Posts by Listener

221

Day 4 Looks to Be Live at Any Moment - Link...and Upcoming Witness List!

by LostGeneration in

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

anyone know who this monty baker is?

i'm sure this guy will be able to tell the rc how things work behind the scenes without all the evasiveness, being that he is an "apostate".

Listener

They were already asked to present there documents about procedures, now they are saying there is flexibility within those procedures and they will come from the Branch Office Service desk when an Elder calls. The RC have said they havn't seen anything about that in writing and could they present it.

Seems to me that they are either making it up as they go along and will prepare new light on their current procedures that explain how the Branch Office deals with enquiries or they were negligent in presenting the information in the first place and hid this information. I doubt it would be the second scenario because the RC would quickly recognize that they have broken the law by not presenting it in the first instance.

7

Australian Royal Commission - What can the Governing Body do?

by Listener in

as far as i am aware, it's not within the power of the australian royal commission to call as a witness a non-australian.

it is confined to dealing with the jws and child abuse as it is handled within australia.

it is clear from the testimonies so far that it is the branch office that gives the elders direction as prescribed ultimately by the governing body.. there are two witnesses who have been called up to attend the rc from the branch office in sydney, one is rodney spinks from the service desk and the other is vincent o'toole, overseer of the legal department.

Listener

You are right, Stuckinarut2, he's also the Director of the WTBTS of Australia, I guess they've gone as high as they can. These guys can report from further up in their hierarchy and provide immediate reactions and prove that they are keeping up with Jehovah's fast moving, Celestial Chariot.

7

Australian Royal Commission - What can the Governing Body do?

by Listener in

as far as i am aware, it's not within the power of the australian royal commission to call as a witness a non-australian.

it is confined to dealing with the jws and child abuse as it is handled within australia.

it is clear from the testimonies so far that it is the branch office that gives the elders direction as prescribed ultimately by the governing body.. there are two witnesses who have been called up to attend the rc from the branch office in sydney, one is rodney spinks from the service desk and the other is vincent o'toole, overseer of the legal department.

Listener

As far as I am aware, it's not within the power of the Australian Royal Commission to call as a Witness a Non-Australian. It is confined to dealing with the JWs and child abuse as it is handled within Australia. It is clear from the testimonies so far that it is the Branch Office that gives the elders direction as prescribed ultimately by the Governing Body.

There are two Witnesses who have been called up to attend the RC from the Branch Office in Sydney, one is Rodney Spinks from the Service Desk and the other is Vincent O'Toole, Overseer of the Legal Department. They will know that they will be asked some similar questions already asked to the Elders. There answers will be well scripted but it will be clear that the ultimate direction for dealing with child abuse allegations comes from the Governing Body.

Although the Governing Body members cannot be present this does not mean that they can have no input. All it would take is for information to be provided from them to the Branch Office Witnesses and this can be conveyed during their appearance. There is nothing stopping the Governing Body to take steps now, today or on the weekend advising of any changes or new direction that they feel may be necessary.

Wouldn't it be a fine witness if the Branch Office Witnesses could say that their Governing Body has been closely watching the RC and taken on board all the suggestions that have been made and are immediately willing to make necessary changes, even detailing what these changes will be. That would certainly demonstrate providing food at the proper time.

The onus is on them, the Governing Body, to do this and by doing so would show their full support for the Australian Branch. After all, the elders haven't managed to do a good job on their own so far If they don't wish to make changes, they could chose to advise this to the Branch Office Witnesses so they could convey this information at their hearing. At best, I think these guys will say that the Governing Body are prepared to review any recommendations and will give their full support to any legislative requirements that are made in the future.

My point is, the Government Body does not have to remain silent in this hearing but has the ability to have an active role. Most businesses would see it as damage control, unfortunately the Governing Body has it's own mysterious way of operating.

This is a good opportunity for the likes of Anthony Morris III to prove that he is a 'real man' as he so often likes to say.

