Anna

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Anna Quote " In their eyes we are clergy. "

Who is this 'we' ?  Is this the Elders or all JW's ? 

 

Sorry! Re-quote: They, the Elders are clergy. My misquote came from how I view the Christian congregation, including the elders. I view it that we are all part of a family of friends. My bad. 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Following that line of thought ... would a Circuit Overseer and Branch Overseer be labeled as Monsignor and Bishop?

If you want to get that technical, then probably yes. But I think secular authorities recognize the term Overseer,  (or Church Overseer) so they may not find the need to resort to those labels.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

yet claim in the Kingdom Halls that we are NOT clergy.

But when we are dealing with secular authorities, we have to speak their language. In their eyes we are clergy.

As per Miriam Webster: : Clergy: a group ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdotal functions in a Christian church.

By the same token we do not call our organization a "church", but in secular speak we are a church.

Miriam Webster: Church: a body or organization of religious believers: such as the whole body of Christians.

(and a Kingdom Hall is a also a church (building) in secular speak)

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 Her being a parrot to the JW Org

You know John, sometimes people really do have their own opinion.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And if all Elders were told to report everything to the police and/or outside authorities then it would probably make their lives a lot easier. 

Couldn't agree with you more on this! However, it really is not a be all and end all solution, not for the victim. You know yourself that the police do not always act. So if elders were told to report to the police every time, it would actually be in the elder's interest to do so, but not necessarily in the interest of the victim. The elders could wash their hands clean off the whole situation by passing it onto the police. Which is great, no more civil lawsuits for the organization. Done. But reporting to the police does not always guarantee justice for the victim. In fact, where the victim wishes to keep it within the family, (for example if the perp. is one of the parents) then it could cause more heartache for all involved. Of course in all this it is only the perpetrator that should be the one who is punished. But it often doesn't work like that....

As Suzy says "A Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically wrong in English. And as Melinda points out it is a label. We are witnesses for Jehovah, we are HIS witnesses, plural. If we are talking about one person (singular) then he/she is either one of (all the other) Jehovah's Witnesses or "a witness for Jehovah". In some other languages it is grammatically wrong as well. For example how would you say in Spanish if someone asked in court whose witness are you. Would you say I am "John's witness", or "one of John's witnesses" (if there is more than one witness for John). Or would not say I am "a John's witness"?

1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

If this is the case, get elders in that have no friendship bias,

Is there an option for a publisher, the one doing the accusing, to say which elders he wants on the committee? I don't think there is. Has the publisher got any say in who should handle the issue if the publisher feels the elders who are handling it are not suitable?

19 hours ago, Outta Here said:

It is not a rule:

km Sep 77:

A judicial committee need not be limited to three members. The Scriptures do not give any specific number of older men who handled cases of wrongdoing in the early Christian congregation. Older men who served in the community during Israel’s history may have heard cases according to their availability at the city gate. For example, Boaz selected ten of the older men of the city to hear the matter he had to present. (Ruth 4:1, 2) However, everyone in the community was under the Law covenant arrangement then, and this added to the number for whom the older men were responsible. Within each congregation today, the number would not be that great in most cases, so three would usually be sufficient to have on a judicial committee. Where the gravity of what is involved warrants having four or even five experienced men to serve, this may be arranged.
 

Ok, I will rephrase it. Why does a judicial committee not consist of the entire body of elders in a given congregation.

A little bit of background info: This question was raised by someone who was concerned about justice being carried out correctly, especially if a situation involved one elder who was being accused. How does a judicial committee judge one of their "own", especially, if there is a possibility of bias due to obvious friendship above and beyond just a brother in the congregation. So for the purpose of an example, lets say the BOE of a congregation consists of 8 elders, one of whom had been accused of a sin, which if unresolved, could lead to a disfellowshipping, or at least the deletion of his position. So that leaves 7 elders who decide to form a judicial committee (on the grounds that the situation with the accused elder had not been settled). Why can't all 7 elders consist of the committee?

When a judicial committee is formed, why does it only consist of three elders (usually) but does not involve the whole body of elders? And is there a scripture this is based on?

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for your comment " Unfortunately this is to be expected with the kind of morality promoted by this world ruled by Satan. "

No it should not be expected. Everyone in the Org should be 'no part of the world'. 

I should have said it should not surprise us. You don't have to be in the world to be affected by it, otherwise you would have to be taken out of the world. No one is immune to Satan's propaganda. I am sure you are aware that not everyone in the org is who they claim to be. Just because someone is called an elder or claims to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't make them so. Those are Jehovah's Witnesses and elders in name only. But they are not the majority. 

