Marvin Shilmer

Joined

• started 433 topics
• posted 4,004 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Marvin Shilmer

• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  That is not what everyone is saying, that is what you want everyone to conclude.

  Forgive me. I meant to say everyone who can read has said Kendrick was found guilty by a civil court for actions against Candace. The verdict form is out there for everyone to read. The first question asked of this jury was "Did Johathan Kendrick sexually batter Candace Conti? ___YES ___NO"

  Guess which line was ticked?

  The jury decided that Defendants are legally liable.

  The question of any liability of Watchtower was secondary to the question whether Johathan Kendrick sexually battered Candace.

  Had the jury in this civil case not found that Kendrick had sexually battered Candice then no other questions presented to the jury would have been answered. Not one. Including that of any liability of Watchtower.

  In all your many words you've done nothing to show that a court appointed jury did not find that Kendrick had victimized Candace. People have not just jumped to this conclusion. A court appointed jury made these decisions based on evidence in the form of documents and testimony put before them.

  Here: VERDICT FORM

  Can you read?

  What Candace wanted:

  She wanted to compel Watchtower to improve its policy regarding how allegations of child victimization are dealt with internally. That was the whole point of filing her lawsuit in the first place.
  
  
• 
  14

  Switching Halls

  by the comet in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it's time for me and the mrs. to get the hell outta dodge.

  recently my hall has undergone major management changes and the atmosphere is..less than ideal.

  i'm getting multiple calls a week asking to set up a time to meet, i've politely declined but these guys aren't taking a hint.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Different things work for different people and circumstances.

  If you switch you've added to the number of potential individuals who'll want to "visit" you.

  If you stay where you are you've not added to this potential.

  So you may or may not be better off switching. It depends on management where you switch to.

  Watching and reading about various fading experiences often leaves me with mental picture of a couple living in a cold wilderness area with wolves outside their cabin wanting to "visit" the inhabitants. Sometimes its better to beat wolves with patient and persistent refusal to engage. Eventually they'll look for more cooperative prey. In the meantime you can enjoy satellite television and have fun looking through your scope to see how wolves spend their time when they think no one's looking. It can be amusing, and liberating. Oh, and it's okay to get in your vehicle and go visit friends when you want. Wolves rarely chase a large moving automobile, and when they do it usually does not turn out very well for the wolf. Make time to leave and enjoy time doing something productive away from the cabin as needed or wanted.

  Just my 2-cents...
• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  For example, OJ was acquitted but later found legally liable. Notwithstanding the civil judgement, OJ was not convicted of the crime that he was accused of. A jury found that he was not guilty of the crime of murder. (HE DID NOT DO IT.) The Civil did not care about the fact that he was acquitted of the charges. Try broadcasting that he is guilty of murder.

  This is what we have:

  No one has said OJ was found guilty by a criminal court for actions against his ex. If people outside that criminal court want to express their belief that OJ was nevertheless guilty of murdering his ex they're entitled to hold and share that belief.

  Everyone has said OJ was found guilty by a civil court for actions against his ex.

  And we have this too:

  No one has said Kendrick was found guilty by a criminal court for actions against Candace. If people outside that criminal court want to express their belief that Kendrick was nevertheless guilty of victimizing Candace they're entitled to hold and share that belief.

  Everyone has said Kendrick was found guilty by a civil court for actions against Candace.

  What Candace wanted:

  Candace wanted to change an institutional policy that she felt needlessly (and perhaps recklessly) left children vulnerable to predators. She used resources available to her to that end. A court appointed jury found that Kendrick had victimized Candace and from that found Watchtower bore some culpability based on testimony of material facts regarding the incident involving Kendrick and its related policies.

  This jury decided what it believed based on the rules of evidence for civil litigation just as a criminal court appointed jury decides what it believes based on rules of evidence for criminal proceedings. In each case it boils down to what a jury believes. Black-letter law would have jurors in criminal proceedings form their decisions based on a higher standard of evidence (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt) but when material evidence is left for juror deliberation whether evidence achieves that threshold is the prerogative of the jury. Again, it boils down to belief of the jury. In this case a court appointed jury in a civil action believed Kendrick victimized Candace. In other words, that jury decided Kendrick DID IT. The same jury also found that Watchtower held culpability in the victimization, which sooner or later will impact and cause an improvement in Watchtower's policy on dealing internally with allegations of child abuse/molestation, which is what Candace wanted.
• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Civil Law suits happen all of the time.

