At this point it's kind of beating a dead horse. After so many pages of discussion, they certainly must be aware of this concern and either they will or won't verify the legality of their paperwork.
- Lime
Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?
by wha happened? 159 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Chaserious
Posted on behalf of fizzywiglet, at her request, in response to Chaserious:
I didn't say anything about the IRS list.
However, in response to the quotation of this:
"Any person who executed or contributed 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."
The requirement to list names and addresses of directors is not part of subsection D, paragraph 1. That part deals with the criminal record of the officers and directors. Just saying.
-
Dismissing servant
"All speculation, assumption and conjecture."
Oh, yes! John Cedars exists, and the AWAA is his chosen channel of communication.
-
Chariklo
It would be very surprising if it were legal in any jurisdiction to register a legal document or organisation with pseudonyms as substitutes for real names, unless it should be publicly stated that the given names are aliases and a separate document registered with the relevant authorities stating the appropriate true name and address.
-
*lost*
At last - I now have posts. Been waiting ages.
tylinbrando - not being funny, but, have you ever heard of sayings like 'don't pick at scabs.... don't poke the bear ... let sleeping dogs lie.''?
The reason I say ask this is, I am quite sure that you may not be aware of the hornets nest you keep poking at with a big stick - get me?
Are you jw?born in ? convert? ex, fader, df, da ?. Just curious, to get the picture.
Now, I also want to make it very clear to you, I am not being negative, or offensive, or defensive. I am not an angry person, I am not a bitter person, I am not an aggressive person 9 we all can be when we need to be though, human nature, survival is the name of the game. Fortunately we learn the much needed social skills and awareness to combat and deal with negative emotions constructively.
I am not an ex-jw. I was/is jw - but highly confused, hurt and betrayed by WT ( most have worse stories to tell, I thank God I got off relatively lightly, in a way, but I was, nonetheless a captive) - something a lot of us have in common. It is our common bond. Our congregation. Our brotherhood.
WHY? BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE, WE ALL CARE, WE ALL UNDERSTAND, WE ALL WANT TO HELP OTHERS. WE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO ASSIST OUR FELLOW CAPTIVES GAIN FREEDOM.
We are lucky, we have been rescued, we owe it as a moral duty to do all that we can to help those we can, probably most don't even deserve help or mercy, judging by the horror stories. However we are not to judge, it is not our place. if there is a God, He will do so. After all, isn't that what it's all about.
To have someone, anyone, to SLAP us down and treat us with derision, or like we are stupid and ignorant - IS HIGHLY INSULTING.
To have anyone suggest we do not care as much as anyone else does - IS HIGHLY INSULTING.
To have anyone imply that we are taking joy from the distresses our fellows are suffering due to this debacle with AAWA - IS HIGHLY INSULTING.
yes you always get some that will always be what they are no matter what. Human nature. I would previously said, those types have no business being Christian jw's anyway, but I know now that 'Christian' means diddly squat in WT world.
Have you been on here for the last - oooh, 3-4 weeks i think - watching everything, and READING EVERYTHING that people have said ?
Or have you just stopped by now all of a sudden to defend Cedars and AAWA ? as it does seem that way. That is the perspective, going by your comments.
I don't know diddly much about Cedars or any other of the AAWA board members. But from the little bit of information I have come to know, I would say it is obvious to everyone that they are a group of very good, dedicated people, going above and beyond to help others. they are not on a witch hunt. they are not bitter angry people. Highly frustrated I would imagine. People you would feel safe with, people whom you would trust. TRUST IS EVERYTHING. Nothing else matters.
I have followed all this from the beginning with great interest, delighted that an organisation was being formed. From what I could see, on the whole, everyone else was also delighted, albeit, most were not fans of the name, due to it containing the words Anti- and Activist. BUT - the issue was conceded, put to bed, and left alone pretty much. The organisation was praised, the people were praised and everyone was willing to do their utmost to support it.
BUT - the proverbial hit the fan big time. and now we are where we are. If you read and followed every single post/thread from the beginning you would know this information.
I TAKE ISSUE WITH ANYONE that is going to implicate innocent people and blame them for this debacle, WE DID NOT CAUSE IT. It was nothing to do with us. Some people here have had to pick up the pieces. Some people have been insulted, and let down, badly. WE have had to watch a train wreck in progress, with our fellows on board, and we were powerless to do anything. Some tried to help. The evidence speaks for itself.
However, reading the statement on AAWA - it looks like we have been fed to the wolves !!! Blaming us ? WTF - it was nothing to do with any of us. If you put yourself up as leader and master, you take on the responsibility that goes with the job. And you deal with it. If your head ends up on the block due to maistakes you make, you PAY THE PRICE.
