Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion — Commentary (Version 2) (2007)

Download: PDF — Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion — Commentary (Version 2) (2007)

Secrets of Pedophilia in an. American Religion

Jehovah's Witnesses in Crisis SECRETS OF PEDOPHILIA

in an

AMERICAN RELIGION

Jehovah's Witnesses in Crisis

Copyright © 2007 by Barbara J. Anderson

All rights reserved. Except for court records in the public domain and brief quotations from miscellaneous quoted sources, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (printed, written, photocopying, visual, electronic, audio or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Published by Watchtower Documents, LLC. 1527 Normandy Rd. Normandy, Tennessee 37360

Watchtower Documents, LLC website address: www.watchtowerdocuments.com ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The goal of this project was to shine a bright light on the secret policies and procedures utilized by Jehovah's Witness leaders to manage victims' accusations of sexual abuse by Witness molesters.

"Child abuse is abhorrent to us" is a commendable statement and one Jehovah's Witnesses repeat often. Knowing there were documents that would prove their secret actions spoke louder than their public words, I committed to unveil what has been too long hidden in a religious community which proclaims their child abuse policy "is without equal in the religious community." But to do so was dependant upon obtaining thousands of pages of court documents. However, without help, this task would not have been accomplished in just a few months. I want to thank all the marvelous folks who offered their assistance in so many ways.

Ordering court records from twelve lawsuits was not exactly a pleasant experience. If it wasn't for my good friend, Richard Rawe, it is doubtful I would have accomplished all I was able to do. He must have spent up to fifty or more hours on the phone maneuvering through the bureaucratic maze to order court documents. Richard was absolutely invaluable in this regard. I can't thank him enough for his assistance.

Without the love and support of my husband, Joe, such a huge project would have been difficult. He was almost a bachelor during the months I worked from sunup to sundown to read and analyze all the documents and then write the commentary. My sister-in-law, Lynda, helped out with many household tasks, that is, after her fractured wrist healed, and she has my gratitude.

Not to embarrass anyone for all the good works they did to assist me, but I want to mention a few names of some pretty wonderful people. They made this CD possible with their support, financial assistance and technical expertise. Much gratitude and affection goes to dear people like Bruce and Dorian Baker, Joy Grant, the Galvez family, Alan Feuerbacher, Kerry Louderback-Wood, Jim Penton, Randy Watters and a number of others who don't want their names mentioned for fear of reprisal by Jehovah's Witnesses for aiding someone like me whose only motive is to make life safer for Witness children.

The extraordinary cover for this work was designed by a wonderful and most generous guy, Dave Malone of Malone Illustrations. He did not hesitate for a moment when asked if he would use his skills to produce a cover. He quickly rounded up a friend whose little girl posed for her photographer mother to provide a photo for Dave to work with. I want to thank all of you for your help with this undertaking.

Also, Chris, who kept my computer system running, has my gratitude. And, never will I forget the support from some pretty wonderful Canadian gals and guys who were there for me whenever I needed their input.

The commentary provided in this CD is meant to make it easier for readers to make sense of some of the thousands of pages of court records provided. My work is just a glimpse into the internal workings of Jehovah's Witnesses in the matter of child sexual abuse.I certainly have not expressed all the information that can be gleaned out of the records.Now it is up to you,the reader,to pick up the gauntlet and explore what has been provided. While you are doing that I'll be putting the finishing touches on a hard copy of Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion—Jehovah's Witnesses in Crisis, containing even more commentary than this publication includes.

Special gratitude goes to my son who will always remain the apple of my eye. You have made me proud, Lance, by becoming a first-rate father and husband. The experience of being your mother was so unique and joyous. It remains the compelling force steering me to pursue the protection of children.

Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion—Jehovah's Witnesses in Crisis

Contents

INTRODUCTION 6

Finally Disillusioned

“Silentlambs” and NBC Dateline

Disfellowshipped for Appearing on Dateline

A New Commitment

PREFACE 9

1 What Exactly Were These Lawsuits About? 11

2 The Facts 14

3 Background Of Pertinent Events 18

Watchtower Loses Penitent Privilege Fight

4 Court Records: Five Other Lawsuits 27

5 Where Did Jehovah’s Witnesses Go Wrong? 30

The Three-Year Rule

District Representative Donald Amy’s Letter

6 Settlement Indicates Responsibility 36

Two Molesters In Same Congregation

7 Defendants Did Not Report Child Abuse 62

No Child Abuse Reporting Policy

8 Watchtower Legal Department Represents Service Department 72

9 Chief Watchtower Spokesman J. R. Brown’s Deposition 74

10 Watch Tower’s Secret Payment 80

Overview-KHAA Ins. Program From Reinmueller Deposition

Watch Tower’s Out-Of-Court Secret Settlements

11 The Straw That Broke The Camel’s Back 89

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Policy on Dealing With Child Abuse INTRODUCTION

When I was an inexperienced, discontented fourteen-year old, I made a choice that for the next forty-four years of my life would narrow my opportunities to make choices-I joined one of the most aggressive, controversial religious groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, which became the center of my life. I put aside my heart's desire, the study of archeology, because of the religion's ban on higher education for their members. Hence, evangelistic activities took priority over education. I heeded their rules as to choice of friends, only Jehovah's Witnesses, and choice of a marriage mate, only one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses from 1954 until 1998. When I married Joe Anderson in 1959, he was, of course, a Witness. In 1961, our son, Lance, was born. He was carefully trained to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. As a family, we were very familiar with opposition to our religion because of our persistence in making our beliefs known to people whether they wanted to hear us or not. Although we were disliked by some people because of our preaching, my husband and I helped convert about 80 people.

