Unthank Case, Get WTBTS Lawyer arrested?

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
UGETTHAT

Braeside, Australia

#1 Nov 5, 2011
Can it be done? Yeah, she is so gone! Plan is to ---------- and yet an objection, then ---------- Hah, done deal! Rachael is walking into a minefield? Teach her for showing no respect for the FDS!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2 Nov 5, 2011
UGETTHAT wrote:
Can it be done? Yeah, she is so gone! Plan is to ---------- and yet an objection, then ---------- Hah, done deal! Rachael is walking into a minefield? Teach her for showing no respect for the FDS!
can you elaberate, really don't know what you are saying here, what exactly happened and do you have some proof!
UGETTHAT

Braeside, Australia

#3 Nov 5, 2011
November 8, the future, WTBTS lawyer, WILL be arrested, the Victoria Police have had complaints, wait and see?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4 Nov 5, 2011
UGETTHAT wrote:
November 8, the future, WTBTS lawyer, WILL be arrested, the Victoria Police have had complaints, wait and see?
what are these complaints, and why?

I think if you make a thread about something like this you should at least tell us exactly what you mean.
magpie

Braeside, Australia

#5 Nov 5, 2011
I have been interviewed by Victoria Police in regards Rachael's behaviour from last Oct 11 hearing, and understand her being arrested for what was done?

Since: Jun 11

Perth, Australia

#6 Nov 5, 2011
Sometimes you are very cryptic Ugetthat. It is like you are so excited about somethng and you want to tell us but you aren't able to because of possible legal reasons.

Anyway, this sounds interesting. I think it is very amusing that Vince the lawyer sent off a female to do his job. I would think he has been very much behind the decision to not instruct the elders to get the WWC originally.
UGETTHAT

Braeside, Australia

#7 Nov 5, 2011
array wrote:
<quoted text>what are these complaints, and why?
I think if you make a thread about something like this you should at least tell us exactly what you mean.
I know people have been questioned in relation to last court hearing, just posting what I have heard, and like all my posts, proved to be factual?
UGETTHAT

Braeside, Australia

#8 Nov 5, 2011
magpie wrote:
I have been interviewed by Victoria Police in regards Rachael's behaviour from last Oct 11 hearing, and understand her being arrested for what was done?
I had a interview as well by the Police. They are after something, and I think it was given? The DPP are more into the case than published?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#9 Nov 5, 2011
UGETTHAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I know people have been questioned in relation to last court hearing, just posting what I have heard, and like all my posts, proved to be factual?
Ok it will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#10 Nov 5, 2011
Blue Danube wrote:
Sometimes you are very cryptic Ugetthat. It is like you are so excited about somethng and you want to tell us but you aren't able to because of possible legal reasons.
Anyway, this sounds interesting. I think it is very amusing that Vince the lawyer sent off a female to do his job. I would think he has been very much behind the decision to not instruct the elders to get the WWC originally.
Having a female lawyer may be a strategy (for whatever reason) that has back fired.
UGETTHAT

Braeside, Australia

#11 Nov 5, 2011
Blue Danube wrote:
Sometimes you are very cryptic Ugetthat. It is like you are so excited about somethng and you want to tell us but you aren't able to because of possible legal reasons.
Anyway, this sounds interesting. I think it is very amusing that Vince the lawyer sent off a female to do his job. I would think he has been very much behind the decision to not instruct the elders to get the WWC originally.
I do beleive she WILL need a head covering? If she represents the Brothers, and they are in the court room, head covering is required. But thats the least of Vincent Toole Solicitors worries?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12 Nov 5, 2011
UGETTHAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I do beleive she WILL need a head covering? If she represents the Brothers, and they are in the court room, head covering is required. But thats the least of Vincent Toole Solicitors worries?
I believe it is only to do with teaching scriputal things, is she going to refer to the bible for her defence, and what will she be considering as regards bible principles.
UGETTHAT

Braeside, Australia

#13 Nov 5, 2011
array wrote:
<quoted text>I believe it is only to do with teaching scriputal things, is she going to refer to the bible for her defence, and what will she be considering as regards bible principles.
Does she then require a head covering when she is representing the whole WTBTS, CCJW or such and a baptised JW is in the court room. Taking the lead has a new meaning??

