Evacuated

???? only severely out of context!!!
There seems to be an unecessarily extreme position set out in this debate. It appears to be assumed that the idea of Jesus "becoming" king at a date considerably later than the time of his being " exalted to the right hand of God " excludes him being a king in the interim period. The debate appears to focus on the demolition of this idea, which is indeed a false concept, and more than adequately accomplishes this.
However, this position is not integral to the understanding that a time period could elapse between Jesus returning to the "right hand of God" and his subsequent future role in the execution of Jehovah's "judgement against the nations." Ps 110 (in full).
A simple parallel can be drawn with Jehovah Himself. Jehovah is termed the King of Eternity. As such, He is not (never has been nor will be) subject to anything, not even the passing of time, despite His existence FROM eternity until the moment of creation when He acted on His decision to share His universe.
Since the moment He created an intelligent being in the form of his only-begotten Son, He has retained His position as King of Eternity. Despite the attack on His right to rule, and the rebellion of Satan, an unspecified number of powerful spirits, along with millions of mankind on earth, Jehovah has never relinquished His position as King of Eternity. His eternal Sovereignty was acknowledged by his faithful servants on earth, not as a future condition, but as a current state, recognised by faithful humans, spirits, and His only-begotten Son. Ps.47:2,7; Ps. 90:2; Ps.103:19-20; Lu.4:5-8. It was even forcibly impressed on pagan rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar, see Dan.4:34-35,37.
And yet we find statements such as that of David when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to the City of David:
"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful; Declare among the nations: ‘Jehovah has become King!" 1 Chr.16:31 And the Sons of Korah, after stating that Jehovah "is the great King" (Ps.47:2,7) follow up with this:
"God has become King over the nations. God sits on his holy throne." Ps.47:8. And Isaiah, after referring 8 times to Jehovah as the existing Sovereign Lord, says prophetically in connection with the restoration of Jerusalem:
"For Jehovah of armies has become King in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem," Is.24:23 Jesus himself, when providing his outline for prayer priorities, said:
"Let your kingdom come" Matt.6:10. And later, in his revelation, in describing " things that must shortly take place" (Rev.1:1), he points to a future time when:
“The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ"  Rev 11:15. And also that faithful ones say: "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king" Rev.11:17. So how is it that Jehovah could be "King of Eternity" (1Tim.1:17; Rev.15:2), have His throne "established long ago" (Ps.93:2), with a "kingship that is an eternal kingship" (Ps145:13) and at the same time become king on a number of occasions over the centuries?
Answer this and you will be on the path to understanding how it is that Jesus, who like his Father, was/is ruling as a king, and yet could/will, also like his Father, become king at the same time. 

 
 

