James Thomas Rook Jr.

subpoena
or subpena
noun 1. the usual writ for the summoning of witnesses or the submission of evidence, as records or documents, before a court or other deliberative body. verb (used with object), subpoenaed, subpoenaing. 2. to serve with a subpoena.   Allen:  Do you think that secret documents held in sealed envelopes at Kingdom Halls and at National Bethel Branch Offices under lock and key, that no Elder not involved was ever supposed to see ... was given to the ARC because they nicely asked for them, without a subpoena?   A "subpoena" is the document they give to the one summoned UNDER PENALTY OF PUNISHMENT, to appear.   That is what the word means ... sub (under), and pena or poena (punishment). If Bro. Jackson did not appear, as ordered ... ( He tried to beg off from appearing, saying he was only in Australia to visit his sick Father...) or the documents were not produced, as ordered by national sovereign entities of competent jurisdiction ... it would have resulted in contempt of court charges, and FINE and/or IMPRISONMENT.   Would not  THAT have made headline news?  "Jehovah's Witness Governing Body Member imprisoned for ignoring Subpoena ......  Film at 11."   When a Network News Crew Film Truck with the big telescoping antenna with satellite dish on top pulls up in the Bethel parking lot ... you know you are going to have a bad day!   Latin sounds soOOoooo profound, doesn't it.   Here's one for you, that only translates roughly from Latin to English, and no other language.   In Latin: "Sempre Ubi Sub Ubi   In English: "Always wear under wear".   Here is another one .... "Accipite pill autem rufus, Allen, Accipite pill autem rufus."        

This billboard was put up close to an Assembly Hall in July, 2015, at Belton, Texas.
THE BROTHERHOOD IN GENERAL IS NEVER TOLD WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON ... yet under your "scenario" this information is freely given to Australian Courts?
What are we?
Chopped Liver?
 

I hope you don't feel you are being blamed in any way. I know that you used the original "study" in good faith and for a good motive and purpose.
It was a major one, but not the only one. My response to it was intentionally simplified, so that such a discussion as this could deal with some of these facts incrementally. Otherwise it could seem too overwhelming to someone who hadn't yet looked at it carefully. As I said just prior to getting into the details . . .
Here are some other points that make it difficult to compare "apples to apples."
The 12% number, which will vary slightly from year to year does not refer to a percentage of notifications about child sexual abuse. It can only be tallied after all the investigations are completed into every type of child abuse complaint, and only refers to a percent of confirmed cases. It can't be used directly as a percent of not-yet-confirmed cases. In the cases reported by the Witness congregations these have already been identified as child abuse cases requiring reporting. They start out as already identified allegations of sexual abuse, but not confirmed.
But in the case of the reports from the congregations, we don't know how many children were involved. A single report could be about a person accused of abusing 10 different children, for all we know. Or it could be a false claim altogether.
Of course, it is also foolish to try to create a comparison with such a small sample provided by the congregations. A difference of only one case out of such as small number creates a huge difference in the comparison. CPS (Child Protective Services) take reports of accusations, bruises and emotional trauma (etd) from the perspective of teachers, social workers, law enforcement, neighbors, etc. Most of the congregation reports are not from children, but are more concerned with the adult. You can start to see this from a review of the Australian cases and many of the anecdotal cases about Witnesses coming in from around the world. The average time it takes for an abused child to report is several years. The Australian CPS numbers do include persons who have been abused in the past, but are expected to mostly focus on those who are (or might be) in current danger.
A real study could be done if Australia's CPS numbers had accurately kept track of religion both of perpetrators and victims. A better study could be done if there were numbers from the congregations broken down by year, at least since 2011.
But even here we are comparing apples and oranges again. Typically old cases come to the attention of the congregation. If they are new cases, then it is likely that they are already baked into the CPS numbers. CPS focuses on new cases. CPS looks at it mostly from the danger posed to a specific child. The congregations' cases focus on the guilt of an alleged perpetrator who may have victimized anywhere from 0 to 20 children, or perhaps 1 or 2 children 20 times each. (Most familial sexual abuse cases seem to go this way.)
And then again, we have the problem that the Australian ARC data is proof that the congregations never themselves would report cases to law enforcement or social services even when a perpetrator might be victimizing more people inside and outside the congregation. We also know from the interviews that elders involved in the cases did not encourage reporting by victims. ARC went ahead and reported hundreds of these cases to law enforcement for investigation. I read a few of these cases as reported in newspapers and they are horrendous.
So the biggest problem is that we are comparing against a system that evidently OVER-reports (CPS) based on the evidence from its own investigations. The congregations have a long history of UNDER-reporting and hiding. So even a study that goes back many years, based on congregational data, would be worthless for comparison purposes.
I'm sure we do better than most institutions with respect to the propensity for criminal perpetrators to associate with us -- just for the purpose of access to children, and the fact that they are often punished and socially ostracized if caught, and that the nature of the congregation allows for very few interactions with the outside world. (For example, non-JW perpetrators have less access to JW children, as they are less likely to join boy scouts, sleep-away camps, etc.) These things don't stop determined criminals, but they must surely give them some concern.
There are more issues than these, but it's enough for now.

