Posts by OrphanCrow

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

OrphanCrow

Ashe was not on a witness stand in a court room. This is out of court testimony.

It's part of the discovery process pre-trail. There was not a judge present.

You are absolutely right. I got caught up with the response and fell into the comment made as to why the judge didn't stop the objections. Sorry.

Very telling that the wt attorneys objected at almost every question.

That is their job. They are supposed to object when there are things said in the question that are a point of issue.

What I got from the objections is that the concern was over the term 'policy' as opposed to 'beliefs and practices'. And, the other concern was when the term 'organization' was used - especially if 'Watchtower Society' was referred to instead of Jehovah's Witnesses. There seemed to be a matter of which 'part' of that organization was being referred to in the question. These are critical legal points when it comes to determining lines of authority.

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

OrphanCrow

It is not exactly what was said. It is what the recorder heard. Let's get real. Zalkin never referred to a "body builders" letter. He referred to "body of elders" letter but the recorder misheard and repeatedly entered "body builders letter.

There are obvious errors. This is just one example.

That is correct. That is what the recorder heard. And what the recorder wrote down.

Yes, it is the wrong word. We know that. But it was how the word was pronounced in the courtroom that led to that error.

This is a typical court document.

I don't understand the problem people are having reading it. This is what court transcripts look like and read like.

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

OrphanCrow

I may be asking the unreasonable, but context should be important for a stenographer too.

Sorry...but context has absolutely zero to do with court transcribing.

Giving the stenographer the leeway to add 'context' would sabotage the intent of the transcription.

A transcript is meant to free of bias. Giving the stenographer that leeway would add bias to what was said.

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

OrphanCrow

She/he wrote "one and five" instead of "one in five" as the context suggests. In other places he/she may have commited the same error.

I noticed that too. However, I recognized it as a speaker error and not a transcription error. If the court transcriber wrote down 'and', it is because 'and' was the word used by the speaker.

In some transcripts that I have read, the court transcriber will put in brackets the word 'phonetic'...meaning that the word is written as spoken. So a court transcript disregards even correct pronunciation - they use the word as it is said.

As I said before, a person makes many errors in spoken speech that are rarely picked up on if we are just listening - our brain makes the corrections for us when we are the listener, but when the spoken word is written down, the speech errors become evident.

I noticed that the whole thing is in video too. Is the stenographer allowed to see that video to correct obvious transcription errors before printing and distributing the final product?

I believe that with video taped proceedings, the video is used to supplement the transcript in order to increase accuracy. An accurate, word for word account is the objective of court transcripts.

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

OrphanCrow

You are most welcome, neverajw. Thank you for your kind words...I am sure you are not the only one 'keeping n eye on me'. Lol!

As far as the court transcripts go - the reason that I like them so much is that a person gets word for word testimony and word for word what the court says. It isn't somebody else's opinion on what was said - it is exactly what was said - including all the little errors we make in ordinary speech. The way that a person giving testimony puts together their statements can be revealing all by itself. It becomes more than the words themselves - the way it is said has importance.

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

OrphanCrow

http://www.justice.gov.yk.ca/pdf/Final_Transcript_Manual_2014.pdf

The chief concern when producing a transcript is to ensure that it is an accurate
verbatim record of proceedings. Transcribers must certify or attest on each
transcript that it is a true and faithful record of the proceedings transcribed. Since
any transcript may become the basis of a subsequent legal action (such as an
appeal), the necessity for truth and accuracy cannot be over-emphasized.
Because of the need for faithful reproduction, transcribers bear a heavy
responsibility. They must not guess as to the spoken word, but must in all cases
transcribe exactly what was said. A reporter/recorder who transcribes a record
has a duty to not only transcribe accurately, but also to ensure that the oral
comments and testimony of all parties can be heard properly at the time the
proceedings take place.

This is from a manual put out by the government of Yukon - I picked it because the wording is pretty clear. The rules for court transcribing are fairly consistent regardless of which court is being transcribed.