???? only severely out of context!!!
There seems to be an unecessarily extreme position set out in this debate. It appears to be assumed that the idea of Jesus "becoming" king at a date considerably later than the time of his being " exalted to the right hand of God " excludes him being a king in the interim period. The debate appears to focus on the demolition of this idea, which is indeed a false concept, and more than adequately accomplishes this.
However, this position is not integral to the understanding that a time period could elapse between Jesus returning to the "right hand of God" and his subsequent future role in the execution of Jehovah's "judgement against the nations." Ps 110 (in full).
A simple parallel can be drawn with Jehovah Himself. Jehovah is termed the King of Eternity. As such, He is not (never has been nor will be) subject to anything, not even the passing of time, despite His existence FROM eternity until the moment of creation when He acted on His decision to share His universe.
Since the moment He created an intelligent being in the form of his only-begotten Son, He has retained His position as King of Eternity. Despite the attack on His right to rule, and the rebellion of Satan, an unspecified number of powerful spirits, along with millions of mankind on earth, Jehovah has never relinquished His position as King of Eternity. His eternal Sovereignty was acknowledged by his faithful servants on earth, not as a future condition, but as a current state, recognised by faithful humans, spirits, and His only-begotten Son. Ps.47:2,7; Ps. 90:2; Ps.103:19-20; Lu.4:5-8. It was even forcibly impressed on pagan rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar, see Dan.4:34-35,37.
And yet we find statements such as that of David when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to the City of David:
"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful; Declare among the nations: ‘Jehovah has become King!" 1 Chr.16:31 And the Sons of Korah, after stating that Jehovah "is the great King" (Ps.47:2,7) follow up with this:
"God has become King over the nations. God sits on his holy throne." Ps.47:8. And Isaiah, after referring 8 times to Jehovah as the existing Sovereign Lord, says prophetically in connection with the restoration of Jerusalem:
"For Jehovah of armies has become King in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem," Is.24:23 Jesus himself, when providing his outline for prayer priorities, said:
"Let your kingdom come" Matt.6:10. And later, in his revelation, in describing " things that must shortly take place" (Rev.1:1), he points to a future time when:
“The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ"  Rev 11:15. And also that faithful ones say: "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king" Rev.11:17. So how is it that Jehovah could be "King of Eternity" (1Tim.1:17; Rev.15:2), have His throne "established long ago" (Ps.93:2), with a "kingship that is an eternal kingship" (Ps145:13) and at the same time become king on a number of occasions over the centuries?
Answer this and you will be on the path to understanding how it is that Jesus, who like his Father, was/is ruling as a king, and yet could/will, also like his Father, become king at the same time. 

 
 

or even a "daft" copy?
 

THAT is a very good question. I cannot find publicly available information on the internet. Maybe it happened and didn't hit the news, or doesn't show up on main searches, or it was a closed prosecution or maybe it is something in the works, or for some reason the authorities aren't actioning it. I don't know. But I'd like to know.

These kind of sad tales always bring to mind Paul's words at 1Cor.15:19.

I was thinking that, but you know it doesn't seem that far from Brooklyn and there a lot of people in between.  Check Google map: Warwick Headquarters

With respect, this will always be "may have lived" and it will always be the underlying medical problem that caused their death. (Discounting sin of course). Getting this right in no way minimises the stand these courageous and loyal brothers and sisters take.

This is a very prudent approach advised by Ann O'Maly, and I would hasten to add that even relatively modern, purely secular scholarship should be treated with caution also. After all, the term "modern" (as opposed to "antiquarian") is just a relative concept. Everything modern becomes antiquarian eventually.  But as for researching and verifying historical information on Babylonish religion to the level similar to that in the document linked below?
Well, this is not for the regular amateur, and whilst I have no criticism taking an interest in such matters (as I do myself), I suggest that most true Christians, with other priorities, might find an alternative approach more effective, one based on 2Tim 3:16. Why not save the embarrassment of arguing ineffectively on secular terms?
I like Queen Esther's approach:
Daniel chapter 1 provides an interesting snapshot of life in ancient Babylon for worshippers of Jehovah. I am sure Daniel and his friends were exposed to all manner of festivities, holidays etc., both secular and religious, during their 3-year training course in Babylonian culture. Dan 1:5. (We could all do with something similar really if we want to argue origins with secular authorities). 
But we have no reason to believe Daniel and co treated these Babylonian customs any differently than they did the dietary practices common to the level of society to which they were exposed. Comp Dan.1:8. In fact, in view of the words at De 8:3 (quoted later by Jesus), I suspect their attention to the avoidence of spritual defilement would have been even more diligent. And as they were living in the actual Babylonian environment that we seek to associate with more recent customs, there was surely no need for them to grapple with the arguments of academics to define what was or was not acceptable to Jehovah. And in view of the inherehent dangers to their spirituality in that environment, they would surely have just avoided whatever Jehovah had not commanded, would they not?.

