Evacuated

This is such a pathetic, narrow-minded, microscopic and miniscule application of a prophecy that has a global relevance. What a waste of spirtual space if this is all Jehovah had in mind in prompting Paul to prophesy in such a manner! 

And Abʹsa·lom would say to him: “See, your matters are good and straight; but there is no one from the king giving you a hearing.”  
And Abʹsa·lom would go on to say: “O that I were appointed judge in the land, that to me every man might come that happens to have a legal case or judgment! Then I should certainly do justice to him.”
 

Spritually qualified men are qualified by the spirit. Jehovah decides.
There were only anointed men (and women) in the early Christian Congregation

It is not the perogative of a publisher to choose the elders that deal with a judicial matter that involves a proven offense that could result in a disfellowshipping. However, there could well be a suitability issue that an accuser (if it was that kind of a case) might make known. This might well influence the selection of elders. If elders were unaware of such an issue prior to the forming of a committee, it is still possible that alternative arrangements could be made. The responsibility for determinations in these cases lies with the body of elders though, not the "accuser".

Did you send him something?

THEY CAN!
Lets' put the congregation and the elders' families on hold for commitees to do their work!
Bur really, it isn't necessary, isn't required, they do not want to, you can think of other reasons yourself surely.
There is no rule that says they can't and no rule that says they must. Or were you seeking one that says they must? The body of elders delegate to a commitee and agree on its members. And that commitee doesn't have to be only 3 and nor does it have to consist only of local brothers.
If this is the case, get elders in that have no friendship bias, and if that didn't happen, there is an appeal process.
Not sure what the problem is here??
I do not think there is any point in getting to anecdotal or hypothetical examples here.
There is no rule on numbers for a judicial commitee other than 3 at least,, and no restriction on who they are, other than qualified. Practical violations of this are a matter for the appeals process.
 

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.
 

It's your logic you are describing here you know.

I understand that Gerry Springer got the way he was by Bungie Jumping ... with his umbilical cord.

Whoah!...... hang on here! What's everyone getting worked up about?
This is a semi-fictitious blog account about an anonymous persons' unverified experience of incidents, some years past, spoken to an ex-lawyer turned blogger, then written down by the said blogger with the prime objective of gathering clicks.
Spending time on debating supposed moral issues raised by this stunted and deformed  account makes about as much sense as taking seriously incidents presented by that other ex-lawyer turned blogger who has hosted a similarly themed video blog show.
His name escapes me at the moment???? He was actually born in the UK, but got popular on US TV...........who was he????. It'll come to me in a minute ...fake histrionics.....accused of inciting violence betweeen show participants....etc etc...  they're going to call him "Judge Jerry" soon.......................I got it!    Gerald Norman Springer. 

This is made to sound in the newspaper article as if ALL notes on a judicial matter are destroyed. An official copy of the proceeding is to be kept no matter what. What they want to avoid is the inclusion of multiple notes taken by all the elders that include personal comments, sometimes questions going through their heads to ask or get answered before a decision. Sometimes these, since they weren't meant to be critiqued, can appear to be contradictory or incriminating to one side or another even if they were not intended that way.
Also, it is very misleading to say that the rules require a sexual assault victim to go out and find two witnesses. It shows that they are ignorant of the fact that the victim himself (or herself) is already a witness to the crime. Without a confession of course the idea of a second witness is still very unlikely, but circumstantial evidence will be heard from a second witness, and a second witness can be another victim of the same crime from same abuser.

There you go.. You can't win them all.

Fake News...Fake News!!

Maybe the question needs refining to can anyone who is not a baptised Christian perform another's Christian baptism?

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.

This one is a.....hmmm.......greenhouse!!

