Open letter to Daro Weilburg

[Witness]

1 hour ago, JayDubya said:

Won’t even let the congregation know- yet will give a local needs part about turning in field service time.  

Excellent.

[Baruq JW]

3 hours ago, Jay Iza said:

Baruq Apparently is only "understandable" because she is fighting to get compensated as she is not a JWs. What about all JWs that were abused and are still in the organisation they should get compensated too... but hard as we are not supposed to talk about it or to know anything about it...

That's what I thought I understood from Anna's message. A person "of the World " may ask for compensation, but not those who have the misfortune to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Shiwiii]

11 hours ago, Anna said:

Obviously because he had been reported to the police, was tried, and found guilty.

You know it wasn't an elder who reported it, right ? Because it would have NEVER happened if it was left up to the elders to report. There in lies the crux of the problem and EXACTLY why Candice won. I do not feel that she was out for the money, but rather to stick it to the jw where it hurts them most. 

[Anna]

15 hours ago, JayDubya said:

@Anna I’m glad she sued watchtower.  I’m glad it’s public.  You are right, she probably would have been like many of us has she still had ties to the .org.   

 

She would have been another silent victim.    What would you prefer to have happened?

This org is much too permissive of pedophiles.  Won’t even let the congregation know- yet will give a local needs part about turning in field service time.  

You only sue those you view as your enemy. With that in mind, those who are still active JWs might sue the perpetrator, but they will not sue the organization. This doesn't mean they have been silent. In the case of Candace's molester for example, somebody must have reported him to the police for him to have been convicted in the first place.

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You know it wasn't an elder who reported it, right ?

Do you know it wasn't an elder who reported him?

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Because it would have NEVER happened if it was left up to the elders to report.

What difference does it make who reports? It should not be left only up to the elders to report. If someone molested my child it would be my prerogative to report and I would hope every parent felt the same. If I was an adult who had been victimized as a a child, and was finally able to speak out, I would report, hoping that the statute of limitations had not run out. 

Incidentally, Candace's perpetrator was reported to the police by his then wife (for molesting his step daughter) even before he allegedly molested Candace. There was ALREADY a police report about him. It didn't help Candace though.

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

There in lies the crux of the problem and EXACTLY why Candice won.

She did not win in the way she wanted to, and the problem wasn't because the elders did not report. They couldn't report because they didn't know about Candace, and the perpetrator had already been reported during the first incident with his step daughter as mentioned above. The court reversed punitive damages because they found WT had no duty to warn (if it did, the same could have been said for the Police who knew about the first incident, and social services who knew about Candace).

Eventually the whole case rested on whether the perpetrator was allowed to go in service with Candace unsupervised. Ultimately it was her word against the elders words who claimed that Candace never went in service with the perpetrator on her own.

Extract from the final decision of the court:

 “We hold that defendants had no duty to warn the Congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that defendants can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community.  Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti during field service that he used as opportunities to molest her.Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim.  The compensatory damage award is affirmed".

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I do not feel that she was out for the money,

That's a good job because in the end there was an out of court settlement and Candace probably didn't end up with much after paying her lawyers fees.....

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

but rather to stick it to the jw where it hurts them most.

Yes, that may have been her biggest motive, revenge on a religion she came to hate. Although unfortunately, even that is disputed because there is no real proof that her story is true with regard to the molestation while out in service. (Had the perpetrator molested her outside of church sponsored activity, she would have not been able to ask the org. for money). If that were the case, then her motive for winning would have been money. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe Candace was molested only once, on a Amtrak trip she went on with her father and the perpetrator. Candace had been shown to have lied at least once in her deposition, where her story didn't match up with facts. 

[Shiwiii]

15 hours ago, Anna said:

Do you know it wasn't an elder who reported him?

It couldn't have been. Why you ask? because it would make "Jehovah" sad.......(

15 hours ago, Anna said:

What difference does it make who reports? It should not be left only up to the elders to report. If someone molested my child it would be my prerogative to report and I would hope every parent felt the same. If I was an adult who had been victimized as a a child, and was finally able to speak out, I would report, hoping that the statute of limitations had not run out. 

Incidentally, Candace's perpetrator was reported to the police by his then wife (for molesting his step daughter) even before he allegedly molested Candace. There was ALREADY a police report about him. It didn't help Candace though.

