Kendrick was an ordained minister ......

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82 Jun 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
Don't bother - I've been asking all morning for them to illustrate what "proof" caused this civil action to be won.
Specifically: the claimant alleges that "the elders" and "the JWGB" knew SPECIFICALLY about her abuse over a period of time, that they, knowingly, allowed the abuser to engage in his abusive acts and acted to coverup both their knowledge and whatever sanction they gave to his behavior.
Despite asking numerous times, I've yet to see a post in any of the half-dozen plus threads "discussing" this topic that actually offers up any proof that this claimant brought anything to this civil action other than a sob story that the jury ate up because people in California are idiots who acquitted O.J. Simpson, and because they just don't like the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Are jws instructed to keep problems within the congregation as it is written in 1Corinthians Chapter 6?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#83 Jun 19, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure don't care about the victim.
Just like the WTS dont. If it did then it would not be finding itself in this sorry mess.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#84 Jun 19, 2012
angelsilv wrote:
<quoted text>
Are jws instructed to keep problems within the congregation as it is written in 1Corinthians Chapter 6?
The GB have gone to court against their brothers in defence of elders, but never to plead the case of b/s of child abuse.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#85 Jun 19, 2012
angelsilv wrote:
Are jws instructed to keep problems within the congregation as it is written in 1Corinthians Chapter 6?
The JWGB has repeatedly wrote articles stating that serious crimes, such as the sexual abuse of children, fall outside the scope of 1 Corinthians 6.

I think it's important to differentiate an unsubstantiated claim of sexual abuse of children from an instance of the same that is demonstrably true, and that at issue with regard to Ms. Conti is her assertion that the JW policy of keeping confidential information confidential should be changed such that "allegations" [her words] of sexual abuse of children should be revealed to the congregation at large.

Essentially, Ms. Conti claims that she filed her suit not for money, but to get them to change the policy.

The only problem is that changing the policy would, among other things, open up the congregation to criminal and/or civil charges for violating privacy laws, harassment laws and libel/slander laws.

Ms. Conti knows this, if she has more than two cells in her brain, or she has an attorney who has any degree of honesty in him/her.

Thus, her follow-up claim that the huge civil judgment was the only way to get them to take action seems like nothing more than an excuse of a greedy and entitled liar.

The policy of keeping confidential information confidential is not going to change, and it should not change - at least until the provisions of privacy, harassment and libel/slander laws are changed such that organizations can disclose confidential information about members to other members without either assuming a fiduciary duty OR without violating the provisions of a law that opens them up to criminal or civil prosecution.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#86 Jun 19, 2012
array wrote:
The GB have gone to court against their brothers in defence of elders...
When?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#87 Jun 19, 2012
angelsilv wrote:
<quoted text>Are jws instructed to keep problems within the congregation as it is written in 1Corinthians Chapter 6?
They didn't. They failed to warn these parents who are JWs that a known Pedophile was in there midst.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#88 Jun 19, 2012
You would think that something like a letter telling the elders to hush about pedos would have been made public from opposers. Where is this July 1, 1989 letter from the gb to the elders that reveals the disgusting hush hush policy?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#89 Jun 19, 2012
Duh-boy wrote:
You would think that something like a letter telling the elders to hush about pedos would have been made public from opposers. Where is this July 1, 1989 letter from the gb to the elders that reveals the disgusting hush hush policy?
The court has it.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#91 Jun 19, 2012
Duh-boy wrote:
You would think that something like a letter telling the elders to hush about pedos would have been made public from opposers. Where is this July 1, 1989 letter from the gb to the elders that reveals the disgusting hush hush policy?
With regard to that same letter, there is circumstantial evidence [1] that problems were being created by elders in their capacity as servants on a JC involving themselves with criminal investigations and actually doing more harm than good.

[I say circumstantial because if it were just the one instance I know of it wouldn't have warranted that whole letter; a particular brother insisted that he knew something he didn't know and couldn't prove was true, and involved the congregation at large in a criminal case where, because of his claims, the entire JC ended up getting subpenaed. When he was called to account for it on the witness stand he humiliated himself when it was illustrated that what he claimed had happened - specifically when and how - couldn't possibly have. He actually ended up hurting an innocent person, hurting the family he thought he was helping and harming the criminal case against a person who, it turns out, was actually guilty.]

