Tag: Jehovah’s Witnesses

Published April 30th, 2021

Attorneys representing Alexis Nunez have filed a motion to compel the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York to turn over at least 10 pages of detailed database records involving abuser Max Reyes and three of his victims, including plaintiff Nunez.

According to documents tendered to the Sanders County Montana Court, Watchtower attorney Joel Taylor emailed three of the ten pages in question to the Nunez team on the eve of the final day of the 2018 trial held in Thompson Falls Montana. Taylor purportedly presented the sensitive documents as part of his strategy for closing arguments the next day.

The three pages in question have now been released in court filings, but attorneys for Nunez are demanding the entire 10-page dossier.

The database pages reveal the shocking extent of Watchtower’s internal child abuse investigations, including the disclosure that Watchtower Legal Department directors register whether or not victims of child abuse are “willing participants” in their own sexual abuse.

The documents combine notes taken by Jehovah’s Witness elders with answers to questions posed by the Watchtower Legal Department in New York, blended with additional data used by the Witnesses’ Service Department to determine how abusers and victims should be managed inside the congregation.

Minor victims designated as “willing participants” are treated as adults and subjected to judicial hearings and disfellowshipping.

Watchtower Star Witness Identified As Additional Abuser of Nunez

In the 112-page motion to compel Watchtower to produce database documents, Nunez’s legal team revealed that Watchtower’s star trial witness, Peter McGowan, had confessed in 2014 to elders in Polson Montana that he too had molested the plaintiff, Alexis Nunez.

This information was not made public until now.

During the 2018 trial, Peter McGowan testified as a witness for Watchtower, stating that in 2004 he disclosed to his sister that he had been sexually abused by his stepfather Max Reyes. Watchtower attorney Joel Taylor elicited testimony from Peter to establish that his communications with Thompson Falls elder Don Herberger were confidential. Taylor also asked Peter about a conversation with his sister Holly McGowan in which Holly mentioned a possible lawsuit against Max Reyes.

Peter stated: “She called me and she wanted to participate in a lawsuit that her and my father were trying to put forward against Max. And I didn’t really feel comfortable. I just wanted — I told her I wanted to leave everything in the past and move on with my life.”

Peter McGowan’s trial testimony in 2018 appears to shed considerable light on the reasons Peter declined to participate in any litigation against the Watchtower organization. Notwithstanding the fact that he chose to remain in the church, his admission that he sexually abused his own niece places him in an untenable position.

The jury in the 2018 trial never heard evidence that Peter McGowan had molested the defendant. This information was outside the scope of legal negligence argued by Nunez, where the issue was Watchtower’s failure to report under Montana law. The circumstances have changed now that the case is back in the Sanders County Court where plaintiff Nunez is suing Watchtower for common law negligence.

The 2018 trial focused on evidence that Thompson Falls elders had violated Montana’s abuse reporting laws when they learned of the abuse of Holly and Peter McGowan, the aunt and uncle of Nunez. Nunez argued that this failure led to her own abuse before, during, and after the disfellowshipping of Max Reyes, her step-grandfather. Watchtower appealed the verdict, and in January of 2020, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the Jehovah’s Witness elders were legally exempted by the reporting requirement. Jehovah’s Witnesses argued that their church could take advantage of a confidentiality exception in the Montana law.

Nunez immediately brought the case back before the Sanders County Court, contending that since Judge Manly had ruled in 2018 that elders violated the reporting laws, she never had the opportunity to argue her claims of common law negligence. In other words, while Watchtower’s elders were legally exempted from reporting Nunez’s abuse, the congregation and Watchtower can still be held liable for their negligence.

Why Demand the CM Database Pages?

As the Watchtower Organization continues to collect vast amounts of data related to sexual crimes, criminals, and victims, survivors are demanding answers for why this information is held by a religious institution and not promptly turned over to the relevant authorities.

Jehovah’s Witnesses currently subscribe to a policy where local elders are prevented from reporting child abuse unless the parent corporation Watchtower is unable to find a legal exception to the reporting requirement. The Church’s Legal Department has taken the position that what’s good enough for the Catholic Church is good enough for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Witnesses believe they can project the Catholic confessional model upon all communications between members and their elders, regardless of whether the communications occurred in a confessional setting.

