J. W.'s ordered to pay more than $20 million

[leannsmarie]

In what both sides described as a momentous ruling, a jury in Oakland, Calif., has found that Jehovah’s Witnesses was partly responsible for the alleged sexual abuse of a girl by one of its members and must pay her more than $20 million.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12225753-jehovahs-witnesses-ordered-to-pay-more-than-20-million-to-woman-who-said-she-was-sexually-abused?lite

[Musky]

This is why there is an appeals appeals process, to overturn bizarre and unfair awards like this one.

[Hallett 82]

There has been no Police charge or criminal conviction?

It gets tiresome to see how often accusers want full justice, penalties and windfall payments when they never had the presence of mind to go to the Police and make their complaint.

How do they expect ordinary men running a religious meeting to substantiate a claim of abuse when it is only the official authorities of the state who have power to question, detain, arrest etc. ?

Police are the ones to decide the merits of a case and prosecute . . laymen could be accused of slander if they pry into such events and their actions would hinder law enforcement in the collection of facts, witnesses and testimonies.

In many cases of abuse . .a conviction is impossible to make, even from a worldly standard . . so a Bible standard is harder again if no witnesses exist. It is all a horrible mess.

[Simon17]

I didn't bother reading about this as I've had enough news of child molestation, what with the Penn Stat scandal and trial going on. But a thought or two

It gets tiresome to see how often accusers want full justice, penalties and windfall payments when they never had the presence of mind to go to the Police and make their complaint.

Yeah, but that gets thrown out in child molestation cases. As we all know, small kids are often bullied into silence or embarrassed or too scared to go to the police.

How do they expect ordinary men running a religious meeting to substantiate a claim of abuse when it is only the official authorities of the state who have power to question, detain, arrest etc. ?

Police are the ones to decide the merits of a case and prosecute . . laymen could be accused of slander if they pry into such events and their actions would hinder law enforcement in the collection of facts, witnesses and testimonies.

No, I believe its the law that you have to report any allegation of child abuse to the police. Thats like saying Penn State should not report the Sandusky allegations to police because it would be slander. Anyone who hears anything of child abuse is obligated to report and THEN let the police sort things out. This goes doubly if the person who knows is in any sort of a position of responsibility.

I have no idea what happened in this case, however, and frankly, I don't really want to know.

[Musky]

From what I gather, this person was not an elder or MS. He was a member of the congregation. They are saying the Congregation and thereby the organization is responsible for what one member does to another. This is like holding the Catholic church responsible if a parishioner molests a fellow parishioner, not the priest, just another church member. Or if one member kills another, is the whole organization responsible?

From the article, it seems that the police were already aware of this person's past molestation, it happened before he was a member of that congregation. It seems the congregation is being held responsible for not notifying everyone of this person's past. But, that is what the national sex offenders registration is for.

[Hallett 82]

I didn't bother reading about this as I've had enough news of child molestation, what with the Penn Stat scandal and trial going on. But a thought or two

It gets tiresome to see how often accusers want full justice, penalties and windfall payments when they never had the presence of mind to go to the Police and make their complaint.

Yeah, but that gets thrown out in child molestation cases. As we all know, small kids are often bullied into silence or embarrassed or too scared to go to the police.

How do they expect ordinary men running a religious meeting to substantiate a claim of abuse when it is only the official authorities of the state who have power to question, detain, arrest etc. ?

Police are the ones to decide the merits of a case and prosecute . . laymen could be accused of slander if they pry into such events and their actions would hinder law enforcement in the collection of facts, witnesses and testimonies.

No, I believe its the law that you have to report any allegation of child abuse to the police. Thats like saying Penn State should not report the Sandusky allegations to police because it would be slander. Anyone who hears anything of child abuse is obligated to report and THEN let the police sort things out. This goes doubly if the person who knows is in any sort of a position of responsibility.

I have no idea what happened in this case, however, and frankly, I don't really want to know.

I think you have misunderstood my comment.

A child is not the one to report an incident. The parents or adult who has knowledge or proof of an assault against a child is the one who has to report to Police. Being bullied or embarrassed is not decided by the child victim. If an adult is confident in the accusation then go ahead . . but if they are not sure, how can they expect the Police to be.

As for the Sandusky allegations . . when a person makes a claim to the Police, that is not slander. A Christian reporting something to the elders is not slandering either. It is only such when they start speading things around the congregation to those who otherwise would have no knowledge of an accusation.

Often in cases that go to press with accusations like this . . we learn that they never went to the Police at all. They sue the congregation or elders because they could not get satisfaction at law or their idea of justice from brothers who are not in a position to prosecute . .they are not police or court officials.

[Hallett 82]

From what I gather, this person was not an elder or MS. He was a member of the congregation. They are saying the Congregation and thereby the organization is responsible for what one member does to another. This is like holding the Catholic church responsible if a parishioner molests a fellow parishioner, not the priest, just another church member. Or if one member kills another, is the whole organization responsible?

From the article, it seems that the police were already aware of this person's past molestation, it happened before he was a member of that congregation. It seems the congregation is being held responsible for not notifying everyone of this person's past. But, that is what the national sex offenders registration is for.

