Jehovah's Witnesses to join redress scheme

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In the United States, the most frequent litigant in the Supreme Court, apart from the government itself, has been Jehovah's Witnesses, mostly in the 30s, 40,s and 50s. Any student of law learns of their major contributions in clarifying freedom of worship, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once said, “I think the Jehovah’s Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties.” They have "solved the legal problems of civil liberties" upwards of 50 times in that one country alone.

I do not know what, if anything, they will do with regard to this Australian policy. The only thing I know for sure is that, had you been in America decades ago, you would have cried over each and every one of their cases then, as you do here.

There is no "principle" at stake here. They attempted to escape a "fee" they felt unjust and were thwarted. At which point they drop back and say governments have the power and authority to impose or not impose fees. It's what they do, and adjusting to it is no more than obeying the superior authorities. 

Appealing the verdict of a court is not the same as disregarding the superior authorities. It is a right afforded any citizen or collection of citizens. Will this be appealed? No idea. 

To seek "freedom" from courts for oneself and one's own interests also means to recognize such the same freedom for those with whom one ideologically disagrees. We know what the content of JW’s beliefs is about other ideologies. Different and opposite ideologies will have no "freedom" in the "New World", but will be "deleted".

There are principles in everything. You made erroneous conclusion.

Yes, the Organization can seek to evade obligations with the help of semantics. Also the Organization can semantically justify what it previously refused to do.

It’s a successful way that you use too.  

[Witness]

On 3/5/2021 at 4:31 AM, 4Jah2me said:

The Aussie authorities then say they MUST come aboard, on pain of losing the tax status that is afforded every other charity.

It was still a CHOICE, just as it was a CHOICE not to cooperate with the redress scheme to begin with.  Obviously, money is more important than reaching out to help the victims.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

It was still a CHOICE, just as it was a CHOICE not to cooperate with the redress scheme to begin with.  Obviously, money is more important than reaching out to help the victims.

The organisation says it will sign up because of new rules introduced by the federal government, which mean it would lose its charity status - and subsequent tax exemptions - for continuing to hold out.

"Now that the law requires charities to join the scheme, Jehovah's Witnesses will comply," it said in a statement to AAP on Wednesday.

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is their responsibility before God to respect and co-operate with the authorities." - https://7news.com.au/politics/jehovahs-witnesses-to-join-redress-scheme-c-2278906.amp?fbclid=IwAR1LpqH2VhAS6zdSCrRi_PIE4G_TGS3HbLMl4Thai6GrUEAiqMWchS3-bgA

 

The organisation says it will sign up because of new rules introduced by the federal government, which mean it would lose its charity status - and subsequent tax exemptions - for continuing to hold out.

"Now that the law requires charities to join the scheme, Jehovah's Witnesses will comply," it said in a statement to AAP on Wednesday.

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is their responsibility before God to respect and co-operate with the authorities." -

 https://au.news.yahoo.com/jehovahs-witnesses-join-redress-scheme-061052602.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJ9pgYa7pNtBc_oEWG53LZETBGtFA4Fadn2IXb5actDJqmXVSObESwZZAoG8-IMh2QzGj3mJAELSBLT_Sf3D2euPAVmJQA9O2D_HT9p8XM1NY-rCd-MwnXj9DpiQ1DxsCCYH24OhIuAgSBRxHtFwN8YsmTnQnkVCxhn9xtzEsCsD

WTJWorg have same choice as every JW in the world, to obey or disobey secular authorities. If something what secular government ask them to do, according to their beliefs they are not obligated to obey if God say opposite. 

In this case "God told" them before few months NOT to join the scheme. And WTJWorg refused to join. Now, they reexamine Roman 13  and decide how "God say, join". How is possible that all those wise men in WTJWorg did not know what these verses instructed them to do from first minute?  

They showed to the World again, It is all about Money! They CHOSE money instead principle; Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No. ..............For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. Mat 5 37

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Witness said:

It was still a CHOICE, just as it was a CHOICE not to cooperate with the redress scheme to begin with.  Obviously, money is more important than reaching out to help the victims.

