Geoffrey Jackson Before the Commission - and the New Requirement to ‘Go Beyond the Law’

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I find it so funny when you call JW Org 'OUR' system or org. I cannot fully understand why anyone with your knowledge of the GB / W/t / JW Org would want to be any part of it, but maybe you are still getting info to pass on to us. 

I try to be a good Jehovah's Witness, because I recognize that it is, as I have said before, "the only game in town."

But I am not a Corporate shill, and divorce myself publicly from the areas where Corporate Protection is the foremost consideration, and lack of common sense, and lunatic reasonings on theology ( which is now controlled by the Society's Lawyers and Accountants...) rules.

 

THAT'S how I do it.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

NOTHING about LIGHT FROM ABOVE, but about - Make It Easier For Us.   :(( ... shame to them.

Any task of any sort is made easier if you don’t have other parties screwing you up, even if only through ineptitude. This is all that GJ was saying. You deliberately misrepresent his statement to suggest that he couldn’t care less about the problem. You should be more ashamed of yourself than even you usually should be.

What is he asking for? That laws about reporting CSA be consistent. That way he, as representative of one of the very few faiths that have attempted to monitor this evil, so as to mete out discipline and prevent miscreants from slipping unawares from one congregation into another (as they can anywhere else) does not have to do his job as though in a legal minefield. 

Why has what he pleaded for not been done? Given the seriousness of the problem and the stated priority of fighting it, seemingly no task should be easier.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It does NOT get any simpler than this:

If the Elders learn of something that is a criminal act involving Child Sexual Abuse ... ALWAYS report it to the Civil Authorities.

 

ONE SENTENCE!

Problem solved.... globally, and 100%.

 

See, that was not so hard.

 

 

 

 

.... ALL ELSE IS THE PURVEY OF WEASELS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The ones judging you do not even have to TELL YOU THEIR NAMES.

We have been through this before. For this to be true, there would have to be unimaginably extraordinary circumstances, for all of Jehovah’s Witnesses know that there are committees and all know how they work, and none of them have ever heard of such a thing. 

The premise of the complaint is not even true. 

As justice is dispensed in the adversarial justice system, the judge pronounces the verdict. 

But the ones who actually decide guilt are members of the jury, who “do not even have to TELL YOU THEIR NAMES.”

You big baby.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

The original video is still available on the ARC web site.

Try ignoring a summons to appear in Court, and see what happens.

HINT: Fine or imprisonment for contempt of Court.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

31 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As justice is dispensed in the adversarial justice system, the judge pronounces the verdict. 

But the ones who actually decide guilt are members of the jury, who “do not even have to TELL YOU THEIR NAMES.”

A congregational Judicial "Hearing" is NOT a jury trial ... It is a trial by Tribunal, who act as both Judges, and Jury.

The Congregational Judicial Committee is NOT a Jury, it is a Tribunal of Judges.

Your entire premise is faulty, TTH. That is a generous way of telling you you are WRONG. (again ...)

31 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

8 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The ones judging you do not even have to TELL YOU THEIR NAMES.

We have been through this before. For this to be true, there would have to be unimaginably extraordinary circumstances, for all of Jehovah’s Witnesses know that there are committees and all know how they work, and none of them have ever heard of such a thing. 

You may have been through all this before, but again, you are flat wrong. 

I was there!

I was the subject of the Trial, and the Tribunal, after being repeatedly asked to do so BY ME ... refused to tell me their names and Congregation.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

10 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

A congregational Judicial "Hearing" is NOT a jury trial .

Indeed it is not, but since you constantly compare the two, all that I have said is appropriate. The ones at a court trial who decide guilt DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO TELL YOU THEIR NAMES!!!!!! Where is your outrage about THAT?

12 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I was there!

Yes. That was the problem. Were it anyone else it would have been the sort of committee procedure that we all know about.

What was there about your behavior (the reader might make an educated guess by reviewing your outrageous posts, but no more than an educated guess) so that they resorted to methods that nobody else has ever heard of or can imagine?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

24 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Indeed it is not, but since you constantly compare the two, all that I have said is appropriate. The ones at a court trial who decide guilt DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO TELL YOU THEIR NAMES!!!!!! Where is your outrage about THAT?

