A MONSTER in the room

[SOS]

Jah Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Bring it bitch. I will send you back to mommies basement with your pick ax tickling your belly rectally.
It's so fun to be Internet tough.

You WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT EVEN HIT YOU,

THE FIRST BLOW WOULD MAKE A CLEAN PUNCTURE WOUND INTO YOUR F@CKING BRAIN YOU WOULD FALL OVER AND THE FUN WOULD BEGIN DEVOURING YOUR TASTY FLESH.

[TPMP]

Jah Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Bring it bitch. I will send you back to mommies basement with your pick ax tickling your belly rectally.
It's so fun to be Internet tough.

What a "Jah fan" you are.

A sterling example.

ROTFLMAO!

[Thirdwitness]

Thirdwitness wrote:
"The authorities made a moral decision as well.
1. They could have legally charged him with a felony.
2. They could have legally put him on the child registry.
3. They could have legally removed the child from his care.
4. They could have legally sought jail time for him…."

Marvin replied: Secular authorities decide how to proceed with an alleged criminal act based on statutory language and common law.

Secular authorities do not decide how to proceed with an alleged criminal act based on their own set of moral values. In fact they are TRAINED to set aside their MORAL values and act BASED ON SECULAR LAW." End of Marvin quote.

According to the Alameda Social Services: "The Department of Children and Family Services (CFS) provides protective services to children and families. When a report is made of child abuse or neglect, a child welfare worker from our department investigates the report. If the child has been harmed or is at risk of harm, the child welfare worker will remove the child to a safer situation, usually to a relative or to an emergency foster home. Under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the child welfare worker then works closely with the parents to address the problems that led to the child's removal. Whenever possible, the child welfare worker reunifies the family, but ONLY IF THE CHILD CAN BE RETURNED HOME SAFELY."

http://www.alamedasocialservices.org/public/a...

According to this the child welfare services make a judgment call as to whether or not the child is safe in returning to the home. Is it your claim that the child welfare services did NOT carry out their duty as required by law and allowed Andrea to return to an unsafe home where a dangerous predator molester monster lived?

[Jah Fan]

SOS wrote:

<quoted text>You WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT EVEN HIT YOU,
THE FIRST BLOW WOULD MAKE A CLEAN PUNCTURE WOUND INTO YOUR F@CKING BRAIN YOU WOULD FALL OVER AND THE FUN WOULD BEGIN DEVOURING YOUR TASTY FLESH.

Go back to jerking off to ICP videos. You just worry about getting through another week of highschool without getting beat up by volleyball players. Maybe if you asking Santa really nicely mommy and daddy will buy you a flesh light so those sores go away.

[Jah Fan]

TPMP wrote:

<quoted text> What a "Jah fan" you are.
A sterling example.
ROTFLMAO!

Says the perv who thinks it okay to rape children as long as the kid is "asking for it" and the rapist is a witness. As long as you advocate child rape I could give a f)$& what you think.

And quite frankly I kept the name from back before I realized that religion is just grown ups playing make believe

[Thirdwitness]

Marvin Shilmer wrote: "When a person admits to inappropriate placing of their hands on a 13-year-old’s breasts, and then is believed to be lying about it, it takes a sick person not to BELIEVE they have a monster on their hands."

Diogenes replied:
"Then you believe:
1. The Freemont Police department
2. Freemont Child Protective Services
3. Alameda County DA
Are all sick people."

Marvin it is here and now your claim that the above "sick" people neglected their legal and fiduciary duty as required by law to keep children safe and in fact allowed a child to return unsafely to the home of a dangerous predator molester monster?

[Thirdwitness]

So the two question on the table for Marvin:

1. Is it your claim that the child welfare services did NOT carry out their duty as required by law and allowed Andrea to return to an unsafe home where a dangerous predator molester monster lived?

2. Is it your claim that the "sick" Freemont authorities including the police, DA, judge, Child Protective Services, neglected their legal and fiduciary duty as required by law to keep children safe and in fact allowed a child to return unsafely to the home of a dangerous predator molester monster?

[TPMP]

Jah Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Says the perv who thinks it okay to rape children as long as the kid is "asking for it" and the rapist is a witness. As long as you advocate child rape I could give a f)$& what you think.
And quite frankly I kept the name from back before I realized that religion is just grown ups playing make believe

Very well then. Thank you for showing you ass.

Now, I know not to waste my time even reading or replying back to any of your drivel.

You are one angry individual.

[Marvin Shilmer]

diogenes wrote:

Then you believe:
1. The Freemont Police department
2. Freemont Child Protective Services
3. Alameda County DA
Are all sick people.

