James Thomas Rook Jr.

Coming from a long-winded insane person that converted to accept apostasy to further his attacks and hate of the Org, it seems as waste of internet space if people are going to believe such an insane person.
But that's what this website is designed for, Apostates false, misleading, and hateful rhetoric.

The Supreme Court Rejected a Case About the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Sex Abuse
By Hemant Mehta October 8, 2019   Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not take up a wild case concerning the organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We can breathe a huge sigh of relief that the case won’t be overturned. (In that link, it’s case 19-40 on page 42.)
 
 
The case, which involved child molestation and religious secrecy, centered around an incident that took place on July 15, 2006.
J.W., a nine-year-old girl with Jehovah’s Witness parents, was invited to her first slumber party at the home of Gilbert Simental. He had a daughter her age, so that wasn’t too weird. Two other girls (sisters) were also at the party. These families all knew and trusted Simental because, while he was no longer a local Witness leader, he had spent more than a decade as an elder in the faith. He was a religious leader who stepped down, he said, to spend more time with his son. They believed him. They all respected him. It’s why they allowed their girls into his home.
During that party, everyone got into a pool in the backyard… including Simental. And he proceeded to molest J.W. and the sisters. He did it again later that night. The sisters eventually told their parents, who reported Simental to local Witness elders (which is what they’re taught to do in these situations).
Simental confessed to some of the allegations, and the elders basically gave him a faith-based slap on the wrist: a reprimand that had no meaning outside church circles.
Things changed only when the sisters’ school principal learned about what happened and, as required by law, reported the abuse to local law enforcement. Police soon contacted J.W.’s family asking for their story, but after consulting with the Witnesses, her father chose not to speak with the cops.
It was a year later when J.W., then 10 years old, told her parents what Simental did to her in the pool. It infuriated them, and they told the Witness elders that they wanted a restraining order against him. The elders told him not to do that since it would require informing the police about what Simental did — and they preferred to keep his actions private.
Here’s the bigger problem: There’s reason to believe the Witnesses were aware that Simental was a child molester… and they kept it from the families. Simental was allowed to be a religious leader — earning respect from the community — even though higher-ups in the religion knew that he shouldn’t be around children.
It raised an important question: How much blame did the Witnesses deserve for what happened at that pool party?
J.W.’s family eventually filed a criminal lawsuit against Simental and a separate civil suit against the Watchtower Society (the Witnesses’ governing organization). They basically said the Witnesses should have informed congregation members about Simental and stopped him from being around children. They never should have allowed him to be a religious leader.
The Watchtower Society’s argument? They didn’t know Simental was a child molester, and the pool party occurred after he was no longer a religious leader, and the slumber party wasn’t a church-sponsored event, so leave them out of this.
(To be clear, I’m simplifying the details of this case and the legal journey quite a bit.)
When this case went to trial in California, J.W.’s family demanded that the Watchtower Society produce documents relating to what they knew about child molesters within the faith. The Witnesses had already admitted to keeping lists of problematic leaders along with their specific “crimes” — similar to the Catholic Church. If Simental was on that list — from 1997, nearly a decade before the pool incident — it would essentially be a smoking gun showing the Witnesses knew he was a threat to kids but did nothing about it.
But the Witnesses refused to hand over that material. They treated it like Catholics treat confession: It’s private information, they argued, and to reveal what was said internally would violate their religious beliefs.
J.W.’s family didn’t buy that argument. The information they wanted wasn’t bound by clergy-penitent confessional privilege. It’s not like Simental told the elders what he had done in order to confess his sins. He was caught. The Witnesses were merely shielding him from legal punishment.
In the criminal trial, Witnesses elders were forced to admit their practices and that the private discussions they had about abusive clergy members were not considered confidential under the law.
Mark O’Donnell, writing at JWSurvey, explained what happened next:
 
