You must be right Simon. I must be wrong.

by umbertoecho 9 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  umbertoecho

  Simon. This is your forum. You started it I don't doubt you have helped many.

  Eight hours of testimony is exhausting. I was told to make no contact with any legal entity. I had to register, make it completely absolutely, concrete. No one could deny the facts and in this way those who would deny would have to be incredibly inventive to twist one thing I ever said.

  That included court records, hospital records, even school records. I was warned to go nowhere until I had completed a strong and evidence-based complaint. There is one more ugly session that will gut me. I will do it. I was asked not to contact or allow anyone to make an approach to me. No matter what professional credentials they claimed to have.

  I am strongly urged to take legal action. Very strongly. By the RC. These people walk me out of the door and my face is so numb I can hardly see the road. I have lost everyone in my family. The RC are wise in saying "Don't do a thing until this is registered officially". I take that advice for they are employed and trained to give such advice.

  But all that I am going through, must be a figment of my "unbalanced" imagination. That must be the reason I say.........Caution, be cautious...in case another woman or man is tortured by some greedy and illegitimate legal entity.

  However. I must be wrong. For you say so, by challenging one who has never told anything but the actual facts. They don't suit you do they? I am now "unbalanced" and "need help". This is quite true. But it is not because I lack memory, recall, erudition born of decades of self-defense of me, my children and now.............my nephew. Yes. You must be quite accurate and denounce me. This was a good move. You win your hollow victory, Simon. Bask in it... enjoy.....

  For obviously I did not notice you standing in that room with me. You are the one who covers my head as I walk into that building. You are the one who is recording every sick experience. And you must be the one who stands there and says Don't follow the advice you are given. For the RC have it all wrong.

  
  I am wrong to follow the accurate guidance of these commissioners. Oh wow!. How many of these people have become ill from the stress of it all? The weary catch cry of "Hope she gets help and she is' Unbalanced" has hurt. Good on you Simon.

  Any person who falls for these greedy bastards with their shonky "Class Action Law Suits" will harm so much good that is waiting for them.

  I must be unbalanced. Of course I am..............................So don't listen to one word I have spoken to my fellow Australian women. I'm too unbalanced to know the process. Ring 1800Simon.
• 

  freddo

  Sorry ... what is this about? Are you all right Umbertoecho? PM if you like?

  If I have a choice to trust the Royal Commission or anyone else on this matter then it's the Royal Commission for me!
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Was wondering the same thing, found it here:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5212164105175040/australia-artemis-legal-launches-inquiry-into-group-class-action-lawsuits-against-jehovahs-witnesses?page=1&size=20

  Looks like a misunderstanding that escalated with lots of hurt feelings as a result :/

  I did not read the whole thing so I might be wrong.

  My advice: both of you can just take the high road, forgive and forget. It seems like such a petty thing to argue about. (please don't attack me for expressing this opinion :P)

  Hope this can be resolved in a loving manner :)
• 

  Tornintwo

  I read the thread and it sounds (to me) like:

  Umberto - is understandably worried about any victim being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous law firm.

  Simon - understandably doesn't want to label a law firm as unscrupulous without knowing all facts, doesn't want people put off making a legitimate claim, wonders if there is an 'official recommended' list of law firms where victims can turn to

  Umberto can't provide that information which I understand, because having been involved in a criminal case (not abuse thankfully), you are often warned not to tell anyone absolutely anything during the investigation phase.

  Don't think any personal attack was meant on umberto though - I haven't been around long but reading your posts you are obviously a very brave woman who cares a lot about other victims. But also Simon always seems to be very balanced and reasonable so I am sure he didn't mean to upset you.

  Perhaps the thread should just end with a word of advice:

  Any victim seeking legal redress would be well advised to call the RC for advice first.

  Sorry if I've got it wrong - no offense meant!
• 

  Simon

  Great summary Tornintwo :thumbsup:

  I don't know what all this fuss was about umbertoecho or why you started making wild claims that I was demanding to get private information about victims when I was obviously not. Why not just admit that is simply not true? I didn't even demand an apology, I was simply stating the facts and correcting your wild, misleading and libelous assertions. No one can let wild and insulting lies go unchallenged and for reasons I can't understand, you seem determined to make them and now add to them.

  Now you are trying to twist things into it being an attack on you and being determined to "win". Again, if you say things that are false and serious about me then I am compelled to set you right. That is not an attack, that is not winning, that is simply correcting a falsehood. Why are you doing this? You keep starting this, not me.

  All I asked is whether you could explain what you were claiming and refer people to some official notice of the policy you were claiming to be "official". That's it !!! Hardly an attack.

