Kendrick in Court

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#41 Sep 10, 2012
JesusMyTroll wrote:
Don't wanna be concerning yourself with a young woman who went on to use drugs which happens a great deal to people who have been sexually abused as children.
How many of the Sandusky victims - REAL victims - did?

Troll: It would be more credit to you and an honor to your family if you looked into the WTS and saw them for what they are. PEDOPHILE PROTECTORS.

Reply: The issue at hand is the veracity of the [STILL unsubstantiated] claims of the alleged victim, and this talking head referring to itself by the name "Kathleen Conti."

Troll: I'm sure your kids would rather a dad who outed the bad and commended the bravery of young women such as Candace.

Reply: What "brave" thing has this multiple felon and fraudster done?

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#42 Sep 10, 2012
MENAgirl wrote:
I asked and was given a copy of a rap sheet with one conviction. She's not exactly Lizzy Borden, Or even Jonathan KENDRICK for that matter. Get some perspective.
Right.... We should just overlook her criminal activity, her drug use and the great fraud she and her lawyer perpetrated because she claims to have been abused.

'Kay.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#43 Sep 10, 2012
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text>Heh FH,
Not to distract from the topic of this particular thread.
But, what is your opinion of the Martin judge being taken off?
Or pressured off?.
==========
Let's see what Obama the sham president has to say tonight.
I haven't followed the Martin-Zimmerman incident for a while now, actually.
MENAgirl

Gîza, Egypt

#44 Sep 10, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.... We should just overlook her criminal activity, her drug use and the great fraud she and her lawyer perpetrated because she claims to have been abused.
'Kay.
Or, you could blame a victim about totally unrelated things that she was not convicted of while you sit on your high horse over a religion that is SHOCKED! I tell you SHOCKED! that they are actually held responsible that their own policies and procedures are being held against them legally after they resulted in harm.

This isn't about Conti, its about the WT organization and its policy, and that is why THEY were held liable for MALICE. They are not held liable for child molesting, that was not an organizational act. Their offence was putting in place a system, a comprehensive one, that went beyond their printed words (and you all know it) to corrupt the justice process and protect abusers in the congregation to the detriment of children. THAT is the malice. Not one thing, a system of things. They do love their "system of things" and I am glad this one has come to bite them in the butt. Corporately.

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#45 Sep 10, 2012
What brave thing has Candace done?

She confronted the elders in her former congregation, telling them her painful story, respectfully asking they reexamine thier child abuse policy. Of course they didn't give her the time of day. As a former JW, she was raised to respect and revere the elders. It could not have been easy, but she stood up for herself and told her story. BRAVE.

She found a lawyer willing to take on the WBTS. It's no easy thing to find a lawyerwho is willing work for months and years on a lawsuit like this when the outcome is not at all certain. To find one, she had to tell her story of abuse, to reveal this painful personal thing, to strangers, over and over. BRAVE.

She had to go through a trial, to confront the WBTS lawyers, to answer painful questions about her life and her relationship with "brother " Kendrick. BRAVE.
-
She put herself out there to right this wrong. Every thing she has done in her life is now scrutinized. She is being reviled and ridiculed in forums like this. I'm sure she was aware of what to expect from her former. "Brothers and sisters", but she did it anyway. BRAVE
-
What is not BRAVE? people who know nothing about her, or about child sexual abuse, coming to this forum to say horrible, nasty things about her, just because she sued the Watchtower. You all ought to be ashamed. You are attempting to victimize her all over again at no risk to yourselves. That is the opposite of BRAVE, it's the act of a COWARD. It just shows what you all are really like. Really good display of Christian qualities. Such love, such kindness.
-
The Watchtower's shameful child abuse policies have been exposed for all the world to see. The cat's out of the bag folks, your pathetic attempts to trash this young woman won't change that. It doesn't even matter if it is overturned on appeal. I 'm sure there are other victims out there and it will make it that much easier for them to come forward.
-
I hope you COWARDS have increased your donations to the WBTS, they are going to need it.
Honest JW