Specifically, some JW elders were alleged to have, of their own initiative, reported unsubstantiated claims of child abuse to the authorities against the wishes of the family and without corroborating evidence. When the claims turned out not to be true the families of the victims, who had made a conscious choice not to report were upset that their authority - their fiduciary responsibility, really - had been usurped by "the elders," and the accused persons who turned out to be innocent were rightly upset that their reputations were harmed.

Again, the degree to which there was actually legal action on the matter is not known to me, but the letter was put out in reaction to these guys assuming a duty where they had none and making/repeating unsubstantiated claims to law enforcement that rose to the level of slander.

Footnote:
_____

Other than the single instance described above, I, personally, didn't know of this happening in the area in and around Pittsburgh, PA where I'm from originally. I only know that this was alleged and that instances of it were "widespread," not to what degree it actually happened or whether or not any of the claims were actionable/adjudicated.
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#93 Jun 19, 2012
chandler. why are you looking up megans law? i thought the org had its own rules and did not include outsiders?
TPMP

New York, NY

#95 Jun 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
The JWGB has repeatedly wrote articles stating that serious crimes, such as the sexual abuse of children, fall outside the scope of 1 Corinthians 6.
I think it's important to differentiate an unsubstantiated claim of sexual abuse of children from an instance of the same that is demonstrably true, and that at issue with regard to Ms. Conti is her assertion that the JW policy of keeping confidential information confidential should be changed such that "allegations" [her words] of sexual abuse of children should be revealed to the congregation at large.
Essentially, Ms. Conti claims that she filed her suit not for money, but to get them to change the policy.
The only problem is that changing the policy would, among other things, open up the congregation to criminal and/or civil charges for violating privacy laws, harassment laws and libel/slander laws.
Ms. Conti knows this, if she has more than two cells in her brain, or she has an attorney who has any degree of honesty in him/her.
Thus, her follow-up claim that the huge civil judgment was the only way to get them to take action seems like nothing more than an excuse of a greedy and entitled liar.
The policy of keeping confidential information confidential is not going to change, and it should not change - at least until the provisions of privacy, harassment and libel/slander laws are changed such that organizations can disclose confidential information about members to other members without either assuming a fiduciary duty OR without violating the provisions of a law that opens them up to criminal or civil prosecution.
Excellent.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#96 Jun 19, 2012
unlisted wrote:
chandler. why are you looking up megans law? i thought the org had its own rules and did not include outsiders?
If that's what you think, then you're a moron - an irredeemable one at that - and further discussion with you is a waste of time.
TPMP

New York, NY

#97 Jun 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what you think, then you're a moron - an irredeemable one at that - and further discussion with you is a waste of time.
She claims to have 2 college degrees.

LOL!

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#98 Jun 19, 2012
angelsilv wrote:
It is my understanding that Ms. Conti filed the lawsuit after Kendrick had been arrested for molesting another girl.
Kendrick was convicted of some form of molestation in 2004 and put on the sex offender registry; her recent lawsuit was filed in 2011.

Per the court documents - oft mentioned, but not once actually cited [1]- officials at the congregation of record became aware of her claims of abuse by Kendrick for the first time in 2009, which means that they had no knowledge of her abuse as it was happening in 1994 & 1995 [2]

A: This was after she alleges she had informed the elders of what was happening to her.

Reply: According to their response to her initial charges, they did not know of her abuse at the hands of Kendrick until 2009.

A: It is my understanding that had the elders taken the proper action, which I feel is correct, is to have had a disciplenary review, or whatever it is called, with Kendrick and Ms. Conti and her parents present to discuss the allegations against him.

Reply: That sounds very nice.

Unfortunately, none of the parties - other than Kendrick and Conti - were aware of the abuse at the time it was occurring, and "the elders" were not aware of her abuse until 2009.

A: Apparently this was not done because if this action would have taken place, the elders would have had an obligation to reveal that Kendrick had been sex offeder.

Reply: Actually, Kendrick was not a "sex offender" at the time he was abusing Ms. Conti, as he wasn't placed on the sex offender registry until the year 2004.

Also, "the elders" were unable to take action of any sort regarding abuse occurring in 1995 and 1996 that they didn't know about until 2009.

A: I am quite sure that "cases" are recorded when a formal complaint is filed.

Reply: Which, in this one, happened on January 1, 2011.

A: Perhaps the elders never told Ms. Conti that she had to file a formal complaint.

Reply: She would have first had to have informed them of the abuse when it was actually occurring, which, according to their statement to the court, did not happen until 2009.