Nobody wants a lynch mob after anyone. We are all in this together. Nobody wants ill will for Cedars and his team. Good God, look at how much these people have done for others. They have helped and saved so many people and will hopefully continue to do so.
but.
INTEGRITY is EVERYTHING. REPUTATION is EVERYTHING. TRUST is EVERYTHING.
sorry it's so long peeps.
lost
-
Tylinbrando
Thanks lost. Use the members button above and search my posts. You can find out everything you need to know about me here on the forum.
-
fizzywiglet
Actually, Chaserious, you said further up that they are a nonprofit, and postulated that their attorney might be aware of some law regarding nonprofits that allows the use of aliases. However, they are not a nonprofit at this time. Even if you search their official website, the word “nonprofit” does not come up, not once. They call themselves a “legally incorporated organization”. They did represent themselves to me, when I was approached to participate in the YouTube video, as a nonprofit, and if I recall correctly, didn’t someone from AAWA hold them out as a nonprofit somewhere on a JWN thread? So, if they are soliciting donations and support under the guise of a nonprofit, that’s a whole other can of worms.
In any event, you don’t get it. D1 gives a whole list of information you have to provide for each previously listed corporate officer (A2 requires full names and addresses of each officer). Then it says if you withhold any material fact regarding D1, that is a felony.
WITHHOLDING THE INFORMATION THAT “JOHN CEDARS” IS A FAKE NAME IS WITHHOLDING A MATERIAL FACT. You can’t truthfully declare in good faith, “Nope, none of those officers listed above have a criminal record; they’re all clean and above board” when one of the officers listed isn’t even a real person. Saying “Our President, John Cedars has no criminal record” is a lie/omission/misrepresentation because John Cedars doesn’t exist.
Add to that, Richard Kelly signed the document and had it notarized. Guess what, it's also a felony to knowingly put false information on a legal document and then have it notarized. Usually, the person receiving the notary service has to "swear an oath," whether vocally or by his signature, attesting that the information is true and correct. Lying about this can result in persecution for perjury. Hm, what are the odds?
-
slimboyfat
If the seven remaining board members of AAWA land up in jail over this, what's the betting it will be spun as "Babylonish activity" due to Satanic persecution?
-
Chaserious
fizzywidget said:
"However, they are not a nonprofit at this time."
In the very articles of incoporation document that was previously linked to, it says in the first paragraph "The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists (AAWA) . . . has on this day voluntarily decided to form a not for profit corporation"
At least be accurate if you are going to tell me that I "don't get it."
Also, I think you are wrong about the material fact violation related to the criminal record certification. In any event, I am certain that you have not done any legal research to see whether you are correct or not.
-
fizzywiglet
In the very articles of incoporation document that was previously linked to, it says in the first paragraph "The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists (AAWA) . . . has on this day voluntarily decided to form a not for profit corporation"
At least be accurate if you are going to tell me that I "don't get it."
They have decided they want to form one, but they haven't been approved as one. We don't even know if they've filed for 501(c)3 status...when I search the IRS database, which also allows you to search for the names of corporations who have filed, or who have filed and been rejected, they aren't listed as even having filed yet. Until they are approved, they are not a nonprofit.
So I'm just saying, that's a whole extra can of worms to add on top of this entire clusterf**k, if they've been telling people that they're a nonprofit already (which J**** B***** D****** told me when she approached me on AAWA's behalf. And which I believe they either stated or implied here on JWN at some point...have to search to make sure, though).
But either way, while the nonprofit stuff is interesting to note as a side tangent, it's irrelevant to the main point at this juncture, as you yourself pointed out that the requirements for nonprofits in this regard are the same as the requirements for corporations. It's required in A2 to list full names/addresses for all officers. Links have been posted to both sections of Arizona law in total, for both nonprofits and corporations. No provision is made for aliases/pseudonyms to be substituted. Then it's required in D1 to declare in good faith a bunch of information about all of the people listed in A2.
They lied. It's not "conjecture or speculation" (methinks Tylin Brandon doesn't understand the meaning of those words). They lied. Get over it. Maybe they didn't think it was a big deal, or weren't acting maliciously because they genuinely never thought it would be brought up or come into play, maybe they just didn't think it through beforehand...but the fact remains, they lied. They have been called out and now have an opportunity to fix it.
In any event, I am certain that you have not done any legal research to see whether you are correct or not.
"Certain", are you? NOW who's full of conjecture and speculation? How, pray tell, might you be "certain" of that? (As it happens, you would be dead wrong.)