he's staking out the neighborhood for children to eat.
Jehovah's Witnesses simply allow persons the same civil rights the federal government does.
You're so idiotic and narrow-minded, you can't see past the hole in your head.
I think this is the point that many people miss. Just as they expect the elders to be clergy and not clergy at the same time, they also expect them to be police and non police at the same time. Their stance is entirely a matter of convenience.

Apparently some of the posters here think that the congregation itself should have put Kendrick in stocks in the middle of town with a sign saying "BEWARE! DO NOT GET NEAR THIS MAN!" Then after maybe the elders could have hired an official "crier" to follow Kendrick around everywhere ringing bells and declaring his perverseness to all onlookers?

Why is all the responsibility shoved on the congregation to make potentially slanderous public remarks against Kendrick over the first incident (Kendrick touching his teenage stepdaughter over her clothes), and then physically monitor ALL of his future personal relationships like a chaperone even though he no longer held any positions of responsibility, when the parents, the Fremont Police Department, the District Attorney and Child Protective Services had the same (if not more) information on Kendrick than the Fredmont elders did (due largely to the elders advising mother Kendrick to go to police in the first place)? These public entities charged Kendrick with a MISDEMEANOR, which it technically was. And as far as Teary knows he was not restricted in his associations in any way by the courts -- he could talk to whoever he wanted anytime he wanted. So why should the Witnesses have been LEGALLY OBLIGATED (as it was argued in the case) to go BEYOND that ruling and monitor/control who the man talked to in his everyday life? Again, should they have been legally forced to follow Kendrick around as criers and doomsayers wherever he went, warning all Kendrick met of his past sins and misdemeanors?

That is the main crux of the issue.
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#353 Aug 26, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, many people responded to the news with something like, "This is stupid... This is like someone getting raped by a Baptist and then suing the National Baptist Convention."
Those religions are politically powerful enough to block frivolous litigation.
Unless a sex offender is categorized at a threat level where he is prohibited from entering a certain neighborhood, he can go to anyone's door for any reason. Because he has a flat tire, because he's selling girl scout cookies or maybe he's staking out the neighborhood for children to eat.
Jehovah's Witnesses simply allow persons the same civil rights the federal government does.
You're so idiotic and narrow-minded, you can't see past the hole in your head.
I am positive that your spiritually bankrupt brothers and sisters down at the local kingdom hall said, "This is stupid... This is like someone getting raped by a Baptist and then suing the National Baptist Convention."

Leroy and Floe down on Elm Street in Podunk City USA are going to run every JW who strolls down their sidewalk off their property and have every right to do so because they don't want potential child molestors anywhere near their 15 year old daughter.

Your cult leaders up in NYC have thrown you JW's under the bus with their policies.
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#354 Aug 26, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this is the point that many people miss. Just as they expect the elders to be clergy and not clergy at the same time, they also expect them to be police and non police at the same time. Their stance is entirely a matter of convenience.
Apparently some of the posters here think that the congregation itself should have put Kendrick in stocks in the middle of town with a sign saying "BEWARE! DO NOT GET NEAR THIS MAN!" Then after maybe the elders could have hired an official "crier" to follow Kendrick around everywhere ringing bells and declaring his perverseness to all onlookers?
Why is all the responsibility shoved on the congregation to make potentially slanderous public remarks against Kendrick over the first incident (Kendrick touching his teenage stepdaughter over her clothes), and then physically monitor ALL of his future personal relationships like a chaperone even though he no longer held any positions of responsibility, when the parents, the Fremont Police Department, the District Attorney and Child Protective Services had the same (if not more) information on Kendrick than the Fredmont elders did (due largely to the elders advising mother Kendrick to go to police in the first place)? These public entities charged Kendrick with a MISDEMEANOR, which it technically was. And as far as Teary knows he was not restricted in his associations in any way by the courts -- he could talk to whoever he wanted anytime he wanted. So why should the Witnesses have been LEGALLY OBLIGATED (as it was argued in the case) to go BEYOND that ruling and monitor/control who the man talked to in his everyday life? Again, should they have been legally forced to follow Kendrick around as criers and doomsayers wherever he went, warning all Kendrick met of his past sins and misdemeanors?
That is the main crux of the issue.
Leroy and Floe down on Elm Street in Podunk City USA don't give a rat's ass about what JW's do with their child molestors. as far as they are concerned that is the JW's problem.

