Jehovah's Witnesses asking woman to pay legal costs in sexual abuse lawsuit

by ignored_one 124 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  sf

  {{{ compassionate hug for you both }}}

  Scott,

  'God' has nothing to 'do' with this, yet that is another topic altogether.

  I meant it when I state in this thread that I will consider Uzzah's post before acting in your wifes case and that I will hold off, for now.

  Yet, many more WILL benefit in the future due to what I see as a 'positive move' when I activate the 'chain off events' I have set up. With all due respect, this isn't about just Vicki. Not anymore.

  Therefore, this judge better move faster than I 'do'!

  sKally
• 

  sunshineToo

  If the Canadian laws are like that of the U.S., the judge is not supposed to disclose anything about the case in public including at a restaurant. If someone tries to influence at a public place, the judge might raise the red flag against it before even he/she reads it.

  It is so complicated. It seemed like Vicki's lawyer was not very familiar with the WT policies. Even if the Flock Book was outdated, it shouldn't be dismissed at the trial IF THAT WAS THE ONE THE ELDERS WERE USING AGAINST Vicki. I don't understand why it was dismissed.

  {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Vicki and the family}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
• 

  BluesBrother

  I just want to add my comments. As a lay man I have no knowlege of detailed Canadian Law, but I know that by any kind of moral law , the loser of a case pays the cost. What right do they have in making a claim??

  I am proud to associate with such people as Vicky, Hawkaw, and Scully, and my feelings for the WTS now include contempt, to add to disolutionment and disbelief that I spent so long within it

  Lets see what the courts decision is before panicing
• 

  impartial

  RE:COSTS...... IF I SEE NEUTRALLY, THE JUDGEMENT DECLARED THAT THREE ELDERS OF THE DEFFENDANT ARE NOT LIABLE AT ALL. THREE OF THEM SEEMS TO HAVE SPENT COSTS FOR THEIR DEFFENDANT-LAWYER. ALSO 4 OUT OF FIVE...(LET ME TRY BEFORE I LOOSE THIS DRAFT..
• 

  impartial

  (Continued...) --- ALSO 4 OUT OF 5 CLAIMS WERE DISMISSED. THEREFORE THEY MIGHT ASK 80% OF THEIR LAWYERS FEE OR SO..... THIS POINT TELLS US THAT WE HAVE VERY STRONG REASON TO "APPEAL"!!!!!! EVEN THE ONE CLAIM WTBS FOUND LIABLE, IT CAN BE SAID "IT WAS ONLY MISCOMMUNICATION OVER THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IN 1989."
• 

  impartial

  THREFORE, WOULD NOT WE STRONGLY SUPORT THE "APPEAL"?
• 

  waiting

  Impartial..............you are the most viligent poster I've read in a while. Poor man/woman - all those post tries!

  Thanks for the info - hope others read it too.

  waiting
• 

  impartial

  I could not find the number of the plaintiff's lawyer though I have not decided to call him. I think Vicki and her husband can write a letter asking detals about her options and the lawyer's draft of the new brief/written submission to the court. Because it will be considered by the judge in deciding the costs.I hope my arguments( in these posts and mails to her) are also notified to the lawyer. And I eager to know his response. ( Please edit them not to be overlooked)( Again, If anypoint need further explanation from me, ask me ASAP. I can review the letter or/and the lawyers reply etc.. I hope I am not bothering Vicki's family so mush.... Impartial
• 

  impartial

  To : waiting.

  I could not get your point clearly...

  My dictionaries do not have "viligent".

  Can I ask you some explanation?

  impartial.
• 

  waiting

  well, impartial, if I could spell.....perhaps your dictionary could find my word, eh?

  I think I was trying for either valiant or vigilent.....and since I lost Webster's dictionary on my computer.....well, damned if I know.

  Either way........your earnest - and prolonged - efforts to post your posts is appreciated. See? I had to revert back to my jw words!

  waiting