Mr Jackson declines to appear in RC

by StarTrekAngel 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  StarTrekAngel

  http://www.jw-archive.org/post/125844213823/geoffrey-jackson-declines-to-appear-before#at_pco=cfd-1.0&at_ab=per-15&at_pos=0&at_tot=14&at_si=55c27690475c6bb3
• 

  defender of truth

  Thank you for posting this..

  A Governing Body member is in contempt ofcourt?

  So much for obeying the superior authorities..

  "What is a subpoena?

  A subpoena means an order requiring a person (called the addressee) to attend at court to give evidence, or to produce a document or thing to the Court, or do both things.
  

  Disobeying a subpoena -

  If the court wants a particular person to attend court to give evidence, but knows that the person does not want to do so, it can subpoena that person.

  A subpoena is an order to attend court and give evidence, and it must be obeyed. If the person fails to attend court as ordered, even though the court has met any necessary expenses, the person will be in contempt of court.

  Penalties

  Anyone committing contempt may be fined or jailed for a fixed period of time. In some cases, that person may be jailed for as long as the judge wishes, generally until they have "purged their contempt". This usually means, in practice, until they have complied with the court order or apologised sincerely to the court and have agreed in future to abide by the court's orders. "

  www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_03.html

  "Rules 24.17 and 24.18 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 explain how the addressee shall comply with a subpoena.

  Failure to comply with a subpoena without lawful excuse is a contempt of court and the addressee may be dealt with accordingly. The Court may order the issuing party to pay the amount of any reasonable loss or expense of a person complying with a subpoena. The Court will usually fix the amount to be paid, which is in addition to any conduct money."

  www.fedcourt.gov.au/case-management-services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/subpoena-and-exhibits
  
• 

  Petraglyph

  Be aware that the content at that link was posted at 07:06am on 04 August 2015, with no indication of the time zone used.
• 

  sparrowdown

  A couple of questions come to my mind.

  Why are they so loath to put any GB members on the stand?

  And what is in those documents (tendered in the hearing yesterday by Stewart) that WT lawyers don't want made public?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Let's be patient and see what happens.

  There are some very interesting points to be gained from all of this, namely:

  1) Why should I obey the Governing Body? "They claim to be chosen by God for a specific role.", that would be the standard answer. Fine, you win. God chose them, so I must yield.

  2) Why must the GB comply with the Superior Authorities? "The Superior Authorities were chosen by God for a specific role.", would be the answer.

  Why not obey the "Superior Authorities" when no law of God is concerned? Why not let wisdom be proven righteous by its works? Why can't the GB "wait on Jehovah"??? Where is their faith??

  It's ironic that I must yield and obey, or be judged, yet the GB can ignore the Superior Authorities. Weren't they set up by God to ensure justice? Do the GB doubt the word of God?

  DD
• 

  TimDrake1914

  Can someone confirm what source that posting is using? I've not seen anything anywhere else saying that he has already declined to appear. What is the source of the information, given that there is nothing on the RC site about it?
• 

  sparrowdown

  Regardless of this post. One thing has become clear over the course of the ARC. The WT do not want Jackson to appear. Terry Obrien has been called out trying to mislead the Commission over it. My question is why?
• 

  Ozman

  The WT Lawyer seemed to be scrambling to prevent certain documents being released. However the RC deemed they were worthy of publication. He has given WT a few days to put together a reason why they shouldn't be made available.

  'For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, nor anything carefully concealed that will never become known and not come out in the open'.
• 

  sherrie11

  I think a Royal Commission is different from ordinary summons to appear at court.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 3

  1) A person served, as prescribed, with a summons to appear as a witness at a hearing before a Commission shall not:

  (a) fail to attend as required by the summons; or

  (b) fail to attend from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by a member of the Commission.

  Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months.

  (1A) Subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability.

  Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

  (1B) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.

  (2) A person appearing as a witness at a hearing before a Commission shall not fail to produce a document or other thing that the person was required to produce by a summons under this Act served on him or her as prescribed or that the person was required to produce by the member of the Commission presiding at the hearing.

  Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months.
• 

  sparrowdown

  If these documents are financial in nature keeping them secret may have to do with avoidance of contributing into a redress scheme the Commission is hoping to set up for victims.