ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

by jwleaks 49 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    Yes Data-Dog how dare in a legal proceeding legal details come into play.


    Thank you. ( Mic drop...🎤)


  • sparrowdown

    Wow, the illustrious WT reps are again looking like obfuscating inept arseholes.

  • sparrowdown

    Bro Spinksy of the Aus Branch currently being torn a new one at the Commission hearing - his smug ineptitude is a joy to behold.

  • Muddy Waters
    Muddy Waters

    It's like WT has thrown them under the bus, thrown them to "the wolves", not one representative from Brooklyn or wherever the hell they live now was "available". And Spinks & O'Brien are getting eaten alive!
    You can almost feel sorry for them, poor indoctrinated, brainwashed fools.

  • sparrowdown

    No Muddy waters the GB have more important business to attend to at Warwick like choosing drapes for their new apartments and making videos about it.

  • Fisherman

    doesn't mean that they are an agent of that religion

    That is true, US case law shows that the Courts have ruled that there is no fiduciary relationship between the watchtower and its members.

  • Fisherman

    not one representative from Brooklyn

    In all fairness, Spinks offered to have wt lawyers represent wt legal position, go back and listen to that part of the video.

    And Spinks & O'Brien are getting eaten alive!

    ARC is not a trial.
  • smiddy

    If Spinks and O`Brien are the best 2 witnesses to front the ARC then the WT/JW religion needs all the help it can get from the God they worship. Ps 115:4-8 , JW.ORG .

  • jwleaks

    Fisherman, out of respect for the personal beliefs of others, including yourself, I have always tried to remain neutral in relation to comments that forum members make. For this reason I try never to comment against other people's personal viewpoints. But you sir, or madam, are a complete utter dickhead. Your rebuttals and arguments contain almost nothing but fallacies and twisted half-truths. Take for example your straw man comment as quoted below...

    Fisherman That is true, US case law shows that the Courts have ruled that there is no fiduciary relationship between the watchtower and its members.

    US case law, and the courts, have never heard a case between Watchtower and its members. Name one case. (The dispute between Rutherford and members of Watch Tower Pennsylvania board, starting in 1916, was primarily based on Russell's will and whether the WT board had been properly elected. It did not involve Watchtower New York or other JW legal entities.)

    Do you understand the difference between a member of Watchtower, who incidently has voting rights, and an agent or representative of Watchtower? Under law, and in all circumstances, there exists a legal relationship between a registered corporation and its members.

    Fisherman, maybe it's time for you to fish or cut bait. At the least please drop the fallacies and stop dropping the burley.

Share this