Could you elaborate on that please Blondie?
Deposition of Richard Ashe
by truthseekeriam 51 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
blondie
What don't you understand?
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses: one of the multitudinous corporations the WTS has now
Thus he is one of the corporation members
This corporation now functions as the branch office for the US and was once known as the Service Department
Elders, COs, DOs, call this department to get directions on how to handle congregation problems/questions
-
the girl next door
I understand it and appreciate your response. This is no doubt why WT offered Ashe up as the PMQ in place of Lösche. In his deposition however he is found wanting on that scale and proves only to be a prepared "ringer" in the court room.
-
nonjwspouse
Truthseeker, is the PMQ a member of the corperation, or a member of the governing body? Who decides ultimatly on the teachings, and the propocals, and everything else? it's sure isn't the writing dept or the corperation. ( though I suspect the WT lawyers have a large say, the Gb ovbiously ignores councel at times with some of the massive legal mistakes or liabilities we see. )
The person requested for discovery was a long time member of the GB. That obviously is the most qualified. But the WT send ashe instead. This will not go well for the WT ( I can only hope but it does look like the WT are making huge liability mistakes)
-
LogCon
compound complex said ' ...Bablyon the Great...'
Babl yon the Great ...
Babel yon the Great ...
Babel yonder the Great ....
Babels' out yonder and it's Great ....
If you try hard enough you can find the connection. Something like the Watchtower and overlapping generation, coloured socks, tight pants and Spanx
the tight pants generated an overlap of the coloured socks ...
........
-
Oubliette
IMHO, the PMQ is NTQ. Indeed, he's PFS. Seriously, WTF!?!
We all know TTATT and they're just in CYA mode. It's SNAFU.
GTC.
-
truthseekeriam
I agree Oubliette.
@ nonjwspouse
-
nonjwspouse
frustrating, I cant get either pdf to download.
-
LogCon
zeb said '... I was surprised that the judge in charge allowed the incessant objections from the other counsel...'
It is my understanding that in Canada a 'deposition' is called a 'discovery'. No judge has to be present. Is this the same in the Untied States. If the judge was present, the document would state so.
I would understand the 'objection[s]' repeatedly uttered by the counsel McCabe are merely put into the record for possible traction for their defense arguments, at some future date. An objection addressed to a judge would have to be answered by the judge. McCabe is directing the objection to the transcriber 'for the record'. Help me if I am wrong on this.
McCabe sounds like a parrot sitting in a cage in the corner of the room... 'Squawk, squawk, objection, objection...'
Sorry Oubliette. I just saw the comment you made concerning this.
-
EnlightenedEphesian
Just had to make a comment on a statement made towards the end of the deposition. I laughed so hard at this and thought others might find it funny as well.
Richard Ashe is being asked by the attorney why certain searches would not work to comply with the Judges request to provide a list of individuals that have been counseled/reproved for child abuse. Mr. Ashe proceeds to explain that just doing a search for "child abuse" would pull up any file related to "child" or "abuse" and it would take hundreds of man hours to review those files to see if they are actually related to child abuse.
Then, the attorney remembers that Mr. Ashe commented earlier that all child abuse files are marked as "Do Not Destroy" so he proceeds to inquire why that search would not work. Here are the actual comments...
O. So had someone looking for the records relating to child molester, would look for files that have on it a cover an indication that says "do not destroy; " is that right?
A. Do not destroy is a electronic tag so they do not disappear according to retention policy for a document.
O. So one thing you can do is search physical files and look for any file that says "do not destroy" on it?
A. But there are no physical file. Once they were scanned all those documents were destroyed.
O. So you can do a search for the term "do not destroy?
A. You can try to do a search for do not destroy but you'll come up with child abuse, you'll come up with adultery, you'll come up with bigamist marriage, you'll come up with slander, fraud, murder any abhorrent sin.
O. It's that much sin going on in the Jehovah Witness?
MR. COPLEY(Attorney for Mr. Ashe): Objection, argumentative. I'll instruct you not to answer.