(My bold above) "rules" I suppose I mean in the sense of legislating specific circumstances. These to me are more guidelines than rules.
As for your expanded scenario, once again it demostrates why there are no rules to govern that situation because there are too many variables unmentioned.
However, as you have quoted, there is a clear rule to govern what happens when a serious sinner is unrepentant and that is described at 1 Cor.5:11. Now, how individuals are to balance the respecting of a judicial decision with the aim of gaining a brother against any scriptural requirements to discharge familial responsibility is definitely for those individuals to decide.
There are guidelines on specific situations, as per km 8/02. Other balancing factors not included in your listing are provided by Jesus at Matt.10:37 and Lu.14:26. Considered counsel from competent older men might be helpful. Careful weighing of effects on the conscience of others in the congregation, mature or otherwise, would also need to be factored in of course. But in the end, the decisions on specific situations rest with the individuals involved.
Regarding the effectiveness of such a disciplinary measure, let us not forget that in respect of the actual case prompting Paul's instruction to the Corinthians, the necessary reaction in the case of the sinner was produced in that repentance was demonstrated and restoration accomplished. (2Cor.2:6-11).  
This I find a bit confusing. Are you saying you have never been involved in a reinstatement?

Although, of course, reality is a bit of a subjective term. I suppose we could ask who's reality?
Anyway, I suspect you (and @JWInsider) mean that "the real world" that "some prominent brothers" are divorced from has reference to the set of circumstances experienced by non-SPOOFT Jehovah's Witnesses in their day to day interface with:
JWs, (congregational, social, and family life). non-JWs (relatives, interested ones, neighbors, peers in education and the workplace, the non-JW community at large). others (marked, inactive, disfellowshipped). If that is the "reality" to which you are referring, then I would say that, in some cases, rather than a possibility, divorce from this "reality" is a certainty. And is likely a condition experienced by more than "some prominent brothers".
I would suggest that other such "la-la Land" inhabitants might include some brought up as Jehovah's Witnesses by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jesus helps us to get a balance on fleshly relationships in his handling of the incident recorded at Matt.12:46-50; Mr.3:31-35; Lu.8:19-21. My understanding of this sets spritual bonds at a higher priority to fleshly bonds without negating the latter. Jesus words at Mr.10:29-30 have a relevance here also.
Those who are unrepentant regarding a practice of serious sin resulting in disfellowshipping action bring great heartache and difficulty into the lives of their Christian relatives, both fleshly AND spiritual, such is their selfishness. In effect, the spiritual bond they enjoyed with their family in the truth, (which includes any dedicated, fleshly relatives), is broken. However, fleshly relationships are not necessarily broken. (Grand)parent-grandchild, sibling, husband-wife (unless an optional divorce results), degrees of kinship, human to human. All these fleshy bonds remain. They may be modified by variables relating to health, age, even economic or some other acute circumstance. But, nevertheless, they remain, and scripturally so. Dealing with a multitude of circumstance resulting from many variable factors in the case of a disfellowshipped relative involves the excercise of personal conscience.
The various scenarios described above, imagined or real, all involve the excercise of conscience on the part of those relatives serving Jehovah. As such, no rules can be made. One has to act as one feels conscientiously is right. But, as with all matters involving excercise of conscience, the effect on onlookers is a consideration. (Rom.14:14). Consider Rom.14:21 "It is best not....to do anything over which your brother stumbles". Those onlookers include the congregation elders. And the reaction of onlookers will differ from place to place, circumstance to circumstance.
Many may feel too conflicted to decide what to do for the best when emotions cloud clear judgement and may seek counsel from trusted elders. Others may let their hearts rule, others act legalistically and unmercifully. Still others may feel they can make balanced decisions.
Elders have an additional burden in upholding Jehovah's standards and protecting the flock from spiritually weakening or contaminating influences. Individuals may make conscientous decisions in dealing with disfellowshipped relatives which then alarm elders in the discharge of their shepherding responsibility to ALL the flock. Elders may have to restrict privileges for those who in their conscientous view are setting an unwise example as a result. Each one will have to bear the consequence of decisions that they make and the manner in which those decisions effect the conscience of others. 
This all underlines a number of  factors for me:
the far reaching consequences of sin : Rom.5:12 the exceeding selfishness of those who unrepentantly violate Jehovah's standards and consequently the rights of all their relatives, spritual and fleshly the need for discretion in the excercise of kindness and mercy. Comp Matt 6:3 the need for congregation elders to "carry on in a manly way" 1Cor. 16:13

