I never went into this post assuming anyone was lying or not a straight shooter. But there is a massive difference between telling someone what their opinion should be and asking someone to investigate the hard evidence and come to their own opinion.
The former is controlling behaviour and the latter is not. Being given the option to form an opinion based on solid research is not evidence of an "ulterior motive." Again that line of thinking is promoted by Watchtower apologists to prevent an open minded consideration of the facts.
I'm not telling anyone what to think about Steven's case, I am simply showing those who want to know, how to investigate the legal evidence.
The reason why I posted here, is because I have done thorough research on this forum archive and I've researched all of Steven Unthank's documents on saysorry.org and jwleaks pertaining to his court claims - all of them. My research has shown me that not one of Steven's published documents contain any evidence supporting his claims around the two VCAT hearings and the Watchtower court case.
When it comes to make massive claims around legal proceedings sincere research would start with the registrar of the courts seeking the court judgments - not a blog, forum or someone's opinion. The point is the publicly available court files (judgements) have never been published anywhere. These public records are available with every single court case in Australia, but in Steven's case they have never been shared by Steven. Why not? Those who have zero knowledge of how the legal system in Australia works simply don't realise that this is highly unusual, as these are not confidential documents and would enable anyone to be able to verify his claims.
There is a conspiracy theory being promoted that Steven's records have been sealed by the court or that they cannot be published for legal reasons. This is nonsense, because the court judgements are publicly available records.
Again all I am offering to people is the quickest way to investigate the hard evidence about Steven's court case claims so that they can base their opinion on the legal facts rather than hearsay.