Berkeley, CA

#46 Sep 10, 2012
MENAgirl wrote:
<quoted text>Or, you could blame a victim about totally unrelated things that she was not convicted of while you sit on your high horse over a religion that is SHOCKED! I tell you SHOCKED! that they are actually held responsible that their own policies and procedures are being held against them legally after they resulted in harm.
This isn't about Conti, its about the WT organization and its policy, and that is why THEY were held liable for MALICE. They are not held liable for child molesting, that was not an organizational act. Their offence was putting in place a system, a comprehensive one, that went beyond their printed words (and you all know it) to corrupt the justice process and protect abusers in the congregation to the detriment of children. THAT is the malice. Not one thing, a system of things. They do love their "system of things" and I am glad this one has come to bite them in the butt. Corporately.
You have to excuse brother Chandler, MENAgirl. You may have already deduced from his postings that he is an abuse victim. Unfortunately, like some abuse victims, he suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. That is why he takes the side of the abuser against the victim.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#47 Sep 12, 2012
MENAgirl wrote:
Or, you could blame a victim...
If by "blame a victim" you mean blame the victim for any alleged abuse she suffered, I have not blamed the alleged victim for the abuse she allegedly suffered.

Troll:...about totally unrelated things that she was not convicted of...

Reply: In fact, she WAS convicted of multiple felonies, and that IS related to her defrauding of the WT legal entity with her lawsuit.

It speaks to her dishonesty and lack of morality.

Troll:...while you sit on your high horse over a religion that is SHOCKED!

Reply: I'm not sure what this "high horse" stuff is you're babbling about, but my issue with this matter has very little to do with "a religion."

For your information, my first issue with this matter has to do with the FACT that this alleged victim's alleged abuse has not been proven. In fact, the only "proof" of the alleged abuse is the unsubstantiated claims of the victim herself.

My second issue with this matter is that the alleged knowledge of abuse by the elders of the North Fremont Congregation was not actually knowledge of abuse.

Make a note of those things, and keep them before you go about spewing more propaganda.

Troll: I tell you SHOCKED! that they are actually held responsible that their own policies and procedures are being held against them legally after they resulted in harm.

Reply: Assuming the unproven claims of the victim are actually true, it is neither the policies or procedures of the group in question that are responsible for the alleged abuse.

Troll: This isn't about Conti, its about the WT organization and its policy, and that is why THEY were held liable for MALICE.

Reply: It is about Conti, because Conti [and her lawyer and her supporters] have made it about her [i.e., that she is "the face of courage"] and her "struggle" to bring about change in a policy that has next to nothing to do with whatever she claims happened to her.

She did what she did for money and because she's an antiJW bigot.

Troll: They are not held liable for child molesting, that was not an organizational act. Their offence was putting in place a system, a comprehensive one, that went beyond their printed words (and you all know it)...

Reply: No, in fact I do NOT know it; and you have nothing but demonstrably false claims to support that contention.

Troll:...to corrupt the justice process and protect abusers in the congregation to the detriment of children.

Reply: The process of "justice" where it concerns Jonathan Kendrick and his acts of July 1993 were not "corrupted" because of the Watchtower Society; Jonathan Kendrick was investigated, charged and convicted [of a misdemeanor, despite being charged with a felony].

Watchtower in no way interfered with or obstructed that process, nor did it interfere with or obstruct the mother and daughter who instigated that investigation.

Troll: THAT is the malice.

Reply: It's also not true but, obviously, you care little about what is true or false.

Troll: They do love their "system of things" and I am glad this one has come to bite them in the butt.
Corporately.

Reply: Of course you are, because you're a maleducated, lying bigot. And a moron.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#48 Sep 12, 2012
much happier now wrote:
What brave thing has Candace done? She confronted the elders in her former congregation...
Seeing as how these elders had absolutely nothing to do with any abuse she allegedly suffered, I'm not sure why this "confrontation" [and that's a good word for it, since she went into it acting like it was their fault] was necessary - other than to score points with the bigots in the online ex/antiJW movement.

Troll:...telling them her painful story...

Reply: Which she'd been telling everyone in her orbit - except for the PROPER authorities - for seven years prior to this; add to that, she actually expected THEM to report something they had no knowledge of to the police when she hadn't.

And this is "courage?"

Troll:...respectfully asking they reexamine thier child abuse policy.

Reply: Which had nothing whatsoever to do with her alleged [unproven] abuse.

Troll: Of course they didn't give her the time of day.

Reply: In fact, they did; she simply didn't like that a whole organization decided it wasn't going to act outside of the law to appease people like her - whose abuse hadn't even been properly reported.