The Catholic model was originally set up to protect communications between a single confessor and his priest, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses expand the definition of protected communications to include their entire body of elders and all conversations with anyone involved in alleged wrongdoing.

In addition to the clergy-penitent confidentiality claims argued by the Witnesses, attorney-client privilege has become a decisive factor and key reason why Witness elders are instructed to promptly call Watchtower’s Legal Department when they learn of child abuse allegations – instead of calling the police.

In Montana, attorneys for Nunez demonstrated that Watchtower attorney Joel Taylor waived attorney-client privilege when he emailed 3 pages of Child Maltreatment (CM) data records just before midnight on September 25th, 2018. The strategy involved a last-minute attempt to support his closing arguments, but this tactic exposed the existence of 7 additional pages of comprehensive data including the abuse of Lexi Nunez by Watchtower’s key witness, Peter McGowan.

In the April 2021 Motion to Compel, Nunez argues:

“During the discovery phase of this case (before trial), Defendants refused to produce a certain ten-page document from their CM database on the basis that it was protected by the attorney work product and attorney client privilege… However, during trial, Defendants chose to waive their privilege claim by voluntarily disclosing privileged content from the document. Defendants produced substantial portions of the document to Plaintiff, hopeful that Defendants could use part of the document to benefit their case while withholding the remainder of the document that harms their case. Despite their voluntary waiver, Defendants now claim all ten pages are still privileged, including the three pages they produced.”

Watchtower Plays Semantics

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Watchtower organization continues to deny that it maintains a database of child molesters and victims by arguing over the very definition of the word “database.”

On February 4th 2021, plaintiff Nunez ordered the discovery of multiple documents from Watchtower files, including a description of the “CM Database.”

The Jehovah’s Witness legal department responded by declaring that the documents demanded are not part of any kind of database, and that labeling it a database is a mischaracterization of the facts. Court records disclose Watchtower’s responses to the requests:

“INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Describe the CM database by providing the following information. What is the name or designation the JW Defendants give to the database?

Generally describe the information contained in the database.

When was the database created?

ANSWER: [from Watchtower] Defendants object to this request because it is vague and ambiguous in that the term “CM database” is defined by a mischaracterization of what the documents attached as Exhibit A are: entries from the Watchtower Legal Department’ s electronic telephone record keeping system reflecting privileged communications with clients. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.”

It is difficult to imagine that the Court will not see past the semantics game played by Watchtower, given the awareness that the information collected by this “electronic telephonic record keeping system” is shared with the Service Department of Watchtower. The Service Department of Jehovah’s Witnesses maintains a “Hub” database of Jehovah’s Witness information that is designed to consolidate member data for more than 8 million adherents, known as “publishers.” That information contains extensive personal information about each member, including internal judicial documents such as the S-77 Notice of Disfellowshipping or Disassociation.

In 2017, sensitive documents and videos were leaked from inside Watchtower headquarters, revealing the extent of their data collection schemes. A program called HuB (Headquarters-unity-Branch) was announced as the replacement for their preceding global database and management system known as “Admin.”

Also announced was the “Records Management” system for maintaining vast amounts of organizational data in a centralized database. Old paper records were scanned into this new system using highly sophisticated equipment and character-recognition software, further enhancing the Organization’s ability to track every aspect of the Witnesses’ corporate empire, including sensitive personal data.

Judge Elizabeth Best now presides over the Montana case and will rule whether or not Watchtower will be compelled to turn over the 7 pages of data in question. The release of those documents may well have an adverse impact on the Jehovah’s Witness defense.

The trial date has been set for September, 2022.

UPDATE: On August 31st, 2021, both sides settled the case for an undisclosed amount and signed a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice.

Published July 28th, 2021

“The Court concludes that Watchtower has been deliberate in its violations of the Court’s orders, and the Plaintiffs’ right to discovery. Its claims that it could not understand the plain language in the Court’s orders are absurd and frivolous. Its decision to obstruct has wasted many hours of scarce time and resources for the Plaintiffs, and for the Court itself, and has prevented Nunez from preparing for trial, which is obviously Watchtower’s intent.”

-Judge Elizabeth Best, Montana Seventh Judicial District Court, July 22nd, 2021

On July 22nd, 2021, Montana Judge Elizabeth Best ordered a combination of fines and sanctions against the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, a corporation operated by Jehovah’s Witnesses since 1909.