What Secular courts do or don't do does not excuse what our Tribunals do or don't do.

When a Jury is selected, a person's lawyer and they have the right to select from a Jury Pool, usually about 30 people,  12 people "good and true" from the Jury pool. 

I have BEEN in a Jury Pool thankyouverymuch!

Everybody knows what their names are, even though they are referred to as "Juror No. 3", or "Juror No. 6" etc., AFTER they are selected.

Before their selection, the defense lawyer tries to find out everything there is to know about each potential juror, and ESPECIALLY those mutually selected by the prosecution and the defense.

But that is not the point AT ALL ... because a Congregational Judicial Trial is a trial by a Tribunal of Judges, which a defendant has no input at all.  They could be limp-wristed progressive Liberal Snowflakes, or "hanging Judges", or anything at all!

What I saw is a sad, sad story for another time, perhaps. Perhaps after I am safely dead.

The WDS Force is strong with you, Luke.

[TrueTomHarley]

15 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Everybody knows what their names are, even though they are referred to as "Juror No. 3", or "Juror No. 6" etc., AFTER they are selected.

While it is possible to discover their names—the reporters always manage to do it—for a deranged lunatic supposed capable of even extracting revenge, their identities are kept secret.

Perhaps that accounts for this unheard of situation with your hearing that you are trying to pass off as an everyday occurrence. 

I mean, “Maybe it is ME,” does not seem like a ridiculous idea for you to entertain. Just like usually in a courtroom, the defendant just sits there. But once in a while they have to put him in some sort of restraints.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Again, you are missing the point ENTIRELY ( no surprise there ....)

If I had hand puppets with big crayons,  here is what they would tell you

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

A congregational Judicial "Hearing" is NOT a jury trial ... It is a trial by Tribunal, who act as both Judges, and Jury.

The Congregational Judicial Committee is NOT a Jury, it is a Tribunal of Judges.

Your entire premise is faulty, TTH. That is a generous way of telling you you are WRONG. (again ...)

Even Jeffery Dahmer and others as bad as he, knew the names of his JUDGES ... their names were on the courthouse door, or on a name plate on their desks.  The Bailiff would announce his  name as he entered the room.

And I have been repeatedly investigated by the FBI, the DOD, the DOE, and the ATF, and many local Sheriffs, and have a SPOTLESS record,  ( except for  several traffic tickets over a 50 year period ...) so your innuendo is only another of your delusional fantasies, of things you WISH had purchase, but do NOT.

... FURTHER .. I never alluded to my experience being an "everyday occurance".  I relayed it as an account ONLY of how I was treated.

THAT ... is another one of your delusional fantasies of how you WISH I had said that, to be able to defend the indefensible.

Be a sport ... review what I actually DID say, compared to your stated delusion.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

9 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Another example of James ignorance, why wait until a subpoena is issued to fight that subpoena and as proof, it can be done by Trump’s proceedings as a pathetical liar, and abuser of power, a racist that goes to no end to steal from the poor to give to the rich.

May I suggest that you talk to your Doctor about getting you some Adderall?

I think 20mg, twice a day would help you to stay focused.

I don't think they have anything for your WDS.

... or your spelling ... hehehehe .

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

31 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Is that what your taking? I think you need to change your meds and status of how you think you're a witness in good standing. Now that's funny. As you spelling, will it, takes a certain kind of a despicable person to bring out such, childish things since everyone here has them? How low do you want to go, buck?

Well, for what it is worth, I gave an answer at the Watchtower Study Saturday before Last, and my wife gave one this Saturday, at the Kingdom Hall I have been attending since 2000, when I moved here .... for whatever THAT is worth.

If I was not a JW in good standing (actually, I sit down a lot ...) the WT Study Conductor would not have called on me.

You really ought to quit attacking me, anonymous BTK ... you ALWAYS lose the argument ... because your agenda driven perspective is so screwed up.

It is getting tiresome trouncing you soundly every time you attack me, but I do seem to get a perverse pleasure out of it.

.... never mind.

It's either this or have fun watching my pet chickens when I hand feed them multi-grain bread !