2015-11-18-BOE--Credits to jwfacts!
- Good point joe. I'd only add that police have legislative backing for their information gathering and storing - even without individual's consent - for obvious reasons. However, I wonder about the right of a religious organization to gather information on specified individuals without their even knowing it is being gathered and stored.
Predictably, the letter requests this level of information without even giving a rationale for it.
I suspect the Australian branch office is 'shoring up' a potential defense team in the event it is needed - likely in the wake of the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Remember, the judge had asked GB Jackson whether the organization would be amenable to participate with other groups in a broad compensation plan. Jackson said the organization would need to look at the specifics of any such plan.
Edited to add:
I see this has already been noicely covered in another thread entitled:
Elder's letter requesting details of solicitors, barristers and accountants(don't know how to make this into a link though)
Amazing. The hubris, the arrogance. Asking "humble, spiritual shepherds of the flock" to evaluate and guess at a person's educational qualifications, certifications, accreditations, degrees, etc.
They would get better results just coming out and asking the congregations... But no, it has to be secret and hush-hush, lest any of the rank and file start wondering too much and begin asking questions.....
Sounds like accountants and lawyers have become a much higher priority to the borginization and special pioneers and builders.
So what is this for? Are they anticipating some massive investigation? Audit? something?
Part of the evidence uncovered by the ARC was a curious letter explaining how JWs massage their account figures to try and avoid certain legislation (I believe JWFacts ran into that with his attempts to get them to share his personal records). That may explain the accountants.
Legal staff, well, would seem to speak for itself. They do seem to prefer to have their inhouse teams deal with court cases - would suspect not least because a good dub will give the authorised answer provided to them rather than checking to ensure the answer actually meets the question being asked.
Looks like they're in need of lawyers smarter than the last bunch for the next goround -
Is this Australia only?
IGNORE - just seen the other thread.
- Maybe they are gearing up for an audit by the government and so they are going to try and get their books together for inspection? They want loyal yesmen who will do what they are told and perhaps keep a secret and not tell any body how much deep doo doo they are in. That's gotta be hard to find but give them credit for trying but i bet the well runs dry and they gotta get some professionals on board.