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When I wrote a letter to the Body of Elders, i meant it to be read by the Body of Elders, not just one or two Elders.. And when i was summoned to appear before the Elders, I expected to appear before the complete Body of Elders........ So was God in control of that situation, NO, Men were in control of that situation. Why ? Because the GB or someone in authority has allowed situations to arise that way. If the rule was that the whole Body of Elders had to be present in serious cases, then my case would have been heard properly and justice would have been done.

It is the body of elders who assign two elders to look into a particular case. So unless the two elders acted on their own, the body of elders would have been familiar with your letter. You cannot get disfellowshipped unless a judicial committee is formed. The congregation would not consider forming a judicial committee unless the offended Christian (you) had taken steps one and two of Matthew 18:15, 16 and had initiated step three in Matthew 18:17. If asked, elders could participate in step two, but they do not represent the body of elders. If the matter proceeds to step three, any elders who were witnesses in step two could serve only as witnesses in step three. They would not be used to serve on the judicial committee. I trust you were not in a judicial committee. There is nothing stopping anyone from asking to speak to any and all elders if they wished, especially when you believed the elders assigned to look into your accusation might have been biased. That is if they were assigned. Did you follow the steps in Matthew? Because that is how God controls the situation.

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But when the size of the Child Abuse problem became known to me, then I decided that this cannot be God's true organisation.

So it's the size? Unfortunately this is to be expected with the kind of morality promoted by this world ruled by Satan. Disgusting things are going on and what's more disgusting is that people professing to serve Jehovah do some of these disgusting things. So let's put the blame where it belongs, on the abuser, not on those who are having to deal with it. The perpetrators are the ones who damage people's lives, the victims are the ones who have to live with it, the families are the ones who are broken apart because of it. I did not say most elders are corrupt. Most elders are good men. But it only takes a few bad apples to do an awful lot of damage.

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

THe GB / Org has allowed a situation whereby not all Elders in a congregation are made aware of situations, such as the situation I have mentioned.

Can you explain what you mean please, not sure I understand

On 9/4/2016 at 12:24 PM, Jack Ryan said:

... I yearn for my parents to tell me that they were wrong ........But I know that I don’t want to do to my kids what my parents did to me....... But I never made peace with what my mother said in court......

It seems that this ladies' biggest problem were her parents, and her relationship with them. It's a pity she blames the Bible  and paints all of Jehovah's Witnesses with the same brush.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote @Anna " Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? " 

Let me give you an example which unfortunately i cannot give you full details of as it's much too personal. BUT :-

I reported an Elder for doing something very wrong. In fact that Elder used his position of Elder to do that wrong.  He basically acted like a Catholic priest, using his 'authority' and thinking he would not be questioned.  I reported him by writing a letter to the Body of Elders. However it seems, if other elders tell the truth, that the whole body of elders didn't get to see the letter. So I was called to the Kingdom Hall for a meeting with the 'Elders', but when i got there only two Elders were there.  One questioned me whilst  the other sat behind me and just listened and probably took notes. The one questioning me didn't listen to my replies, just butted in and said I would be disfellowshipped for slander if i didn't retract all the accusations I was making. Yes i stated all this before i know. BUT: -

The Elder I was accusing and the Elder questioning me were the only two Elders in the congregation that were 'businessmen'. The Elder i was accusing had shares in a Gold Mine, and the Elder questioning me owned / owns around ten properties, one of which is a farm. Those two Elders were good friends, not just brothers in the Org, they had more in common than that. So the Elder questioning me made sure that he didn't listen to me, so that he didn't have to take any action against the other Elder. Instead he threatened me with being disfellowshipped. 

So please don't ask such a silly question as " Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation? "  Because the simple answer is that that in many cases it is Elders protecting other Elders. 

You and others talk to me as if i've had no experience in the JW Org. But I've had years of it, and I know of other things which I just cannot mention on here as it would get other people into trouble.

And I would think here in the UK is very tame compared to America. I really dread to think of what goes on in American congregations. The things hidden between Elders in the USA must be much worse than here. 

 

We have two situations going on here.  One to do with the organization/GB, and the other of a personal nature. I was quoting a letter from the organization, and therefore I was referring to organizational direction when I said "Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation"? The accusations by opposers are that the Organization, by means of its instructions, protects child molesters. There is ample evidence from letters to the BOE and other instructions that this is not true.

