Metatron, yes the idea is to view their power as a tool protected by the First Ammendment as long as that tool is not weilded in a criminal manner or in a manner that is against the public interest. 1) the child abuse issue/ door to door work = public interest, 2) The timing of the accusations and the denial of any relationship to Dateline = intent to slander. 3)..........If 1) and 2) are true then Bill Bowen was defrauded when the WTBTS held themselves out as a religion that is honest and non adversarial and the First Ammendment cannot be used as a blind by the WTBTS.
Watchtower Moves In For Kill On silentlambs
by silentlambs 141 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
abbagail
SO MANY EXCELLENT suggestions and comments and ideas to think about! All you folks have GREAT BRAINS!!!
You know the saying, 'Know your enemy..." It sure pays to have the backup and brains of all these former JWs who many have been thru the same thing. (I USED TO believe the GB were innocent and naive, like that scripture at Luke 16:8 they would use to convince us. However, I no longer believe that).
If the lawyers are running the show and this hearing, how could they write such stupid things in the letter (i.e., no witnesses, no lawyers, no tape recording, etc.). Like a few of you have posted, you yourselves were told by attorneys that, yes, no matter what the JC says, attorneys CAN be present. Surely the WTS attorneys would know that, and so why would THEY make such a statement in the letter to Bill?
Could it be that, as I have also heard in the past, that the WTS itself is disengaging itself from the local congregations re: DF'ings and the like, in order to keep the WTS itself from being liable in any way? Therefore, maybe this letter WAS written by the local brothers, and that may account for their stupidity in the letter-??? (just a thought). Because...
Their letter said, "In accordance with the USUAL procedure..." How can they even tell Bill NO WITNESSES when, thanks to Focus who posted the pertinent portions, the "usual procedure" as outlined in the elder book plainly states you CAN have witnesses? It would seem to me that that statement right there in their letter would VOID the entire process.
That remark about respecting the elder chairing the committee... that's about the most sorry thing I'd ever heard, as if grown men need to even say such things to each other. (Sounds like they are expecting some HEATED discussion.)
Re: Not telling you the Charges in advance. I don't see how they can get away with that either.
Dungbeetle (I think) mentioned Bill "cannot get a fair hearing" in his local congregation - that was a good point. Does the WTS/JC make room for Change of Venue options?
The letter also said, "no tape recordings will be allowed at the hearing." It said TAPE recordings, but it said NOTHING ABOUT A COURT REPORTER. (She types on a little machine with PAPER in it, not tape). You should hire a bona fide court reporter to sit in on the proceedings. She is not there as a witness and she is not there as an observer. She is there merely for the purpose of taking down the proceedings.
Also, if the whole DF'ing issue is a soon-to-be (if not already) "slander" issue (Bowen v. WTBTS of NY & PA), then I would think it is ALREADY in the "legal playing-field," and Bill's attorney most likely has these bases covered, his attorney will be present, and they will take a court reporter, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if his attorney already filed suit against the WTBTS & Bill's cong for harrassment and/or slander, etc. on or before the day Bill received the letter from the JC.
This issue reminds me of something my former boss/attorney did: Granted, it was not a religious issue, but just about as "heavy" re: MEDICAL doctors (who all think they are GOD, too, btw): Our clients would be summoned by the respective insurance companies (who we were suing for injuries/damages) to attend IME's (Independent Medical Examinations) by doctors who were then PAID by these insurance companies for performing these so-called "IMPARTIAL" independent medical examinations. (Yeah, right!). My former boss/attorney created a HUGE STINK in this town when he began insisting that COURT REPORTERS be PRESENT in the examining room while the doctor performed the IME on our client. Well, the doctors in town FOUGHT THIS tooth and nail, refusing to allow the court reporters into the examination rooms, even when the patient/client and court reporter had shown up all ready to go. But the doctors would then refuse to perform the examination at all. It was really a HUGE STINK that went on for months and months, but the boss never waivered, and took them all to court about this issue of whether the client/patient has a right to have a court reporter present for these IME's, and he won, and the docs had to give in to the patient's (and the boss') request for a court reporter to be present. --- Ahhhh, those were the days! :-)
Back to Bill's Hearing: It's a crying shame it even has to come to this. It really is. I would be so pleased if the WTS would just come clean, hand over the records to all the congregations and the legal authorities so all the friends and the public would know about the pedophiles. And if our so-called HUMBLE "slave class" would openly apologize to the Lambs, wouldn't that just warm everyone's heart? (I know I know... dreaming here). But, no, it looks like they have dug in their heels and spurs, and there's no turning back.
