Also at least in the US arrest records are public record so following an arrest for possession images of child exploitation, there would be no need ever for elders to look at those images for a congregational investigation. The arrest record by law has to present enough evidence to justify an arrest. So even if the case never goes to trial and no testimony is given, there is evidence of at least two witnesses of the act, one is the images themselves and the second is the officer, deputy or tech that had to view the images to make a sworn arrest record.
Richard Oliver
JoinedPosts by Richard Oliver
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Plus orphan crow by your logic someone else would have to have seen those images to inform the elders unless it was a confession then in that case your whole argument is moot anyways. But in the case that another person did see them, that doesn't mean that they have looked at images of child exploitation.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
And where did I say that the elders had to look at the images of child exploitation for them to make a determination if it is that or not. I never said that, neither did the policy say that. Also it is important to know that even the law makes a distinction between what has to be reported and by who between sexual child abuse of a person known directly to the mandatory reporter and that of images of sexual exploitation.
Also you don't have to look at this through the hypothetical of orphan crow. There was a case in the US that dealt with this. I will find you the appeals case that gives the material facts of it. If I remember correctly, the man sued the elders for reporting his viewing of images of sexual exploitation. He claimed that the elders were obligated to keep his confession secret. They originally asked him to self report, then because the wife was the one who found the images initially and they were attending marriage counseling, asked her to speak with the marriage counselor so that both the elders and the counselor and the wife could get him to self report. He informed the elders that either he did or the counselor reported it. They found out it was a lie, then reported it themselves. He claimed it was a confidential communication and sued.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
No orphan crow. Even the policy for child abuse based on the August 1 letter does not say that it has to be investigated by the elders before either the legal is contacted for legal advice or for that legal advice to be to report it. The legal advice will be on applicable laws, which in most cases will be defined as a reasonable suspecision of abuse. So again you keep confusing two separate departments with two seperate sets of advice. One is a legal determination of if a matter based on law is required to be reported and second is what internal sanctions one should receive.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Thank you orphan crow for that wonderful back and forth. Now where in the letter to the body of elders does it say you will contact the service department first? Or does it state that the legal department will be contacted first to give legal advice based on the law. That advice would be dependent on applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense took place. Following legal advice the caller would be transfered to the service department to answer any spiritual or congregational issues. So again this is a two step call, first legal advice to ensure all laws are followed then legal advice.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Thank you orphan crow for that wonderful back and forth. Now where in the letter to the body of elders does it say you will contact the service department first? Or does it state that the legal department will be contacted first to give legal advice based on the law. That advice would be dependent on applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense took place. Following legal advice the caller would be transfered to the service department to answer any spiritual or congregational issues. So again this is a two step call, first legal advice to ensure all laws are followed then legal advice.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
I agree that they should have articulated the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses better and to be quite honest most anything would have been a better response than what was given. I think that they should have expected that as a question and had prepared it better or put it in their opening statement so that they could have pointed to the statement.On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Mitchell Rosen <[email protected]> wrote:I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
I agree that they should have articulated the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses better and to be quite honest most anything would have been a better response than what was given. I think that they should have expected that as a question and had prepared it better or put it in their opening statement so that they could have pointed to the statement.On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Mitchell Rosen <[email protected]> wrote:I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
-
21
HLC Letters and Documents
by wifibandit inas i release a set of hlc letters and documents that i have received, i will add them to this thread.
also, in the future, any other hlc documents will be updated here.
when you see me update, it may be a new letter.
-
-
Richard Oliver
JW GoneBad. I think the problem is that layman don't always understand what is considered a reputable journal or source and what is not. Also just because an article may contain a word in common with your search, doesn't mean that it is applicable or the best medicine that should be presented to a doctor for review.
-
347
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks inall exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
-
-
Richard Oliver
I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
I agree that they should have articulated the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses better and to be quite honest most anything would have been a better response than what was given. I think that they should have expected that as a question and had prepared it better or put it in their opening statement so that they could have pointed to the statement.On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Mitchell Rosen <[email protected]> wrote:I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.