In 1982, during a time of expansion of Jehovah's Witnesses' world headquarters in Brooklyn, NY, as longtime faithful Jehovah's Witnesses we were invited to live and work there as volunteer staff members. The place is called "Bethel" and we became "Bethelites." At that time, the workers at the Bethel complex numbered a few thousand. The purpose for being there was to support the publishing of hundreds of millions of pieces of Witness literature such as the Watchtower and Awake! journals. For one year my job assignment was in the Shipping Department. Then I was transferred to the Engineering Department for six years where I did secretarial and research work. After that, for nearly four years, my assignment was the Writing Department where I was the major researcher for the Witnesses' last published history book, Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, (1993).

While working in the Writing Department at the Witnesses' world headquarters, I learned in the early 1990s there were members of Jehovah's Witnesses, including some elders, who engaged in child sexual abuse; that Jehovah's Witnesses officials knew of many of these incidents of child sexual abuse but had in place organizational policies that effectively prevented the reporting of most of these incidents to appropriate authorities and also to Witness congregational members. These policies were directly contrary to the public position taken by Jehovah's Witnesses that child sexual abuse is neither tolerated nor concealed.

Leaving the Witnesses' World Headquarters in January of 1993, we returned to Tennessee where I continued researching for Awake! senior writers; also, exploring the abuse issue and writing some Awake! articles until December 1996.

When I first became aware of child sexual abuse in the Watchtower organization, I had no idea the Bible teaching requiring two-witnesses to prove sin was also applied to molestation. It was only after 1997 when I discovered how the requirement of two witnesses to molestation protected pedophiles that I understood how this policy was such a danger to children. If abuse victims can not back up their charge of molestation through another witness, and the accused denies the allegation, the accusation goes nowhere. Then the confidentiality rule goes into effect.

Victims are told not to speak of the accusation or else be disfellowshipped themselves. This was the way molesters were kept hidden and children were open game.

Finally Disillusioned

I belonged to an organization whose members appear to be no different from society at large. Yet, underneath the surface they really are very different in their approach to life because Jehovah's Witnesses are a self-proclaimed theocracy meaning they believe God is guiding their organization. And it is the leaders of the Witness theocracy who make the rules for the flock about all aspects of life including rules to protect the members from threatening influences. Regardless of good intentions, Witness leaders have become like Pharisees in that they provide instructions for just about every human condition. Their directives are supposedly written with the intention of protecting the congregation, yet in too many cases, the polices end up protecting the bad guys and their secrets.

In 1998, I officially left the organization, although I had been fading for about a year. I tried to put my anxiety about the child abuse situation aside and went to the local community college where I received a scholarship. This gift gave me the strength to go on without my Jehovah's Witnesses' friends from all over the world who I knew for a certainty would shun me when they realized I was no longer one of them. Going to college was how I discovered there was life outside of the Watchtower. At the time my husband and I were married thirty-nine years. We never kept secrets from one another. Therefore, my husband accepted my exit from our religion because he was aware that in good conscience, I was having a very difficult time associating myself with the Witness organization knowing what I did about the Watchtower Society's child sexual abuse policies which I considered evil. As a woman, I had to remain silent about this evil or be disfellowshipped. My anger and frustration knowing I was helpless to protect children from molestation was a burden I could no longer bear. In any case, I did not say anything negative to anyone about the Witness organization so I was not perceived as a threat by them.

"Silentlambs" and NBC Dateline

Towards the end of 2000, I met a Witness elder, Bill Bowen, who decided to resign his position and go public about the child sexual abuse issue. This took place on January 1, 2001. When Bill resigned as an elder over the child abuse issue, the media coverage in Bill's home state of Kentucky was tremendous. In addition, Bill and I came up with an idea for an Internet website which Bill created that we named silentlambs.org. Here Jehovah's Witnesses, who were victims of child sexual molestation by Witness perpetrators, could post their stories. Within weeks there were 1,000 stories. After five years, there are nearly 7,000.

Initially, I did not publicly reveal myself. Within weeks, Bill and I were on a plane bound for New York City and NBC's Dateline show.After the producers did extensive research, which established our claims were true, our interviews were scheduled.

Disfellowshipped for Appearing on Dateline

After calling NBC time and again to find out when the program would air, Watchtower leaders were told the program would be shown on May 28, 2002. Immediately, Watchtower officials notified local elders to schedule judicial hearings for all of us who appeared as whistleblowers on Dateline. In early May, I proved to the elders I was not guilty of the false charges brought against me.

Within days the local elders scheduled another judicial hearing with new, concocted charges. I declined to attend the meeting because it seemed futile—if I disproved those charges, it was obvious they would just come up with different charges.In any event, I was subsequently disfellowshipped on May 19,2002 for causing divisions within the brotherhood.

Disfellowshipped members are construed as being unrepentant sinners and not to be believed, so it was a cunning move for the Watchtower. It was obvious to me I was disfellowshipped shortly before Dateline was broadcast so Witness viewers would not believe what I said about there being a pedophile problem within their group.

Joe subsequently was disfellowshipped in July 2002, also for causing divisions. By defending me and expressing his personal views about the child sexual abuse situation, Joe was no longer a company man. Like Bill Bowen and me, Joe became critical of the process elders were instructed to go through when child abuse was reported to them. He believed back then and still does that Witness elders should not investigate accusations of child sexual abuse. It is a crime that should be reported by elders to the police no matter which state they live in, even if not mandated by law in that state for clergy to do so.

A New Commitment

When I look back over my life from the time I was baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses at the age of 14, it simply amazes me where that first step led to. My only desire then was to help people understand the mysteries of life as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses. Now I'm no longer under the illusion that the mysteries of life can be explained, or that Jehovah's Witnesses are a benevolent religion.

Although I have been labeled by Witnesses as "a Judas" for publicizing the child sexual abuse problems within the Witness organization, I am still committed to exposing the secrets hidden within this religious organization.