OH..... okay,  hahaha    I  never  tasted  that  -  but  sometimes,  we  really  don't  know,  what  we  all  packing  into  our  bags,  LOL  ~~  The  most  people  daily  telling  us  lies   I'm  SO  longing  to  my  own  big  garden  in  the  NW  - when  all  food  is  healthy  again   Then  is  finished  with  your  tasty  mouse - gene  tomatoes...  hahahahahaaaaaa
I  hope,  you're  then  not  so  far  away,  JTR,  bec. many  stories,  jokes,  laughing,  by  BBQ,  etc. etc.    Take  care,  old - young  man  

I much prefer genetically manipulated plants and animals.
A am one myself, as are my children.
I particularly like the tomatoes they added mouse genes to, to keep the tomatoes fresher,  longer.

cooked and POPPED!
I don't overcook or undercook popcorn.

Just curious, how would you, as JTR, report this on jw.org? I mean give an example of what you would actually say (no puns or jokes, seriously)

Popcorn.
Never any burnt popcorn ... never any unpopped popcorn kernels.
so good ....  no butter or salt is necessary.

Allen:
You know, they say that The English (and that would include Australians) and the Americans are separated by a common language.
such a ALU-minum in American English, and Alu-MIN-ium, in the King's English.  Or GRAY in American, and GREY, in Englandish.
From your link: "Just because you see the word “subpoena” over the word “summons” DOESN’T give it the SAME weight in POWER, in, legal context."
Of course not!
But ignore either one at your peril of wallet and/or freedom.
That is where the "rubber meets the road.
If hypothetically I pointed my gun at YOU and wiggled it and nodded to my left, chances are you would want to move to my left.
That would be to YOUR right.
In THAT case, it would be REAL important!
One of the amazing things about your posts Allen, is what you pick out and isolate that's important to you mind, leaving the herd of Elephants in the room ignored.
 

I love irony !
otherwise that would be an upvote.
Hey! that quote is an "Elephant" AllenSmith could chew on !

Allen:
You know, they say that The English (and that would include Australians) and the Americans are separated by a common language.
such a ALU-minum in American English, and Alu-MIN-ium, in the King's English.  Or GRAY in American, and GREY, in Englandish.
From your link: "Just because you see the word “subpoena” over the word “summons” DOESN’T give it the SAME weight in POWER, in, legal context."
Of course not!
But ignore either one at your peril of wallet and/or freedom.
That is where the "rubber meets the road.
If hypothetically I pointed my gun at YOU and wiggled it and nodded to my left, chances are you would want to move to my left.
That would be to YOUR right.
In THAT case, it would be REAL important!
One of the amazing things about your posts Allen, is what you pick out and isolate that's important to you mind, leaving the herd of Elephants in the room ignored.
 

Lol. I get it, don't worry.

I love irony !
otherwise that would be an upvote.
Hey! that quote is an "Elephant" AllenSmith could chew on !

