I thought a Christian minster was a person or persons who stood or sat idly sipping coffee, eating donuts and talking with their equally unoccupied partners while within sight of a cart loaded with propaganda without even bothering to engage browsers. Did I miss something?
Marvin Shilmer
JoinedPosts by Marvin Shilmer
-
6
What is your understanding of a christian Minister of God ?
by smiddy inas i understand it ,a christian minister of god is someone who goes to school gets the opportunity to further their education at a higher level ,then studies greek hebrew , latin , and what is available in ancient manuscripts , and demonstrates they have a comprehension of all these issues.....and of course they would need to get a pass on these subjects.. i think this would be the minimum standard required in the mainstream christian churches ,greek orthodox , catholic, all branches ,church of england ,and most of the mainstream protestant religions.
then we come to jehovah `s witnesses , none of the above applies to them , all they have is , they have been baptized by water immersion into their religion with none of the above qualifications.. and this includes minors , some as young as ten , possibly even younger in some situations who are classed as ministers of god simply by their baptism by water immersion.. they are also on record as saying higher education is a waste of time.why ?
because the end is just around the corner , a phrase that has been repeated and repeated since the year 1914 till now.. what young child could possibly hold their own with a discussion in theology or even comprehend the complexities of christianity with their counterparts.?.
-
-
-
75
Our hall is asking for money...
by thedepressedsoul ini guess the branch isn't happy with the amount being sent each month since we are way lower than our loan amount.
we now have to another financial survey to see the max amount that can be given.
it is "encouraged" for all to be in attendance and give much forethought and consideration to the amount you can donate each month.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Now that JW congregations have been compelled to give up their financial cushions to Watchtower, and now that JWs see their Governing Body members begging for money on worldwide broadcasts, I expect to observe a notable increase in the frequency and aggressiveness of local begging by Watchtower appointed officials, otherwise known as elders etc.
We'll see how the flock of sheople respond when it begins dawning on a majority that, like most of the rest of the world, it's about the money (and power and influence that goes along with money in Watchtower's case).
Watchtower's Governing Body has given and continues to give a lesson in how to beg for money.
-
164
California Supreme Court Case - S226656
by Gayle inhttp://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.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Don't feed the troll.
Trolls and engaging trolls can be useful... sometimes.
-
164
California Supreme Court Case - S226656
by Gayle inhttp://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.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
The word guilty is not found in the Civil Jury's verdict. And neither did the verdict say that he was found guilty by the jury. The terms guilt and guilty (you answered yes) are terms that you have selected to describe Civil Court findings but they are not used in any legal way in the Civil Court documents to apply to its findings.
I use words to communicate. Saying Kendrick sexually battered Candace Conti and saying Kendrick is guilty of sexually battering Candace Conti are both communicating the same thing: Kendrick did something very, very bad to Candace Conti. When a jury makes this finding based on evidence (documents and testimony) then it is not mere opinion; it is a judicial finding.
Neither was the accused cross examined. And the jury was able to decide against the accused defendant without his participation, imagine that..
My recollection is that had Kendrick wanted to object to aspersions being caste upon his character he could have attended the trial and had his say.
And a Civil Court can find a person liable by default, without a trial!
But that didn't happen in the Candance lawsuit. There was a trial. Testimony and documents were entered and heard as evidence. The court appointed jury found Kendrick had victimized Candace.
And that is why a civil Court verdict does not carry much weight in deciding whether the person actually did it. It is not about that. That is what Criminal Court is about. Civil is about the money. Besides this, as I have posted previously, Appellate already found error in the Jury's findings. It challenges the Jury's judgment in its findings.
This has already been addressed. In a jury trial despite black-letter law stipulating a higher standard of proof, when material facts are left for a jury to decide upon whether a defendant is found guilty is based on the belief of the sitting jury. Lots of innocent people have been found guilty by criminal courts and lots of guilty people have been found not-guilty by criminal courts. Both civil and criminal courts have limitations, but each also has their benefits. In this case Candace wanted to compel Watchtower to improve its policy regarding allegations of child molestation. The civil courts system was arguably better suited to that end, and she made use of it. That seems to really rub you wrong. I don't know why. But that's how it seems.
In the meantime you've been embarrassing yourself throughout this discussion by pretending Kendrick might not be a child predator. A court appointed jury found the man guilty of sexual battery of a child.
-
164
California Supreme Court Case - S226656
by Gayle inhttp://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.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
In referring to a Civil verdict, I think, that using the term guilty is a confusing misuse of the word that should only be used to apply to a criminal charge.
Of course you feel that way. Because it conflicts with what you want readers to think. You've been parsing words and threading needles through this whole discussion, the whole time avoiding the fact that a jury found Kendrick perpetrated sexual battery on Candace.
That is a finding of guilt in everyone's book (including Websters!!!) except for yours apparently.
Candace wanted to compel Watchtower to improve its policy regarding allegations of child abuse. She used resources at her disposal for that purpose. She did it. Get use to it. It is not imagination or simple opinion of readers that Kendrick victimized Candace. A sitting jury decided based on evidence (documents and testimony) that HE DID IT.
-
164
California Supreme Court Case - S226656
by Gayle inhttp://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.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Was the accused Defendant convicted by the Civil Court?
yes__ no_Civil courts make findings. Civil courts do not convict people.
Did the Civil Court find the accused defendant guilty?
yes_ no_Yes. That court appointed jury found Kendrick had sexual battered Candance, That is a finding of guilt.
Does the Court document posted on your webpage prove that accused defendant is guilty?
yes_no_Of sexual battery of Candance insofar as that court is concerned, yes.
-
164
California Supreme Court Case - S226656
by Gayle inhttp://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.
-
-
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 init'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.
-
-
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 inhttp://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.
-
-
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 inhttp://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.
-
-
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.