During the past five years since the filing by attorneys of the first child sexual abuse lawsuit in 2003, I have been active in aiding all to understand polices and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses in the matter of child sexual abuse. Of course, I was disappointed that not one filed child sexual abuse lawsuit since 2003 made it to open court but were settled by the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses in out-of-court settlements in February 2007. However, that was not the end of this story because the thousands of pages of court records I recently obtained reveal the Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion, Jehovah's Witnesses, who are now in crisis.

PREFACE

Approximately 5,000 pages of court documents have been amassed from twelve court record depositories in four states. These court documents are the result of twelve lawsuits that Defendants’ Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al. were involved with since 1999.

Primarily of interest at this point are the nine lawsuits settled in early 2007 between Jehovah’s Witness victims of molestation and Defendants’ Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al. However, also located were case records from two other lawsuits that were settled out-of-court by Watchtower, one in 2000 and the other in 2006. In our search for court records, another lawsuit was found. This one was dismissed without prejudice in 2004. The case documents are included for informational purposes.

Over all, the facts are common to all of the nine lawsuits involving sixteen victims which were settled in 2007. These cases were filed from 2003 through 2006 by the law firm, Love & Norris, located in Fort Worth, Texas. The primary defendants were the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.; one Oregon congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses; one Texas congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses; six Northern California congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and one Southern California congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There were eight abusers, all Jehovah’s Witnesses who were co-defendants. The Jehovah’s Witness Defendants, unlike the Catholic Church, secretly settled these nine lawsuits. The majority of the nine were settled at the end of January and then dismissed in mid-February.

In October 2006, I was given the impression that cases involving sixteen victims would soon be settled. In early February, I, as well as Bill Bowen (www.silentlambs.org), learned that these cases had been settled out-of-court. We were provided with no additional information other than learning that Plaintiffs and Defendants were not in favor of any publicity. Inasmuch as Bill did not want to wait any longer to announce the settlement, he held a press conference on May 10, 2007 and the Associated Press carried the story on May 11, 2007. Jehovah’s Witnesses confirmed the settlement. However, Bill had few facts to report, although he did provide proof each case was settled by posting on his website, www.silentlambs.org, a copy of a dismissal notice for each of the nine cases. This proved all cases were dismissed with prejudice which meant that both sides agreed no more legal action could be taken again on these cases. Such an agreement usually indicates a financial settlement paid by Defendants, in this case, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In the ensuing months since the settlement, I am now able to provide many important details about the nine lawsuits, along with many extraordinarily interesting documents—secret material that Defendants’ Watchtower and Jehovah’s Witnesses expected would remain buried in court records for perpetuity.

I have also discovered that instead of nine cases settled, there probably were more. In the documents obtained there was a Notice of a Case Management Conference scheduled for March 15, 2007. The name of the case is Dennis S. vs. Watchtower Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al. It was filed in Sonoma County Superior Court, No. 234168. On the document it states this case was part of the Charissa W. and Nicole D. coordinated cases. During the month of July 2007, the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Department confirmed that Dennis S.

was settled out-of-court in March 2007, dismissed with prejudice by the judge. When I first heard about the out-of-court settlements, I wrote down that there were fourteen cases involved. Later, I came to believe that I mistakenly wrote down that figure when documents from the Napa County Courthouse listed only seven California cases settled and dismissed in February 2007, and, also, at the same time, one case was settled in Texas and another in Oregon which added up to nine. Upon questioning by an Associated Press reporter, nine cases were acknowledged by one of the Watchtower Society's attorneys, Mario Marino. If there were more, Mr. Marino found it prudent not to reveal the information. However, now we know there were ten, and additional research into this matter is required to see if there were indeed fourteen cases settled but that will have to wait for another time.

--What Exactly Were These Lawsuits About?

It is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses who establish policies and dictate practices for Jehovah's Witnesses. That Body operates through various corporate entities, primarily Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., and Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. The Plaintiffs charged in their Complaints that Jehovah's Witnesses assumed a duty to protect children in their organization but failed to exercise reasonable care and common sense policies in fulfilling that duty. For example, Defendants failed to enact a policy forbidding unsupervised one-on-one contact between elders or ministerial servants and children. They permitted children to go out in door-to-door ministry alone with male members and encouraged parents in the congregations to allow their children attend unchaperoned Bible study with adult males (elders/ms) and allowed these men to "counsel" children without any supervision.

The Watchtower undertook the responsibility to instruct Jehovah's Witness elders what to do when they received allegations of child sexual abuse. They promulgated policies directing elders to call Watchtower's "Legal Department" for direction about whether to report allegations of sexual abuse to law enforcement. However, these policies were designed to obstruct cooperation with secular investigators. For example, elders were sometimes instructed to make anonymous calls from telephone booths so that law enforcement authorities would be unable to contact them for more information.

The Defendants' Watchtower required Jehovah's Witness elders to investigate allegations of child sexual abuse. Elders were required to apply the "two witness rule" which under Jehovah's Witnesses internal policy and doctrine relegates allegations of child molestation to a notation written in a confidential file if the perpetrator does not confess to the crime but pleads innocence. Elders were required to gather evidence, question witnesses, and render judgments about what internal punishment, if any, would be imposed upon a child abuser. They were forbidden from revealing the results of their investigations to law enforcement authorities. In fact, there was no policy in place to report child abuse. Victims and their families were told not to inform secular authorities or other members. Secrecy was emphasized above all other concerns. The victims and their families were discouraged from receiving appropriate medical and psychological care.

When elders called the Legal Department with allegations of child abuse, they were asked questions that were indicative of the intended investigative process. Shockingly, one inappropriate question asked was if any of the elders believed the child victim of molestation was "somewhat at fault" for their own sexual victimization.

When allegations were concealed from secular authorities, the perpetrators often received no punishment except for that internally administered by Witness elders. Sometimes the offenders were disfellowshipped or expelled from the organization, but other times their punishment was secret reprimand or they had restrictions or lost privileges. Sadly, congregation members would not know a dangerous child abuser was in their midst. Watchtower would usually reinstate a disfellowshipped molester or remove his restrictions after a shockingly short period of time.

