Grafmyer v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)
Download: PDF — Grafmyer v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)
BARBARA ANDERSON
Court Documents
Grafmyer vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Crisis
BARBARA ANDERSON
Court Documents
Grafmyer
vs
Jehovah’s Witnesses Contents
CASE # 06-C-15281 CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION Filed: June 6, 2006
JARED GRAFMYER Plaintiff, vs. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. and LANCASTER CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, Defendants.
COMPLAINT, Filed 6/6/06 6
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION, Filed 10/11/06 14
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, Filed 10/10/06 19
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES G. NELSON, Filed 10/11/06 29
Exhibits:
(1) Deposition of James Walter Whitney, 3/9/04 31
(2) Cover Sheet and Page One of Elder’s Handbook, “PAY ATTENTION YOURSELVES AND TO ALL THE FLOCK” 52
(3) MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Elizabeth Perris, U. S. District Court, Oregon, 12/23/05; 54
(4) RULING ON SUBMITTED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF NAPA, Filed 9/29/05; 97
(5) Letter TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS from Watchtower, 3/14/97. 100
E-mail to Judge Paul J. Lipscomb from Attorney Gregory S. Love, 10/12/06 102
DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, Filed 10/25/06 104
DECLARATION OF MERTON V. CAMPBELL, Dated 10/23/06 117 Contents
DECLARATION OF MURRAY MORRIS, Dated 9/24/06 123
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, Dated 10/24/06 127
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, Filed 10/27/06 128
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES G. NELSON, Filed 10/27/06 145
Exhibit A:
Letter to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society from Red Bluff Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 8/31/81 147
Disfellowshipping Congregation Form: Red Bluff, CA. re: Alvin Heard 148
S-77 Form: Notification of Disfellowshipping or Disassociation, South Red Bluff, CA; Name of Disfellowshipped, Jim Henderson, 3/22/95 149
Red Bluff North Congregation Letter to Watchtower re: Jim Henderson, 12/1/95 150
North Congregation, Red Bluff, CA letter to Watchtower about removal of James L. Henderson as presiding overseer, 12/3/94 153
Letter to Watchtower from Donald D. Amy, District Overseer, 12/26/94 154
Letter to East Cottonwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses from North Congregation Jehovah’s Witnesses re: James Henderson, 10/2/98 156
Exhibit B:
Letter Opinion from Judge Patrick A. Pirtle, Amarillo, Texas to Attorneys Hampton, Jones, Love and Spriggs, 3/29/04 157
Exhibit C:
Oral and Videotaped Deposition of Curtis Hail, 11/18/03 161
Exhibit D:
Oral and Videotaped Deposition of Larry Kelley, 12/5/03 166
Exhibit E:
Hearing Held on January 30, 2004 before Judge Patrick A.
Pirtle, Amarillo, Potter County, Texas. 170
Exhibit F:
Letter TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS from Watchtower, 7/20/98 183 Contents
Exhibit G:
Superior Court For The State Of California, County of Napa, RULING ON SUBMITTED DISCOVERY MOTIONS, 10/16/06 186
Exhibit H:
Videotaped Deposition of Leroy Martin Reid, Jr. 8/16/06 189
Exhibit I:
Court Decision—WATCHTOWER Petitioners v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NAPA COUNTY, Respondents; TIM W., ET AL., Real Parties in Interest, Filed 7/6/06. 191
Exhibit J:
CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURTS, Case Information DEFENDANTS’ THIRD MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION, Filed 11/07/06 192
DEFENDANTS’ THIRD MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION, Filed 11/7/06 193
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MERTON V. CAMPBELL,
Filed 11/14/06 201
E-mail to Attorney Gregory S. Love from Attorney John Kaempf, 11/17/06 204
Letter to Judge Paul Lipscomb from Laura Grant Trevisiol, Legal Assistant, 11/27/06 205
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, Entered 12/1/06 206
E-mail to Judge Paul Lipscomb from Attorney John Kaempf, 12/5/06 208
Letter OPINION to Attorneys Nelson and Kaempf from Judge Paul Lipscomb, 12/8/06 209
E-mail to Judge Lipscomb from John Kaempf, 12/17/06 210
Letter to Attorney Gregory S. Love from Susan Hurt (Judge Lipscomb’s Clerk), 12/18/06 211
E-mail to Attorney Gregory S. Love from Attorney John Keampf, 12/26/06 212
Letter OPINION to Attorney John Kaempf from Judge Paul Lipscomb, 1/5/07 214 Contents
E-mail to Judge Paul J. Lipscomb from Attorney John Kaempf, 1/10/07 215
Letter to Judge Lipscomb from Attorneys Love & Norris, 1/10/07 217
E-mail to Judge Paul J. Lipscomb from Attorney John Kaempf, 1/11/07 219
STIPULATED GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS, Filed 2/8/07 221
Copy of envelope, "SEALED DOCUMENTS FOR IN-CAMERA REVIEW" 222 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
JARED GRAFMYER
CASE NO. 06C15281
10 WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.,
11 WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
12 and LANCASTER CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
COMPLAINT (Negligence, Breach of Confidential Relationship, Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress)
Not subject to Mandatory Arbitration
Jury Trial Requested
Plaintiff alleges:
COMMON FACTS
Plaintiff JARED GRAFMYER is a resident of Port Lavaca, Calhoun County, Texas.
2.
Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201-2483, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its officers, agents, and servants.
3.
4.
Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with offices at 1630 Spring Run Road Extension, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its officers, agents, and servants.
Defendant Lancaster Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is an entity that carries out the functions and responsibilities of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, and the "Governing Body" in Marion County, Oregon. Defendant Lancaster Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses has its office/principal place of business at 4795 Macleay Road SE, Salem, Oregon, 97301.
5.
The Defendant entities are collectively referred to hercin as the "Watchtower Defendants". All operate as a single business enterprise.
6.
Venue is proper in Marion County, Oregon, because some of the acts or omissions that give rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Marion County and because Defendant Lancaster Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, does business in that county.
7.
The Watchtower Defendants comprise a hierarchical organization made up of different corporations and other entities. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York is the parent organization of all entities of Jehovah's Witnesses in the
Complaint Graftmyer v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.
