The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!

WingCommander

Link to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:

https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/

If anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.

So let me get this straight; you have a religion that's been caught with it's pants down all over the world covering up child sexual abuse, protecting pedophiles, victim-shaming the abused, and shuffling around known predators to other Congregations, but instead of tackling THOSE issues, you instead as an Organization, file suit against a known whistleblower like Mark O'Donnell who has done nothing but good and who's wife is a victim of abuse herself?

Man, you can't make this shit up! I'd been saying it for a long time now, but ever since the JW's have been caught with their pants down and members taking notice and discovering the "Truth about the Truth", that eventually they'll become just like the other cults with litigation to attempt to silence the abused and whistleblowers, ala Scientology-style. Welp, here we are!

Now, specifically this is 11 Congregations (so far). But we all know that 11 Congregations didn't do this on their own. Haha! Nope. Remember, the tools at the local level can't even decide on their own which TV to purchase for the Kingdom Hall, or whom to have service their HVAC system. Probably can't even order their own preference of toilet paper without the direct say-so and permission from the CO and LDC. So does anyone really buy that 11 Congregations got together to file a civil suit again Mark on charges he illegally wire-tapped? Uh, Noooooo. Not buying that.

WT HQ and Legal Dept: You are a bunch of slimy, low-life, weaselly mutherfuggers! You all would make the Pharisees blush with your tactics. The fact that you force NDA's on abuse victims before settling their lawsuits, who are brave enough to sue you for your covering up and protecting of pedophile Elders speaks volumes, as does your lying right to the courts.

Keep tightening your iron fist, and watch the exodus continue thru your fingers which are already dripping with the blood of the ignorant who've you killed with your flawed blood policies.

Further discussion on the announcement on the EX-JW Reddit sub: (hope you don't mind Simon)

https://old.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1kk7i73/the_jehovahs_witnesses_are_suing_me_for_millions/?sort=new

slimboyfat

You can be sued for attending a Zoom call? Isn’t it the responsibility of the people organising the Zoom call and the participants in the Zoom call to regulate who attends and what they say? To me, and I’m only using common sense not the law, the only problem would arise if Mark concealed who he was or pretended to be someone else in order to get into the meeting. Did he do that? If not, I’d say it’s on them if he was at a meeting they would prefer he wasn’t at in retrospect. They should have noticed at the time and kicked him out, if that was in their power, and they were minded to do so. How can they complain after the event? Even if his attendance was a violation of some rule, is it reasonable to sue for millions of dollars and end his entire reporting over this? Again I wouldn’t have thought so given he is reporting on an important story of concern to the public.

WingCommander

@slimboyfat:

Apparently, it was a confidential Elduhzzz only meeting between local Congregation Elders and their lawyers on a Zoom call. Someone (some Elder or MS probably) who is really "out" was able to share the link and password with Mark and he was able to listen in and record, etc. He then made a summary Youtube video exposing what they were up to. After the suit was filed, he removed the YouTube video.

WatchTower can't win this one. Firstly, because Mark is an established journalist at this point working with publications and social media around the globe. He has 1st Amendment and journalistic protection and WatchTower knows it. That isn't the point to WatchTower. They want to ruin him by draining all his money fighting the suit. Win, while losing, by attrition.

Here's what's really jaw-dropping; they are suiting him for "loss of income." As-in, because of what he exposed in his Youtube segment, they are claiming he cost them money. Just like any other "Corporation." They are also demanding he hand over all ex-JW contacts that he's spoken to going back several years. You know, so they can proceed to disfellowship any still-in moles or one sympathetic to the CSA cause. Round up the leaks and plug them.