https://www.childwelfare.gov
states:
Pennsylvania
Failure to Report
Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6319; Tit. 18, § 4958
A mandatory reporter who willfully fails to report as required commits a misdemeanor of the third degree for the first violation and a misdemeanor of the second degree for a second or subsequent violation.
and defines mandatory reporters to include:
• A clergyman, priest, rabbi, minister, Christian Science practitioner, religious healer, or spiritual leader of any regularly established church or other religious organization.
So have charges been brought regarding the non-reporting as that seems be outside the scope of the Fessler action?
 

???
Attachment is public domain material relating to other cases in another country and which is the subject of a number of discussions elsewhere on this forum.
So, although of interest along with the 38 other Case studies reported on in Australia, it doesn't contribute much to the question of clarity in the reporting of the Stephanie Fessler v Watch Tower case.
By the way, who do you refer to as  "mentally diseased" apostates?
 

These kind of sad tales always bring to mind Paul's words at 1Cor.15:19.

I was being satirical actually

Although, of course, reality is a bit of a subjective term. I suppose we could ask who's reality?
Anyway, I suspect you (and @JWInsider) mean that "the real world" that "some prominent brothers" are divorced from has reference to the set of circumstances experienced by non-SPOOFT Jehovah's Witnesses in their day to day interface with:
JWs, (congregational, social, and family life). non-JWs (relatives, interested ones, neighbors, peers in education and the workplace, the non-JW community at large). others (marked, inactive, disfellowshipped). If that is the "reality" to which you are referring, then I would say that, in some cases, rather than a possibility, divorce from this "reality" is a certainty. And is likely a condition experienced by more than "some prominent brothers".
I would suggest that other such "la-la Land" inhabitants might include some brought up as Jehovah's Witnesses by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Yeah ... I typically run alternate scenarios in my mind 24/7/365 ....  , and I realized you were being satirical about ten minutes after I logged off, but I had a bad night and was exhausted, and knowing you are not a Snowflake, I was too tired to edit as I should have .... besides, I kinda liked the "two straws" visualization ....
 

This posting could be taken as offensive and/or immature. I can see from your comments about beards that you are only just getting on your feet again so I'll stick with the latter and overlook it.
Proverbs 12:18 would be a useful addition to your "equipment", as would the prayer at Ps 17:5. 

??? I think I said that Jehovah is happy with the overall progress of His purpose and that will always govern in what He chooses to intervene. In other words, as He always has the successful outcome of His purpose in view, He is always happy with what He allows. Of course the negative aspects and consequences of human behaviour do not make Him happy (compare Ps.119:136). Surely you know that???
He will indeed intervene in the affairs of all mankind soon. The outcome of that intervention will make him happier still, although there are some who feel otherwise.

From Wikipedia:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".
Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.
Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]
Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of conservatives versus liberals,[4] or the solitary nature of introverts.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.
Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.[6] Janis published an influential book in 1972, which was revised in 1982.[7][8] Janis used the Bay of Pigs disaster (the failed invasion of Castro's Cuba in 1961) and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as his two prime case studies. Later studies have evaluated and reformulated his groupthink model.[9][10]

I just checked, the blue links worked when I tried them ....

Yeah, as Abraham Lincoln once warned ... "Never believe anything you read on the Internet!"
Could be worse ... could be a picture of Jesus holding out two fingers with a Gillette Razor between them.
With my usual lack of humor I present the Draft Copy of the December 2016 issue of the Watchtower which showed a Brother shaving on the cover ... it was changed before being distributed, because the Brothers responsible for the VERY GOOD and accurate article ... disappeared mysteriously.
After you save the file to your hard drive, from the TOOL BAR, be sure to set your ADOBE PDF reader under VIEW to "Reading Mode" and under ZOOM,  "Fit Page" to read it.
 
