Jump to content

James Thomas Rook Jr.

Why doesn't the Society translate and provide the Russian Court Transcripts for us?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

James Thomas Rook Jr. -
Josué2 -
237
7118

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

Actually no, I'm not looking for some sort of big announcement. I'd be more interested in the exposure of such wrong doings to children

Isn't that the same as a big announcement? In any case, the exposure of wrong doings to children happens every time it is found out isn't it? And it has to be handled correctly. However, a certain form of confidentiality is always required in these cases, and it was never confidentiality that was questioned by the ARC, but the handling of these cases as respects a suitable environment for disclosure and the reporting of such to the police etc. Announcing names of pedophiles to the whole congregation has never been a recommended policy of any child protection institutions as far as I know. However, a pedophile may be put on a public pedophile list by the authorities and in this way the perpetrator may be known to all.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

I think the difference is that with Russia it doesn't negatively reflect on the org,  where as the investigation from the Australian government does

I would hope most Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that the organization is made up of imperfect people, and that there are individuals in the organization who are Jehovah's Witnesses in name only, who in their private lives and behind closed doors molest children, beat their spouses and do all kinds of other things despicable for a professed Christian. Yes, these people, if despite being found out, would remain unrepentant and remained in the congregation would indeed reflect negatively on the congregation and by extension the whole org. That is why people are disfellowshipped. To keep the congregations clean from such unrepentant wrongdoers. The problem is that some situations are difficult to prove. The unmarried sister who becomes pregnant is clear. (Although I know of a sister who got pregnant and apparently swore she didn't do anything). But the husband who hits his wife is a lot more complicated. And so is a pedophile who carefully grooms his victims.

The Russia situation is an entirely different thing and in all fairness cannot be compared to the above situation.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

I forgot to ask, is it your opinion that the Russian ban and label as "extremists" greater in importance that of a child being molested and the perpetrator being protected just because it is commonly accepted that it happens in most major groups? 

I would hope that a known perpetrator would not be protected under any circumstances, if by protected you mean being allowed to carry on abusing children and not being punished for his crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

Isn't that the same as a big announcement? In any case, the exposure of wrong doings to children happens every time it is found out isn't it?

I think you are missing the point. If the org is involved in a major investigation, shouldn't the average person (jw or not) be informed? The instance of putting the Russian ban on the jw news portion of jworg but not other government investigations is dishonest. Either cover all equally or none. and NO if 1006 cases of child molestation and abuse have gone unannounced or exposed in Australia in the past 10 years, then I would have to disagree with your statement that exposure happens every time. 

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

The Russia situation is an entirely different thing and in all fairness cannot be compared to the above situation.

I only quoted this portion of the response because I agree with you on the rest, to an extent. I wasn't saying that these two instances are equal in disgust, but rather should be treated equally in exposure on the "news" portion of the jworg website. 

 

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

I would hope that a known perpetrator would not be protected under any circumstances, if by protected you mean being allowed to carry on abusing children.

But this IS the case, as proven by the ARC and admitted to by the representatives of wt au.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You're speaking of Scientology right? They were banned in Nov 2015. 

 

 only "one" religion has been banned in Russia.out of over 2,000 religions there according to the U.N. and other sources JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

 "The Supreme Court’s decision was the largest ban on the activities of a religious movement since the disintegration of the Soviet Union" TASS NEWS April 21, 2017 http://tass.com/politics/942578

 

Now why would it bother critics and opposers and apostates that we are the ONLY ONE???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

The instance of putting the Russian ban on the jw news portion of jworg but not other government investigations is dishonest.

I guess your best bet would be to write to headquarters and ask THEM why they don't put government investigations such as the one conducted by the ARC on the website. My guess is because the Russia ban is not an investigation as such. Now had the Australian Government said it was going to ban the Witnesses, because of the ARC findings, then it is much more likely this would be in the news portion of jw.org.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

child molestation and abuse have gone unannounced or exposed in Australia in the past 10 years, then I would have to disagree with your statement that exposure happens every time. 

Exposure happens every time a sexual child molester/pedophile is found to be guilty of his crime and without a doubt. In other words; what they have done comes to the fore, and is undeniable. Then their conduct has been exposed.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
4 hours ago, Anna said:

I would hope that a known perpetrator would not be protected under any circumstances, if by protected you mean being allowed to carry on abusing children.