Finally, you are back on track with this question. For me, the answer is that I don't know.
I've said before that I think Witnesses fare better than the general population in all categories of child sexual abuse, but I don't know by how much. I think Witnesses fare much, much better in some categories of child sexual abuse. If I had to guess, I'd say Witnesses are generally two or three times as safe as the rest of the population, whether or not I have found any statistics to bear this out very well.
My opinion is that the Watchtower's track record is much better now, especially in the last year or two, but that it still has a couple of necessary adjustments to align its procedures with the spirit of justice, rather than try to dig in its heels on a specific letter of the law. My opinion is that procedure has been poor in the past, and was once very slow to improve, but is still not as bad as several other churches and institutions.
Certain men in leadership positions have been protected, some inadvertently, through a policy that is partly Biblical, but not consistent with the way we handle some other sins. (Circumstantial evidence has been OK for adultery, for example.) It's probably because this is an easy crime/sin to dismiss as not provable in many cases. And it's something we really hope isn't true, and we really hope it doesn't have to cause a scandal in the congregation and community. And we hate to see something that might have been handled within the congregation to be handed over to Caesar, whom we have several reasons not to always trust.
In the last two weeks, I finally asked my uncle, a former and now-substitute circuit overseer, his opinion on the improvements in this area. He agreed that in a judicial setting, there is always a possibility that we would judge a case wrongly, in favor of the claim of either party, and none of us would want to make decisions with such far-reaching effects on people's lives. There is a subliminal wish to avoid it if possible. So, for years, brothers who obviously had a problem in this regard, even if they admitted some level of "wrongdoing," were typically given strong counsel, told to stay away from situations where such a problem could occur again, and every effort was made within reason to keep the police and community out of it. This was often the same wish of the parents of an abused child, and this wish to avoid scandal was encouraged, sometimes overtly. You probably remember a line in the earliest "Flock" books where elders could get a "free pass" on certain types of sin, and these sins were never specified. This came out of a time when certain "embarrassing" or "scandalous" sins would have a long-term effect on the ability of the elder to be respected, so the elder could take his "slap on the wrist" from the rest of the elder body and he would come out of it unscathed as to his reputation in the congregation. I knew of a situation where this principle was invoked for a wife-beating case. But, my uncle pointed out that it is obvious that it could apply to a wide range of sins or crimes that were thought to be in the same category. (I think he assumed I knew what he meant, but he didn't make this clear enough.) He said that he was humbled by the change in the procedure of contacting the civil authorities. His explanation was ironic. He said that "it finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."
 

I LOVE IT when somebody else does the heavy lifting ... like taking a Grand Piano up a three floor spiral staircase ... and gets it RIGHT!
I did that with a refrigerator when I was a young man ... but worrying statistics and data until they yield TRUTH ... is HARDER.
That's a LOT of work JW Insider, and I wish I could write you an appropriate check that would not bounce.
 

It is far from a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts. It is a terribly sloppy calculation. You should look at it again. I won't get into all the potential problems that could bring the final number one way or the other, but I will point out some things that must have been missed.
First of all, you can find the argument over at: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TI5JLVKMB8LO0SE7C/arc-proves-that-jw-children-are-10-times-safer
I point to that because it might be the original source of the "study," although I can't be too sure. I will try to highlight everything from the original in blue text, and then mark my own inserted comments in red text:
Thanks to the ARC (Australian Royal Commission) we now have an apples to apples comparison with a pool size large enough to be significant.

According to Australian Institute of Family Studies [1], there were 320,169 notifications of child abuse (2014 - 2015). Further the studies show that of these 13% is sexual abuse which provides us with a number of 41,622 notifications of child abuse. Further the total population of Australia for 2015 is 23,968,973 [2].

This give us a ratio of 41,622 / 23,968,973.
No it doesn't. In fact, if you read the source material here, [listed at the end of this post] you will see that the figures were taken from 2014-2015, back in March 2017, and that, as of June 2017, the figures were updated for 2015-2016. The number 320,169 (2015) becomes 355,935 (2016) which you might expect would be better for the overall original argument anyway. But notice that these are multiple notifications about 42,457 children (96% investigations complete). Here's the relevant quote from the source material.
In 2015-16, of the total number of notifications (355,935), 164,987 cases (involving 115,024 children) of child abuse were investigated or were in the process of being investigated. Of these investigations, 133,329 (96%) were finalised by 31 August 20163 and 60,989 cases were substantiated (AIHW, 2017). . . . The 60,989 substantiations recorded nationally involved 45,714 children, which was a 7.7% increase from the 42,457 children found to be harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect in 2014-15 (AIHW, 2016). Then we still need to look at how many of these 45,714 children were believed to have been abused sexually. The 13% figure in 2015 is closer to 12.2% in 2016, and the final number of children was determined to be 5,559 as you can see in the chart.  
Table 3: Primary substantiated harm types in Australian states and territories, 2015-16 Harm type NSW Vic. Qld  WA a SA Tas. ACT NT b Australia   Emotional abuse 5,961 9.133 2,123 1,558 414 376 225 549 20,339 Neglect 5,677 583 2,217 1,168 691 255 136 676 11,403 Physical abuse 2,776 2,975 1.014 750 383 104 64 295 8,361 Sexual abuse 2,868 1,463 267 696 152 35 24 54 5,559 Not stated 0 0 0 26 1 25 0 0 52 Total 17,282 14,154 5,621 4,198 1,641 795 449 1,574 45,714 This means that the ratio is not really 41,622 / 23,968,973 but should be much closer to 5559 / 23,968,973 = 0.02%

