Jump to content
The World News Media

Did Jehovah’s Witnesses Lie to the Montana Court About Confidentiality?


Patiently waiting for Truth
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member

    Hello guest!

by 
    Hello guest!

As many activists know, the Montana Supreme Court reversed a $35 million judgment against Jehovah's Witnesses recently, in a case involving the religion's failure to report child sex abuse to the authorities. (See 

    Hello guest!
.)

Confidentiality Trumps Mandatory Reporting Laws

The court noted when religious authorities are exempt from the state's mandatory reporting laws; from page 14 of 

    Hello guest!
:

"Clergy are not required to report known or suspected child abuse if the knowledge results from a congregation member’s confidential communication or confession and if the person making the statement does not consent to disclosure."

In other words, if someone communicates something to their clergy and expects that information to remain confidential, that clergy member is not required to report that information to authorities or anyone else.

Jehovah's Witnesses Promise Confidentiality to Congregants

The decision by the state justices referred to statements made by Dave Chappel,¹ "a Jehovah’s Witnesses Service Department elder designated by the Watchtower and CCJW [The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses] boards of directors to serve as their representative in this litigation":

chappel2

In short, Chappel argued that congregants in the religion are promised that things discussed with elders remain strictly confidential. Chappel used this promise of confidentiality as a legal argument against requirements of reporting child sex abuse to the authorities.

The Deception Over "Confidentiality"

There is a problem with this so-called promise of confidentiality, however. The 2010 edition of "Shepherd the Flock of God," the handbook used by Jehovah's Witness elders, chapter 7, paragraph 15, says:

chappel3

These instructions are repeated in the 2019 versions of the "Shepherd" book, in chapter 15, paragraph 15.

In other words, these so-called promises of keeping things confidential are rubbish. Elders are outright instructed to share things said during judicial committee cases with other elders, the circuit overseer, and the branch office as they see fit, without informing the "wrongdoer."

I'm not a lawyer so I have no input as to how this information affects any legal case, if at all. However, set that aside; from a moral point of view Jehovah's Witnesses were, at the very least, downright deceitful in their arguments. They don't ensure confidentiality during the judicial committee process, even instructing elders to use someone's name in certain discussions and to not tell that person that they'll be sharing their supposed confidential information.

Whatever anyone's legal arguments and outcome of any court case, there is no doubt in my mind that Jehovah's Witnesses continuously fail child sex abuse victims in their religion. They keep the secrets of molesters, fail to warn parents, fail to notify authorities, fight victims in court, and say whatever they can to protect their assets over their children.

I'm heartbroken over how the court's decision must make those victims feel, and knowing that the case was reversed based on a dishonesty obviously doesn't make things any easier to accept.

*** ***

¹It's my understanding that the person's name was Douglas, not Dave.

*** ***

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This came through to me today, so I thought I'd share it. 

Whilst I don't fully agree with massive payouts to victims (or lawyers), I do agree with a payout of a reasonable amount accompanied with an apology from the Org. It never puts the wrong, right. It never can. But it would give the Victim a closure and a sort of 'contentment' of actually being believed. 

Yes i know that lawyers and solicitors rub their hands greedily for their financial gain, but that must be on both sides i would think. Or do the GB's lawyers do it out of love ? 

One thing this article does point out for sure, is that there is no confidentiality within JW Org, they just share the secrets amongst themselves. Hopefully more brothers and sisters will gain a better conscience and report any wrongdoings to Police and Authorities as it still seems that Elders are exempt from doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.5k
  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Confidentiality: "There are two views held by state courts regarding confidentiality as it pertains to clergy privilege. In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication. In one-third of the states, privileged communication means a communication made in confidence only to the minister, with no third person present". Taken from: Hello guest!

If people in the 1st century were homosexuals before learning the truth of God's Kingdom and Christ' sin atoning blood became anointed, what is the difference today. The GB members are no different than any other witnesses, they just have been giving opportunity to direct the organization.They have not been blessed with an Apostleship and Outward Displays of Holy Spirit as some of them were. Like us, and those in the 1st century, they repented and left ungodly practices behind and are

There is no way you can "suit yourself" in a secular  court of law - you fight to win....... to expect otherwise is unjust.  If you lose while innocent and obeying God (like brothers in Russia) one serves the penalty and then try to appeal within the secular law system they have created. 4jah2me, if your sense of justice is still outraged :  I understand..but do not forget, even if a guilty person gets away with something like murder, rape, etc. Jehovah sees everything and he will compensat

Posted Images

  • Member
12 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Confidentiality by lawyers and clergy is guaranteed by law.  Please read CNN news! 