According to the 9-page order issued by Judge Best, Jehovah’s Witnesses must pay $11,075 in legal fees along with a $500 per day fine for each day it violates the orders of the court to produce critical documents in the Nunez v. Watchtower civil case. The court ruled that Watchtower has been intentionally obstructive in its defiance of orders from May 28th and June 23rd of this year, and must retroactively pay the daily fine until it complies with the order.

As an additional penalty against the Jehovah’s Witness defendants, Judge Best ruled that Watchtower and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (CCJW) are “prohibited from arguing, making innuendo, mentioning, offering evidence of any “advice of counsel” defense, and from offering any evidence about the advice their attorneys gave them at any time before trial.”

This order is directly related to documents that were privately shared by Watchtower in Judge Manley’s chambers during the 2018 trial in Thompson Falls.

Why was Watchtower Fined?  A Brief Case History

In 2016, Lexi Nunez filed a civil lawsuit against Jehovah’s Witnesses for Negligence Per Se, arguing that church elders and their parent corporation, Watchtower, violated Montana’s mandatory child abuse reporting laws. Elders in Thompson Falls claimed they were advised by Watchtower’s New York Legal Department that they had no legal obligation to report Lexi’s step-grandfather, Max Reyes, when they learned that he had abused Lexi’s aunt Holly and uncle Peter.

By preventing church elders from contacting law enforcement, Nunez was subjected to continued abuse by Reyes, despite the fact that the church had disfellowshipped Reyes for over a year.

The case went to trial in September 2018. Judge James Manley ruled prior to trial that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had violated Montana’s statutory reporting code, and the jury was instructed to determine whether the defendants acted with malice. The jury found the defendants guilty, assessing a total of $35 million dollars as a civil award to Nunez.

In January of 2020, the Montana Supreme Court, while sympathetic to Nunez, ruled that Watchtower had successfully navigated a loophole in the mandatory reporting act. The Court decreed that while the facts of the case were disturbing, the Jehovah’s Witness elders were acting according to their “established church practice” when they sealed off reports about the abuser, Max Reyes. Thus, the 2018 judgment was reversed.

Soon after the reversal, Nunez filed an amended complaint, arguing that while statutory negligence was off the table, she could still argue common law negligence, which is independent of the issue of mandatory reporting. In other words, Nunez wanted her opportunity to demonstrate that Watchtower and the Thompson Falls elders were negligent on their own merits, after learning of Max Reyes’s propensity for abusing children.

The Court agreed and permitted Nunez to proceed on her assertions of common law negligence.

On April 16th, 2021, the case took a dramatic turn when attorneys for Nunez filed a motion to compel the Jehovah’s Witnesses to turn over documents that were disclosed on September 23rd, 2018, the night before closing arguments in the original trial.

Watchtower attorney Joel Taylor produced several pages of documents from a CM (Child Maltreatment) telephone log in an effort to persuade Judge Manley that Watchtower was justified in arguing lack of malice by congregation elders – because those pages purportedly revealed a good faith effort by elders to seek legal advice.

Later that evening, Taylor emailed Nunez’s attorneys just three of ten pages that resembled a case file on Max Reyes.

Those pages tipped off attorneys for Nunez that there was something more ominous lurking beneath the “telephonic log.” It was clear that a database of child abusers and victims is a tool used by Jehovah’s Witnesses in the management of their global religious organization.

This legal strategy proved to be a monumental challenge for Watchtower, as they never expected a second trial and the document discovery that would follow.

Consequently, Nunez initiated discovery in early 2021 on all 10 pages, along with any supplemental information related to a Child Abuse/Maltreatment database.

Those documents suggest the extent of data collected by Jehovah’s Witnesses about child abusers and their victims.

The April 16th motion to compel production of these documents launched a substantial legal battle between Nunez and Watchtower that has led to the disclosure that even more documents exist about the Nunez case. Watchtower insists that these documents are irrelevant and privileged and should not be disclosed to the Plaintiff.

Judge Elizabeth Best, assigned to the 2022 trial, disagreed.

On May 26th, 2021, Judge Best issued an 11-page order compelling production of all documents sought by Nunez, and chastised Watchtower for its abuse of the discovery process. Nunez’s attorneys had argued that Taylor could not selectively turn over 3 of 10 pages to the plaintiff at the 2018 trial, then claim attorney-client privilege on the other 7 pages.

