Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,159,288 members, 7,839,429 topics. Date: Friday, 24 May 2024 at 06:58 PM

Fessler Versus Watchtower – Opening Statements And Motions In Jehovah’s Witness - Crime - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Crime / Fessler Versus Watchtower – Opening Statements And Motions In Jehovah’s Witness (677 Views)

Trial Summary Child Sex Abuse Cover Up–part Two: Fessler V Jehovah's Witness / Trial Summary Child Sex Abuse Cover Up–Part One: Fessler v Jehovah's Witness / Jury Selection Complete In Fessler Versus Watchtower Child Abuse-trial Date Set (2) (3) (4)

(1) (Reply)

Fessler Versus Watchtower – Opening Statements And Motions In Jehovah’s Witness by ChristianFreedo(m): 10:27am On Feb 13, 2017
News Bulletin: Fessler versus Watchtower – Opening Statements and Motions in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial – Day 1
Posted on February 12, 2017

Source: http://jwsurvey.org/child-abuse-2/news-bulletin-fessler-versus-watchtower-opening-statements-and-motions-in-jehovahs-witness-child-abuse-trial-day-1



On a cold Philadelphia morning the 7th of February, 2017, Stephanie Fessler walked into the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, First Judicial District, Civil Trial Division. The time was 9.45 a.m. according to the clock which sits atop the historic City Hall courthouse in the center of Philadelphia. But there was another clock running – it was the clock of justice, the timepiece which measures just how long it takes for a person or organization which has damaged another person’s life to be called to account for what they have done, or possibly what they have not done.

It has been 13 years since congregation elders in Spring Grove Pennsylvania first learned of the inappropriate relationship and abuse perpetrated by Terry Monheim, aged 49, and her victim, Stephanie Fessler, who was just 14 years of age when the abuse began. Stephanie was dragged before elders in 2004 and 2005 to answer for her relationship with her abuser, but with grotesque disregard for the law, elders knowingly failed to report the suspected abuse to the police, to Pennsylvania’s Childline, or to any other authority. Instead, they forwarded what they knew to Watchtower’s legal department, who wantonly disregarded Pennsylvania State law, and also failed to report.

Instead of protection the victim from further harm, local elders in Pennsylvania issued a private reproof in 2004, then another public reproof in 2005. The victim, Stephanie was crucified and devastated, having been denied protection from the authorities who are trained to protect minors, and prevent further injury and mental distress. The local elders and the Watchtower organization victimized Stephanie, and more than once. Her participation in the abuse was viewed as a sin, and not a crime. Stephanie was a sinner, they said.

At 9:52 a.m. 25 Jurors entered the court of Mary C. Collins, and were instructed regarding the nature of this case, and were read the list of witnesses who would likely testify. By 10:25 a.m. all but 10 jurors were dismissed, and the final jury was complete. Eight jurors with two alternates will decide the fate of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Spring Grove Congregation of JWs – and to a lesser extent, the abuser Terry Monheim.

Pre-Trial Motions

Just prior to opening arguments, without the jury present, the attorneys for the plaintiff, Stephanie Fessler, and the defense battled out more than a dozen motions before judge Collins. These motions set the stage for which evidence can be introduced during trial, and that which can’t.

The battle did not take long to become heated when Spring Grove defense attorney Jud Aaron argued vocally against the introduction of a new witness, who was an elder in York County PA. Mr. Arron argued that this was a “bombshell” witness introduced by the plaintiff, whose testimony is irrelevant, and who had not been deposed by defense. Judge Collins agreed with the defense that his evidence would not be permitted during the initial phase of the trial, but will be allowed during the punitive stage of the trial. The stage was already beginning to set for Watchtower’s inevitable defeat, even before the jurors heard a single witness testify.

In another motion, the defense attempted to preclude the testimony of detective Lisa Layden, an expert witness, stating that her testimony is “just an opinion” and should not be permitted. After a concise rebuttal from counsel Jeffrey Fritz, Judge Collins agreed, and the defense motion was denied. Lisa Layden will testify.