United States. The "Governing Body" establishes policies and dictates practices for Jehovah's Witnesses throughout the world, and operates through various corporate entities including the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
Local entities are led by officers called Elders and Ministerial Servants who are appointed by the Governing Body and/or the Watchtower Bible and Trace Society of New York. Elders and Ministerial Servants are agents of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York and the Governing Body. Elders and Ministerial Servants at all times conduct themselves in the scope and authority of their appointed positions, which is defined by the Governing Body and the Watchtower Society, and at all times Elders and Ministerial Servants are under their authority.
8.
2 Jerry Anderson Crabb was appointed Ministerial Servant in the Lancaster Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses by the Governing Body and/or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York. A Ministerial Servant is an agent of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, the Governing Body and the other Watchtower Defendants.
9.
A Ministerial Servant is held out by the Watchtower Defendants to be a person of good character and responsibility and a person one can trust to supervise minor children. Parents within the Watchtower organization are encouraged to view Ministerial Servants as role models for their children. Children within the organization are taught to look up to and respect Ministerial Servants.
Jerry Anderson Crabb was a pedophile who had sexually abused a child in early 1964. He was convicted or pled guilty. Nevertheless, he was appointed Ministerial Servant and allowed to occupy a leadership position in the Lancaster Congregation.
11.
In approximately 1991, Crabb used the "position of trust" that his status as Ministerial Servant represented and conferred, to develop a relationship with Jared Grafmyer, age 8, but he betrayed that trust by sexually abusing Plaintiff on multiple occasions.
12.
Crabb used Lancaster Congregation meetings at their facility called Kingdom Hall as opportunities to get to know Jared Grafmyer; he brought presents to the Kingdom Hall to give to Jared and he "groomed" Jared so that Crabb could subsequently molest and abuse him.
13.
Elders in the Lancaster Congregation who knew or should have known that Crabb had a history of being a pedophile watched as Crabb developed the close relationship with Jared Grafmyer that would allow Crabb to sexually exploit Jared.
14.
Although elders knew or should have known about Crabb's past, they failed to warn Jared's mother that her son was being stalked by a sexual predator or take any action to prevent the foreseeable abuse.
15.
After Crabb's abuse of Jared Grafmyer came to light, elders of the Lancaster Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses instructed Jared Grafmyer's mother not to tell the police.
16.
Jared's father ignored that instruction and reported the crime to police, which resulted in Crabb's confession and conviction.
COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE
17.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 16 above.
18.
The Watchtower Defendants were negligent in one or more of the following particulars and that negligence has been a substantial contributing factor to the damages sustained by Plaintiff Jared Crafmyer as alleged below:
a. Despite the fact that the Watchtower Defendants knew, or should have known, of Jerry Anderson Crabb's history of pedophilia, they negligently appointed him to the office of Ministerial Servant when they knew or should have known that he would be allowed unsupervised access to minor children in the course and scope of his duties;
b. Despite the fact that the Watchtower Defendants knew, or should have known, of Jerry Anderson Crabb's history of pedophilia, they failed to warn Plaintiff, or his family, of Crabb's history of sexually abusing children;
Complaint Grafmyer v. Watchtower Bible and Trust Society of New York, Inc., et al.
c. Despite the fact that the Watchtower Defendants knew, or should have known, of Jerry Anderson Crabb's history of pedophilia, they negligently permitted him to be alone with children, including Plaintiff, at their property and at their organized events;
d. The Watchtower Defendants negligently failed to supervise Crabb despite their actual or constructive knowledge that he posed a potential and foreseeable danger to children.
This negligence resulted in severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, shame and physical harm to Plaintiff, all to his economic damage in the amount of 25,000, and to his noneconomic damage in the amount of 3,000,000.
COUNT II: BREACH OF CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above.
Crabb used his position of Ministerial Servant to create a confidential relationship between himself and Jared Grafmyer. The Ministerial Servant position is one of trust and confidence to members of a Jehovah's Witness organization. Organization members know that a Ministerial Servant has been appointed by the Governing Body and the Watchtower Society and, therefore, is deemed to be worthy of trust. Parents are encouraged to entrust the welfare of their children to those such as Crabb, with appointed positions of authority within the organization. Crabb misused his position of trust to obtain access to, and sexually abuse, Jared Grafmyer. As described below, the Watchtower Defendants are liable for their conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Complaint Crafmyer v. Watchlower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.
This breach of confidential relationship resulted in severe, permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, shame and physical harm to Plaintiff, all to his economic damage in the amount of 25,000, and to his noneconomic damage in the amount of3,000,000.
COUNT III: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
21.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 20 above.
22.
Crabb's actions exceeded the limits of social toleration and were done with the knowledge that they would cause Jared Grafmyer grave distress, which they have in fact caused. Accordingly, Crabb's conduct constitutes the tort of "intentional infliction of emotional distress." As described below, the Watchtower Defendants are liable for such conduct under the doctrine of respondent superior, all to Plaintiff's noneconomic damage of $3,000,000.
COUNT IV: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS
23.
24.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 22 above.
The Watchtower Defendant's actions exceed the limits of social toleration and were done with the knowledge that they would cause Jared Grafmyer grave distress, which they have in fact caused. Accordingly, the actions of the Watchtower Defendants constitute the tort of "intentional infliction of severe emotional distress" all to Plaintiff's noneconomic damage of $3,000,000.
Page 7 Complaint Grafmyer v. Watchtower Bible and Fract Society of New York, Inc., et al WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Watchtower Defendants individually, jointly, and severally, for economic damages of 25,000, non-economic damages of 3,000,000, plus costs and disbursements herein, and for whatever additional relief the Court deems just and equitable.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2006.
9 SUBMITTED BY:
James C. Nelson OSB #74230
NELSON & MacNEIL, P.C.