In addition, evidence indicates that reappointment of a molester to elder or ministerial servant after a few years was not all that unusual. Who would reappoint a child molester to a position of power? We know the name of one such person because his name appears in a court document. That man works in Watchtower's Service Department and it was claimed he reappointed a molester over and over again to a supervisory position since 1964.

The Watchtower instructed the elders to make written reports to their "Service Department" about allegations and judicial committee actions. They maintained a computerized database containing such information and negligently concealed the information from other elders and followers. Jehovah's Witness leaders undertook the responsibility to compile this information to protect congregation members. However, despite having information that would allow parents, elders, and law enforcement authorities to identify predators and actually take steps to protect children, the Watchtower concealed this information.

Watchtower's Service Department was Watchtower's Legal Department's client (attorney/client privilege) so plaintiffs and the courts could not easily obtain documents to substantiate the scope and depth of sexual child abuse within the Watchtower organization.

Communiqués between Jehovah's Witness supervisory people and the Watchtower are rarely, if ever, seen. Not only does attorney/client privilege enter into the picture, but to publish a letter without permission is not allowable by copyright laws. However, now a secret letter from one long-time United States district representative of the Watchtower organization can be read where he discusses a little-known rule which allowed molesters to stay in their positions of authority and continue molesting. (This letter, along with other confidential material, was found among public domain records in an Oregon courthouse.) The letter writer asked for a change to this little-known policy where no longer would leniency be extended to sexual child abusers. This was back in 1994 when he was monitoring an especially egregious situation in a Witness congregation where the predator, who sexually abused many children, was not going to be removed from his position as elder, nor was there to be a judicial hearing or any discipline because of this rule. Yet, that policy was still in effect in 2000.

Watchtower has the ability to know when a "known pedophile" moves from one congregation to another, yet they chose not to monitor the movements of predators so that appropriate warning could be issued. In 1991, one known predator was appointed Ministerial Servant by the Governing Body and the other Watchtower Defendants. He abused four children, who were plaintiffs in one case, from approximately 1991 to 1999. The facts are that he was confronted a number of times over the years by those he molested, but since Jehovah's Witness judicial committees require two witnesses to an event of molestation before taking any kind of disciplinary action, he was never disciplined. By moving from one congregation to another over the years, he was able to keep his crimes mostly hidden for 25 to 30 years. Parents told the press they had no clue that an alleged sexual predator was amongst them even though church elders had prior knowledge of complaints against this molester from another congregation.

Jehovah's Witnesses organization has been settling out of court child sexual abuse lawsuits for many years, but always quietly, secretly, one at a time. A friend, who also was a volunteer worker at the Witnesses' headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, told me four years ago about a private conversation he had with attorney friends who were Jehovah's Witnesses.

These attorneys were often called upon by the Watchtower organization to meet with victims of child abuse or their parents, and were authorized to discuss monetary offers of up to 250,000 to quickly get lawsuits settled and dismissed. It was not unusual, the attorneys said, for the plaintiffs to accept compensation of only a few thousand dollars out of concern that accepting more would remove money from the Witnesses' ministry work. Surely, if those victims knew the Witness organization paid a secret 50,000 payment in 1996 to a California congregation for "elder misconduct" due to his molesting Witness children, they would be incensed.

However, as previously mentioned, along with the court records of the nine cases settled in February 2007, three other dismissed child abuse cases from the past were located and are included on this CD for examination.

Instead of offering victims in these nine lawsuits acceptable settlements as soon as possible, the Watchtower Defendants stubbornly fought through the courts to have these cases dismissed. This turned out to be a legal nightmare for them because California and Oregon High Courts ruled against the Watchtower in their quest to keep requested documents from the plaintiffs by claiming clergy-penitent privilege. The courts refused to recognize their claim for clergy-penitent privilege because communications with the Judicial Committee did not fall within the scope of the penitential communication privilege. The California ruling stated that the Judicial Committee's purpose was to investigate sins for which disfellowship was a potential penalty. In addition, the Judicial Committee was under no duty to keep the communications private. In fact, Judicial Committees were required to communicate information it obtained to the Watchtower Society Headquarters. In California, for nearly a year, Defendants refused to abide by a lower court's decision requiring them to produce communiqués between Defendants and the predator, and between Defendants and the elders or the victims. Watchtower Defendants' finally filed a writ petition to appeal the lower court's ruling. Within one month after submitting their appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California denied the petition and sent the case back to the lower court where the court subsequently forced Defendants to produce the documents.

In the future, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al., will have it much more difficult to hide behind their so-called First Amendment right not to disclose information to secular courts because they are a "religion." The defeat of Defendants' clergy-penitent privilege claim was only one of a number of excellent rulings in favor of the plaintiffs who have been forever harmed by this religion's lack of appropriate actions in the matter of child abuse.

--2

The Facts

These lawsuits had nothing to do with the Watchtower's religion. The Watchtower Defendants kept clouding the issue in every brief they filed by claiming that any and all points the Plaintiffs introduced were somehow trampling on their First Amendment rights. Not so, said Plaintiffs' attorneys.

This case is about young children who were devastatingly violated by the Watchtower Defendants' appointed agents who used appointed positions of trust and authority within that organization to criminally, sexually abuse children entrusted to the perpetrators' care by the Watchtower Defendants. These cases are also about the Watchtower Defendants' intentional conduct in not only covering up the abuse, but also actively preventing the reporting of this and other instances of abuse within the organization. At the same time, the Watchtower Defendants continued to appoint these particular perpetrator-agents, to positions of trust and authority after the Watchtower Defendants knew of their propensities to use their appointed positions in the organization to sexually abuse innocent children. Finally, it is a case about this nation's and the state of California's compelling state interest in protecting its children from the crime of sexual abuse through the application of secular laws designed to hold accountable those responsible for such abuse.