Troll: As a former JW, she was raised to respect and revere the elders.

Reply: She'd been inactive for a number of years; any "respect" she'd ever had for the elders went out the window years prior.

Troll: It could not have been easy, but she stood up for herself and told her story. BRAVE.

Reply: Not even close.

Bravery would have been reporting the abuse WHEN IT HAPPENED. She had that opportunity.

Bravery would have been filing a police report in 2002 right after admitting to the abuse for the first time to her therapist. She had that opportunity.

Troll: She found a lawyer willing to take on the WBTS. It's no easy thing to find a lawyerwho is willing work for months and years on a lawsuit like this when the outcome is not at all certain. To find one, she had to tell her story of abuse, to reveal this painful personal thing, to strangers, over and over. BRAVE.

Reply: She'd already been doing it for seven years - telling her unproven tale to anyone who would listen, anyone, that is, OTHER than the police.

Troll: She had to go through a trial, to confront the WBTS lawyers, to answer painful questions about her life and her relationship with "brother " Kendrick. BRAVE.

Reply: The millions of dollars she defrauded WT out of will comfort her quite nicely.

Troll: She put herself out there to right this wrong.

Reply: Whatever "wrong" was allegedly done to her has not been righted because of the fraudulent lawsuit she has, for the moment, won.

Troll: Every thing she has done in her life is now scrutinized. She is being reviled and ridiculed in forums like this.

Reply: She is not being reviled; she is a dishonest person who has engaged in criminal acts, and, as her claims cannot be substantiated and are, in fact, logistically impossible, she DESERVES that scrutiny.

Troll: What is not BRAVE? people who know nothing about her...

Reply: Her lack of scruples and her criminal behavior is well documented - far more so than her unproven abuse. You simply don't care about those things; are you giving her lack of morality a pass simply because she's alleging to have been abused as JW, or do you automatically believe ANYTHING any person claiming to have been abused says?

Troll:...coming to this forum to say horrible, nasty things about her...

Reply: That happen to be true.

Troll:...just because she sued the Watchtower.

Reply: She would be just as despicable had she sued anyone else. "Watchtower" is your idol, not mine.

Troll: Really good display of Christian qualities. Such love, such kindness.

Troll: It doesn't even matter if it is overturned on appeal.

Reply: With regards to what actually matters in this case, yes, a successful appeal will make this travesty of justice right.

[HINT: the reputation of your idol is not what actually matters.]
MENAgirl

Gîza, Egypt

#49 Sep 12, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
If by "blame a victim" you mean blame the victim for any alleged abuse she suffered, I have not blamed the alleged victim for the abuse she allegedly suffered.
Troll:...about totally unrelated things that she was not convicted of...
Reply: In fact, she WAS convicted of multiple felonies, and that IS related to her defrauding of the WT legal entity with her lawsuit.
It speaks to her dishonesty and lack of morality.
I had asked for some one to show me her 'rap' sheet and they produced one conviction and I don't remember it being multiple counts of anything.

Calling me a troll doesn't make what you have to say a bit more credible. If you don't wish to have any kind of civility in the discussion, name calling is a good way to get incivility. Personal attacks are made when that is all you have left in your ammo.
MENAgirl

