Conti Still Beating WTBTS
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
UGETTHAT

Melbourne, Australia

#1 Nov 16, 2012
Looks like WTBTS 'FAILED' in there appeal to have property secured instead on a Bond. Seems the Courts also find that WTBTS's properties are a risk! http://jwleaks.wordpress.com/candace-conti/

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

#2 Nov 16, 2012
Grain of salt...

Like most crooks, this woman will likely return to burglarizing houses and extortion if her fat ass gets handed to her during the appeal. At best, this lawsuit will keep the hoodlum off the streets.

People here have certainly demonstrated they have no conscience by demonstrating anything that is disparaging to JWs is savvy, even if it means allowing and backing a crook to do their dirty work.

Some people have no shame.
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#3 Nov 16, 2012

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#5 Nov 16, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
Grain of salt...
Like most crooks, this woman will likely return to burglarizing houses and extortion if her fat ass gets handed to her during the appeal. At best, this lawsuit will keep the hoodlum off the streets.
People here have certainly demonstrated they have no conscience by demonstrating anything that is disparaging to JWs is savvy, even if it means allowing and backing a crook to do their dirty work.
Some people have no shame.
.
. Your hatred is over welming..

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#6 Nov 16, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
Grain of salt...
Like most crooks, this woman will likely return to burglarizing houses and extortion if her fat ass gets handed to her during the appeal. At best, this lawsuit will keep the hoodlum off the streets.
People here have certainly demonstrated they have no conscience by demonstrating anything that is disparaging to JWs is savvy, even if it means allowing and backing a crook to do their dirty work.
Some people have no shame.
Still blaming the victim, DW? Since you continually defend a corrupt publishing company, most likely some of that corruption has rubbed off on you.
Hoodwinked

Winchester, CA

#7 Nov 16, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
Grain of salt...
Like most crooks, this woman will likely return to burglarizing houses and extortion if her fat ass gets handed to her during the appeal. At best, this lawsuit will keep the hoodlum off the streets.
People here have certainly demonstrated they have no conscience by demonstrating anything that is disparaging to JWs is savvy, even if it means allowing and backing a crook to do their dirty work.
Some people have no shame.
I find it disgusting that you continue to attack a survivor of molestation!

The fact that she was able to stand up to a very powerful orginazation shows how she is no longer the wounded child that made a few bad decisions. She has now proven herself to be a loving young women who wants so much to protect the children of the WTS...you all should be thrilled. I know I am :)
By the way she is not a " fat ass" she is a very beautiful young woman.
Why don't you post a picture so we can see what you look like. I won't hold my breath :)

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

#9 Nov 16, 2012
Hoodwinked wrote:
<quoted text> I find it disgusting that you continue to attack a survivor of molestation!
The fact that she was able to stand up to a very powerful orginazation shows how she is no longer the wounded child that made a few bad decisions. She has now proven herself to be a loving young women who wants so much to protect the children of the WTS...you all should be thrilled. I know I am :)
By the way she is not a " fat ass" she is a very beautiful young woman.
Why don't you post a picture so we can see what you look like. I won't hold my breath :)
I'm not, "attacking a survivor of molestation."

I simply responded to the testimony of every eye-witness that testified in the trial.

All a person can go by is the testimony of eye-witnesses. Every person that testified, including her parents, refuted the plaintiff's claims that were made for the obvious reason of bringing liability on North Fremont Congregation.

“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12

“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#10 Nov 16, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not, "attacking a survivor of molestation."
I simply responded to the testimony of every eye-witness that testified in the trial.
All a person can go by is the testimony of eye-witnesses. Every person that testified, including her parents, refuted the plaintiff's claims that were made for the obvious reason of bringing liability on North Fremont Congregation.
“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12
“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”
so calling the victim a fat ass and other derogatory things is not attacking her, you have said some vile things about Candace, so what is your excuse for attacking her in that manner, if you wAnt to make your point how about doing it in a dignified way, i don't see you saying that kendrick is a fat ass or any other derogatory terms heaped out on him.

no DW you can't excuse yourself on this, its written for all to see.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#11 Nov 17, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not, "attacking a survivor of molestation."
I simply responded to the testimony of every eye-witness that testified in the trial.
All a person can go by is the testimony of eye-witnesses. Every person that testified, including her parents, refuted the plaintiff's claims that were made for the obvious reason of bringing liability on North Fremont Congregation.
“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12
“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”
It's easy to see that this jury was completely prejudiced in their deliberations. They had already made up there minds beforehand.

I would say that even the judge was prejudiced.

When this case is overturned at the appeal, as I am sure it will, the wind will go out of all of the JW haters lungs.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#12 Nov 17, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not, "attacking a survivor of molestation."
I simply responded to the testimony of every eye-witness that testified in the trial.
All a person can go by is the testimony of eye-witnesses. Every person that testified, including her parents, refuted the plaintiff's claims that were made for the obvious reason of bringing liability on North Fremont Congregation.
“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12
“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”
http://www.topix.com/forum/rel igion/jehovahs-witness/TJP6LLH VVOLA6V113/p3

If I want to see white trash perform on stage I'll tune in to Marilyn Manson or Rob Zombie. They're at least somewhat entertaining.

DW attacks the victim with racists slurs, and much more.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#13 Nov 17, 2012
Richardnak wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy to see that this jury was completely prejudiced in their deliberations. They had already made up there minds beforehand.
I would say that even the judge was prejudiced.
When this case is overturned at the appeal, as I am sure it will, the wind will go out of all of the JW haters lungs.
all the JW haters, really, you think that those that find abusing a child a JW hater.