Nothing in the First Amendment prohibits this Court from addressing the Watchtower Defendants' knowing appointment and protection of pedophiles who criminally assaulted Plaintiffs after the Watchtower Defendants were on notice that the perpetrators would do just that if they continually appointed to positions of authority over children. Also, the First Amendment does not bar this Court from addressing the Watchtower Defendants' liability for their intentional conduct in coercing the silence of victims and preventing the reporting of abuse, not for religious reasons, but to protect the Watchtower Defendants from liability for their own conduct in knowingly continuing to appoint pedophiles to positions of leadership with authority over children without even taking the minimal step of warning members of the congregations to which they were appointed or reporting the abuse to the proper secular authorities. 1

Now that the out-of-court settlements are over and there will be no open court trials where Plaintiffs' attorneys would air Watchtower's dirty laundry, there is proof aplenty for all to read which substantiates the statements above. That proof will be taken from previously confidential material in the form of court documents which are now in public domain.

The Defendants waged a long-drawn-out court battle to keep Jehovah's Witnesses' congregational communications and documents from being seen by Plaintiffs/victims and their lawyers, and most importantly, from public scrutiny. They used whatever tactics to keep the crimes hidden, and settled out of court with victims to keep from testifying in open court about what Witness officials knew and what they failed to do to protect kids from predators.

Read from court documents the allegations of Plaintiffs' Charissa W. and Nicole D. who maintained that Defendants did little or nothing to protect them from a Witness sexual predator. Of course, these allegations against the "Roe" Defendents 2 were yet to be proven.

Abuse of Nicole D.

Beginning by at least 1972, the ROE DEFENDANTS' agent, Edward Villegas, used his position as an Elder to gain access to children under the care of the ROE DEFENDANTS organization and to sexually abuse them.

During this time period, the ROE DEFENDANTS' agent, Edward Villegas, was also using his position of authority as an Elder to sexually abuse other children under the ROE DEFENDANTS' care.

In approximately 1978, Edward Villegas used his position as an Elder and leader in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to gain access to and sexually abuse Plaintiff, NICOLE D., a child under the care of the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization. Plaintiff, NICOLE D. was approximately seven (7) years old when the abuse occurred. Using his delegated authority as a leader in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, Edward Villegas forced Plaintiff, NICOLE D. to have oral sex with him.

When Plaintiff, NICOLE D. told her parents about the abuse, her father immediately reported it to the Elders of Defendant, ROE 9 pursuant to instructions by the ROE DEFENDANTS. In response, the ROE DEFENDANTS privately reproved their agent for his conduct, but took no other steps to hold him accountable or to otherwise notify members and the families of the children whom they had placed under the authority of their agent, Edward Villegas. Therefore, Edward Villegas was able to continue to use his position of authority.

For over two decades, the ROE DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that their appointed agent, Edward Villegas was using his position of authority in the organization to gain access to and sexually molest and physically abuse adolescents under the care of the organization. Nevertheless, the ROE DEFENDANTS continued to appoint Edward Villegas to leadership positions in their local congregations, entrusting him with the welfare of numerous adolescents in the ROE DEFENDANTS' local congregations. The ROE DEFENDANTS' agent then used his position of authority in the organization to sexually molest Plaintiff and others. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to notify anyone that their agent, Edward Villegas was molesting or had sexually molested adolescents under the ROE DEFENDANTS' care. They further failed to take any steps to protect these young victims from his abuse. Instead, they knowingly concealed this information from Plaintiff and others. The ROE DEFENDANTS also aided, abetted and ratified the abuse.

When the ROE DEFENDANTS received reports of their agent's acts of sexual abuse against children entrusted to their care, the ROE DEFENDANTS assumed the responsibility for dealing with the problem. They told families of victims that they should leave the matter to the ROE DEFENDANTS to handle. However, the ROE DEFENDANTS did not report the abuse to law enforcement authorities nor did they warn any other members of the organization that they had appointed a dangerous pedophile to positions of leadership with authority over children. They did not act to help Plaintiff or their families deal with the

trauma of abuse and actively prevented them from obtaining help from trained professionals and other available sources. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to take appropriate steps to hold their agent, Edward Villegas, accountable for his conduct or to assist him in addressing his propensities. 3

Abuse of Clarrisa W.

In approximately 1970, Plaintiff CLARISSA W. and her mother, Betty Hopkins, came under the instruction and care of the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization through their agent, Edward Villegas, and his wife, Marsha Villegas. The ROE DEFENDANTS used the daycare center run out of the Villegas home to attract new converts. Plaintiff CHARISSA W. was approximately 1 year old at the time. Betty Hopkins became one of those new converts and entrusted her daughter, Plaintiff CHARISSA W. to the ROE DEFENDANTS' care.

Beginning by at least 1972, the ROE DEFENDANTS' agent, Edward Villegas, used his position as an Elder to gain access to children under the care of the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization and to sexually abuse them.

In about 1972, the ROE DEFENDANTS' agent, Edward Villegas began sexually molesting Plaintiff, CHARISSA W. by, among other things, fondling her genitals, digitally penetrating her vagina and forcing her to have oral sex. She was approximately three (3) or four (4) years old at the time. For the next twelve (12) to thirteen (13) years, the ROE DEFENDANTS' agent, Edward Villegas continued to use his leadership position as an Elder to gain access to and sexually abuse Plaintiff, CHARISSA W., who was under the ROE DEFENDANTS' care. Plaintiff's position as a minor in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, as well Edward Villegas' position as a spiritual leader and authority figure in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization allowed him to maintain control and influence over Plaintiff and others. The ROE DEFENDANTS enabled Edward Villegas to abuse Plaintiff and others by placing him in positions of authority, and then actively concealing his sexual abuse. The ROE DEFENDANTS, each of them, used their positions in the organization to aid and abet Edward Villegas and other leaders in the sexual abuse and exploitation of minors in the organization and in furtherance of the conspiracy to conceal the sexual molestation occurring within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization.

