Hej again,
Jeg har før skrevet om det, men her er noget materiale; måske kan du bruge det.
+
Why did Jehovah's Witnesses pay the largest cash settlement in its history?
CultNews.com/March 5, 2003
The largest settlement ever paid in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses occurred this past October, but no news outlet has yet reported it.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which is the umbrella organization over 6 million Witnesses worldwide, paid the estate of Frances Coughlin $1.55 million dollars rather than let a jury decide the wrongful death lawsuit.
Frances Coughlin's surviving family sued Jehovah's Witnesses, also known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, in State of Connecticut Superior Court at Milford (CV-00-0072183 S).
The principle defendant was a "Bethelite," or full-time ministry worker, who drove recklessly in bad weather and killed Ms. Coughlin, a mother and grandmother, on October 8, 1998.
That Bethelite Jordon Johnson was traveling between "Bethel," which has housing for its full-time workers in Patison, New Jersey and Brooklyn, New York, to a Witness Kingdom Hall he was assigned to in Derby, Connecticut.
Johnson was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, but only served 30 days in jail and was sentenced to two years probation. Subsequently, he and Jehovah's Witnesses faced a civil suit filed by Ms. Coughlin's surviving family for damages.
Why was the Witness organization willing to pay more than $1.5 million dollars?
Apparently because a much larger issue of "agency" was at stake.
Agency is the word used to express a relationship between a principal party and its agent, through which the principal party projects its power and/or advances some purpose. And a principal party may be held liable for the actions of its agent.
Jehovah's Witnesses contended that Jordan Johnson acted on his own and was not their agent at the time he caused the fatal car wreck.
But plaintiff's counsel, Joel Faxon of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, claimed on his client's behalf that Jordan Johnson was serving as a Bethelite and agent of the organization at the time and advancing their purpose, therefore Jehovah's Witnesses was responsible for his actions.
Internal documents were obtained through the discovery process and testimony was given through depositions, which clarified and substantiated Faxon's view.
I was retained as an expert witness and consultant for this case by the plaintiff's counsel.
My role was to assist in the discovery process, provide research and generally help to form a basis for an understanding of how Jehovah's Witnesses employ, use and control Bethelites and others within their organization. Ultimately, I would have also testified as an expert in court.
That testimony would have included explaining in clear terms how the organizational dynamics, indoctrination and objectives of Jehovah's Witnesses impact individual members and more specifically full-time workers such as Bethelite Jordan Johnson.
But on the first day of trial Jehovah's Witnesses decided they didn't want a jury to decide this case and instead $1.55 million was paid to the plaintiff.
The organization that claims it is waiting for the ever-eminent "end of the world" decided to settle in a pragmatic move to protect its long-term interests and more than $1 billion dollars of accumulated assets.
Again, why would the Witnesses do this if they actually believed they had no meaningful liability?
Certainly the cost to complete the case in court would be far less than $1.55 million dollars. Why not let the jury decide?
But the seemingly shrewd Witnesses realized that there was just too much at stake and didn't want to risk a "guilty" verdict.
Currently the organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses faces a growing number of lawsuits filed by former members who feel the organization has hurt them.
The personal injuries were allegedly caused by elders and others acting in accordance with the organization's policies and doctrines, which include such matters as blood transfusions and sexual abuse.
Seemingly to protect its assets the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses and its many Kingdom Hall congregations have in recent years created a myriad of corporate entities to apparently contain liability.
That is, each corporation is seemingly only responsible for its own specific actions and not the action of others. Again, this appears to be a rather pragmatic legal approach to protect the assets amassed by Jehovah's Witnesses over more than a century.
But what if Jehovah's Witnesses are nevertheless responsible or liable for the actions of its agents, which would include elders and others throughout its vast network of districts and Kingdom Halls?
Well, now you can see why the check was likely cut for $1.55 million in the Coughlin case.
Jehovah's Witnesses were apparently concerned about what legal precedent a jury might set that could ultimately affect other claims pending or potentially possible in the future against the organization.
Many people seem to think that Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is focused on the end of the world and a coming kingdom. At least that's the impression many have when its members come knocking at the door.
But through the Coughlin case a different view of the organization emerges, which looks more like a business protecting its worldly assets and focused on the bottom line.
To see more documents/articles regarding this group/organization/subject click here.
www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw168.html
+
Who Pays For Child Abuse?
Spanish Translation
I just received another report of a deposition being taken regarding the current litigation involving Jehovah's Witnesses and their handling of child abuse within the congregation. It is interesting to note that when a lawsuit is filed on a matter of this nature all defendants are subject to paying financial restitution when the case is decided. This means the local elders, the local Kingdom Hall, the serving Circuit Overseer, District Overseer and of course the Watchtower Corporation itself will be liable for monetary damages. Will Watchtower Corporation pay? Of course, but also any assets of others involved in the lawsuit will also come under lien for satisfaction of any judgment. This could mean any elder who has been involved in a molestation case could lose his home, car and life savings as a result of supporting a policy he was mandated to follow as a representative of the Watchtower Society. You might compare it to when the military in years past prosecuted soldiers that killed women and children at the command of their superiors. Did this excuse their actions? Were the superiors the only ones prosecuted? No, all parties were held liable for doing what was morally and ethically wrong in hurting the innocent. In a similar way any person in a position of trust that has supported or authorized the implementation of Watchtower Policy could be held liable and subject to judgments from the courts.
