Boeing Stratofortress

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 133 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Boeing Stratofortress

• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Cappytan, It looks as though Fisherman finally answered your question. He maintains that church-confidentiality is indeed more important than child welfare. Note how he bases his premise on 'church law,' not Federal Law.
• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Fisherman. This goes way beyond mere 'imperfection,' or 'screwing up,' as you put it.

  Suppose your kid's school administrator hires a gym teacher, knowing FULL-WELL that this individual has a criminal conviction for kiddy-porn. Suppose that same gym teacher sexually molests YOUR child in the locker room when no one was around.

  I guess you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, "well, the administration just 'screwed' up. They're 'imperfect.'" Right? Is that what you'd do? If so, then you disgust me.

  And as for not trusting others with the 'little ones,' are you telling me that you attend school with your kids?
• 
  164

  California Supreme Court Case - S226656

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.

  started 5/27/2015.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Lock & load boys!

  It's on.
• 
  13

  new update on Conti case

  by violias in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  got an update email about the conti case.

  maybe someone can tell us what it means.. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641 .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Hmmm. It's almost as exciting as the buildup to the Paquiao v Mayweather fight!
• 
  13

  new update on Conti case

  by violias in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  got an update email about the conti case.

  maybe someone can tell us what it means.. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641 .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Hmm. So, the WT presumably blew right through that 10 day window.

  It sounds as if the 'SS Watchtower' has a (legal) crack in her hull, and is about to get torpedoed with more lawsuits? These recent money grabs sound analagous to bailing water from a sinking ship.

  These other lawsuits must be hush-hush. Perhaps they're under gag orders in some states? It just seems awfully quiet out there since the Conti appeal case, and the Lopez case before that.
• 
  13

  new update on Conti case

  by violias in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  got an update email about the conti case.

  maybe someone can tell us what it means.. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641 .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Ok...so WHEN will the Watchtower make their decision to:

  a) Take it to the Federal level (Sup. Court).

  b) or, take what they've got & try to deal with it?

  There MUST be a deadline for them to 'fish or cut bait.' X number of days since the California appellate court's decision?
• 
  2

  Watchtower's deadline to appeal

  by Boeing Stratofortress in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  the conti verdict was made in mid-april.

  presumably, the wt&ts has until a certain date to decide whether to take the case to supreme court or not.

  does anyone know how long this period is from the date of the court's decision?

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  The Conti verdict was made in mid-April. Presumably, the WT&TS has until a certain date to decide whether to take the case to Supreme Court or not. Does anyone know how long this period is from the date of the court's decision? I'm thinking 30, 60, or 90 calender days.

  Does anyone know for sure? I'm betting that regardless of the deadline, the WT will wait until the last minute of the last day to make any such move.
• 
  16

  How many child abuse cases?

  by LHS123 in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  does anyone know where i can find numbers of how many child abuse cases have been brought against jws or settled out of court?.

  i know that 1 is too many and statistics don't reflect the horror suffered, but i would like some numbers to use when explaining to others the reasons for my decreased activity and to have support for my reasons for 'stumbling', facts which might make others think too.. im from uk so it helps that the charities commission is investigating there and also there's a paedophiles exposed website which names 32 jws convicted in uk since 2012, horrifying!

  http://ukpaedos-exposed.com.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  I'd like to add something. It's been just over a month since the Conti verdict at the Calif Court of Appeals, which found the WT&TS negligent in not protecting minors during door-to-door 'publishing.'

  Question: how long does the WT have to decide whether to accept the verdict vs take it to the Federal Level, i.e. Supreme Court?? It seems to me, that their decision at this legal 'fork in the road,' will have a big impact on how the pending lawsuits progress. If the WT decides NOT to fight, then it seems they are inviting more lawsuits, with the California precedent having been set.
• 
  9

  Throwing a wrench in child baptism.

  by runForever in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1 corinthians 7:14 tells us: "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.".

  so the sanctification of children of "christians" depends on the holiness of their parents not the "baptism" of young children.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Got it. Please post anything other Watchtower articles on this topic. I remember about 10 years ago, a JW bragging to me how, unlike the Catholics, "we don't do infant, or young children baptisms....most of them are youths of middle school to high school age (13 to 16)."

  So, I'm wondering if there was anything printed by more recently (1980s to early 2000s) that would agree with those WT articles from the 1950s. The more 'ammo' the better, I'm thinking. I could see them saying, "1950s...well that was OLD LIGHT." At which point I would show them something more recent. Along with the appropriate Bible verses. That would shut 'em down pretty quickly, I'd reckon.
• 
  9

  Throwing a wrench in child baptism.

  by runForever in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1 corinthians 7:14 tells us: "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.".

  so the sanctification of children of "christians" depends on the holiness of their parents not the "baptism" of young children.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Blondie, I'd like to look up some of the references you posted, so I can show it to some JDubs.

  Forgive my ignorance, but how would I translate this (for example):

  w56 5/15

  ...is it the 1956 Watchtower, from May 15?