Gîza, Egypt

#50 Sep 12, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
If by "blame a victim" you mean blame the victim for any alleged abuse she suffered, I have not blamed the alleged victim for the abuse she allegedly suffered.
Troll:...about totally unrelated things that she was not convicted of...
Reply: In fact, she WAS convicted of multiple felonies, and that IS related to her defrauding of the WT legal entity with her lawsuit.
It speaks to her dishonesty and lack of morality.
Troll:...while you sit on your high horse over a religion that is SHOCKED!
Reply: I'm not sure what this "high horse" stuff is you're babbling about, but my issue with this matter has very little to do with "a religion."
For your information, my first issue with this matter has to do with the FACT that this alleged victim's alleged abuse has not been proven. In fact, the only "proof" of the alleged abuse is the unsubstantiated claims of the victim herself.
My second issue with this matter is that the alleged knowledge of abuse by the elders of the North Fremont Congregation was not actually knowledge of abuse.
Make a note of those things, and keep them before you go about spewing more propaganda.
Troll: I tell you SHOCKED! that they are actually held responsible that their own policies and procedures are being held against them legally after they resulted in harm.
Reply: Assuming the unproven claims of the victim are actually true, it is neither the policies or procedures of the group in question that are responsible for the alleged abuse.
Troll: This isn't about Conti, its about the WT organization and its policy, and that is why THEY were held liable for MALICE.
Reply: It is about Conti, because Conti [and her lawyer and her supporters] have made it about her [i.e., that she is "the face of courage"] and her "struggle" to bring about change in a policy that has next to nothing to do with whatever she claims happened to her.
She did what she did for money and because she's an antiJW bigot.
Troll: They are not held liable for child molesting, that was not an organizational act. Their offence was putting in place a system, a comprehensive one, that went beyond their printed words (and you all know it)...
Reply: No, in fact I do NOT know it; and you have nothing but demonstrably false claims to support that contention.
Troll:...to corrupt the justice process and protect abusers in the congregation to the detriment of children.
Reply: The process of "justice" where it concerns Jonathan Kendrick and his acts of July 1993 were not "corrupted" because of the Watchtower Society; Jonathan Kendrick was investigated, charged and convicted [of a misdemeanor, despite being charged with a felony].
Watchtower in no way interfered with or obstructed that process, nor did it interfere with or obstruct the mother and daughter who instigated that investigation.
Troll: THAT is the malice.
Reply: It's also not true but, obviously, you care little about what is true or false.
Troll: They do love their "system of things" and I am glad this one has come to bite them in the butt.
Corporately.
Reply: Of course you are, because you're a maleducated, lying bigot. And a moron.
And, we are finished.
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#51 Sep 12, 2012
i completely understand after reading mr. chandlers posts why the big men in nY do not want jws to attend college.

just by reading what is being done to a woman who was molested. someone is pulling up records to find dirt..

wow./ and why not explain why the thread about the book the woman who wrote about her elder father abusing her is alright and all the real jws here are ignoring it.

thank you Mr. Chandler you have proven a question many wanted answered straightforward and not in circles..

she is a woman-- woman do not count in a cult this proves it more and more each day. the old boys club,

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#52 Sep 12, 2012
unlisted wrote:
i completely understand after reading mr. chandlers posts why the big men in nY do not want jws to attend college.
just by reading what is being done to a woman who was molested. <continued unintelligible raving>
And Teary can see that apparently college did unlisted no good whatsoever, as she still cannot comprehend the simple fact that the allegations of abuse have never been PROVEN with any evidence outside of the testimony of the accuser herself.

Why this flies over the heads of so many here is still quite the mystery to Teary...so many potential theories...hmm...
MENAgirl

Gîza, Egypt

#53 Sep 12, 2012
The allegations not proven? The accused never spoke, was never called upon. His silence spoke. The WT had every opportunity to call him(Kendrick) to refute the testimony, and instead they maligned Conti. That was stupid pool-You can't ever expect to do well in this kind of case by blaming the victim-you are already setting yourself up to be despised. They did nothing to prove she wasn't abused and had no testimony that spoke to it or refuted it other than 20 year old memories of distracted parents who didn't say nothing happened, they said they didn't observe anything-but again, they were proven to be distracted in their parenting at that time (which is why Kendrick targeted, her, obviously). How many abusers actually abuse publicly? How many of us know that even devoted and not over-distracted parents let their guard down and don't actually keep their kids in eyesight every minute. That is just life.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#54 Sep 19, 2012
MENAgirl wrote:
The allegations not proven?
Yes, moron and bigot, the allegations were NOT proven.

And no amount of rhetoric from you and the rest of the herd changes it.

Troll: The accused never spoke, was never called upon. His silence spoke.

Reply: And?

Troll: The WT had every opportunity to call him(Kendrick) to refute the testimony, and instead they maligned Conti.

Reply: How was your alleged victim "maligned?"

Troll: That was stupid pool-You can't ever expect to do well in this kind of case by blaming the victim-you are already setting yourself up to be despised.

Reply: The alleged victim was not, at any point, "blamed" for, allegedly, being abused.

Troll: They did nothing to prove she wasn't abused...

Reply: They were under no obligation to - nor would they, or anyone else have the ability to - disprove what had not been proven.

