Posts by Joe Grundy

108

Leaked Elder's Video: How to deal with a suicidal sister

by cappytan in

this video will be played at one of the clam meetings in march 2016.. the content is kind of old news because it is a recut version of a previous video produced for the elder's school.

however, it's still significant because it shows that the organization still has dissenting brothers in positions of leadership.. my thanks to the leaker.

feel free to claim credit here.

Joe Grundy

Random thoughts.

She says 'I can't go on'. 'I need help'. The f**kwits are not listening.

Bro sleazeball is talking in that slow slightly-slurred voice as if he is a) slightly drunk, b) a mystic or c) a Medicine Man.

108

Leaked Elder's Video: How to deal with a suicidal sister

by cappytan in

this video will be played at one of the clam meetings in march 2016.. the content is kind of old news because it is a recut version of a previous video produced for the elder's school.

however, it's still significant because it shows that the organization still has dissenting brothers in positions of leadership.. my thanks to the leaker.

feel free to claim credit here.

Joe Grundy

Another coffee and another cigarette needed - but I'll just say this.

I've been on this site for many years. I thought I'd seen the depths of the WT (especially after the ARC fiasco). But seeing this video has shown me that this cult is worse than I had thought, and that's taken some doing.

It takes a lot to shock me, but this has done it. And it's out of the WT's own mouth.

108

Leaked Elder's Video: How to deal with a suicidal sister

by cappytan in

this video will be played at one of the clam meetings in march 2016.. the content is kind of old news because it is a recut version of a previous video produced for the elder's school.

however, it's still significant because it shows that the organization still has dissenting brothers in positions of leadership.. my thanks to the leaker.

feel free to claim credit here.

Joe Grundy

I never was a JW.

My first impression on watching that video was that it was a parody. Sadly, it's apparently not. A sleazy slimeball grinning smirking tw*t and his sidekick (would you buy a used car from these men?) go to visit a recently bereaved young widow, pull out the NWT and a magazine, talk about Job and being an 'integrity keeper'? WTF?

(My evil mind saw this as the first chapter in a porno movie - followed by one or both of the f**kwits calling back for extra-mural 'shepherding' visits).

This made me so angry that I'll stop there. I need a coffee and a cigarette before I comment further. But I'll be back.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

Mephis:

Sorry, just saw your post from yesterday. Thank you for that.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

(Probably my last comment on this point).

RC (and perhaps other institutions, I don't know) mandate that the confession between penitent and one priest are sealed. Fine. Confidential. Secret,

JW rules are not. (Two elders, JC, notes made, reported to branch, etc.) Not confidential. Not secret.

THAT'S the f**cking difference!

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

"I'm sure it's why Jackson (eventually) appeared on the Aussie RC last year"

I have to say that having watched the ARC proceedings I was impressed by the way that HHJ McClellan and CA Stewart in a caring, empathetic, way ensured that Jackson gave evidence. It wasn't their fault that Jackson was such a doofus. He did that all on his own.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

"Fisherman" said:

But the conditions of "religious" confidentiality are not set by you or by what people expect or think it is the case. They are set forth by the US Constitution and you do not have to like it either. If US law protects JW version of priest/ penitent and you don't like it -too bad! JW version is entitled to same immunity provisions as Catholic versions under US law regardless of what you like or think. And US High Courts will vindicate it.

Well, this is bollocks (a technical legal term), of course, and though I claim no knowledge whatsoever of the US constitution I do claim a thorough working knowledge (and practice) of the common law which applies here.

The legal concept of confidentiality is relatively simple. If someone provides information to someone else on the basis that, and in the expectation that, the information will be held in confidence, there is a contract of confidentiality. That is, to state the obvious - no information will be divulged to anyone.

Simply put, in light of the forgoing and what is common knowledge of the JW procedures, there is no confidentiality.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

"Joe - interesting that from your perspective at the frontline, thank you. The legal background may interest you. It's a little obscure and case law dating back centuries... the ultimate endpoint in Britain is for a judge to rule that something is required for the public interest. Once that ruling is made, you can end up with Catholic priests in the dock expected to testify. (Although last properly tested back in late Victorian era!). CofE clergy are still in an odd place with the whole confession thing - legally obliged to remain silent (state church legacy) but also equally subject to a judge demanding testimony. Last I heard, they were trying to figure out how to fix that themselves.

Judges don't tend to press that hard though (the discretion under PACE) which is why it's only when dim JWs try to muck up major child abuse investigations that the stick comes out. Like it did in Newcastle not so long back. And then after months of the judge trying to persuade them to testify of their own accord. They chose to testify on the morning of the trial, rather than spend some time at Her Majesty's pleasure."

