okay, firstly appologies for it taking me, like a million years to actually get back to you good people.. i was sent a letter back and guess what... standard reply was issued!.
i don't have a scanner (it blew up ages ago!
) but the main body of the letter was the same as i've seen on other threads here.
when I first mentioned the WTS's involvement with the UN to a JW relative, I was shocked that he was unaware of it. I don't know why I would have thought any differently though, it's not as if it's front page news. Maybe it's time for a mass-mailing. Exchange lists of witnesses' addresses so the info would be postmarked from a different state.
WTS's dirty little secrets need to come out. At this point, the WTS is making fools out of the rank and file.
.
url to the story http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=1614&dept_id=161052&newsid=6011345&pag=461&rfi=9.
thank you for posting this doinmypart !
each lawsuit filed against the WTS adds a bit of sunshine to the day ! It appears that the WTS lawyers are becoming busy in litigation as DEFENDANTS for a change.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=1614&dept_id=161052&newsid=6011345&pag=461&rfi=9
banned church member sues jehovah's witnesses .
by brian justice, the sunday news staff writer november 09, 2002 .
Ms. Barbara,
We are 100% with you, if you need help, you know that we'll be there.....KICK THEIR ASS!!!!!!
perry and nathan natas.
both of you need to enroll in a basic political science class at you local community college.. perry if you think that george has never had a blowjob from women he is not married to you have your head up your ass.. nathan natas if you think that anyone but the us put sadam in power you need to do more with printed material than jack off.
the us and big oil companies are a major reason there is only one democracy in the middle east.
Perry, I generally tend to agree with you, but I must say that you lost me with your response to footprints. (see below)
Perry if you think that George has never had a blowjob from women he is not married to you have your head up your ass.Nathan Natas if you think that anyone but the US put Sadam in power you need to do more with printed material than jack off-------footprints
Wow, three sexual acts in two sentences. ---------Perry
Three sexual acts? If one having one's "head up one's ass" is considered a sex act then half the people I know are having multiple orgasms !
to one of the kindest posters here who has never said an unkind word to anyone.
may you have a very enjoyable day and celebrate many more in health and happiness.
glucklicher geburtstag happy birthday dutchie.
Hoping it's one of the happiest ever Dutchie !
peace and rose petals,
dd
(ps------I gotta tell ya, I absolutely loved that "how about his suit?" LOL)
like carl olof jonsson, this is the first time i have ever written to this forum.
i have decided to do so, however, because i am saddened at what bill bowen has chosen to do in reference to ray franz.
let me say that i given bill full marks for publicizing an issue child abuse and the watchtower cover up of it and for taking a stand that has cost him a great deal personally.
Mr. Penton,
I realize you stated that you were finished with this thread, but I only just now read your response and will still comment, if for no other reason, to address a few of your statements.
So, is the fact that the woman is a prostitute something that should not be brought up in court? Most people, being asked the question in this way today would say "no." But there is another side to the matter. Perhaps the woman gave consensual sex and then demanded more money from the "john." Now the john will argue that the sex was not rape at all but consensual sex. So at that point (note: without any second witness against the john or any physical evidence), the john's lawyer tries to bring in evidence to say that because the woman is a prostitute (a fact that can be proven), she is trying to punish the man for not giving her more money. Now should the fact of her professon be brought in or not? What is more important in this instance, the probative evidence or the possibility of prejudice?-----Jim Penton
(emphasis added)
If I understand correctly, according to your posts, you're alleging that the defense attorney wants to bring into evidence the profession of the alleged rape victim, but due to the action of radical feminists who brought about a change in law, which you imply now holds that the accused in a rape trial is not innocent until proven guilty in some jurisdictions of the US and Canada, this attorney is unfairly unable to do so.
I am not familar with Canadian law, but would feel safe in betting that if your above scenario came up in a US court room, the defense attorney would be able to bring into evidence this woman's profession as long as it was relevant to this alleged rape. If this john's testimony is that a "disagreement regarding money occurred after sex," then his testimony is certainly relevant to this case. The "shield laws" which were enacted in the US in the 70's and 80's were done so in an effort to "shield" rape victims from harrassment from defense attorneys who would bring up irrelevant evidence of a victim's PRIOR sexual conduct, not to keep out the defendant's relevant testimony. Because of the humiliation of the rape itself, combined with this treatment at trial, it was believed that a large number of rapes went unreported. Rape shield laws prevent evidence of prior sexual conduct, except WITH THE DEFENDANT.
And I agree, noone deserves to raped, not a prostitute, not a child. If in fact your scenario included an "off duty" prostitute who was raped in a park while she was jogging, by a rapist who didn't know or care what her profession was, do you feel her profession relevant evidence at trial? How about if she had a child out of wedlock? Don't you agree that an alleged rape victim's PRIOR sexual conduct, except for that involving the defendant, is irrelevant and should therefore be inadmissable? If a home is broken into, the home-owner raped and her home burglarized, should it matter whether she's a prostitute or a secretary? How about how many sex partners she's had in the past? This line of questioning was, I believe, the reason for the enactment of the rape shield law. There are also laws that may keep a defendant's prior criminal activity from being admissable. These certainly are not laws that hold that a person is "not innocent" until proven guilty.
The entire tone of your initial post, from your choice of words, to your defense of the two-witness policy, to the comments and scenarios regarding radicals and crusades, subtly give the impression that it isn't only Mr. Bowen's words regarding Mr. Franz that frustrate you, but your belief that this "cause" itself is an unwarranted witch hunt. Your implying that innocent persons will be brought to ruin at the hands of this "crusade," appears to be a bit exagerrated. Mr. Bowen, as far as I'm aware of, has never approached the judicial system claiming that any accused molester should be imprisoned without as much as a trial, but has instead worked to expose an outdated, unrealistic, harmful policy on the behalf of those that cannot do so for themselves.