As was reported to the ARC [3][4], since August 2015 - Janurary 2017 the service desk received 17 reports of child abuse. Nine were historical cases and none involved an elder. They all occurred in a familial setting. Of the 17, 2 refused to report as they were adult survivors and was their right not to report. That is a period of 17 months. Therfore the rate is 1 per month.

The total number of witnesses (publishers) in Australia is 67,418 [5].

This give us a ratio of 12 / 67,418 per year.
Unfortunately, the reference for [3] is missing in topix, but reference [4] appears to be the place where the original "study" got the number "17" from. (See page 13, paragraph 34.) It's possible that these run from August 2015 to January 2017, but the context of the entire section suggests that it was part of a response from Watchtower Australia dated much closer to August 1, 2016, which included the August 1, 2016 Watchtower letter to all Bodies of Elders, new guidelines submitted in "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks," also dated August 1, 2016, (page 8, paragraph 21). In fact, even the beginning date of August 2015 might not be correct. Of course, it is also dangerous to work from such a small sample even if it's over a 12 to 17 month period, especially if it is a time of unprecedented scrutiny.
But we will give the "study" the benefit of the doubt, here, and say that these 17 cases represent only one case per month during the period, and that these are "predictive" of what can be expected, even without a year-to-year comparison as was done in the Australian CPS source material. If this is so, it gives us a ratio, as stated above of 12/ 67,418 per year which is:
12/67,418= 0.02%
Notice that this is the same as the general population of Australia noted above, not 10 times better.
5,559 / 23,968,973 = 0.0002 12 / 67,418 = 0.0002 References...

[1] https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-a...
[2] http://www.worldometers.info/world-population...
[4] http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/d...
 

Excellent point

Heads up! 

I think you missed the point of the story.

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 
This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.
In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.
But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse
https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

Allen, Allen Allen ..... sigh ......
 
Whatever meds you are on .... check with your Doctor.

Since you mentioned me three times in your immediately preceding post, here is my third reply.
I agree with you on THAT comment AllenSmith ... if it had not been for OUTSIDE sources ... all the secular authorities ... we would know NOTHING about all that is going on concerning this issue.
Bro. Stephen Lett in a JW.ORG Video declared quite vehemently, looking straight into the camera,  that all the accusations about JW Pedophile issues and cover-ups were  " .. APOSTATE LIES !!"
.. and this was about two months before we learned from the ARC ... an arm of the Australian Government, of 1006 perpetrators in over 5,000 instances that were hidden from the Brotherhood, in secret files in various Congregations, and in secret sealed blue envelopes sent to the Australian JW Branch Offices.
In my PERSONAL experience ...  have never seen or heard, even through gossip,  about any JW pedophiles in over 50 years ... so I am inclined to believe ( somewhat ) TTH's claim that we do better than 90% of the "world" in that regard .
As much as what IS really going on burns my butt ... I am even more concerned about the institutional cover-up via THREATS of disfellowshipping ... and ACTUAL disfellowshippings, of the Brotherhood ... Brothers and Sisters in the Congregations  .... victims .... and those who wanted to go to the police, but under threat of expulsion, and actual expulsion and abandonment, did not, and were SILENCED.
In over 50 years, I have repeatedly personally seen in many, many Congregations,  and experienced myself, many similar unjust things.
This I have PERSONALLY seen, as institutionalized policy ... in actual practice.
It is our immoral capacity for institutionalized extreme CRUELTY TO EACH OTHER, in the name of righteousness ...  that boils my blood.
I am not discouraged by how I am treated by the "world". 
I can shrug that off.
I am weary to my very soul of how we,  to defend the indefensible,  we treat each other.
... and don't even get me started about the perversion of Justice in the Delaware cases of the Society's Lawyers doing everything they can to keep lawsuits from being adjudicated, ACTIVELY perverting Justice using contributed donations .... and their similar efforts in every court case I have read about, and every court transcript I have read.
Want to test this hypothesis about honesty and integrity?
Go to the JW.ORG website, where legal developments in the news concerning JWs are highlighted ... and see how much honest real legal news about THIS there is.
The last time I checked, it was ZERO
It is NOT Theocratic Loyalty to defend the indefensible.
If it had not been for OUTSIDE sources ... all the secular authorities, and others incensed by injustices ... we would know NOTHING about all that is going on concerning this issue.
...... and that's the fact, Jack.

