VERY IMPORTANT - EVERYONE PLEASE READ (page 2)

jwfacts

This is a great concept. It appears there is no more financial risk than when giving a donation. By holding a unit it the case it will make people feel very much part of the case and interested in keeping up to date with what happens. It also means funding from people who are not JWs will be easier to collect.

There needs to be an end to religious quakery in medical advice and if wealthy religious groups find that individuals can easily raise money to sue them they will be less likely to force followers adher to decrees they have no right giving. This unit concept must have the WTS terrified, regardless of whether they think they can beat Lawrence. It sets the precendence for numerous cases to afford to come forward where the WTS/elder/hospital liaison committee has given advice that blatantly caused a persons death. You can be certain that the WTS will not be issuing binding medical advice in any new area from now on, and there will be further easing of the blood doctrine in the near future.

jwfacts

Lawrence, previously that Paypal account was for donations. Can you please explain how a person indicates they are purchasing a unit instead of giving a donation.

okoakridge

From what was written it appears 20 people already donated the $100 specified as the minimum amount needed for an investment unit/share and so those 20 have already bought in. Amounts not meeting the minimum would be in the category of donations unless perhaps the trust might retroactively designate for example that two units/shares of say $40 and $60 together constituted purchase of a share.
In the example given above if you buy in with a single share of $100 you stand to receive $900.
The Watchtower Society bigwigs must now see they messed with the wrong Father of a girl who deserved to live more than do their insane policies against emergence blood usage and their sending so-called "repentant" child molesters preaching door-to-door.

I believe Randy (?) noted some months back they continue maintaining indirect association with the U.N. via Watchtower staffers who have had themselves designated as individual NGOs.

In reality they are faced with two options. One is to reform some in which case they experience a splintering into a large pro-reform faction (say 80%) and a smaller hard core anti-reform faction (say 20%). The larger reformed faction, revitalized, would keep growing. The smaller faction against reform would grow some but continue floundering and splintering.

Option number two is to not reform in which case they keep sinking as to number of members and as to risking more and more lawsuits such as from Lawrence Hughes, the recent cases going against them in the Napa area of California etc.

Everything is theoretical, but the above certainly seem possible. Interesting.

Earnest

What do you propose to do if you win the case but the award is less than 1 million dollars? What if the award minus the costs of the lawsuit amounts to less than the amount invested by shareholders? Do people still get their money back?

Earnest

okoakridge

It's an investment in which you could in one instance win $9 for each $1 invested or else lose $1 for each $1 invested.

...Also, on a tangent but interesting all the same, I found a link discussing the Watchtower Society and continuing NGO ties

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/111098/1.ashx Coming back to the investment, the case is won in the sense of generating great public awareness that would help protect molested children and abused adults, so losing $1 for a dollar invested can be weighed against that.

Simon

okoakridge and other Jah Christians.

You have tried my patience once too often.

If you continue to create accounts then I will remove and ban any mention of this lawsuit on this site.

Is that clear?

I think you should be honest with people, especially if you are expecting them to contribute money, and not hide behind multiple accounts used to promote your own agenda.

SHUNNED FATHER

Runningman asked "Are the shareholders named anywhere or are they completely anonymous? Can anyone obtain the names of the shareholders?"

Answer: " I will be the only person who will have a record of who donates. I will photocopy the cheque, envelope and any letter for my records. You would be a silent partner and I would hold your " Unit / Share" in trust. What information I have posted here is a legal agreement between myself and you. If you wish, I can follow this up with a signed letter.

Lawrence Hughes

SHUNNED FATHER

Whyizit asked " If you donated $100 or more prior to this appeal, does that mean you are automatically included? Or is it only those who donate $100 or more from this point on?

Does it matter what geographical location you are in? Any one can participate? "

Answer " Yes, anyone who has donated $100 or more prior to this appeal, is automatically included. Anyone who has for example donated $50 before this appeal and sends another $50, will then be a Unit Holder.

It does not matter where you live anywhere in the world. Anyperson in the world can participate, even Jehovah Witnesses.

Lawrence Hughes

Simon

Answer: " I will be the only person who will have a record of who donates. I will photocopy the cheque, envelope and any letter for my records. You would be a silent partner and I would hold your " Unit / Share" in trust. What information I have posted here is a legal agreement between myself and you. If you wish, I can follow this up with a signed letter.

So this isn't something that is done via the law firm?

looking_glass

I am not certain how Canada's legal system is set up, but this would NOT be allowed in the US. If anyone here is of the mind to determine if this is legal w/i the Canadian legal system, my suggestion would be to call your local bar association (whatever the Canadian equivalent is?) and inquire whether this is considered kosher.

Guys, just be careful. I am not trying to encourage or discourage anyone, just be careful.

VERY IMPORTANT - EVERYONE PLEASE READ

Share this