For over two decades, the ROE DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that their appointed agent, Edward Villegas was using his position of authority in the organization to gain access to and sexually molest and physically abuse adolescents under the care of the organization. Nevertheless, the ROE DEFENDANTS continued to appoint Edward Villegas to leadership positions in their local congregations, entrusting him with the welfare of numerous adolescents in the ROE DEFENDANTS' local congregations. The ROE DEFENDANTS' agent then used his position of authority in the organization to sexually molest Plaintiff and others. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to notify anyone that their agent, Edward Villegas was molesting or had sexually molested adolescents under the ROE DEFENDANTS' care. They further failed to take any steps to protect these young victims from his abuse. Instead, they knowingly concealed this information from Plaintiff and others. The ROE DEFENDANTS also aided, abetted and ratified the abuse.

When the ROE DEFENDANTS received reports of their agent's acts of sexual abuse against children entrusted to their care, the ROE DEFENDANTS assumed the responsibility for dealing with the problem. They told families of victims that they should leave the matter to the ROE DEFENDANTS to handle. However, the ROE DEFENDANTS did not report the abuse to law enforcement authorities nor did they warn any other members of the organization that they had appointed a dangerous pedophile to positions of leadership with authority over children. They did not act to help Plaintiff or their families deal with the trauma of abuse and actively prevented them from obtaining help from trained professionals and other available sources. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to take appropriate steps to hold their agent, Edward Villegas, accountable for his conduct or to assist him in addressing his propensities. 4

In this matter, Plaintiff's charging allegations are corroborated by the fact that while Defendants' agent, Edward Villegas, was sexually abusing Plaintiff, as described above, he was abusing other children in Defendants' organization, which was brought to Defendants' attention. Defendants did nothing to reprimand Edward Villegas, thereby allowing him to continue sexually abusing Plaintiff and others, nor did Defendants warn congregation members of Villegas' conduct to protect those over whom Edward Villegas has authority.

Further, Edward Villegas was criminally convicted for his numerous acts of sexual abuse in Napa County, Case Number CR17623. 5

Shortly after Charissa W. and Nicole D., the first California lawsuit of eighteen to be filed by Plaintiffs' attorneys on July 24, 2003, Defendants' attorneys filed papers which asserted "...that plaintiffs claims are barred because they seek to impermissibly entangle the court in ecclesiastical affairs and in the interpretation of religious doctrine, practices and beliefs." The judge wrote in his ruling, "Put plainly, this is simply not so." Further he wrote, "Defendants cannot use the First Amendment to shield them from these allegations, and none of the cases cited by defendants say otherwise. As made clear from plaintiffs' thorough review of the relevant case law, this court may hear plaintiffs' claims without threading on the Constitution's free exercise clause. Accordingly, defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' tort claims on the ground that they are barred by the First Amendment is OVERRULED." 6

Once this hurdle was overcome, the battle raged on for another three years. During that time period more lawsuits were filed in California against the Watchtower Defendants. However, only seven California lawsuits survived to reach out-of-court settlements in February of 2007. Documents reveal that earnest settlement talks were already underway by the time the seventh lawsuit was filed in October 2006 in San Diego, it being an especially damning case against the Defendants. Authorities said publicly, the predator, a congregational Ministerial Servant who was finally "outed" to the authorities and general public is now on the FBI's Most Wanted List. By the time the San Diego case was filed, although Defendants' attorneys had been engaged in settlement talks since that summer, intense negotiations were underway as the trial date set by the court for the first case to begin in Napa, California, on April 3, 2007, was fast approaching.

--3

BACKGROUND OF PERTINENT EVENTS

Originally, Sacramento law firm Nolan Saul Brelsford and co-counsels, Love & Norris of Fort Worth, Texas, Kenneth Fibich and Harley Hampton of Houston, Texas on behalf of Plaintiffs filed seventeen cases in various northern California counties in 2003. The Defendants were the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., and various local Jehovah's Witnesses Congregations in northern California. Then Plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily dismissed five of those cases because they lacked merit with Plaintiffs' counsel seeking coordination in May of 2004 of the twelve remaining cases. Soon, an additional six cases were voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiffs' counsel leaving six remaining cases before the Napa County Court. 7

On August 31,2004,the judge of the Yolo County Superior Court,the Honorable Thomas E. Warriner, heard the Plaintiffs' Petition for Coordination. One of the arguments for coordination was to make abuse of the discovery process negligible in behalf of the Defendants. On September 3,2004, Judge Warriner granted Plaintiffs' motion and designated Napa County as the site for the coordination proceedings. From then on, these six cases were filed under the name of oldest of the six lawsuits filed, Charissa W. and Nicole D., vs. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-22191. The six were also designated as Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) No. 4374. Two of these cases were designated as Tract I. The four other cases were designated as Non-Tract I.

The six cases involved ten different Plaintiffs accusing five different alleged abusers/co- Defendants with six different Northern California congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses involved.

On May 8, 2006, informal settlement discussions with the Defendants were unsuccessful in regards to one of the Tehama County, CA cases, No. 52594, Tim W., and also the Yolo County, CA case, No. CV 03-1439, Daniel West, Shane Pence and Amber Pence. Within that same month, Plaintiffs suggested that the case which was most appropriate for assignment of the first trial date should be West/Pence of Yolo County. It was requested that case be set for trial in late 2006 or early 2007. The three Plaintiffs had their depositions completed by defense counsel and a key witness deposition had also been completed. Arrangements were made to have a few remaining depositions completed in the summer of 2006. The perpetrator, Timothy Silva, could not be located and was thought to be dead. At that time it was also requested that the trial assignment for Tim W. of Tehama County be set for April 2007 and another Tehama County Case, No. 52598, Julianne Wimberley Gutierrez and Joshua Wimberley, be considered for a trial date in June 2007. Also in May of that year, the Plaintiffs' agreed to have the trials set separately. 8 Watchtower Loses Penitent Privilege Fight

The road to get to the point of setting trial dates was not an easy one to travel on. As Defendants usually do, many motions were filed by them to prove they were not guilty of Plaintiffs' allegations. Early on, Defendants sought recognition of their right to clergy-penitent privilege to keep from producing certain requested documents. However, Defendants were ordered on September 29, 2005 to deliver the documents to the Plaintiffs because the court ruled that communications with Witness Judicial Committees did not fall within the scope of clergypenitent privilege.

