I wouldn't rely upon third party opinions, since you are ignorant of what exactly was said to them, and by them. That's why hearsay is considered unreliable. It is unworthy of serious consideration by anyone with a brain.
When that hearsay is used to accuse others of having committed a criminal act, it is even more deserving of higher scrutiny. It is troubling to me that some here want to accuse their brothers, who are fighting the fight against the Watchtower, of committing a criminal act while waging that fight, based on flimsy facts such as those found on this thread.
Awwwww, how adorable. You think you know what “hearsay” means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
Turns out, it is quite easy to verify what I’ve said:
1) The articles of incorporation were filed with the Arizona Corporations Commission, are a matter of public record, and are located here. They are notarized and are signed by Richard Kelly. The documents that Richard Kelly swore to list "John Cedars" as the President of AAWA, and his address as the same AZ address as Richard Kelly. By Cedars' own admission in the past, over and over, this is not factual information. Do you dispute this?
2) I spoke to “Rachel” at the Arizona Corporations Commission filing department. Her contact info is: [email protected]. The department’s phone number is: Office # 602-542-3026; AZ toll free 800-345-5819.
3) The question I posed was exactly this: “Is it legal in Arizona for a corporate officer to use a pseudonym on the ‘Articles of Incorporation’?”
4) Her response (via email) was exactly this: “it is a felony to misrepresent information on documents submitted to us. If you go to the first link below, click on the statute link on the left, click on the corporate statues and do a search under misrepresentation, you will find some matches. This includes ARS 10-202 (i) and I copied that part below.
I. Any person who executes or contributes information for a certificate of disclosure and who intentionally makes any untrue statement of material fact or withholds any material fact with regard to the information required in subsection D, paragraph 1 of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony.”
5) Rachel also emailed me a complaint form and told me that if I had any information about such an occurrence, I should fill out the complaint form and mail it to the following address:
Corporation Division
Attn: Patricia Barfield, Director
1300 W. Washington, 1 st Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85007
6) You are more than welcome to call up or email the ACC, ask to speak to Rachel (or anybody else in the department) and verify. It took about 5-10 minutes of my time.
7) It ain’t hearsay if it’s provable, doll.
To me, these unproven allegations can only be made by someone who loves the Watchtower more than they love the folks on this forum.
ROFLMAO. Ah, the old chestnut: “You’re either with us or against us!” Hysterical appeal to emotion rather than facts. As a matter of fact, I do not love the Watchtower at all. I have refrained from filing a complaint with the ACC, thus far. But AAWA screwed up. This is their chance to make it right, before one of the people they outed or put at risk DOES file a complaint…and they would be perfectly within their rights to do so, if they wished to find out the real names and locations of all corporate officers so that they could attempt to hold them accountable in a court of law.
And as Lime pointed out on an earlier thread, it doesn’t even have to be anybody here that files a complaint. The Watchtower, with their millions of dollars and top-notch lawyers, could have a field day with this stuff without even trying. So, this is AAWA’s chance to close that loophole before the Watchtower forces their hand, and makes it a hell of a lot more expensive and difficult.
Perhaps using an alias that you're well-known by isn't considered a misrepresentation. Perhaps their attorneys have told them that.
I don't think they need to answer to an Internet message board, quite frankly. If it means that much to you, bring the suit and see if you win. If not, STFU about it; you've made your point (hundreds of times).
The real problem is the potential outing of faders. The other cloak and dagger baloney is simply that.
John Cedars isn't "well known". And the reason you are not allowed to use an alias is that, as a corporate officer, you are held responsible for the actions of your corporation, for paying taxes on time, for appropriating funds properly, for following rules and laws and ethics. This ties in with the outing/potential outing because...how are those who are upset over being outed to hold AAWA responsible? Cedars is making untrue public statements regarding the fiasco, he is participating in perpetuating it. If someone DOES want to "bring a suit", as you point out, and they want to include the corporate officer who has very publicly made several missteps and claims to be the "President", people need to know who that corporate officer is to hold him responsible, and that's what the official corporate paperwork is for.
ETA in response to Witness My Fury's question below (sorry, out of posts for a bit):
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/10/00202.htm&Title=10&DocType=ARS
