More abuse settlements...

Since: Aug 09

Bedfordshire, England

#75 Nov 4, 2012
diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by all means produce it. I would love to see it. Have you seen it?
<quoted text>
Much of the time my sources have to come from apostat sites as hardly no one here will accept any materiel coming from a pro jw site.
That's just plain silly. If a JW posts something, it is very easy to check if it is what the society say.
Also most ex witnesses when they quote something, show exactly where the quote or thought came from.

Since: Aug 09

Bedfordshire, England

#76 Nov 4, 2012
diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they used to announce from the stage the reason the were df'ed. For instance adultery, fornication, drunkenness, etc... But for legal reasons they stopped. Then they used to say so and so was df'ed for conduct unbecoming a Christian. But even that got them in legal hot water. So now they say so and so is no longer a jw.
That was no doubt the reason the society changed the baptism questions some years ago. At baptism you have to agree to work with the organisation. If you do not do that, they are free to say you are no longer a JW, even though you may still have strong faith in God.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#77 Nov 5, 2012
diogenes wrote:
Actually they used to announce from the stage the reason the were df'ed. For instance adultery, fornication, drunkenness, etc... But for legal reasons they stopped. Then they used to say so and so was df'ed for conduct unbecoming a Christian. But even that got them in legal hot water. So now they say so and so is no longer a jw.
Legal problems that began with butthurt ex/antiJWs whining about being "slandered."

See: Anderson, Barbara [and her FAILED defamation suit]

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#78 Nov 5, 2012
acrobat wrote:
No, it didn't get us in legal hot water. I've made the announcement. It was done because the direction was received that the specifics of why someone was disfellowshipped ie naming them were less important than keeping the congregation clean.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit, and shenanigans on you actually being anything more than, at best, a fringe JW.

You know full well that there were numerous [frivolous] slander lawsuits [see, again, Barbara Anderson] lobbed at JW legal entities by deceitful, subversive ex/antiJWs who were disfellowshipped and about whom a public announcement was made.

And you have the nerve to label anyone else disingenuous. Your picture should be in the dictionary under the word.

Troll: This is the problem with ones commenting on this forum who are so far removed from the truth: they tend to gravitate into polar camps of "for" and "against" and lose perspective.

Reply: You're farther removed from "the truth" than most that you make such a ridiculous and factually bereft comment such as the one you made above. Are you really so arrogant that you think there are people out there who aren't in a position to call bullshit on your bullshit?

Troll: It's not so polar in the congregation the elders have a great many measures they can use to keep the congregation clean and protect it.

Reply: Measures that don't include libel, slander, suborning harassment and destroying peoples' reputations without substantive proof.

Troll: In Kendrick's case, the following is what should have happened: 1. Disfellowshipped in 1993/4. On the stand, one of the elders testified that he [felt] that Kendrick had not fully disclosed everything about the sexual assault on his step daughter.

[Emphasis added]

Reply: "Feeling" that someone is not disclosing everything does not equate to ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.

Troll:[When pressed further], he acknowledged that this in fact equated to Kendrick lying during his confession.

[Emphasis added]

Reply: Lie. Believing someone is lying does not mean that they ARE lying. Also, this is with the benefit of FULL DISCLOSURE some 18 years after the fact.

Troll: When the judicial committee happens, a full and honest confession is required in order to evaluate repentance. Truly repentant individuals don't lie about what they did or minimize it.

Reply: And, again, elders do not possess the ability to read minds; that they believe someone is not being fully truthful does not mean that a person is not being fully truthful, and certainly does not constitute ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE for legal purposes.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#79 Nov 5, 2012
Poor FH Chandler, he's never been a true JW nor involved in making any decisions with regards to these matters, so all he can think in is his twisted worldly "legal purposes" definitions.

He calls "bull----" what I repeat as having been the official word from the GB as to why we were supposed to stop naming the exact offense during the sentence "So and So has been disfellowshipped for _______". The official word had nothing to do with legalities or slander or any cases re Barbara Anderson. Whether I "knew" or even suspected that there was more to it is irrelevant, the letter to the body of elders said nothing about legal issues. Of course, FH Chandler would have no knowledge of this, having never seen this letter or being in any way connected.

