I've tried to publish this several times but it doesn't work. You can check the ruling here:
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/Tayo-etc-decision-09Apr15.pdf
i've tried to publish this several times but it doesn't work.
you can check the ruling here: .
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/tayo-etc-decision-09apr15.pdf.
I've tried to publish this several times but it doesn't work. You can check the ruling here:
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/Tayo-etc-decision-09Apr15.pdf
from the ruling: .
"we note that the congregation and the charity are one and the same entity in this case, so that whilst the congregation understandably wishes to follow its religious practices, its status as a registered charity brings with it, in exchange for public recognition and tax reliefs, a requirement to maintain certain standards of behaviour.
it also brings with it the risk that, if there are concerns about its activities, these might be inquired into by the respondent.
From the ruling:
"We note that the Congregation and the Charity are one and the same entity in this case, so that whilst the Congregation understandably wishes to follow its religious practices, its status as a registered charity brings with it, in exchange for public recognition and tax reliefs, a requirement to maintain certain standards of behaviour. It also brings with it the risk that, if there are concerns about its activities, these might be inquired into by the Respondent. We consider that there were significant grounds for concern about the Charity on the basis of the information held by the Respondent"
“we consider that there are significant on-going grounds for concern about the Charity’s conduct of safeguarding matters. We take into account (i) the Charity’s failure to be entirely frank with the Respondent about the questioning of victims in the disfellowshipping of Mr Rose at the relevant time; (ii) the delay in volunteering the information that third parties had been involved in the disfellowshipping of Mr Rose; and (iii) the Charity’s insistence in these proceedings that there was no legitimate cause for concern by the Respondent about the conduct of those proceedings because of the appointment of third parties to conduct them. The Charity did not appear from the evidence before us to accept that best practice in safeguarding for charities relates not only to the protection of children but also of vulnerable adults, nor did it appear to have considered whether the Charity might have a safeguarding role in respect of adults who had been abused as children in the Congregation. 72. The Charity also did not seem to us to have considered whether Mr Rose might yet present a risk to children currently in the Congregation.”
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/Tayo-etc-decision-09Apr15.pdf
i think this case it is not in very good shape for plaintiff, it is a person currently in prison suing wt.
does anyone have more information?.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/uscourts-caed-1_14-cv-01740/uscourts-caed-1_14-cv-01740-0/content-detail.html.
I think this case it is not in very good shape for plaintiff, it is a person currently in prison suing WT. Does anyone have more information?
the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.
here is the ruling:.
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.
The WT lost its appeals regarding the Charity Commission inquiry. Here is the ruling:
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/Watch-Tower-ruling-03Mar15.pdf
There is an associated case to this which hearing is due tomorrow (10th march) at Fleetbank House , 2-6 Salisbury Square, London. I think it starts at 10 a.m.
The case name is Tayo, Bailey, Halls, Jones, Rowarth & Flanagan (Trustees of Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses) v Charity Commission for England & Wales
you must see the musical video at the end of this month program (aprox.
at 1:04:30).... i don't like to use "must" but this is wow... if you think they couldn't get any lower... just be prepared...
john ekrann, a helper to the gb, revealed the true reason for the change was protecting jws from apostates and other "anointed" christians.. see: http://tv.jw.org/#video/vodprogramsevents/pub-jwbmw_e_201501_2_video (around 4:55ms).
.
John Ekrann, a helper to the GB, revealed the true reason for the change was protecting JWs from apostates and other "anointed" Christians.
See: http://tv.jw.org/#video/VODProgramsEvents/pub-jwbmw_E_201501_2_VIDEO (around 4:55ms)
wt applied for tax exemption to the town of ramapo, ny, on the ground that they use the land as a "spiritual "retreat", including hiking trails to facilitate spiritual meditation in the natural contemplative setting of the wooded property and reflection on the creative works of the almighty".
tax authority didn't buy it and wt sued: one, two.
i didn't know they did this kind of meditation or spiritual retreats....
wt applied for tax exemption to the town of ramapo, ny, on the ground that they use the land as a "spiritual "retreat", including hiking trails to facilitate spiritual meditation in the natural contemplative setting of the wooded property and reflection on the creative works of the almighty".
tax authority didn't buy it and wt sued: one, two.
i didn't know they did this kind of meditation or spiritual retreats....
WT applied for tax exemption to the Town of Ramapo, NY, on the ground that they use the land as a "spiritual "retreat", including hiking trails to facilitate spiritual meditation in the natural contemplative setting of the wooded property and reflection on the creative works of the Almighty"
Tax authority didn't buy it and WT sued: One, Two
I didn't know they did this kind of meditation or spiritual retreats...
if you feel that the wtbts is breaking a tax law(s), you can send a letter to investigate the wtbts to the irs to:.
department of the treasuryinternal revenue servicemc 4910 dal1100 commerce streetdallas, tx 75242 .
the irs will investigate complaints about the wtbts, but it will not investigate the wtbts without compliants being sent to the irs.
On abuse cases WT tries to separate the GB from the corporation, but if this is the case would that not affect the WT status as a religion before the IRS?
Either the WT is = to JW for all purposes (as they claim for tax purposes) or they are not (as Lösch claimed in Lopez’s case)
What do you think?
the answer to this question is not that easy or obvious as you might think.
if your answer is "creationists" you are wrong, they are evolutionists a rare breed of evolutionists, but evolutionists at last .. at this stage of my argumentation you might think i have lost my mind for stating jehovahs witnesses are evolutionists, but this might be because you are thinking as the wt has taught you to think.
the wt has presented a distorted view of the theory of evolution.
Thanks TD. It seems you really know about this.
I think as someone said they are nothing... but a business. However, I think this kind of analysis can help some people to wake up.