i'm gobsmacked.. the 7 rock star popes in warwick know darned well that the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.. geoff (whacko jacko) jackson was at the australian royal commission and should have seen first hand what a vile man made law the 2 witness rule is.. my question is, why do they still insist on this pervert protecting rule?.
i know it's a highly controlling cult but still...........................stuff my old boots, mate!.
the above is more a rhetorical question.
the 2 witness rule allows child rapists to get away with their crime.
Relating to church doctrine and practice, the "2 witness rule" applies but concurrently with that, the church also complies with all statutory requirements for reporting any allegation of child sexual abuse and child abuse to competent authorities as mandated in the local jurisdiction the church operates.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
@Search RE: Factual Submissions by both parties.
"That is your side of the Story" -Fisherman
"Which, as my lawyer said to the Supreme Court, is precisely why we have judges." -Search
The "100% facts" that the elders submitted is for the legal proceedings that decide whether or not you get to have your day in Court. Your related posts apparently confuses that with the Judicial Review - if you win..
because he was shunned by his customers?.
as my lawyer said to the Supreme Court, is precisely why we have judges.
IF the Court takes you case.
please help .
more research for my book .
What everyone needs to consider before going to a shrink is that you then have a psychiatrist record. Like a conviction or some other record that sheds a bad light on you, a psychiatric record is not good.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
the affidavits of the two elders are being presented as being 100% factual,
Your complaint or whatever cause of action you filed is also presented as 100 percent factual. No?
to which I not only strongly disagree,
That's your side of the story.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
In my case, the opposite has been done.
If you claim that Appellants violated confidentiality: Lawsuit! Big bucks!!!!!
Did you or your lawyers object to the protected information being used in Court?
because he was shunned by his customers?.
Not dumb stuff ie stalking beating up spouse.
OK, but let's anyway consider such a case: A Family Court or Criminal Court can proscribe communication between family members.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
I dislike that man with a passion.
All personal feelings aside, Gnam is a very talented lawyer. He did a thorough job in arguing wt position on the related case.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
Why is he recounting the reasons for Mr. Wall's expulsion from the Congregation™?
I think it is because disclosure rests with the congregant. The congregant in this case, the respondent, already disclosed the confidential information you reference to the Courts.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
let's be real.
Very real. And worse. And: judges and prosecutors are untouchables. Read the news, Google it, go around the block for once in your life.