  Simental’s appeal got him nowhere. He’s in prison today. But there were still so many questions about what responsibility the Witnesses had in this whole matter.  
J.W.’s family wanted to know why Simental, a known pedophile, was promoted within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why did they allow him to be around children? Why didn’t they warn families? Why did they just give him a slap on the wrist?
In 2013, the civil trial began against the Watchtower Society, but again, the Witnesses didn’t want to provide necessary documents. They eventually lost the case. In 2015, the Riverside Superior Court of California awarded J.W. a judgment of $4,016,152.39. This past December, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in California upheld that decision.
You get the idea: The Witnesses refused to hand over internal data, presumably because it would’ve been like handing over a loaded gun. So the courts had no choice but to assume the plaintiff was telling the truth and the Watchtower Society was negligent in their handling of Simental.
Earlier this year, in a Hail Mary attempt to reverse their punishment, the Watchtower Society appealed to the Supreme Court. They wanted the justices to say that documents relating to child abuse within a religious group can be kept confidential.
Here’s how the Witnesses’ attorney introduced his case to the justices. (You don’t need a law degree to see how he just completely dismissed the molestation.)
Watchtower attorney Paul Polidoro said the Supreme Court needed to consider whether California violated the Constitution when it held the Jehovah’s Witnesses responsible for what Simental did “during non-church activity,” forced them to hand over internal communications, and punished them for protecting everyone’s “privacy rights.”
J.W.’s attorney responded to that brief asking the Court to flat-out reject this case.
Indeed, that’s what the Court decided. When the first set of orders in the new term was released yesterday, there was this case among many many others, in the list of those which would not get heard this term.
 
 
It was the right move. There’s nothing further to debate here. Finally, this case has been put to rest.
(Image via Shutterstock. Large portions of this article were published earlier)
   

Well ... according to the DCC (Demented Criteria Council), it IS brave.
The reason people "sift through other peoples' garbage". is that they are starving for real , honest, verifiable Truth.

 

IT COULD be that there is a market for making edible kites from waffles or pancakes ... but until I see them successfully marketed, that is NOT the case, and your hopeful fantasy is ONLY a hopeful fantasy.
Ignorance, if present, can be corrected in the natural course of events, by mere observation.
There is NOTHING that can be done for your agenda driven faith in delusional fantasy,and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, for which there is no cure.

 

 
 
Got facts?
(... of course not ...)
 
 
 
 
 

... reminds me of Phineas T. Bluster on the old TV Howdy Doody Show ..... it's simply AMAZING! .....  in a sick, demented sort of way.
... but then again .... that is what Narcissistic Personality Disorder is.

The Howdy Doody Show_ Mr.Bluster and Buffalo Bob wrangle.mp4

Well ... according to the DCC (Demented Criteria Council), it IS brave.
The reason people "sift through other peoples' garbage". is that they are starving for real , honest, verifiable Truth.

 

Are we talking about:
"new" light,
"changed" light
or about drinking too much"alcohol"?

???? 
When children suffer, you have brave to call that as a "garbage"?
Maneuvers made by JW lawyers under WT Society commands and directives is attempt to defending International  Conglomerate Company with "religious" based "garbage" argumentation. 

divergenceKO:
Apparently the fat lady has sang, and for the corrupt Watchtower Lawyers who care ONLY about their client's monetary interest (... as they are actually legally responsible to do ...), and NOTHING about Truth and Justice, and Righteousness, the metal Opera helmet with the horns is theirs to wear.
The California Appellate Court has already spoken, to wit:
What they did in Delaware by trying to delay Justice in a CSA case by TRYING to change the venue to a court more distant and seriously overloaded was crafty, brilliant .... and despicable.
Your opinions have a complete disregard for facts, which is why you never provide any ... just agenda driven fantasies, like the Nazi who actually believes in his heart of hearts that World War II was about the Third Reich bringing the wonders of German civilization and progress to improve the rest of the world.
Most Likely?
MOST LIKELY?
THAT IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS, because it is ONLY your agenda driven hope, and not based on any facts.
Without facts your opinions have no value whatsoever. 
Zip, Zero, Nada, Goose Eggs!
Remember the old TV dairy commercial of yesteryear .. "Got Milk?"
Well...
Got Facts?
...so far you have none, whatsoever.
Only your demented, delusional fantasy, supported and enconced by a great pantheon of additional delusional fantasys, completely integrated into your Watchtower Derangement Syndrome world view.
 
 

The Supreme Court Rejected a Case About the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Sex Abuse
By Hemant Mehta October 8, 2019   Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not take up a wild case concerning the organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We can breathe a huge sigh of relief that the case won’t be overturned. (In that link, it’s case 19-40 on page 42.)
 