Oh you misunderstand (again). Sorry for not making myself clear. I was not taught what the Trinity is as a Roman Catholic. It was dictated to me, in the worst possible sense of that word. I was given tractates, such as the portion of the Athanasian creed I posted earlier, and told to memorise and recite them on pain of detention or even corporal punishment. In fact, writing out the Creed in full numerous times was itself utilised on occasion as a punishment!
It wasn't possible to be taught what it was describing, because no one seemed to know what it was.  Admittedly (by proponents), this is a difficult but fundamental concept within Christianity, and also is, historically, a controversial doctrine. I was puzzled by the fact that non-acceptance of the teaching seemed to incite a violent reaction in those who professed belief in it. However, I found out fairly early on that many Christians admit they don't understand it, many more Christians don't understand it but think they do, and in fact, although they'd be horrified to hear it, many Christians sometimes behave as if they believe in three Gods and at other times as if they believe in one.
Given that, it is little wonder that no one was able to actually teach the Trinity as such. Of course when I came across statements asserting that the Trinity, for example, "reveals that God can be seen only as a spiritual experience whose mystery inspires awe and cannot be understood logically", I knew I was on a loser. However, I felt reassured when I found out that what I felt was unintelligible gobbledegook actually appeared so to others, so my intelligence was not at fault, neither was I alone in that view. 
So I hope that clears up any misunderstanding about whether I was actually taught the Trinity while being raised Roman Catholic…
A difficult but fundamental concept within Christianity 

What he said. Is it that obscure?
Certainly we all need to do proper Bible study. But, I have my doubts that studying what Clement meant constitutes "proper" Bible study. Neither does the poring over ancient Jewish traditional folk-lore..
Complete oversight here I think. Didn't you already quote 1Pet.1:15-16? Surely even Clement referred to Paul's letter to the Corinthians at 47:1,2?
As, it is asserted, does the notion that Clement's listing of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit supports the teaching of the Trinity.
In fact, it is difficult to see how something which no one (apparently) can understand or explain logically can be called a "teaching". However, the best this line of argument appears to acheive is to equate the Trinity with the phoenix which appears to consign both to the category of...."myth". 
This seems uncharacteristically childish! Surely God can set the general principles by which His thoughts are ordered?
I didn't think a law had been established on this element of posting structure? Pardon me if a protocol has been inadvertantly violated. 

@Witness @Srecko Sostar  I am an admin on here. Please don't use my news posts as launching pads for your own topic discussions.
Be men enough to be able to start your own engaging content.
Example 1 - 
Example 2 -
Learn to start NEW TOPICS! 
What is this post about???  People being TORTURED in RUSSIA. 
Have at least a little common decency??
SMH.

a algunas personas les gusta impresionar a los demás pretendiendo buscar cosas, cuando ni siquiera conocen a las personas que están buscando. https://www.commentarypress.com/
 

Hermano, deja que el incrédulo tenga su día. No vale la pena el tiempo que se imprime. La mentalidad apóstata es lo que el diablo apoya.

Thanks for the increased clarity on this @JW Insider and @ComfortMyPeople.
Seems to be the unauthorised compiling and sharing of a sort of "best buy" consumer rating list of doctors who are 1. willing to engage in non-blood medical management. and 2. having a good "bedside manner". I don't know much about data protection laws in Spain, but it does seem in the context of the news report to have been a rather ill-advised venture.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/2019-convention-program/

This had nothing to do with "testifying" for the organization but everything to do with being summoned under wrong assertions.
If you testify under certain statements made about about you, then you are agreeing that those statements are true. You cannot do that if those statements are false. It would be like if I was asked to testify in court under the assumption that I was a 6ft black male doctor in his 70’s, whereas the truth is I am a 5ft white female secretary in her 20's. It would be wrong to testify under those erroneous assumptions and I would have to make a declaration to quash that summons by stating that I was NOT a 6ft black male doctor in his 70’s.
Gerrit Losch was summoned by the plaintiff (his lawyer) to appear in court under wrong assumptions about him. And you can see by Losch’s declaration what those assumptions were, and they were not correct. The judge was obviously satisfied that under the correct description of Losch’s function, it was not useful to ask Losch to appear in court. Had the judge decided Losch’s participation as helpful to the case even after the declaration,  he would have not accepted Losch’s declaration as relevant.
(When spelled with an "umlaut" it's Lösch, if you do not use an "umlaut" it should be Loesch)

The declaration is legal speak and is absolutely correct from a legal point of view.
Gerrit Losch has never been a corporate officer........employee.......etc. of WT,  and as an INDIVIDUAL he has never had or has authority to make or determine any policy for WT or any other department. This can only be done collectively as the GB with all 8 members participating.