10 Nelson & MacNeil, P.C. P.O.Box 946
By James G. Nelson OSB #74230
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 Albany, OR 97321 (541) 928-9147-Office
12 (541) 928-3621-Fax pilaw@proaxis.com
14 OF ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF:
Gregory S. Love, Esquire
Love & Norris
15 314 Main Street, Suite 300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102
16 (817) 732-7100-Office
17 (817) 732-7101-Fax gslove@airmail.net
18 Hartley Hampton, Esquire
19 Hibich, Hampton & Leebron 1401 McKinney, Suite 1800
20 Houston, Texas 77010 (713)751-0025-Office
21 713-751-0030-Fax hhampton@FHL-Law.com
24 STATE OF OREGON
Marion County Circuit Courts
OCT 16 2006
ENTERED
OCT 11 2006
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
JARED GRAFMYER,
No. 06-C-15281
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, and LANCASTER CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
(ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)
Plaintiff's motion to compel production is brought by his Texas attorneys and is based entirely on a waiver argument that fails as a matter of Oregon law and undisputed fact. Also, defendants have responded to plaintiff's document requests and produced dozens of documents. Therefore, plaintiff's motion should be denied.
This is a civil action based on alleged childhood sexual abuse of plaintiff by Jerry Crabb, a former member of the Jehovah's Witnesses Church. Plaintiff served defendants with document requests, and a response was due by the end of July 2006. Plaintiff admits that on June 16, 2006, before the deadline to respond, defendants' counsel specifically objected to producing any privileged documents. (Plaintiff's Motion at p.4.)
Page 1- DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION Defendants' counsel also promised to follow-up with a more detailed response to plaintiff's document requests.
Id. That is exactly what then occurred. Earlier this month, defendants served plaintiff's counsel with formal responses to each of plaintiff's three sets of document requests, along with dozens of responsive documents.
Plaintiff cites ORCP 43B in support of the argument that defendants are required to produce all requested documents because no specific objection to the requests was submitted before the deadline to respond. Id. However, plaintiff is incorrect. First, as plaintiff admits, before the deadline to respond to plaintiff's requests, defendants' counsel specifically objected to producing any privileged documents. Id.
Second, even if defendants had not timely and specifically objected to plaintiff's document requests, the court in Citizens' Utility Board v. Oregon PUC, 128 Or App 650 (1994), rejected plaintiff's argument. The court held that ORCP 43B does not dictate that a defendant waives objections to document requests by not specifically responding and objecting to the requests within the time specified. Id. at 657-658.
Therefore, plaintiff's motion fails as a matter of law and undisputed fact.
Pursuant to OEC 506, defendants also object to producing documents subject to the clergy privilege. OEC 506(2) provides as follows: "A member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member of the clergy in the member's professional character unless consent to the disclosure of the confidential communication is given by the person who made the communication."
Defendants' OEC 506 objection applies to plaintiff's request for "any and all judicial committee records" regarding Jerry Crabb; "any and all documents sent by any congregation to the Service Department" regarding Jerry Crabb; "any and all 'Child Abuse Telememos'" relating to Jerry Crabb; "any and all reports to the Watchtower Society" concerning Jerry Crabb "made by any congregation pursuant to the March 14, 1997, and/or July 20 1998, Letters to All Bodies of Elders;" "any and all documents reflecting or pertaining to" Jerry
Page 2- DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION Crabb's appointment and deletion "as Ministerial Servant, Elder or Pioneer;" any and all documents reflecting or pertaining to Jerry Crabb "being disfellowshipped [excommunicated] by any congregation at any time;" and "any and all documents reflecting or pertaining to any discipline administered to" Jerry Crabb "at any time including, but not limited to, reproofs or restrictions of privileges."
See Plaintiff's Exhibits A-C.
In the present case, some of the documents defendants refuse to produce are confidential communications made to members of defendants' clergy in their capacity as spiritual advisors. Moreover, there is no evidence that any person who made such a confidential communication has given consent to disclosure of the communication. Therefore, the documents plaintiff seeks are privileged and not discoverable under OEC 506(2).
The Court stated in a recent teleconference with counsel that it would rely on the Bankruptcy Court's analysis of this issue in the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland case. In that case, Judge Perris, construing OEC 506, held that the rule bars discovery relating to "communications that are made to a clergy person in the capacity of a spiritual advisor." In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 335 BR 815, 830 (Bankruptcy D Or 2005). This is precisely the basis of defendants' objection.
Judge Perris also held that a plaintiff may not "seek information relating to legal advice with regard to reports of such sexual abuse" because that information is privileged, and, therefore, a plaintiff "may not inquire into inquiries to counsel seeking advice or any advice given by counsel." Id. at 827.
This confirms the validity of defendants' attorney-client privilege objection, as well as defendants' work product privilege objection. See also OEC 503 (codifying the attorney- client privilege); ORCP 36B(3) (codifying the work product privilege, which applies to documents "prepared in anticipation of litigation," as well as documents containing "the ////
Page 3- DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party" ).
The Court should note that plaintiff cites no rule of evidence or other authority to support his argument that defendants must produce all requested documents. Rather, plaintiff relies entirely on a waiver argument that fails as a matter of law and undisputed fact, as shown above. See Citizens' Utility Board, 128 Or App at 657-658; OEC 506(2); Plaintiff's Motion at p.4.
Plaintiff also requests that defendants produce a "privilege log." (Plaintiff's proposed Order at p.1.) However, the ORCP do not provide for privilege logs. This is significant because FRCP 26, the counterpart to ORCP 36, does provide for privilege logs, but Oregon did not adopt that subsection of the rule. See FRCP 26(b)(5). Pursuant to ORS 174.010, this Court cannot add a privilege log provision to the ORCP that it does not contain.
Finally, an award of attorney fees to plaintiff is not justified. The Court should note that plaintiff's counsel called defendants' counsel on September 8,2006 to "confer" about plaintiff's motion to compel. However, this effort to confer was not in "good faith" as required by UTCR 5.010 because plaintiff's counsel had already drafted the motion and admitted that it would be filed the same day, regardless of defendants' counsel's response, which is exactly what occurred.
Also, plaintiff's Texas counsel continues to press for the production of documents, while at the same time refusing to respond to defendants' counsel's repeated requests to set dates for depositions. (The Court may recall that during the recent telephone status conference with the Court, defendants' counsel again asked plaintiff's Texas counsel to contact defendants' counsel with available deposition dates. However, plaintiff's counsel has not responded.) In other words, defendants have produced the requested discoverable documents as promised, but plaintiff's counsel will not agree to any deposition dates.