JW elders are clergy and WT Lawyers have said so! The JWorg website for the public has "erroneous" information about this subject. :))

When will this "new light" about the WT Society Management structure come out titled, 
"
What exactly are the elders in fact?", and will this be announced and presented during meetings to members, as a "clarification"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Here is the way to look at events in Montana: I wrote it up this morning and posted on my blog. Reproduced here:

After the multi-million dollar verdict against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Montana was reversed, I visited the Witness-bashing website to see how they were taking it. They were not happy. However, the ones who knew law were analytical.

“This isn’t the fault of the courts,” one said. “It’s the fault of the Montana law as written. Courts must follow law or risk reversal on appeal. This case was never going to be ultimately won. The law was way too clear on the matter.”

Another: “Montana followed the law. It’s that simple and of course Watchtower followed the law...”

Yet another: “The case never should have been started, as the law clearly backed JW’s actions. It never had a chance of surviving appeal.”

They sure didn’t talk that way after the first trial. Some of their cohorts wanted to rub my nose—line by line—through that first transcript. ‘The court found your people guilty, TrueTom! Why would they do that unless they had broke the law—they who say they adhere to the law!’ I didn’t respond because I am not a lawyer that would try to unravel their affairs. Moreover, courts, while they may represent the best human justice available, are clearly not above bias from pre-existing philosophical leanings—if they were confirming a Supreme Court Justice would take ten minutes. ‘Wait until the fat lady sings,’ was my attitude. When she did, it was to throw out the judgement of the skinny lady.

Not all were so retrospective after that reversal. “F**k the Montana Supreme Court!” was the outraged complaint woven throughout the thread, with some accusing those seven justices (the reversal was 7-0) of being enablers themselves! Child sexual abuse is the most white-hot topic of all and calm heads rarely prevail. One of them muttered at how they must be “celebrating this victory” at Watchtower HQ. But they showed no sign of it. The Witness attorney summed up events: “There are no winners in a case involving child abuse. ‘No child should ever be subjected to such a debased crime....Tragically, it happens, and when it does Jehovah's Witnesses follow the law. This is what the Montana Supreme Court has established.’” Obviously if one is on the hook for several million dollars and then no longer is, they will not mourn over it. But the focus was kept on the victim, as it should have been. Ideally, she gets full justice from the perpetrator directly responsible.

The gold standard in matters of child sexual abuse is to “go beyond the law.” It is a crazy expectation and I can think of no parallels to it. The expectation is found in a remark already presented, but in truncated form. The full remark was: “Montana followed the law. It’s that simple and of course Watchtower followed the law, rather than just simply reporting child abuse like a good Christian organization.”

If the gold standard regarding child abuse is to “go beyond the law” then MAKE that the law! That’s what law is for! Three times before the ARC Geoffrey Jackson pleaded for such a change—it would make his job “so much easier.” ‘Going beyond the law’ is surely to trigger the wrath of those who, not unreasonably, expect you to abide by the law! Change the law and everyone is happy.

As though on cue, a report surfaced regarding another faith. An Oregon woman has filed a lawsuit for $9 million against the Mormon church because they DID report a confidentially disclosed sexual abuse of a minor. “Clergy are not required to report known or suspected child abuse if the knowledge results from a congregation member's confidential communication or confession and if the person making the statement does not consent to disclosure," Justice Beth Baker wrote in the Montana Supreme Court opinion. It is a statement that will clearly help the Oregon woman, but would not if it were not the law. Change the law if you are really serious about nabbing pedophiles.

The way everything unfolded in Montana pretty well accords with my initial assessment. So great is the world”s frustration at not being able to make a dent in the child sexual abuse pandemic that the first court chose to ignore law in pursuit of that end. It might well be combined with some religious bias, but I would not hang my hat on the latter—outrage over child sexual abuse is sufficient in itself. The Witness organization did follow law, as the Supreme Count validated, but the first court reinterpreted law and made it retroactive to make it seem that they did not. I 

    Hello guest!

Change the law! Why cannot that be done? If Watchtower wants to change a policy, they can do it overnight and have it implemented worldwide within the week. It is the basket-case eternally squabbling, turf-guarding, plethora of competing jurisdictions that cause many Witnesses to become Witnesses in the first place—they see how hopeless it is with human governments.

