scratchme1010

Joined

• started 8 topics
• posted 2,992 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scratchme1010

• 
  10

  Carrie Fisher dies.

  by Xanthippe in

  1. social
  2. current

  such a sad loss.

  she battled bipolar disorder and came back to acting.

  then we lost her.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  Mat she rest in peace.
  
• 
  23

  2 questions about Warwick

  by Gorbatchov in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have two questions about warwick.

  see the picture included.

  1) at the other side of the lake you see other buildings.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  1) At the other side of the lake you see other buildings. Is it correct that this is an IBM headquarter? I read this somewhere. If so, the WT is in good company, isn't it?

  Not sure, I now that IBM was once located in Sleepy Hollow, NY (yes, such place exists) and they moved from there. So it's not far fetch that IBM may still be in a low tax area.

  2) Will all buildings and houses in Paradise be grey?

  I hope not. My guess are two: I see a lot of grey being used in architecture. Seems like it's a thing of the moment. Also, the color makes the buildings "discreet". I'm sure they don't want unnecessary attention.
  
• 
  40

  Sisters running microphones?

  by NikL in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so our sunday meeting was on the 25th (christmas) and my active jw wife and i were out of town enjoying some family time with relatives.. apparently there were many others in our congregation that missed as well.

  so few were there in fact that sisters ran the mics.

  (actually it was a sister running one of the two mics) a friend of my wife commented to her about how the brothers just aren't stepping up and it "makes her want to cry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  Anyway, I had never heard of that before and was wondering if anyone here had?
  

  You took me way back when I remember a sister running a study because the only adult male present refused to do it. Other than that, I never heard of it.

  rebel8: LOL!
  
• 
  58

  watchtower lapel pins

  by wannaexit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been noticing lots of these pins on lapels.

  i could almost understand the jwdotorg pin because the new mantra is to go to the website.

  but why on earth are they sporting a building?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  They want to have their cake and eat it too. I wonder who came up with the idea of marketing to the JWs. It's such a narrow niche.
  
• 
  207

  Honest Questions About Child Abuse

  by Richard Oliver in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i have two honest questions for everyone here.

  i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.

  but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  Scratchme:

  I am sorry but you are actually wrong. Below is 3 cases including more recent cases that a fiduciary duty was not extended. Again I never said it was right but this is what the court has found.

  Lewis v Bellows Falls Congregation 114-CV-205-JGM. (2015)

  Holdings: The District Court, J. Garvan Murtha, J., held that:

  1 alleged conduct by church did not create fiduciary relationship between church and congregant;

  2 church allegedly had duty to provide reasonable supervision of its minister;

  3 no special relationship existed between the church and its minister, as required to give rise to church's duty to control minister;

  4 church had no duty to protect congregant; and

  5 church had no separate duty to warn its congregants, distinct from a duty to protect.

  Anderson v Watchtower M2004-01066-COA-R9-CV. (2005)

  Barbara Anderson et al. Claimed that Moses v Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310 (Colo. 1993) applied to their case. The Appeals court found that the cited case of Moses: “Recognized that the relationship between a clergyman and parishioner was normally one involving rust and reliance, but further held that in order to be liable to breach a fiduciary duty, the superior party must ‘assume a duty to act in the dependent party’s best interest,’” And footnote 23 goes on “Cases examining a breach of fiduciary durty claim in the contest of a religiously-based relationship have made it clear that the clergy-parishioner relationship alone is not sufficient to establish a fiduciary duty. … (declining to find a per se fiduciary relationship between all clergy and their congregants and requiring “something more” to demonstrate a justifiable trust on one side and resulting superiority and influence on the other).”

