Chaserious

Joined

• started 12 topics
• posted 790 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Chaserious

• 
  102

  Twin Explosions at Boston Marathon

  by BizzyBee in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/boston-marathon-explosion_n_3086665.html.

  .

  right at the finish line - seems too coincidental to be anything other than a purposeful act.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Why would you make this about an opportunity to rip Obama, moron?

  Go troll on Topix or something.
• 
  159

  Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

  by wha happened? in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i guess we're persona non grata now.

  take a look at what i found on facebook:.

  we're firing up the grill again!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Chaserious said

  "In any event, I am certain that you have not done any legal research to see whether you are correct or not."

  fizzywidget said:

  "Certain", are you? NOW who's full of conjecture and speculation? How, pray tell, might you be "certain" of that? (As it happens, you would be dead wrong.)"

  Well, when you finish your meal and eventually happen back here, maybe you can explain what your research into Arizona law showed about the ability to use a pseudonym. For example, should I assume that in your research you came across State v. Carroll, where the Arizona Appeals Court said:

  "The common law gives a person the right to assume a name not given him by his parents and allows him to make valid contracts using the assumed name . . . The Arizona Supreme Court has long recognized that an assumed name is not ‘fictitious' in the sense of being a false pretense . We cannot, therefore, agree with the State's position that signing the check with the assumed name is sufficient to establish a false pretense . . . ."

  So, did you find out in your legal research whether Cedars might qualify as an "assumed name" under Arizona law?

  You might be right that they were not allowed to incorporate in this manner. I am not inclined to spend a lot of time researching whether that is the case or not. But I don't think anyone in this thread has the expertise to make the conclusive legal opinions that have been expressed about whether an illegal act was committed or not.
• 
  159

  Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

  by wha happened? in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i guess we're persona non grata now.

  take a look at what i found on facebook:.

  we're firing up the grill again!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  They may have filed for the marriage certificate, but they aren't married yet.

  Not exactly. State law governs the incorporation of an organization as a "non profit." 501(c) status is federal law that allows for tax exempt status. While most nonprofits are tax exempt and thus there is a lot of overlap between the two, nonprofit and tax exempt are not the same thing.

  I don't know where fizzywidget is getting this thing about needing 501(c) status to be a non profit. It's incorrect.
• 
  159

  Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

  by wha happened? in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i guess we're persona non grata now.

  take a look at what i found on facebook:.

  we're firing up the grill again!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Wow, you really don't get it, fizzywidget.
• 
  159

  Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

  by wha happened? in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i guess we're persona non grata now.

  take a look at what i found on facebook:.

  we're firing up the grill again!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  fizzywidget said:

  "However, they are not a nonprofit at this time."

  In the very articles of incoporation document that was previously linked to, it says in the first paragraph "The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists (AAWA) . . . has on this day voluntarily decided to form a not for profit corporation"

  At least be accurate if you are going to tell me that I "don't get it."

  Also, I think you are wrong about the material fact violation related to the criminal record certification. In any event, I am certain that you have not done any legal research to see whether you are correct or not.
• 
  159

  Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

  by wha happened? in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i guess we're persona non grata now.

  take a look at what i found on facebook:.

  we're firing up the grill again!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Posted on behalf of fizzywiglet, at her request, in response to Chaserious:

  I didn't say anything about the IRS list.

  However, in response to the quotation of this:

  "Any person who executed or contributed information for a certificate of disclosure and who intentionally makes any untrue statement of material fact or withholds any material fact with regard to the information required in subsection D, paragraph 1 of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony."

  The requirement to list names and addresses of directors is not part of subsection D, paragraph 1. That part deals with the criminal record of the officers and directors. Just saying.
• 
  159

  Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

  by wha happened? in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i guess we're persona non grata now.

  take a look at what i found on facebook:.

  we're firing up the grill again!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Of course, I agree that it's not irresponsible to ask for clarification, especially by those considering donating. But the takeaway seemed to be that "anyone with a brain" should believe that a felony has been committed.
• 
  159

  Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

  by wha happened? in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i guess we're persona non grata now.

  take a look at what i found on facebook:.

  we're firing up the grill again!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Before you guys convict the AAWA people and sentence them to the electric chair, I would suggest that in general, when parties act with the advice of an attorney, those parties are far more likely to have correctly applied the law than non attorneys who try to interpret a statute on their own.

  As an example, Las Malvinas and fizzywiglet have repeately quoted and linked to ARS 10-202. However, that is not the statute that AAWA was subject to when incorporating. They were subject to 10-3202, which is for nonprofit corporations. (verify here). 10-202 applies to for-profit corporations. Now, granted, it appears that 10-3202 also requires disclosure of names and addresses. However, I think this mistake makes the point that there may be law you are not aware of that an Arizona lawyer is aware of. If you want to make a complaint to Arizona officials and let them see if anything illegal was done, that seems fine but it seems rather irresponsible to conclude and proclaim that they have committed fraud.
• 
  535

  AAWA is here!! (The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists)

  by cedars in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcic4g5tulw.

  http://www.jwactivists.org.

  facebook the association of anti-watchtower activists.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  I was not added on FB and I have no idea whether the involuntary adds were the fault of AAWA, people unrelated to AAWA, Facebook, or some combination of these. However, I think it is wrong to dismiss the potential harm done to those who may have been involuntarily "outed," or shift all of the blame to the organization that forces such secrecy in the first place.

  First of all, I know of a number of people who have never been involved in the cult, who if they joined a Facebook group with "Anti-Catholic" or "Anti-Pope" or whatever in the name, it would cause significant family tension. I know "Anti-Watchtower" is not the same as "Anti-JW" but we all know that most on the inside would view it as the same. Secondly, people have all sorts of good reasons not to DA or openly oppose the organization, from family relations to inheritances and financial support to trying to wake up or help others out from within. I imagine AAWA would be sensitive to this, considering that the president only identifies with a pseudonym, and presumably would not be happy about it if someone posted his real name as the President of AAWA.
• 
  8

  Clawing out of poverty via (E)ducation, not education

  by MTSman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, so i've been what i believe is called a, "lurker", on this site for about four years.

  i honestly don't remember how i stumbled on to it, but i totally get everyone here.

  i'm a, "born in", pinoneered for like six-teen years, servered where the need is great several times, and even went to the, as the name alludes to, mts before it became a watered down theocratic ministry school.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Congrats on learning TTATT and on your determination to get a real education. This was an entertaining read too.

  If you are set on law school, I feel compelled to warn you to do your research and apply and enroll with a plan. Maybe you have done your homework already, but I think in the current economy more unsuspecting students are put into poverty by going to law school than get out of poverty.