UK: Would anyone like to attend Frank Otuo's next hearing against the Watchtower? Or send him your support?

by defender of truth 22 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Witness My Fury

  Not wishing to defend the wts here, but it seems likely to me simply on face value that he was DF'd based on his having taken someone elses money and not paying it back.

  Unless there was some other stuff going on that escalated into that situation and he felt he was owed the money he got, then I cant see why someone would accuse him or why the elders would deem sufficient evidence to start a JC and then actually DF him, unless he had actually taken the money.

  But hey, I wasnt there, I dont know anything, I'm just saying what it looks like on face value.

  So personally, I'd be very wary of jumping in to support someone in this position unless you have inside knowledge of the JC and are pretty damn sure he didnt actually defraud someone.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  "an unhappy creditor" according to the newspaper, so he was lent money for his business and failed to repay some or all of it. No doubt he would have been given ample opportunity to do so.
• 

  Mephis

  If he had committed fraud, then there is a very simple defence of it being true which the WBTS could use to rebut the slander allegation at least. But they don't seem to have done that.

  Obviously, we cannot know the rights and wrongs of what happened with his business dealings. But can you imagine a business relationship going bad like this leading to similar sanctions outside of the JW bubble? Or having men, totally unqualified to listen to the information put in front of them, deciding on whether or not you'd committed fraud and whether or not you could have a normal family life?
• 

  akromo

  @Mephis you are on point. @ Witness My Fury too simplistic. This was a business arrangement between a creditor and a Company which Mr Otuo happens to be a director along with another brother. The loan arrangement to the Company was backed by assets in real estate valued in excess of £4m. Mr Otuo sold his shares on to the other director also a Witness with a guarantee that all creditors of their Partnership creditors including the aggrieved brother who had lent his money at 8% interest rate to the Company on strictly business terms thus not devoid of the usual risk and the other brother subsequently failing to pay the aggrieved. when Mr Otuo brought an action against the remaining director for breach of contract, the other director brother who inherited the business was now forced to pay the creditor the substantial sums ( the aggrieved is now fully paid for emphasis). This was all done involving lawyers so this was a legit arrangement. the brother who refused to pay initially had not faced any judicial in his congregation as the elders in his deemed it a purely business matter which they ought not be involved. On the contrary Morley saw the opportunity to settle prior differences with Mr Otuo when had refused to step down as an "appointed man" to borrow their expression. It is clear that if WT has anything damning against Mr Otuo on the matter of fraud they will have set it out in their defence of truth which is a complete defence in defamation. They have failed to consistently and now they face a strike out of their defence.
• 

  konceptual99

  So if I understand you correctly @akromo....

  • Morley lent money to a business owned by Otuo and another Witness ("Fred").
  • The money was lent with a clear business agreement at 8%. Presumably Morley would have been aware of the risk he might lose his money and this was allowed for in the contract.
  • Otuo sold his shares in the business to Fred with the agreement that creditors including Morley would be paid.
  • Fred refuses to pay back creditors including Morley.
  • Otuo sues Fred for breach of contract (namely the agreement made when the shares were sold)
  • Fred pays Morley back in full.
  • Morley accuses Otuo of fraud, takes it to the elders and the elders DF Otuo.
  • Bugger all happens to Fred

  Have I got it correct?
• 

  akromo

  @konceptual99 all correct except that Morley ( but the elder who alleged fraud against Otuo on the pretext that the creditor had pressed an allegation of fraud to the elders in a letter to them but Otuo was never shown any such letter even though he asked for it at the outset . It was later claimed in court by WT to the astonishment of the judge that the letter was destroyed; the fact is, it never existed) is not the creditor and also the creditor got paid by the other brother only after Otuo is DFed. Otuo had began proceedings against the other brother anyway before he was Dfed. but he paid sometime after Otuo was Dfed.
• 

  konceptual99

  Not sure I understand the above, especially the first long sentence in parentheses.

  Are you saying the Witness that was a creditor was another person ("Bill") and that Bill made the accusation which was then processed by Morley? In other words Morley has nothing to do with the business transaction and is just acting as a back stabbing elder to rid the congregation of Otuo.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  @Akromo

  How do you know the letter never existed?

  You seem to know a lot about it and seem to post a lot only about this, so i have to ask you what is your relationship to Frank Otuo?

  Sounds like a lot of greed going on there and always someone gets stung in that mix.

  We had a couple of different people like that too,one ended up an elder, always looking to make a quick buck and not too fussed about how, stepping on anyone in their way and suing anyone unfortunate enough to get on the wrong end of their dealings. They dont garner any sympathy from me.
• 

  prologos

  It is this kind of going-ons that have prompted oversight bodies in some jurisdictions to ban financial advisors to operate among trusting "friends" of religious, fraternal organisations.
• 

  akromo

  @ Witness my Fury.

  I have been following the case closely and been attending proceedings. Mr Otuo had asked the alleged writer of the letter whether he had written to accused him of fraud, he denied he had. See that in the judgement of Sir David.

  Just follow the case or turn up in court to get more fact. But i am keen to report back.