Steven Unthank and his work. (page 2)

WHATSGOINGON

Hi Crazy guy I shall certainly do that.

Cheers.

smiddy

WGO ,if you use the search button at the top of the page and type in Steven Unthank F&DS it will take you to a wealth of info .

Barbara Anderson has a thorough analysis of the subject there,as well as Koolaid.

Listener

From what I remember this was only here say, there was never any evidence presented. The Victorian Royal Commission transcript shows no conversation to that effect.

The link to the transcript is here, scroll down to the Watchtower Bible and tract Society.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc/article/1786

It is interesting go through that transcript again and the Watchtower had such an easy time. In comparison, the Australian RC has been very thorough.

Ms. Van Worsen was the Watchtowers lawyer and she repeatedly said that the no. 1 priority was the protection of children.

This was probably the most interesting part from the Victorian RC

"Mr WAKELING — But if I may, Mr O’Brien, I am trying to understand the position of the church. In my
own questioning you have indicated to me that you would not be reporting, that you will report — particularly
as your legal counsel indicated — and now you are saying that you may or may not. We are looking at this
exact issue of child abuse within religious organisations of a systemic nature and how those organisations deal
with those matters. You have the right to waiver that exemption. You have the capacity as a church to report
these matters, and for the purpose of our inquiry we need to know how you would be dealing with those issues.
Mr T. O’BRIEN — I would like to take further legal advice on that particular question.
The CHAIR — Would Ms van Witsen answer then?
Ms VAN WITSEN — If I could. Yes, certainly. To date the government has stipulated in the Children,
Youth and Families Act 2005 section 182(1)(a) to (e) who should be mandated to report, so that is under the
mandatory reporting. As we all know ministers of religion are not currently there. If that list were expanded to
include them, my instructions are that we are to direct elders to comply immediately — fully comply. That is no
question, and the organisation would certainly comply. Those are my clear instructions.
However, in the meantime as solicitors we have been instructed to specifically direct all elders who contact the
Legal Department immediately on hearing of any allegation of child abuse — and you may refer to the covering
letter of the organisation on page 3 — they are to advise the victim and/or the victim’s family that they are
completely free to report this matter to the police or other appropriate authority. Not only that, regardless of
what decision they make, the elders will continue to fully support them. Thus it is the victim and the victim’s
family whose absolute right it is to report any allegation to the police. It is their choice; they will be fully
supported in any way.
However, there is a proviso on that. That proviso, if I may explain that, is there is obviously information that is
learnt as part of the confidential dealings of elders with penitents and what have you. No longer is there a
statutory impediment, no longer is the consent of the penitent required to disclose information, as you correctly
identified. We have now got a uniform Evidence Act which allows that to be waived. In what conditions is that
waived? My instructions are that whatever is necessary to protect a child, even if it involves the disclosure of
information which is normally confidential, it would be done — be that reporting to the police or other relevant
child protection authorities. What would ordinarily be considered confidential would be reported.

smiddy

Listener you have misunderstood the posters question .It is not referreing to the ARC transcripts.

It is asking about the court case that took place in the Latrobe Valley that Steven Unthank took against the WTB&TS where this question about the F&DS Class was raised and their answer was " it is a Theocratic Arrangement." and not related to any one particular undividual .

This took place about 5 years ago.

I hope that clears up any confusion.

Listener

Oh right, thanks, I remember that now.

ScenicViewer

There was a thread on this.

Among the things that Watchtower attorneys said was....

During the court hearing on October 11, legal counsel for the Watchtower Society, Rachel van Witsen, from Vincent Toole Solicitors (the Watchtower Society’s in-house law firm located inside Bethel, Australia) made a statement on behalf of the Watchtower Society that:-
“The faithful and discreet slave is not a legal entity.”
Vincent Toole Solicitors then went on to present arguments that the “faithful and discreet slave” do not exist as a “person” nor do they exist as an “unincorporated body” and nor do they exist as a “body” of Christians.

At the time the remarks were made that the 'faithful slave does not exist as a person, an unincorporated body, nor a body of Christians' the organization had a very fuzzy definition of who the slave was, which was the remaining ones of the 144,00 left on earth at any given time, even though the Organization had no idea who they were in total.

Since then the FS has been redefined as the 'Governing Body when they are gathered together and in session.' To now say the Slave does not exist as a definable 'body of Christians' is no longer true in any sense.

smiddy

And the average JW going from d2d has know idea of this interpretation from the Governing body /legal department, or how this affects their overall beliefs ,

Solaris11

I know this is a very late response, but I'm going to answer the question posted by WHATSGOINGON as so many others have asked Steven Unthank for evidence and have never received a direct answer or any documentation to certify he actually took Watchtower to court and won as he claims in this JW Community Podcast.

Steven Unthank has uploaded a Charge Sheet - Summons as evidence and many have wrongly assumed this is evidence. But it is not evidence, it is nothing more than an application filed at the court. Which was dismissed.

Again, it's important to understand there is zero evidence published in the public domain that Steven Unthank took Watchtower to court and won. That is a fact! Which is why so many have been asking for evidence.

NOTE: in Australia and without exception, there is ALWAYS a Court Judgement on file to prove whether or not a court case occurred, and anyone who tells you otherwise is simply wrong. The Court Judgment is a public record that anyone can obtain and I explain how to do that below.

For the critical thinkers who want the truth about this...

If anyone wants to cut thru the crap and obtain real evidence, and get closure as to whether or not Steven Unthank actually took Watchtower to court as he claims, then there is a very easy way to find out for yourself.

Simply email the Victorian Magistrate's Court (Latrobe) in Australia and ask for the Court Judgement. Send your email to -- [email protected]

Note: you do not need to quote a case number, you only need to write this:

Hello - I would like to request a record search for any Court Judgement involving the name "Steven Unthank".

The court will reply within about 2-3 days to advise that there is a 'court extract' available and it will cost you a small fee to obtain it. This extract will confirm once and for all whether there actually was a court case or if it was dismissed. The Court Judgement is a public document which you can share with anyone else and/or post online :-)

smiddy3

Hopefully I can clarify some of the misconceptions about this case and Steven Unthank.

Did Steven take on the WTB&TS about the F&DS Class in a court case ? Yes he did .

I attended that court session a number of years ago now.

Where was it held ? If i remember correctly it was held in the Morwell magistrates Court in the Latrobe Valley,Gippsland Victoria ,Australia .

And yes it was stated by the JW/WT lawyers for WT that the F&DS class is only a theocratic arrangement and cannot be identified with any one particular individual ,as that changes over time.

For those non Aussies that are interested.

Whether Steve won the case or not you decide : In the end the case was"dismissed because it was not in the public interest" .If my memory serves me correct.

You decide what that even means.

I have met steven Unthank on a couple of occasions and found him to be an honest and truthful person who has

been at the forefront of exposing the JW/WT organization.And has been an advocate for abused children in the JW religion

Steven Unthank / JW.leaks. if you want to contact him .

I hope I haven`t crossed any lines Steven.

smiddy

shepherdless

I didn’t listen to the whole podcast, but I think he says the relevant statements were made at a hearing of the Victorian Human Rights Commission, not the Latrobe Magistrates Court.

I believe such cases are heard in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. A quick check, and I notice that there is a case called:

Unthank v Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia ((Human Rights) [2013] VCAT 1810 (23 October 2013)

My guess is that is the one.

Also, I doubt you will get any judgement from the Vic Magistrates Court naming Unthank as a party, as the summons was a criminal complaint, which would be listed as “R v Governing Body of Jehovahs Witnesses”, or something like that. He was only an “informant” not a party in that.

Steven Unthank and his work.

Share this