On page 9 of the Order, the Court stated: “Defendants’ attempt, now, to obstruct disclosure of the entire document, which on the face of the previously disclosed three pages constitutes attorney-client communications and legal advice, by cloaking it as “privileged,” is, at best, disingenuous. Defendants may not cherry pick portions of documents for which they waive privilege because it works to their strategic advantage, while withholding other parts because it does not. Defendants have clearly waived any claim of privilege.”

The Judge also addressed Watchtower’s continued claims that the documents do not form a part of any database of information.

She continues:

“Defendants object that the discovery request is “vague and ambiguous,” representing that they do not know what the words “CM Database” mean. The Court finds this objection to be frivolous and interposed for an improper purpose. It is clear to the Court that the Defendants understand what the Plaintiff is seeking, regardless of whether they choose to call the information sought something different. The Defendants’ counsel discussed the “CM Database” with the Court during the Rule 16 conference, which led to the Court’s scheduling order, and never objected that they did not understand the term.”

Judge Best concluded her Order by advising Watchtower that the Court “will not tolerate further obstruction and will consider sanctions for similar conduct in the future”

Watchtower continued to defy the judge, and instead of producing the 10 pages to Nunez, they delayed the process further by submitting the pages to the Court itself for in camera review. (Inspection by judge)

On June 17th, 2021, Judge Best issued yet another court order, this time compelling production of the documents and issuing legal and financial penalties to Watchtower for their obstruction. In her 8-page order, the judge condemned Watchtower’s behavior and fined the religious organization all costs and attorneys fees associated with their motion to compel document production. The legal fees alone were $11,075.00.

Meanwhile, prior to the June 17th Order, Watchtower had complicated their case even further by submitting a supplemental privilege log to the court, a document that disclosed the existence of 22 new pages of documents previously unknown to Nunez. Many of the records concern legal advice provided to the Polson Montana congregation when elders conferred with Watchtower about Peter McGowan. Peter was not only a victim of Max Reyes, but he was also responsible for years of sexual abuse of his own niece, Lexi.

The existence of these documents raises serious questions about why this information was not turned over to Nunez’s attorneys in 2018. Watchtower’s position is that they are irrelevant to the case, and protected.

The Harshest of All Judgments

Finally, on July 22nd, 2021 the Montana Court imposed what might be one of the severest censures of a defendant and counsel in Montana history. The following is an excerpt from the Judge’s order:

“This Court issued Orders on May 28, 2021 (Doc. 210) and on June 23, 2021 (Doc. 214) in which it set forth relevant law on discovery and its expectations of all parties during discovery. The May 28, 2021, Order compelled production of certain specific documents by Watchtower. Watchtower not only flouted its disobedience of that Order, in subsequent pleadings it asserted that an order issued by Judge Manley (Doc. 116) was the “law of the case” and that, therefore, it is “confused” about this Court’s orders, and seeks “guidance” before producing documents the Court has ordered produced. The Court finds Watchtower’s arguments to be frivolous and specious, interposed solely to obstruct and delay.“

“Based on the Court’s review of Watchtower’s documents submitted for in camera review, the Court immediately recognized Watchtower’s obstruction and issued another Order, this time assessing sanctions. (Doc. 214). Watchtower defied that Order and continues to refuse to produce 22 pages of documents, and unabashedly misrepresents the truth. As to documents the Court expressly ordered it to produce, Watchtower asserts that it complied and is simply waiting for the Court to address its embellished claims of privilege, and its “confusion” and its claim that a previous order issued by Judge Manley, before the first trial, supersedes this Court’s Orders.”

“Watchtower’s representations raise other very serious concerns about its candor with the Court from the outset. Before the Court’s first Order of May 28, 2021, counsel Joel Taylor (Taylor), on behalf of Watchtower, signed and filed an affidavit in which he represented, inter alia, that the fourth page of one document at issue “contains no information.” The document, later reluctantly produced, contains information about Max Reyes abusing Peter McGowan, and notably contains blank spaces in response to a question, “Efforts to protect the victim?” which is obviously potentially probative of Nunez’s claims of breach of a duty to protect minors. Failure to answer such a question is, actually, “information,” which is apparent to any competent lawyer.”