Well, yes and and no. Of course, judges can and should rule 'in the public interest'. I am not aware of any case in which a catholic priest (or a CofE priest) has ever been subpoenaed to give evidence of what occurred in a confession, and I would be interested to learn of the procedure which occassioned that. It would seem to me to be covered by PACE (excluded material).

I note your comments that 'Judges don't tend to press that hard'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the discretion under PACE'. I can tell you that the judges with which I dealt pressed hard, demanded evidenced and reasoned legal arguments, and issued orders/warrants that were never - never -overturned by higher courts.

(This is a UK (E&W) perspective.) Judges don't try to 'persuade' people. They explain the options. You don't f@@k with the judge, ever.

And here is a true story. I had a case (related to my post above about judges ordering bank information). The judge had ordered that material held by the bank (a national) must be produced to us (the police) in 7 days. It wasn't. The local, area, regional managers appeared before the judge to explain the failure. The judge ordered the CEO to appear - and advised that he bring a toothbrush. The material was provided.

161

Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

by OrphanCrow in

court denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.

a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.

Joe Grundy

I never was a JW.

My knowledge of US law is limited. I am a retired police officer (UK) and my specialist area for many years in England & Wales involved a great deal of work in this sort of area - i.e. in what circumstances what information (material) is available, useable, must be made available. I offer this for what its worth and am open to contradiction and correction. What I say applies to the principles of law in E&W, but with the growing internationalism in law and jurisdiction the principles are useful.

In E&W, the principles were codified in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Before that, there was a mish-mash of common law and ;suck it and see'.

Under PACE 1984, information ('material') was classified in different ways - but always ALWAYS (this is important) with the principle that the person who was owed the duty of confidentiality had the rights over that confidentiality. In other words, for example, in the present case - claimed penitent/clergy confidentiality - the right to confidentiality belongs to the penitent, not the clergy, and it is his to waive, not the priest's.

To continue. Most material, not held under a duty of confidentiality, (say, for example, purchase records from a retailer) can be provided with no problem. The holder of the information could, if necessary, be compelled by a magistrates' warrant to provide material.

Move up a step. Material held under a duty of confidentiality. This would include information held by (for example) a bank or an accountant under a professional duty of confidentiality. This is called 'Special Procedure Material'. The holder of the material can only be compelled to produce it by order of a Circuit Judge (a high level Judge) where the judge is satisfied that serious crime etc. is involved. This 'Special Procedure' is not used lightly and circuit judges rightly probe every application.

Then there is 'Excluded Material'. This is information which is provided under an expectation of confidentiality and which no-one else can obtain. Full stop. Period. In E&W this includes medical records, stuff like that (e.g. phone conversations with The Samaritans) and - to get back to the subject here - penitent/clergy confessions.

I have never been a catholic, but my understanding is that if I were, and if I chose to make my confession to a priest - or if I was in any other denomination and chose to make a confession one on one with an expectation of confidentiality - there is no legal authority which could compel the person to whom I confessed to give that information to anyone.

But the central point is confidentiality. I talk to my priest on the basis that he is constrained by his duty not to pass that information on. That is the contract between us - my expectation under which I provide that information.

Now compare that to the JW scenario. Two elders, JC, a duty to report to HQ. Doesn't comply at all with the expectation/duty of penitent and confessor.

And I repeat it because it's worth repeating - the right of confidentiality belongs to the person who gave the information, not the person who holds it.

Sorry, this has dragged on.

90

Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life

by shadow in

disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.

yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.

i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.

Joe Grundy

I never was a JW.

A few days ago, my son (who works nights) was awakened by dubs at the door. He reminded them politely but forcefully that he had asked them not to call. 'Sorry', said the guy 'But there are a lot of us'. My son pointed out that the 'silent sister' with him was there last time when he had (again) asked them not to call.

The guy offered to discuss stuff - even said he had read 'The God Delusion' (Dawkins). My son told him that there was no point in discussion, even at a suitable time, because while he (my son) was prepared to change his opinion in the light of evidence the JW never would be.

They left a WT (No.1 2016 'Why Be Honest') and 'Was Life Created', which he passed on to me.

These publications are a joke. I really don't have the motivation or the interest or the time to go through them paragraph by paragraph for a critical review. I feel sorry for the dubs who peddle this crap and, TBH, if they come to my door and admit that they're dubs my response is 'I'm sorry'.

IMHO and IME it really is not worth discussing these issues with dubs.