With the Press watching..........the WTS will be under a microscope.
ISP
Watchtower Moves In For Kill On silentlambs
by silentlambs 141 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Mary
ISP: While I don't think anyone here knows EXACTLY what they'll try and disfellowship him with, chances are, the "charges" will be very similar, if not the same, as the "charges" against Barbara Anderson: 1) Undermining Jehovah's Arrangment of Things, and/or Disrupting the Unity of the Congregation.
They can't come right out and say "We're disfellowshipping you for going public on Dateline and exposing us as a bunch of liars and hypocrites", but that's exactly WHY he would be disfellowshipped.
The structure of the WTB&TS is very much like the army: you follow orders and you never, EVER question anyone in authority. To do so will get your ass booted out double time, even if you're right on.
-
Farkel
Watchtower says:
: In accordance with the usual procedure, followed by Jehovah's Witnesses, when you meet with the judicial committee, no tape recordings will be allowed at the hearing, no attorneys may be present at the hearing, observers are not permitted at the hearing, and due respect must be accorded to the elder who is chairing the meeting.
The Bible says:
*** Rbi8 1 Timothy 5:19-21 ***
19 Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to keep these things without prejudgment, doing nothing according to a biased leaning.
Jesus said:
*** Rbi8 Matthew 18:15-17 ***
15 "Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.
(But then again, what did Jesus know? The mighty Watchtower Corporation doesn't have to listen to him. Never did.)Teddy Jaracz of THE GOVERNING BODY(tm) says:
"We do not go BEYOND the things that written."
Written WHERE, Teddy? On your shriveled-up evil old ass?
Farkel
Edited by - Farkel on 18 July 2002 15:49:35
-
dungbeetle
One of the requirements is, the elders on the JC must be impartial. NO elder in Kentucky (for Bill) or in Tennessee (for Barbara) could possibly be considered impartial.
If these two want to attend a hearing, I suggest asking for it to be in New York on the weekend of Septemeber 27. That way, NO elders from either of their entire states will be on the committees (I hope) and all their Witnesses can be present.
But that's up to Bill and Barb.
-
ItsJustlittleoldme
This is a throughly cunning inclusion in this letter. If Mr. Bowen arrives with a similar entourage that he did last time, the meeting will not take place but he will be disfellowshipped for 'Loose Conduct', that is, for showing a balatant disrespect for the elders. They will then not need to prove or justify any accusation but will DF him for his conduct at the Judicial Committe. The term sheep led to the slaughter springs to mind.
I agrere conpletely, that is their tactic.. That is why I said Bill should show up with Lawyer, and Media (with tapes rolling); When the elders state that he cannot have his lawyer there, the lawyer can state how his civil rights are being violated, and he has every right to be there..
Then the elders will state that the media cannot attend.. Fine, but make sure the media get's it on tape!!!!!
I don't think they will conduct the meeting with the lawyer present, and it is a no-brainer to think they will DF later for not 'respecting the elders' or the letter...
But, the damage to the WT will already have been done..
Imagine what people will think when they see on National news and in newspapers:
A.) The JC refused to allow Bill to have anyone present at his meeting (Smacks of a coverup)
B.) They refused Bill to record anything (Smacks of a coverup)
C.) Were recorded on tape by the media itself stating the above 2 things (This way, JW's cannot deny it later)...
Even if the JW's themselves get off the hook, and believe it was satanic, or just plain lied to about it, the world will see what the WT really is!!! Their numbers in civilized nations (Who have money to support them) will dwindle rapidly!!!!
I don't see a way that Bill can win (Unless his lawyer has a few tricks up his sleeve, which I'm hoping he does), but Bill can certainly have their actions recorded so no-one can deny that HE wasn't allowed witness or representation!!!!
-
ISP
Well I would insist they put it in writing.......along with names of witnesses. They go into it knowing what the charges are, the evidence they have........and you don't!
The worlds watching this one......get your lawyer into it, Bill.
ISP
-
ISP
Whether they have their rules or not.....there can be no white wash this time. Bill needs to impose himself on this situation. I think this issue also brings DF'ing into sharp focus.
ISP
-
Bodhisattva
HS -
Is there a word for setting someone up to be convicted for a crime committed while in court on a trumped up charge? Not contempt of court, mind you, but saying "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses?" If not, I suggest "Caiaphasing" as the term.
Of course, in Caesar's courts you cannot be tried for something done as part of a trial in the same trial.
Kismet -
Good call on the chair possibly being a lawyer. I still wonder whether it is the same pedophile who Bill has declined to name, but whose being given a position of authority helped Bill to see the corruption in the system. If so, it would present a challenge: Such a person is not worthy of respect, least of all to sit in judgement; but it would be difficult to avoid a charge of legal slander by identifying him as such later, if he has not been convicted.
Interesting strategy here:
* http://www.biblecourses.com/en_lessons/silenceethics.pdf
Good luck, Bill.
-
waiting
Hello Ugg, - Nice to meet you.
Sometimes new people will post on a thread of interest, and be *slightly* overlooked because the subject matter is highly relevant. Sorry 'bout that.
Some jw's take offense that we speak openly - and not too politely about the Watchtower and it's tactics. Well, I was a jw woman for 30 years (joined when 21).....and some of these very same things have been whispered amongst the faithful.....but never spoken outloud. Why? Fear of being heard by higher powers.
That's what is so good about the Internet! Read, learn, meet people (some you will like - some you will think "Idiot!").....but you'll be able to Freely Think! And that's a great freedom.
Stick around and join our disfunctional - but free - group.
********************************************************************************
When my husband & I were in a "lawyer situation" with my local elders,my attorney said he absolutely could come to any meetings with us. He had pertinent information to the situation - thus making him a witness. He said he didn't need to come as a labeled attorney. HE SAID HE WOULD COME TO THE MEETING AS A LABELED WITNESS FOR US - AND HE JUST HAPPENED TO BE AN ATTORNEY.
This MAKES SENSE - as it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the WT to specify which profession that the witnesses must be. What? Only window washers allowed? I'm sure Bill knows lawyers who have pertinent information on his situation.
and due respect must be accorded to the elder who is chairing the meeting.
Agreeing with Hilliary (*sigh* - as usual). What is "due respect"? It could be anything and anything could be construed as NOT "due respect."
I would think that if the WT puts any derogatory label on Bill - he can justly sue for slander.
waiting
Edited by - waiting on 18 July 2002 16:1:23
-
waiting
Howdy Kismet,
1. Should there be any member of the judicial committee that you do not know, demand identification. Ask outright if he is a lawyer and do not accept "I am here as an elder" as an answer.
What an important point!!!!!!!! I was strongly under the impression that if a lawyer was sitting in a situation that could have legal ramifications - and refused to answer "Are you a lawyer?" He could be in a LOT of trouble with his state's Ethics Committee. They are a "Friend of the Court" no matter where they're sitting..........and liable to Higher Standards than the average person - and a lawyer's license can be lost for many reasons.
waiting