Exactly. Molesters are attracted to any place children gather. Our congregations are a target just like schools, scouts groups, soccer clubs etc. All parents and adults need to be vigilant for child safety.

[Shawnster]

The whole case is confusing. I had to reread the story several time for it to even make sense.

[Simon17]

I didn't bother reading about this as I've had enough news of child molestation, what with the Penn Stat scandal and trial going on. But a thought or two

It gets tiresome to see how often accusers want full justice, penalties and windfall payments when they never had the presence of mind to go to the Police and make their complaint.

Yeah, but that gets thrown out in child molestation cases. As we all know, small kids are often bullied into silence or embarrassed or too scared to go to the police.

How do they expect ordinary men running a religious meeting to substantiate a claim of abuse when it is only the official authorities of the state who have power to question, detain, arrest etc. ?

Police are the ones to decide the merits of a case and prosecute . . laymen could be accused of slander if they pry into such events and their actions would hinder law enforcement in the collection of facts, witnesses and testimonies.

No, I believe its the law that you have to report any allegation of child abuse to the police. Thats like saying Penn State should not report the Sandusky allegations to police because it would be slander. Anyone who hears anything of child abuse is obligated to report and THEN let the police sort things out. This goes doubly if the person who knows is in any sort of a position of responsibility.

I have no idea what happened in this case, however, and frankly, I don't really want to know.

I think you have misunderstood my comment.

A child is not the one to report an incident. The parents or adult who has knowledge or proof of an assault against a child is the one who has to report to Police. Being bullied or embarrassed is not decided by the child victim. If an adult is confident in the accusation then go ahead . . but if they are not sure, how can they expect the Police to be.

As for the Sandusky allegations . . when a person makes a claim to the Police, that is not slander. A Christian reporting something to the elders is not slandering either. It is only such when they start speading things around the congregation to those who otherwise would have no knowledge of an accusation.

Often in cases that go to press with accusations like this . . we learn that they never went to the Police at all. They sue the congregation or elders because they could not get satisfaction at law or their idea of justice from brothers who are not in a position to prosecute . .they are not police or court officials.

Well, then I think we agree entirely.

As far as I am concerned, if a report is made to the elders of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the police to investigate. If they do that, I think that is all they legally or practically should have to do. If they don't do that, well, that's pretty bad.

But yes, if the abuse was known to police already, I don't see how an elder body or the religion as a whole have any responsibility really. Again, I haven't read it, but thats how I see it.

[rbrown1205]

Well, the intention of the brothers to appeal is an indication that somebody is wrongfully blaming an organization for the acts of single members.

A few years ago we had the letter from the Governing Body stating the policy of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding child abuse, and it emphasized that we all have the obligation to identify abusers or those suspected of abuse in the congregation to the police:

===============

http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm

However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law. Additionally, the victim or anyone else who has knowledge of the allegation may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

==============

That communication referenced the fact that there have been articles that directly address the subject as early as 1985, which set down the rules that elders must folow quite well.

[Jellybean]

Wow.... according to the newslink you posted, "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ legal entity, is responsible for the entire punitive damages amount and 40 percent of the compensatory damages, said Rick Simons, attorney for the plaintiff."

I wondered how the lawyers figured that the Watchtower Society had any culpability in this matter? Very strange. Perhaps, as many other court cases in the system have shown, it will ultimately work out for Jehovah's glory and sanctification! We know how these things backfire against the world when they go up against Jehovah and his people.

[Brother_Bliss]

This is such a Ronald McDonald court case. I can't believe what I am reading.

Lie: "The lawsuit alleged that Watchtower had a policy that instructed elders in its Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations to keep reports of child sex abusers within the religious group secret to avoid lawsuits."

Truth: McCabe denied Jehovah’s Witnesses has a secrecy policy concerning child sex abuse.

The amazing part: McCabe said he was not aware of any other case in which a religious organization has been found liable for wrongdoing by a member who was not in an official position of responsibility.

That's like suing Taco Bell because the cashier molested a child.

[Musky]

That's like suing Taco Bell because the cashier molested a child.

Actually that I could almost understand because the cashier was representing Taco Bell.

This is like suing Taco bell because one of it's customers molested another one of it's customers!

[Hallett 82]

All this is an 'in-your-face' exhibit that shows how the legal system is as dead as the financial, religious and political systems.

Law and order along with justice has become a thing of the past . . the account will soon be balanced Revelation chapter 18

[Greenfield]

From what I gather, this person was not an elder or MS. He was a member of the congregation. They are saying the Congregation and thereby the organization is responsible for what one member does to another. This is like holding the Catholic church responsible if a parishioner molests a fellow parishioner, not the priest, just another church member. Or if one member kills another, is the whole organization responsible?

From the article, it seems that the police were already aware of this person's past molestation, it happened before he was a member of that congregation. It seems the congregation is being held responsible for not notifying everyone of this person's past. But, that is what the national sex offenders registration is for.