A: This may be the reason why there were allegations rather than stated facts of abuse.

Reply: It's stated very clearly in the court documents that, as far as Ms. Conti was concerned, there wasn't even an allegation against Kendrick until 2009.

It bears pointing out, among other things I've seen so far in these documents, that the alleged victim claims that her parents allowed her to spend time, unsupervised, with Kendrick - a single man - at his home, and, for some reason, on an Amtrak train.

Her parents deny that they EVER allowed her to spend time alone with Kendrick.

I'm getting the impression that the claimant in this case is an extremely twisted individual; this jury had to be BEYOND stupid.

Footnotes & References:
_____

[1] Case #: HG11558324 http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/h...

[2] She initially claimed that her abuse occurred in 1996 and 1997; she later amended that claim.
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#99 Jun 19, 2012
ok sorry was under the impression that the org had books that has policies that the elders and others used.. you really do not have to call me a moron sir.

“LADY WARRIOR”

Since: Apr 11

THUG HUNTER

#100 Jun 19, 2012
unlisted wrote:
ok sorry was under the impression that the org had books that has policies that the elders and others used.. you really do not have to call me a moron sir.
Well.....,you are.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#101 Jun 19, 2012
TPMP wrote:
She claims to have 2 college degrees.
LOL!
Degrees from Acme Looniversity don't count.
jace

Bethesda, MD

#102 Jun 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
The JWGB has repeatedly wrote articles stating that serious crimes, such as the sexual abuse of children, fall outside the scope of 1 Corinthians 6.
I think it's important to differentiate an unsubstantiated claim of sexual abuse of children from an instance of the same that is demonstrably true, and that at issue with regard to Ms. Conti is her assertion that the JW policy of keeping confidential information confidential should be changed such that "allegations" [her words] of sexual abuse of children should be revealed to the congregation at large.
Essentially, Ms. Conti claims that she filed her suit not for money, but to get them to change the policy.
The only problem is that changing the policy would, among other things, open up the congregation to criminal and/or civil charges for violating privacy laws, harassment laws and libel/slander laws.
Ms. Conti knows this, if she has more than two cells in her brain, or she has an attorney who has any degree of honesty in him/her.
Thus, her follow-up claim that the huge civil judgment was the only way to get them to take action seems like nothing more than an excuse of a greedy and entitled liar.
The policy of keeping confidential information confidential is not going to change, and it should not change - at least until the provisions of privacy, harassment and libel/slander laws are changed such that organizations can disclose confidential information about members to other members without either assuming a fiduciary duty OR without violating the provisions of a law that opens them up to criminal or civil prosecution.
your problem is really simple
the wt got men who are just not qualified investigating Crimes,

bottomline, trying to handle a crime of rape like you are living in the 1500 , living in the 21 century ain't going to cut it man

when a jury hears that --Fred, Bubba and Leroy from Piggley Wiggley, Walmart and TRIMLINE,------MAN I LOVED THAT OLD BETHELITE HIRING COMPANY BACK IN THE DAY

dragging an 8 yr in front of a 40yr old man, 2 elders and both parents for 5 ADULTS AND NOW SHE HAS TO repeat what was done to here

dude you are in trouble with any jury who knows anything about Early childhood dev, YOU DONT PUT A KID IN FRONT OF 5 ADULTS
but being that jw are not that sharp they actually think its a great idea

my advice keep on doing it and jury will see just how wacked jw are

jace

Bethesda, MD

#103 Jun 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm getting the impression that the claimant in this case is an extremely twisted individual; this jury had to be BEYOND stupid.
i like when a jw says they are getting an IMPRESSION
YOU know its going to be good
TPMP

New York, NY

#104 Jun 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
Degrees from Acme Looniversity don't count.
Hilarious!

LOL!

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
CHURCHianity lies about God. 9 min billy 11
How to Correct the Neo-Babylonian and Persian T... 18 min Anonymous1386 2
News Jehovah's Witness abuser quoted scripture while... 37 min array 4
JW Pedophiles in Australia 2 hr array 19
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 2 hr Anonymous Brother 4,338
Anyone who wants JW.org to go down is anti Jehovah 2 hr BetheljudgmentDan... 55
Why we JWs are so HAPPY! 3 hr Anonymous Brother 568
Candace Conti settled 11 hr CHIEF Sealth 1,089
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 19 hr curtjester1 19,730
More from around the web