It was no surprise that the defense attempted to argue that the statements made to elders by the plaintiff were privileged, and entering them into testimony would violate clergy privilege laws, which protect confessions made to clergymen. This claim erupted in a furious rebuttal by Stephanie’s attorney Jeffrey Fritz, in which he informed the judge that clergy privilege has no application in this case, as there was no expectation of confidentiality when the elders hauled Fessler into an elder’s meeting and questioned her about her relationship with Monheim. When elder Eric Hoffman was deposed over 2 years ago, he never once advised counsel that he would like to invoke clergy privilege, and in fact he violated that anyway by spreading every aspect of Stephanie’s testimony to multiple elders as well as the Watchtower legal department in New York. As the steam settled from Mr. Fritz’ forehead, Judge Collins told counsel that Fritz was “right on point” about this issue, and that clergy privilege could not be invoked. As Watchtower has attempted to claim clergy privilege in the past, this was another defeat for the Jehovah’s Witness organization.

In a somewhat surprising defense strategy, defense attorney Jud Aaron claimed that the plaintiff’s counsel is putting the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses on trial by introducing dozens of Watchtower and Awake articles into evidence. It was a desperate move, but Judge Collins did not fall for it.

The Trial Begins

From the private, backrooms of the courthouse the jury entered the room. Three black men, two white women, and five black women entered and took their assigned seats. Judge Collins congratulated them for their service to the court, then reminded them that during the trial, she decides on all matters of law, and they must obey her decision. However she reminded the jury that they are the sole determiners of the facts of this case. Collins explained the definition of “preponderance of evidence,” then gave the jury an illustration of a scale, with the plaintiff and defense on either side of center. She stated that if the scale tips ever so slightly in favor of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff has met her burden of proof, and defense will be found guilty.

Following a lunch break, the court reconvened at 1.45 p.m., at which point Judge Collins read the statute for mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse to the jury of 10. The plaintiff was now given the floor, and attorney Gregg Zeff made his opening statement to the jury. Mr. Zeff explained that a member of clergy must report suspected abuse of a minor, and that elders should never keep suspected abuse secret to protect the Jehovah’s Witness organization. Zeff introduced a letter to the body of elders, dated July 1, 1989, which reminds elders that due to lawsuits, strictest confidence must be maintained by elders. The letter advised elders against the “improper use of the tongue”

Zeff explains the timeline in which the elders first learned of the suspected abuse of Fessler in 2004, activity which included hugging and kissing. Elders from both the Spring Grove congregation (Stephanie’s congregation) a those from the Freeland Maryland congregation (Terry Seipp-Monheim’s congregation) were aware of the relationship, but failed to contact the authorities. Instead, they formed their own committee and reproved both the victim and her abuser.

Attorney Zeff then played a video deposition taken a few years ago when this case was filed, in which the plaintiff’s mother Jodie Fessler stated that elder Eric Hoffman never once advised her that authorities must be contacted.

It was not until 2011 that Stephanie Fessler was finally able to contact the police, at which point Monheim was arrested and jailed. Testimony from detective Layden will advise the jury that elders should have immediately obeyed the law and contacted the police and Childline. Instead, Zeff stated that rules were broken to protect the congregation and keep it out of harm’s way.

Evidence will show that Stephanie, at 14 years of age attended public school, but was otherwise completely insulated from after school activities and association with non-Witness youths. Instead she was left to care for her Jehovah’s Witness mom, who had a history of mental illness. Stephanie looked to Terry Seipp (Monheim) for emotional support, but Seipp soon broke that trust by entering into a sexual relationship with Stephanie. Stephanie had no prior relationships. The plaintiff will examine professional therapist Debbie Bauer, who will discuss the damages to Stephanie, not only for the initial abuse, but for the protracted relationship of over two years which caused Stephanie permanent psychological damage. Co-Defendant Terry Monheim was remorseful, having served her time in jail, but the plaintiff will argue that the defendants, Watchtower, the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Spring Grove congregation are to be held responsible for their failure to report the suspected sexual abuse of a minor.