 
The case, which involved child molestation and religious secrecy, centered around an incident that took place on July 15, 2006.
J.W., a nine-year-old girl with Jehovah’s Witness parents, was invited to her first slumber party at the home of Gilbert Simental. He had a daughter her age, so that wasn’t too weird. Two other girls (sisters) were also at the party. These families all knew and trusted Simental because, while he was no longer a local Witness leader, he had spent more than a decade as an elder in the faith. He was a religious leader who stepped down, he said, to spend more time with his son. They believed him. They all respected him. It’s why they allowed their girls into his home.
During that party, everyone got into a pool in the backyard… including Simental. And he proceeded to molest J.W. and the sisters. He did it again later that night. The sisters eventually told their parents, who reported Simental to local Witness elders (which is what they’re taught to do in these situations).
Simental confessed to some of the allegations, and the elders basically gave him a faith-based slap on the wrist: a reprimand that had no meaning outside church circles.
Things changed only when the sisters’ school principal learned about what happened and, as required by law, reported the abuse to local law enforcement. Police soon contacted J.W.’s family asking for their story, but after consulting with the Witnesses, her father chose not to speak with the cops.
It was a year later when J.W., then 10 years old, told her parents what Simental did to her in the pool. It infuriated them, and they told the Witness elders that they wanted a restraining order against him. The elders told him not to do that since it would require informing the police about what Simental did — and they preferred to keep his actions private.
Here’s the bigger problem: There’s reason to believe the Witnesses were aware that Simental was a child molester… and they kept it from the families. Simental was allowed to be a religious leader — earning respect from the community — even though higher-ups in the religion knew that he shouldn’t be around children.
It raised an important question: How much blame did the Witnesses deserve for what happened at that pool party?
J.W.’s family eventually filed a criminal lawsuit against Simental and a separate civil suit against the Watchtower Society (the Witnesses’ governing organization). They basically said the Witnesses should have informed congregation members about Simental and stopped him from being around children. They never should have allowed him to be a religious leader.
The Watchtower Society’s argument? They didn’t know Simental was a child molester, and the pool party occurred after he was no longer a religious leader, and the slumber party wasn’t a church-sponsored event, so leave them out of this.
(To be clear, I’m simplifying the details of this case and the legal journey quite a bit.)
When this case went to trial in California, J.W.’s family demanded that the Watchtower Society produce documents relating to what they knew about child molesters within the faith. The Witnesses had already admitted to keeping lists of problematic leaders along with their specific “crimes” — similar to the Catholic Church. If Simental was on that list — from 1997, nearly a decade before the pool incident — it would essentially be a smoking gun showing the Witnesses knew he was a threat to kids but did nothing about it.
But the Witnesses refused to hand over that material. They treated it like Catholics treat confession: It’s private information, they argued, and to reveal what was said internally would violate their religious beliefs.
J.W.’s family didn’t buy that argument. The information they wanted wasn’t bound by clergy-penitent confessional privilege. It’s not like Simental told the elders what he had done in order to confess his sins. He was caught. The Witnesses were merely shielding him from legal punishment.
In the criminal trial, Witnesses elders were forced to admit their practices and that the private discussions they had about abusive clergy members were not considered confidential under the law.
Mark O’Donnell, writing at JWSurvey, explained what happened next:
 
  Simental’s appeal got him nowhere. He’s in prison today. But there were still so many questions about what responsibility the Witnesses had in this whole matter.  
J.W.’s family wanted to know why Simental, a known pedophile, was promoted within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why did they allow him to be around children? Why didn’t they warn families? Why did they just give him a slap on the wrist?
In 2013, the civil trial began against the Watchtower Society, but again, the Witnesses didn’t want to provide necessary documents. They eventually lost the case. In 2015, the Riverside Superior Court of California awarded J.W. a judgment of $4,016,152.39. This past December, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in California upheld that decision.
You get the idea: The Witnesses refused to hand over internal data, presumably because it would’ve been like handing over a loaded gun. So the courts had no choice but to assume the plaintiff was telling the truth and the Watchtower Society was negligent in their handling of Simental.
Earlier this year, in a Hail Mary attempt to reverse their punishment, the Watchtower Society appealed to the Supreme Court. They wanted the justices to say that documents relating to child abuse within a religious group can be kept confidential.
Here’s how the Witnesses’ attorney introduced his case to the justices. (You don’t need a law degree to see how he just completely dismissed the molestation.)
Watchtower attorney Paul Polidoro said the Supreme Court needed to consider whether California violated the Constitution when it held the Jehovah’s Witnesses responsible for what Simental did “during non-church activity,” forced them to hand over internal communications, and punished them for protecting everyone’s “privacy rights.”
J.W.’s attorney responded to that brief asking the Court to flat-out reject this case.
Indeed, that’s what the Court decided. When the first set of orders in the new term was released yesterday, there was this case among many many others, in the list of those which would not get heard this term.
 