I would not be so sure that genuine victims will get a better deal with this program. It may be that handling complaints on a case-by-case basis, as was being done, will be more to their advantage. Governments with their agencies, not to mention lawyers, tend to seriously erode funds meant for victims. Plus, it has already been revealed that those churches that did sign on, to much fanfare, are subsequently dragging their feet and are being as uncooperative as possible. CC is right. These things tend to be facades, with everyone taking bows while raiding the till, and the victims don’t fare nearly as well as you might think.

It may turn out to be more like the vaccine court in the U.S. Though you can sue a manufacturer for every other defective product, you cannot sue for a vaccine injury. Pharma managed to legislate themselves immunity. There is a vaccine court for redress, funded in part by surcharges on each vaccine given. Ask any injured party and they will tell you that their cases are almost invariably denied, and it is only by fighting it out with lawyers that they may, after a few years, get a few thousand dollars, seldom very much. This is true even in cases of permanent paralysis.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is their responsibility before God to respect and co-operate with the authorities."

I actually think the statement is a little clunky—for it doesn’t account for the reversal— and that i could have written it better, along the lines I have already said. 

Still, it is such a white-hot issue, and some are trying to milk it for various reasons, that maybe it is just as well not to risk looking “defensive”—state what has been stated, and move on. 

It is a good deal to have resolved. I am sure they are happy to do that. I am sure victims are happy, too. That is the nature of any reconciliation. People are happy when it is done.

I liked how Holly Folk did not shirk from taking on lawyers. Essentially, if you have money, someone will devise a means to take some of it. It will not be a completely fictional means, for that will seldom produce results. It will be something that is real, but overstated, exaggerated, and legitimate cases will be mixed with more dubious ones. It is in lawyers’ interests to portray people as victims, whatever happened to them was not their fault. Accordingly the “cult” mantra is hugely popular with them. At times, one wonders if they to some degree have invented the idea, for they surely benefit from it.

It is not just CSA. That is but a tiny part of the iceberg. In my community, there are about twenty legal firms that advertise on media, and some of them do it virtually non-stop. I can remember a time when manufacturers were the prime sponsors of TV shows. Now they are sidled aside by lawyers. What does that tell you as to the nature of society?  It amounts to a global society-wide transfer of funds, with barristers netting a third.

I was a defendent in such a case. I don’t think many people have not had some such experience, unless they have taken care never to do anything in life. This one involved a house I rented out. Insurance kicks in and you have little to do with it, but if you don’t know that in advance, it is very disconcerting. Even knowing it in advance, it is not comfortable. The suit was for $6 million and the settlement was for $200K. “How can the insurance companies afford this?” I asked my agent. “They can’t,” was the reply. “They just keep raising their rates.”

”My lawyer got me 5 million dollars, 18 times what the insurance company offered.” Such ads are staples on TV. In satire, I append the following to them: “All my neighbors rejoiced with me. Then they opened their premium bills.”

My teenage daughter’s car was hit—not her fault—and within days the other insurance company was hounding me to “settle.” Settle what? I was not accustomed to this new normal. They offered thousands of dollars if only I would settle. Finally I told them, “I don’t think this is going to cost you a dime. Pay a few chiropractic bills and that will be the end of it. But I am not signing anything away, for I don’t know what the finale will be.” They paid a few bills. I never did settle. There was never any reason to. I was probably a chump. I probably should have hit them up for as many thousands as I could. I just didn’t know that mindset, and concepts like “honesty” got in the way. The latest prompting from TV lawyers is that you call them immediately after your doctor to find out what “your accident is worth.” I am of the generation where you didn’t call them at all. You had insurance, the other party had insurance, you relied upon them for fair compensation, and were seldom dissatisfied with the result.

[JW Insider]

46 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Essentially, if you have money, someone will devise a means to take some of it. It will not be a completely fictional means, for that will seldom produce results.