Diogenes,

Kendrick admitted sexual battery to those authorities, and they sentenced him accordingly under the LAW as a matter of PUBLIC RECORD!!! I don’t know if those authorities BELIEVED Kendrick lied about his child molestation, or not. These officials answer to LEGAL and ETHICAL standards. NOT their personal MORAL standards.

On the other hand, elders are supposed to be MORAL exemplars.

Kendrick admitted sexual battery to Watchtower elders, and they removed him from appointed duty as parking lot attendant. Those elders NEVER EVER told the congregation that a person KNOWN to have committed an act of CHILD MOLESTATION was IN THE ROOM sitting RIGHT BESIDE THEIR CHILDREN!!!

Oh, and those same Watchtower elders BELIEVED Kendrick was LYING about his child molestation.

When a person admits to inappropriate placing of their hands on a 13-year-old’s breasts, and then is believed to be lying about it, it takes a sick person not to BELIEVE they have a monster on their hands.

You’re sick. And I’m glad this discussion is here so bugs like you can be seen running from the darkness of your closet.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

[Thirdwitness]

AGAIN II

So the two question on the table for Marvin:

1. Is it your claim that the child welfare services did NOT carry out their duty as required by law and allowed Andrea to return to an unsafe home where a dangerous predator molester monster lived?

2. Is it your claim that the "sick" Freemont authorities including the police, DA, judge, Child Protective Services, neglected their legal and fiduciary duty as required by law to keep children safe and in fact allowed a child to return unsafely to the home of a dangerous predator molester monster?

[diogenes]

Marvin Shilmer wrote:

<quoted text>
Diogenes,
Kendrick admitted sexual battery to those authorities, and they sentenced him accordingly under the LAW as a matter of PUBLIC RECORD!!! I don’t know if those authorities BELIEVED Kendrick lied about his child molestation, or not. These officials answer to LEGAL and ETHICAL standards. NOT their personal MORAL standards.
On the other hand, elders are supposed to be MORAL exemplars.
Kendrick admitted sexual battery to Watchtower elders, and they removed him from appointed duty as parking lot attendant. Those elders NEVER EVER told the congregation that a person KNOWN to have committed an act of CHILD MOLESTATION was IN THE ROOM sitting RIGHT BESIDE THEIR CHILDREN!!!
Oh, and those same Watchtower elders BELIEVED Kendrick was LYING about his child molestation.
When a person admits to inappropriate placing of their hands on a 13-year-old’s breasts, and then is believed to be lying about it, it takes a sick person not to BELIEVE they have a monster on their hands.
You’re sick. And I’m glad this discussion is here so bugs like you can be seen running from the darkness of your closet.
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

If I noticed a MONSTER in the room, I would go far beyond Marvin's policy of saying "Hey everybody, there is a MONSTER in the room" week after week. I would immediately call the law and tell them a MONSTER is on the loose. Then I would escort the MONSTER out of the building until the law arrived.

[Thirdwitness]

"Whenever possible, the child welfare worker reunifies the family, but ONLY IF THE CHILD CAN BE RETURNED HOME SAFELY."--Alameda Social Services.

It is undisputed that the Child Protective authorities let the victim go home with the abuser Kendrick. Either

A. they thought she would be safe in that they did not believe Kendrick to be a dangerous child predator monster or

B. knowing and believing it would be unsafe because he was a dangerous child predator monster they neglected their legal and fiduciary duty.

Which do you choose?

[Hoodwinked]

diogenes wrote:

<quoted text>
If I noticed a MONSTER in the room, I would go far beyond Marvin's policy of saying "Hey everybody, there is a MONSTER in the room" week after week. I would immediately call the law and tell them a MONSTER is on the loose. Then I would escort the MONSTER out of the building until the law arrived.

Yeah right!! You would do just as the rest of the elders do and tell the victims and their families that...said monster has just as much right to be in the KH as they do!!!

[Wonder]

FH Chandler wrote:

<quoted text>
Why, specifically, do they not name them?
In that vein, why do those other insist that the individual themselves make the public confession?

.
. They probably don't specifically name them ..because they might get sued... The public confession.. would serve as a deterrent ..as... to have to physical admit to what you did.. Is not some thing most people would want everyone to know.. Why do you think the bible says that they are to be reproved ..before all on lookers.. Not only does the person have his wrongs laid bare... But the on lookers ( If they had a lick of sense.. would realize that this is something I don't want to go through.).. Plain and simple.. Glossing it over ..tends to remove some of the bite out of it.. so that the lesson taken from it.. Kind of doesn't get across.. I expect if Christ was to reprove some one... There would be a bit of raising the voice .. and it would be understood that the wrong was something ..that best not be repeated..