 
It was the right move. There’s nothing further to debate here. Finally, this case has been put to rest.
(Image via Shutterstock. Large portions of this article were published earlier)
   

Read my statement again. I couldn't care less. I don't recommend books that have received negative input by people not in good standing and have a negative view of the Watchtower. It would be like thinking JTR would be mentally sound to give sound advice about the Watchtower to use as good research and accept them as sound talking points. Therefore, I'm not harping. I'm demonstrating the difference when you attack (Rebuke) some people (Actual brother) here but not others.
That in effect makes your books of fighting a good fight in a journalist point of view, null and void. Can't have it both ways. Scripture is more specific. Kinda of reminds me of JWinsider. But then again, birds of a feather!! Admin & Librarian. 😉

I told you the answer previously ... and of course it was downvoted  by the person who actually HAS "Narcissistic Personality Disorder", by whatever name.
  If you look up the symptoms you will see it is an exact fit.
He/They will NEVER stop until you, too, are a humorless blob, and be like Him/Them.

The Supreme Court Rejected a Case About the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Sex Abuse
By Hemant Mehta October 8, 2019   Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not take up a wild case concerning the organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We can breathe a huge sigh of relief that the case won’t be overturned. (In that link, it’s case 19-40 on page 42.)
 
 
The case, which involved child molestation and religious secrecy, centered around an incident that took place on July 15, 2006.
J.W., a nine-year-old girl with Jehovah’s Witness parents, was invited to her first slumber party at the home of Gilbert Simental. He had a daughter her age, so that wasn’t too weird. Two other girls (sisters) were also at the party. These families all knew and trusted Simental because, while he was no longer a local Witness leader, he had spent more than a decade as an elder in the faith. He was a religious leader who stepped down, he said, to spend more time with his son. They believed him. They all respected him. It’s why they allowed their girls into his home.
During that party, everyone got into a pool in the backyard… including Simental. And he proceeded to molest J.W. and the sisters. He did it again later that night. The sisters eventually told their parents, who reported Simental to local Witness elders (which is what they’re taught to do in these situations).
Simental confessed to some of the allegations, and the elders basically gave him a faith-based slap on the wrist: a reprimand that had no meaning outside church circles.
Things changed only when the sisters’ school principal learned about what happened and, as required by law, reported the abuse to local law enforcement. Police soon contacted J.W.’s family asking for their story, but after consulting with the Witnesses, her father chose not to speak with the cops.
It was a year later when J.W., then 10 years old, told her parents what Simental did to her in the pool. It infuriated them, and they told the Witness elders that they wanted a restraining order against him. The elders told him not to do that since it would require informing the police about what Simental did — and they preferred to keep his actions private.
Here’s the bigger problem: There’s reason to believe the Witnesses were aware that Simental was a child molester… and they kept it from the families. Simental was allowed to be a religious leader — earning respect from the community — even though higher-ups in the religion knew that he shouldn’t be around children.
It raised an important question: How much blame did the Witnesses deserve for what happened at that pool party?
J.W.’s family eventually filed a criminal lawsuit against Simental and a separate civil suit against the Watchtower Society (the Witnesses’ governing organization). They basically said the Witnesses should have informed congregation members about Simental and stopped him from being around children. They never should have allowed him to be a religious leader.
The Watchtower Society’s argument? They didn’t know Simental was a child molester, and the pool party occurred after he was no longer a religious leader, and the slumber party wasn’t a church-sponsored event, so leave them out of this.
(To be clear, I’m simplifying the details of this case and the legal journey quite a bit.)
When this case went to trial in California, J.W.’s family demanded that the Watchtower Society produce documents relating to what they knew about child molesters within the faith. The Witnesses had already admitted to keeping lists of problematic leaders along with their specific “crimes” — similar to the Catholic Church. If Simental was on that list — from 1997, nearly a decade before the pool incident — it would essentially be a smoking gun showing the Witnesses knew he was a threat to kids but did nothing about it.
But the Witnesses refused to hand over that material. They treated it like Catholics treat confession: It’s private information, they argued, and to reveal what was said internally would violate their religious beliefs.
J.W.’s family didn’t buy that argument. The information they wanted wasn’t bound by clergy-penitent confessional privilege. It’s not like Simental told the elders what he had done in order to confess his sins. He was caught. The Witnesses were merely shielding him from legal punishment.
In the criminal trial, Witnesses elders were forced to admit their practices and that the private discussions they had about abusive clergy members were not considered confidential under the law.
Mark O’Donnell, writing at JWSurvey, explained what happened next:
 
  Simental’s appeal got him nowhere. He’s in prison today. But there were still so many questions about what responsibility the Witnesses had in this whole matter.  
J.W.’s family wanted to know why Simental, a known pedophile, was promoted within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why did they allow him to be around children? Why didn’t they warn families? Why did they just give him a slap on the wrist?
In 2013, the civil trial began against the Watchtower Society, but again, the Witnesses didn’t want to provide necessary documents. They eventually lost the case. In 2015, the Riverside Superior Court of California awarded J.W. a judgment of $4,016,152.39. This past December, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in California upheld that decision.
You get the idea: The Witnesses refused to hand over internal data, presumably because it would’ve been like handing over a loaded gun. So the courts had no choice but to assume the plaintiff was telling the truth and the Watchtower Society was negligent in their handling of Simental.
Earlier this year, in a Hail Mary attempt to reverse their punishment, the Watchtower Society appealed to the Supreme Court. They wanted the justices to say that documents relating to child abuse within a religious group can be kept confidential.
Here’s how the Witnesses’ attorney introduced his case to the justices. (You don’t need a law degree to see how he just completely dismissed the molestation.)
Watchtower attorney Paul Polidoro said the Supreme Court needed to consider whether California violated the Constitution when it held the Jehovah’s Witnesses responsible for what Simental did “during non-church activity,” forced them to hand over internal communications, and punished them for protecting everyone’s “privacy rights.”
J.W.’s attorney responded to that brief asking the Court to flat-out reject this case.
Indeed, that’s what the Court decided. When the first set of orders in the new term was released yesterday, there was this case among many many others, in the list of those which would not get heard this term.
 
 
It was the right move. There’s nothing further to debate here. Finally, this case has been put to rest.
(Image via Shutterstock. Large portions of this article were published earlier)
   

I do appreciate your helping me hawk them.
As to “sloppy input” and “poor research,” I really have no idea what you are talking about. Specific points made are very well attested to, and are selected to make a thorough defense of the Witness organization before any inclined to criticize it. “Dear Mr. Putin” is heavily documented for sources—a rough guess is that it contains about 600 endnotes. A lot of work went into it, and there is nothing else like it.
There exists no comprehensive history of JW persecution in Russia with regard to the present ban other than my work. It is a huge international story, perhaps the story of the year with regard to freedom of worship, and yet it is nowhere completely covered (that i know of—I’d be happy to learn if there is any other) except for in my ebook. 
It is not primarily written for the friends, but for journalists, human rights and policy persons the world over. The fact that it is written by a Witness means that it is written from a Witness point of view, and that can hardly be a bad thing.
Other books are not “research” per se, but a relating of events. When you relate events, all you have to do is relate them. The books insult no one, threaten no one, and are not disrespectful even to those with whom we disagree and to those who are causing us substantial problems.
It may be simply the fact that they are written with a substantial light touch, even a sense of humor, that gets to you. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would keep harping on them.

The Supreme Court Rejected a Case About the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Sex Abuse
By Hemant Mehta October 8, 2019   Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not take up a wild case concerning the organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We can breathe a huge sigh of relief that the case won’t be overturned. (In that link, it’s case 19-40 on page 42.)
 
