Posts by OrphanCrow

102

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

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

OrphanCrow

Fisherman: 1.Colorful commentary has no legal merit.

So what?

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

So what?

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 wanted- money..

So what?

I am really sick of hearing how victims are supposedly money greedy people. That is an accusatory position that does not take into account that the victims deserve that money. Of course they want money. Money is how our society functions - the victims require money for redemption and restitution.

Yes. The victims want money. What the f*** else would they be going to court for???

There is nothing wrong with a victim asking for financial restitution. Their lives have been destroyed and a bag of jelly beans doesn't do anything for them.

14

BREAKING NEWS!!! WBATS/JW's just SETTLE a lawsuit that alleged child sex abuse cover ups!!! Link to article.

by UNCONDITIONAL LOVE in

jw
friends

settlement came five days into trial... the wbats/jw's house of "god inspired/light is getting brighter/spiritual paradise" cards are starting to cave in before our eyes... .

https://www.revealnews.org/blog/jehovahs-witnesses-settle-lawsuit-alleging-coverup-of-child-sex-abuse/.

OrphanCrow

pbrow: I am sorry people, you can try and place blame on a religion all you want but if the FUCKING PARENTS of the child who was abused do not go to the police these kids are and will continue to be fucked!!

The parents are Jehovah's Witnesses. They follow the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course the parents are negligent - they have been instructed by their religion to place the org's health above that of their own child. Of course the religion is responsible. How could it not be a factor??

As long as parents follow the WTS' directives, the kids will continue to be fucked.

.

102

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

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

OrphanCrow

After mulling over Jefferson's testimony, it has brought up a question for me.

The Watchtower was trying to make the case that it is separate from the CCJW and has no links to that entity. They have been trying for years to distance themselves from the congregations in order to avoid responsibility for law suits against them and to protect the Watchtower's money. They started that back in 2000(2001?) when they split the CCJW off from the main WTS and they have used that argument repeatedly in court.

My question is this: if the WTS makes the case that CCJW is distinct from the WT, how does that affect the religious tax exempt status of the WTS? Why should the WTS get tax exemption if they no longer have authority over the CCJW religion? Would that not mean that the WTS is not eligible for religious tax exemption?

I don't mean to de-rail this thread - this is about Stephanie's court case...but it did make me think.

102

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

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

OrphanCrow

Thank you for posting this, Darkspliver.

After reading about this testimony, it isn't difficult to negate all the justifications and excuses/explanations that this forum's apologists offered on this thread here.

It is clear that the Watchtower settled this lawsuit because they had no hope of winning it.

Stephanie Fessler won. She didn't just settle...she won. The Watchtower was backed up against the wall and they reached into their pocket to bail themselves out.

This case is a clear win for all victims of the WT. Call it a settlement if you want...it is a win!

31

I need some advice please

by JaMu in

i am a non-jw girl dating a jw man for almost 5 years now since end of high school.

most of the relationship has been long distance.

when we started dating, we wanted a serious long term relationship that would end in marriage one day.

OrphanCrow

Jamu: I am a non-JW girl dating a JW man for almost 5 years now since end of high school. Most of the relationship has been long distance.

Well...you did ask for advice...

You need to find a partner that is on the same maturity level as you are. If you see yourself as a "girl" and him as a man...that could cause problems. Not that I think you are a minor...but, I would recommend that you start thinking of yourself as a woman as opposed to a "girl". Especially since you say you are dating a man and not a boy.

Relationships have a better chance of success when both people rank the same, or close to the same, in power.

Raise your personal value up, JaMu, and start calling yourself a woman. A grown up adult. Not a girl. A woman. A woman with the same value as a man.

Women date men. Girls date boys.

90

Day 5 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Ends: Plaintiff settles in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day 5 in court - and apparently the plaintiff stephanie fessler has decided to settle..... http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/02/jehovahs_witness_sexual_abuse.html.

jehovah's witness sexual-abuse-coverup lawsuit settled.

february 13, 2017 at 2:37 pm, updated february 13, 2017 at 2:44 pm.

OrphanCrow

steve: Moreover, those legal arguments aside, it would not be unusual to expect that a religious group - any religious group - that claims exclusivity of standing with God - would lead the way in protecting children or at least show a robust willingness to learn how to do so, not fob off child safety as the concern of parents.

Exactly. The WT relies on the argument that the sanctity of the family is paramount. They have fought numerous court battles over the blood transfusion ban for minor children using this position and are now using the same umbrella to avoid responsibility for not reporting child sex abuse.

When an issue arise that concerns child sex abuse, the WT attempts to hold the parents accountable and blame them for not protecting their children. Yet, the WT will turn around and claim, in their response to the ARC, that the child sex abuse problems that they are experiencing within their group are mainly "familial" cases and because of that, the WT is not responsible for fostering child sex abuse.