Therefore, get out your six-shooters and holsters, boys, and FORWARD HO! to the Show-down at High Noon.
Best Wishes & Much Success on whatever strategy you choose, Bill!
GRITS
-
anglise
Have they said what the accusations against you are Bill?
Surely if it can be proven that the only thing they have against you is your wanting to protect children and inform the legal authorities about the secret paedophile list that allegedly contains the information of not only suspected, but also of confessed molesters, then they are attempting to blackmail you into silence.
Using the threat of a JC and its ramifications of DF/shunning is surely attempting to pervert the course of justice.
No religion has that right or authority.
Your DF would also effectively silence and trap the many who are still suffering abuse behind the cloak of the WTBTS policies.
This would be used by the WTBTS as an example of what happens to those who try to question the elders, even when those elders are blatently wrong and even criminal in their decisions and actions.
The WTBTS seems to think they are above the law and not answerable to any manmade authority. An authority which even in their own teachings is Caeser who wields a sword and a superior authority who should be given due honour.
Can you make use of the article in the Aug 2002 KM regarding treatment of DF persons and the immense pressure which that exerts on individuals to comply to the point of covering up abuse in its many forms.
Has anyone informed the French government of the latest events in the laying bare of the WTBTS?
Anglise
-
Lieu
My question would be, "Excuse me, but will people hear YOUR voices and come out of the memorial tombs?"
The Bible is God's word, correct?...which part of the Bible were YOU inspired to write? So, if YOU can't speak for God, what makes You think you can judge for God?
When asked about God's "visible" (TM) org. on earth:
My reply, "I am nothing like the ancient Israelites, I do not wish to have rulers that I can see in rejection to God's Kingly arrangement and his appointed King. My dedication was to be a slave of God, not a slave of men. I herewith invoke Acts 5:29."
Evertime they asked about insidious activities I would reply, "You yourselves have said it."
-
abbagail
I know government agencies have Whistleblower Protection Clauses for employees and such, but is there any type of Whistleblower Protection Laws in OTHER areas of life, such as this?
-
hillary_step
Hi Dungbeetle,
Of course they have. OLIN MOYLE and not only did he successfully sue, but Watchtower had to change its policies as well. A DOUBLE victory for Olin Moyle.
Was not this case an an issue of slander? I do not recall the case being found in the plaintiff's favor over the disfellowshiping procedure and the WTS right to use such.
Best - HS
-
Lieu
Needless to say, Inqusitions are still being carried on in this day. I see no difference in a JW JC than in a medevil Catholic Inquisitor session...It's all one big secret using secret rules, and the logs are piled up at the stake before the session even beigns. Why? Because if you confess to following Christ and not the men, you will burn. If you declare you are innocent due to following Christ and not the men, you will burn. Either way, you burn.
Its a no-win situation when dealing with imperfect human zealot nuts. Their judgement doesn't count anyway.
Just be happy that in the end, when you answer to the only ONE who matters and who judges righteously, you will win for following Christ and not men. When it counts you win and they will lose.
-
abbagail
Way To Go, Lieu!! Right On! (Did they DF/DA you anyway?)
Lieu said to invoke Acts 5:29: "WE MUST OBEY GOD AS RULER RATHER THAN MEN."
Also, "YOU YOURSELVES SAID IT."
I think these are VALID ARGUMENTS. However, I'm sure the JC would take them as acts of sarcasm or disrespect, even though they are straight from the Bible.
-
Lieu
No, they did not DF or Da me, Grits.
I've been to one JC....but they felt so bad after I finished, they (Elders) haven't bothered me since.
