I just clicked on the above link......Did you notice that "Faithful and Discreet Slave" was listed in another case? LOL
Victoria, Australia: FYI-Far reaching ramifications of the criminal indictment of the GB
Why would it show for plaintiff "Unknown"?,, It shows 'no representation,' Is the WTS playing a game? Has documentation of this been sent to these WTS "corporations?" Is there proof that they received it? ???
The man who brought this case forward is Steve UNKNOWN.
The use of the terms "Governing Body", "F&DS", "WTB&TS" etc., is simply a legal requirement because these are the identifying titles which THEY choose to use for administrative purposes related to their corporate activity. IE: it pre-empts the defendents penchant for avoiding liability by playing "pass the dutchie"
The plaintiff is listed as unknown because this case will be referred to a higher court and prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor if it goes to trial.
Yes, Matt, that's the town where this case is being considered. This is just a Filing Hearing and it could still be going on if it started only three hours ago. I was told that the day was set aside because there were five WT entities charged. This hearing will determine what court will hear the case and when. I have no idea when that information will be announced. Also, after this Hearing we should know if the Prosecutor's Office will take over the case from Steven who is acting as prosecutor, as odd as that might sound if compared to US law.
Regarding the resignation of the head of the police: I actually read an article in an Australian newspaper which had a large photo of the police chief after he resigned and in the photo I believe there were reporters trying to interview him or I could be mixing that up with a video I saw of him trying to explain the situation. Well anyhow, the newspaper article specifically mentioned some men in the police department had been involved in some sort of criminal matters and also mentioned something about the police chief not responding to child abuse. Somewhere I have a link to that article, but I don't intend to try to find it tonight because of the time it will take. I believe this happened sometime after Steven Unthank filed his "Submission" back around the time of the JWs Memorial and after the Submission had been cleared by some Legal Office in Victoria.
Thank you Barbara for clarifying that speech marks had been left out of the material that you copied at the beginning of this thread. I appreciate the correction because it was genuinely difficult to tell what was based on considered legal opinion and the personal opinion of the unnamed ex-JW.
In my post, I had declared certain statements to be fact (the limits of a Court's jurisdiction and citizenship protections). Barbara had said these were not facts, citing the principle of the international sovereign right of states. I discussed this principle with a close friend of mine who is a law student and has no interest in JWs.
My friend said the principle had been misapplied by Barbara; it referred primarily to agreements between countries to respect each other's right to their own sovereignty. In her opinion, the principle actually reinforced the notion that a sovereign state would seek to protect its citizens against the judicial processes of other sovereign states except where there had been agreed-upon "egregious" wrongdoing (e.g., sedition, drug trafficking, international exploitation of children).
Band on the Run raises some pertinent points and I apologize if I haven't got my head around all of those compelling points, but the overarching one seems to be that a Court's jurisdiction, by definition, has its sovereign limits. In the US, the first amendment is sacrosanct - and I'd be astonished if another sovereign state (Australia) succeeded in persuading the States to do what many of its own Amercian citizens have failed to do: Limit the freedom of religion by prosecuting the GB or the legal corporation(s), The Watchtower Society.
Lastly, a correction is needed: the Victorian Police Commissioner did not leave his post for the reasons Barbara mentioned, but for far more prosaic and less sensationalist reasons. In the excitement at seeing the Watchtower and GB on the cusp of being called to account, it's important to remain skeptical about sources - some of them are prone to crude and unfounded speculation.
I'm sure glad no one here read my previous post; please ignore my comment about Steve UNKNOWN. That gaffe was a result of my having a brain seizure. I jumped out of my bath when I realized what I had done and came back to JWN to apologize.
Sorry, Barb, if you read this. Just curious, does no one actually read my posts?
Steve2, if you had carefully read what I posted, I only took the blame for not putting some speech marks around some words, but the rest of the material didn't come from me, but from the person who is sending me the information. Early on in this thread I explained that the material I posted came not from me but from an XJW in Australia that has agreed to monitor the events, report on them along with his opinions. From the very beginning when I started to post information about Steve Unthank, you have consistently attacked me. I never claimed to be an expert on what Steven Unthank is doing in Australia. I agreed to post information about all of this because I have the trust of those involved. Nothing more. Don't argue with me Steve2, argue with Steven Unthank. His phone number has been posted previously on JWN and also his home and email address are on his website. As far as I'm concerned, nothing should stop you from contacting him asap because you might be able to lend him assistance in his endeavor. Remember, he's just a carpenter! And I'm just a "passer alonger" of information as I get it. Maybe you should volunteer to do this and that way there will be no mistakes.
As an afterthought, maybe you would like to PM me Steve2 or I can PM you if you would like to discuss this further.
Co Co, I read your words and took "UNKNOWN" as a joke. I thought it was just a play on words and I like humorous people.
Thanks, Barbara! You're a gem.
Hi Barbara, I had hoped that joining in with you and others in the discussion would be, if not welcome, at least tolerated. I was careful to acknowledge that the quote in question was not you but another ex-JW. I have emailed Steve Unthank on three occasions (following the suggestion you made several weeks ago) and, to date, have received no acknowledgement, let alone response (my emails were courteous and inquiring and acknowledging what a difficult process he must be going through). I have concluded that he must literally be inundated with inquiries from people so I have not taken offence at the non-acknoweldgement.
It is a shame that you describe my questions and statements as "attacks". They are not. This is a vastly complex topic and yes, it is evident that you and others have done a tremendous amount of really hard work. My mistake is probably twofold: 1) I need to have acknoweldged that you have put a tremendous amount of eprsonal effort and time into your work on this topic; 2) I tend to get straight to the point and raise questions or state legal fact - I can see that this could be misconstrued as attacking. I also suggested some restraint in citing reports that appear to be unreliable (e.g., the one that alleged the Victorian Police Commissioner had been side-lined because of inaction on child protection).
I am truly, truly sorry if you view my contribution to this thread is taken as an attack. I hope you can read this in the spirit in which it is written; that is, seeking to better understand what is going on in Victoria and feeling perhaps more than a little thwarted when my questions and conclusinos either don't get a response (emails to Mr Unthank) or are seen as attacks.