The first key submission made on behalf of the Watchtower & Ors was that:
• familial child sexual abuse is not institutional sexual abuse, as has been acknowledged by the Royal Commission. Similarly it is self-evident that, when child sexual abuse occurs outside ‘institutional’ contexts as defined, the response to it does not fall within the Terms of Reference of this Royal Commission
• the Royal Commission proceeds on the basis that, when an allegation of familial sexual abuse becomes known to an elder and is subsequently scripturally investigated by congregation elders, it ceases to be familial abuse and becomes institutional abuse. This conflation of familial and institutional sexual abuse does not accord with the Terms of Reference.

Apparently, according to the WT, child sex abuse is a "family issue". They claim that the parents are supposed to protect the children yet the WT claims that the majority of the child sex abuse cases occur within JW families. How does that work? The same ones who are supposed to report the abuse are the same ones that are likely doing the abuse to begin with?

24

Last Week I Got A Call From An Elder I Haven't Seen In 20 Years...😳

by minimus in

jw
friends

while i was at work i got a phone call from an elder i haven't seen in decades!

he started asking me questions about my family, my ex, and told me that he heard i "was no longer in the truth".

i got a little defensive and he quickly picked up on it and assured me his call had nothing to do with checking up on me regarding the religion.

OrphanCrow

minimus: When I thought he was going to a place I didn't want him to go I said to him I'm not going to answer any of your questions because I've been on the other side before and I know what to expect and that's when he laughed and promised me assured me that was not his intention whatsoever-

Ha. He's lying.

I am with Blondie on this one - 20 years and he saved your number just so he can call now? For a friendly "chat"? Yeah....right. I hear there is a nice bridge for sale somewhere too

9

"Are Jehovah’s Witnesses free to make informed decisions about blood transfusions?" - Canadian article

by OrphanCrow in

this is an excellent article written by 3 faculty members in the cumming school of medicine, university of calgary - juliet guichon, ian mitchell and christopher doig.. http://healthydebate.ca/opinions/blood-transfusions-jehovahs-witnesses#comment-2866324.

it is encouraging to know that the voices that have been raised against the blood ban are being heard.

the work that so many people have done is now bearing fruit.. in 20th century canada, jehovah’s witnesses were persecuted for their proselytizing and wartime pacifism.

OrphanCrow

nojw: go to visit/search youtube channel the last watchman

Why?? The "last watchman" has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Relevance? I don't see any relevance to this thread.

12

It just seems that there isn't enough in it to pin it to them

by joe134cd in

i was just thinking this morning about the court cases wt is facing and although i do think there are enough of them is there just enough in them to pin it to wt.

i sort of get the feeling a lot of these cases are revolving around the definition of terms and also an attitude of could-a, should-a, would-a.

even with the latest example it raised more questions than solutions and i'm guessing that's why it was settled out of court.

OrphanCrow

OnTheWayOut: Their "Call Headquarters first" order is clearly designed to minimize damage when untrained elders get involved. It should be designed to protect children first.

That "call to headquarters" is simply a legal maneuver that establishes a "client-lawyer" relationship between the elders and the WT Society. That way, if the clergy-penitent defense fails, they always have that client-lawyer privilege to fall back on to claim confidentiality.

The elders aren't calling for legal advice per se - they are calling for protection from disclosure.

Add in lawyers and it's tough to win cases. I don't blame victims for settling cases and moving on with their lives.

Of course the victims should settle. A settlement is a win for the victims.

46

jehovah witness elder molest his daughter ... Lynn Gardner

by jaydee in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.

OrphanCrow

Fisherman: Her story cannot
be verified from just listening
to her accusations.
Maybe they are
true and maybe
they are not.
Your guess is
as good as mine.
Unless you show proof.
That is only one side
of the story presented here,
a sad story,
but that is all it is.
In all fairness though, an impartial
arbitrator must hear the side
of the defense also to......................................................................................................................... decide.

You are missing the entire point of this woman's video.

This video is NOT about establishing guilt of the father. It is establishing that the girl child that this abuse happened to is NOT guilty, regardless of whether you believe her "side" of the "story" or not.

This woman is using her voice - she is being present - she is real and alive and no longer content to keep an abuser's secrets for him. This video is about HER experience. It is not about the abuser's guilt (or not).

This video is about a victim taking steps to heal and your response, Fisherman, is repugnant to all victims who are struggling to find voice and meaning in a life that has been destroyed.

And no, it is not necessary "for an impartial arbitrator must hear the side of the defense also". Not in the least. The story is real to the victim and the victim's voice stands as testimony to her experience and if you think that she is making it up...then you are an insensitive jerk with no understanding of how difficult it would have been for this particular victim to speak of such horrific abuse at the hands of someone who is supposed to be her main protector.