  Criminal prosecutions happen all the time too. So what?

  Lawyers and others going after deep pockets, insurance companies, etc., in this case, extracting money from the WTS.

  Nothing new about that. It's part of the judicial system in the USA. So what?

  All the jury had to do is to believe more likely than not, that it happened, even if he was not guilty (they do not care about that). I am sure you know this.

  So what? Criminal courts have found lots of innocent people guilty and lots of guilty people innocent. Because a finding is reached in a criminal prosecution does not mean the result is iron-clad accurate.

  You're wrongheaded in your views from the perspective of the system of civil litigation in the USA, and state of California specifically. In the case of Candace's lawsuit a court of law charged a jury to hear evidence and decide first of all whether Kendrick had victimized Candace. If that jury had found insufficient evidence to conclude Kendrick had victimized Candace then the whole thing would have ended right there. But, and this is where you're wrong, the court did find by its charged jury that Kendrick had victimized Candace. Once that determination was made then other issues could be and were addressed by the jury, such as culpability of Watchtower.

  Under US federal and state law Candace had a cause of action to take against Watchtower and she acted on it. Her goal was not to spend more time of the POS Kendrick, an admitted child molester. Her goal was to change an institutional policy that left children needlessly vulnerable to people like Kendrick. Apparently this bothers you a great deal.
• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  ... he was was never convicted of in a Court of Law.

  In the civil trial a jury was asked to decide whether Kendrick had victimized Candace. That jury found Kendrick had victimized Candace.
• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  • Funny. Besides your thoughts and feelings and views,seems to me that you admit that he did not admit.
    Am I correct?

    In response to my comments that's more red herring. A jury was left to decide whether there was sufficient evidence that Candance was victimized by Kendrick. The jury found he had done so.

    But Candance was not as concerned about Kendrick as she was about an institutional policy that gives perps room to victimize more children. Having this policy remedied was Candace's reason for filing a lawsuit. Her goal was not to spend any more time on the worthless POS Kendrick then she had to in order to meet her goal of pushing Watchtower's policy in a better direction.
• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Did he admit to abusing Plaintiff?

  In response to my comments that question is a red herring.

  Candace was more concerned about stopping a policy that gives perps room to victimize in order to save countless victims from countless perps. As for Kendrick, she had already demonstrated he was just another POS to put behind her if she could, which she did until she realized Watchtower policy gave perps like him room to victimize. Hence her action against Watchtower.
• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  However, Plaintiffs agreed to deprive alleged child molester related to this case from being subjected to legal proceedings and having to show up in Court and be cross examined. Would you agree to that or would you demand that the person that you believed harm you or harmed your child be required to appear in Court?

  The context of initiating civil legal action includes limitations of economics and time. Hence we have this picture:

  Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

  Stop a perp and you can save future victims from a perp. Stop a policy that gives perps room to victimize and you can save countless victims from countless perps.

  I think the thing that burned Candace more than anything else was her belief that an organizational policy was giving perps unacceptable room to victimize. This is what she most wanted to stop. Kendrick just happened to be her perp, according to her. Insofar as being a perp, Kendricks is guilty. He admitted this.
• 
  50

  Demon Stories

  by humblepotato in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so we all know that "crazy" brother or sister.

  every kingdom hall has one.

  they give the best comments (from a hilarious perspective), have experiences with the "demons", but most importantly, they are on about 10 deifferent kinds of medications.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Witnesses fixation on demonism is legendary, and this fixation did not just happen without cause.

  I give you Demons Everywhere!
• 
  35

  June JW Broadcast - Jehovah's & Jesus' names Are Interchangeable!

  by The Searcher in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mr. geoffrey jackson hosts this month's propaganda-fest, and uses a favourite catchphrase of the org - "by extension" - to get out of the dead-end which the scriptwriters had put him in.

  he quotes matthew 10:22 - "and you will be objects of hatred by all people on account of my [jesus'] name; but he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved.".

  mr. jackson knows only too well that probably no j.w.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  So if it's Jackson then by extension it's Sanderson. Is that how it works?