It makes a huge difference as seen in the many many court cases going on right now against the wt. Lots of money is being taken from the wt because of their failure to report when they are aware of the abuse happening. 

Your prerogative, yes, however you've been trained not to because it would bring reproach on the name "Jehovah" aka. the wt. 

It didn't help Candice because the wt didn't warn the cong.  Again, it is all because it would make "Jehovah" sad. 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

She did not win in the way she wanted to, and the problem wasn't because the elders did not report. They couldn't report because they didn't know about Candace, and the perpetrator had already been reported during the first incident with his step daughter as mentioned above. The court reversed punitive damages because they found WT had no duty to warn (if it did, the same could have been said for the Police who knew about the first incident, and social services who knew about Candace).

Eventually the whole case rested on whether the perpetrator was allowed to go in service with Candace unsupervised. Ultimately it was her word against the elders words who claimed that Candace never went in service with the perpetrator on her own.

Extract from the final decision of the court:

 “We hold that defendants had no duty to warn the Congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that defendants can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community.  Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti during field service that he used as opportunities to molest her.Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim.  The compensatory damage award is affirmed".

She won, period.  

There is no law about letting the cong know, I get that, but I would hardly say that the elders were "protecting the flock". 
 

Let me ask you something:

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled Kendrick and his potential to harm more children? 

 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

That's a good job because in the end there was an out of court settlement and Candace probably didn't end up with much after paying her lawyers fees.....

Maybe, maybe not. But you know what she did get? Publicity! That right there opened the flood gates to give courage to others who were abused, to stand up and do something about it. it was the leak in the dam, and when the wt lost, others saw that it was possible to make the wt pay for their crimes! 

 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes, that may have been her biggest motive, revenge on a religion she came to hate. Although unfortunately, even that is disputed because there is no real proof that her story is true with regard to the molestation while out in service. (Had the perpetrator molested her outside of church sponsored activity, she would have not been able to ask the org. for money). If that were the case, then her motive for winning would have been money. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe Candace was molested only once, on a Amtrak trip she went on with her father and the perpetrator. Candace had been shown to have lied at least once in her deposition, where her story didn't match up with facts. 

you can claim that she is a hater or a seeker of money, but that is what you have been told she is, but it doesn't make it so. 

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Sometimes ... a desire for revenge will motivate a person to seek Justice against overwhelming adversity... and a problem will be solved.

They are two sides to the same coin.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941 the desire for revenge by the United States was nationally palpable ... and the destruction of the Japanese Empire was the BEST thing that ever happened to their society as a whole, in a thousand years of tyranny and civil war.

.... and better for Japan's neighbors, too.

 

[Anna]

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

21 hours ago, Anna said:

Do you know it wasn't an elder who reported him?

It couldn't have been. Why you ask? because it would make "Jehovah" sad.......(

I was asking because you made the claim that it wasn't an elder when in fact you do not know. It makes your other arguments lose effect because one cannot be sure if you are just guessing.

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Lots of money is being taken from the wt because of their failure to report when they are aware of the abuse happening. 

Not necessarily. Just because there is a lawsuit doesn't mean the plaintiff will win. It all depends on whether the court recognizes the law's self made problem, that of making clergy exempt from reporting. If it does, then elders cannot be blamed for not reporting. Of course this does not stop anyone else from reporting, which as has been seen, has been the case.

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Let me ask you something:

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled Kendrick and his potential to harm more children? 

I don't know. It's their word against Candace's. The elders claimed they were watching Kendrick, and that he did not go in service alone with any child.

As for potential,  then all members of the congregation should be watched as anyone has the potential to harm children.

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Your prerogative, yes, however you've been trained not to because it would bring reproach on the name "Jehovah" aka. the wt. 

I don't remember being trained not to report a member of the congregation if I suspect them of committing a crime.

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

But you know what she did get? Publicity! That right there opened the flood gates to give courage to others who were abused, to stand up and do something about it.

I would like to make one thing clear, I personally welcome any change that helps to make children safer. I also have no doubts that all Jehovah’s Witnesses feel the same. If it means lawsuits is the way to go, then so be it, I am not against that at all. I believe the Australian Royal Commission helped in making JW child protection policies more transparent, and helped in some necessary changes and adjustments. The lawsuits are also helping in avoiding ‘mistakes’ and ‘oversight’ and are promoting extra vigilance in protecting children. If along the road there are ‘casualties’, since no court of justice always metes out justice, so be it if it helps a child. My arguments with the Candace Conti case was not to defend child molesters, (obviously!) but to fairly asses the case as far as it was possible for an amateur (me) (I have read all the hundreds of pages of the court transcript) and I have my own opinion on the Conti case.  No one will really know the true story, however, I agree with you, that if it has helped others to come forward, then it is a good thing.