  All you needed to say was "no, I can't, it's something they told me - there is no official notice of such". i.e. answer what was actually asked, not what you morphed it into in your head.

  Remember too, whatever things may be advice the RC gave to you as part of their process isn't necessarily what someone who isn't part of the RC has to follow. This wasn't about whether dealing with some particular law firm is or isn't good advice - you made it into being about an official policy and I simply asked where people could find that policy.

  I am sure 8 hours of testimony is draining and applaud your efforts ... but did that happen just before you posted yesterday? or today? Just because you gave evidence in a completely different arena doesn't give you the right to lie about me here or be rude to other people.

  Now you seem determined to compound your previous lies about me by claiming I have said that the RC are wrong, don't know what they are doing or that people shouldn't follow their advice. Again, false, false, false - I have not said any of those things.

  If you want to continue to make an issue of this for reasons I still cannot fathom, please refer us to where you think I've said any of the things you are claiming that I have.

  Please be aware that there are lots of manipulative and selfish people who will happily use someone's pain and anger for their own ends and treat you like a pawn. If someone else is in your ear putting you up to this or egging you on then I suggest you take a good hard look at their motives. This can't be doing you any good and I do think you should be getting some help rather than distressing yourself over essentially nothing.
• 

  never a jw

  Umbertoecho,
  

  Oh well, you started it. It sounds quite unlikely, but in the realm of plausibility. Here it goes:

  The Royal Commission has been very open throughout every part of the procedure, why is it that now turns Watchtoweresque and becomes secretive about who can bring litigation against the Watchtower. I certainly got a problem with that, so my fertile imagination comes with a possible scenario. Is it perhaps corruption within the Royal Commission? Someone inside the RC in a position of power is trying to give exclusive, huge business to friends/family/partners, who in turn will share the spoils with that person(s) inside the RC.

  You see, when an organization becomes secretive, it allows people to distrust and become very imaginative. My main point is not the unlikely scenario that I am describing, but that it is fair that anyone can voice his/her opinions, however crazy they are, and the rest of us should restrain from throwing insults just because those opinions don't suit our own opinion, even if we can claim knowledge and first hand experience regarding the issue.
  
• 

  cognac

  Umber - I think you completely misunderstood what Simon was saying and ran with it. I don't think Simon could be any more clear.

  Even when he said that he thought you misunderstood him, you continuously misinterpreted his countless explanations and then were INSANELY rude to him.

  Everyone on that thread was trying to be patient and understanding with you, because we know you have been through a lot.

  But, this unwarranted lashing out at Simon who was trying to be helpful, is not nice at all.

  This apology is insincere at best, and, imo, really vicious and rude.
• 

  cognac

  "But it is not because I lack memory, recall, erudition"

  Nobody said you lacked these things. It was simply stated that we didn't think you were understand what Simon meant. Also, he clearly stated he didn't understand some of your statements, and simply wanted clarification. Not the end of the world.

  
  

  "You must be quite accurate and denounce me."

  He didn't denounce you at all. Where did you even get that from???
  
  

  "You win your hollow victory, Simon. Bask in it... enjoy....."

  "Ring 1800Simon."

  These comments are insanely rude and vicious. Don't talk to Simon or anyone on this forum like that EVER and not expect backlash. Just. Wow....
• 

  Simon

  umbertoecho, let me try and explain it a different way by asking you some questions to think about.

  Do you think it makes sense that something the RC apparently tells you in private that must remain secret must also apply to everyone else, even those who may not be part of the RC? How would they even know of such an edict and be expected to follow it?

  Also, is any legal option only allowed for people who have taken part in the RC hearings? Are people who haven't now excluded from trying to seek justice for the things they suffered by the WTS policies?

  How would some advice given from the RC to you in secret be binding on 3rd party law firms or victims?

  I was merely asking if this was some official list / notice of policy that you could refer us to. It seems like it may be advice that was given to you but that doesn't translate into it being a hard rule for everyone else as well.

  Hopefully you can recognize where you may have mistakenly taken private advice given as part of the RC process and translated that into a legal edict that applies to all. Or maybe you could tell them that they should put up a notice for people if there is a rule so people know about it.

  But still, if there is already such an official public policy that you can point us to I'm sure it would be helpful to anyone possibly reading this who has a claim against the WTS that they may want to pursue so they work withe the right people and get the best outcome for them.
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  Maybe it might be good to see if they can get information from the RC about this firm and the number of cases they have been before them and the representation ratio they have been for the victims and large corporations. They may have lots of experience in getting just settlements for the victim in the Australian courts.