17

In View of R.C.hearing of J.W.& child Sexual Abuse in Aust. and it`s Worldwide Coverage.can we expect ....?

by smiddy in

are we likely to see a definite drop in new bible studies , interest in the religion ,a drop in meeting attendance ,especially in lands where this is widely reported ?

or even an exodus from many in the congregations who may view this as the last straw ?.

their have only been 3 days of this inquiry so far and the incompetence of the elders to articulate their position is painful to observe , they are ignorant to the extreme .showing a total disinterest in the whole proceedings.. when questioned , they have not bothered to understand the purpose of the commission , nor read any of the previous days proceedings ,nor have they bothered to read the victims statement ,and have shown a total disregard for the whole procedure .. surely any thinking person with half a brain would back away from any involvement with this religion .. i am overjoyed that this inquiry is getting worldwide media attention ,i hope you are too .. i commented on an article in ghana africa that ran with this story , so the sexual abuse of children within the jehovah`s witness organization is getting worldwide coverage .. what do you think ?.

Listener

Simon Says

<< Repentance is only for the soul. To show God you accepted the consequences for your misdeeds and wish to start new. This is once again for your soul that the churches look for. Anything more serious, the victims are obligated to show just cause to bring charges upon a person. It's the victims obligation to have that person arrested and convicted. To have that person pay for the serious crime, not the church. If a church finds through confession and that confession evil, then The proper authorities get notified. However mans laws as written cannot compile a clergy to under go validating the persons claims, that's up for the law to get the proof needed to being somone to justice. >>

So much of what you say is untrue, I'll address just this paragraph of yours.

Repentance is not just for the soul, it is also a recognition of the wrong you cause to another person. Not only does it show to God that you are sorry for disobeying his laws, it is not complete if you show no recognition of the wrong you have done to another person. Not only are we to love God but we are to love one another.

You say it is the victims responsibility to have the offender arrested and convicted but a child does not understand how to do this and many times they do not even understand how they have been wronged. Often there is a level of guilt that they don't know how to deal with and has been imposed on them by the abuser. Many people think that a wrong will be properly dealt with within their organization because this is what there organization has lead them to believe. That very organization may manipulate them into thinking that they cannot take a crime to worldly authorities. But to say that it is the victims responsibility to have the offender arrested and convicted is absurd. That is the responsibility of the law, law enforcing bodies and the Government. A victim can only use the avenues that are available to them in seeing that justice is done.

Many institutions have hindered the normal process of law and their very position of power over a persons life puts them into a very responsible position. Even at this Royal Commission Elders have admitted that they have a level of responsibility towards the victim. There are many instances within the Catholic Church, for instance, of paying for the psychiatric help required by a victim and that is without any prompting from secular authorities.

You statement that mans laws as written cannot comply a clergy to validate the persons claim is not correct. Where there is mandated reporting many churches comply with this law, including the JWs. Many will actively encourage a victim to report to police even if this is not an obligation imposed by law.

20

How many of the 1.006 alleged abusers will be investigated by Police?

by Listener in

the commission has the names of 1,006 alleged abusers within australian congregations since 1950. some will have died and others will already have been prosecuted but the branch did not report any of these allegations to police.. the terms of reference for the royal commission is more about redress for the victims but that can include criminal prosecution although they are more focused on financial compensation.. however, now that they have the names of 1,006 potential criminals there is some responsibility to see that they are dealt with criminally.

it appears to be in their authority to have cases followed through by referring them for further investigation.

this is clear because the commissioner has recently reported that to date, they have done so in 493 cases identified within the scope of their commission.

Listener

You would be right Nitty Gritty. I was listening to a video report from the Commissioner that was focusing on the area of redress for victims and he didn't discuss the whole scope of the Commission.