But this IS the case, as proven by the ARC and admitted to by the representatives of wt au.  

I would have to go back and re-read some of the testimonies by victims and also the transcript. I do not remember reading about an instance where a known perpetrator was protected so that he could go on abusing other children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

With this current "persecution" in Russia and it having made the official jworg page, I wonder why the Australian Royal Commission and their "persecution" of jws did not make the official page? Or did it and I missed it? 

 

I can not answer you for the official page. They can read this FORUM and someone can answer this. This is really a serious matter / subject.


Perhaps they did not add anything because there are reasons. ..... :
1. The whole story is something “negative”, I mean not something so positive to write about. and 
2. the people (who did something bad) ARE NOT witnesses any longer …
3. why should they write something about those (elders,etc) who DID NOT SHOW ANY APPRECIATION for the other members of their own meetings ?? !!!!

 



I also have a question for you, before I add my last comment about Australia subject. Thanks.


Does the Australian government ask for money, as a payment / compensation (for all that “damage”) , and how much is that money?  Thanks.
 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2017 at 4:49 PM, bruceq said:

 only "one" religion has been banned in Russia.out of over 2,000 religions there according to the U.N. and other sources JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

 "The Supreme Court’s decision was the largest ban on the activities of a religious movement since the disintegration of the Soviet Union" TASS NEWS April 21, 2017 http://tass.com/politics/942578

 

Now why would it bother critics and opposers and apostates that we are the ONLY ONE???

So what you are saying is that you also do not acknowledge Scientology as a religion as the Russians do. Some do some don't, ok. Then you are correct. If Scientology is not considered a religion, then it just doesn't count. Gotcha. It's all "apostate lies". 

On 4/21/2017 at 6:26 PM, Anna said:

I guess your best bet would be to write to headquarters and ask THEM why they don't put government investigations such as the one conducted by the ARC on the website. My guess is because the Russia ban is not an investigation as such. Now had the Australian Government said it was going to ban the Witnesses, because of the ARC findings, then it is much more likely this would be in the news portion of jw.org.

I agree with you, then it would be. I have no interest in asking for a corporate answer. 

 

On 4/21/2017 at 6:26 PM, Anna said:

Exposure happens every time a sexual child molester/pedophile is found to be guilty of his crime and without a doubt. In other words; what they have done comes to the fore, and is undeniable. Then their conduct has been exposed.

try explaining that to the 1006 victims and their families in Au. 

 

On 4/21/2017 at 6:26 PM, Anna said:

a known perpetrator was protected so that he could go on abusing other children.

You probably will not find a direct quote that they said they would allow a known pedo to continue, nah.....I doubt it. But when a known pedo was found out by confession of a child (which SHOULD stand on its own as testimony) and because there was no other witness and the two witness "rule" is in affect, then you can clearly see the "truth" about the handling. I encourage you to read or watch the transcript from the initial inquiry. 

On 4/22/2017 at 6:20 AM, ARchiv@L said:

I also have a question for you, before I add my last comment about Australia subject. Thanks.


Does the Australian government ask for money, as a payment / compensation (for all that “damage”) , and how much is that money?  Thanks.
 

I do not know, honestly. I think they try and institute something towards correcting the problem. Which is to be paid by each org that was/is involved in the inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2017 at 6:20 AM, ARchiv@L said:

Perhaps they did not add anything because there are reasons. ..... :
1. The whole story is something “negative”, I mean not something so positive to write about. and 
2. the people (who did something bad) ARE NOT witnesses any longer …
3. why should they write something about those (elders,etc) who DID NOT SHOW ANY APPRECIATION for the other members of their own meetings ?? !!!!

Doesn't this tell the story? Don't print negative stuff, we don't want people to see that this is like any other group who has problems. Easy way to dismiss a problem is to say they D/A'd or we kicked them out by their actions.........that IS IF you have a second witness. Right on point #3, why point out the failings of the elders who were following the direction from above, both written and oral! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      Question:  Why did Jehovah’s Witnesses  recently organize a worldwide letter writing campaign due to the persecution in Russia and not for other countries where there is also persecution?
    • By The Librarian
      An older instructional video a brother made to help others out.
    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      I read this question at another site, it is interesting to me since as far as I know in Spanish we don't use that phrase: 
       