And even IF some of those judgements end up wrong, it adds to the motive to protect children as far as humanly possible. And if it means that it restricts the freedom of adults (one elder told me that if he is using the rest room, and a young brother walks in, the elder leaves, and waits for the young brother to be done, before he walks back in, just so that there can never be any accusation) then so be it. And if it means a father cannot be alone with his own children then so be it. And if it means a mother cannot be alone with her own children so be it. Every adult and every relative, parent or step parent can be a potential child molester and a danger to their own children, step children and their children’s friends and should be watched so they are never alone with any child. After all, the ultimate goal is that no child is sexually molested in the first place, not just that a survivor gets compensated for the harm they have suffered.   

[Shiwiii]

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

I was asking because you made the claim that it wasn't an elder when in fact you do not know. It makes your other arguments lose effect because one cannot be sure if you are just guessing.

Court transcripts:

In February 1994, Evelyn and Andrea reported Kendrick's July 1993 sexual abuse of Andrea to the Fremont Police Department ("Fremont Police") and to Child Protective Services---Conti-Watchtower_North_Freemont_Cong._appellate_brief.pdf

 

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Not necessarily. Just because there is a lawsuit doesn't mean the plaintiff will win. It all depends on whether the court recognizes the law's self made problem, that of making clergy exempt from reporting. If it does, then elders cannot be blamed for not reporting. Of course this does not stop anyone else from reporting, which as has been seen, has been the case.

$35 million in Montana

Fessler settlement 

Conti

Campos

16 cases handled by Love & Norris law firm and a pay out of over $13 million

just to name a few and I am sure there will be plenty more to come. 

And again I ask:   

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled any of these cases? 

17 minutes ago, Anna said:

I don't remember being trained not to report a member of the congregation if I suspect them of committing a crime.

Of course you don't. It doesn't work that way. 

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

I would like to make one thing clear, I personally welcome any change that helps to make children safer. I also have no doubts that all Jehovah’s Witnesses feel the same. If it means lawsuits is the way to go, then so be it, I am not against that at all. I believe the Australian Royal Commission helped in making JW child protection policies more transparent, and helped in some necessary changes and adjustments. The lawsuits are also helping in avoiding ‘mistakes’ and ‘oversight’ and are promoting extra vigilance in protecting children. If along the road there are ‘casualties’, since no court of justice always metes out justice, so be it if it helps a child. 

I am glad to hear you say these things. I think we all want this. 

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

My arguments with the Candace Conti case was not to defend child molesters, (obviously!) but to fairly asses the case as far as it was possible for an amateur (me) (I have read all the hundreds of pages of the court transcript) and I have my own opinion on the Conti case.  No one will really know the true story, however, I agree with you, that if it has helped others to come forward, then it is a good thing.

if it helps others , I agree. 

 

20 minutes ago, Anna said:

And even IF some of those judgements end up wrong, it adds to the motive to protect children as far as humanly possible. And if it means that it restricts the freedom of adults (one elder told me that if he is using the rest room, and a young brother walks in, the elder leaves, and waits for the young brother to be done, before he walks back in, just so that there can never be any accusation) then so be it. And if it means a father cannot be alone with his own children then so be it. And if it means a mother cannot be alone with her own children so be it. Every adult and every relative, parent or step parent can be a potential child molester and a danger to their own children, step children and their children’s friends and should be watched so they are never alone with any child. After all, the ultimate goal is that no child is sexually molested in the first place, not just that a survivor gets compensated for the harm they have suffered.   

I think some of what you said in this paragraph is a little extreme, but I get the gist of what you are saying. Restricting people shouldn't be the answer, reporting it to those who are trained to handle such cases is.

I really want to know your opinion on this, Do YOU think it is right that elders are to contact the legal dept and not the police? 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

44 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I really want to know your opinion on this, Do YOU think it is right that elders are to contact the legal dept and not the police? 

More appropriately, does one think it is right to contact the POLICE about criminal matters FIRST?

