Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver 102 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  rebelfighter

  I also say thank you for this post.

  I hope she settled for a very large sum of money.

  As a Wordly person, who watched every minute of the ARC and just read all of this, I am appalled by their behavior. The gymnastics that the lawyers and the judges must go through to get answers from these fools is insane. First he had no clue who the people are who publishes these letters and materials and who is in charge of the organizations then under cross examination he knew all the names wait is one of them. Just plain sick!!

  The way I see it :

  JWS say apostates are mentally ill.

  Apostates say thosestill stuck in are mentally ill.

  This Worldy lady says anyone who is not awake and holds a position of Elder straight up the line is mentally ill after these performances. These have been some pretty sick performances if you ask me. If what I have seen on the witness stands at the ARC and this and other trials is what the Witnesses have to offer it is pretty sad!! I sure would not want them representing any organization that I am involved with running or associated.

  For any lurkers this is where your donations are going and I am mighty sure this is not the last one.

  For those of you wanting to file a claim against the WT and CCJW pursue it into the court almost guarantee they will make fools of themselves.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Any JW reading this must be both appalled at the lack of truth whilst giving Testimony by the JW/WT witness, and ashamed to be associated with an Organization that STILL does not protect the vulnerable ones within it. ~ Phizzy
  

  I think you're wrong there, Phizzy. I'm afraid most JWs would see all of this court action as Satan using "his visible earthly organization" to attack God's Organization in an attempt to bring harm to it. Anything the unbiased bystander would see as "lies" or deceitful statements or the evading of questions would just be proudly construed as being "wise as a serpent" by a rabid JW believer. They would brag about the WT reps using Theocratic Warfare to protect Jehovah's interests.
  
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Unfortunately, the comments made in between the transcripts reported are very bias, thus, no JW would read this and think: I am being provided with cold hard facts here.

  That being said, I personally totally agree with the comments. I just wish some news article would report this in a way that was, for the better part, less bias.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  OrphanCrow, You are right that JWs are trying to keep the money in one Organisation and the teachings in the other, trying to separate the two in order to protect their assets. However, based on this case, it looks like they didn`t have the balls to put their manipulation to the test.

  It looks like the WT thought they could get away with it, but, with little research, good lawyers are able to demonstrate how these two organisations actually act as one and legally establish responsibilities with both them.

  Any jury reviewing such a structure will quickly understand that it has been set up that way deliberately trying to avoid responsibilities.
• 

  carla

  unbelievable, I wish this would make national mainstream media!
  
• 

  rebelfighter

  Carla,

  Wouldn't it be nice if this was on video and this idiot's performance claiming he knew nobody to one lawyer and then when the next lawyer ask the same question he seems to know all the names. AND He turns out to be one of the officers. Now that part should make national media, what fools they would look like!!
• 

  Tallon

  Found this on Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses Reddit.

  It was posted by; JohnRJay. He has a valid point!

  When you put together all of Jefferson's statement about who exactly is in charge, it boggles the mind:

  
  Who is the president of the WT? I don't recall.
  Who wrote the letters sent to the BOE? Anonymous persons.
  Is the CCJW responsible for anything? I imagine they have to.
  He denied the WT writes anything, just published and distributes.
  Is the GB associated with the WT or CCJW? No.
  And the rules that are followed by the elders relating to the JC came from whom? A group of men, spiritually mature men are appointed to prepare the material under the direction of the GB.
  And are they anonymous? They are.

  
  I'm beginning to think that those really in charge are either a bunch of giant bug-like aliens preparing our society for invasion, or a computer program that malfunctioned and became self-aware.
• 

  ScenicViewer

  It appears that Watchtower has developed a new strategy in handling these cases.

  When sued...

  1. Make a low offer to pay off the victim.
  2. If the offer is rejected proceed with trial. Test the waters for a few days to see how it is going.
  3. If the trial is going in Watchtower's favor, proceed to the end. If they get a win they have bragging rights.
     
  4. If the trial is going badly, simply throw in the towel and write a big, fat check to the victim.

  This method saves the public humiliation of losing as in the Candace Conti case and the ongoing Jose Lopez (and others) vs Gonzalo Campos cases that have resulted in massive public exposure of Watchtower's pathetic child protection policies.

  It addition to the embarrassing public exposure there are the multi-million dollar judgements which are hitting Watchtower hard. Add to that the sometimes massive punitive damages, followed by appeal after appeal, and in the end Watchtower looses money, reputation, and credibility, even among many of it's own followers who inevitably become aware of the proceedings.

  With a payoff, after testing the waters of the trial, Watchtower can claim it didn't lose and the negative publicity is kept to a minimum. We can't know how large the payoffs are, but when the plaintiff has a strong case the payoffs must be hefty in order for Watchtower to close out the matter and walk away.

  I strongly believe that Watchtower cares much more about the negative exposure than the money.
  
• 

  88JM

  And are they anonymous? They are.

  THEY BROADCAST MONTHLY TO THE PUBLIC FROM THEIR OWN DAMN WEBSITE!

  HOW IS THAT ANONYMOUS?!?!
• 

  Fisherman

  1.Colorful commentary has no legal merit.

  2. No injunction was sought; Plaintiffs only wanted money money.

  3. Moot. It is the Court's ruling and findings that is law; case settled without jury's adjudication; Plaintiff's settled for what they only wanted- money..