The article did say in one place that he was in a "leadership position", but as I'm sure we all know opposers use terms pretty liberally. Their definition probably puts me in a leadership position even though I'm not in an appointed position and I haven't done anything more than lead a group in field service.

As stated, the whole case is absurd. Apostates love to claim that JWs cover up child molesting, even though this is the very first time we have ever lost a lawsuit (and even so there is the appeal process), compared to other religions which have lost over and over again, and that's just with their clergy, not the average members, and we have the apostates pressing this issue with us like no other religion has!

I can imagine the jury's reasoning:

'Child abuse is bad right? Big organizations have lots of money and always try to step on the little guy. Plus JWs are a weird religion anyway. Let's just say $20,000,000, I want to get out of here.'

I look forward to the organization's appeal of the case (and of course when we win that do you think it will be on MSNBC?)

[Shawnster]

The article did say in one place that he was in a "leadership position", but as I'm sure we all know opposers use terms pretty liberally. Their definition probably puts me in a leadership position even though I'm not in an appointed position and I haven't done anything more than lead a group in field service.

I don't see that anywhere in the story. It does appear, however, the story was revised. It only refers to him as a member.

[Greenfield]

Below is an excellent summation of the organization's position in the case. He was in fact a ministerial servant at one time but was removed as such before the plaintiff alleges he began abusing her. So (in my opinion) it is dishonest to say he was in a leadership position when he was doing this.

http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName=jsp/imgviewer.html&rofadt=05/18/12&Action=27378947

[Musky]

Page two is very interesting. If I'm reading it correctly, it states the points of law, and basically says the Congregation or WTB&TS cannot be held liable for what happened. I guess a jury can ignore the law if it wants to, but an appeals court cannot.

Am I reading that right?

EDIT: Nevermind, this is the Defense brief stating the defense's position. Duhhh

[My4CatsAndMe]

While I understand our emotional reaction to seeing Jehovah's name being dragged through the dirt, let's not forget that there was a 9-year-old girl here who suffered the unthinkable, life-altering trauma of being sexually abused. She is now 26, and she is living with the scars of that abuse. I know a lot about her scars. Neither money nor legal victories will heal them; only Jehovah's kingdom can do that.

This story is a tragedy all the way around. There is no questioning that fact. But in our haste to point out the excessive and misplaced punishment, please don't forget that this woman is a victim. She has every right to demand justice from the person who did this. I just wish it had remained in that context: HE did this, NOT the brothers.

[trottigy]

Well said Dawn.

[sunshine]

In what both sides described as a momentous ruling, a jury in Oakland, Calif., has found that Jehovah’s Witnesses was partly responsible for the alleged sexual abuse of a girl by one of its members and must pay her more than $20 million.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12225753-jehovahs-witnesses-ordered-to-pay-more-than-20-million-to-woman-who-said-she-was-sexually-abused?lite

Its unlikely this will stand up before appeal; 20 million for a crime that has yet to be taken to criminal court... As the brother said, this story is FAR from over and if we end up paying a penny I'll eat my cheezy socks.

As I said eleswhere, only in California ** rolls eyes **

[JSellenger]

I haven't read all the court details but its a shame to see the org held responsible. Does anyone know how this happened since it does not appear that he is an elder? Is it because all baptized JW's are considered ordained ministers? I feel very sorry for this young woman as I know from close experience the pain of being abused (my best friend was assaulted when we were young). I still don't understand how the JW's could be sued. That is a lot of donations that could be used to print magazines or build the new headquarters. I will be interested to follow this appeal.

[Brother_Bliss]

I haven't read all the court details but its a shame to see the org held responsible... I still don't understand how the JW's could be sued.

That is why the appeal is so necessary.

Essentially the court decision is that you, me, the members of this board, and our 7+ million brothers and sisters are held responsible for the actions of one knucklehead.

Senseless!

[Musky]

That is a lot of donations that could be used to print magazines or build the new headquarters. I will be interested to follow this appeal.

As was stated in the article, it will be MANY years before the case is finally decided and before any funds are paid out. The Attorneys at the Mccabe law firm are all brothers, so there are no Attorney fees over whatever court costs there are, so even if it's dragged out for years, it will not cost the organization much until all appeals are exhausted and a final judgement is rendered.

[Greenfield]

I haven't read all the court details but its a shame to see the org held responsible... I still don't understand how the JW's could be sued.

That is why the appeal is so necessary.

Essentially the court decision is that you, me, the members of this board, and our 7+ million brothers and sisters are held responsible for the actions of one knucklehead.

Senseless!

There have been court cases in the past where they attempted to use the same reasoning as they did in this case, that somehow there was a legal duty between the Society (and sometimes the local congregation) and the victim, but of course there is none and we did all we could. Those cases were thrown out, etc. Somehow this case slipped by (thanks to the California Jury) but I'm sure on appeal when it is decided by qualified professionals, we will prevail.

I know she was abused but she should know full well that our organization is not responsible. Being abused is no excuse to hurt other innocents. I am certain she is just a tool of the apostates, who have been chomping at the bit about this nonexistent issue for ages.