Neatly sidestepping, of course, the fact that giving a talk about wrong conduct that doesn't outright name the person but pretty much implies it would never fly in a slander suit. Also, that pretty much every state in the nation has clauses that protect whistle blowers if their information to police is made in good faith.

For theocratic purposes, the elders can and do make decisions based on "feeling", "impressions", and whether or not they "believe" that someone is truly repentant. That belief (or disbelief) of repentance is created by all the factors not just whether the person says "I'm sorry" or verbally claims to be repentant. This fully could and, if we take that elder's sworn statement at face value, likely should have been what happened - Kendrick's should have been disfellowshipped. What's he going to do, launch a civil suit about being disfellowshipped for child abuse? He admitted it! The way this FH Chandler fellow toils and spins about his 'arguments' is so sad - he's defending a mistake made by a body of elders.

I find it pretty funny that he keeps referring to me as a "troll"...well, if I'm the troll, and he keeps responding...that makes him TROLLED! trollolololol!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#80 Nov 5, 2012
FH Chandler's arguments also fail the logic test, much less a theocratic one - he claims the policy change was in response to "Legal problems that began with butthurt ex/antiJWs whining about being "slandered." See: Anderson, Barbara [and her FAILED defamation suit]"

Well if it was such a failed defamation suit and without any merit, why would the GB feel the need to change the policy because of it? They defeated it, right?

Lawsuits or the threat of them - even ones they lost - certainly haven't caused them to drastically change other policies - like, oh, the 2 witness rule. It's been slightly modified, yes, but at the end of the day it still places at a major disadvantage the one victim who has no witnesses or no other victims of the same perp.

Why is this? Because we enjoy a little thing called the freedom to practice our religion the way we see fit. We don't capitulate to worldly demands unless it's legally required of us, and failed defamation suits against us certainly don't force our hand to do anything.

Good grief, there are people on this board that actually think this FH Chandler character is intelligent or can think critically and logically? His arguments don't even stand up to a simple test of logic! Incredible.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#81 Nov 5, 2012
acroTroll wrote:
Poor FH Chandler, he's never been a true JW...
I wouldn't know how an obviously phony one such as yourself defines, "true," nor do I particularly care to.

Troll:... nor involved in making any decisions with regards to these matters, so all he can think in is his twisted worldly "legal purposes" definitions.

Reply: See the explanation of the July 1, 1989 BOE letter in this post [1], and the one that immediately follows it. I know it bothers your little backside a great deal that your Brooklyn boogeymen do things with a view toward compliance with Ceasar's law, but it is a fact nonetheless.

Troll: He calls "bull----" what I repeat as having been the official word from the GB as to why we were supposed to stop naming the exact offense during the sentence "So and So has been disfellowshipped for _______".

Reply: Specifically which GB member told you to do this?

Troll: The official word had nothing to do with legalities or slander or any cases re Barbara Anderson.

Reply: They may not have stated that such was the reason explicitly, but you know full well that they did such with a view toward avoiding legal entanglements with butthurt ex/antiJWs who imagined they were "slandered."

Troll: Whether I "knew" or even suspected that there was more to it is irrelevant, the letter to the body of elders said nothing about legal issues.

Reply: It didn't have to.

Troll: Of course, FH Chandler would have no knowledge of this, having never seen this letter or being in any way connected.

Reply: Mmmmkay.

Troll: Neatly sidestepping, of course, the fact that giving a talk about wrong conduct that doesn't outright name the person but pretty much implies it would never fly in a slander suit.

Reply: If you mean that it would never give cause for one to be won, you're right.

Troll: Also, that pretty much every state in the nation has clauses that protect whistle blowers if their information to police is made in good faith.

Reply: I assume you mean that there are "clauses" in provisions of law, or that there are special laws that protect "whistle blowers" in the event that they report on an actual crime and an actual coverup of such. It goes without saying - or SHOULD - that, in the case of libel or slander, people cannot claim "whistle blower" status in the act of libeling, slandering or otherwise defaming individuals, nor will it protect people from malicious prosecution/abuse of process suits by those who are wrongfully accused.