Ones who want to bring the Watchtower down on the pretext of child sexual abuse, such as those who predominate at the Witness bashing site, are hardly out of bullets, but they are continually frustrated. Their efforts to put Witness stories above all others gains little traction because the pattern elsewhere is that the leaders of organizations, religious or otherwise, are the abusers themselves, something rarely true with the Witness organization, and also that child sexual abuse appears to be the primary export of the planet, crowding out stories of “lesser” significance. With Watchtower (as in Montana) the situation is typically that of abuse within a family or step-family and Witness leaders come under the gun for evoking law and not reporting it, leaving that up to the persons involved—sometimes they do but often they don’t. History may well judge that harshly, but it does not hold a candle to leaders actually committing the abuse themselves. The 

    Hello guest!
 that I wrote about was similarly dismissed. Moreover, that contributing perception—that it is a disgrace to call attention to child sexual abuse—
    Hello guest!

The Epstein joke making the rounds is: “If you were surprised at Jeff Epstein committing suicide, just think how surprised he must have been!” Of course. With prison security protocol breaking down “at every level” and with 60 Minutes concluding that his injuries far suggest homicide over suicide, the conclusion that he was put to sleep by powerful interests to protect other pedophiles will never be squashed. People are naive, but not that naive. 

A DisneyLand executive was recently sentenced for pedophile offenses, and Erin Elizabeth of HealthNutNews, who has lived in the area, says it happens all the time. The point is, there is no place where child sexual abuse is not, but participants on the anti-JW site see it in only one place—a place where its intensity pales next to places where leaders are the abusers, not just ones trying to stem it who may have done so clumsily.

Thirty years into all-out war against child sexual abuse and barely a dent has been made! For my money, the JW organization is the most proactive of all, gathering every single member on earth to consider detailed scenarios in which child abuse might happen—if there are sleepovers, if there are tickling sessions, if there are unsupervised trips to the rest room, if someone, even a relative, shows unusual interest in your child, and so forth—so that parents, the obvious first line of defense, can be on the alert. This was done at the 2017 Regional Conventions, which were held globally.

It is the common and accepted legal practice to go as high up on the food chain as possible with regard to any lawsuit—everyone knows this and judges it an unremarkable fact of life. “Knew or should have known” is the legal expression that carries the day and effectively amounts to a tax on the common person. Governments raise taxes. Businesses raise prices. When I hear that my neighbor’s lawyer secured him millions of dollars for his auto accident, I rejoice with him—then I open my insurance premium bill.

As people become ever more debased, just where does this end? Women on airlines are reporting sexual abuse. Even rape has been reported, and with passengers being packed in like sardines, attendants expected to monitor this are caught dumbfounded. Do they “know or should have known?” In an increasingly depraved world, your guess is as good as mine.

As to sentiment on the Witness-bashing website? Look, whenever one discards a scenario in which there is discipline for one in which there is not, it will be like releasing a compressed spring—it rebounds wildly, delirious with its newfound freedom, caring not where it goes. This will be true when one leaves behind the school, the military, or the job. It will especially be true if one quit or was expelled from that institution—and that is the case of most on the anti-JW site. Many of them have come out as gay. Witnesses may not gay-bash as do some evangelicals, some of whom froth on the subject and tirelessly prod legislators to make it hot for gays in general society—Witnesses don’t do that—still, there is no place for gay relations within the Witness organization—and that hardly endears them to former members who have gone that way. There is a plain backdrop of ‘settling the score’ to be detected in many posts. It is anything but easy to hold the line on Bible morality in a quickly changing world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@TrueTomHarley  I read half of it Tom, but you do tend to go over the top. 

One thing i find quite funny is the FACT that the GB / JW Org change the use of their conscience when it affects their bank account.

In many countries JW Preaching is AGAINST THE LAW.  But as the apostles said 'We must obey God as ruler rather than men'. So in many countries Witnesses deliberately break the law to preach. 

BUT, the GB / JW Org won't 'break the law' to protect young children from being Sexually Abused. 

Even if it it not a legal requirement' to report, SURELY it IS a requirement from GOD through CHRIST to report all forms of Abuse, Child or Adult, to those authorities which GOD HAD PUT IN PLACE.  

    Hello guest!
  James 1 v 27 
Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

    Hello guest!
 Romans 13 v 1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    Hello guest!

Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God.

Your GB and its Org have no excuse. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Confidentiality by lawyers and clergy is guaranteed by law.  Please read CNN news! 

    Hello guest!

 

"Church stands by its decision

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said it considers protecting victims a top priority, and has a 24-hour help line to report abuse. "
 
It seems that they have more of a conscience and better morality than the GB and JW org. They may have broken man's law but they obeyed God's law. 
And no I do not want to be a Mormon. 
But I think there is a scripture somewhere that says something like, 'when those without law do the things of the law' And of course it is talking about God's law not man's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Another: “Montana followed the law. It’s that simple and of course Watchtower followed the law...”