Dec 2016 Watchtower draft article .pdf

Agree with this statement, but the picture slogan accompanying it is pure...drivel. If that is not a contradiction in terms!

(My bold above) "rules" I suppose I mean in the sense of legislating specific circumstances. These to me are more guidelines than rules.
As for your expanded scenario, once again it demostrates why there are no rules to govern that situation because there are too many variables unmentioned.
However, as you have quoted, there is a clear rule to govern what happens when a serious sinner is unrepentant and that is described at 1 Cor.5:11. Now, how individuals are to balance the respecting of a judicial decision with the aim of gaining a brother against any scriptural requirements to discharge familial responsibility is definitely for those individuals to decide.
There are guidelines on specific situations, as per km 8/02. Other balancing factors not included in your listing are provided by Jesus at Matt.10:37 and Lu.14:26. Considered counsel from competent older men might be helpful. Careful weighing of effects on the conscience of others in the congregation, mature or otherwise, would also need to be factored in of course. But in the end, the decisions on specific situations rest with the individuals involved.
Regarding the effectiveness of such a disciplinary measure, let us not forget that in respect of the actual case prompting Paul's instruction to the Corinthians, the necessary reaction in the case of the sinner was produced in that repentance was demonstrated and restoration accomplished. (2Cor.2:6-11).  
This I find a bit confusing. Are you saying you have never been involved in a reinstatement?

Like this point and also the picture of Jesus as the rider of the White Horse in Rev. 6:2 "And I saw, and look! a white horse, and the one seated on it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went out conquering and to complete his conquest"
Haven't so far seen any conflict with the WT application of Heb 10:12-13 initiating this discussion. There is no doubt that Jesus was Jehovah's anointed king as soon as he returned to the heavens having completed his earthly mission. @JWInsider has already cited Phillipians 2:9 on this "For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name". But I am pretty sure that neither Dan 7:14 or 27 were fulfilled at that point.
I mean, let's face it, I am sure some believed that Cassius Clay was the heavyweight champion of the world on Feb 24 1964, but what took place on Feb 25 1964 altered the perspective entirely.

I've heard you express problems with this word before. I don't have a problem with it because, well, it's a word and it is a fair match for the Greek "a-sel'geia." The word "brazen" is a little dated, but not obsolete. Personally I would have gone with "shameless" because it fits the meaning of the original word as a negated word and "a-selgeia" is negative in the way amoral means without morals, and shameless means without shame. But the original word does include a sense of "strength" or "boldness," which could get lost in the simpler "shameless," where the sense of boldness is not always implied. Greek writers outside the Bible used it often with reference to the same idea that is heard in the cliché or hackneyed phrase: "brazen hussy" (in the sense of "wanton woman" "shameless prostitute").
 
There is another small problem in that it's the third of three primary definitions, which allows for an ambiguity or perhaps a small delay in understanding by a first time reader. But that's not an important issue here.
In any case, it was intended to fix a poor translation in the previous pre-2013 NWT where we used "loose" as in "loose" morals, "loose" conduct. (compare "loose woman" to "brazen hussy.") This is inaccurate, because someone who plays loose with the rules is not necessarily either bold or shameless. It can be like the difference between the archaic meaning of "licentious" and the current meaning. (Archaic: someone who disregards accepted conventions, as in "poetic license" and Modern: unprincipled and promiscuous.) Even the current definition is not quite strong enough to cover the bold/shameless idea of "aselgeia" well enough.
In combination with a couple of contexts about prostitution in the Hebrew Scriptures, I think "brazen" makes for a fair translation of a couple of the ideas is Hebrew, too. In those cases the idea of "boldness" is probably stronger than "shameless" and "brazen" might even be a better word to translate the Hebrew.