      JWs don't say, "I am a Jehovah's Witness."
      Instead, they say, "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses."
      What does the second way of saying it convey that the first does not?
      In other words, why does the organization prefer the second formulation?
      This isn't a teaser.
      I really don't know the answer.
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Is not that equivalent to boast about the "many" hours you dedicate preaching about God over others who have not the same agenda?
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      What should I gift a new born of Jehovah's Witnesses?
    • By She
      How can I get comments for watchtower study’s  pictures ?
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to vote?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      From the Newspaper the “San Diego Reader” - October 12, 2017
      Jehovah's Witnesses look in other direction
      Lawyers for religious group argue against daily fines in sex-abuse case
      By Dorian Hargrove, Oct. 12, 2017
       
      Attorneys for the Jehovah's Witness church appeared before a state appellate court yesterday (October 11) in hopes of overturning the $4000 daily sanctions that a trial court ordered them to pay for refusing to turn over documents in one of two sex-abuse cases.
       
      Osbaldo Padron, a former parishioner of the Linda Vista Jehovah's Witness congregation, filed his lawsuit against the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, JehovahÂ’s WitnessesÂ’ governing body, in 2013. Padron was one of seven people who sued the kingdom over sexual abuse they suffered by a former church elder, Gonzalo Campos.
      As detailed in an August 30 Reader article, Campos admitted to molesting seven children from 1982 to 1999. Despite his admission, church elders agreed to let Campos rejoin the congregation after a four-year expulsion.
       
      In a 1999 letter, Linda Vista church elder Eduardo Chavez argued for reinstating Campos. He wrote, “In our meeting with him he said he was very repentant for what he did. He stated that he wanted to return to Jehovah. He is willing to face the victims and ask their forgiveness. He now wants to obey Jehovah. Before, when he would speak to people on the platform he would not meditate on what he was doing. Although he needed to confess, he felt shameful and had fear of mankind. He would deceive himself thinking that he could continue serving as an elder. Now he realized that he could not change without help. Ever since his expulsion he has not abused anyone."
       
      In 2010, five victims sued the Watchtower for allowing Campos to serve as an elder despite having knowledge that he molested several children in the congregation. Watchtower settled that case in 2012. The terms of the settlement as well as the evidence against the Watchtower were sealed.
       
      Two more victims, Padron and José Lopez, followed suit.
       
      In 2013, San Diego Superior Court judge Joan Lewis ordered Watchtower to pay $13.5 million for repeatedly refusing to turn over documents that showed the church was aware of sexual abuse and did nothing to stop it.
       
      Attorneys for the Watchtower filed an appeal. They argued that Judge Lewis had acted too soon in issuing the $13.5 million in sanctions and instead the trial court should have imposed less severe sanctions. The appellate court agreed.
       
      In their ruling, the justices wrote, "We conclude the court erred in ordering terminating sanctions because there was no evidence that lesser sanctions would have failed to obtain Watchtower's compliance with the document production order and because there were other possible sanctions that could have effectively remedied the discovery violation. On remand, the court has broad discretion to start with a different sanction that does not wholly eliminate Watchtower's right to a trial."
       
      Then, last year in the Padron case, a different superior court judge, Richard Strauss, followed the appellate court's advice and instead of issuing terminating sanctions imposed $4000 daily sanctions on the Watchtower for refusing to turn over the documents that Padron's attorneys had requested.
      Again, Watchtower's attorneys filed an appeal.
       
      On October 11, those attorneys appeared before the Fourth District Appellate Court to argue that the trial court was wrong to issue daily sanctions — exactly what they had argued for in the appellate court Lopez case just months prior.
       
      Justice Richard Huffman did not hide his displeasure that Watchtower's attorneys were arguing against what they had previously supported to the same court.
      "You can't have it both ways," Huffman said during argument. "[The Lopez] ruling has come around to bite you and now you're saying, 'not fair, not fair.' You were headed in one direction before and now youÂ’re headed another way. It's a breathtaking position to listen to."
      The appellate court has 90 days to issue its formal ruling."
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Our donations are being used to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE !
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Are JWs   allowed to get this treatment? 
      "Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), also known as autologous conditioned plasma, is a concentrate of platelet-rich plasma protein derived from whole blood, centrifuged to remove red blood cells."
      For example to reduce wrinkles on the face
       