Page 4- DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC
888 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, Oregon 97204-2089
Telephone: 503.228.6351
Facsimile: 503.295.0915 Plaintiff cannot stall portions of discovery, but then obtain attorney fees for his own motion to compel production.
Moreover, ORCP 46A(4) only allows for an award of attorney fees when a motion to compel is granted, and the defendants' opposition is not "substantially justified." The facts and law cited herein show that defendants' opposition is substantially justified. Plaintiff is suing defendants, religious entities, for millions of dollars based on alleged sexual abuse by one of the defendant Church's former members. This raises important issues of clergy privilege, work product privilege, and attorney-client privilege that defendants must assert.
Therefore, plaintiff's motion to compel should be denied.
DATED: October 9, 2006.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
John Kaempf, OSB #92539
E-mail: john.kaempf@bullivant.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Page 5- DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
Bullivant|Houscr|Bailey PC IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
ISSUES
A member, in a leadership role, of the Defendants' organizations sexually abused the Plaintiff, then an 8-year-old member of one of Defendant's membership groups. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants knew or should have known that the perpetrator had a history of sexually abusing children, was using Defendants' organization to "groom" Plaintiff, and failed to prevent the foreseeable abuse. The scope of discovery is outlined in ORCP 36B(1) and includes any information, not privileged, relevant to Plaintiff's claim, or "reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence".
Page 1. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendants' Opposition... Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
Plaintiff's Requests for Production were served on all Defendants with Summons and Complaint. As required by ORCP Rule 43, the requests gave Defendants 45 days to produce documents.
Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on June 6,2006.
Defendant Lancaster Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses was served on June 13,2006. (Referred to as "Lancaster Congregation" herein.) Defendant Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., was served on June 16, 2006. Defendant Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania was served on June 16, 2006. (Defendants Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., and Defendant Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania collectively referred to herein as "Watchtower Defendants".)
In a letter dated June 15,2006, Attorney Ronald Bailey, of the Bullivant Houser Bailey law firm, notified Plaintiff's attorney that their firm would be representing all Defendants.
In an e-mail dated June 16,2006, to Plaintiff's attorneys, Attorney John Kaempf, one of the Defendant's attorneys, indicated that they would be providing a response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production but that they would be objecting to "privileged" documents.
On September 8, 2006 Plaintiff had not yet received responses or other objections from Defendants; Plaintiff moved this Court to order compelling each Defendant to make a complete production to each of the 15 requests propounded on each Defendant. The respective requests are listed in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, on file herein.
Page 2. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendants' Opposition... Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
On September 25, 2006 the Court initiated a Case Management Conference wherein John Kaempf appeared on behalf of the Defendants, and Gregory Love appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. During that conference, both counsel discussed the potential of future conflicts in discovery in connection with the Defendants' anticipated assertion of a Clergy Privilege under the Oregon Evidence Code (OEC 506). A hearing was scheduled for October 12, 2006. Defendants were to have their responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production filed by October 2, 2006.
On the afternoon of Friday, October 6, 2006, Plaintiffs received discovery responses from each Defendant which were essentially the same. (Defendants' attorney, John Kaempf, did notify Plaintiff's attorneys that his response would be a few days late.) Defendants object to virtually every request as follows:
Defendant objects to this request as overly broad as to time and scope. Defendant also objects that this request may call for communications and documents protected by the minister-communicant privilege as set forth in OEC 506. Further, defendant objects that this request may call for confidential and personal information involving persons who are not parties to this lawsuit, and would therefore constitute an invasion of the privacy rights of non-parties.
The only documents Defendants produced with the October 6,2006 response were membership rosters and related documents showing the years the perpetrator was a member of Defendants' organizations.
On October 9, 2006, Defendants e-mailed copies of some of the Defendants policies and procedures and recordkeeping requirements. Of significance is the Defendants' policy that any of their member organization files relating to alleged child abuse cases should be marked "Do not destroy" and kept indefinitely.
Page 3. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendants' Opposition... Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
Plaintiff will address each of these objections below. Before doing so, however, some background is necessary for the Court to understand some terms and practices that are unique to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization.
Larry Crabb - Perpetrator
In January 1982, Larry Crabb was appointed by the Watchtower Society to serve as a Ministerial Servant, a leadership position within the Lancaster Congregation. In 1991, Crabb sexually abused Plaintiff, a young member of the Congregation. Crabb was investigated by two or more Elders and then subjected to a Judicial Committee in or around July 1991. Crabb was then removed by the Watchtower Society from his position as a Ministerial Servant. Documentation and reports regarding Crabb's abuse and his disfellowship were sent to the Watchtower Defendants' headquarters in Brooklyn, New York.
Judicial Committees - Description
Judicial Committees are formed when a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization has been accused of serious wrongdoing, including child sexual abuse. The Judicial Committee is an adversarial proceeding that is initiated by a report of wrongdoing. (See deposition testimony of former Elder and Congregation Secretary of a California Congregation and member of Oregon congregations, Jim Whitney, attached as Exhibit 1 at 124:10-126:6.) The purpose of a Judicial Committee is to protect the image of the organization by self-policing. (See Exhibit 1 at 118:9-120:9 and 122:18-124:9.)
The report of wrongdoing is then "investigated" by one or more congregation elders. (See Exhibit 1 at 118:9-122:17.) If the elders determine that the allegation of serious wrongdoing has merit, the congregation elders will form a Judicial Committee that is made up of two to five elders to hear the matter.
(See Exhibit 2 at pg.109.) The person subject to the Judicial Committee is then summoned to a hearing and confronted. (See Exhibit 1 at 195:12-196:23.) The procedural rules for this adversarial proceeding are found in the Watchtower publication entitled "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock." (Excerpts of the Flock Book are attached hereto as Exhibit 2).
In the "Flock" book's procedural provisions, the proceeding is referred to as "a hearing" and the person subject to the review of the Judicial Committee is referred to as "the accused", wherein the accused is informed as to the "charges" being brought against him. (See Exhibit 2 at pgs.110 and 119.) The procedural rules for this "hearing" include things such as rules of evidence, rules for witness testimony, and appeals. (See Exhibit 2 at pgs.111,119,and 124-128.)
