The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!

by WingCommander 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  WingCommander

  WatchTower are scumbags for doing this, just like Scientology. Think this won't get out and around in JW circles? That WT is suiting a Whistleblower who's done nothing but expose their CSA problem?

  I hope Mark or others can get some real large media attention drawn to this. Like Spotlight did up in Boston when dealing with the Catholic Church. It could really help Mark, and totally backfire on the Org.

  Instead of bunkering down, Mark needs to ramp up and start hitting up every media contact he has at Atlantic, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Guardian, NY Times, NY Post, Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, you name it. Really put the spotlight on how low WatchTower is.

  This shit is so unreal to me. Hell, I went weak in the knees when I first heard Martin Haugh's account of how WT HQ directed them to toss out not just old light literature, but also how they directed his Elder's to buy a large shredder and start destroying evidence dealing with cases that JC's had handled thru the years. (Sarah Brooks case, etc, etc in those PA congregations) This is some wicked, evil, shit! As if you needed even MORE evidence of this being a man-made CULT with ZERO Holy Spirit involved, I give you - All of THIS shit! SMFH. How do these clowns sleep at night? Oh that's right, I forgot. Behind an entire slimy legal dept on a lakeshore compound bought and paid for by the donations of others.
  
• 

  Nathan Natas

  I had no idea WHO Mark O'Donnell is, so I asked my robot friend, Gemini, "Who is the Mark O'Donnell being sued by The Watchtower?"

  Gemini replied, "Based on the search results, the Burholme Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, along with other congregations, has filed a lawsuit against a Mark O'Donnell in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. The case number is 2:24-cv-00304, and it was filed on January 22, 2024. The nature of the suit is listed as "Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions," with a cause of action related to 18:2511 Wiretapping."

  I thought I'd share this if anyone else was also clueless like me.

  If anyone wishes to add additional information or further clarification (in case Gemini was WRONG, which happens, those comments will be welcomed, of course.
• 

  HiddlesWife

  This cultcorporation wants to continue keeping a so-called "SQUEAKY-CLEAN" APPEARANCE to the world at large. They could also be angry at the fact that the letter campaign spearheaded via ExJDubs to various governments regarding this organization's stance on CSAs [+ also subsequent ones to follow, which will spotlight domestic violence, the blood ban, etc.]. They are trying to make Mark an example, to show ANYONE (former members and non-members) what could result from doing any investigations into this belief system's policies and practices---which are DEFINITELY UNCHRISTIAN + ILLEGAL‼😡
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  The moral of this story is to be careful when taking action against the WT. If you're not sure about the legality and potential consequences of your action, $500 spent for some legal advice is far less than what Mark appears to be spending. This is especially true if you are publicly opposing the WT, including maintaining a website, etc..
• 

  Corney

  Wrote about this case before: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4844148310409216/mark-odonnell-sued-pennsylvanian-congregations-over-eavesdropping-virtual-meeting-between-lawyers-elders

  As a matter of general principle, the First Amendment doesn't entitle journalists to wiretap private communications, especially privileged ones involving attorneys. And when an employee shares their access badge with some person and that person uses it to enter a non-public area without proper authorization, it's obviously a trespass, even if they happens to be an activist or whistleblower.

  Also, honestly, the information Mark allegedly discovered on that conference call seems to be of little actual public importance - and I don't see him making any claim to the otherwise either in the case papers or in his public statement. It could be a different case if the attorneys instructed elders to, say, shred some documents or bribe officials, but AFAIK they didn't.

  Still, it's unclear whether Mark actually violated the law. On the one hand, it doesn't matter whether it was possible for the conference host to identify the stranger and prevent him from participating (and given there were 57 attendees, it was hardly manageable). The really relevant issues in the case are, like, whether Mark had an actual or implied invitation or believed, in good faith, in having such an invitation. Also, if this was a telephone conference call, it would apparently be legal, as far as no device other than a conventional telephone was used and no recording was made, to overhear the conversation. So, it seems to be an open question whether that telephone exception applies to MS Teams and similar conference apps.

  There are also other factual and legal issues to be decided, and they mostly have nothing to do with the things discussed on the Internet here and there. For example, the plaintiffs aren't suing for "loss of income", it's blatantly false.