       
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      WHY DO MEN HAVE NIPPLES?
      uH .. OR IS IT "NIPPELS"?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Do Unicorns Actually Eat Rainbows And Poop Butterflies ?
      The Russian's major newspaper is "PRAVDA", which means in English "Truth", and most everything reported about the leadership and communist organizations that run the country is GOOD NEWS!    It is "FAKE NEWS", of course, as what is NOT stated is as important as what IS stated.
      The Russian News agency TASS, as well as The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society BOTH have heavily agendized news reporting ... that is to say ... they ONLY report news that puts them in a good light. 
      Neither will admit they "screwed up", neither ever apologizes for ANYTHING, and that's the way it is April 13, 2017.  "Reality 101".
      Go to JW.ORG, and read what the news is from Russia concerning Jehovah's Witnesses, for April 12, 2017 ... and then read the following from the TASS Russian News Agency.   You would think they are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COURT CASES.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Jehovah’s Witnesses former members tell court they were subjected to ‘total control’

      TASS NEWS AGENCY – MOSCOW – APRIL 12, 2017

      World
      April 12, 19:53 UTC+3
      In its lawsuit to outlaw the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Justice Ministry pointed to various violations in the organization’s activities revealed during a surprise inspection
      MOSCOW, April 12. /TASS/. Russia’s Supreme Court has heard the testimony of four former members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who said they had been subjected to ‘total control’ in that religious organization, with no possibility to receive higher education or start a family, TASS reports from the courtroom.
      Specifically, witness Natalia Koretskaya from St. Petersburg told the court she had been a member of that organization from 1995 to 2009 and had realized over this period that the organization’s members "were living under full and total control of the [Jehovah’s Witnesses] Administrative Center."
      "The heads of the Jehovah’s Witnesses formally watch canonical compliance with the norms but in real fact the talk is about total control of an individual’s personal life - his intimate life, education and work," witness Koretskaya said.
       
      In response to the court’s request to give the facts of such control, Koretskaya said she had been expelled from the religious organization and its members had been banned to communicate with her after she had started close but officially unregistered relationship with a man.

       
      "Therefore, a person turns out to be expelled into the outer world, in which he has already forgotten how to live over the years of his stay in the organization," Koretskaya said.
       
      The Justice Ministry’s second witness, Pavel Zverev, told the court he had become a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the age of 16 and had not received higher education on persuasion of the organization’s heads.
      "It is accepted in the organization that receiving higher education is useless if this is not in the organization’s interests. As a result of such persuasion, I remained without education and I’m suffering from that in my life," said Zverev who had worked as a volunteer for two years in the organization’s Administrative Center in the capacity of a cook.
       
      The other two witnesses also said they had suffered from the religious organization’s excessive control of their private life and from the ban to communicate with its other members after quitting it, as well as from depression and alcoholism.
       
      Thus, witness Nina Petrova from Volgograd said that on persuasion of her spiritual mentors she did not marry and did not start a family. "They convinced me that a family was not needed as the doomsday was close at hand. And when I realized that this was a delusion, it was late," Petrova said, adding that she had stayed in the organization for 28 years.
       
      For their part, representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses said the witnesses had been prepared in advance for their testimony in the court.
      "We see that the witnesses are giving testimony based on written materials, repeating the arguments of the so-called sectological literature. Some of them are mentioned in public sources as activists of the movements that are struggling with the Jehovah’s Witnesses," a lawyer for the defendants said.
      At its next hearing on April 19, the court is expected to study the written materials of the case and may hear the parties’ oral statements.
      Essence of the lawsuit
      In its lawsuit to outlaw the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Justice Ministry pointed to various violations in the organization’s activities revealed during a surprise inspection, including breaches of the Law on Counteracting Extremist Activities. The ministry has asked to recognize the organization and its 395 local branches as extremists, ban their activity and seize property.
       
      For its part, the organization’s press service told TASS that they were alarmed by the decision, since it could affect 175,000 active believers. The Jehovah’s Witnesses spokesman Ivan Bilenko said the organization was prepared to press for its rights in any courts.
      The Jehovah’s Witnesses is an international religious organization that supports offbeat views on the essence of the Christian faith and provides special interpretations of many commonly accepted notions. In Russia, it had 21 local organizations but three of them were eliminated for extremism.
       
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      Now, do your homework ... compare the two accounts ... the April 12 account from JW.ORG's Russia reporting, and THIS one ... and know why to get to the truth of ANYTHING ... you have to read EVERYTHING.
      .
      If you self-censor your information, you might as well do it with a bullet to the brain.
      .
      .
       