Troll: For theocratic purposes, the elders can and do make decisions based on "feeling", "impressions", and whether or not they "believe" that someone is truly repentant.

Reply: Indeed they can, and do, when doing so does not involve issues where a claim of a serious crime is made, or where a fiduciary responsibility for the reporting of such is created.

Reference:
_____

[1] http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#82 Nov 5, 2012
acroTroll wrote:
That belief (or disbelief) of repentance is created by all the factors not just whether the person says "I'm sorry" or verbally claims to be repentant.
Nor did I suggest that it did; I would reiterate, again, that the discussion of this event involved more than just Mr. KENDRICK saying, "I'm sorry," to the two elders. The two elders spoke to the entire family, and the family initially corroborated KENDRICK'S claim that the event between he and his step-daughter was inadvertent and a misunderstanding.

Troll: This fully could and, if we take that elder's sworn statement at face value...

Reply: You mean the "sworn statement"[s] given as a part of the Conti Civil Action? The one[s] that were made 18 years after the original events, with the benefit of hindsight and a great deal of additional information that was not available to them in November of 1993?

Troll:...likely should have been what happened - Kendrick's should have been disfellowshipped.

Reply: Had all the information available in 2009 been available to them in November of 1993, that would be correct.

It goes without saying - or, again, SHOULD - that the information available in 2009 was NOT available in November of 1993.

Troll: What's he going to do, launch a civil suit about being disfellowshipped for child abuse?

Reply: That hasn't been proven? Absolutely.

Barbara Anderson filed a civil suit because her insignificant feelings were hurt!

[And she lost, too.]

Troll: He admitted it!

Reply: He admitted to inadvertently coming into contact with his step-daughter in a darkened room, not knowing she was there when he walked in. That's what he admitted to. His wife and step-daughter INITIALLY backed up this story. Four to five months passed before his wife decided to file charges, resulting in his plea to a misdemeanor, which those elders didn't know about until years later!

Troll: The way this FH Chandler fellow toils and spins about his 'arguments' is so sad - he's defending a mistake made by a body of elders.

Reply: I can't help it the facts aren't to your liking, and that you have dedicated yourself to reimagining them to suit your agenda.

Troll: I find it pretty funny that he keeps referring to me as a "troll"...

Reply: That you're wholly out of touch with the actual FACTS of this case would, were the subject matter other than what it is, be hilarious. As it is, it's more than a little bit sad.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#83 Nov 5, 2012
Poor FH Chandler,

He can't formulate anything other than "it didn't have to outright state it"

He's never seen the letter that preceded the change in policy, so he can only assume and draw conclusions based on what he knows from his worldly viewpoints on things.

And even if he did see the letter, he'd say "well that's not exactly why, there were unspoken reasons"

FH Chandler would have us believe that the GB would react sooner and more swiftly to the threat of slander and defamation lawsuits by disfellowshipped JWs than they would to the threat of abuse victims suing them for failing to protect them. I guess he knows something that no other JW knows or believes. Sad.

I tend to take my GB's letters at their word. Of course, FH Chandler doesn't, because they aren't his GB, and he is not one of JWs.

Poor lil guy, fighting a battle neither side want him in...I actually feel sorry for him.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#84 Nov 5, 2012
FH Chandler would have you believe that the elders have a legal obligation to "investigate" claims of child abuse to determine their veracity before informing the police.

He would have you believe that if they don't, they could face legal consequences from the accused.

He's 100% wrong. If a child comes to them and says that they were sexually assaulted, the elders are completely and wholly shielded from civil action if all they do is lift up the phone and report it to the police, and leave it up to the police to pursue it further.

What they do in the congregation is wholly up to them. Noone has ever successfully sued a body of elder or the organization for being disfellowshipped.

There is no fear of legal reprisal in the back of the mind of any virtuous elder when reproving and disfellowshipping. NONE. PERIOD.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#85 Nov 5, 2012
acroTroll wrote:
BAWWWW...BAWWWW...BAWWWW...
When you have something substantive and on-point to add, be sure to let me know.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#86 Nov 5, 2012
acroTroll wrote:
FH Chandler would have you believe that the elders have a legal obligation to "investigate" claims of child abuse to determine their veracity before informing the police.
I wouldn't have anyone believe any such thing. In fact, I've not come within a parsec of making any such statement, nor anything that could be misconstrued as suggesting such.

