Mp, that's a good idea. Also, print a Watchtower special edition and distribute it worldwide.
Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"
by cedars 147 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
kepler
Band on the Run,
Good to hear from you again! A belated welcome back.
As you are aware from some "sidebars", share your interest in this topic. And thanks for picking it up again here as well.
I would also like to add that this "oath of allegiance" issue crops up elsewhere. When some elders used to come to my house instructing me from the pamphlet "What the Bible Really Teaches" and I would page through it and earlier assertions that the Anglo-American alliance was the two headed beast of Revelation, I began to wonder why this career civil servant was telling me this?
Even for a temporary post like census taker, swearing in with an oath to protect and defend the US constitution is required. I presume the gentleman who was lecturing me (and ignoring all the textual elephants in the room ) had sworn his oath earlier in life, but had just had about completed his career. I wonder how common this is?
-
Band on the Run
Believe it or not, there is a field of law called remedies. I would a judge ordering the WT to apologize, change their policy, and publicize the new policy. It is much more difficult to enforce such a remedy as opposed to collecting monetary damages.
Tailoring such a remedy that would help reverse the impact of the two witness rule and lack of notification would be a much better win than only damages. In this case, I feel Conti and Simons should receive a very large payment. She risked receiving nothing and turned down a settlement. He developed a case, where the liability is not clear. (Not in my view. The appellate courts will decide). Cash alone is sort of crash but it does punish.
I doubt any court could stop the two witness rule b/c it is a religous doctrine.
I am very glad that someone else responded to inaccuracies and realized that everyone meant well. It takes a big person to resolve a dsipute and ot get into personal attacks.
-
wannabefree
Cedars ... I very much appreciate the work you have been doing.
I must say, after reviewing your bantering back and forth with "Rob" on this article at your website, I really can't see where he disagrees with you ... his mentioning the two witness rule is not siding with the Society, to me he is stating that the Society is wrong not to report the accusation to the authorities, who then upon investigating may very well be able to provide a second witness for judicial action in a religious setting.
Thanks again and keep up the great work!
-
AnnOMaly
BroMac had asked:
does the bond allow them to sell properties again?
The Defendants/Appellants are applying for that to happen. It just needs Mr. Simons and and the judge's signatures.
09/26/12 Stipulation and Order Re: Other Ex Parte Filed: </form>
-
Band on the Run
When I was active, civil servants had to quit their jobs. As did a physical therapy aide who just happened to work for a Catholic hospital, that served all regardless of religion. He was not involved in any religious aspect of the hospital.
How do you work for the Satanic government and not be tainted?
-
jgnat
Daniel was a civil servant.
I had Jehovah Witnesses working for me. Some took full advantage of the disability benefits available.
-
Scott77
Mr. Cedars,
I think, your headline, 'Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"' was partially correct in that the Watchtower 'won' some part of appeal [reduction of monetary award] but not all [dismissal of the entire case on technicalities]. Mr. 144001 could have acknowledged this instead of whole sale dismissal of the headline as misleading.
As to the question from BOTR,'How do you work for the Satanic government and not be tainted?' I thought that was interesting. I think, the Watchtower is the master of manipulation, mother of contradiction and irony. A world without human government is a world of chaos.
Scott77
-
cedars
Scott77
I think, your headline, 'Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"' was partially correct in that the Watchtower won some part of appeal [reduction of monetary award] but not all [dismissal of the entire case on technicalities].
Well, the problem is that a motion for JNOV technically isn't an appeal even though many of us think of it in that way, so I would rather the header be 100% correct (by describing it as JNOV) than risk misleading people into thinking the appeal's over when it has only just begun. Accuracy is the main thing.
I appreciate the sentiment though!
Cedars
-
Scott77
Well, the problem is that a motion for JNOV technically isn't an appeal even though many of us think of it in that way... cedars With the exception of Mr. 144001 and few ones, I highly doubt everyone on this site understand what JNOV means or stand for. Your presentation was in the ordinary, layman language. Think of a conclusion of a court case from a lower court. Any movement to higher next court would be considered a kind of appeal. Really does it says JNOV.
Scott77