The procedural rules require that the Judicial Committee create written records of Judicial Committee hearings (see Exhibit 2 at pg.122), and that the written summaries be kept by the Congregation Secretary (Elder) at the Kingdom Hall. (See Exhibit 1 at 149:12-24; 152:25-153:20; and 161:15-162:1.) The Judicial Committee files are kept according to the rules promulgated by the Society. (See Exhibit 1 at 154:18- 156:5.) A Judicial Committee file can contain information regarding a person's child molestation history, the number of offenses, the sexes and ages of victims, and how the Society handled the child molester and/or victims. (See Exhibit 1 at 164:6-169:9 and 172:2-7.) Defendants argue that most of Plaintiff's discovery requests violate the privilege for confidential communications to clergy under OEC 506.
OEC 506(2) provides:
(2) A member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member of the clergy in the member's professional character unless consent to the disclosure of the confidential communication is given by the person who made the communication.
This provision was closely evaluated by the Honorable Elizabeth L. Perris, United States District Court for the District of Oregon, in In Re: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon et al (Bankruptcy Case No. 04-37154-e1p11). The District Court held that " [i]n light of the purpose of the privilege, and the fact that it was originally directed at confession, I conclude that it should be applied only to communications that are made to a clergy person acting in the capacity of a spiritual advisor." (See Memorandum Opinion p. 19; attached hereto as Exhibit 3.)
The Judicial Committee and related documents requested by Plaintiff seeks the type of information that does not fall within the protections of OEC 506. The communications arising from the hearings of the accused do not contemplate privacy with one person, but instead, by their very nature, require at least two to five people to be present and preside over the hearing. They advocate evidentiary procedures with witnesses providing testimony and an appeals process, which hardly promotes the clergy's duty to keep such communications secret. Further, the Elders participating in this adversarial process are acting as investigators and judiciary, not as spiritual advisors providing spiritual comfort.
Watchtower Defendants should not be allowed to stand behind the clergypenitent privilege and use it as a shield to hide evidence regarding Larry Crabb's Page 6. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendants' Opposition... Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
perpetration of child sexual abuse and their knowledge of these facts in an effort to avoid civil liability. The privilege just does not apply under the present circumstances.
California Supreme Court has Rejected Watchtower Defendants' Position
At present, there are several similar cases being pursued by victims of sexual abuse against the Watchtower Defendants and other congregations; the California cases have been coordinated in Napa County. Virtually identical requests for production were propounded on the Watchtower Defendants and the California version of the clergy privilege was asserted. After briefing and oral argument, the Napa Court granted the motion to compel and held as follows:
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.
(See Ruling on Submitted Motion to Compel, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
The Napa Court reasoned further that "Evidence presented by both sides establishes that communications with the Judicial Committee do not fall within the scope of the privilege" (emphasis in original). The Watchtower Defendants sought to overturn the Napa Court ruling at the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court; both applications for writ were refused.
Burden of Proof
When a party asserts a privilege in lieu of answering discovery, the burden is on the party asserting the privilege to establish the existence and proper application of the privilege. Defendants have not met their burden.
Page 7. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendants' Opposition... Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
Plaintiff's Requests are not Overly Broad
In the General Objections portion of their responses, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's requests are overly broad as to time:
The relevant time period is defendant's alleged actions during the time when the alleged conduct involving plaintiff occurred. Plaintiff alleges that he was abused in 1991. The scope of proper inquiry should therefore be limited to 1991. Thus the responses that follow are limited to that time period, unless otherwise noted.
Plaintiff's requests are specific and narrowly tailored to obtain the information that is related to the matters raised in Plaintiff's Complaint. Information prior to 1991 is critical to establish Defendants' awareness that Crabb was a child sexual abuser or that there were prior Judicial Committee actions accusing Crabb of sexually inappropriate behavior prior to or during his appointment as a Ministerial Servant. Information subsequent to 1991 is important to understand the Defendants' practice and policy changes, if any, after learning of the dangers of child sexual abuse. Additionally, on March 14, 1997, the Watchtower Defendants directed that all U.S. congregations, including the Congregation Defendant, evaluate all of their congregation records regarding past sexual abusers and submit a detailed report to the Watchtower Defendants' headquarters in Brooklyn; the report was to include:
However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerly served in a Society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past.
In your report please answer the following questions: How long ago did he commit the sin? What was his age at the time? What was the age of his victim(s)? Was it a one-time occurrence or a practice? If it was a practice, to what extent? How is he viewed in the community and by the authorities? Has he lived down any notoriety in the community? Are members of the congregation aware of what took place? How do they and/or his victim(s) view him? If he has moved to another congregation, please identify the congregation to which he has moved. Was that congregation advised of his past conduct of child molestation, and, if so,
Page 8.
Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendants' Opposition... Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
when? [If you have not advised them, this should be done now, and you should send a copy of your letter to the Society along with any other observations that the body of elders has. Please send this to the Society in the "Special Blue" envelope so that the factors involved may be given due consideration; this information is not to be made available to those not involved.
(See March 14, 1997 letter, pgs 2-3; attached hereto as Exhibit 5.)
In 1997, the Watchtower Defendants instructed that the Lancaster Congregation prepare a specific report related to Crabb's past sexually abusive behavior. The information requested by the Watchtower Society headquarters is eerily similar to Plaintiff's requests for production. Limiting Plaintiff's inquiry would allow Defendants to withhold information that bears directly on Crabb's abuse of Plaintiff and others, as well as how the Defendants responded in 1991 and thereafter.
In the matter In Re: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, the Honorable Elizabeth L. Perris, United States District Court for the District of Oregon, addressed the assertion of an objection that discovery was overbroad as to time; the Catholic Defendants, too, asserted that the appropriate scope of discovery was the actual year the abuse occurred. Judge Perris of the District Court rejected that position by holding as follows:
I will not limit the time frame for questions about debtor's patterns, practices, and policies with regard to dealing with allegations of clergy sexual misconduct with minors. This is discovery. The test is whether the information sought "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
(See Memorandum Opinion p.19; attached hereto as Exhibit 3.)