What I HAVE said on the matter of elder involvement with allegations of serious crimes is, actually, quite radically different [1], for those that care about FACTS as opposed to spin, half-truths, rumors, innuendo and other FULL lies offered as "facts" by the acroTroll.

acroTroll: He would have you believe that if they don't, they could face legal consequences from the accused.

Reply: Again, I would not have anyone believe anything of the kind.

Troll: He's 100% wrong.

Reply: It's 100% wrong that I've suggested the thinking you attribute to me in your latest bout of verbal diarrhea.

But don't worry, I'm more than happy to offer up a verbal suppository for you.

acroTroll: If a child comes to them and says that they were sexually assaulted, the elders are completely and wholly shielded from civil action if all they do is lift up the phone and report it to the police, and leave it up to the police to pursue it further.

Reply: Children - more accurately, their parents - shouldn't even be alleging these serious crimes to JW elders, nor should JW elders be entertaining these serious allegations. Before an allegation is even made, JW elders should be directing alleged victims/"repentant" confessors to the proper authorities, and acting in accord with my comments in reference 1.

Troll: What they do in the congregation is wholly up to them.

Reply: Exactly.

Troll: Noone has ever successfully sued a body of elder or the organization for being disfellowshipped.

Reply: You're right.

It also hasn't stopped them from trying, nor has it stopped costing the sect's legal entities time, human resources and money.

Reference:
_____

[1] http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#89 Nov 5, 2012
FH Chandler's "opinions" in his "references" aren't shared by the legal team employed by the WT, the GB, or very many bodies of elders (at least, officially).

He knows full well that what he *thinks* should happen, isn't what *actually* happens, nor has it since the beginning of the organization's history.

He also knows that if it did, we likely wouldn't even have a thread like this to bicker in.

And you know what? I actually agree with many of his points about what elders *should* do. He's just too obtusely wrapped up in his anti-Candace-Conti crusade to see it.

I do think he's one sadly misguided and hopelessly deluded as to his status or even place on this forum. He's got no real status, it's kindof odd to see someone toil so fruitlessly on something when absolutely noone cares what he thinks about it. Literally, noone.

People care what I think because of what I do in real life. FH Chandler does what? Post on an internet board? Crazy.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#90 Nov 5, 2012
acrobat wrote:
FH Chandler's "opinions" in his "references" aren't shared by the legal team employed by the WT, the GB, or very many bodies of elders (at least, officially).
Which says something of why they're in the position they're in.

Troll: He knows full well that what he *thinks* should happen, isn't what *actually* happens, nor has it since the beginning of the organization's history.

Reply: I never said that what I think should happen, where it concerns handling of allegations of serious crimes/confessions of serious crimes, is what actually happens.

Why, specifically, do you feel the need to point out things that either weren't said by me, or are not in dispute, hm?

Troll: He also knows that if it did, we likely wouldn't even have a thread like this to bicker in.

Reply: You're right.

Troll: And you know what? I actually agree with many of his points about what elders *should* do. He's just too obtusely wrapped up in his anti-Candace-Conti crusade to see it.

Reply: I'm not anti-Candice Conti. I'm anti-assigning liability for crimes that have not been proven to have occurred.

You should be too.

Troll: I do think he's one sadly misguided and hopelessly deluded as to his status or even place on this forum.

Reply: I'm just an individual expressing an opinion on the Internet, as are you; I'm not at all confused about it, either.

Troll: He's got no real status, it's kindof odd to see someone toil so fruitlessly on something when absolutely noone cares what he thinks about it.
Literally, noone.

Reply: And yet you keep responding.

Troll: People care what I think because of what I do in real life. FH Chandler does what? Post on an internet board? Crazy.

Reply: I neither know nor care what you do in real life; the FACTS of the travesty of justice that was the result in the Conti Civil Action don't hinge on what you or I do in real life.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#92 Nov 5, 2012
Idiot wrote:
"the facts"
And here is your problem,
Your opinions are only "facts" to you and you only.
Facts are relative.
FACTS are not relative.