If Montana have such law than that is obviously lawful how Supreme Court of Montana found elements that released elders and WT and Congregation from responsibility of such report. I am not expert to read documents in such a way and to see what is what into details.

What is interesting, again, from several cases and Court documents known to public, is very strong interest of WT Society and JW elders to be considered in front, before secular authorities, as clergy, priesthood with all legal rights as Catholic clergy. In fact WT lawyers using Catholic clergy as example, how they want to be treated in the exactly same way.  

WT Society, elders and regular members have history of preaching against all religions and theirs priesthood who are instruments of satan, and how these churches and their priesthood lies to people and teach falsehoods. But now WT Society asking, in fact demands to be treated exactly in the same way, to be in same level of "spiritual position, authority" that have Catholic clergy. That is something disgusting, for observers. When taking such position, JW elders drinking "same wine of adultery" with their Catholic "colleagues".      

JW church has not "confession" doctrine  as Catholic church has. 

    Hello guest!
Why? Because, JW church had not clergy ....until now :))) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Quote @TrueTomHarley "..  because the pattern elsewhere is that the leaders of organizations, religious or otherwise, are the abusers themselves, something rarely true with the Witness organization, .. "

Tom you would not know. Because the GB and their lawyers are withholding over 20 years worth of Child Sexual Abuse details in America. How can you possibly know who names are in there ? 

For you to state that it is rare amongst the JW Org for its 'leaders' to be involved, you would need to have access to those files. 

Some on here have even said that GB members were homosexuals. And it was also said that a GB member had been accused of sexually abusing someone in Bethel.  I think this information came from JWI. My apologies to JWI if I'm wrong.

Oh and I read the rest of your comment which I knew would be a total waste of my time, and it was. You go of on a tangent talking about world affairs and then you go 'gay-bashing' but pretend not to be. Then you do your normal JW thing by blaming those that tell the truth about your GB and JW Org.  You try to turn the tables on those people that have found true faults in your Org. You use that stupid old pretence that all people that find fault must be d/fed JWs. Sorry Tom that idea died long ago. Although you don't admit it, there are REAL VICTIMS of CSA  that have PROVEN that Elders and others have misused their 'authority' in the Org and hidden the truth and/or lied about CSA in the JW Org. 

But keep up your story telling Tom, some naive ones might believe you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

For you to state that it is rare amongst the JW Org for its 'leaders' to be involved, you would need to have access to those files. 

Not everything in life is dependent upon “access to files.” Sometimes looking at what is right in front of your nose is enough.

Montana is typical of other CSA Witness cases—no involvement whatsoever of elders other than their role of persons who did not report. Other organizations you do not hear of CSA unless it is one of the leaders arrested for it. Other than a rotter in San Diego, are there any such cases with JWs?

As it turns out, I have it on excellent authority that each and every person you have interacted with over the past year is a disgusting pervert. How do I know that? Easy. It is in the files that are hidden from me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Hopefully more brothers and sisters will gain a better conscience and report any wrongdoings to Police and Authorities as it still seems that Elders are exempt from doing so. 

I think that is the general idea, and that we have seen the last of any pedophiles or child molesters getting away with their disgusting crime. Also, I think anyone thinking about doing anything disgusting to children will think twice about it. (However, there is the problem of new people coming in, they may not be aware of this strict child policy. But I do know that brothers who are being considered for appointment as elders are asked if there is anything in the past that would disqualify them from taking up this position).  I do not expect to see any more new cases in the coming years. I think if any cases come to light now, it will be from the past.

A few months ago I researched the Montana case quite extensively (I read the 400 or so page court transcript) and posted some of my "observations" in the Private JW Club. This was another classic instance of  "a dirty old step dad/grandad molests step children and then years later a step grandchild". (If memory serves right, I think this happened about 10 years ago). The step daughter with the grandchild knew that her step dad had molested her sister, and despite that, she brought her child (the grandchild) to his house for baby sitting because of convenience sake. I don't think this sat too well with the Jury, since it was evident she had knowingly put her child in harms way. Most of the members of that family were not very strong in the truth, and one of the victim's claim was thrown out of court as unreliable (basically she made some stuff up).