Allen, Your point should be the same as mine, and it would be a shame (literally) if it is isn't. I understand as well as anyone why you think that a knee-jerk reaction to protect the reputation of the organization is so important. I've been there myself. And sometimes that reaction is correct and on-track. But there are times when justice is more important than protecting a reputation. When we put ourselves on the side of justice we are defending Jehovah's reputation, and this is better for the organization, too, in the long run. There are times when unrighteousness should be exposed. It is short-sighted to think that we are defending Jehovah's name by covering up what is bad. 
So, my point is that the problem is bad, because every instance of child abuse is bad -- even if our statistics are better than someone else's. If you don't think the problem is bad, then I don't trust that you are are doing everything you can to reduce the problem. We should advocate for children. We should advocate for justice. And we need to do more about this reputation we have earned, as an organization, for trying to hide the extent of the problem. It makes us look like we would prefer ignoring or hiding the problem rather than admit that the problem is bad.
I don't think your insult has any basis. You say that people like me threw incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law. I can't speak for what others know or don't know about secular law, but I saw no instances where your insult applied to anything I said on the subject. I don't recall anything JTR said on this subject, but I do recall several of the things Anna said, and I don't think either of us stated anything incorrect or conflicting with respect to secular law. Both of us, as I recall, discussed the value of Brother Jackson requesting a legal change with respect to a consistent requirement for reporting, in all cases, which would resolve a large portion of the inconsistencies. As I recall, we both discussed this long before you yourself mentioned that you also agree with Brother Jackson's recommendation as a resolution for many issues.
If you really think I said something incorrect, I welcome the correction. But with you it's usually just bluster, obfuscation, vagueness, and braggadocio. I hope this isn't more of the same.
I don't condemn the Watchtower for inaction. I have long stated that the Watchtower Society has made many excellent changes with respect to these crimes in the past decade especially, and even some good changes to policy and procedure in the last two years. Perhaps you think you are trying to impress an audience who doesn't know any better when you make up false things about people you don't seem to want to get along with. If you have facts, that's great, but please leave aside all the acting and histrionics.
There are not many way to make sense of that statement of yours. The trouble seems to lie in your attempt to fit too many untruths in a single sentence without thinking clearly about the issue. To be clear I am not excusing anything. I am "blatantly" trying to get to truth of the "90% claim." If you have any facts to add, great! As you can see, you probably weren't thinking clearly at all when you said I was "condemning the use of other religious statistics." I was the one who just recommended the use of other religious statistics for comparison.
If you don't like this topic, Allen, you are free to avoid it, but please don't fill it with untruths for your own purposes.

Quite right. "Heresy" is what the WTS ought to use instead of "apostasy", but for several reasons it does not.
Use of "heresy" generally pegs one as a narrow-minded, bigoted religious fanatic. The WTS knows this. All it really means is believing or teaching things at odds with some religious authority. JWs are heretics according to the Catholic Church, and vice versa. So what?
Because "apostasy" has several meanings, including and especially "giving up on God", the WTS takes advantage of these and teaches that disagreeing with its teachings is the same as disagreeing with God. Hence someone who merely quits being a JW is often called an apostate by virtue of "leaving God". One hears such sentiments expressed by JWs all the time when they describe disfellowshipped ones.
These are examples of the WTS's talking out of both sides of its mouth at the same time.
By the way, an excellent discussion of these ideas can be found in the small book Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
AlanF