it seems that irwin zalkin has obtained undisclosed settlement in the case.
the $4000 a day fine then seems to be dead.
the downside?
I got the 3 billion based off estimating if each JW gave about 2 percent of their income in donations, it would easily be over a billion a year (some give more, some gives less). Combine that with the money not being spend on printing and it comes to be a pretty decent windfall there as printing is a massive expense.
Of course I don’t know for sure so it’s a lot of guesswork on my part.
it seems that irwin zalkin has obtained undisclosed settlement in the case.
the $4000 a day fine then seems to be dead.
the downside?
Never a JW:
The property sales are a direct result of the massive printing reductions, which means less staff are needed.
However you forget the tens of millions used to build Warwick, the Broadcast studio, and other building used to film.
it seems that irwin zalkin has obtained undisclosed settlement in the case.
the $4000 a day fine then seems to be dead.
the downside?
Never a JW:
Aging and dying is a part of life. My bigger point is why JW’s still care. They care because the leadership cares. And they show that they care through the fact that organization has proven to keep up with technological advances. You can see this in their feature-length movie productions and other video content, applications, and our research tools.
That alone appeals to the “new generation”. So I completely disagree with you. Had they still been forcing us to carry bound volumes to the meetings and brief cases, then sure.
But we can use iPads, tablets, and smart phones. That’s really right up the alleys of young people.
it seems that irwin zalkin has obtained undisclosed settlement in the case.
the $4000 a day fine then seems to be dead.
the downside?
Phoebe,
Dont get me wrong, what I am really criticizing is these lawyers who don’t care about putting a victim through a traumatic case. They milk them and call it a day. They get rich. The victim is left retraumatized and drained mentally and emotionally. The lawyer then goes to see his realtor.
it seems that irwin zalkin has obtained undisclosed settlement in the case.
the $4000 a day fine then seems to be dead.
the downside?
Lol since when did the organization care where “converts” come from anyway? YOU all make a big deal out of it. Growth is growth, no matter how little, or where it comes from. If the US never had another convert, they would not care. In fact, out of 8.3 million members, only 1.2 of them are in the US.
Like I said, its always next time, next victim, next lawsuit. Almost 20 years of that in the US, and you are no more closer to collapsing WT than you were then.
it seems that irwin zalkin has obtained undisclosed settlement in the case.
the $4000 a day fine then seems to be dead.
the downside?
Phoebe
You want a plaintiff to see it through? You need a plaintiff that isn’t out to get paid. The fact is that its ONLY about the money. Lawyers only want money. This is the real world. People have bills.
So far, plaintiffs are content with quietly taking their money and disappearing.
Zalkin is NOT about holding anyone accountable. His goal is to make as much money for himself and his firm as humanly possible. That’s why only sues organizations that have MONEY!
Conti said “I will NEVER $ettle”. We see how much that was worth.
Change to motivation, and you will change the outcomes.
it seems that irwin zalkin has obtained undisclosed settlement in the case.
the $4000 a day fine then seems to be dead.
the downside?
Slidin Fast;
You didn’t understand what I said — I said the sum is *relatively* paltry. For an organization that nets probably 3 billion a year, even a yearly fine of 1.5 million is NEGLIGIBLE.
And take a number and get in line dude — since 2002, the “next” lawsuit is always said to be the one to “bring down WT” — it’s always “next time” with you wishful thinkers.
You probably should understand that child abuse accusations will not bring down this organization — apathy will. Apathy is religion’s poison, and since it’s an undeniable fact that most Jws still care, you may as well find another hobby.
it seems that irwin zalkin has obtained undisclosed settlement in the case.
the $4000 a day fine then seems to be dead.
the downside?
Zalkin definitely is not bilking “millions” from the org, and settling can definitely benefit the org. How? Settlement dollar amount are not disclosed, so no one knows how much they are willing to pay to settle (which makes deciding to sue that much more tougher a decision), and the plantiff is barred from talking about it so they cannot sell their story to journalists and movie producers. There is a reason these people fall completely off the map after agreeing to a settlement.
Secondly, it’s better for WT to settle than it is to even see a winning case through. Even if WT were to win, there are no restrictions of the plantiff and they can sell their story to anyone. Settling puts restrictions on them.
So while many celebrate the fact that WT had to write a check, they so easily miss the bigger picture — keeping negative publicity to a minimum in the long term is worth whatever relatively paltry sum of money the plaintiff gets.
today a government meeting re.
child abuse & jw was held.
see this post.
And the problem I see is that people nitpick through the policies to find whatever “flaw” they can muster, and then they make ambiguous, blanket, declarations like: “we need a child-focused policy” or “children need comfort, support, and love”.
Ok - well, how do you suppose you do that in practical terms? What does “child-focused” mean? Where do the parents come into play? What constitutes “child abuse” in the first place?
Does Reclaimed Voices attempt to answer any of those type of questions? Or are they simply content with making unproven, slanderous claims in the media?
today a government meeting re.
child abuse & jw was held.
see this post.
Is this going to be a “I’m rubber, you’re glue” discussion?
Just acknowledge the fact that this foundation has every intent to pursue legal action first foremost. And 200 “reports” of child abuse are not 200 “incidents” of child abuse.
I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that this organization is also accepting reports of hearsay too, you know, “ I know someone who said they were abused by X “.
The incentive is clearly to balloon the numbers to make it seem worse than what it is. I think your government makes a distinction between rape and touching of the breast for example. I could be wrong.
But your question, a policy with flaws, or a policy with imperfections, it’s not the same as a policy which covers up child abuse.