THERE IS NO "INVASION OF PRIVACY" PRIVILEGE
The final objection urged by Defendants asserts that the information sought by Plaintiff may call for confidential and personal information involving non-parties. To begin with, there is no privacy "privilege"; certainly Defendants are not urging this Page 9. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendants' Opposition... Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
Court to allow them to withhold production of information to protect the sexual abuser, Larry Crabb.
CONCLUSION
Defendants have not met the burden of proof. Naked allegations of privilege alone are not sufficient. Defendants claim of privilege were rejected when considered by the Oregon District Court and by the California Superior Court under similar facts. Defendants should be ordered to produce all requested docuemtns. If the Court is in doubt as to any specific request, Defendants should be ordered to reduce the documents to the Court for an in camera review.
DATED this 10th day of October 10,2006.
NELSON & MacNeil, PC
James G. Nelson, OSB #74230 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
25 Page 10. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendants' Opposition... Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
JARED GRAFMYER
Plaintiff,
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA and LANCASTER CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
CASE NO. 06C15281
Defendants.
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Linn
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES G. NELSON
I, JAMES G. NELSON, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and state: I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff.
On information and belief, Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Compel Production of Documents is a true copy of excerpts of deposition testimony from the captioned Jehovah's Witnesses sex abuse case in Sonoma County, California.
On information and belief, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 5 to Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Compel Production of
Page 1. Affidavit of James G. Nelson in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
Documents are true copies of publications of Defendant Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.
DATED this 10th day of October,2006.
NELSON & MacNEIL, P.C.
By. James G. Nelson OSB #74230 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of October, 2006, by James G. Nelson.
Fauracsant
Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: 510.07
13 SUBMITTED BY:
James G. Nelson OSB #74230
Nelson & MacNeil, P.C.
14 P.O.Box 946
15 Albany, OR 97321
(541) 928-9147-Office
(541) 928-3621-Fax
16 pilaw@proaxis.com
17 OF ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF:
Gregory S. Love, Esquire
Love & Norris
18 314 Main Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 732-7100-Office
(817) 732-7101-Fax
gslove@airmail.net
22 Hartley Hampton, Esquire Fibich, Hampton & Leebron 1401 McKinney, Suite 1800 Houston, Texas 77010 (713)751-0025-Office 713-751-0030-Fax hhampton@FHLG-Law.com
Page 2. Affidavit of James G. Nelson in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Grafmyer v. Watchtower et al.
No.
JOCELYN A., a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, JOE A., REBECCA G., MICHAEL G., and NICHOLAS S., Plaintiffs,
-vs-
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, SANTA ROSA CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, PETALUMA CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, DONALD GLEW, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Defendants.
DENNIS S., FRED F., and SHIRLEY D., Plaintiffs,
-vs-
ROES 1 through 100 and DOES 110 through 120 inclusive, Defendants.
Page 2
Page 4
State of Illinois, at the Westin O'Hare Hotel, 6100 River Road, Rosemont, Illinois, on March 9, 2004, at the hour of 8:59 o'clock A.M.
MR. FALK: We're going on video record at 8:59 A.M. My name is Brian Falk.
PRESENT:
I am the legal videographer from Legal-Ease Video Services in association with Central Reporters.
GREGORY S. LOVE, ESQ. (of the firm of Messrs. Love & Norris, Western Union Building, 314 Main Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102) and WILLIAM L. BRELSFORD, JR., ESQ. (of the firm of Messrs. Nolen, Saul & Brelsford, 350 University Avenue, Suite 280, Sacramento, California 95825) appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs;
My address is 3550 North Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois. The court reporter is Judy Landauer of Central Reporters.
This is the videotaped discovery deposition of James W. Whitney taking place on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 at the Westin O'Hare Hotel, 6100 River Road, Rosemont, Illinois.
ROBERT J. SCHNACK, ESQ. (of the firm of Messrs. Bullivant, Houser & Bailey, PC, 11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 105, Gold River, California 95670-6310) appeared on behalf of the Watchtower defendants.
This deposition is being taken in the matter of Jocelyn, et al, vs.
Watchtower Bible and Tract, et al, case No. 234320, and Dennis Reid and Sherry -- MR. BRELSFORD: Dennis S.
MR. BRJAN C. FALK Legal-Ease Video Services.
MR. FALK: Dennis S., Fred F., and Sherry D., plaintiffs, vs. Roes 1 through 100 and Does 110 through 120 inclusive.
This deposition is being taken on behalf of Watchtower New York, et al.
James Walter Whitney Direct examination by Mr. Schnack. Page 5 EXHIBITS Deposition Exhibit No. 1. Page 159 Deposition Exhibit No. 2. Page 209 Deposition Exhibit No. 3. Page 226 Deposition Exhibit No. 4. Page 233
MR. BRELSFORD: Dennis S.
MR. FALK: Dennis S., Fred F., and Sherry D., plaintiffs, vs. Roes 1 through 100 and Does 110 through 120 inclusive.
This deposition is being taken on behalf of Watchtower New York, et al.
2 (Pages 2 to 5) fornication, drunkenness, drug abuse, child sexual abuse, and other less serious matters.
Q. What are some other less serious matters that Judicial Committees would be formed to handle?
A. Possibly, let's say, smoking.
Q. Did you ever serve on a Judicial Committee?
A. Yes.
Q. At what congregation?
A. Petaluma West.
Q. How many times?
A. It was four or five times I was on a committee, yes.
Q. And what types of matters came before the Judicial Committees on which you sat?
A. Smoking, masturbation, theft, fornication. I forget the -- I forget the other one.
Q. Did any of them deal with childhood sexual abuse?
A. On the committees I served on, no.
Q. Describe the procedure as to how a Judicial Committee gets formed.
A. Normally when there is an accusation two Elders are assigned to look into a matter. Based on their findings, they will recommend usually to the presiding overseer to form a Judicial Committee.
Q. Is that the way it happened in the Petaluma West Congregation?
A. More or less.
Q. What do you -- when you give a qualifier I'm going to follow up. What do you mean, more or less?
A. It didn't always 100 percent of the time perfectly follow procedure, but it was very close to procedure.
Q. Why would it differ? How would it differ from what you've described?
A. Sometimes events do not happen in a -- in a perfect world where they happen according -- events don't happen according to procedure, so perhaps in one case of a minor child having a problem they talk to an Elder, so maybe instead of two Elders investigating it might only be one.