       
       
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      If we discover Extraterrestrial sentient life forms, can they be baptized?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      .
      This continuous, never-ending global controversy has been going on since the 1960's, that I am aware of personally, and even before, when Judge Rutherford PERSONALLY forbade beards among Jehovah's witnesses, with the possible exception of post-menopausel Sisters .... and the Society has never definitively stated ANYTHING. 
      With my usual lack of humor I present the Draft Copy of the December 2016 issue of the Watchtower which showed a Brother shaving on the cover ... it was changed before being distributed, because the Brothers responsible for the VERY GOOD and accurate article ... disappeared mysteriously.
      After you save the file to your hard drive, from the TOOL BAR, be sure to set your ADOBE PDF reader under VIEW to "Reading Mode" and under ZOOM,  "Fit Page" to read it.
      Dec 2016 Watchtower draft article .pdf
      .
       
    • By Jack Ryan
      SAN DIEGO (CN) — The national Jehovah's Witnesses organization must produce any documents in its possession relating to perpetrators of child sexual abuse, a California appeals court ruled.
           Jose Lopez sued Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York and the Linda Vista Spanish Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in June of 2012 for the sexual abuse he allegedly suffered when he was seven years old at the hands of his Bible instructor Gonzales Campos.
           In 1986, Lopez's mother allowed Campos to give her son bible study lessons after an elder from her congregation recommended him because he was "good very good with children."
           According to the complaint, after Campos had given Lopez several lessons, he sexually molested him.
           The abuse was reported to an elder of the church after Lopez told his mother, but nothing was done after the elders spoke to Lopez about where he was touched.
           This was not the first time there had been allegations Campos had sexually abused young boys.
           Another boy from the same congregation accused Campos of sexually molesting him four years earlier.
           Campos admitted to acting inappropriately, but the elders continued to allow him to be around children, and even continued to recommend him as a Bible instructor.
           Lopez and his mother left the congregation shortly after the alleged abuse, but Campos continued to rise within the congregation over the next several years, eventually serving as an elder and being placed on the congregation's governing service committee.
           Yet, according to the Lopez's complaint, between 1982 and 1995, Campos sexually abused at least eight other children.
           Neither Watchtower nor the congregation ever reported the incidents to law enforcement officers, the complaint said.
           With more than 1.2 million members and 13,777 congregations across the United States, the Jehovah's Witness religion's practices, policies and administrative duties were supervised by Watchtower during the relevant time period, including congregation elders who served as its agents.
           Watchtower challenged two discovery orders -- one requesting the church produce documents concerning the sexual abuse of other victims; the other seeking to compel the disposition of an individual believed to be the managing agent of Watchtower at the time.
           The organization also requested that an order, compelling it to pay nearly $38,000 in monetary sanctions, be terminated.
           In addition to rejecting claims the document request was overly broad and violated attorney-client privilege, a three-judge panel with California's Fourth Appellate District also found that, although unusual, the 27-year post-incident request "is partly a function of the permissive limitations statutes governing child sexual abuse under which Lopez was seeking to recover for an alleged wrongful act committed almost three decades earlier."
           Watchtower's claim that the document request was overly oppressive because it would take years to comply was also rejected by the panel, which pointed out the church's computer system had a search function that could easily identify information within the scanned documents.
           The panel also shot down Watchtower's First Amendment objection by citing relevant cases, including a decade old case in which the court held it did not violate constitutional religious freedom when an archdiocese was order to product documents about priests who were indicted for sexually abusing children.
           While the three-judge panel upheld the discovery order, it found the disposition order was not supportable because there was no evidence that the named individual was a managing agent at the time Lopez was abused.
           Judge Judith Haller, writing for panel, concluded the ruling by finding the sanctions order needed to be vacated. "There was no question Watchtower willfully failed to comply with the document production order." Judge Haller wrote. "The fundamental flaw with the court's approach is there is no basis in the record showing the court could not have obtained Watchtowers' compliance with lesser sanctions."
      D066388.pdf
      http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/04/18/witnesses-must-produce-child-sex-abuse-docs.htm
  • Forum Statistics

    62,003
    Total Topics
    116,516
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,533
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Sunny3481
    Newest Member
    Sunny3481
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.