I have not followed up on the results of the lawsuit, so thanks for posting that. Anyway, what I remember from reading the transcript is that it all seemed to hang on clergy privilege law in Montana. You might already know this, but each state in USA has their own state laws. Some states have no clergy confidentiality, and others do. Then there is the issue of "what exactly is meant by "confidential". Does this mean no one but the one whom the confidential issue was disclosed to knows? If I remember right, what had to be established by the court was: whose definition of confidentiality was going to be used. Was it going to be the "Catholic" version, where only the priest knows, or was it going to be the particular religions version, in other words what that particular religion viewed as confidential. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, confidentiality is not the same as the Catholic version of confidentiality. As we know, when a JW judicial matter is said to be confidential, it means that more than just one elder gets to know the matter and in the case of CSA, advice is sought from the branch office as to reporting laws, i.e. what does the law for that particular state say about reporting? So here we already have perhaps more than 4 people who know about the matter. However, in this version of confidentiality, only those persons who are involved in handling the matter know. No one outside of that circle is privy to this information*. Also, another criteria for the Catholic version of confidentiality is that the penitent must approach the cleric, the confessional.  However, with the Witnesses, this is not always the case. The perpetrator is approached by the elders, as it was in this case. So, although I haven't read the report yet, it appears that the state of Montana recognizes a religion's interpretation of confidentiality, therefor they deemed the JW version as confidential information. So it wasn't because the elders were lying about confidentiality in order to deceive the court. The transcript clearly showed that the elders said how they proceeded, so the court was well aware the that more than one person knew, and that the elders on the judicial committee also called the branch for consultation. There was no deceit on the part of the elders.

* It just occurred to me that if no one outside the confidential circle was to know, then parents of other children were not to find out either. However, this is not the case now. When it is established that there may be concern over the behavior of someone in the congregation, then the parents of any children in that congregation are notified. So really, now there is no confidentiality for the sake of protecting the children. So, I wonder how we can even claim clergy penitence now, because of that. It seems this would be a moot issue with any new cases. It makes me see how in contrast, the other version of clergy penitence is a danger to children, because the priest must not tell anyone else. This is why I think it's stupid for any state or country to have this outdated religious law written in their secular law. Some states are trying to abolish this, but religious tradition is so closely intertwined with politics that it may never happen. Especially not in predominantly Catholic countries....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Anna said:

In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication.

That "third" person appears (to me) to be someone who helped write or translate a letter for the penitent, or who helped translate the person's voice or words from another language (including sign language).

It was interesting that the same site you quote also included:

It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse.

It gives the impression that it's rare that a minister would ever get in trouble for revealing a confidentiality, but that they would never get in trouble for breaching the confidentiality of child abuse by letting the authorities know.

