by Adwoa Kromo 26 Replies latest forum announcements
Did the WBTS really try to claim they could re-define the meaning of the word 'fraud' so it wouldn't be defamatory? Just too funny. They keep turning up to British courts thinking they're in the US and that the word 'religion' grants some automatic immunity from being made to answer in court.
Can't imagine the pressures on Mr.Otuo as he does this himself. All the best to him really as he seeks answers and closure.
It's an odd case. The guy was DFd for fraud but only on some kind of technical fraud on the basis of a letter that has been destroyed. I can't really figure out exactly what the full story is.
It's interesting that increasingly ( in child abuse & other cases ) the courts are starting to push beyond the "ecclesiastical privilege" defence that for long religions like the JWs & others have relied upon.
I suspect that the WTBTS will not like its dirty laundry hung out in public and won't like its procedures investigated so they will offer Mr Otuo some money to settle. They certainly wouldn't want any kind of precedent established that JC decisions can be challenged in court.
JCs are basically kangaroo courts. In fact - my own exit began partly as a result of a totally shambolic DFing of someone in my congregation when I finally had to accept that they was absolutely no "God's spirit" at work in any way. The incompetence is almost breathtaking at times and the Society have got away with them for years because nobody can challenge them. Maybe that is starting to change - that can only be a good thing.
Thanks for the update. Generally speaking WTBTS has a regular failure rate at seeking the dismissal of a case in the early stages. Now we can sit back and watch the lies and false testimony begin as WTBTS implement their 'theocratic warfare' doctrine so as to win.
From the judgement:
"I bear in mind Mr Daniel's warning that I may be allowing myself to be diverted by a "smokescreen", but it simply illustrates why the facts need to be properly investigated after full pleadings have become available, disclosure of documents has taken place and witness statements have been exchanged. Only then will the smoke have cleared."
Mr. Daniels works for Watchtower. It's ironic that on one hand Watchtower complains judicially of a smokescreen yet simultaneously depends so heavily on smokescreen to keep the public from knowing what really happens inside its self-organized and managed shunning program.
Watchtower has done this before. In 1981 take a look at how Watchtower complained about lack of public view and review:
To this very day Watchtower disallows third-party viewing of its "judicial" activities even when requested by the accused. The very safeguards Watchtower admits as important the result of public review it rejects by disallowing third-party viewing (when it's requested).
Watchtower's tactics in the public arena are beyond contempt. The organization's leadership is overloaded with rot. It is beyond repair or reform.
I would like to see individual elders being held to account over their actions, and them being personally prosecuted / fined.
When this happens I think the role of 'elder' will not be such a sought after one.
Pubsinger, I don't think the matter is finished yet. But I reckon it will be in the WT's interests in this case, as in so many others, to now settle out of Court.
That way they avoid any more bad publicity.