So true. I was killed once (not kidding) for a couple of minutes. As a pedestrian, I was standing on the curb but with one foot in the crosswalk waiting for the light to change when a man who wanted to get through the "long yellow" in time angrily sped around a car that was stopping for the yellow. I was thrown across the street, and his windshield hit me in the chest in a way that stopped my heart for a minute or so and produced lots of broken ribs and a bilateral pneumothorax as a bonus. I even had the out of body experience in the ambulance remembering from "above" seeing them remove my tie and cut off my shirt and T-shirt with a pair of scissors. I was hit only 3 blocks from the hospital they drove me to.

I got $10,000 from his insurance. But we never bothered to push for more. I admit to being about one foot into the crosswalk even though the driver actually came up slightly on the curb. Brothers still chide me for leaving so much "on the table."

But my son was hit very softly by a car that partially sideswiped his car, and they both got out and saw there was no damage. My son, a lawyer, even took pictures of the non-damage. A few months later he gets hit by a lawsuit that puts another passenger in the offending car and claims that there were serious injuries. Our insurance (Geico) got all the details and photos from my son, who showed them how this suit was baseless and frivolous. We were sure they would fight it. But they paid the party some amount under $10,000! We couldn't believe it.

I'm seeing a couple of law offices that advertise for CSA lawsuits with hour-long commercials on TV. I understand that the primary lawyer who takes on cases against the WTS (Zalkin) has a backlog of over 100 cases in the US. Also, they will hardly take on cases that only involve rank and file because it is harder to prove "agency" to the WTS which is considered the source of the money. They only want MS and elders. This way even if the WTS did nothing wrong, they still can claim "agency" to the WTS (where the money is).

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I would not be so sure that genuine victims will get a better deal with this program. It may be that handling complaints on a case-by-case basis, as was being done, will be more to their advantage.

Yes, private handling with private lawyers can bring other results. I see that you speaking about "genuine victims". So "fake victims" will enter ARC program to get some money that will not be received in private lawsuit? And do you think how Redress Commission collects cases without checking?

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

My lawyer got me

Do you want us to believe that JW lawyers who representing WTJWorg are more honest than those lawyers who representing opposite side? :))

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I am of the generation where you didn’t call them at all. You had insurance, the other party had insurance, you relied upon them for fair compensation, and were seldom dissatisfied with the result.

Sounds fair to me. Problem is if you have a very old car, so insurance declares total damage for what is not total damage at all. The reason is that the price of a vehicle of that year on the market is lower than the price of a turn signal and a headlight, so to speak. ;))

[Witness]

This video begins with a skit of two elders determining how to handle the change of “rules” by the organization, to now become part of the ARC redress scheme.  The point is made that the heavy responsibility to address and explain the about-face stance taken by the governing leaders, will fall on the local elder body.  It clicked with me that the slow simmering brew building against the organization’s “faithful and discreet slave” ( more precisely “wicked slave” Matt 24:48-51) is rapidly moving to the boiling point.  In the skit, the elder ends a follow-up  conversation by announcing he has turned in his “Flock” book. 

How much more will the “Beast” (organization/elder body)  and “Ten kings” (anointed who have not received their crown from Jesus Christ)…tolerate the “Harlot”, before turning on her and exposing her sins?  (Rev 13:1,2,11,12; 17:12,13,17)

The speaker stated:

“One of the things you will notice if you look back through the Jehovah’s Witnesses history, if an issue involves you and I, where we were going to suffer for it, the Wt told us to take the hit, take the pain.  But if it involves something where the organization is going to take the hit, the Wt. has no problem revising the rules. 

This is an organization that does not really care about its people, it only cares about itself.”

Who is at the helm of the organization presently, changing the rules on a whim and expecting the elder body to “apologize” for it? 

 "Jezebel"

 

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the primary lawyer who takes on cases against the WTS (Zalkin) has a backlog of over 100 cases in the US

 

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

they will hardly take on cases that only involve rank and file because it is harder to prove "agency" to the WTS which is considered the source of the money. They only want MS and elders.