With this two-witness rule, the authorities would most likely not be contacted even if there were two witnesses to the molestation, allowing a molester to move on without so much as a report filed. Are you aware of the fact that molestation victims often have bruising inside? This is evidence, Mr. Penton. Evidence that a medical doctor, not an elder, should be investigating. And certainly there are bound to be children making false allegations, just as there are adults making false allegations. But a criminal allegation, be it the molestation of a child or the rape of an adult, should allow the authorities to speak to the accused and accuser, in order to determine if there may possibly be any evidence to substantiate the allegation. You say on one hand that there is no problem with the two-witness policy, then on the other hand you say the authorities should be contacted. How do you expect the authorities to consistently be contacted with a two-witness policy unless this policy's vulnerability is addressed? And how will this policy be addressed without first being exposed? Expecting a child to live with abuse after being silenced regarding it, then expecting this child to attempt to heal years later in a court, is, like my mother used to say, a bit like attempting to close the barn door after the horse is out.
Edited by - deddaisy on 4 November 2002 20:2:23
Edited by - deddaisy on 4 November 2002 23:48:29
like carl olof jonsson, this is the first time i have ever written to this forum.
i have decided to do so, however, because i am saddened at what bill bowen has chosen to do in reference to ray franz.
let me say that i given bill full marks for publicizing an issue child abuse and the watchtower cover up of it and for taking a stand that has cost him a great deal personally.
I agree, this situation has gotten entirely out of hand.
Mr. Penton,
I believe my last post here was not reasonable, in that it appears that I'm attacking the educated, which certainly was not my intention. I feel that I should clarify. At the time that I read larc's response to me, regarding your background, it would have been wise on my part to have turned off my computer and gathered my thoughts before responding. But I didn't, and responded to what I believed to be a shallow defense. That being, since one is educated one need not explain the relevancy, or lack of relevancy to their position. That most likely was not larc's intention, and even if it was, no reason for me to attack your educational background. My initial question to you concerned your reasoning for providing the background of traditional common law that has been held to be inadequate in today's judicial system. You then went on to defend the WTS's "two-witness" rule, stating that you hesitated to see it attacked. You further stated that you would not testify on behalf of anyone that was not legitimate. You spoke of civil liberties being violated and radical feminists. By the time one read through this much, one could have got the impression that this Mr. Bowen was a "radical," out to destroy the judicial system, pressuring you to testify on the behalf of liars. Yes, Mr. Bowen, a man attacking a reasonable two-witness policy that protects the innocent, as well as child molesters. You then went on to discuss Mr. Bowen's attack, never mentioning that indeed, this issue of further damaging JW children by silencing them, certainly needed addressed by some common sense.
If the organization feels that the two-witness rule is such a good policy for handling a secretive act, fine, then they shouldn't act on allegations, unless of course, the molester invited two onlookers to watch. But for the sake of preventing further damage to a child by destroying any remaining confidence and trust they may have in adults, the WTS would be only providing good by keeping church matters and criminal allegations separate. The elders can deal with the allegation any way they please, which as you know, often includes shunning a victim, but they should CONTACT THE AUTHORITIES ALSO. Unfortunately, many adult witnesses listen, not to the voice of rationality, when dealing even with such a serious allegation, but to the WTS, via the elders. Until these children can reach an age in which they can make their own decisions regarding this organization, don't you agree that it is in their benefit to expose this lack of common sense approach in the handling of molestation allegations?
What is the most troubling of this entire Franz/Bowen drama, is that published persons of the EX-JW community believe it not necessary to involve themselves in "causes" which strive to address an insufficient policy in order to defend children, which is certainly reasonable. But then these same persons have found it necessary to involve themselves in coming to the defense of a former member of the GB, whom is fully capable of defending himself.
Edited by - deddaisy on 30 October 2002 19:36:6
my friends,.
i have just been called by the po of my cong.....they want a meeting with me.. exactly a year after learning of the un affair & going to the branch for a never.
given answer..... next week i may join you not only in heart but officially.... caballo sentado.
CB,
The WTS is not, by taking action against you, implying that its action of being registered with the UN's DPI was acceptable conduct but that your discussion of this acceptable conduct is unacceptable conduct, is it ?
dear friends
i live in .
after 30 years service i left the organization a few months ago.
10-Q for Regi US Inc.
US SEC-----For the quarterly period ended January 31, 2001.
"Rand Energy Group Inc. owns 5,362,700 shares, having a approximate current market value of $2,000,000, and plans to sell shares as needed to meet our ongoing funding requirements if traditional equity sources of financing prove to be insufficient."
Have you got broken fingers?
No, but I just got my nails done. I'll wait with baited breath.........
i wish them peace.
at the end of the conversation i did not feel we were in agreement.
for similar reasons i believe ray has not supported the issue of child abuse being a problem in the organization to media and by personal comments to persons who ask him privately about this.
Undisfellowshipped,
That was nice of you to note. As for your last post, well we all know that there are talkers, and there are do-ers. As for whomever posted the work of art below, was it "Princess?"
So now you do admit that Bill wants the org to go down. He said Silentlambs didn't want that...
you wouldn't be happy to see the org go down? You've never said as much? If the sole intent of SilentlLambs was to see the "org go down," it's curious that Bill posted a bulletin here, prior to the march, in which he stated that he wanted no other issues with the Watchtower Society publicized in the SilentLambs march. If Bill's intent was truly to "bring the org down," he had enough damaging information regarding other issues to feed to the press. Why didn't he?
