Ocean,
That is my fear too. A grand coup in the making. Too much money going in, and no way that they are spending it all. Something is afoot.
skeeter1
JoinedPosts by skeeter1
-
143
Letter to BOE: Adjustment in process for appointing elders and ministerial servants
by pixel inhello, you read it here first!.
governing body of jehovah's witnesses.
to all congregations.
-
-
-
31
The REAL reason for the elder and ms appointment change......
by EndofMysteries inas seen in recent posts, beginning later this year appointments and deletions of elders and ms will only happen through the circuit overseer.
this means that individual congregations and elders have no say anymore.
if the gb want only certain people in or out, they tell the co and he makes it happen.
-
-
skeeter1
As I said above, WTS is trying to limit the Governing Body's and BEthel's criminal conduct. Above link is another article in another case, where higher ups who knew were indicted. It references other cases. This is the new bend of the law, and it came out with the Oklahoma case 3 months ago (not Candice). If GB/Bethel doesn't know of an appointment, it becomes much harder to haul them off to jail. Yes, victims can still sue them for money. But, locking the higher-ups takes a much higher threshold of knowledge and proof. Think OJ. He wasn't convicted on murder (criminaL), but had to pay the families (civil).
-
55
THE GRAND APOSTATE "WALKOUT" - January 1, 2015
by RagingBull inafter knowing ttatt for many years now...i had made up my mind long ago that after 2014, i would no-longer subject myself to the boredom, pain, and frustration of following this cult...the wt...the borg.. so...i made up my mind that since the wtbts/gb makes such a big deal as to the "significance" of the year 1914 and this year 2014, there can be no greater time for me to leave it all behind.
i daydreamed of how awesome and telling it would be if everyone that could ( because i do know that some have personal circumstances of their own, as i did too) would just .... walkout...never to attend/step foot in a kingdom hall from that moment on.. independence day of sorts?
there is too much evidence, too many videos, blogs, books, news reports and lawsuits for me to keep lying to myself.
-
-
skeeter1
I don't attend meetings, I already "walked out." However, how about January 4, 2015. That, is on a Sunday.
-
11
The Circuit Overseer Appointing Local Elders - Connect the Dots
by skeeter1 ini thought about the change.
here's my take.. i think it's a move to protect bethel and the governing body from criminal charges for pedophilia occuring within a congegation.
criminal law usually works on specific knowledge of a situation.
-
-
skeeter1
More cases charging those who "just knew" of child abuse to be criminals. This is the direction of the law. It may take a few years, but this is where these cases are headed. WTS needs to insulate Bethel and Governing Body from going to jail. Criminal charges of this nature are based on Bethel/GB actually knowing of abuse & elder appointment.
Bishop Indicted; Charge Is Failing to Report Abuse
<nyt_byline>
By A. G. SULZBERGER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: October 14, 2011 234 Comments
- GOOGLE+
- SAVE
- SHARE
- REPRINTS
<nyt_text><nyt_correction_top>
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has been indicted for failure to report suspected child abuse, the first time in the 25-year history of the church’s sex abuse scandals that the leader of an American diocese has been held criminally liable for the behavior of a priest he supervised.
Enlarge This Image
Archdiocese of Kansas City and St. Joseph, via Associated Press
The Roman Catholic bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Robert Finn.
Related
Bishop in Missouri Waited Months to Report Priest, Stirring Parishioners’ Rage (August 15, 2011)
Bishops Won’t Focus on Abuse Policies (June 15, 2011)
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow@NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The indictment of the bishop, Robert W. Finn, and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph by a county grand jury was announced on Friday. Each was charged with one misdemeanor count involving a priest accused of taking pornographic photographs of girls as recently as this year. They pleaded not guilty.
The case caused an uproar among Catholics in Kansas City this year when Bishop Finn acknowledged that he knew of the photographs last December but did not turn them over to the police until May. During that time, the priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, is said to have continued to attend church events with children, and took lewd photographs of another young girl.
A decade ago the American bishops pledged to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities — a policy also recommended last year by the Vatican. Bishop Finn himself had made such a promise three years ago as part of a $10 million legal settlement with abuse victims in Kansas City.
Though the charge is only a misdemeanor, victims’ advocates immediately hailed the indictment as a breakthrough, saying that until now American bishops have avoided prosecution despite documents showing that in some cases they were aware of abuse.