When these laws are invoked to say it was OK for Witness ministers to keep the child abuse secret, it's contrary to the spirit of these current laws about privilege and confidentiality in child abuse cases. They are intended to protect the child, and make sure that the minister does not get in trouble for revealing confidentiality. But we still seem to be asking for these rules to be invoked to protect the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Witness
      Montana sees flurry of child sex abuse lawsuits as deadline approaches
      The one-year window Montana lawmakers opened to give child sex abuse survivors a chance to bring old claims is closing soon, and a flurry of lawsuits is hitting the courts.
      Adults who were abused as children have until May 6 to bring claims otherwise barred by the statute of limitations. The Montana Legislature created the window in 2019, prompted by news of a lawsuit against James “Doc” Jensen, a Miles City high school athletic trainer 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  while working with the district between the 1970s and 1990s.  After May 6, various restrictions are reinstated on which claims can be brought. Factors include age of the victim, and whether the abuser is still alive. 
      On Friday, two sisters sued in U.S. District Court in Billings, accusing the Jehovah’s Witness Church of failing to act after Bruce Mapley Sr. and Gunner Haines admitted to sexually abusing them in the 1970s. Mapley and Haines confessed to Martin Svensen, senior elder of the Hardin congregation, who investigated the allegations, “and was himself engaged in serious sexual abuse of children,” according to attorneys with the Missoula law firm Meyer, Shaffer & Stepans.
      The church temporarily relieved the men of their duties but reinstated them within a year, attorneys say. And while church elders told the congregation that the men had committed a wrongdoing, they gave no more information, the attorneys say, and the abuse continued.
      On Wednesday, three men filed individual lawsuits in state court in Great Falls, echoing a flurry of other plaintiffs around the country who say the Boy Scouts of America turned a blind eye when troop leaders abused them. Assistant Scoutmaster John McBride in Libby, Camp Director Gary Greff at the Grizzly Base Camp and K-M Scout Ranch, and leader Roger Maddox, of Great Falls are all named.
      One of those plaintiffs, 57-year-old Chris Ford, said the ability to make a claim now will help him heal. He didn’t talk about it for decades, after telling his parents when it happened.
      Ford hopes the lawsuit leads to more information about the scope of the cover-up.
      “I want to know just how prolific the abuse was,” Ford said. “You know, I just thought mine was an isolated case, and come to find out there are hundreds of thousands of potential victims.”
      Mike Pfau, a Seattle attorney representing Ford, told The Washington Post in February that there were likely 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  across the country. Also on Wednesday, Freedom Church Assembly of God was accused in a lawsuit filed in state court in Billings of allowing former pastor David Harvey to groom a 15-year-old in his church office, setting the stage for later sexual assaults that took place at Harvey’s home, according to the lawsuit.
        The boy’s mother reported the abuse to senior pastor Sam Benson, but the church did not follow up with any reports to law enforcement, child protection workers or other authorities, according to attorneys John Heenan and Joe Cook. 
      Heenan, who also represented plaintiffs in the Jensen case, said he hopes anyone still considering bringing a lawsuit under the one-year window does, "so they can protect their rights." They have one week. 
      The legislation to open the one-year window on old claims 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. . Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Witness
      The Montana case has been re-filed!
      As of February 6th, 2020, plaintiffs Nunez and McGowan have re-filed their claim in Sanders county, where the original trial was held. 
      I know I am going to get a lot of questions on this case so please be patient. 
      To give you the short explanation, this case is being filed on the basis of willful negligence on the part of Thompson Falls elders, Watch Tower Pennsylvania, and Watchtower of New York.
      The original trial was predicated upon the decision by Judge Manley that Watchtower had broken Montana's mandatory reporting law. While we believe this to be correct, the Supreme Court decided that Watchtower was entitled to the clergy-penitent loophole, indicating that they had no choice but to allow Jehovah's Witnesses to take advantage of this poorly-written law.
      Now that the Montana Supreme court has made this ruling, this case reverts back to some decisions which were rendered prior to the trial involving negligence. 
      The simple way to say this is that Lexi and Holly's attorneys were not given the opportunity to properly make their case for negligence because the judge had already assessed fault to Watchtower for failure to report. 
      Hence we are going back to the drawing board in making the assertion that despite Montana's laws, Watchtower and the elders will still willfully negligent in their practices.
      Another way to say this is that even when a person or organization is technically innocent of breaking a law, they can still be sued for negligence. 
      In the Montana case, the elders were absolutely negligent in failing to warn and protect Lexi and Holly after learning of the dangers of being cared for by a known child predator. 
      Additionally, there have been updates in Montana law following the 2018 trial where the Statues of Limitations for civil liability have been extended, and which allow Lexi to file her case once again without fear of the expiration of SOL.
      And finally, we have one more piece of news in this case: 
      Watch Tower of Pennsylvania has been added as a defendant in this case, despite the vocal protests of Watchtower attorneys from New York. There have been additional revelations and documents secured which contradict Watchtower's original claims that Watch Tower Pennsylvania is not involved in child abuse cases, and that they are only involved in copyright matters. 
      Documents obtained reveal that Watch Tower Pennsylvania has assets well exceeding one billion dollars, plus multiple offshore bank accounts and investments. 
      I want to thank everyone who has ever provided leaked information, documents, and details which provide proof that all of these Watchtower corporations are just alter egos for one another and for the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
      Enough is enough. It's time to pull back the veil of secrecy and hold this organization accountable for its destructive influence upon millions of followers, particularly the vulnerable children who have suffered for so long. 
      WE'RE GOING BACK TO MONTANA!!