Troll:...and had no testimony that spoke to it or refuted it other than 20 year old memories of distracted parents who didn't say nothing happened...

Reply: To be able to say that something happened would have been to admit they knew something and did nothing about it; of course no one would do something so stupid.

That aside, her parents actually had a fiduciary duty to her, to be aware of where their nine year old daughter is, who she's spending time with and making sure she is physically safe.

Your Brooklyn boogeymen had no such obligation.

Troll:...they said they didn't observe anything-but again, they were proven to be distracted in their parenting at that time...

Reply: That they were lousy parents, though true, means very little; of import is that they actually had both the duty and the ability to protect their child from the abuse she allegedly suffered; neither the elders of the Fremont North congregation or the legal entities used by the JW sect had any such obligation.

Troll: How many abusers actually abuse publicly?

Reply: A parent of a child need not actually see their child being abused to know that there is something wrong with the child, and to take action on their behalf; of course, a responsible child knows where their nine year old children are most of the time. They certainly don't allow them to spend time - alone and unsupervised - with aging men such that is necessary for them to have been abused, "several times a month" for a "couple years" in what amounts to literally hundreds of instances - all of which allegedly took place in the man's house, after a meeting or during field service, without a single person noticing SOMETHING.

Troll: How many of us know that even devoted and not over-distracted parents let their guard down and don't actually keep their kids in eyesight every minute. That is just life.

Reply: Again, for the irredeemably stupid, even LOUSY parents would be hard pressed to have not noticed their nine year old daughter being absent for the length of time required for her to have been abused "hundreds of times," "several times a month" for a "couple years" after leaving the KH or leaving from an active field service group alone with an aging man without ANYONE noticing.

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#55 Sep 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
gain, for the irredeemably stupid, even LOUSY parents would be hard pressed to have not noticed their nine year old daughter being absent for the length of time required for her to have been abused "hundreds of times," "several times a month" for a "couple years" after leaving the KH or leaving from an active field service group alone with an aging man without ANYONE noticing.
I thought that Defendants made an interesting point in their final Memorandum of Points and Authorities:

"Another factor to keep in mind in evaluating the propriety of the award of non-economic damages in this case is that while Plaintiff testified at her deposition that the abuse by Kendrick occurred at his house while he lived alone, he only lived alone for a few weeks in 1996. After his separation from his wife and losing his home in foreclosure, he lived with the Francis family.(Id. Exh. B at 91:6-14.) Thus, if Plaintiff was abused by Kendrick, it occurred over a very short time span."
MENAgirl

Cairo, Egypt

#56 Sep 20, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, moron and bigot, the allegations were NOT proven.
And no amount of rhetoric from you and the rest of the herd changes it.
Troll: The accused never spoke, was never called upon. His silence spoke.
Reply: And?
Troll: The WT had every opportunity to call him(Kendrick) to refute the testimony, and instead they maligned Conti.
Reply: How was your alleged victim "maligned?"
Troll: That was stupid pool-You can't ever expect to do well in this kind of case by blaming the victim-you are already setting yourself up to be despised.
Reply: The alleged victim was not, at any point, "blamed" for, allegedly, being abused.
Troll: They did nothing to prove she wasn't abused...
Reply: They were under no obligation to - nor would they, or anyone else have the ability to - disprove what had not been proven.
Troll:...and had no testimony that spoke to it or refuted it other than 20 year old memories of distracted parents who didn't say nothing happened...
Reply: To be able to say that something happened would have been to admit they knew something and did nothing about it; of course no one would do something so stupid.
That aside, her parents actually had a fiduciary duty to her, to be aware of where their nine year old daughter is, who she's spending time with and making sure she is physically safe.
Your Brooklyn boogeymen had no such obligation.
Troll:...they said they didn't observe anything-but again, they were proven to be distracted in their parenting at that time...
Reply: That they were lousy parents, though true, means very little; of import is that they actually had both the duty and the ability to protect their child from the abuse she allegedly suffered; neither the elders of the Fremont North congregation or the legal entities used by the JW sect had any such obligation.
Troll: How many abusers actually abuse publicly?
Reply: A parent of a child need not actually see their child being abused to know that there is something wrong with the child, and to take action on their behalf; of course, a responsible child knows where their nine year old children are most of the time. They certainly don't allow them to spend time - alone and unsupervised - with aging men such that is necessary for them to have been abused, "several times a month" for a "couple years" in what amounts to literally hundreds of instances - all of which allegedly took place in the man's house, after a meeting or during field service, without a single person noticing SOMETHING.
Troll: How many of us know that even devoted and not over-distracted parents let their guard down and don't actually keep their kids in eyesight every minute. That is just life.
Reply: Again, for the irredeemably stupid, even LOUSY parents would be hard pressed to have not noticed their nine year old daughter being absent for the length of time required for her to have been abused "hundreds of times," "several times a month" for a "couple years" after leaving the KH or leaving from an active field service group alone with an aging man without ANYONE noticing.
I speak, for the most part respectfully to people here, even when I disagree. the allegations were proven to a satisfactory standard for the jury, and they are the ones that matter, I'd say!