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

OrphanCrow

Orphancrow, that's bollocks, have you read the document?

Yes, I have read the document.

Can you be more specific on what you mean by 'bollocks'? Please be more clear - I don't understand what part would be bollocks. I would like more detail about your accusation.

Unless, of course, you object on grounds that you are only stating your 'belief and practice', rather than your 'policy' of accusing people of something without being clear about your accusation.

22

Jehovah's Witnesses Ban upheld by Supreme Court.-TASS reports. Are Russian JWs suffering as a result of Watchtower Governing Body Hate Rants?

by Balaamsass2 in

tass news:.

russias supreme court rules jehovah's witnesses from samara extremist organizationrussia.

november 13, 20:58 utc+3 .

OrphanCrow

Well...it is a good thing that OPK Biotech had the foresight to pull up stakes in Russia and head back to American soil to manufacture artifical blood for the JWs before the WTS lost their big court case in the Russian Supreme Court.

It just wouldn't be practical for the Hemopure biotech firm to be located in a country where they have lost their core group of clinical trial monkeys. ;)

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

OrphanCrow

Whoever did the transcription made lots of errors, or is that normal for this type of document?

The errors come from the speakers themselves. The person doing the transcripting writes down exactly what was said.

As you go on though you'll see the transcriptor is using shorthand to document the discussion so i guess that's what's caused some of the obscure nonsensicle sentence structures.

The obscure nonsensicle sentence structures come from the speakers themselves, not the person doing the transcribing. A speaking voice rarely is grammatically or structurally correct. We think we speak correctly, but we don't. Our spoken speech has far more mistakes in it than a written statement does.

I was surprised that the judge in charge allowed the incessant objections from the other counsel.

It is how the legal system works. And why we have counsel - so that objections can be made for improper questioning. It isn't a matter of what the judge allows - it is a matter of what is allowed under the law. Even the judge has to abide by that.

This is a real court case - not one scripted for television or the big screen. This isn't Hollywood, it is not made for entertainment value.

Truthseekeriam - thanks for posting that - I like reading court documents. :)

22

Jehovah's Witnesses Ban upheld by Supreme Court.-TASS reports. Are Russian JWs suffering as a result of Watchtower Governing Body Hate Rants?

by Balaamsass2 in

tass news:.

russias supreme court rules jehovah's witnesses from samara extremist organizationrussia.

november 13, 20:58 utc+3 .

OrphanCrow

This is a fascinating document. I would love to read an accurate translation, the fractured English just gives the flavor.

I agree. that is why I posted it in its entirety. And I couldn't link to it because it just doesn't exist anywhere in cyberspace that I know of.

I wish now that I had saved a copy of the original Russian so it could be translated accurately. Que sera...at least I managed to grab what you see.

It was posted by an exJW Russian. The forum still exists but I am not sure if there are any exJWs on it anymore - this file had disappeared.

It looks to me that the text has been subjected to rigorous examination. The advances in thinking has made this branch of learning scientific with a computer program (named BAAL) analysing the vocabulary used and measuring the results being one of the tools. The people who have examined the material have used recognised methods of evaluation before reaching conclusions.

That is what really interested me about this document - the examination of the text in such detail and with scientific analysis to back up the conclusions. And then the analysis of how the organization is actually structured - in such a way that individual freedom and choice is absent within the confines of the organization.

This judgement is not going to be easy to overturn. There is every reason to view the material as being at least anti-social. Having said all that, banning a religion is a big step. Voltaire said “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too”. That is the freedom we need.

No, it won't be. And that is because Russia is not taking away the freedom of a religion - they are not banning a religion - they are not recognizing the Watchtower as being a religion - they are labelling them a 'political organization', a sect. The Russian experts conclude that the organization of the Watchtower Society is a harmful organization that doesn't qualify for religious status.

As far as thinking for yourselves - that is exactly why Russia won't give WTS religious status - The Watchtower Society doesn't allow its members to think for themsleves.