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#14 Nov 5, 2011
UGETTHAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Does she then require a head covering when she is representing the whole WTBTS, CCJW or such and a baptised JW is in the court room. Taking the lead has a new meaning??
taking the lead in spritual matters. This has nothing to do with teaching men, I guess I should do a little research on this but I doubt if anything will come up other than a women does not teach a man, and has to wear a head covering if they do.

Since: Jun 11

Perth, Australia

#15 Nov 5, 2011
array wrote:
<quoted text>taking the lead in spritual matters. This has nothing to do with teaching men, I guess I should do a little research on this but I doubt if anything will come up other than a women does not teach a man, and has to wear a head covering if they do.
I did a little research and came up with this -
"there are basically three situations that would require a dedicated woman to wear a head covering. These may be stated as (1) where she has to pray or teach in the presence of her husband,(2) if she teaches a group including a dedicated brother, and (3) when, because of the absence of a qualified male, she has to pray or preside at a congregation meeting"

Strictly under the JW rules it does not apply in court unless she was teaching and there was a 'dedicated' brother present.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#16 Nov 5, 2011
Blue Danube wrote:
<quoted text>
I did a little research and came up with this -
"there are basically three situations that would require a dedicated woman to wear a head covering. These may be stated as (1) where she has to pray or teach in the presence of her husband,(2) if she teaches a group including a dedicated brother, and (3) when, because of the absence of a qualified male, she has to pray or preside at a congregation meeting"
Strictly under the JW rules it does not apply in court unless she was teaching and there was a 'dedicated' brother present.
thank you!!

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#17 Nov 6, 2011
I wonder if because she (WT lawyer) stated in court something like there was no "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" in Australia and that the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" are only a "theological arrangment" and she lied. To all JWs, they would know that was a lie. Is the JW WT lawyer in trouble because of being in 'contempt of court' or something like that? Could Mr. Unthank easily prove those lies with proof of WT letterhead copies and direct proof in JW literature that their "FD&S" have full authority in the work of the JWs worldwide.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#18 Nov 6, 2011
Gayle in NW Phoenix wrote:
I wonder if because she (WT lawyer) stated in court something like there was no "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" in Australia and that the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" are only a "theological arrangment" and she lied. To all JWs, they would know that was a lie. Is the JW WT lawyer in trouble because of being in 'contempt of court' or something like that? Could Mr. Unthank easily prove those lies with proof of WT letterhead copies and direct proof in JW literature that their "FD&S" have full authority in the work of the JWs worldwide.
They are easily proven by their own literature, you bring out some good points.

I get the feeling the GB are looking for a fall guy.
UGETTHAT

Braeside, Australia

#19 Nov 7, 2011
Good points, but off. You dont get arrested for Religious related stuff. Wait and see. Even the Victorian Police dont know what to do, as this situation generally NEVER arises. Hey maybe Mr Unthank will get some arrest warrants for the GB?
UGETTHAT

Braeside, Australia

#20 Nov 7, 2011
www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/217938/1/...
We have one of those crossover conversations. Mr Monroe, I have deep respect for what you do and also know who you are in real! There is a great chance on what I say? As you have Mr Unthanks Phone No: Ring and find out? If it does not happen, I will lose no credibility as can then expose why? Like many people, I'll try and get to the Court at Morwell tomorrow.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Does anyone actually defend the "two witness ru... 6 min RedhorseWoman 221
Who would Jesus approve, as his followers, base... 7 min Paul 90
Why Jesus is indeed Michael? 44 min curtjester1 370
JW's say that December 25th is a wrong date 44 min Maravilla 57
Found this today about Gods name. 50 min curtjester1 2,698
Why should Christians avoid being fanatic? 54 min Maravilla 39
JW.org opened my eyes to the truth 1 hr Aneirin 100
More Changes Coming 2 hr anon 187
JW'S are 100% right about the trinity? (Apr '14) 2 hr Maravilla 1,898
Why I'm STILL one of Jehovah's Witnesses... 6 hr Recovered 1,481
More from around the web