[sidgi]

Thirdwitness wrote:

"Whenever possible, the child welfare worker reunifies the family, but ONLY IF THE CHILD CAN BE RETURNED HOME SAFELY."--Alameda Social Services.
It is undisputed that the Child Protective authorities let the victim go home with the abuser Kendrick. Either
A. they thought she would be safe in that they did not believe Kendrick to be a dangerous child predator monster or
B. knowing and believing it would be unsafe because he was a dangerous child predator monster they neglected their legal and fiduciary duty.
Which do you choose?

Notifying those at risk, or removing the predator from being able to prey on children, as a policy. He admitted to the elders that he did something untoward to his stepdaughter. He admitted it under duress, not out of wanting to clear the air with Jehovah. When the mother and daughter were part of the investigative process, it seems his story didn't hold up as being the innocuous accidental touching he originally claimed.

Where was the WTBTS policy to not "harm one of these little ones" who put faith in Jesus? There seems to have been enough communication between the untrained elders and the WTBTS to establish that there was a problem, and that he wasn't repentant enough to tell the whole truth. Did the WTBTS follow their own policy?

sidgi

[Marvin Shilmer]

diogenes wrote:

If I noticed a MONSTER in the room, I would go far beyond Marvin's policy of saying "Hey everybody, there is a MONSTER in the room" week after week. I would immediately call the law and tell them a MONSTER is on the loose. Then I would escort the MONSTER out of the building until the law arrived.

Yeah. Right. But you CAN’T bring yourself to admit that a fully grown man who places his hands on YOUR 13-year-old daughter’s breasts and THEN LIES about his CHILD MOLESTATION is A MONSTER.

Why can’t YOU do THAT?

Cuz that would mean ADMITTING a PROBLEM with YOUR GOD’S policy toward child molesters, and YOU’RE DAMN SURE NOT GONNA DO THAT! Right?

No matter how many children have to SIT BESIDE CHILD MOLESTERS. You’ll NOT point a finger at your WATCHTOWER god.

The stench you leave behind speaks for itself! You are a God damned creep!

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

[diogenes]

Marvin Shilmer wrote:

<quoted text>
No matter how many children have to SIT BESIDE CHILD MOLESTERS.

How does your policy of "there's a MONSTER in the room" prevent a MONSTER from sitting next to anyone they want? Whereas I suggest calling the law and escorting the MONSTER out of the building.

[Maravilla]

diogenes wrote:

<quoted text>
How does your policy of "there's a MONSTER in the room" prevent a MONSTER from sitting next to anyone they want? Whereas I suggest calling the law and escorting the MONSTER out of the building.

.
. Again as one man stated... Not even sharing a meal with the person... If you don't take sustenance with such a person... Why would you take Spritual food with him??? Is that not.. casting pearls before swine???
.
. They did after all spit in GOD's eye.. Did they not??

[Hoodwinked]

diogenes wrote:

<quoted text>
How does your policy of "there's a MONSTER in the room" prevent a MONSTER from sitting next to anyone they want? Whereas I suggest calling the law and escorting the MONSTER out of the building.

You well now child molesters are free to roam the KH without a care in the world. They know they will be protected...which is why they don't miss a step in their fake service to Jehovah!!

Straight up SICKOS..just like you and your tiny army of defenders :(

[Thirdwitness]

Ever notice how Marvin refuses to answer those hard questions.

Again III

1. Is it your claim that the child welfare services did NOT carry out their duty as required by law and allowed Andrea to return to an unsafe home where a dangerous predator molester monster lived?

2. Is it your claim that the "sick" Freemont authorities including the police, DA, judge, Child Protective Services, neglected their legal and fiduciary duty as required by law to keep children safe and in fact allowed a child to return unsafely to the home of a dangerous predator molester monster?

Again II

"Whenever possible, the child welfare worker reunifies the family, but ONLY IF THE CHILD CAN BE RETURNED HOME SAFELY."--Alameda Social Services.

It is undisputed that the Child Protective authorities let the victim go home with the abuser Kendrick. Either

A. they thought she would be safe in that they did not believe Kendrick to be a dangerous child predator monster or

B. knowing and believing it would be unsafe because he was a dangerous child predator monster they neglected their legal and fiduciary duty.

Which do you choose?