  Brian R v Watchtower CUM-98-531 (1999)

  The appeals court ruled:

  There does not exist a general obligation to protect others from harm not created by the actor. “The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 314 (1965). In other words, the mere fact that one individual knows that a third party is or could be dangerous to others does not make that individual responsible for controlling the third party or protecting others from the danger.5

  Even with the emergence of expanded liability for nonfeasance, that principle has remained clear—in instances of “nonfeasance rather than misfeasance, and absent a special relationship, the law imposes no duty to act affirmatively to protect someone from danger unless the dangerous situation was created by the defendant.” Jackson v. Tedd–Lait Post No. 75, 1999 ME 26, ¶ 8, 723 A.2d 1220, 1221. Only when there is a “special relationship,” may the actor be found to have a common law duty to prevent harm to another caused by a third party.7 There is simply “no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless ... a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 315(b) (1965).8

  We have described the salient elements of a fiduciary relationship as: (1) “the actual placing of trust and confidence in fact by one party in another,” and (2) “a great disparity of position and influence between the parties” at issue. Morris v. Resolution Trust Corp., 622 A.2d 708, 712 (Me.1993). A fiduciary relationship has been found to exist in several categories of relationship, including business partners, see Rosenthal v. Rosenthal, 543 A.2d 348, 352 (Me.1988), families engaged in financial transactions, see Estate of Campbell, 1997 ME 212, ¶ 9, 704 A.2d 329, 331–32, and corporate relationships, see Moore v. Maine Indus. Servs., Inc., 645 A.2d 626, 628 (Me.1994); Webber v. Webber Oil Co., 495 A.2d 1215, 1224–25 (Me.1985).

  We have noted, however, that a “general allegation of a confidential relationship is not a sufficient basis for establishing the existence of one.” Ruebsamen v. Maddocks, 340 A.2d 31, 35 (Me.1975). As with any duty, its existence must be informed by “the hand of history, our ideals of morals and justice, the convenience of administration of the rule, and our social ideas as to where the loss should fall.” Trusiani, 538 A.2d at 261. Although a fiduciary duty may be based on “moral, social, domestic, or [ ] merely personal [duties],” Ruebsamen, 340 A.2d at 34, it does not arise merely because of the existence of kinship, friendship, business relationships, or organizational relationships. A fiduciary duty will be found to exist, as a matter of law, only in circumstances where the law will recognize both the disparate positions of the parties and a reasonable basis for the placement of trust and confidence in the superior party in the context of specific events at issue.10 A court, therefore, must have before it specific facts regarding the nature of the relationship that is alleged to have given rise to a fiduciary duty in order to determine whether a duty may exist at law.

  Actually you are wrong, wrong, wrong again. And if I can add, you're also full of shit because if you have all this information then you do not have "an honest question" about the child abuse situation with the WT, which is the bullshit that you started this thread with. You just want to start something, as you yourself have proven here. You're just another classic case of passive/aggressive trolling.
  

  You are citing the law, not the cases that were settled in which it was determined that the WT was in fact in a fiduciary relationship with the defendants. That may not have been the case in the cases that you cite, which I do not know, but it was not the case in any of the following cases that (a) were settled and (b) and were determined that the WT did in fact had a fiduciary responsibility with their victims.

  Here are the cases:

  Amy vs. Jehovah's Witnesses
  Bradley et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Charissa et al Coordinated Cases vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Churchfield vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Daniel Wes et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Grafmyer vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Julianne Wimberlu Gutierrez et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Kaleena et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Ken L vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Morley at al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Tabitha H vs Jehovah's Witnesses
  Tim W vs Jehovah's Witnesses

  So what is good for you is good for me too. I prove my case the same way you do, not that you need any proof because you obviously aren't here wanting information or answer to a question.

  One more thing before I send you to hell: Even if what you state is the case in every single case, which is not (May I also point that I have more cases proving my point than you proving yours?) What I posted in my original was "conveniently" not addressed. Don't think for a second that the rest of what I mentioned gets cancelled in any way shape or form. So here it is again, see if any of this answers your "innocent honest question":

  First: currently there are plenty of laws that protect children. Every state has specific laws and there are plenty of federal laws that protect all kinds of harm that the children may be. There's no need to create more laws.

  Second: not sure where you get that we are more interested in attacking the WT, or that we have no interest in legislation and law. Since the laws already exist, we hold the WT responsible for their disgusting position about child abuse, and for the lack of care for children. Don't expect people to be nice about it if we know that they protect pedophiles and have to be sued for them to admit that they are doing that.

