"I’ve noticed that on the Montana cases you linked, the Defendants were relatives. Really horrible and disturbing stuff to read. Unimaginable abuse, assuming it is true. Because WT has deep pockets and the victims can collect from them. Minus WT in the equation, the relatives would still have abused their innocent kids.
Courts don’t adjudicate feelings or morality or good and bad such as when “doctors” with the permission of the mother have gruesomely un-alived legally as a child is being born but partially inside the mother for example. I’ve seen medical books on this that haunts me till this day. How about liability of government agencies having knowledge that children are being harmed or were harmed in the past with drug and tobacco use in the home or an environment that damages the welfare of a child such as corrupting conduct of the parents or too something physical like lead paint in gov owned housing for example . Shouldn’t there also be a tolling of the statute of limitations to hold liable people responsible for protecting children?
The legal issue involving wt in all objectivity is wt liability in any failure to protect children when legally required to do so. Seems to me."
Ah, @Fisherman, you are perhaps referring to the Caekaert case? (There are other Montana cases, but I didn't link those ones in this thread yet.)
If the WTBT$ wasn't guilty of complicity, then why were they trying to avoid discovery as regards the relationship between the Watch Tower of New York and the Watch Tower of Pennsylvania or the way the organization worked in prior years? What were they trying to hide? What were they afraid of revealing?
They are guilty of complicity in hiding child sexual abuse. That is why they continue to hide behind the Legal Department.
When C.T. Russell was guilty of abuse, his legal counsel said the same thing, that Maria wanted money. Russell showed his true colors by the unscriptural way he treated his wife, and so have the WTBT$. The entire organization is founded on fraud and hypocrisy and hiding abuse. That is why they avoided discovery. Because they are guilty.
Regardless of the abuse details in the Caekaert case, what was the response of the men in the organization who claim to be "exemplary shepherds"? Did they try to comfort the victim? How about Jesus' direction at Matthew 5:40 "And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment"? How did these men react?
Declaration of Allen Shuster:
Declaration of Gary Breaux:
Declaration of Gene Smalley:
Like cowards. They basically said "we don't know anything about anything". They lied. They know exactly how the congregations are run. They know about all the letters to the elders and the manuals and the Service Department. They know. They were elders in congregations all those years. They know. They could have come clean but instead they lied and showed that they care more about the image of a corrupt organization than about the Lord's little sheep. They are despicable wolves in sheep's covering. They are not shepherds. They are not witnesses of Jehovah, and He is sending His son to remove His Name from that corrupt organization forever. His little sheep will be comforted when that corrupt WTBT$ is destroyed. (Ezekiel chapter 34)