It wouldn't matter what case it is if its against the WT and no matter how sick the crime is if anyone speaks out they are a JW hater.

Ever thought that people are feed up with child sexual abuse from those that hide behind the clergy privelege, that make rules not in the best interest of the child but rather to try and keep things quiet to protect their own image, the WT and its GB are worse than any other religion when it comes to this issue, because they are suppose boast only they are the channel God is using while they slam every other denominiation they are miffed that someone dare try and wreck their phony spiritual paradise and their phoney squeeky clean image, by speaking out against the wickedness of child sexual abuse among their flock.

"The righteous one is knowing the legal claim of the lowly ones. He that is wicked does not consider such knowledge." -(Prov29:7)

"The righteous understands the cause of the poor, but the wicked is unconcerned." -

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#14 Nov 17, 2012
Where is the out cry from JW about children being abused in the faith?

oh if its another religion they make threads about it, are the courts prejudiced aganinst them also, the hatred displayed on this forum by some so called JW against other religions with this problem has been nothing but hypocritical, why never addressing problems with in their own faith, this is just one case there has been others, have they quickly forgotten the GB paid out millions of donated money from b/s to gag child abuse victims, so as not to speak out?

Has the GB informed the KH that millions of money has been paid out money that was meant for the world wide work, donated in good faith by the b/s hard earned money, only to cover over the failed policies of their leaders the GB.

Was the jury in the conti case prejudiced against JW, why would they be.
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#15 Nov 17, 2012
You weak ass JW's need to kwicherbitchin and pony up the $3 to help your employer, the Watchtower Publishing Company settle up with the victim whose sexual molestation they facilitated and enabled.
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#17 Nov 17, 2012
SOS tiny tim wrote:
<quoted text>remember though,
Since some jw a are using government aid.....
In actuality Uncle Sam and tax payers are paying some of the dues for the WTS's crapped pants.
Some JW's don't mind double dipping.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#18 Nov 17, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
Some people have no shame.
Especially like you Dreamweaver, you have no morals, no shame, what with all the filth and bilge you vomit all over this board with your murderous thoughts!

Maybe you should go offer your 'services' to Schnack - he sounds like a rank amateur..he tried to pull that off on the court and Simons just carved up his arguments like soft peas lol! Doesn't Schnack even know the law?

Talk about milking the WBTS dry...their own lawyers are doing it! lol

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#19 Nov 17, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
her fat ass gets
ahahahaha I just noticed this..

Hey guys whaddya think the odds are on Dreamweaver being a. way uglier and b. weighing far more than Conti?

And Conti has had a rough ride! I wonder what Dreamweavers excuse is?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#21 Nov 17, 2012
array wrote:
<quoted text>
no DW you can't excuse yourself on this, its written for all to see.
Maybe she'll appeal to the Topix mods and have her comments removed, since you've pointed it out now!

lol what pathetic low-life this Dreamweaver aka CindyB is..I'm not even going to mince words anymore (not like I was in the first place lol!)

I wonder where her apostate FauxPro-JW henchman FC Cantwin is..surely he's feeling the burn and needs to carpet bomb Topix with 1,500 posts of him referencing his own astute legal opinions!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#23 Nov 17, 2012
SOS tiny tim wrote:
<quoted text>but their own lawyers are ANNOINTED so they can milk all they want.
Agape.
Actually I think they are worldly lawyers, or at least one or two of them are? Or maybe I'm thinking of a different case..

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Spring, TX

#24 Nov 17, 2012
acrobat wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe she'll appeal to the Topix mods and have her comments removed, since you've pointed it out now!

lol what pathetic low-life this Dreamweaver aka CindyB is..I'm not even going to mince words anymore (not like I was in the first place lol!)

I wonder where her apostate FauxPro-JW henchman FC Cantwin is..surely he's feeling the burn and needs to carpet bomb Topix with 1,500 posts of him referencing his own astute legal opinions!
This full fledged believing Jehovah's Witnesses who donates money to the Watchtower Society likes giving money to crooks.

He thinks it's fun.

You know what they say, "a fool and his money will soon be parted."

This man "acrobat" must be a bum on the street posting from a computer in a public library.

I bet he could use a good shower.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#25 Nov 17, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
This full fledged believing Jehovah's Witnesses who donates money to the Watchtower Society likes giving money to crooks.
He thinks it's fun.
You know what they say, "a fool and his money will soon be parted."
This man "acrobat" must be a bum on the street posting from a computer in a public library.
I bet he could use a good shower.
you give nothing your out! wAy out, you have nothing to do with JW nothing, your not part of the congregation, you don't have nothing to contribute to JW, nothing, your out you know it and its up to you to change that but it seems you can't in the mean time your not connected, your no part of the congregation, your out!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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
Why we JWs are so HAPPY! (Apr '15) 6 min Yacob 2,793
Is smoking a sin? 18 min The Real Karen 4
Same Cast of Church Muppets & Associates 22 min wow 25
The Bible Jehovah`s Witnesses main text Book 29 min rsss11 52
News Why are there more and more Jehovah's Witnesses... 1 hr The Lightbearer 45
new poster 4 hr some day 8
church muppets, etc. 5 hr TempleBBQ 2
Yet, Another New Forum... 13 hr TempleBBQ 148
The Most Accurate of ALL Translations! (Nov '17) 13 hr ihveit 551