Vidiot:
You do know that someone tried to sue Watchtower and Don and Joel Adams under the civil RICO statute.
say what they like, but it's a definite withdrawal of pressure.
the commission is slow, needlessly protracted and inconsiderate of the extent to which ongoing damage is being carried out.. scrap it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/watch-tower-statement-on-administrative-court-proceedings.
Vidiot:
You do know that someone tried to sue Watchtower and Don and Joel Adams under the civil RICO statute.
why is it that the watchtower finances are cloaked in secrecy, yet when the congregation is ask to approve extra donations to the organization, the voting is in public, so everyone can see who is "loyal" to jehovah.. hmm... i think i just answered my question.
.
Many of the bylaws of the corporations that congregations have requires that money spent over a certain amount has to be handled by a vote of it's members. Some of those bylaws require a secret ballot. In fact the current bylaws of the title holding congregation corporation, that is in line with the branches directions in the US is if someone objects to the manner of the vote, that the vote must be conducted by a paper ballot.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
yes outlaw, that is exactly how I feel, oh wait no it isn't if someone presents an actual fact to me, I will listen for as long as it takes for you to be done presenting it. but if you come at me with emotion and anecdotal experiences and your opinion I will stand up and fight for what the facts are saying.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
No, because no matter what I say and present actual facts it is dismissed because of your emotions. I never wanted to say that according to the DOJ only 12-24 percent of convicted abusers will re-offend, because it will get into emotions of everyone on here attacking me as being insensitive. Or the fact that the 1006 perpetrators were not only accused of sexual contact with a child but such things as inappropriate texting with a child or any number of things that could be construed as inappropriate activity with children, but of course I would be accused of trying to move the focus away from the abuse. No matter what facts I have said no one sees the facts only what you want to see of the suspected abuse.
my wife found this 1/4 page ad on page 2 of yesterday's nj star-ledger, probably the biggest newspaper in nj.
pretty telling.. .
Darkspilver. I agree with you not all law firms or lawyers are made equal some are better than others. But the lawyers now have to live with the persuasive and mandatory precedents that lesser lawyer helped set as case law.
my wife found this 1/4 page ad on page 2 of yesterday's nj star-ledger, probably the biggest newspaper in nj.
pretty telling.. .
my wife found this 1/4 page ad on page 2 of yesterday's nj star-ledger, probably the biggest newspaper in nj.
pretty telling.. .
I am presenting actual facts here. One person on another thread said that this would be like a painting by numbers, so easy and such a easy slam dunk. Like I have said, obviously these firms feel they can win some cases, but it is not going to be easy to win. There are two things they have to prove first that abuse did occur which is a matter of fact that the jury has to decide. But there is theatter of liability which a judge will have to determine, as a matter of law, if Watchtower, had a fiduciary responsibility, a duty to warn and a duty to protect. That is why watchtower wins a lot of cases at the summary judgment level because they can show the judge that they didn't have any of those duties. On a previous thread someone posted a link to a Boston college law journal article. There are certain parts of you take alone sound like it is really easy to win, but the argument was, that religions cannot be held responsible for the actions of their members when their members are not performing religious activities as part of the religions faith and belief system. The determination of the judge as to the matters of the law is what will be hard to get past.
ok, so i don't know if this is "old news", and if this has been seen, and or mentioned already.
if it was, i do apologize, but i feel i have to mention what has been seen on tv, within the past 24 hours.. first off, i would like to say that i did not personally see this commercial.
however, it was seen by someone that i can verify 100% is telling the truth, as it was my own father who saw it.
I don't know how much of your reference that you read, it is pretty long and very dense material but it is interesting to see how this commentator talks about religious lawsuits. Towards the end it speaks of fiduciary responsibility, as well as the liability of a religious organization when it comes to the actions of one of it's members.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
Yeah sparrowdown. your right it isn't really that hard. You just make disparaging remarks to people that you don't like or agree with you. If you don't like facts that support something you just make up your own facts. And you use your opinion to prove things even though you have no proof. I don't know why I have been doing so much research when I can just be like everyone else here and just make up whatever I want, as long as I find people who agree with me, it must be true. This is so liberating.
Oh btw I been trying to not be too disparaging to people but obviously that isn't how it is done here, but everyone knows that Raymond Franz was a fraud right. He was just pissed off and jealous that he wasn't as smart, popular or important as his uncle was. He was just a jealous petty man who could never accept those things.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
I wish they would ruin ur life even more along with so many people on here. I wish they would sue you for defemation of character and lible. I wish they would sue you into bankruptcy. But that ain't going to happen so I guess I will have to accept you will just be kept this hurt.