Hi Crazy guy I shall certainly do that.
Hi Crazy guy I shall certainly do that.
WGO ,if you use the search button at the top of the page and type in Steven Unthank F&DS it will take you to a wealth of info .
Barbara Anderson has a thorough analysis of the subject there,as well as Koolaid.
From what I remember this was only here say, there was never any evidence presented. The Victorian Royal Commission transcript shows no conversation to that effect.
The link to the transcript is here, scroll down to the Watchtower Bible and tract Society.
It is interesting go through that transcript again and the Watchtower had such an easy time. In comparison, the Australian RC has been very thorough.
Ms. Van Worsen was the Watchtowers lawyer and she repeatedly said that the no. 1 priority was the protection of children.
This was probably the most interesting part from the Victorian RC
"Mr WAKELING — But if I may, Mr O’Brien, I am trying to understand the position of the church. In my
own questioning you have indicated to me that you would not be reporting, that you will report — particularly
as your legal counsel indicated — and now you are saying that you may or may not. We are looking at this
exact issue of child abuse within religious organisations of a systemic nature and how those organisations deal
with those matters. You have the right to waiver that exemption. You have the capacity as a church to report
these matters, and for the purpose of our inquiry we need to know how you would be dealing with those issues.
Mr T. O’BRIEN — I would like to take further legal advice on that particular question.
The CHAIR — Would Ms van Witsen answer then?
Ms VAN WITSEN — If I could. Yes, certainly. To date the government has stipulated in the Children,
Youth and Families Act 2005 section 182(1)(a) to (e) who should be mandated to report, so that is under the
mandatory reporting. As we all know ministers of religion are not currently there. If that list were expanded to
include them, my instructions are that we are to direct elders to comply immediately — fully comply. That is no
question, and the organisation would certainly comply. Those are my clear instructions.
However, in the meantime as solicitors we have been instructed to specifically direct all elders who contact the
Legal Department immediately on hearing of any allegation of child abuse — and you may refer to the covering
letter of the organisation on page 3 — they are to advise the victim and/or the victim’s family that they are
completely free to report this matter to the police or other appropriate authority. Not only that, regardless of
what decision they make, the elders will continue to fully support them. Thus it is the victim and the victim’s
family whose absolute right it is to report any allegation to the police. It is their choice; they will be fully
supported in any way.
However, there is a proviso on that. That proviso, if I may explain that, is there is obviously information that is
learnt as part of the confidential dealings of elders with penitents and what have you. No longer is there a
statutory impediment, no longer is the consent of the penitent required to disclose information, as you correctly
identified. We have now got a uniform Evidence Act which allows that to be waived. In what conditions is that
waived? My instructions are that whatever is necessary to protect a child, even if it involves the disclosure of
information which is normally confidential, it would be done — be that reporting to the police or other relevant
child protection authorities. What would ordinarily be considered confidential would be reported.
Listener you have misunderstood the posters question .It is not referreing to the ARC transcripts.
It is asking about the court case that took place in the Latrobe Valley that Steven Unthank took against the WTB&TS where this question about the F&DS Class was raised and their answer was " it is a Theocratic Arrangement." and not related to any one particular undividual .
This took place about 5 years ago.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Oh right, thanks, I remember that now.
There was a thread on this.
Among the things that Watchtower attorneys said was....
During the court hearing on October 11, legal counsel for the Watchtower Society, Rachel van Witsen, from Vincent Toole Solicitors (the Watchtower Society’s in-house law firm located inside Bethel, Australia) made a statement on behalf of the Watchtower Society that:-
- “The faithful and discreet slave is not a legal entity.”
- Vincent Toole Solicitors then went on to present arguments that the “faithful and discreet slave” do not exist as a “person” nor do they exist as an “unincorporated body” and nor do they exist as a “body” of Christians.
At the time the remarks were made that the 'faithful slave does not exist as a person, an unincorporated body, nor a body of Christians' the organization had a very fuzzy definition of who the slave was, which was the remaining ones of the 144,00 left on earth at any given time, even though the Organization had no idea who they were in total.
Since then the FS has been redefined as the 'Governing Body when they are gathered together and in session.' To now say the Slave does not exist as a definable 'body of Christians' is no longer true in any sense.
And the average JW going from d2d has know idea of this interpretation from the Governing body /legal department, or how this affects their overall beliefs ,