So, JWI is almost saying here that Zalkin has over 100 CSA cases against Elders and Minsterial Servants. 

Thank you JWI, you have just proved a point, which @TrueTomHarley  constantly denies.  Tom says it is rank and file that commit CSA. JWI is proving it is Elders and MS. Zalkin is a top lawyer. He would only take cases he can prove. 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

So, JWI is almost saying here that Zalkin has over 100 CSA cases against Elders and Minsterial Servants. 

With this information we can conclude how it is not only "family violence" problem as some here want to present CSA in WTJWorg. This numbers proves "institutional violence" too. 

[JW Insider]

On 3/7/2021 at 1:59 PM, 4Jah2me said:

So, JWI is almost saying here that Zalkin has over 100 CSA cases against Elders and Minsterial Servants. 

Not necessarily. Perhaps 98 of the backlog of cases are rank-and-file and he has had trouble arguing that all JWs are "ordained ministers" and representatives of the WTS. But perhaps the case of 1 ministerial servant and 1 elder he knows will be easy to argue. Therefore, he will only take on new cases of ministerial servants and elders since he has too many rank and file cases.

That's a purposeful exaggeration to make a point. I actually don't know anything about the make-up of his backlog except that a reliable Witness told me that his backlog is about 100 cases and he is now very selective in the new cases he will take. And that this is supposedly something that new attorneys know, who are anxious to pick up cases that Zalkin can no longer take on.

On 3/7/2021 at 1:59 PM, 4Jah2me said:

Thank you JWI, you have just proved a point, which @TrueTomHarley  constantly denies.  Tom says it is rank and file that commit CSA.

@TrueTomHarley does not say it's only rank-and-file Witnesses who commit CSA, he says that it is probably a lot more rank-and-file than appointed servants. I would agree with him on this. His main point is that you can't usually make a comparison between JWs and Catholics by looking at the raw numbers in the statistics. For example if the ARC had reported that there were 5,000 perpetrators of Catholic CSA, he says this was mostly "appointed priests" whereas if you also saw a parallel report of 1,000 perpetrators of JW CSA, this would have been "appointed servants" along with a large percentage of "rank-and-file" JWs.

I think that there could be a bit of wishful thinking in TTH's view, but I can't say he is wrong. My view, after looking at several collections of evidence and statistics, is that most rank-and-file cases still go unreported, and under-reported. This is just one anecdote, but I was at a Witness funeral/memorial a couple years ago where the brother "eulogized" the late elder, and this resulted in some whispers, hushes, and then escalated into a real disturbance and then several sisters "took it outside" to keep the disturbance down. It turns out that the elder, from 20 to 30 years prior, had been incestuous with his own daughter, and perhaps another of his daughters starting well before becoming an elder, but it had evidently continued for years.

Most CSA cases are "familial" and the experience told me that most cases don't ever get reported, much less prosecuted. And why would an attorney take on such a case unless the family had a lot of money and could afford to sue themselves, basically?

The case I mentioned was an elder, well respected all his life by the congregation, but with notable exceptions within the congregation as I discovered.

The spreadsheet that the ARC provided for the JW cases, had a high percentage of elders and ministerial servants. (And at least one, probably more, were not listed as elders at the time of the crime, but became elders later -- this is something I wanted to look into as a problem outcome of not reporting cases.) But a friend in Australia has told me that if you look at the breakdown among Catholics: priests, nuns, brothers, school teachers, volunteers, etc., then it seems that they did have records on more than just appointed priests. And the breakdown was apparently similar to that of the JW breakdown. But you can't make too many conclusions about what it means overall if we realize that so many cases are never reported, or were thought to fall under "elder-congregant" or "priest-penitent" privilege. It also turns out that some of the other churches somehow did have a breakdown that included rank-and-file members. The media tends to report on those cases where the church authorities were perpetrators and victimizers, and this gives everyone the impression that it is just the higher-ups.