Re: Fessler Versus Watchtower – Opening Statements And Motions In Jehovah’s Witness by ChristianFreedo(m): 10:28am On Feb 13, 2017
Defense Opening

Attorney for the defense of Spring Grove congregation opened with the statement “In life there are consequences for not telling the truth.” Jud Aaron argued that therapist Lori Barton’s notes will prove that there was NOT a sexual relationship occurring at the time elders in Spring Grove first learned of the affair between Fessler and Terry Seipp (Monheim). As a result, Aaron said “You can’t report what you don’t know.”

Aaron further stated that by 2005, the “relationship” between Fessler and Seipp was over. In a moment of great emotion, the plaintiff Stephanie Fessler sat just a few feet away from Jud Aaron as he then stated “Stephanie Fessler did not tell the truth…As a consequence, no report was made.

As if to hammer this point down to the jury, Mr. Aaron replicated his earlier comment in a final statement: One things is crystal clear – Stephanie did not tell the truth, so the elders had nothing to report. The elders could not protect Stephanie Fessler because she did not tell the truth.”

Next up was Mr. John Miller, attorney for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Miller, a Jehovah’s Witness elder himself and a member of the Patterson New York JW legal department, explained that Jehovah’s Witness are a Christian religion, and that the jury will here that Watchtower “owns some things up there” in New York. After offering his explanation for the various Witness owned corporations, he then echoed the words of his co-counsel Jud Aaron and stated that Terry Monheim will not show up in court to defend herself here. He further stated that the Watchtower and CCJW did not have any duty to report what they had heard from congregation elders.

Miller also reiterated that the key to the defense is contained in the notes of therapist Lori Barton. Miller in his best courtroom dramatics stated emphatically “Records don’t lie.”

Attorney Miller intensified his plea to the jury, closing with the statement: “We (the Watchtower) have nothing to do with this case.” Miller quipped that elders are “just lay persons,” closing his remarks with “Watchtower and CCJW don’t even belong here.”

Attorney for CCJW (Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) Louis Lombardi made no opening statements to the jury. He sat silently between Aaron and Miller at the defense counsel table, leaving one to wonder if he will ever make an appearance in the defense of the Jehovah’s Witness organization.

Stay tuned for more as we report on the ongoing defense strategy, and the courtroom antics of Watchtower’s first witness, Thomas Jefferson, Jr.

Further Reading: https://www.nairaland.com/3609955/jury-selection-complete-fessler-versus
Re: Fessler Versus Watchtower – Opening Statements And Motions In Jehovah’s Witness by ChristianFreedo(m): 10:35am On Feb 13, 2017
Responses From Some Readers:


Eric Arthur Blair says:
February 12, 2017 at 5:13 pm

Thanks for the update John.

I was interested in the pathetic clergy privilege defence. I can testify that when I was an elder we had a case of adultery come before us. Even though I was not on the judicial committee, every sordid detail of the case was discussed among the body of 10 elders. Some of the Elder’s wives soon knew those details, and there were long standing family grievances and scores to be settled too. I was appalled and objected to the lack of confidentiality and dignity accorded this person (a sister) and was never once allowed on a Judicial Committee the short time I was an elder because I constantly disagreed with just about everything they did and seen as disruptive to the “unity of the body” (something I am now relieved about!) Needless to say that I wasn’t an elder for long and soon faded afterward. The point is though that this experience is the norm – there is no such thing as confidentiality amongst elder bodies. What is disclosed before one or three men is often disclosed to dozens, including the HQ, and sometimes even becomes public knowledge in the local congregation!

I’m also appalled (but not surprised) by the society’s defence in the last part of your article, where they try to distance themselves from the actions of individual elders and effectively hang them out to dry. You could see it in the faces of some Elders who appeared before the ARC – they were stuck between a rock and a very hard place: tow the party line regardless of the personal cost, or pay a higher price if you don’t!


messenger says:
February 12, 2017 at 5:49 pm

Thanks for the detailed report John. I wish I could be there, but hearing from you is the next best thing. I guess we could have expected that the defense attorneys would throw the clients of those other defense attorneys under the bus. It’s everyman or org for itself when the crap hits the fan. But it’s hilarious to see that happen. And it goes against Bible counsel to do”what is fine towards all, but especially towards those related to us in the faith.”