“This is huge for us,” said Michael Hunter, director of the Kansas City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and a victim of sexual abuse by a priest. “It’s something that I personally have been waiting for years to see, some real accountability. We’re very pleased with the prosecuting attorney here to have the guts to do it.” The bishop signaled he would fight the charges with all his strength. He said in a statement: “We will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense.”
The indictment announced on Friday by the Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker, had been under seal since Oct. 6 because the bishop was out of the country. He returned on Thursday night.
In a news conference, Ms. Baker said the case was not religiously motivated, but was about the obligation under state law to report child abuse.
“This is about protecting children,” she said.
If convicted Bishop Finn would face a possible fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to a year. The diocese faces a possible fine of up to $5,000.
Ms. Baker said that secrecy rules for grand jury proceedings prohibited her from discussing whether other charges were considered, such as child endangerment, a felony. But she said the fact that the bishop faces a single misdemeanor count should not diminish the seriousness.
“To my knowledge a charge like this has not been leveled before,” she said.
It also may not mark the end of the legal troubles facing the diocese in the case, which includes civil and criminal cases in federal court. Last month Bishop Finn and Msgr. Robert Murphy testified before another grand jury in neighboring Clay County. A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office there declined to comment.
The priest accused of taking the lewd photos, Father Ratigan, was a frequent presence in a Catholic elementary school next to his parish. The principal there sent a letter to the diocese in May 2010 complaining about Father Ratigan’s behavior with children. Then, last December, a computer technician discovered the photos on the priest’s laptop and turned the computer in to the diocese. A day later Father Ratigan tried to kill himself. The diocese said that Monsignor Murphy described — but did not share — a single photo of a young girl, nude from the waist down, to a police officer who served on an independent sexual abuse review board for the diocese. The officer said that based on the description it might meet the definition of child pornography, but he did not think it would, the diocese said.
Bishop Finn sent Father Ratigan to live in a convent and told him to avoid contact with minors. But until May the priest attended children’s parties, spent weekends in the homes of parish families, hosted an Easter egg hunt and presided, with the bishop’s permission, at a girl’s First Communion, according to interviews with parishioners and a civil lawsuit filed by a victim’s family.
Parents in the school and parishioners — told only that Father Ratigan had fallen sick from carbon monoxide poisoning — were stunned when he was arrested in May after the diocese called the police. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of taking indecent photographs of young girls.
The new indictment released on Friday said that Bishop Finn and the diocese had reason to suspect that Father Ratigan might subject a child to abuse.
It cited “previous knowledge of concerns regarding Father Ratigan and children; the discovery of hundreds of photographs of children on Father Ratigan’s laptop, including a child’s naked vagina, upskirt images and images focused on the crotch; and violations of restrictions placed on Father Ratigan.”
Bishop Finn said in his statement on Friday that he and the diocese had given “complete cooperation” to law enforcement. He also pointed to steps he had taken since the scandal first became public, including commissioning a report to look into the case, and reinforcing procedures for handling allegations of abuse.
That report found that the diocese did not follow its own procedures. It also found that Bishop Finn was “too willing to trust” Father Ratigan.
The case has generated fury at the bishop, a staunch theological conservative who was already a polarizing figure in his diocese. Since the Ratigan case came to light, there have been widespread calls for him to resign.
Contributing to the sense of betrayal is the fact that only three years ago, Bishop Finn settled lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a list of 19 preventive measures, among them to immediately report anyone suspected of being a pedophile to the law enforcement authorities.
France may be the only country where a bishop has been convicted for his failure to supervise a priest accused of abuse, said Terrence McKiernan, president ofBishopAccountability.org, a victims’ advocacy group that tracks abuse cases.
A grand jury in Philadelphia indicted a top official in the archdiocese there, Msgr. William Lynn, for mishandling cases of abuse. The former archbishop, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua , was not indicted, but he has been called to testify.
<nyt_correction_bottom> <nyt_update_bottom>
-
143
Letter to BOE: Adjustment in process for appointing elders and ministerial servants
by pixel inhello, you read it here first!.
governing body of jehovah's witnesses.
to all congregations.
-
-
skeeter1
The law does not change overnight. It takes a decade or two, normally. But, I know of two cases in the US where "higher ups" were considered for breaking a criminal law. I gave you the first case.
Here's another case. It involes the Catholic church. A Bishop was criminally indicted for failing to report child abuse he knew of occuring. Not that he actually did the abuse, but that he knew of it and didn't report it. This article shows where other courts have also held those who knew criminally liable.
This, combined with the Oklahoma case which directly targeted Bethel, has to have the WTS thinking of ways to keep Bethel workers and the Governing Body away from jail. Limit their knowledge, and you limit their criminal culpability. Limit that they appoint elders, and you limit their knowledge that men in power over the congregation were also a pedophile.
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Bishop Indicted; Charge Is Failing to Report Abuse
<nyt_byline>
By A. G. SULZBERGER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: October 14, 2011 234 Comments
- GOOGLE+
- SAVE
- SHARE
- REPRINTS
<nyt_text><nyt_correction_top>
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has been indicted for failure to report suspected child abuse, the first time in the 25-year history of the church’s sex abuse scandals that the leader of an American diocese has been held criminally liable for the behavior of a priest he supervised.
Enlarge This Image
Archdiocese of Kansas City and St. Joseph, via Associated Press
The Roman Catholic bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Robert Finn.
Related
Bishop in Missouri Waited Months to Report Priest, Stirring Parishioners’ Rage (August 15, 2011)
Bishops Won’t Focus on Abuse Policies (June 15, 2011)
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow@NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The indictment of the bishop, Robert W. Finn, and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph by a county grand jury was announced on Friday. Each was charged with one misdemeanor count involving a priest accused of taking pornographic photographs of girls as recently as this year. They pleaded not guilty.
The case caused an uproar among Catholics in Kansas City this year when Bishop Finn acknowledged that he knew of the photographs last December but did not turn them over to the police until May. During that time, the priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, is said to have continued to attend church events with children, and took lewd photographs of another young girl.
A decade ago the American bishops pledged to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities — a policy also recommended last year by the Vatican. Bishop Finn himself had made such a promise three years ago as part of a $10 million legal settlement with abuse victims in Kansas City.
Though the charge is only a misdemeanor, victims’ advocates immediately hailed the indictment as a breakthrough, saying that until now American bishops have avoided prosecution despite documents showing that in some cases they were aware of abuse.
“This is huge for us,” said Michael Hunter, director of the Kansas City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and a victim of sexual abuse by a priest. “It’s something that I personally have been waiting for years to see, some real accountability. We’re very pleased with the prosecuting attorney here to have the guts to do it.” The bishop signaled he would fight the charges with all his strength. He said in a statement: “We will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense.”
The indictment announced on Friday by the Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker, had been under seal since Oct. 6 because the bishop was out of the country. He returned on Thursday night.
In a news conference, Ms. Baker said the case was not religiously motivated, but was about the obligation under state law to report child abuse.
“This is about protecting children,” she said.
If convicted Bishop Finn would face a possible fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to a year. The diocese faces a possible fine of up to $5,000.
Ms. Baker said that secrecy rules for grand jury proceedings prohibited her from discussing whether other charges were considered, such as child endangerment, a felony. But she said the fact that the bishop faces a single misdemeanor count should not diminish the seriousness.
“To my knowledge a charge like this has not been leveled before,” she said.
It also may not mark the end of the legal troubles facing the diocese in the case, which includes civil and criminal cases in federal court. Last month Bishop Finn and Msgr. Robert Murphy testified before another grand jury in neighboring Clay County. A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office there declined to comment.
The priest accused of taking the lewd photos, Father Ratigan, was a frequent presence in a Catholic elementary school next to his parish. The principal there sent a letter to the diocese in May 2010 complaining about Father Ratigan’s behavior with children. Then, last December, a computer technician discovered the photos on the priest’s laptop and turned the computer in to the diocese. A day later Father Ratigan tried to kill himself. The diocese said that Monsignor Murphy described — but did not share — a single photo of a young girl, nude from the waist down, to a police officer who served on an independent sexual abuse review board for the diocese. The officer said that based on the description it might meet the definition of child pornography, but he did not think it would, the diocese said.
Bishop Finn sent Father Ratigan to live in a convent and told him to avoid contact with minors. But until May the priest attended children’s parties, spent weekends in the homes of parish families, hosted an Easter egg hunt and presided, with the bishop’s permission, at a girl’s First Communion, according to interviews with parishioners and a civil lawsuit filed by a victim’s family.
Parents in the school and parishioners — told only that Father Ratigan had fallen sick from carbon monoxide poisoning — were stunned when he was arrested in May after the diocese called the police. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of taking indecent photographs of young girls.
The new indictment released on Friday said that Bishop Finn and the diocese had reason to suspect that Father Ratigan might subject a child to abuse.
It cited “previous knowledge of concerns regarding Father Ratigan and children; the discovery of hundreds of photographs of children on Father Ratigan’s laptop, including a child’s naked vagina, upskirt images and images focused on the crotch; and violations of restrictions placed on Father Ratigan.”
Bishop Finn said in his statement on Friday that he and the diocese had given “complete cooperation” to law enforcement. He also pointed to steps he had taken since the scandal first became public, including commissioning a report to look into the case, and reinforcing procedures for handling allegations of abuse.
That report found that the diocese did not follow its own procedures. It also found that Bishop Finn was “too willing to trust” Father Ratigan.
The case has generated fury at the bishop, a staunch theological conservative who was already a polarizing figure in his diocese. Since the Ratigan case came to light, there have been widespread calls for him to resign.
Contributing to the sense of betrayal is the fact that only three years ago, Bishop Finn settled lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a list of 19 preventive measures, among them to immediately report anyone suspected of being a pedophile to the law enforcement authorities.
France may be the only country where a bishop has been convicted for his failure to supervise a priest accused of abuse, said Terrence McKiernan, president ofBishopAccountability.org, a victims’ advocacy group that tracks abuse cases.
A grand jury in Philadelphia indicted a top official in the archdiocese there, Msgr. William Lynn, for mishandling cases of abuse. The former archbishop, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua , was not indicted, but he has been called to testify.
<nyt_correction_bottom> <nyt_update_bottom>
-
143
Letter to BOE: Adjustment in process for appointing elders and ministerial servants
by pixel inhello, you read it here first!.
governing body of jehovah's witnesses.
to all congregations.
-
-
skeeter1
Kon, please read the article I posted a link on the previous page of this thread. The District Attorney is after Bethel & the Governing Body, to put them in jail, for allowing the JW pedophile. Whether or not this DA gets his win, this is where the law is going here in the US, "Lock up the pedophiles and those who knowingly helped the pedophile." The corporation doesn't go to jail, but the people inside the corporation who knew of the illegal conduct and helped in it, are held criminally culpable. It does not matter if the corporation is a non-profit charity or Enron. White collar crimes are given more of a pass here in the US, but child abuse/pedophile rings are not.
-
112
All appointed men are being told they have to pioneer now!
by stuckinarut2 inyes, you read correctly..... all appointed men have been told in a new letter that they have to pioneer to "set the lead" whenever there is a "special" campaign month.
they use some scripture saying that these ones have to show by example.... so for any of us who are appointed and have learned ttatt, it is going to be very hard to fade during this time!.
.
-
-
skeeter1
That's a good way to get rid of a number who "claim" to be "annoited." And, as an added beneift, the Kingdom Halls don't have to spend as much money on wine!
-
143
Letter to BOE: Adjustment in process for appointing elders and ministerial servants
by pixel inhello, you read it here first!.
governing body of jehovah's witnesses.
to all congregations.
-
-
skeeter1
It's alot harder to drag out a criminal case than a money case (like Candice). The WTS can not play games in crimnal court. And, the District Attorney is a whole other animal than a tort attorney. I think this past February has the WTS/GB looking to cut off all criminal issues.
-
11
The Circuit Overseer Appointing Local Elders - Connect the Dots
by skeeter1 ini thought about the change.
here's my take.. i think it's a move to protect bethel and the governing body from criminal charges for pedophilia occuring within a congegation.
criminal law usually works on specific knowledge of a situation.
-
-
skeeter1
I thought about the change. Here's my take.
I think it's a move to protect Bethel and the Governing Body from criminal charges for pedophilia occuring within a congegation. Criminal law usually works on specific knowledge of a situation. Allowing it to happen, especially ongoing, would put those who knew either direclty criminally guilty (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) or indirectly criminally guilty (such as conspiracy, collusion, etc). I think the law is moving towards holding all who know of pedophile abuse to be criminally culpable. With this change, the CO could go to jail . . but not Bethel's volunteers or the Governing Body.
Why do I think Criminal Charges? A few months ago, this happened
Quote from article, "The District 18 District Attorney’s Office in the State of Oklahoma filed a motion on Jan. 28, 2014 in the case of accused molester Ronald Lawrence that alleges the top leadership of the Jehovah’s Witness Church knew about claims of child rape and molestation and deliberately concealed them.
“The actions of the church, their banishment of Lawrence on one or more occasion and the directives of the governing body toward the victims and their family members regarding these crimes were actions of concealment and further actions preventing the victims from reporting the crimes to law enforcement,” the motion states."
Now, the District Attorney doesn't sue for money. The DA does not represent the Candice Conti's of the world. The DA is there to put criminals in jail, and works on behalf of the governing. (Behold, it is the bringing down of false religion (lol)) This new arrangement for elder appointment had to be done by letter. In other words, it could not wait for the next Elder's Flock book or summer schools. It was urgent, on the part of Bethel. Bethel and the GB must have brown streaks in their boxers.
I don't think the appointment change is as much of a move to remove financial culpibility completely. Tort law (suing for money) usually holds the principals/employer 'on the hook' for the errors of its employees & agents such as the case of an elder who abuses, or a CO who negligently hires/promotes/keeps a known pedophile in a position of authority. However, many states require the jury to apportion the monetary award between the parties responsible. In other words, I can see the WTS using this new elder appointment power to their advantage ( and the CO's disadvantage) to lessen the money aspects. For the Overseer, he better be wary. These judgements can last decades against him, and in most states, the CO stands to lose everything he owns and will earn for many years to come. This includes his own house. The CO might be able to obtain bankruptcy, but then the bankrtupcy judge will make the CO pay as much as he can from his assets and then for, most likely, 5 years afterwards.
Not a good time to be an Overseer. I think Bethel is hoping the CO is a hard-working, doesn't ask questions, and will be proud of his new responsibility. I pity the Overseer. He's going forward in his new role with the confidence that only ignorance can bring.
-
143
Letter to BOE: Adjustment in process for appointing elders and ministerial servants
by pixel inhello, you read it here first!.
governing body of jehovah's witnesses.
to all congregations.
-
-
skeeter1
I had a good thought, and I'm going to double post (sorry Simon).
I thought about the change. Here's my take.
I think it's a move to protect Bethel and the Governing Body from criminal charges for pedophilia occuring within a congegation. Criminal law usually works on specific knowledge of a situation. Allowing it to happen, especially ongoing, would put those who knew either direclty criminally guilty (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) or indirectly criminally guilty (such as conspiracy, collusion, etc). I think the law is moving towards holding all who know of pedophile abuse to be criminally culpable. With this change, the CO could go to jail . . but not Bethel's volunteers or the Governing Body.
Why do I think Criminal Charges? A few months ago, this happened
Quote from article, "The District 18 District Attorney’s Office in the State of Oklahoma filed a motion on Jan. 28, 2014 in the case of accused molester Ronald Lawrence that alleges the top leadership of the Jehovah’s Witness Church knew about claims of child rape and molestation and deliberately concealed them.
“The actions of the church, their banishment of Lawrence on one or more occasion and the directives of the governing body toward the victims and their family members regarding these crimes were actions of concealment and further actions preventing the victims from reporting the crimes to law enforcement,” the motion states."
I don't think the appointment change is as much of a move to remove financial culpibility completely. Tort law (suing for money) usually holds the principals/employer 'on the hook' for the errors of its employees & agents such as the case of an elder who abuses, or a CO who negligently hires/promotes/keeps a known pedophile in a position of authority. However, many states require the jury to apportion the monetary award between the parties responsible. In other words, I can see the WTS using this new elder appointment power to their advantage ( and the CO's disadvantage) to get out of the money aspects. For the Overseer, he better be wary. These judgements can last decades against him, and in most states, the CO stands to lose everything he owns and will earn for many years to come. This includes his own house. The CO might be able to obtain bankruptcy, but then the bankrtupcy judge will make the CO pay as much as he can from his assets and then for, most likely, 5 years afterwards.
Not a good time to be an Overseer. I think Bethel is hoping the CO is a hard-working, doesn't ask questions, and will be proud of his new responsibility. I pity the Overseer. He's going forward in his new role with the confidence that only ignorance can bring.