17

The JW's 2 witness rule applied to Molestation is wrong AND HERE'S WHY

by wozza in

this is not the first time i've written about this, but with the royal commission happening here in australia, and having fought against the wts on this problem of molestation in the wts over a period of 15 years i feel a need to explain what i found which contradicts what the wts says and the way they handle cases within their society.. i am not going to give the history of my involvement but just state simply why no-one can believe what the wts says ,and we all know the scriptures they use to not handle cases of molestation properly , so here goes , it's not tricky or hard to understand i think, but just use the bible against them (hope this is used at the commission).. i,m using the revised berkely version in plain english here ,.

the context is law giving in the book of deuteronomy ch 22 : vs 22 - 27. vs 22 "when a man is surprised abed with a married woman,they shall both die ,the man who lay with the woman and the woman too; you shall wipe out the evil from israel.".

so this is easy to grasp ,man sleeps with married woman ,judged to die -they got caught.. next vs 23- 24 "when a man comes upon a girl in the city, who is a virgin betrothed to another , and he lies with her,24 you shall bring them both to the gate of the city and stone them to death, the girl because she did not cry out, although the city was all about her, and the man because he violated his neighbour's wife.

Listener

On the other hand when it comes to the bible principle of not bringing a brother to court they come up with all sorts of exceptions. This includes the idea that it refers only to civil cases, not criminal and even then if the civil case is required in order for the Brother to seek compensation from a third/wordly party then it is okay.

It is too difficult for them to bring new light on this matter of two witnesses. It affects so many lives and Judicial Committees that have been held in the past. It questions the integrity of their management on an authoritative level and more importantly, being led by the Holy Spirit.

20

How many of the 1.006 alleged abusers will be investigated by Police?

by Listener in

the commission has the names of 1,006 alleged abusers within australian congregations since 1950. some will have died and others will already have been prosecuted but the branch did not report any of these allegations to police.. the terms of reference for the royal commission is more about redress for the victims but that can include criminal prosecution although they are more focused on financial compensation.. however, now that they have the names of 1,006 potential criminals there is some responsibility to see that they are dealt with criminally.

it appears to be in their authority to have cases followed through by referring them for further investigation.

this is clear because the commissioner has recently reported that to date, they have done so in 493 cases identified within the scope of their commission.

Listener

They've demonstrated to a great degree that they are ready and willing to comply by supplying them with the Documents that they have. I don't doubt that they will comply with the Commissions findings at the conclusion but I wouldn't go as far as saying that they will be happy to do so. The whole situation is a severe blow to them.

It will be interesting to see how the Brnach Office Witnesses deal with the questions and suggestions posed to them in future days. The question of compensation will be put forward to them, I doubt that they will go beyond saying that they are willing to accept the findings of the RC and will comply with them.

The RC is considering various options on how Victims should be compensated. Their questioning would appear to discover how willing organizations are prepared to directly compensate victims. The RC has explained that any system of compensation that is established should not mean that any organization is liable for mishandling cases and simply recognize that victims do need financial assistance.

The worst case scenario is that the Government would have to foot the bill themselves and find ways in order to raise that money which will be billions of dollars. The RC have mentioned that organization may be required to contribute to a Compensation Fund set up by the Government. Another option they have mentioned is that the organizations directly contribute towards the financial redress of individuals directly.

Personally, I think the only way to go is to require the organizations to directly contribute to a Compensation Fund on the basis of X amount of dollars per victim (and degree of abuse) within their organization. This will allow victims to apply to the Government for redress rather than directly to their own organization, which many, for one reason or another will be reluctant to do. Unfortunately this will impose a heavy financial burden on the Government as many organizations will claim that they either cannot afford it.

But as this is mainly what the RC is about, they will endeavour to come up with the most effective method of compensation without burdening the Government.

If they get it right, the eyes of the World are watching and we will see similar Compensation Funds set up in other courtries. It's pretty much like a test case.

Bottom line is, it is likely to cost the Organization a lot of money and as you point out Nitty Gritty their are many other organizations that this will affect also.

I can't help but wonder if this is the way we are going to see religions dissolve, by being bankrupted and by their followers seeing that their money isn't being used for religious purposes but to right wrongs from the past. The thing is, they brought it upon themselves.

20

How many of the 1.006 alleged abusers will be investigated by Police?

by Listener in

the commission has the names of 1,006 alleged abusers within australian congregations since 1950. some will have died and others will already have been prosecuted but the branch did not report any of these allegations to police.. the terms of reference for the royal commission is more about redress for the victims but that can include criminal prosecution although they are more focused on financial compensation.. however, now that they have the names of 1,006 potential criminals there is some responsibility to see that they are dealt with criminally.

it appears to be in their authority to have cases followed through by referring them for further investigation.

this is clear because the commissioner has recently reported that to date, they have done so in 493 cases identified within the scope of their commission.