So, the congregation’s attorney argued that Ms. Fessler did not tell them of the abuse, while WT’s attorney claimed that the WT is not required to report any report they obtain from her elders. Well, that implies they heard (received) something. I can’t wait to read what report WT received from the elders.
Thanks again John. You do a great job!!!


Chiafade says:
February 12, 2017 at 7:29 pm

You would expect these attorneys for “god” to bring about a better defense. The clergy client privilege was as weak as it gets. I told a jw this long ago that the attorney client privilege line doesn’t work to protect the org because the elders SHARE all of the supposed “privileged” information.

As a former elder of 12 years I can attest to the fact that the information discussed during a judicial committee is shared with 1) dozens of other elders from different congregations 2) The circuit overseer 3) Sends the info to headquarters to file it away 4) Depending on the noteriety of the “sin” (except child abuse ironically) they may give a local needs to warn the congregation about such conduct.

In one hall I was in a local needs was given about “associating with disfellowshipped relatives” just after a judicial committee with someone for that very reason. Of course EVERYONE knew who it applied to so there goes confidentiality.

I look forward to seeing this play out. One of watchtowers biggest fears is any new legal precedent being set. Also, hearing the attorney say “we have nothing to do with this. This is ALL the layman elders” was priceless.


Art Fern says:
February 12, 2017 at 8:09 pm

I haven’t put all the pieces of the puzzle together but the
We aren’t inspired” statement from the governing body has to be part of an overall strategy to disavow responsibility in legal matters. Maybe it’s directed to someone’s suit against shunning and the resultant depression or suicide. Or it’s a defense in some cases of child sexual abuse. Otherwise why would they undermine their own authority? Or even hypocritically claim to be gods only channel but also claim to not be inspired. What the hell does Jehovah’s spirit do to get his message thru, use a special cell phone? This is one sick ORG, forcing kids to give all the details of their rape, sitting beside the perpetrator and end up victimized one more time. A member can rape a child and stay, while two consenting adults who have sex once are tossed out. Go figure


messenger says:
February 12, 2017 at 10:42 pm

I liked your comment…some parts funny to me.
But the WT Society doesn’t claim to be inspired. That’s why it’s so disturbing that they will kick you out of their church for not believing their interpretations. They don’t claim they get those ideas from God, but from reasoning on his word.

Seems to me they set themselves up as God when they kick you out for not believing their interpretations. I believe there’s a scripture that says they set themselves in the seat of Moses….is that them? in my opinion.


messenger says:
February 12, 2017 at 10:24 pm

If WT was not legally required to report the abuse after hearing from their elders in Penn., then why are they still in the case? If WT and CCJW could legally get out both those corporations should be out by now. The jury only decides on what’s factual. The judge decides on what’s legal. So, if they could have gotten out their lawyers probably would have filed a demurrer before this case ever reached a jury. A demurrer is a motion to dismiss, claiming there are not grounds for legal action, even if all the alleged facts are accurate. In other words, it’s asking to dismiss the case based upon what defense attorney Miller said in his opening argument, “WT and CCJW shouldn’t even be here.” I believe the WT or CCJW or both will be found liable for influencing their elders in Penn. not to report to officials, as long as the jury finds that Ms. Fessler reported the abuse to her elders, and her abuse continued after that while she was a minor. Of course that’s assuming WT lawyers were told at Bethel. Even if WT was not legally required to make a report itself, as it claims, they could still be in big trouble. Punitive damages will be considered in this case, which if awarded, can be large. I think the judge wants to know which one is guilty WT or CCJW or both.


messenger says:
February 12, 2017 at 11:07 pm

One last comment. For what reason in hell was Miller telling the jury about the corporations WT owns in New York? Doesn’t he know that will give the jury some idea of their riches, or a least cause them to consider WT’s wealth. Don’t anyone hire that guy if you get sued. He might tell your opponent everything you’ve got, and where to find it, and inform your jury too.

(1) (Reply)

12-yr-old Nigerian Housemaid, Disappears With Ghanaian Family’s Daughter (Pics) / Zimbabwean Boxer Commits Suicide, To Avoid Deportation From The U.K / I Have Raped Up To Seven Women – Kidnap, Fraud Suspect

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 65
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.