It becomes their problem when the JW's show up on their street and they don't know whether or not that smiling grandfatherly type JW is a child molestor or that that smiling grandmotherly type JW just got done improperly touching her grandson so they are going to run every JW who strolls down their sidewalk off their property and have every right to do so because they don't want potential child molestors anywhere near their 15 year old daughter.
Jace

Ardsley, NY

#355 Aug 26, 2012
Shell66 wrote:
<quoted text>
Jace just so happens to have very much wise wisdom we all can learn from,maybe you should give it a try sometime.
I don't know why the poster would call my post delusional when I was merely quoting from the wt own published works

Now I can help if the information makes the author of the information the gb look delusional

That I can't help him on

It is the jw camp the info comes from
Jace

Ardsley, NY

#356 Aug 26, 2012
UNchained wrote:
<quoted text>
Sit down and pay attention when the grownups are talking.
. Bingo

Why do jw always want tO make up meanings
Everyone knows clergy means church Leadership but the the poor jw

Such terms as rank and file used by wt lawyers everyone understand that such term are not legal terms
Eveeyone understand what a clergy privileged is and WHO gets it and who don't
Jace

Ardsley, NY

#357 Aug 26, 2012
Maravilla wrote:
<quoted text>
.
. yet..the Wts. very well ..could print up their own dictionary.. As they have litterally changed the meaning of many words.. And think by doing so..they are inventing the pure language.. Oyi!
Yep. Wt will take words that Webster and scholars have clearly defined and accepted by society in general and they will take these same words and redefine them the the skill of high school graduates in the writing dept

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#358 Aug 26, 2012
UNchained wrote:
<quoted text>
I am positive that your spiritually bankrupt brothers and sisters down at the local kingdom hall said, "This is stupid... This is like someone getting raped by a Baptist and then suing the National Baptist Convention."
Leroy and Floe down on Elm Street in Podunk City USA are going to run every JW who strolls down their sidewalk off their property and have every right to do so because they don't want potential child molestors anywhere near their 15 year old daughter.
Your cult leaders up in NYC have thrown you JW's under the bus with their policies.
1. I think that your Leroy and Floe of Podunk USA have more problems than just the Witnesses. They appear to be suffering from a sever case of paranoia, and there is no logical reason why they would stop at only chasing away Witnesses. They could use the same reasoning to chase away girlscouts, salesmen, neighbors asking for cups of sugar, stranded motorists seeking help, political campaign volunteers, or any type of volunteer working for ANY church or charity. In fact, they might as well just save themselves trouble and put up a No Trespassing sign if they are so distrusting of people.

2. Sex offender lists are PUBLIC. Anybody can check them at any time. Maintaining them is the responsibility of local governments, courts and law enforcement. Controlling the movements of proven threats is also the responsibility of courts and law enforcement (no getting within 100 feet of a school, no unsupervised contact with children, ect.). Witnesses are not police. They cannot infringe upon a man's right to go where he wishes or petition his neighbors if he so chooses.

3. Witness policy has been (for a very long time, even during the Conti incidents) to report allegations of abuse to authorities where required and to inform the victim/parents of their right to inform the authorities themselves if the elders are not required reporters and if the victim or parent reporting for themselves is deemed a better option in protecting the child. The elders in the Fremont congregation informed the mother of Kendricks first (and arguably only) victim that she had every right to go to police, and SHE DID go to the police. Kendrick was charged with a misdemeanor.

3. I have never seen any evidence suggesting that the rate of child abuse is any higher among Witnesses than it is in the general population. I've also never heard of any cases where a Witness in field service sexually assaulted a homeowner. So you entire argument is moot on those points alone. You are left arguing that people should INTENTIONALLY act in an irrational manner when dealing with Witnesses, making your argument itself irrational.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
Is "JESUS" a fake name to you, too, churchoids? (Jul '15) 13 min ihavequestions 69
door to door with jws (Oct '16) 1 hr red blood relative 47
Ray Franz and the GB (Mar '13) 3 hr red blood relative 72
Let's try this again, 144,000 ONLY? No jw has b... 4 hr red blood relative 2,003
Trinity...why does it matter?! 4 hr ihveit 1,827
Lawsuit about pedophilia issue against Watchtow... 4 hr LAWSUIT 1
To all JWs: the Watchtower's good news is all f... 4 hr Nomi 34
If Jesus is NOT Your Mediator, How Can you Pray... 4 hr red blood relative 544
PR Hurricane Maria 4 hr GreatSouthbay4040 56
Would Jehovah take me back? 6 hr Alank 335
Why Do Animals Grow Old and Die? Thu Alank 673
More from around the web