“Likewise, Watchtower initially opposed the Motion to Compel by representing that withheld documents were “unrelated” to previously disclosed documents, and Taylor attested to the truth of this representation in his affidavit. It is clear that this representation was false. Documents 1a and 1b relate to Max’s abuse of Peter and Holly beginning in 1994. Watchtower pretended, in its initial briefing, not to understand the term, “database.” It turns out, from the few documents now produced, that they were indeed part of an “electronic database” -in Watchtower’s own words.“

“Nunez’s discovery requests were based on an email from Watchtower lawyer Taylor, in which he described them as “the other 7 pages involve Peter/Alexis” and “the remaining pages involve Peter Jr. ‘s confession [to] the Polson Congregation regarding his abuse of Alexis.”

Watchtower’s defiance is breathtaking and must, as the Montana Supreme Court has often said, not be dealt with leniently.

“After the Court’s first order to produce the documents, Watchtower produced only seven pages of documents, none of which relate to Peter abusing Alexis. Rather, the produced documents relate to evidence already known to Nunez, the abuse of Peter, Holly, and Alexis by Max Reyes. The missing pages regarding Peter’s abuse of Alexis have not been produced at all. In sum, then, Watchtower has misrepresented to the Court that it has even partially complied with the Court’s Order.”

“On June 11, 2021 (after the May 28, 2021, Order), Watchtower identified an additional 22 pages of documents that had, until that date, never been disclosed to Nunez or the Court. Simultaneously, it filed a new and improved privilege log listing documents in random order, many of which clearly refer to evidence of Peter abusing Alexis, which the Court had ordered produced. Appallingly, Watchtower continues to withhold documents about Peter’s abuse of Alexis, and appears to be attempting a sleight of hand by offering a modified privilege log.”

“Watchtower has reasserted its claims of privilege, ignored the Court’s Order overruling those claims, asserted “confusion” and lack of understanding of the Orders [asserting that it does not “understand” whether the Court’s Orders apply to congregations, even though they briefed that very issue and claimed privilege for congregations starting in February 2021], and simultaneously inconsistently asked the Court to alter or amend Orders which it feigns not to understand. These arguments are frivolous, neither based on fact or law, and will not be tolerated, as the Court has previously warned. Watchtower’s defiance is breathtaking and must, as the Montana Supreme Court has often said, not be dealt with leniently. Instead, courts are instructed to “intently punish transgressors rather than patiently encouraging their cooperation.””

“The Court concludes that Watchtower has been deliberate in its violations of the Court’s orders, and the Plaintiffs’ right to discovery. Its claims that it could not understand the plain language in the Court’s orders are absurd and frivolous. Its decision to obstruct has wasted many hours of scarce time and resources for the Plaintiffs, and for the Court itself, and has prevented Nunez from preparing for trial, which is obviously Watchtower’s intent. Every time a party chooses attrition and stonewalling, not only the opposing party in the case involved, but parties in numerous other cases lose opportunities to exercise their fundamental right to access to the Courts.”

[highlighted areas by JWChildAbuse.org]

The conduct and actions of Watchtower’s legal team are so grave that Judge Best warned the Jehovah’s Witnesses that such violations of court orders could lead to an order of judgment by default, where the defendants would lose the case without ever facing a jury. This could potentially cost Watchtower millions, if not tens of millions of dollars. In 2015, a California court awarded a judgment by default against Watchtower for similar violations of the discovery process.

After losing appeals to the California and U.S. Supreme Courts, Watchtower paid more than 6 million dollars to the victim in judgment and interest.

Montana Judge Elizabeth Best concluded her Order by enumerating both financial and legal sanctions against Watchtower. Aside from the economic penalties, Watchtower will be barred from offering evidence that elders relied upon “advice of counsel” as a defense, or that they believed they were complying with the law when they failed to protect Lexi Nunez from the sexual abuse by Max Reyes.

As of the date of this article, Watchtower continues in contempt of the court’s orders and has not provided Nunez any further documents.

UPDATE: On August 31st, 2021, both sides settled the case for an undisclosed amount and signed a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice.

Documents:

July 22nd Order Assessing Sanctions and Attorneys Fees

June 23rd Order Compelling Production and Sanctions

May 28th Order Compelling Production