Q. And do you have any information as to
A. Because all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere on this earth follow the same procedure as directed by its Governing Body through the Watchtower Society
Q. With respect to Judicial Committees, what actions can be taken by a Judicial Committee for those persons who are not deemed repentant?
A. What actions? They can be disfellowshipped.
A. They can be declared disassociated.
Q. What is disfellowshipping?
A. When a person is removed from membership in the congregation and they are totally shunned by all of their associates, friends, family, whatever.
Q. What are the reasons that someone might be disfellowshipped?
A. For serious wrongs.
Q. Is that a term of art, serious wrongs?
A. No, I use that to try to concisely convey to you what it would be.
Q. Okay. Give me a list of what some serious wrongs might be.
A. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, child abuse, of course, pedophilia. And when I say child abuse I also meant it in a broader category of physical abuse, violence.
It could be smoking, drunkenness, drug abuse. And what would be also considered serious may be not following the society's policies and procedures.
Q. And what is disassociation?
A. Disassociation generally is an action that is considered taken by the person themselves to disassociate from the congregation, but they are treated the same as if they are disfellowshipped.
Q. And you also mentioned above -- just a few minutes ago that someone could be declared disassociated?
A. Yes.
31 (Pages 118 to 121) Page 122
Q. What did you mean by that?
A. Well, for example, they may take some action, join the military. They don't write a letter and say, "Hi, I'm disassociating myself," but rather the congregation learns of it and declares them disassociated by their action.
Q. What is that?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with public reproof?
A. That is where an announcement is made to the congregation by a member of the Elders, the Body of Elders, stating that a person -- and they will state the person's name -- has been publicly reproved.
It acknowledges that that person has met with the Elders and has received some level of discipline for some unspecified conduct.
Q. What are the requirements to be publicly reproved?
A. As opposed to disfellowshipping?
Q. Yes.
A. Repentance. Therefore, the Elders determine not to disassociate -- not to disfellowship but to instead publicly reprove.
Petaluma?
Q. What was the wrongdoing on your part?
A. Smoking.
A. Yes.
Q. And you said there were two formed in etalume?
Q. What was the first one formed for?
What type of conduct on your part was addressed?
A. Smoking.
Q. And what about the second one?
Page 123
Page 124
A. The second one was formed because I had had a hooker in my hotel room.
Q. By hooker you mean prostitute?
A. Yes.
the congregation such that a Judicial Committee was formed?
A. I volunteered it. I came forward and confessed.
Q. Were there other things you confessed
A. Yes.
Q. Were any Judicial Committees ever formed to address some type of wrongdoing on your part?
Q. Which congregations?
let's say.
A. In Petaluma prior to it becoming a split in the two congregations. There was a -- I don't know where else a committee would have been formed, let's say.
to as a part of that Judicial Committee?
A. I don't recall.
O. Do you recall anything about you
conduct in Portland at all dealing with prostitutes?
Well, there would have been in Saint Helens because of the letter and then in Petaluma. Yes, it would be in Petaluma when - Petaluma Wes or what became Petaluma West.
Q. So there were three formed in Petaluma with respect to you, is that correct?
A. Two in Petaluma. And I don't recall. There was one also in Richland. That would be three.
Q. Okay. Tell me about the one in Richland first.
A. Well, there was a Judicial Committee formed in Richland and I was given private reproof.
Page 125
A. No, there was none there.
Q. How about in San Francisco?
A. No.
Q. With adult entertainment clubs?
A. No.
Q. Masturbation to pornography?
A. No. Masturbation but not to pornography.
Q. Did you ever use the telephone to do dial-up porn or anything like that?
A. Not that I recall, no.
Q. What years were these Judicial Committees held in Petaluma?
A. The first one for smoking I forget. It was '71 or '72, right in there. The second one would have been sometime in '80 -- I believe it was late '85.
I just don't recall the exact time frame.
Q. Would '87 sound about right?
A. I don't recall a Judicial Committee in '87.
Q. So you think it was about 1985?
A. I think so.
Q. What was the result of the Judicial Committee with respect to having the hooker in your hotel room?
A. The result, I was given private reproof, restrictions, and I resigned as an Elder.
Q. When had you been appointed an Elder
A. I believe in -- sometime early in '84.
Q. And then you would have resigned as an Elder when, the next year?
A. About 15, 18 months later perhaps.
Q. Were you ever an Elder in any other congregation?
A. Not appointed, no.
Q. Are there unappointed Elders?
A. There are Ministerial Servants used in capacities similar to that of an Elder in anticipation of appointing them, so that maybe that's more of a distinction on my part, I guess.
Q. So after you resigned as an Elder in the Petaluma -- was it Petaluma West?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hold any positions after that in the Petaluma Congregation?
A. No.
Q. In the Saint Helens Congregation I think you testified earlier that you were a Ministerial Servant?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you resign from that position or were you removed?
A. I resigned.
Q. Why did you resign?
A. My wife's health was the primary reason and because I intended to eventually fade away from Jehovah's Witnesses.
Q. That's when you wrote the letters to resign, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what time frame that was roughly?
A. I believe I presented the first letter late April of '92, and then the second letter was presented in the summer, perhaps July/August time frame, of'92.
Q. Why did you have to write the second letter?
A. Because the Body of Elders had
received instruction from the society through the -- I believe through their meeting with the circuit overseer at the circuit assembly that if they valued an individual Ministerial Servant or an Elder that they could vote to not accept a resignation but keep them in kind of a holding pattern until they could resume their activity.
When the circuit overseer visited in July/August of '92 I wanted the resignation to be in effect.
I didn't want to remain in a holding pattern, so I presented that letter during his visit.
Q. Did the congregation then accept your resignation?
A. They did.
Q. Is that the same then as a disassociation at that point?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Okay. What's the difference?
A. My resignation is as a -- as a Ministerial Servant. I did not resign as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
ever threatened to sue the Watchtower Society?
