Attorneys said they believed the damage awards, handed down Wednesday and Thursday, were the largest a single alleged victim of sexual abuse has ever won against a religious organization. They said it may also represent the first time a church has been held responsible for the alleged sexual abuse of a congregant, rather than a priest or high official.
... my aunt is going to kvetch about the True faith being persecuted...
But...but...but they're God's Chosen. So this can't be true!maiforpeace wrote:In this case, silence was golden, for the victim.
Jehovah's Witnesses lose big Fremont molest suit
Attorneys said they believed the damage awards, handed down Wednesday and Thursday, were the largest a single alleged victim of sexual abuse has ever won against a religious organization. They said it may also represent the first time a church has been held responsible for the alleged sexual abuse of a congregant, rather than a priest or high official.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Such a devoted nephew.Svartalf wrote:
Double tap. Just sayin'. Hey, it works on movie zombies...Svartalf wrote:
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
And here I was thinking you were a character from "Zanizabar". (The Zebra, to be exact.)Svartalf wrote:I'm a Mozambique practitioner myself.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
They have to start small first with a less popular religion...give 'em time.kiki5711 wrote:I'd like to see the Catholic Church be held accountable for all their sex perverts priests.
The perpetrator was assigned damages as well, not just the church.mistermack wrote:I don't get it. Why is the church responsible?
Does it have a duty to police it's members? I never heard of a church being responsible for what the congregation do.
It would be different if he was a paid or unpaid person in charge of some organised section, but it seems that he wasn't.
What if he's been a member of a golf club? Would they be responsible?
I can't see this surviving appeal. But it is America, I suppose.
.Candace Conti said elders at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in northern Fremont knew Jonathan David Kendrick had molested his stepdaughter a few years before, but declined to warn others or tell police. That silence, Conti said, allowed Kendrick to gain her trust and repeatedly assault her at his home when she was 9 and 10 years old
Well, that's still pretty tenuous. If I know someone has burgled previously, do I have a duty to notify everybody I know who has a home? And can I be sued if he breaks into the house of one that I missed?maiforpeace wrote: The crux is the elders knew about the molestation and did nothing. Not reporting it makes them complicit to a crime, the one they knew about, and subsequent ones.
.Candace Conti said elders at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in northern Fremont knew Jonathan David Kendrick had molested his stepdaughter a few years before, but declined to warn others or tell police. That silence, Conti said, allowed Kendrick to gain her trust and repeatedly assault her at his home when she was 9 and 10 years old
From your link:maiforpeace wrote:The perpetrator was assigned damages as well, not just the church.
So the perpetrator is not on the hook for the money. Sounds like it was just a scheme to extract money from the church.Kendrick, 58 ... did not attend the trial in Oakland or defend himself after signing a deal with Conti's attorneys, who agreed not to try to collect the judgment from him.
From your link:maiforpeace wrote:The crux is the elders knew about the molestation and did nothing. Not reporting it makes them complicit to a crime, the one they knew about, and subsequent ones.
In other words, the church did quite a lot. I think that's way further than the Catholic church would do if someone admitted to something like this in confession. Penalize the church, and all that's going to happen is that people are going to quite admitting this stuff to the church officials, which will just make things even worse.Jim McCabe, an attorney for the Jehovah's Witnesses, called the verdict "outrageous" and said he would appeal. He said elders at the Fremont congregation on Peralta Boulevard acted appropriately after Kendrick confessed to them in 1993 that he had touched his young stepdaughter's breast.
The elders admonished Kendrick to stay away from children and stripped him of his unpaid role as a ministerial servant, McCabe said, though his fellow congregants were not told the reason and police were not notified.
"The elders watched him after that," McCabe said. "They met with the family, and the family seemed like they were working it out. No one saw him do anything inappropriate after that, or heard anything inappropriate. ... The congregation never put (Conti) in a situation of danger with this man."
My mistake. I missed that part about him not paying.Warren Dew wrote:From your link:maiforpeace wrote:The perpetrator was assigned damages as well, not just the church.
So the perpetrator is not on the hook for the money. Sounds like it was just a scheme to extract money from the church.Kendrick, 58 ... did not attend the trial in Oakland or defend himself after signing a deal with Conti's attorneys, who agreed not to try to collect the judgment from him.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests
