Posts by Chaserious

159

Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

by wha happened? in

i guess we're persona non grata now.

take a look at what i found on facebook:.

we're firing up the grill again!

Chaserious

Posted on behalf of fizzywiglet, at her request, in response to Chaserious:

I didn't say anything about the IRS list.

However, in response to the quotation of this:

"Any person who executed or contributed information for a certificate of disclosure and who intentionally makes any untrue statement of material fact or withholds any material fact with regard to the information required in subsection D, paragraph 1 of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony."

The requirement to list names and addresses of directors is not part of subsection D, paragraph 1. That part deals with the criminal record of the officers and directors. Just saying.

159

Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

by wha happened? in

i guess we're persona non grata now.

take a look at what i found on facebook:.

we're firing up the grill again!

Chaserious

Of course, I agree that it's not irresponsible to ask for clarification, especially by those considering donating. But the takeaway seemed to be that "anyone with a brain" should believe that a felony has been committed.

159

Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

by wha happened? in

i guess we're persona non grata now.

take a look at what i found on facebook:.

we're firing up the grill again!

Chaserious

Before you guys convict the AAWA people and sentence them to the electric chair, I would suggest that in general, when parties act with the advice of an attorney, those parties are far more likely to have correctly applied the law than non attorneys who try to interpret a statute on their own.

As an example, Las Malvinas and fizzywiglet have repeately quoted and linked to ARS 10-202. However, that is not the statute that AAWA was subject to when incorporating. They were subject to 10-3202, which is for nonprofit corporations. (verify here). 10-202 applies to for-profit corporations. Now, granted, it appears that 10-3202 also requires disclosure of names and addresses. However, I think this mistake makes the point that there may be law you are not aware of that an Arizona lawyer is aware of. If you want to make a complaint to Arizona officials and let them see if anything illegal was done, that seems fine but it seems rather irresponsible to conclude and proclaim that they have committed fraud.

535

AAWA is here!! (The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists)

by cedars in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcic4g5tulw.

http://www.jwactivists.org.

facebook the association of anti-watchtower activists.

Chaserious

I was not added on FB and I have no idea whether the involuntary adds were the fault of AAWA, people unrelated to AAWA, Facebook, or some combination of these. However, I think it is wrong to dismiss the potential harm done to those who may have been involuntarily "outed," or shift all of the blame to the organization that forces such secrecy in the first place.

First of all, I know of a number of people who have never been involved in the cult, who if they joined a Facebook group with "Anti-Catholic" or "Anti-Pope" or whatever in the name, it would cause significant family tension. I know "Anti-Watchtower" is not the same as "Anti-JW" but we all know that most on the inside would view it as the same. Secondly, people have all sorts of good reasons not to DA or openly oppose the organization, from family relations to inheritances and financial support to trying to wake up or help others out from within. I imagine AAWA would be sensitive to this, considering that the president only identifies with a pseudonym, and presumably would not be happy about it if someone posted his real name as the President of AAWA.

8

Clawing out of poverty via (E)ducation, not education

by MTSman in

jw
friends

okay, so i've been what i believe is called a, "lurker", on this site for about four years.

i honestly don't remember how i stumbled on to it, but i totally get everyone here.

i'm a, "born in", pinoneered for like six-teen years, servered where the need is great several times, and even went to the, as the name alludes to, mts before it became a watered down theocratic ministry school.

Chaserious

Congrats on learning TTATT and on your determination to get a real education. This was an entertaining read too.

If you are set on law school, I feel compelled to warn you to do your research and apply and enroll with a plan. Maybe you have done your homework already, but I think in the current economy more unsuspecting students are put into poverty by going to law school than get out of poverty.

21

AAWA ... It's not too late to change the name.... any suggestions?

by Calebs Airplane in

first, i'd like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to cedars, barbara and the rest of the staff who put this together... it's something we all hope will have great success in exposing the watchtower's continuous deception and manipulation.. however, i don't think it's too late to change the name to something less militant or less confrontational.... my humble suggestion is ... pafjw (pacifist association of former jehovah witnesses).

.

ca.

Chaserious

Nobody said suggestions are prohibited, but if the board met after numerous critiques of the name and decided to keep it, what gives you the impression that "It's not too late to change the name," as your title indicates?

My two cents is that the best name was the one suggested on the other thread, Activists Against Watchtower Abuse, thus keeping the same acronym, but as is their right, the creators of the group have decided to keep the name.

79

Summary of WT Appeal Brief in Conti Case

by Chaserious in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

if they were able to win on this ground, they could get out completely (although it could still be appealed to the ca supreme court).

Chaserious

14,000 is just the word limit set by California for an appeal brief unless you get approval to file a longer one. I can see how the number seems like it would not be a coincidence, though.

" A brief produced on a computer must not exceed 14,000 words, including footnotes ....

On application, the presiding justice may permit a longer brief for good cause."

http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_204

85

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

by mind blown in

as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.

it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.

Chaserious

Can an attorney use quotes from these depositions in another case?

No, a witness from one case generally has to come and testify in another case if their testimony is going to be admitted. Otherwise, it's hearsay.

Also, let's say there was someone that was depositioned, but not awarded any money.

A gag order would only apply to the person entering into the agreement to settle.

With respect to the Conti case, there is no opportunity for either side to bring in new testimony at the appeals stage. The evidence is generally limited to what was introduced at the trial.

45

The CO 'encourages' Julia to meet with THREE elders- the latest episode in the best-selling drama, The Fade of Julia Orwell.

by Julia Orwell in

jw
friends

it was yesterday morning and hubby and i were having a huge sleep in.

it was just after ten, and with me being a bit flu-ey i was quite capable of staying in bed longer.

hubby was feeling it too, and we were pleasantly drifting in and out to the sounds of birds.. then suddenly, cloomp, cloomp, cloomp up the front stairs, then "rap-rap-rap" on the front screen door, that rapid-fire, strong knock of the practiced door-knocker.

Chaserious

Interesting.. and well-handled.

Can the CO take part in a JC with two local elders? I've never heard of that taking place before. It's my guess that part of the reason COs don't usually get involved is they want the process handled at a congregation level without Watchtower representatives involved.

79

Summary of WT Appeal Brief in Conti Case

by Chaserious in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

if they were able to win on this ground, they could get out completely (although it could still be appealed to the ca supreme court).

Chaserious

Yeah, I was a little surprised at first about the amount of work done behind the scenes by others. In my own experience, I think as an intern, the judge tended to assign me cases to research that weren't very complicated, or where the judge thought it was an easy call as to how it would turn out. The clerks did the more complicated issues.

I don't think that it could be challenged. As long as the judge is ultimately responsible for the vote and/or opinion, it seems that most judges have so many cases that it would be impossible for them to research, write and edit every opinion by themselves. Federal appeals judges as an example, all have 3 paid law clerks, each making in the area of $60,000 per year plus benefits. If the court system has decided to spend that much on a support system for each judge, I'm sure they don't expect them to just make copies and get the judge's coffee.