 
The case, which involved child molestation and religious secrecy, centered around an incident that took place on July 15, 2006.
J.W., a nine-year-old girl with Jehovah’s Witness parents, was invited to her first slumber party at the home of Gilbert Simental. He had a daughter her age, so that wasn’t too weird. Two other girls (sisters) were also at the party. These families all knew and trusted Simental because, while he was no longer a local Witness leader, he had spent more than a decade as an elder in the faith. He was a religious leader who stepped down, he said, to spend more time with his son. They believed him. They all respected him. It’s why they allowed their girls into his home.
During that party, everyone got into a pool in the backyard… including Simental. And he proceeded to molest J.W. and the sisters. He did it again later that night. The sisters eventually told their parents, who reported Simental to local Witness elders (which is what they’re taught to do in these situations).
Simental confessed to some of the allegations, and the elders basically gave him a faith-based slap on the wrist: a reprimand that had no meaning outside church circles.
Things changed only when the sisters’ school principal learned about what happened and, as required by law, reported the abuse to local law enforcement. Police soon contacted J.W.’s family asking for their story, but after consulting with the Witnesses, her father chose not to speak with the cops.
It was a year later when J.W., then 10 years old, told her parents what Simental did to her in the pool. It infuriated them, and they told the Witness elders that they wanted a restraining order against him. The elders told him not to do that since it would require informing the police about what Simental did — and they preferred to keep his actions private.
Here’s the bigger problem: There’s reason to believe the Witnesses were aware that Simental was a child molester… and they kept it from the families. Simental was allowed to be a religious leader — earning respect from the community — even though higher-ups in the religion knew that he shouldn’t be around children.
It raised an important question: How much blame did the Witnesses deserve for what happened at that pool party?
J.W.’s family eventually filed a criminal lawsuit against Simental and a separate civil suit against the Watchtower Society (the Witnesses’ governing organization). They basically said the Witnesses should have informed congregation members about Simental and stopped him from being around children. They never should have allowed him to be a religious leader.
The Watchtower Society’s argument? They didn’t know Simental was a child molester, and the pool party occurred after he was no longer a religious leader, and the slumber party wasn’t a church-sponsored event, so leave them out of this.
(To be clear, I’m simplifying the details of this case and the legal journey quite a bit.)
When this case went to trial in California, J.W.’s family demanded that the Watchtower Society produce documents relating to what they knew about child molesters within the faith. The Witnesses had already admitted to keeping lists of problematic leaders along with their specific “crimes” — similar to the Catholic Church. If Simental was on that list — from 1997, nearly a decade before the pool incident — it would essentially be a smoking gun showing the Witnesses knew he was a threat to kids but did nothing about it.
But the Witnesses refused to hand over that material. They treated it like Catholics treat confession: It’s private information, they argued, and to reveal what was said internally would violate their religious beliefs.
J.W.’s family didn’t buy that argument. The information they wanted wasn’t bound by clergy-penitent confessional privilege. It’s not like Simental told the elders what he had done in order to confess his sins. He was caught. The Witnesses were merely shielding him from legal punishment.
In the criminal trial, Witnesses elders were forced to admit their practices and that the private discussions they had about abusive clergy members were not considered confidential under the law.
Mark O’Donnell, writing at JWSurvey, explained what happened next:
 
  Simental’s appeal got him nowhere. He’s in prison today. But there were still so many questions about what responsibility the Witnesses had in this whole matter.  
J.W.’s family wanted to know why Simental, a known pedophile, was promoted within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why did they allow him to be around children? Why didn’t they warn families? Why did they just give him a slap on the wrist?
In 2013, the civil trial began against the Watchtower Society, but again, the Witnesses didn’t want to provide necessary documents. They eventually lost the case. In 2015, the Riverside Superior Court of California awarded J.W. a judgment of $4,016,152.39. This past December, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in California upheld that decision.
You get the idea: The Witnesses refused to hand over internal data, presumably because it would’ve been like handing over a loaded gun. So the courts had no choice but to assume the plaintiff was telling the truth and the Watchtower Society was negligent in their handling of Simental.
Earlier this year, in a Hail Mary attempt to reverse their punishment, the Watchtower Society appealed to the Supreme Court. They wanted the justices to say that documents relating to child abuse within a religious group can be kept confidential.
Here’s how the Witnesses’ attorney introduced his case to the justices. (You don’t need a law degree to see how he just completely dismissed the molestation.)
Watchtower attorney Paul Polidoro said the Supreme Court needed to consider whether California violated the Constitution when it held the Jehovah’s Witnesses responsible for what Simental did “during non-church activity,” forced them to hand over internal communications, and punished them for protecting everyone’s “privacy rights.”
J.W.’s attorney responded to that brief asking the Court to flat-out reject this case.
Indeed, that’s what the Court decided. When the first set of orders in the new term was released yesterday, there was this case among many many others, in the list of those which would not get heard this term.
 