  Third: Covering for pedophiles is not the only immoral act that the WT commits against children. I for once can tell you that I grew up going to the KH hearing about fornication, orgies, adultery, bestiality, Babylon the Great having sex with a dragon, beheadings, genocide, rape, slavery, incestuous relationships, children getting killed, children getting sold into slavery, children getting murdered for making fun of a person's lack of hair, etc. You know very well that all kinds of subjects are openly talked about in KHs with children present. JW kids get exposed to all kinds of violent events, sexually inappropriate subjects and all kinds of things that are not suitable for them. That happens every week in every KH. The WT shows no regard for children at all. If that doesn't give you a clue about the WT not caring about the well being of children, I don't know what does.

  Fourth: What do you think that the events and cases that are currently being seen in court are doing? They are holding them responsible.

  Fifth: It is extremely naive to expect that written laws are going to stop pedophiles and child abusers from causing harm to children. It's not a matter of laws or legislation. JWs have to stop blindly accepting anything and everything that the WT tells them; that's the bottom line. You cannot legislate attitude, you cannot legislate indoctrination, you cannot legislate brainwashing and blind devotion. It really boils down to parents blindly trusting that the WT is acting in their best interest when they are not. There's no law that can enforce people to act appropriately. proof of that is that those laws actually exist and people, including the WT, just don't follow them.

  Now you and your trolling can go to hell.
  
• 
  207

  Honest Questions About Child Abuse

  by Richard Oliver in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i have two honest questions for everyone here.

  i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.

  but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  Just to quote one of the documents I have. I's a long document.

  
  

  ...it was determined that by holding (name of the elder0 out as a qualified Elder and leader in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization, and by undertaking the religious instruction and spiritual and emotional counseling of Plaintiffs, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, created a fiduciary relationship with the Plaintiffs. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS placed themselves in a position of trust and confidence with Plaintiffs, and that such relationship imposed on the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS a duty to act in Plaintiffs' best interest and to protect Plaintiffs' best interests.
  
• 
  207

  Honest Questions About Child Abuse

  by Richard Oliver in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i have two honest questions for everyone here.

  i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.

  but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  I am sorry to tell you but atleast in the US, Watchtower does not contain a fiduciary relationship. That is what a number of judges have ruled. I am not saying that it is right. But I go for facts and that is a fact.
  

  Wrong, wrong, wrong. Those are not facts. Again, I have in my possession the transcripts of some of the lawsuits that were settled here in the USA where it was fully determined by the court that the WT is in a fiduciary relationship with its members. The cases were settled with a very strong non-disclosure agreement on each part.

  Do your research yourself. It's a matter of public record. I have copies of the transcripts myself.

  I am not giving you an uninformed opinion. I am giving you facts.
  
• 
  3

  Are JWs as eager to accept voluntary disassociation by minor JWs as they are to baptize them?

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we all know that the organization shamelessly pushes for youth baptism, even encouraging parents to withhold driver's licenses from driving-aged teens unless they get baptized.

  i've been asking myself: since they are wiling to accept minor baptisms, are they also willing to accept letters of disassociation signed by young minors?.

  i ask this because it seems to me that a signed letter of resignation has a greater "air of legality" to it than baptism, because its a signed document just as most contracts are signed documents.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  Never thought of it. Truth is that when a minor accepts to get baptized, a lot of the child's voice has already been take away from him/her. hard to defend yourself against your parents and pretty much every authority figure you know over a coerced decision you made.
  
• 
  6

  Dutch: JW BIBLE EXPO 2017!

  by darkspilver in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  bible expo 2017: the bible and the name.

  + a unique collection of bibles+ the bible: the most widely translated book+ bible history in the netherlands+ how the name of god has been saved.

  from 19 january through to 2 april 2017thursdays through to sundays from 10:00 to 16:00free entry, free parking and free tours!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  Interesting from a historical perspective, but to be surrounded by so many bible freaks... I rather pass.
  
• 
  38

  What Was Your Favorite Kingdom Song?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  funny but for whatever reason, i can't stop singing walking in integrity from the old songbook!

  it's in my head and in my opinion it was one of the few songs i really liked..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scratchme1010

  I have musical ears and talent for music and I hated, hated, hated all those cheesy songs. Hated more that I couldn't explore my musical talent because every time I was told to sing one of those hideous songs instead.

  NONE.