thank you to john redwood for making this available so quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzqvj0z7_ya.
Under the Radar are you saying that you watched the proceedings with an open mind and with no bias?
Being bias is human nature. We all have biases based on our experience with a situation. It is accepting that we have biases that is the key part in life.
a petition has been launched in australia to coincide with the child abuse royal commission's adverse findings against watchtower and jehovah's witnesses.
the petition is to the australian charities and not-for-profit commission to cancel their charity status.. https://www.change.org/p/australian-charities-and-not-for-profit-commission-acnc-cancel-the-watchtower-bible-and-tract-society-s-charity-status.
[quote].
It has to be 1000 Australian Citizens. The parliamentary procedure to petition parliament says that it is the right of citizens to petition Parliament. It can't just be 1000 people from around the world. Also then you have to find either a senator or a PM who will attest to the accuracy of the signatures and then file it with their chamber.
please sign petition to have disneyland stop jw's preaching outside gate.
click here to sign petition (not spam, real link).
jehovah's witnesses have been involved in vast amount of pedophilia cases.
Even though I will get my head bitten off on posting this. There are two JW tables at Disney city walk thing. In fact Disney revoked permission from another organization and gave that spot to a the special metropolitan witnessing.
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
I am just looking for answers to that question. I have no intention to respond to any statements that give an answer to that question. Many people on here have thought about this for a long time. I just want to get an answer.
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
I am not wanting to start a fight. I just want to hear what people think. Honestly and realistically, what do you think the Australian Government will do, with Watchtower, when they receive the full ARC report?
I am looking for realistic expressions, this is when you consider section 51 and 116 of the Commonwealth's Constitution.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
I am not here to start a fight and I won't respond to any of the statements left following this question. Just want to get an honest answer from people here.
What do you, honestly and realistically, think that the Austrailian Government will do following the final report from the ARC with regards to Watchtower?
i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
Yes watchtower turned over the redacted documents in compliance with the court order.
Also Watchtower may not have standing to sue over the clergy privilege. Watchtower does not possess the privilege the communicant does. Watchtower has been able to appeal on Lopez and padron because of the sanctions.
i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
The court has issued a legally prescribed order for those documents. Watchtower is doing what it can do to protect the third party confidentiality of those documents. The appeals court ruled that the documents are allowed to be given over, with third party information redacted, but that doesn't mean that the information can be used. The court ruled that both sides can go on a fishing expedition but doesn't mean that any of the documents will see the light of day in a court room.
i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
There are a number of states that provide the privilege in cases like this. And yes since the holder is the communicant then the clergy is bound by it. If the communicant wants to lift the privilege then the clergy member has no longer any privilege to keep it quiet. Again that is why in the Conti case Simmons ask Kendrick's Ex Wife and Step Daughter if they wanted the communication to be kept private, because he knew that the privilege would still apply unless they somehow can prove that they lifted the privilege.
And like you brought out what a ministers sees with their own eyes that is not privileged. Such as in the Fessler case, even though the father was an elder, he found out about the abuse as his role of a father not as an elder.
i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
http://federalevidence.com/blog/2010/may/rare-case-federal-clergy-communicant--privilege
Apparently, there is not a lot of case law on this subject since about 1980.