Case No.:26-22191

JCCP No.4374

RULING ON SUBMITTED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Production Of Documents came on for hearing on August 31,2005. The court, having read and considered the papers and heard oral argument, took the matter under submission and now rules as follows:

Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents is GRANTED in part and continued in part to allow for the production of an attorney-client privilege log.

Although defendants raised a number of objections when responding to plaintiffs' request for production of documents, they address only two of those objections in opposing plaintiffs' motion to compel: the penitential communication privilege and the attorney-client privilege, which the court will discuss in more detail below. As to the other objections not discussed by defendants, the court finds the objections are not well taken. The requested discovery requests are not overbroad, are relevant, and are not barred by Serbian East Orthodox Diocese v Milivojevich (1976) 426 U.S. 696.

Penitential Privilege

Evidence Code section 1032 provides:

As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.

Defendants object to the production of a number of documents requested by plaintiffs on the ground that they are protected by the penitential communication privilege contained in Evidence Code section 1032. This court finds that the privilege does not apply to communications between the alleged abusers and the Judicial Committee. The evidence presented by both sides establishes that communications with the Judicial Committee do not fall within the scope of the privilege. First, it is clear that the Judicial Committee's purpose is to investigate sins for which disfellowship is a potential penalty. This is established not only by the deposition excerpts provided by plaintiffs, but by the Watchtower publication provided by defendants in connection with the objections to plaintiffs' evidence. ("Judicial action is necessary only if a gross sin has been committed that could lead to disfellowshipping" p.18.) Second, the privilege does not apply because the Judicial Committee was under no duty to keep the communications private.

In fact, the evidence establishes that the Judicial Committee was required to communicate information it obtained regarding potential cases of child molestation to the Watchtower Society Headquarters.

Because the penitential communication privilege does not apply, within 20 days defendants shall produce all documents for which it previously asserted this privilege.

Attorney-client privilege: Defendants have not produced a privilege log for those few documents they apparently claim are protected by the attorney client privilege. Neither the plaintiffs nor the court can adequately address the objection without a privilege log. Defendants shall serve a privilege log on plaintiffs within 10 days. Plaintiffs may thereafter file and a supplemental brief addressing the log within 10 days. The court will then issue a written ruling on the matter. Dated: 09/29/2005, Raymond A. Guadagni, Judge 9

Against their will, Defendants produced two Privilege Logs as ordered, one for Defendant North Congregation and one for Defendant Watchtower. 10

Defendant North Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Red Bluff, CA., Inc. ("North Congregation"), provides the following privilege log:

Request no. 3: Minister - Communicant or Clergy - Penitent Privilege and Evidence Code \§\1030.et seq.

January 21, 1981, letter from elders in Upper Lake Congregation to North Congregation elders

November 23,1988,S-53b form from Service Department elders to all congregation elders in Red Bluff, CA

December 1, 1994, S-77 Form prepared by North Congregation Judicial Committee elders to Service Department elders

December 1, 1994, S-79b Form prepared by North Congregation Judicial Committee elders to Service Department elders

Letter dated December 1, 199[4], from North Congregation Judicial Committee elders to Service Department elders

December 3,1994, letter from North Congregation elders to Service Department elders (This letter found in Oregon's Grafmeyer case files)

October 2,1998, letter from North Congregation elders to East Congregation, Cottonwood, California elders (Found In Grafmeyer case)

October 16,1988, letter from circuit overseer to Service Department elders

December 31,2002, letter from James Henderson to North Congregation elders

Request no. 3. Attorney - Client Privilege

July 11, 1995, letter from Watchtower NY Legal Department to North Congregation elders

Undated, handwritten notes containing legal direction provided by Watchtower NY Legal Department to North Congregation elders

November 20,1995, letter from Watchtower NY Legal Department to North Congregation elders

June 6, 1996, letter from Watchtower NY Legal Department to North Congregation elders 11 Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

("Watchtower NY") provides the following privilege log:

Request no. 27(d): Minister - communicant or clergy - penitent privilege and Evidence Code 661030. et seq.

October 16, 1988, letter from circuit overseer to Service Department elders

November 23,1988,S-53b form from Service Department elders to all Congregation elders in Red Bluff, CA

December 3,1994, letter from North Congregation elders to Service Department elders

Request no. 27(I): Minister - communicant or clergy - penitent privilege end Evidence Code 661030. et seq.

December 1, 1994, S-77 Form from North Congregation Judicial Committee elders to Service Department elders

December 1, 1994, S-79b Form from North Congregation Judicial Committee elders to Service Department elders

Letter dated December 1, 199[4], from North Congregation Judicial Committee elders to Service Department elders

Letter dated December 26,1994, from district overseer to Service Department elders (Letter found in Oregon's Grafmeyer case records)

Attorney - client privilege:

July 11, 1995, letter from Watchtower NY Legal Department to North Congregation elders

November 3,1995, letter from Watchtower NY Legal Department to East Congregation, Ukiah, California, elders

Undated, handwritten notes containing legal direction provided by Watchtower NY Legal Department to North Congregation elders

November 20,1995, letter from Watchtower NY Legal Department to North Congregation elders

June 6,1996, letter from Watchtower NY Legal Department to North Congregation elders 12

For one year the Defendants objected to the Court's order. Finally, the Defendants appealed the order to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District.