I remember from the US reports after the ARC, and preliminary discussions of investigations elsewhere in the world, that there was a lot of talk and interviews about treating some of the Catholic entities, even the church itself (in Australia) as a criminal organization. This type of talk reminds me of when TTH speaks of the ARC as going after the others as institutions but going after the JWs as a religion. I know what he means, but I can't say that I agree. In the media outlets, I saw/heard some talk about JWs not reporting any of these 1000 abusers of 1,500 victims, and how terrible it was. But I heard and read much more talk that made it appear that that made it appear they were going after the Catholics as a "criminal" institution, because, it ran so many entities that had such high rates of CSA crime.

My overall impression that it's going to about the same for JWs, Catholics, Mormons, Hasidic Jews, Boy Scouts, Government employees, etc. Namely that most CSA will be familial, and therefore it will be underreported and not make statistical lists. But OUTSIDE of familial CSA, the perpetrators will tend toward those with some level of presumed authority over rank-and-file members, and will therefore tend toward priests, Catholic brothers, JW elders, JW ministerial servants, Scout leaders, bosses, etc. 

[Srecko Sostar]

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Perhaps 98 of the backlog of cases are rank-and-file and he has had trouble arguing that all JWs are "ordained ministers" and representatives of the WTS

All baptized Witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work. - https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/no-paid-clergy/

In question about "representatives", as i am aware, "representatives" are those elders who are appointed by GB for some special service and/or task. Service as CO, for example. The task can be temporary, so the role of the "representative" in such case is only for a certain thing and for a certain time.

It would be interesting and useful to understand similarities and differences of these two concepts. I found this in short searching on internet.   http://www.hisholychurch.org/ministries/church/documents/ordained.pdf

1) Ordination by God is an unseen act of a calling, and acceptance of that calling.

2) Here in Acts 6:3, the appointment to administer this office took place after an ‘election’ by the people of men to carry out the daily ministration.

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

TTH speaks of the ARC as going after the others as institutions but going after the JWs as a religion.

Perhaps you know what he meant with this. And perhaps TTH knows too. Maybe you will find time to explain. As for me, WTJWorg is Organization and  Institution (institution/noun -  an organization founded for a religious, educational, professional, or social purpose, ...... according to google search) 

I don't know what difference @TrueTomHarley have in mind. Perhaps he see "JWs" as people inside this particular Organization/Institution as some sort of "free people" which form a fraternity, and are somehow "outside" of Administration that, de facto, run the Church. 

But, answering on baptismal questions and that strict performed act, made by candidate, before witnesses, are in fact verbal contract with Organization, and supposedly with God.  Why i said supposedly? Because of the content of baptismal questions. And because of how baptism is performed.

Second baptismal question is pure administrative format. A format that automatically classifies a candidate, member, or follower into one of many religions. There is no Bible support for such question.

The act of immersion is not accompanied by the words of Jesus: "Then Jesus came to them and said: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ...

 

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

"elder-congregant" or "priest-penitent" privilege.

Here exists interesting, or better to say, worrisome inconsistency and discrepancy over who is who in the Organization. Over doctrinal idea. Over internal and public identification who are JW people and how they functioning/operate. 

WTJWorg Publications explain that JWs do not have clerical and lay classes. And that is obviously not true. Because of claims made by WTJWorg Representatives before Public and before Courts. 

Next thing is this. Because WTJWorg claims how elders are not clergy ("we have no paid clergy" GB said,..... but you have unpaid clergy i would say this way),.... to continue: If in WTJWorg Clergy not exists, than there is no need to have, to call for "priest-penitent" ("elder-congregant") privilege at all.  If somebody in congregation come and tell to elder something, than elder is also in obligation to be in silence about it, to anyone inside and outside congregation. Or not? Perhaps he would be in obligation to report crime to secular authorities only, but not to other elders too.  

That idea of this sort of "clergy privilege" is very strained in WTJWorg. Sitting on two chairs.