      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
    • By Srecko Sostar
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.    ALEXIS NUNEZ and HOLLY McGOWAN, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and THOMPSON FALLS CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, Defendants and Appellants. __________________________________ WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and THOMPSON FALLS CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, Third-Party Plaintiffs, and Appellants, v. MAXIMO NAVA REYES and IVY McGOWAN-CASTLEBERRY, Third-Party Defendants and Appellees. Oral Argument; is set for September, 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in the Northern Hotel, Billings Montana.
      In 2004, two congregants informed the Elders of the Thompson Falls Congregation that congregant Maximo Reyes had sexually abused them when they were children. The Thompson Falls Elders contacted the Elders at the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the legal department at Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (Watchtower) for advice. Per the advice they received, the Thompson Falls Elders kept the matter confidential and did not report it to authorities.
      Beginning in 2002, Reyes began to sexually abuse his step-granddaughter, who also attended services at the Thompson Falls Kingdom Hall, often accompanied by Reyes. In 2016, Reyes’ step-granddaughter filed this complaint, alleging Defendants had failed to report abuse as mandated by § 41-3-201(2)(h), and that Defendants were liable for the harm she suffered from Reyes’ abuse after they were told of Reyes abusing other children. The District Court found the Defendants liable for her harm as a matter of law. A jury awarded her compensatory damages of $4 million and punitive damages of $31 million. The District Court upheld the punitive damages award upon review.
      On appeal, Defendants argue that: the District Court erred in finding Defendants liable as a matter of law; the jury’s award of punitive damages is not justified; the District Court erred in upholding punitive damages in excess of the statutory cap; and the punitive damages against Defendant Watchtower violates the U.S. Constitution.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Witness
      From John Redwood...
      A preview of upcoming news:
      Jehovah's Witnesses are appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States, but this time it has nothing to do with preaching or saluting the flag.
      It's all about child abuse.
      Specifically, the protection (or cover-up) of information, documents, and testimony of persons involved in cases of child abuse.
      I will be covering this story in the coming weeks and months, but I thought I would share some of this news and try to distill it down as simply as I can.
      I'd like to point out first that Watchtower has appealed to the Supreme Court in connection with their loss of yet another California child abuse case. The chance that Watchtower's appeal being will be heard by the Supreme Court is slim, but anything is possible.
      What brought this about?
      There are many ongoing civil child abuse cases in California. One such case is J.W. versus Watchtower. J.W. happens to be the initials for the victim of former JW elder Gilbert Simental, who went on a spree of molestation which touched the lives of numerous victims.
      As with other cases, the plaintiff demanded that Watchtower turn over to the court a database of child abuse cases known to be maintained by Watchtower of New York.
      In this particular case, because Watchtower failed to turn over the documents in a timely manner, attorneys asked for a default judgment of just over 4 million dollars.
      The court agreed with the plaintiff and entered a default judgment in that amount. Watchtower was required to post a bond of more than 6 million dollars while their appeal was pending.
      Watchtower lost their appeal, and the decision of the court was upheld. This decision is final- with one exception.
      Watchtower has decided to appeal to the United States Supreme court on the basis that their judicial hearings related to child abuse matters are "confidential intra-faith communications" and that they do not, and should not, reveal those communications or documents to anyone, including civil courts.
      I'd like to make it very clear what Watchtower is doing here. They are fighting for their right NOT to allow civil authorities to dictate what is confidential, and what is not confidential.
      All of this is in relation to their claim that elders do not have the right or duty to report child abuse to the authorities.
      Watchtower overtly lies to their members by claiming that they obey secular laws, except when they conflict with God's laws.
      Yet they break the law every single time by advising elders NOT to report child abuse to the authorities.
      It does NOT matter whether child abuse occurs in a mandatory reporting state- elders STILL do not report to the police because Watchtower has told them that ALL of their communications are protected by clergy-penitent privilege.
      This is false- and it is exactly why they are losing tens of millions of dollars in child abuse civil cases. Watchtower advises elders to break the law.
      And now they want the Supreme Court of the United States to agree with them.
      The claim that the state of California has unfairly targeted Jehovah's Witnesses and "intruded upon matters of church governance."
      Why???
      How does compliance with mandatory child abuse reporting laws conflict with God's laws? It doesn't. This is a fabrication of Watchtower attorneys working for the Governing Body, and it's become quite clear that they feel that compliance with these civil laws will spell disaster for their religion.
      And they might be right.
      If Jehovah's Witnesses did the right thing and complied with the law, they would lose the tight grip of control over their elder bodies in ways which frighten the hell out of them.
      There is a whole lot more to this story as well as the underlying cases involved, but I wanted to let you know what's going on.
      Attorneys for J.W. (the abuse victim) will be filing an opposition to Watchtower's appeal in August, and we should have a decision from the Supreme Court by October on whether they will accept Jehovah's Witnesses appeal for review.
      Stay tuned!!

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
    • By Jack Ryan
      Montana - De Jehova’s Getuigen kerk moet ruim dertig miljoen euro betalen aan een vrouw die zegt seksueel misbruikt te zijn.
      Het slachtoffer uit Montana, nu 21, werd als kind belaagd door een lid van de kerk, zo schrijft de New York Post.
      De overkoepelende organisatie van Jehova’s Getuigen heeft van alles geprobeerd om de zaak onder het tapijt te schuiven.
      De man tegen wie de beschuldigingen waren ingediend, werd in 2004 uit de kerk gezet, maar een jaar later alweer in genade aangenomen. Intern werd tegen leden zelfs gezegd dat ze dit soort zaken nooit aan de politie mochten melden.
      De kerk, die vindt dat de zaak verjaard is, heeft al aangekondigd in beroep te gaan.
      Advocaat Neil Smith zegt namens het slachtoffer dat hij hoopt dat de boodschap nu eindelijk eens doordringt in de kerk. „Zodat er in de toekomst niet nog meer slachtoffers vallen.”
      De zaak in Montana is er een van tientallen die in de laatste jaren in heel Amerika zijn ingediend tegen de Jehova’s Getuigen.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
    • By Shiwiii
      Meanwhile in Montana:
       
      HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana jury has ruled that the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization must pay $34 million to a woman who says the church covered up her sexual abuse as a child at the hands of a congregation member.
      Neil Smith, an attorney representing the 32-year-old woman, says the jury’s verdict Wednesday in the lawsuit sends a message to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New York headquarters to stop prioritizing church secrecy over children’s safety.
      Jehovah’s Witness officials did not immediately respond to a call or email for comment. The monetary award must be reviewed by the trial judge.
      The jury dismissed claims by a second woman who alleged abuse by the same man in Thompson Falls in the 1990s.
      The jury concluded church elders did not receive notice of the second woman’s abuse and therefore did not have a duty to tell authorities.
       
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      When will this one make the jw news feed? 
    • By Jack Ryan
      Two women who say they were sexually abused as children have alleged that the Jehovah's Witnesses failed to report their abuser to authorities in Montana.

      By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press
      HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Two women who say they were sexually abused as children have alleged that the Jehovah's Witnesses failed to report their abuser to authorities in
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. and instead punished him internally by expelling him from the congregation until he repented the following year. A trial begins Monday in the tiny city of Thompson Falls for one of dozens of lawsuits filed nationwide in the last decade over claims of child sexual abuse in Jehovah's Witness congregations. Worldwide, there have been more allegations of mismanagement and cover-ups of sexual abuse by Jehovah's Witness clergy and members, including cases in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.
      "It appears to be a widespread issue within the Jehovah's Witnesses," said Devin Storey, an attorney whose San Diego law firm has handled about three dozen sex abuse lawsuits against the Christian religious organization. "Less is being reported than should be."
      Officials at the World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses did not have an immediate comment Wednesday. A policy posted on its website says it abhors child abuse and views it as a crime.
      "The elders do not shield any perpetrator of child abuse from the authorities," the policy says. The
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. -based religious organization has 8.5 million members and 120,000 congregations around the world. The number of abuse lawsuits surged at about the same time as similar allegations of abuse and cover-ups within the Roman Catholic church, but the Jehovah's Witness cases haven't received the same national attention. The Montana trial involves two women, now 32 and 21, who are suing the national Jehovah's Witness organization and its Thompson Falls congregation. One woman alleges a family member abused her and her brother in the 1990s.
      The abuse continued in the mid-2000s with the second woman, the first woman's niece, after the congregation's elders expelled the abuser from the congregation in 2004 and reinstated him the next year, according to the lawsuit.
      The women say the local and national organizations were negligent and violated a Montana law that requires them to report abuse to outside authorities. They are seeking an unspecified amount in damages.
      Their attorney, Jim Molloy, declined to comment Wednesday.
      Jehovah's Witness attorneys did not respond to messages left by phone and email. In court filings, they don't deny the abuse happened but say Montana law exempts elders from reporting "internal ecclesiastical proceedings on a congregation member's serious sin."
      The church also contends that the national organization isn't liable for the actions by Thompson Falls elders and that too much time has passed for the women to sue.
      The state Supreme Court this week rejected the Jehovah's Witnesses request to delay the trial and take over the case.
      Both sides acknowledge that when a person is accused of sexual abuse, elders in a Jehovah's Witness congregation are required to first contact the headquarters' legal department to determine their next step.
      The organization's policy says it will instruct elders to report the matter if a minor is still in danger of abuse or if there is another valid reason. Storey, the San Diego attorney, said that is a new policy change.
      Otherwise, Jehovah's Witness elders meet as a judicial committee to investigate "the sinful conduct ... and decide whether the sinner is repentant before God," according to a description of the process provided by Jehovah's Witnesses in court filings.
      Unrepentant offenders are expelled, and strict confidentiality is maintained, according to the filings.
      In this case, the congregation was not required to report to authorities, according to Jehovah's Witness attorney Kathleen DeSoto.
      "The Constitution bars the court from contradicting a religious organization on issues of religious beliefs, including canon law, church doctrine and established church practice," she wrote in her argument to the Montana Supreme Court.
      Storey said the Jehovah's Witnesses take a very broad view of laws that protect discussions made in confession or other discussions between clergy and a congregation member — broader than the law allows.
      The organization appears to be trying to improve but have kept policies such as the two-witness rule, which says no action will be taken against a church member without testimony from at least two witnesses, he said.
      "By maintaining that particular aspect of their policy, it will be difficult for them to eradicate the issue," Storey said.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By JAMMY
      How many confidential friends can one have before it is just considered a group gossip session?




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.