Rudy and Bill: To follow up on my email sent this morning, I write to advise that Watch Tower Pennsylvania has decided not to seek a wit on the adverse personal jurisdiction ruling, but will reserve the issue for appeal through an affirmative defense in its answer. Watchtower New York and the North Congregation have decided to pursue a writ to seek appellate review in the two Track I cases on the court's ruling on the clergy - penitent or minister - communicant privilege issue. Therefore, I will appear at ex parte in Napa on Wednesday, 10/19/2005 at 1:30 pm with respect to a motion to stay execution of the court's order on the documents ordered produced that are subject to that privilege. The department in the Napa court has not been assigned but will be either Dept. B or Dept. C. When I check in one half hour ahead of time with the clerk's office, whichever department will be handling the matter. Thanks.- Bob Schnack 13 The following is the reason for the Defendants' Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Court of Appeal of the State of California dated, June 28, 2006.

It is taken from the Petition for Writ of Mandate. Also, what follows "the issue" is "CHRONOLOGY OF PERTIMENT EVENTS," copied from the Petition for Writ of Mandate. This should help the reader follow the sequence of events from the Defendants' point of view:

The issue presented in this writ petition is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to compel. In granting the motion, the trial court abused its discretion because disclosure of the requested documents is prohibited by (1) the penitent-clergy privilege, (2) the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and (3) the free exercise clause in both the federal and the California constitution. 14

CHRONOLOGY OF PERTINENT EVENTS

These Track I Cases arise from the alleged sexual abuse by co-defendant James Henderson in Tim W: that occurred more than 10 years ago and co-defendant Alvin Heard in Wimberley that occurred more than 24 years ago.

On July 24, 2003, Plaintiffs filed separate civil complaints against the Church Defendants asserting claims arising from allegations that the Church Defendants failed to report and/or disclose their knowledge of child abuse allegedly committed by James Henderson and Alvin Heard.

On January 13,2005, Plaintiffs propounded document requests to the Church Defendants seeking, inter alia, documents and information related to confidential spiritual communications that penitents Henderson and Heard had separately with clergy within a Jehovah's Witness congregation.

On April 5,2005,the Church Defendants objected to certain of Plaintiffs' document requests on the grounds that the responsive documents are protected from disclosure by the penitent clergy privilege and the attorney-client privilege.

On July 29, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses to their requests for production of documents, arguing that the documents sought are not protected by either the penitent-clergy or attorney-client privileges.

On August 19,2005,the Church Defendants filed their opposition to the motion to compel,asserting the requested documents were protected from disclosure based on privilege and constitutional grounds.

The documents at issue in the underlying motion to compel relate to spiritual communications between penitent James Henderson and ordained elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and spiritual communications between penitent Alvin Heard and ordained elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

On September 29, 2005, the trial court granted, in part, Plaintiffs' motion to compel and ordered the Church Defendants to produce all documents for which they previously asserted the penitent-clergy privilege. The trial court also ordered the Church Defendants to produce a privilege log with respect to all documents for which they asserted the attorney-client privilege, reserving Plaintiffs' right to challenge the log.

On October 24, 2005, the trial court granted the Church Defendant's motion to stay execution of order to produce documents until such time that a writ can be filed and ruled upon by the Court of Appeal.

On November 22, 2005, the trial court entered its stipulated order extending the time for the filing of the instant writ to April 28, 2006.

On May 1,2006,the trial court entered a further stipulated order extending the time for the filing of the instant writ up to and including June 30,2006.

BASIS FOR RELIEF

The issue presented in this writ petition is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to compel. In granting the motion, the trial court abused its discretion because disclosure of the requested documents is prohibited by (1) the penitent-clergy privilege, (2) the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and (3) the free exercise clause in both the federal and the California constitution.

ABSENCE OF OTHER REMEDIES

Interlocutory review is the only adequate remedy for the trial court's order compelling the Church Defendants to produce potentially privileged documents since "once privileged matter has been disclosed there is no way to undo the harm which consists in the very disclosure." (Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.)

PRAYER

Petitioners/Church Defendants pray that this Court:

Issue an alternative writ directing respondent superior court set aside and vacate its order of September 29, 2005, granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel, or show cause why it should not be ordered to do so, and upon return of the alternative writ, issue a peremptory writ of mandate and/or probation or such other extraordinary relief as is warranted, directing respondent superior court to set aside and vacate its order of September 29, 2005, granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel, and to enter a new and different order denying the motion;

Award Petitioners/Church Defendants their costs pursuant to Rule 56.4 of the California Rules of Court; and 3. Grant such other relief as may be just and proper. 15

Defendants' Petition for a Writ of Mandate was DENIED on July 6,2006 and on October 16, 2006 the lower court once again took up the subject:

Case No.:26-22191

JCCP No.4374

RULING ON SUBMITTED DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Plaintiffs' Motions To Compel Discovery came on for hearing on October 13,2006. The court, having read and considered the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion and having heard oral argument, took the motions under submission and now rules as follows:

Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Depositions and/or for Protective Order re: the Woodland Elders (Motion #1)

The Watchtower defendants have informed the plaintiffs that, at the depositions of four Church Elders, they will invoke the clergy-penitent privilege and object to "any inquiries concerning judicial investigations and judicial committees." Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the deponents to attend their depositions and to respond to such inquiries.

This court has previously ruled in the Track I cases that the penitential communication privilege does not apply to communications between the alleged abusers and the Judicial Committee. (See Court's ruling of September 29, 2005.) Although that ruling is not res judicata in non-track I cases, defendants provide no convincing reason why the court should rule differently in this case. For the reasons expressed in the earlier ruling, the court concludes that the witnesses may not assert the penitential communication privilege.

…