WatchTower can go fugg themselves. They will NEVER get that from Mark. A journalist 100% can not be forced to name their sources. Also, I suspect he may also have Whistleblower protection. WT is barking the wrong tree on this one, and I wonder what else they're attempting to hide. Possibly all the evidence of them demanding that interrogation notes of CSA victims from the Judicial Committee Meetings be shredded, as they did in the Sarah Brooks case? (as reported all over by ex-JW Elder Martin Haugh) I didn't read which 11 Pennsylvania Congregations it is, but I suspect they're mostly in the south-central PA region, which is absolutely overflowing at the brim with child sexual abuse cases. What's been reported since 2016 is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Hey WT HQ: You still letting that anointed pedophile (former Elder) who molested his children remain in good standing in the Mount Joy Congregation? He still able to give Assembly parts and no one is the wiser? Guess Legal Dept is too busy silencing the abused and whisteblowers to go after that sick twisted freak, huh?

peacefulpete

The WT success would depend upon proving actual damages. Also using a link by an unauthorized person is not wiretapping but possibly reaches the definition of cyber trespassing, but still actual damages must be proven.

liam

There is two ways this can go

1st observation by baddog4x

Here's how the law likely sees it:

Pennsylvania and Maryland Are Two-Party Consent States Both states require all parties to consent to the recording or interception of a private communication. This is central to the plaintiffs' claims under:

The Pennsylvania Wiretap Act

The Maryland Wiretap Act

Federal Wiretap Law (Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968)

In these jurisdictions, even if one person in the group gives you access to a private communication (like a Zoom call), that does not necessarily legalize listening in or recording it without the consent of all participants.

2. Post-Fact Removal Is Legally Irrelevant to Liability You're right to compare it to "unloading the gun after the shooting." Legally speaking, taking down a video after the alleged violation does not undo the wiretap or privacy breach. It's more about limiting damages than avoiding liability.

3. Defendant’s Defense: Journalist and Informant O'Donnell’s defense is built on:

Being invited by a whistleblower

Acting as a journalist

Not identifying the plaintiffs by name But this does not override the wiretap statutes if the meeting was legally considered "private" and "confidential," which it likely was—especially given it involved attorney-client privileged discussions.

2nd observation by Relative_Soil7886

TL;DR: JW congregations accuse ex-member and journalist Mark O’Donnell of illegally eavesdropping on a private meeting and spilling the beans online. He says he was invited, was acting as a reporter, and didn’t break any laws.

The Lawsuit: Twelve Jehovah’s Witness congregations are suing Mark O’Donnell, a former JW and well-known whistleblower/journalist. They claim he illegally accessed a private Microsoft Teams meeting between elders and attorneys (related to an ongoing grand jury investigation into child sex abuse coverups), and then disclosed confidential info in a YouTube interview and on Reddit.

Their Claims: They say O’Donnell violated federal and state wiretapping laws and invaded their privacy. They’re asking for $700,000+ in damages.

O’Donnell Response:

O’Donnell says:

He was invited to the meeting by a whistleblower who was a participant.

•	He joined openly, using his real phone number, and didn’t hide who he was.

•	He reported on what he heard in his capacity as a journalist, something he’s done for years to expose         abuse in the org.

•	He took down the YouTube interview as soon as he was served with the lawsuit.

•	He didn’t name or identify any of the plaintiffs.

Case Status

Discovery (i.e., depositions and document review) will last 180 days.

•	Trial is tentatively scheduled for August 2025.

•	No expert witnesses expected.

•	Settlement might be discussed mid-discovery.

TonusOH

As Pete said, they have to prove actual damages in order to get a judgment for any amount of money.

My guess is that they know this. The goal is to drain O'Donnell's bank account (via the costs of litigation, not necessarily a judgment), intimidate other exJWs, and track down the JWs who spoke to him. They are demanding a list of "every Jehovah’s Witness [he has] communicated with in the last five years regarding the faith of the Jehovah’s Witnesses." They want to clear out anyone who is providing information to critics. They know they have quite a lot of PIMOs who leak information, and they want to find as many of them as they can.

Biahi

This organization is so dirty and rotten from the top down, it is mind boggling to me that they are allowed to even exist. And, Wing Commander, thank you.

DesirousOfChange

Maybe some major news network will pick up on this.

It would be pretty bad publicity for WT if it gets out there as:

"Church sues Child Abuse whistleblower"

Balaamsass2

Wow. Criminals.

I hope he can get some free assistance from the Penn. State Attorney General, who seems hot on the trail to bust Watchtower.

vienne

I have mixed feelings. Exposing corruption is everyone's duty. Using illegal means is corrupt. I'll be interested in seeing the outcome.

The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!

Share this