Listener

I agree Brokeback Watchtower, I am pretty confident the Commission will attempt to notify all those victims that they now have a record of but unfortunately they won't be able to overcome the mentality that many JWs have. Many may talk to their elders about it and will be reminded about all their obligations as a JW, that is, keeping Jehovah's name clean, relying on Jehovah alone to make matters right, to rely on the support of the elders in comforting them, not taking a Brother before the higher authorities and the harm in seeking compensation from the organization as being counter productive, selfish, litigious and worldly. We'll see a re-emphasis of this in upcoming talks and publications.

19

WT Financial strategy to reduce liability - Create artificial debt!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

jw
friends

see this letter from the royal commission: .

letter from watchtower australia to governing body regarding transfer of funds between branches.

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=61967dc3-2203-4cca-8dc7-cd612c66645e&type=exhibit&filename=wat.0012.001.0023&fileextension=pdf.

Listener

Just for the record, I am posting extracts from the letter presented by the WTBTS Aust. Branch to the Royal Commission which was addressed to the Head Office.

<<

The legislation applies to non-profit organisations such as charities and religious

organisations. However, “small businesses” are exempt from the operation of the Act. A

business is a “small business” if its annual turnover for the previous year is AUD 3,000,000

(USD 1,500,000) or less. Turnover does not include contributions or donations, but does

include amounts charged to other branches for items supplied by the Australia Branch.

Where funds are transferred without consideration, that is, they are donations or cash

transfers, then those amounts would not be included in the turnover figure......

We now seek your permission to write off all future branch transfers, treating them as

outright donations. In this way we will keep our “turnover” below the threshold and so avoid

the difficulties and obligations that will otherwise apply if we come within the jurisdiction of

this Privacy Act.>>

By their own words, they consider themselves to be a business.

...

19

WT Financial strategy to reduce liability - Create artificial debt!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

jw
friends

see this letter from the royal commission: .

letter from watchtower australia to governing body regarding transfer of funds between branches.

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=61967dc3-2203-4cca-8dc7-cd612c66645e&type=exhibit&filename=wat.0012.001.0023&fileextension=pdf.

Listener

This is interesting because it means that they identify themselves as a business.

This is the definition of Organization under the Privacy Act 1988 (Aust)

<<PRIVACY ACT 1988 - SECT 6C Organisations

What is an organisation ?

(1) In this Act:

"organisation " means:

(a) an individual; or

(b) a body corporate; or

(c) a partnership; or

(d) any other unincorporated association; or

(e) a trust;

that is not a small business operator, a registered political party, an agency, a State or Territory authority or a prescribed instrumentality of a State or Territory.>>

This is basically stating that you are not considered to be an organization under the Act if you are a small business operator. This is the definition of a small business operator under the same Act

<<PRIVACY ACT 1988 - SECT 6D Small business and small business operators

What is a small business ?

(1) A business is a small business at a time (the test time ) in a financial year (the current year ) if its annual turnover for the previous financial year is $3,000,000 or less.

Test for new business

(2) However, if there was no time in the previous financial year when the business was carried on, the business is a small business at the test time only if its annual turnover for the current year is $3,000,000 or less.

What is a small business operator ?

(3) A small business operator is an individual, body corporate, partnership, unincorporated association or trust that:

(a) carries on one or more small businesses; and

(b) does not carry on a business that is not a small business. >>

Notice that at Paragraph 1 it states that it can only be a small business if it is a BUSINESS in the first instance (and if it's turnover is $3 million or less). That is, it must be a business to begin with before even considering whether it is a small business or not. Therefore the WTBTS Australian Branch are clearly identifying themselves as a business in the letters referred to on this thread.

There is no definition in the act to identify what a Business is therefore it would revert to the common law definition. They might argue that they are only a business in relation to the Privacy Act but they can't because they have to identify as a business (under common law) before they can identify themselves as a small business under the Act.