After that, I didn't read your post and will no longer respond to any of them. I don't insult people with rude names and I choose to not give such people that do, the respect of my time or attention. I give respect and I deserve it and when I fail, I apologize. My good JW mom raised me that way.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#57 Sep 27, 2012
Apparently MENATroll can't deal with inconvenient facts.

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#58 Sep 27, 2012
MENAgirl wrote:
<quoted text> I speak, for the most part respectfully to people here, even when I disagree. the allegations were proven to a satisfactory standard for the jury, and they are the ones that matter, I'd say!
After that, I didn't read your post and will no longer respond to any of them. I don't insult people with rude names and I choose to not give such people that do, the respect of my time or attention. I give respect and I deserve it and when I fail, I apologize. My good JW mom raised me that way.
Good for you! It us really hard not to respond to these (supposedly good Christians) in kind. I cannot always do it. I respect you for standing up for your beliefs without compromising your integrity. By their hateful words they show who really is their master.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#59 Oct 1, 2012
much flappier now wrote:
It us really hard not to respond to these (supposedly good Christians) in kind.
By, "in kind," if you mean responding from a position of fact, then yes - it's not only hard, but impossible, as you and like minded individuals are not only bigots but liars.

The statement about being a "good christian," for instance, requires no elaboration where I am concerned.
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#60 Oct 1, 2012
her past record had nothing to do with her being molested.. and for those of you who are men, you are showing everyone here that a man who molests a jw child is not a criminal. period

mr chandler.. have you ever been molested as a child?/ do you know the offender will threaten the lives of a child? the child's siblings? the parents? if they say a word?

are you educated enough to go to west law and Lexus Nexus to read real cases about molestation. rape victims and why they do not ask for help? or why they wait so long to receive help? do you understand even when victims receive help. it never goes away? it remains with them the rest of their lives? yes they can move on but they do not forget.

after reading about how a woman is hit by her jw husband and then some sister says what SHE should do to prevent it in the future is no different.

a man who hits a woman is not a man.. never should they be forgiven because the abuse accelerates, just as a child who is placed over and over again with a molester. so many here can come to the conclusion that men in this org are free to do whatever they want and get a way with it.

as for you teary from reading your posts and others saying you are another person who posted on other forums, your words mean nothing in putting me down. if it makes you feel like a big man in putting a woman down so be it..

you and jw men would never last under my roof. the first time a man hits a woman he is out!

there is a retired detective called Ann Rule. she writes books there are books that she followed a woman who met a man who swept her off her feet. little by little many did not notice, how he began to keep her from her family, hit her then what happened at the end. it is different than a jw man who thinks he has the right to hit a woman or molest or rape a child and think he will get away with it..

i praise her and her mother for going public and suing. and this is the problem your big shot men in Ny were not able to hide this and more will go forward. have a good day to yet another person who hides under several other names.

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
Jesus Declared the Father's Name 6 min Samson 19
What does this mean? 22 min red blood relative 663
Why don’t JW's accept blood transfusions? 34 min red blood relative 50
Hebrews 1:13-14 40 min Samson 182
Who are the JWs really following? 43 min red blood relative 115
Are Jehovah's witnesses allowed to serve Jury d... (Jun '11) 47 min red blood relative 103
Hey JW Subliminal Artist!! YOU are done! 3 hr BUDGIE 85
Eternal Life 5 hr Alank 35
God's Name WAS in the Original NT!!! (Sep '16) 17 hr red blood relative 2,150
More from around the web