If you as an elder were involved in a judicial hearing that concerned child abuse five, ten, or even twenty years ago you will have to look over your shoulder for the rest of your life in the event any of the victims decide they were hurt by your implementation of Watchtower Policy. Can this really happen? An example might be the tobacco companies and their fight to deny that cigarettes hurt people. When lawyers went to court and set the precedent that in fact this was the case then all any smoker had to do was align themselves with an attorney who was filing a lawsuit of this issue and collect a check. Court precedence is already established in the case of the Catholic Church that the first amendment does not give religion the right to hurt molested children by their policy. One attorney alone has won over 400 cases for victims based on this precedent. The bridge is simple to show that Jehovah's Witnesses by their policies and practice has hurt thousands of children. All that needs to be done is show this for one child, that is, just one case has to be won establishing that precedent for Jehovah's Witnesses. Once that simple step is taken it will open the way for thousands of abuse survivors to come forward and demand compensation to recover from the abuse wrought by representatives at the direction of the Watchtower Society.
Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is; does an elder deserve to lose everything he owns for his participation in destroying the life of a child? Should he be prosecuted and put in prison or pay fines if he is found to be in violation of state laws while he was acting at the direction of the Watchtower Legal Department? How would you answer?
Secondly relates to the use of World Wide Work Donations to defray the costs of defending the Watchtower Society's legal defense of their child endangerment policies. In the recent deposition two Watchtower lawyers were present that traveled over one thousand miles to be there. Who paid their travel expenses? In all these cases local top shelf law firms are hired to file motions and handle paperwork to defend the Watchtower's position. Who pays for these costs? In the spring of 2001 the Erica Rodriguez case was misfiled; it took about two weeks to make the corrections. The local premier law firm representing the Watchtower demanded $7,000 in compensation for the time it took for them to work around the misfiling. The judgment was denied in court leaving the Watchtower Society to pick up the cost. Where did the money come from to pay the $7,000 in legal fees? It is interesting to note that in many cases the Watchtower has asked local congregation to pick up the bill. Often when there is an injury from someone slipping and falling, the congregation is asked to pay the expenses from what ever resources they can generate. Will congregations named in abuse lawsuits be required to pay a portion of the expenses? In a newspaper article from the Sacramento Bee, JR Brown, the Public Relations spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses, was quoted as saying they would not use dedicated funds in the legal defense of their policy on child abuse. If so where then do the funds come from?
In a recent lawsuit involving the death of a woman due to the negligence of a home office member that was on his way to church function, the Watchtower Society paid $1.55 million to the family of the victim. Was this considered "dedicated funds," was it World Wide Work money, or was the local congregation sent the bill? If the local congregation was to pay the bill would in not affect their ability to contribute to the World Wide Work? How many funds does the Watchtower have? Does this mean that brothers and sisters are sending in money with the request to use it only to defend child molesters and the elders who protected them in the courts? What would you call it, the "World Wide Child Molester Protection Fund?"
It is sad that the leadership if Jehovah's Witnesses have taken the stance of defending their child endangerment policy to the last man standing. Millions of dollars will be spent to defend their policy which puts all Jehovah's Witnesses squarely behind the child molester in defending his right to molest children. The policy says if a child cannot produce two "credible" eye witnesses when the molester denies the allegation, the molester is protected as an innocent man. This will give the typical pedophile additional children to molest before another child summons the courage to come forward as a second "witness", that is if the elders determine he or she is "credible." The "pedophile paradise" can only be found among Jehovah's Witnesses who implement policies and hire lawyers to the tune of millions of dollars in donated funds to defend their right to call children liars, a policy that silences the child as well as their family in the congregation from warning other families with the threat of excommunication for slandering an innocent pedophile.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness who is currently serving as an elder, you may want to think twice before you handle any case of child molestation in your congregation. In a recent abuse litigation involving an active female member who wrote the Governing Body (leadership) asking for a meeting to resolve matters through theocratic meetings, the sister was advised to sue the local elders and "dismiss Watchtower" from the lawsuit if she wanted to have a theocratic hearing. It seems there is a variance when it comes to "theocratic loyalty" from home office. When the courts establish the precedence that Watchtower Policy on abuse has hurt children you as an elder may find yourself giving a deposition to a bevy of attorneys who will hang on your every word. You may find yourself testifying in court before a jury of how you conducted your investigation of the crime of rape by explaining each step of your Legal Department required interrogation of a four year old child. You may find a summons coming to you in the mail to pay several hundred thousand dollars in judgments with whatever assets you can produce.
A common expression used by those in leadership positions in the Jehovah's Witness community when addressing child abuse is to "wait on Jehovah." This expression is used as a basis to paralyze elders and congregation members from taking any decisive action but instead waiting for God to provide the answer to remedy the problem. Often molesters have used this "waiting" period to molest numerous children while members remain in a holding pattern with supposed reliance upon Jehovah to resolve the problem. Each raped child in turn is presented with "waiting on Jehovah" while his or her friends wait for their turn to be raped. To do any less is deemed as a lack of faith in God and a poor example to fellow members. Could litigation be the answer to "waiting on Jehovah?" Has God empowered child abuse survivors to come forth to media and the courts to expose wicked and corrupt actions of men that claim divine direction from God? If the Watchtower is sued out of physical existence is this the action from Jehovah that members are waiting for?
As the divine depositions continue, elders who support and follow directives mandated by Watchtower Policy on abuse will face retribution as God delivers the answer to them they should have been following all along. That is doing what is morally and ethically right when it comes to protecting a child.
http://www.silentlambs.org/personal_experiences/Whopaysforchildabuse.htm
Venlig hilsen
Enoch