Then we have your experience, an entirely different matter.  The organization/GB has no direct knowledge or ability to control what individual elders do or don’t do. You will agree with that surely?  There can be corruption in the congregation, there is no doubt about that.  But to blame the organization for it, and for the corrupt elders you talk about, is not exactly fair is it? And this is what you have been doing for the most part. Directing all blame at the organization/GB, and when someone defends the organization/GB you get upset.  If it is truly as you say, then why didn’t you rely on Jehovah, who sees what man cannot see, and who will eventually reveal all that is hidden? Or have you lost trust in Jehovah too?  You are not the only one who has experienced something like this you know. Our family and friends have also had to deal with corruption, favouritism and nepotism by elders in the past. Currently, many members of a congregation I know are leaving and going to a different hall because of a “dictator” elder.  Publishers are nobody’s fools, and they will see what is going on and they will leave to go somewhere else. That is an option open to everyone. Will this elder receive the judgement many think he is due? Absolutely, sooner or later he will. Nothing is hidden from Jehovah. But as far as I know, nobody is blaming the organization/GB, and nobody has stopped going to meetings.

22 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

22 hours ago, Anna said:

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute.

So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

I don't think it gives specifics. And it talks about pagan judges, when God has put them judges in their place to do God's work as scripture tells us. So the GB / Writing dept' are actually going against God's rules. 

John, further to our discussion, here is a 2002 letter to the BOE in the UK. Although it upholds the two witness rule, which still stands today, notice that paragraph 7 states this:

"Our position is that secular authorities deal with crime while elders deal with sin. To
avoid a miscarriage of justice, elders must not interfere with, prevent, or impede any secular
investigation into child abuse. The elders are directed to ensure that secular laws are adhered
to. (Romans 13:1) To that end, they are instructed to contact the Legal Department at Bethel
whenever they receive information from even one person who alleges that child abuse has occurred.
When a report is received, guidance is given by the Legal Department to ensure that
(1) the alleged victim, and other potential victims, are protected from possible abuse, and
(2) that counsel is given to report crime to the proper authorities and to comply with any additional
legal requirements. The elders know that it is the absolute right of the victim, his or her
family, or anyone else, to report the matter to the authorities if they so choose. Galatians 6:5"

As a side point; some critics assume that  the reason the legal department is contacted is so that loopholes are found where one does not have to report. That is a very unintelligent thing to assume. For one, there are no loopholes. You are either mandated to report or not report. Regardless of which it is, the objective is always to prevent further abuse, and not propagate it, and if that means reporting to the appropriate authorities, then that is the advice that will be given. Two, since the objective is to prevent further abuse, (for the sake of the victims, and also for the sake of further reproach brought on the organization by the perpetrator, and lawsuits) why would one try to find loopholes to get out of it in the first place? Why would one try to prevent the removal of someone who causes harm in the congregation?

https://faithleaks.org/wiki/documents/d/d7/20020711LTC_bi.pdf

On 6/26/2018 at 9:53 PM, Jack Ryan said:

NBA Draft in 2003 versus 2017:

Which looks better to you? 

 

I would say 2017, but If you asked those in 2003 they would probably say 2003 looks better.  Styles change, it's what's in fashion at the time that matters to people.

Would you ever wear these shoes ? They were considered the rage in 15th century Europe.

24 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, blame the UK government for the Watchtower complying with secular law. 😉 The legal department caters letters that pertain to individual governments and their laws. It's not one size fits all.  🙂

That is true.

44 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Billy46:

This Video is available on YOUTUBE.

No one needs to go to "apostate sites" ... it is all in the public domain.

By the way ... the Original Video being analyzed for content was NEVER made available to us who paid for it,  through official channels ... but it was leaked by someone who thought we should KNOW.

....after all.... WE paid for its creation and production !

It came from JW.ORG

(Sans analysis....)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with the video is that the commentator (by that I mean the critic) is obviously slanting it towards child abuse. I am not saying it may not apply, but it is a general video about all areas of function. America is the land of lawsuits, and it forces one to protect oneself down to ridiculous minuscule specifics. What if this.....what if that..... Sometimes it's things that a normal person wouldn't even think of (well not a European person for sure). It was only recently that I found out that the reason many landowners put no trespassing signs up is not necessarily because they want privacy, but because they are worried about lawsuits. What if someone walking through their land twists their ankle on a twig? Yup, that person can sue. And the more money a defendant has, the better. So it makes logical sense to destroy drafts and notes which may be used as evidence against you. I would not want someone reading my drafts, they may get a completely wrong picture of what I am trying to say.