A. I made a veiled threat to sue the Body of Elders in Saint Helens, Oregon, not the Watchtower Society directly.
Q. When did you make that veiled threat?
A. In a letter to the Watchtower's Legal Department addressed to Don Adams.
Q. And why did you threaten to sue them?
A. Because of the harassment my family and I received that was affecting my wife's health.
I was concerned about serious issues in the congregation, although I didn't detail them in that letter, but I made a reference to serious issues going on.
Q. What type of harassment took place from your point of view?
A. Although we were in no way disassociated, we still attended meetings, my children were being told by other children that Elders and others in positions were discouraging people from associating with my family and doing so based on false information, spreading rumor, gossip, and lies about us.
EXHIBIT
Q. What types of rumors, gossips, and lies were being spread?
1 member of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I still very much wanted to continue my association.
A. I don't recall all of them. I don't even recall any at the moment now other than just a general issue.
3 Q. What was your wife's medical condition or conditions at that time?
Q. So you can't tell me anything that was supposedly said?
5 A. Clinical depression.
A. Not offhand. In generalities we were bad associates, for example.
6 Q. And were you working at that point, employed outside the house?
Q. Bad associates?
8 A. Yes.
A. Bad associates.
9 Q. You were still at the nuclear plant, correct?
Q. What does that mean in your point of view?
10 A. I believe so, yes.
A. That would be not conforming to the -- according to them, I should say, not conforming necessarily to the Watchtower policies and beliefs, procedures, whatever.
11 Q. Okay. Let's change topics again here. Have you ever seen a transcript of any deposition of any Watchtower or Jehovah's Witnesses representative?
A. It sounds like, though, at that same time frame you didn't believe or adhere to those policies and procedures?
16 A. No.
MR. LOVE: Objection.
17 Q. Have you ever seen an affidavit or a sworn declaration from any Watchtower or Jehovah's Witness representative?
THE WITNESS: I can't -- I can't say that for a certainty, because I was -- I was going through an evolution, a turmoil
19 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. What have you seen?
22 A. I saw a copy of an affidavit.
23 Q. Whose affidavit?
24 A. Don Adams.
Page 131
in my life, and trying to decide what to do, so I wasn't doing anything out of harmony with the Watchtower policies and practices and teachings.
1 Q. When did you see it?
MR. SCHNACK Q. At that time you weren't?
2 A. In the book Crisis of Conscience, I believe.
THE WITNESS A. No.
3 Q. And that's the book written by Franz?
Q. And the letter you wrote to Don Adams was in June of '93, is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
A. That sounds right.
6 Q. Have you seen any other affidavits or sworn declarations of any Watchtower or Jehovah's Witness representative other than the Don Adams affidavit you referenced?
Q. So at that time you still considered yourself to be a part of the Jehovah's Witnesses?
10 A. I believe -- I believe I may have in parts of very old trial transcripts going back to the 1950s and '40s and beyond, but not currently, no.
A. Yes.
14 Q. Nothing in the last 20, 30 years?
Q. Again correct me if I'm wrong. I thought you said you quit attending meetings and that in April of '93?
15 A. No.
A. I didn't quit attending entirely. I began phasing down my attendance somewhat because I needed time with my family, and that's what I explained in my letter of resignation.
16 Q. What was the Don Adams affidavit that you referenced?
It would not make sense to say I need more time with my family and then continue to spend all my time at the Kingdom Hall, but I hadn't yet quit, resigned, disassociated as a
18 A. It had to do with the Kingdom Hall issue in Bonham, Texas.
19 Q. What was the Kingdom Hall issue in Bonham Texas in general terms?
22 A. Yes. There was a lawsuit between a congregation and the society over ownership of the Kingdom Hall.
Q.
What time frame was that affidavit signed, do you know?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Was it in the last ten years?
A. I believe it was longer than that, but I don't know.
Q. Do you know if it was in the 1970s?
A. I don't recall the date on it. It's been a long time since I saw that.
Q. Have you seen any other sworn testimony, transcripts, affidavits, sworn declarations, anything like that from any Watchtower or Jehovah's Witness representative other than what you've referenced so far?
A. Well, the trial transcripts of 1918 with Joseph Rutherford. There was a trial transcript in 1952 in Scotland, a trial there, the Olam Oil trial in the late '30s, I believe.
He was a former Watchtower attorney who prevailed in a lawsuit against the society. And I can't think of any others at the moment.
No recent since those, no other trial transcripts.
Page 135
transcripts or declarations or affidavits in his discussions with you?
A. No.
Q. Have any other legal representatives involved in the California lawsuits referenced any such transcripts, affidavits, or sworn declarations to you?
A. No.
Q. I can get this letter out, if we need. I'm referring to a letter that was sent to us by Rudy Nolen of Mr. Brelsford's law firm that says your testimony would impact certain plaintiffs in the California cases, so I'm going to just list their names, and I'll show you the letter after lunch here --
A. Okay.
Q. -- if we need to. Do you know who Deanna is?
A. Deanna ?
Q. . She was allegedly abused by Vince Diorio.
A. Yes, I would know Deanna.
Q. Okay.
A. Not as
Q. What was the last name that you know her as?
A. Diorio.
Q. And what is Deanna relationship to Vince Diorio?
A. Stepdaughter.
Q. Do you know Jocelyn ?
A. No.
Q. She was allegedly abused by Don Glew.
A. I don't know the name.
Q. Do you know Sherry or Sherry ?
A. I briefly met her once.
Q. Okay. What were the circumstances of that meeting?
A. We were at a family gathering of several people, several Witnesses, which Don Glew and his family attended.
Q. And what is Sherry's relationship to Don Glew?
A. I thought she was his daughter at the time, and I assume she is his daughter.
Q. You don't know anything different as you sit here today?
A. I believe -- I believe she may have been his stepdaughter, but I don't recall how I learned that.
Q. So as far as you know, she was either his daughter or his stepdaughter?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you meet her? When was that one time, how long ago?
A. That would be sometime in the mid-'80s.
Q. Where was that gathering?
A. At Howard Whitney's house.
Q. Any relation?
A. No.
Q. Are you in contact with Howard Whitney--
A. No.
Q. -- any longer? No. But there's no family relationship between you and Howard Whitney?
A. No. A coincidence of last name.
Q. Do you know who Fred is?
A. No.
Q. Do you know who Dennis is?
XHIBIT one 7 of 22 A.
No.
…