Our opposers claim that we do not comply with Delaware's mandatory reporting laws on child abuse. But it occurred to me that they may not have reported in the case of Carmean White for the reason that they felt that the mother's intent to report it would be enough. We don't know what their discussions were behind closed doors because of the clergy/penitent confidentiality clause, but I think this is simply a case of the elders not being sure of their responsibilities in the matter. The following analysis of the law is not a justification or defense of the elders' lack of reporting, but is simply a close examination of the mandatory reporting law to highlight potential problems. There are some fundamental problems, gaping holes that do not, in fact, do the job for which they are intended. (Thought that is not to say that Delaware judges would not fairly recognize those deficiencies.) We could see problems in these matters appear in the future. (But not in regard to th...

Note: Following are my thoughts on what took place at the Royal Commission and afterward. As I study the information more, I will add to this post. You can find the Royal Commission transcripts here . First of all, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Herin referred to as the Royal Commission) is not a court hearing. It is the same as a Senate Committee or Commission in the United States. (Such as the PMRC or McCarthy era hearings, from which little appears to have been learned.) It is legislative, not judicial. Thus, anything coming out of the Royal Commission cannot serve to condemn Jehovah's Witnesses. It can only result in developing laws that affect how Jehovah's Witnesses and other organizations deal with the issue of child sex abuse. It cannot make rulings for or against any one organization or levy penalties on that organization except as that organization breaks laws related to its participation in the hearing. The Royal Com...

When the Watchtower was asked by a U.S. court to present governing body member Gerrit Lösch and documents involving a former elder and accused pedophile, brother Lösch did not come as asked and they did not present the documents. Why? As brother Lösch himself provided in a written document, he does not and never has answered to the Watchtower. Should we be shocked by this? No. The summons was for what the court perceived to be a long-standing member of the head of 'the Watchtower organization'. However, the Watchtower magazine is not and never has been the head of the organization. "The Watchtower" is a publication, not a religious organization, nor even a publishing company. What purpose does brother Lösch's response serve? It gives the organization grounds for appeal because the courts did not follow the proper procedure. If the court officers, the prosecutors, had followed proper due diligence, they would have found that the Watchtower is nothing more ...