 
It was the right move. There’s nothing further to debate here. Finally, this case has been put to rest.
(Image via Shutterstock. Large portions of this article were published earlier)
   

Or, just drop over into another Multiverse, in the extremely rare case that two solar systems collide, and disrupt the systems'  planetary orbits. The advantage is that it can be done with ones' transporter belt, and the 'quivalent of a 9 volt transistor radio battery.
uh ... assuming, of course that you HAVE a transporter belt ....

People that have "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" will go to great lengths to prove, with distorted logic and reasoning that their viewpoint of the Universe ... centered on them ... is correct.
You can prove them wrong a hundred times on any one subject, and they will NEVER accept it.
I would not be surprised if Foreigner would ban himself/herself/themselves, just to appear to be correct, and then reappear as another entity, and say "see, I TOLD you so!"., thinking in their own mind that they were forced out by others.
Whatever happens to NPD people who irritate, insult, disparage and malign everyone around them who think rationally ...  is NEVER their own fault.
... except that in reality ... it always is.

Or, just drop over into another Multiverse, in the extremely rare case that two solar systems collide, and disrupt the systems'  planetary orbits. The advantage is that it can be done with ones' transporter belt, and the 'quivalent of a 9 volt transistor radio battery.
uh ... assuming, of course that you HAVE a transporter belt ....

via .ORGWorld News

Ah yes! My favorite! Besides Tetris, it's the only video game that I actually bought and loaded on my early PCs. I've gone several years without playing any video games or simulations, but I'll be very happy to try this one again. (I have to admit that I have also used the flight simulator function on Google Earth, and even tried out a few free flight sims for the iPhone.)
I don't think people want to admit how often in the early MS Flight Simulator, that so many of us took off from the default airport and found ourselves trying to manage circle-eight maneuvers around the World Trade Center buildings in a Boeing 747 -- and inevitably crashing into them (pre 9/11).

Every time I hear any counsel against "running ahead", I think ... running ahead of what ... or who?
It's important that we differentiate from "running ahead" of the words of the Bible, which results in "old light", touted as "new light" ... until "newer light"  comes out, of which many of us old-timers have seen so much of that it seems like a disco lounge strobe light.
I think running ahead of the pontifical pronouncements of the WTB&TS management is quite a different issue than running ahead of Jehovah God, or completely unambiguous scripture.
But ... it seems to me, as individuals, that if you are in the race for life, which should be secondary to serving Jehovah God just because he is worthy of service, and obedience, and honor .... that it's better to be ahead of the race, instead of behind the race.
Why not as an organization?
Because If we as individuals are wrong, only we "pay the price" of being wrong, and have to bear the consequences.\
If we as an organization are wrong, we as individuals STILL have to pay the full price for being wrong  .... times 8 million people ... and the perpetrators pay NO PRICE WHATSOEVER.
Everybody knows that in a horse race ... ONE of the horses is going to win.
Which one, makes all the difference in the world.
A three legged horse with motivation, spunk, desire and the best behaved horse in the whole pack of runners may be all of that and more ... but for sane people, that is not the way to bet. 
There is also the issue of intellectual integrity ... but that is another topic.
In over a hundred and five years of recorded experience of watching "OUR" horse run ... what track record do we have to use as a basis for credibility?
For core truths discerned ... arguably about 95%.
For mountains of drivel, false prophesies, bogus types and anti-types, and silliness and pronouncements that defy all common sense, perhaps somewhere around 85%, with 15% having real value, or at a minimum, even making some form of common sense.
And of course, being obviously flat WRONG, when simple human common sense could have avoided that.
SO ... basically the WTB&TS position is that THEY can run ahead all they want, and if we do not believe what they come up with, we can be disfellowshipped and have our and our family's lives ruined ...... but if WE run ahead we can ALSO be disfellowshipped and have our and our family's lives ruined.
.... and no matter what they do ... no matter how egregious ... the money keeps rolling in, and they NEVER apologize for anything.

