check his signature... it looks kind of childish/feminine (at least in my part of the world)... is this a grown man's signature for you?.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=9d0ca1dc-1bd6-41c4-9cfc-b1d616d1cc65&type=exhibit&filename=stat.0670.001.0001&fileextension=pdf.
@shadow: I agree the signature might no be the most important part of the document, but it is the only thing that was really provided by Jackson. I don't think he drafted the document himself.
I think you can see a bit of how the person really is by his/her handwriting style. In this particular case it seams childish to me... and this person is ruling over 8 million people.
check his signature... it looks kind of childish/feminine (at least in my part of the world)... is this a grown man's signature for you?.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=9d0ca1dc-1bd6-41c4-9cfc-b1d616d1cc65&type=exhibit&filename=stat.0670.001.0001&fileextension=pdf.
Check his signature... it looks kind of childish/feminine (at least in my part of the world)... is this a grown man's signature for you?
i would think the only christian organization on this planet would be more than willingly send another gb member to australia in order to answer rcs questions, taking the place of jackson who is taking care of his ill farther.
.
if someone should show compassion to jackson those are his gb pals.
I would think the “only Christian organization” on this planet would be more than willingly send another GB member to Australia in order to answer RC’s questions, taking the place of Jackson who is taking care of his ill farther.
If someone should show compassion to Jackson those are his GB pals.
this is from conti's appeal veredict:.
monica applewhite, a clinical social worker and an expert on child sexual abuse, testified for defendants that watchtowers policy against disclosing private information .
very closely mirror[ed] the codes of ethics of the national association of social workers and the american counseling association.
This is from Conti's appeal veredict:
Monica Applewhite, a clinical social worker and an expert on child sexual abuse,
testified for defendants that Watchtower’s policy against “disclosing private
information . . . very closely mirror[ed]” the codes of ethics of the National Association
of Social Workers and the American Counseling Association. Based on her review of the
evidence, Applewhite opined that the Congregation never put Kendrick “into a position
that required or allowed him to be alone with children, to be in supervision of children,
[or] to spend time with children away from their families.” Because the church’s
activities did not separate children from their parents, Appelwhite opined that its best
means of protecting children was to educate parents about child sexual abuse, and it
exceeded the standard of care for such education in the 1990’s. According to Applewhite,
the elders met the standard of care in Kendrick’s case when they left it up to Evelyn and
her daughter whether to tell the police about the abuse he admitted, and “they kept a
special watch on him and paid attention to whether or not he had any inappropriate
contact with children within the meetings at Kingdom Hall.”
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.
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.
See this letter from the Royal Commission:
In your letters AF:AG February 19, 1999 No. 142, AF:AG November 8, 1999 No.
139, AOK:ACB August 16, 2000 No. 301, and others the principle of holding sufficient debt
between branches to enable a claim to be made in the event that adverse circumstances
endanger the property of the branch, is clearly made. At present our records show substantial
indebtedness between Australia branch and branches to which we are currently sending
literature, funds, and other items. We do not see any need to write off these amounts already
shown on the records.
you can find the full judgement at this link: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/ewhc/qb/2015/1722.html.
judge compares wt with catholic church... .
You can find the full judgement at this link: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/1722.html
Judge compares WT with Catholic Church...
just wondering?
he denied being in subjection to the the watchtower corporation so are they still using him in their regular monthly broadcast.
the Watchtower (corporate) gets tax exemption status because they are a one and only thing with Jehovah's Witnesses (religion). If they are not the same thing as it seems to be suggested by lawyers representing Watchtower and Losch himself, why are they tax exempted? If they not the same, in case I need to sue Jehovah's Witnesses who must I sue other than the Watchtower?
i was a bethelite for some time a couple of years ago.
some of the best days for bethelites were when there was ice cream for dessert.
now, they are asking (new release video at conventions) kids to give away ice creams money... for what?
I was a bethelite for some time a couple of years ago. Some of the best days for bethelites were when there was ice cream for dessert. Now, they are asking (new release video at conventions) kids to give away ice cream’s money… for what? So they can have ice cream at lunch???
If they want to keep this video they would at least need to abandon their ice cream consumption. I suggest they issue a declaration in The Watchtower like: “After carefully consideration and intense prayer, the Governing Body has decided that ice cream will not ever again be provided as dessert in Bethel homes worldwide. This decision will save millions of dollars that can be used to expand the Kingdom’s interests”.
WT 130 years killing any fun!!!!
i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .
opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.
the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.
As I said I'm not an expert, but for what I saw in the opinion they revert on punitive damages because these were awarded by the wrong reasons. However, the court that initially awarded them has to rule on new punitive damages but for the reasons detailed in the appeal court's opinion. Is my understanding correct?
Also, I think the initial amount must be higher due to interest. Do you know how much is that? Intrests for 2.8M x 2.5 years