The important thing is that approved content is not destroyed. Those kind of records have to be kept. So the accusation that records have been destroyed needs to be specific. Were these drafts of records or content approved records? This is the question that the BBC report is asking. So far apparently the evidence is that content approved records have not been destroyed.

7 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And it talks about pagan judges, when God has put them judges in their place to do God's work as scripture tells us.

It's talking about pagan judges, judging on matters (disputes) that should be figured out by the congregation who use the Bible which is superior (God is judge) as their guide. They're not talking about "pagan" judges, judging a criminal case. Don't keep mixing the two up. Does it need to give specifics? It clearly says disputes. Of course unless like some elders you believe child molestation is a dispute....

2 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"

While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, ..

 

The key word is CERTAIN documents. The accusation is that these are documents needed by the commission. What if they are not?

23 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Anna So it looks to me as if you are showing evidence here from a 1973 Watchtower that the GB or the Writing department said :

And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name

whether the congregation could still come into disrepute 

However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

Complete with threats too. would not be “free from accusation” 

this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

And this was in a Watchtower.  I think that is proof enough thank you. 

So how can anybody say that this direction did not come from the 'top', the GB is supposed to proof read this stuff yes ? 

Well you obviously didn't get it either! Because ALL of this was talking about disputes, such as business disputes, not crime. Crime is not a dispute; Theft is not a dispute. Rape is not a dispute. Child molestation is not a dispute. Murder is not a dispute. These are ALL crimes. The subject of the WT was not crime.

So John, if you had been an elder you would have applied it wrongly too!

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/bbc-reports-did-jws-destroy-evidence/

 

 

Thanks for posting that. It doesn't prove anything you said, in fact it indicates this may be "all apostate lies"

"While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, there is some debate and many unanswered questions as to whether this was a “change of policy” specifically intended by the Watchtower Society to prevent the Commission’s access.

Watchtower branch officers in the UK claim that this was not the case – and there is some evidence to support their claim. On the other hand, the Watchtower’s critics claim that the instructions regarding document destruction were specifically designed to complicate and frustrate the Commission’s investigation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders did prepare a formal response to the BBC Radio 4 Broadcast (as read near the end of the program) that stated:

“We are pleased to confirm that our direction to all congregations in England and Wales is compliant with the terms of the Goddard inquiry…”

One would think that if this statement can be trusted, then Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders in the UK must have checked with the proper authorities before making such a claim. If  Jehovah’s Witnesses elders and officers were compliant with the terms of the Goddard inquiry, and innocent of the charges made on the BBC broadcast – namely that they ordered congregations to destroy IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS – then the credibility of the accusers will certainly come under further scrutiny.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Or, Did the Elders, of their own initiative, tell congregants not to report ? 

That is what happened. But NOT every elder was of that opinion. Those who were, based their reasoning on WT 73/11/15 and related topics to do with 1 Cor 6: 1-7. The brothers applied it too broadly and applied it to where it shouldn't have been applied! I have underlined the quotes that the elders applied, and then I highlighted in red the misapplication. 

Questions From Readers    WT 73/11/15
● Do Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?—U.S.A.
The apostle Paul’s inspired admonition is: “Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unfit to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that you put in as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among you that will be able to judge between his brothers, but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?”—1 Cor. 6:1-7.

