i was wondering if co's who get 'green handshakes' ever report their 'income' from these jw benefits?
in the us even gifts beyond a certain amount must be reported.
jw's like to claim how honest they are, do they report all their income?.
Also, it is $14000 from one single person to another single person.
Just take it out of religion, let's say someone graduates from college the student has a party with 200 people each person gives him 100 bucks, that is 20,000 dollars it isn't that the 20,000 dollars are over the threshold. No one would have to declare it because no one person gave the person over the $14000 threshold.
i was wondering if co's who get 'green handshakes' ever report their 'income' from these jw benefits?
in the us even gifts beyond a certain amount must be reported.
jw's like to claim how honest they are, do they report all their income?.
According to TaxAct.com the threshold is $14000 from a single person.
i see there has already been discussion over lloyd’s new book how to leave the jehovah's witnesses.
this includes discussion around his personality, motives and financial gains.
i have written a foreword for this book, because it is an important topic that has not been covered in such a complete format before.
If you even look at Amazon under his reluctant apostate if someone dared to give him a bad review he would either accuse them of being an apologist or just dismiss them as not knowing what good writing is. He can't take criticism of any kind.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
yes did you read that the judge says that the privilege can extend to JWs but not in that specific case? Again other courts have found the same thing. It is a complex thing and you make it sound so simple.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
You finally made a reasonable argument. If you are going to make a legal argument then you have to do your research and not just think that the legal and the moral things are the same thing.
But again you also fall into the clergy-penitent privilege and what the US Supreme Court says about that privilege. That it is everyone's human right to seek spiritual advice from another person and expect that advice to be held in confidence.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
Are you saying that the police dont respond to anonymous complaints even in cases of child abuse. In many states the statute allows for anonymous complaints. The police will investigate regardless of there is a name on the complaint or not
Do you understand what hearsay is? You can only testify based on what you know not on what someone told you
Yes a pedophile can be charged with two different cases. But that is not what your original scenario was. You said that they can inform on a different municipality. Even if that person was convicted previously the prosecutor cannot use that in the instant case.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
Well, the first scenario doesn't actually require cooperation in fact even just an anonymous report which for some reason people here feel is terrible would do the same thing. Scenario 2 would again be hearsay, a witness can only describe what they know first hand and not based on someone else's report of telling them something. Scenario 3, would be inadmissible in most courts as prior bad acts which are not allowed in court cases.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
The issue is too. If a child tells the elders that they were molested and the elders do cooperate with the police by saying that the child said, what good is that in court. That isn't evidence, that is hearsay evidence and no court in the western world allows the hearsay testimony.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
I think that they do. they just looked at it from a neutral fact-finder position and not the hatred that other people have.
their research showed them that the two witness rule doesn't always apply.
older publications gave them something to think about!.
the watchtower society encourages jehovah's witnesses to read,examine, and learn from their older publications.examples:--------------------------------------watchtower/1999/10/1/pg.23"one day in about october 1941, while i was witnessing in themarketplace, someone spoke about a witness of jehovah who lived in anearby town.
Watchtower has actually always said that if someone is a victim of a crime it is not against the prohibition of taking your brother to court to report it.