Every time I hear any counsel against "running ahead", I think ... running ahead of what ... or who?
It's important that we differentiate from "running ahead" of the words of the Bible, which results in "old light", touted as "new light" ... until "newer light"  comes out, of which many of us old-timers have seen so much of that it seems like a disco lounge strobe light.
I think running ahead of the pontifical pronouncements of the WTB&TS management is quite a different issue than running ahead of Jehovah God, or completely unambiguous scripture.
But ... it seems to me, as individuals, that if you are in the race for life, which should be secondary to serving Jehovah God just because he is worthy of service, and obedience, and honor .... that it's better to be ahead of the race, instead of behind the race.
Why not as an organization?
Because If we as individuals are wrong, only we "pay the price" of being wrong, and have to bear the consequences.\
If we as an organization are wrong, we as individuals STILL have to pay the full price for being wrong  .... times 8 million people ... and the perpetrators pay NO PRICE WHATSOEVER.
Everybody knows that in a horse race ... ONE of the horses is going to win.
Which one, makes all the difference in the world.
A three legged horse with motivation, spunk, desire and the best behaved horse in the whole pack of runners may be all of that and more ... but for sane people, that is not the way to bet. 
There is also the issue of intellectual integrity ... but that is another topic.
In over a hundred and five years of recorded experience of watching "OUR" horse run ... what track record do we have to use as a basis for credibility?
For core truths discerned ... arguably about 95%.
For mountains of drivel, false prophesies, bogus types and anti-types, and silliness and pronouncements that defy all common sense, perhaps somewhere around 85%, with 15% having real value, or at a minimum, even making some form of common sense.
And of course, being obviously flat WRONG, when simple human common sense could have avoided that.
SO ... basically the WTB&TS position is that THEY can run ahead all they want, and if we do not believe what they come up with, we can be disfellowshipped and have our and our family's lives ruined ...... but if WE run ahead we can ALSO be disfellowshipped and have our and our family's lives ruined.
.... and no matter what they do ... no matter how egregious ... the money keeps rolling in, and they NEVER apologize for anything.

Actually I have. And I don’t mean chasing them away by being unpleasant. I mean by specifically cautioning a few, who seemed too unaware of their surroundings, that they should think it through before they continue to engage. I didn’t say that they shouldn’t do it—that is up to them—but that they should know the score before they did. @Indiana is the last one I did this with. Ask him if you doubt it.
Yes, but I have taken it over, and it will now do what I want it to. You have helped me in this, by insisting time and again that I am the owner. No one else has done that. “If he gets people thinking that, then I might as well carry on as though it were so,” I have “reasoned.” It is amazing to me that this has happened, but there it is. Sometimes I even wish that @admin or @The Librarian (that old hen) will get fed up and ban me, for I sure do spend a lot of time here and maybe that time would be best spent elsewhere. Ah well...if Admin’s fears are realized, this site will not be around much longer anyway.
I also feel strongly about not stumbling others and about not spreading contentions among brothers. When Bruce G carried on as though he had been stumbled after I liked the comment of an “apostate,” I decided not to do that anymore. I held to that resolve for the longest time, and I still almost never do it. Of course, that concern is partly offset by the realization that anyone so concerned about stumbling ought not be here in the first place, but I stopped “liking” comments of certain ones nonetheless. It is understood that this site is a collection ranging from atypical and avant-garde Witnesses to those who can’t stand them. This must be understood going in. (It is those few who did not seem to understand this that I have cautioned.) You can’t charge into someone else’s home and accuse him of not playing by your rules.
You know very well that the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses would not recommend your engaging here any more than they would me. They would not say: “whole lotta liars on that site, but not to worry—we have our man Allen to straighten them all out.” 
While I doubt very much that you have done so, I have candidly written the WBTS as to what I am doing. While I am “rogue” I do not want to be “out of control.” I respect their lead. I do not think that I am above them. Were I to hear: “What are you doing, TTH, singing on the wall when Hezekiah has told the troops to zip it—you’re messing everything up!” I would desist. I have not received any reply. 
It is true about much of this site—that it pretends to be what it is not. I stumbled across it in just that way, through an advertisement on Twitter. I was quite put out about the deceptive advertising—many of my early posts reflect that. Whether it was wise for me to stay I still do not know, but stay I did and I used the site to hone my own writing and parlayed that into some books. It has been a lot of fun for me, but no way is it conventional. If one transforms the whole place into a comedy club, that is another way of discrediting the malcontents who frequent here, which I believe you have said is your goal.
And for crying out loud, Allen, it is not my site. Everyone else understands this but you—well, they probably do not all understand it at this point because I have played into it. But you made it all possible.
 

Agreed;
Watching "mainstream news" is like being stabbed by an angry clown while drowning in a septic tank.

Keep blowing hot air as you normally do. I don't pay attention to insane people.