Here Paul was showing the Corinthian Christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between Christians before secular tribunals. The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of God’s law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word. As many of the judges at that time were corrupt and accepted bribes, Christians had little reason to believe that their judgment would be just. Paul referred to them as “unrighteous men.” Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be ‘putting in as judges’ men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity.
Then, too, in taking matters before unbelievers for judgment, they would, in effect, be saying that no one in the congregation had the wisdom to judge “matters of this life” among Christians. This was wholly inconsistent with the fact that spirit-anointed Christians as heavenly associate rulers of the Lord Jesus Christ would be judging, not only men, but also angels. And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name. As outsiders would be led to believe that Christians were no different from other people in being unable to settle differences, the interests of true worship would be injured. It would have been far better for individual Christians to take personal loss rather than to injure the entire congregation by bringing their disputes to public notice.
In view of the foregoing, would dedicated Christians today go before secular courts if that were to injure the advancement of true worship or misrepresent it in the eyes of outsiders? No. Of course, as all other people, true Christians are still imperfect humans. They make mistakes, and problems arise in connection with business matters and the like. But differences of this nature ought to be settled within the congregation, for God’s Word provides the needed guidelines and there are men in the congregation who are well grounded in the Bible.
However, if a Christian refuses to correct a serious wrong when it is made clear to him by elders serving in judicial capacity in the congregation, such a one would be expelled. This is in line with Jesus’ words: “If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:17) Thus, for example, one who defrauded his Christian brother or who failed to provide materially for his wife and children would find himself outside the congregation if he did not repent.—1 Tim. 5:8.
The injured party could thereafter decide whether legal action should be taken in an attempt to force the guilty one, now disfellowshiped, to rectify matters. Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God’s name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Paul’s counsel if he were to take to court one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation. Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.—Rom. 13:3, 4.
There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances.
However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be “free from accusation” as a Christian. He would not be one who has “a fine testimony from people on the outside” of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the bottom line is; some elders thought that the act of  letting authorities know that one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a child molester would bring reproach on the Congregation and Jehovah, and show that Jehovah's Witnesses were no different to anyone else. It's obvious that this was the case, otherwise the latest WT wouldn't need to clarify this by saying: "Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name. So obviously the Christian who reported was made to feel that way by some misguided elders. And some elders went as far as  threatening disfellowshipping of the reporter for slander (if there was inconclusive proof about the perpetrator i.e. other witnesses). The other problem was that dispute never meant child abuse, because child abuse always was and is a crime. So this is why the latest WT also makes this point: "Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime." and also: " The absence of a second witness does not mean that the one making the accusation is untruthful. Even if a charge of wrongdoing cannot be established by two witnesses, the elders recognize that a serious sin may have been committed, one that deeply hurt others.

So yes, some elders completely got the wrong end of the stick. This was evident when one of the elders testifying at the ARC embarrassingly said if he heard a report that someone in the congregation committed a murder, he would not report it to the police!

Q.  If a different crime, to take the most extreme, murder.  If you were told that a member of the congregation had killed someone else, would you report that to the police?

A.  We would encourage the person to do that.

Q.  Would you do it yourself?

A.   No.  I would try very hard not to - not that I would try very hard not to, but I would encourage the person continually to do that.  That's a decision they need to make.

On 2/25/2019 at 9:51 AM, JW Insider said:

There are cases against the Watchtower that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower, and should focus just on getting justice for the victim from the abuser. And there may be cases where congregation elders have made a mistake that has nothing to do with their training as elders and they should have known better. Some of these cases should have nothing to do with the Watchtower Society or the organization.

Yes, I agree,  that's how it should be, but as you mentioned, Lawyers want to go where the money is, and abusers probably don't have the kind of money they want. JW child abuse cases are attractive to them because of jw.org. Also, I didn't realise but many lawyers go hunting for cases. For instance someone I know is being sued by a credit card company and as soon as the lawsuit was filed with the court she has been receiving numerous letters from different lawyers who want to represent her. Apparently they go down to the courthouse to find cases. Similarly, child abuse lawyers go hunting for survivors so they can represent them in court. This was one reason I believe Zalkin wanted the names of all the alleged abusers held by the org. so he could sift through them and find anything that he could use for himself. And once they find a "suitable" survivor, they no doubt persuade her/him to the effect that they shouldn't feel bad about suing, since they will be suing the organization, and the organization has plenty of money. Then they (the lawyers) go about finding ways to incriminate the org. It's all about making money, but often the survivor comes off worse, especially when there is a settlement. I believe the lawyers take the biggest lump, and since with a settlement there is also a gag order, the survivor can't even complain about how little they got. It's all a big scam and all about lining the lawyers pockets. There is no justice really. The only justice will be with Jehovah. So when someone says "wait on Jehovah" when it is apparent that nothing that can be done for the moment, then that makes perfect sense. Of course it goes without saying that that should never be used as an excuse not to do anything.

On 2/23/2019 at 11:35 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Why did the ARC fail to submit these findings into their legal brief? Why do ex-JW’s refuse to see what’s before them? Why do witnesses continue to insinuate, when they don’t have the full facts?

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

(I don’t quite know who runs it, but this fellow is definitely a main player, if not the owner)

His name is Lloyd Evans. He used to be in the same circuit as me when I lived in England. I may have bumped into him when he was still a kid, but I never knew him personally. He lives in Croatia now. I don't know how he makes a living because all he does is campaign, make youtube videos, and writes. He did publish a book "the reluctant apostate" but it has bad reviews from his fellow apostate buddies....