...... and then as a follow up, contact the Society's Legal Department!

The Elders will NOT tell you what is going on.

Bypass them!

 

[Shiwiii]

5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

More appropriately, does one think it is right to contact the POLICE about criminal matters FIRST?

...... and then as a follow up, contact the Society's Legal Department!

The Elders will NOT tell you what is going on.

Bypass them!

 

I agree with you.       Why can't the wt see this as well?     Why does it take force to do the right thing?    Why does it take secular laws to force the wt to be Christ-like? 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Arrogance and Narcissism run amok.

.... When people self appoint themselves as God's representatives.

[Anna]

6 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

And again I ask:   

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled any of these cases? 

I cannot say because I do not know the details of all these cases. But it leads me to your other question:

6 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I really want to know your opinion on this, Do YOU think it is right that elders are to contact the legal dept and not the police? 

Personally? Personally think that if an elder/elders are convinced that there is a legitimate cause for concern then they should report it to the police, and if necessary, not in the capacity as elders, to whom a confession or report has been made, but as congregation members who have come to know of a cause for concern.

The reason why elders are to call legal is to see whether they are mandated reporters or not. This clergy penitence stuff should be abolished by the law, it is archaic and harmful. Unfortunately, the organization seems to think it has to abide by that law. One reason is that if an elder learns of a matter that has been disclosed in confidence to them by a victim, then the victim has the right to decide whether the matter should be taken to the police or not. Not the one to whom the matter was disclosed in confidence. 

It has to be remembered that just because an elder applies clergy confidentiality, this does not mean that anyone else in the congregation is bound by it. Anyone and everyone has the right to make a report, even if unsubstantiated! In many states, a person who has suspicions, which are later found to be unfounded, is protected by law and they cannot be sued for defamation. However, a person (elder) acting as clergy, who has broken the clergy penitence privilege, can be sued for divulging what has been told to them in confidence (in states where clergy privilege applies). This also applies to lawyers. If you disclose a private matter to a lawyer, that lawyer cannot go to the police without your consent, no matter the crime.

Most of the lawsuits involve the debate whether at the time of disclosure, the elders were mandated reporters or not. This is the case of the Montana lawsuit. I discuss this in detail in the JW closed club. If the court decides that the elders were not mandated reporters, then the whole thing flies out of the window.

In any case, personally I think that elders should not claim clergy penitence privilege regardless. They are not clergy. However, in the eyes of the legal system, their function is clerical....so you see, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. This is why he best thing would be if the law would do away with clergy penitence, period. One state legislator in Kentucky tried to get this law abolished in 2003, but it did not pass. Kentucky remains one of the clergy penitence states.

This is what the article stated in part:

January 10, 2003

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A state legislator has outraged religious groups by introducing a bill that would abolish the right clergy now have to stay silent when they learn in a confessional that a child has been abused.

The legislation strikes at a central Christian tenet that is also written into state law, guaranteeing confidentiality when priests or ministers are acting as spiritual advisers.

"People are not going to violate their oath," said the Rev. Nancy Jo Kemper, a Protestant minister. "They'll go to jail."

Kentucky already requires members of the public, including clergy, to notify civil authorities about child abuse if they learn about the wrongdoing outside of the confessional.

But Democratic Rep. Susan Westrom, a former therapist who worked with abused children, felt the law should go further.

Under her proposal, the "clergy-penitent privilege" would be eliminated only in cases of child abuse or neglect.

The Catholic Conference of Kentucky said Westrom's legislation violated the First Amendment right of religious freedom. A similar bill proposed last year in Connecticut failed.

"This is not a victims' rights issue," said Scott Wegenast, the conference's lobbyist in Frankfort. "It violates a tenet of our faith, the sacrament of penance, which is an absolutely confidential conversation between the penitent and a priest and it cannot abridged."

Under church law, a priest who disclosed a confession could be excommunicated, Wegenast said.

Kentucky has been hit especially hard by the sex abuse crisis that has battered the Catholic church nationwide.

"No right is absolute, whether it's free speech or free assembly or free religion," David Clohessy, national director of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. "If an exception is to be made to the clergy-penitent privilege, I think this is a smart and good one to make."

Like I said, this Bill did not pass. So today,  2019, if a disclosure is made to an elder in Kentucky in confidence, then the elder has no duty to report it to the police. Obviously anyone else can.