Familiarize yourself with them.[1]

Reference:
_____

[1] http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#93 Nov 5, 2012
The facts get decided by the jury, not by whether some stooge on the internet decides it's true or not.

If the jury decides after reviewing all the evidence that something probably did take place, or that it's more likely that something did take place than did not, then that something becomes fact.

That's a paraphrase of a lawyer's closing arguments in this case.

That lawyer's name is James McCabe.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#94 Nov 5, 2012
acroTroll wrote:
The facts get decided by the jury, not by whether some stooge on the internet decides it's true or not.
The FACTS are NOT determined by the jury. The jury decides what to believe based on the arguments presented by the attorneys involved in a case; a personable, charismatic attorney can take make a jury believe made-up "facts" are indisputable, and make them ignore overwhelming real facts. See: Cochran, Johnnie.

Troll: If the jury decides after reviewing all the evidence that something probably did take place, or that it's more likely that something did take place than did not, then that something becomes fact.

Reply: It does NOT become a "fact," it becomes a decision.

Troll: That's a paraphrase of a lawyer's closing arguments in this case.

Reply: Simply deeming something a "fact" does not make it a fact. If you choose to believe unsubstantiated claims and up them on par with facts, that's your choice to make in your unadulterated ignorance.

Troll: That lawyer's name is James McCabe.

Reply: And?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#96 Nov 5, 2012
"if after weighing all the evidence that you decide the fact is probably true, more likely true than not true, then that is a fact.

But if you can't make that decision, then you must decide that the Plaintiff has failed to meet their burden of proof."

- James McCabe, closing argument

The jury weighed all the evidence, and resoundingly came to the conclusion that the facts had been proven to be just that, facts.

“THE FIRE RISES.”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad, Krasnodar Krai

#98 Nov 5, 2012
A FACT is not defined as being "more likely true than not."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

You'll not find any statement in any of those definitions that even comes close.

What you'll find is statements to the effect of, "something that actually exists; reality; truth," "something known to exist or to have happened," "a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true."

That Candice Conti was abused [specifically, by Jonathan KENDRICK] is not reality, it is not truth, it is not known to have happened, and is not known by actual experience and it was not observed.

The CIVIL jury took the fact that KENDRICK was a registered sex offender, convicted of such in 2004, and decided, that because he was guilty of abusing someone else that it was more than 50% possible that he abused Candice Conti. It was an arbitrary decision based on nothing more than the self-serving, unsubstantiated, unverifiable and logistically impossible testimony of a "victim" whose credibility is, at best, questionable, NOT tangible, verifiable evidence/testimony.

Mr. MacCabe, in his closing argument, is speaking to the preponderance of evidence standard, the process of determining whether or not there is a more than 50% chance that such a thing occurred, and incorrectly referring to the result as a "fact."
Hoodwinked

Homeland, CA

#100 Nov 5, 2012
acrobat wrote:
"if after weighing all the evidence that you decide the fact is probably true, more likely true than not true, then that is a fact.
But if you can't make that decision, then you must decide that the Plaintiff has failed to meet their burden of proof."
- James McCabe, closing argument
The jury weighed all the evidence, and resoundingly came to the conclusion that the facts had been proven to be just that, facts.
and there we have it :) Thankfully, What Chandler thinks or believes means absolutely zero to the majority of those reading this forum.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
The Twinity Dogma- the Most Ridiculous Dogma of... 7 min the Mad JW 254
Did God send...HIMSELF? 10 min the Mad JW 367
Funny thing is they always want more 21 min pcloadletter 278
WTS creepy truth is: Abaddon is Jesus 44 min BetheljudgmentDan... 7
How Female Elders Can Help? 48 min BetheljudgmentDan... 85
What "IF" Jesus were literally God Almighty~ 52 min BetheljudgmentDan... 157
2013 Memorial attendance for U.S. (Jul '13) 53 min Andrewski 492
News What If Jesus Is not God? 2 hr Irish 1,297
Mr. Geoffrey Jackson to appear before the ARC 4 hr BetheljudgmentDan... 699
Praise Jehovah (Jul '13) 8 hr array 3,522
Why we JWs are so HAPPY! 9 hr Maravilla 761
More from around the web