I remember one day telling the MS handling literature 'happy birthday'. One of the elders happened to be standing at the counter when I said it...he almost fell on the floor. :) He asked me why I said it, and I asked him didn't he hear the MS incessantly telling me today was his birthday? Did the MS not leave me alone after I wished him a 'happy birthday'? The elder then called the MS into the "library of death". Personally, I thought it was hallarious.
The problem with the majority of JWs in the USA is that everything is sooooo distant and impersonal that the Org. might as well just be another commercial business. Not many seem to have a vested interest in the well being of anyone else....butt backwards. At least, that's my opinion.
-
Focus
hillary_step wrote re Olin Moyle:
Was not this case an an issue of slander? I do not recall the case being found in the plaintiff's favor over the disfellowshiping procedure and the WTS right to use such.
Dungbeetle, I wish what you had written was true. But hillary_step is right (well, almost: it was libel, and not slander, which relates to the spoken word and which is notoriously hard to action). The suit largely related to the contents of the October 15 1939 issue of The Watchtower, pp316-7, which defamed Olin Moyle in typical Rutherfordian style. In this lawsuit in 1940, the future jW President tried to pass the buck re damages by claiming that the Editor of the magazine was not someone who could be sued so easily, as serving Him with legal notice might require the court officer to be dead:
MOYLE'S LAWYER: Who subsequently became the Editor of the magazine, the main editor of the 'Watch Tower' magazine?
F.FRANZ: In 1931, October 15th, as I recall, the 'Watch Tower' discontinued publishing the names of any editorial committee on the second page.
THE COURT: He asked you who became the editor.
F.FRANZ: And it said..
THE COURT: Who became the editor?
MOYLE'S LAWYER: Who became the editor when this was discontinued?
F.FRANZ: Jehovah God.Passing the buck to God, just as they are over the Pedophilia! Now, who brings God's name into disrepute?
The case re-emerged in 1943:
MOYLE'S LAWYER: Is the 'Watch Tower' magazine dogmatic?
F.FRANZ: The magazine is not dogmatic. Dogma literally means opinion and the 'Watch Tower' does not set forth the opinion of man. The 'Watch Tower' instead of being dogmatic is confident because it bases its conclusions upon the word of God and therefore it is sure of the ground upon which it is walking. It does not arrogantly assert any opinion with unwarranted positiveness.
MOYLE'S LAWYER: At any rate, Jehovah God is now the editor of the paper, is that right?
F.FRANZ: He is today the editor of the paper.
MOYLE'S LAWYER: How long has he been editor of the paper?
F.FRANZ: Since its inception he has been guiding it.
MOYLE'S LAWYER: Even before 1931?
F.FRANZ: Yes, sir..
MOYLE'S LAWYER: But you don't make any mention in the fore part of your Watch Tower that 'We are not infallible and subject to correction and may make mistakes'?A telling exchange! And now the new JW President N.H.Knorr gave us this:
N.H.KNORR: We have never claimed infallibility.
MOYLE'S LAWYER: But you don't make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papers do you?
N.H.KNORR: Not that I recall.
MOYLE'S LAWYER: In fact, it is set forth directly as God's Word, isn't it?
N.H.KNORR: Yes, as His Word.
MOYLE'S LAWYER: Without any qualification whatsoever?
N.H.KNORR: That is right.Here are the legal references:
Olin R. Moyle v. F.W.Franz, et al, 05 10 - 05 27 1943, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, sections 2596-7, 4420-1 (Moyle v. Rutherford et al., 261 App. Div. 968; 26 N.Y.S. 2d 860; Moyle v. Franz et al., 267 App. Div. 423; 46 N.Y.S. 2d 607; Moyle v. Franz et al., 47 N.Y.S. 484), first listed Kings County Clerk's Index No. 15845, 1940 Vol 2 p795.The Watchtower officers lost the libel action, and were forced to pay $15,000 plus costs to Moyle: a great deal of money in those days.
Please see this thread for a discussion of possible legal avenues:
> http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=32506&page=1&site=3Suing them for having a policy which harbors pedophiles is a far better bet.
--
Focus
(Action Class)