James Thomas Rook Jr.

"Follow the Money!" Money ... always tells the truth.

To honestly answer the two or three questions I asked you would expose the fallacies of your argument .... and YOU KNOW THIS ... that is why you obfuscated and did not answer such simple and straight forward and fair questions after repeated requests. You can prove me wrong, you know ... give it a try. ... be a sport! for your convenience, I am re-posting them, here ( try to stay FOCUSED!) : To rephrase that ... If you were an American Citizen, and YOU WERE IN THE UNITED STATES, and were served a subpoena to appear before a Congressional Inquiry, DO YOU THINK THAT IF YOUR JOB WAS IN AUSTRALIA, they could not by threat of force, make you appear? Here in the United States, you have the right to refuse to testify against yourself ... but you STILL have to appear, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment. I do not think GB Bro. Jackson would do well in an Australian prison, in a cell with orange haired , 6 feet tall "Bubba the Beaker" .... who has a "fondness" for Muppet Dr. Bunsen Honeydew. Â

The Royal commission does not have the authority to subpoena someone from the Governing Body based in the United States to come to Australia to testify ... but they DID have the right to subpoena an Australian Citizen who was the PMQ (Person most Qualified) that they could get their hands on who WAS ALREADY IN AUSTRALIA, and already in their sovereign territory. ... and they did ! Just as here in the United States, Congress can appoint "Special Counsels" to conduct investigations, and give them subpoena powers. THAT ... is where "The Rubber Meets The Road". If you can avoid being served a subpoena ... you can without fear of punishment skip town, but once served, if you do ... you are a fugitive. Without the power to subpoena witnesses, and demand their presence under penalty of fine or imprisonment for not appearing, Court systems and Government Inquirys could not function. Â Â

Aha! ...but Geoffrey Jackson was an Australian Citizen .... visiting in Australia, and he was served the summons IN AUSTRALIA. He was legally compelled under pain of contempt to appear ... AND TRIED NOT TO. HE WAS NOT A WILLING PARTICIPANT. .... and I noticed that you answer was "Nothing" ... which does not apply in this case,. Let me rephrase my question and see if you can wiggle out of giving a REAL answer ..... 2.) If you were in the exact same circumstances in EVERY WAY that Geoffrey Jackson was ... would you have disobeyed the summons ? 3.) and to repeat my FIRST question with the criteria of question No. 2,: " 1.) If YOU were issued a summons, and it was served on YOU, to appear in court, and YOU refused to appear ... what do you think would happen?" What DO you think would happen?

Answer: Rickshaws !! ...smart pipples, dem Chinee....

Remember ... it was Tariffs that caused the American Great Depression, and money stopped flowing.

In the United States, we have the most sophisticated method of slavery known to all civilization, with taskmasters that are relentless, and efficient ... striking fear into the hearts of all citizens. The Internal Revenue Service, or IRS

AllenSmith: It's fun to rattle your chain ... but please answer the following question .... 1.) If YOU were issued a summons, and it was served on YOU, to appear in court, and YOU refused to appear ... what do you think would happen?

AllenSmith: Just a follow up on your earlier supposition that when the ARC subpoenaed Australian Citizen Geoffrey Jackson, it was just a polite request .... Â This screenshot is from Today's News, showing what normal people expect, when they refuse subpoenas. (Monday, March 5, 2018) Â Â

The key to understanding anything ... is CONTEXT! In context, what is being said is "If you are invited in as a guest, and shown hospitality ... do NOT go shopping around for better food and accommodations". It is as simple as that. CONTEXT.... IS everything! Your mind is clouded by your agenda. "Quote Mining", however should not be a capital offense. ....for the first one.

....

Sorry, AllenSmith ... I had completely forgotten that my humor and cartoons have always been SHAMEFUL! What was I THINKING ?

Ever notice that you never see a picture of Ernest Borgnine and the Three Stooges, and Elizabeth Taylor in the same picture? Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Either you do...or you don't. Apparently you don't.

... but more to the point ... which 1.4 MILLION dollar house is being used by which GB Member, if any ?

If you can ever pass off those seven dollar bills you have AllenSmith, get change in 3's and 4's. Since we are delving into the realm of shameless humor .... Ever wonder why the GB needed an Eighth Member? So ... which one is real... and which one is fake?

Your premise is based on a false assumption analogous to assuming the Battleship Missouri is a woman named Mo. For all the reasons I have stated earlier, I reject your not understanding Hebrew thought processes and linguistic conventions. My theology may be described as a "chainsaw theology". It has to make common sense and have real life examples . You don't define common sense with scripture ... YOU DEFINE SCRIPTURE WITH WHAT MAKES COMMON SENSE. Nowhere in the known Universe, or on the other side of the "Big Bang" are there any known, observable examples of natural three-in-one life forms. NOWHERE! Even a man and his wife, referred to as "One" in the Bible, are not joined at the hip ... although I have actually seen a teenage girl with two heads riding a bicycle, in a documentary.

As Carl Childers once said between bites of canned potted meat "Get it?"

You know, or might know, that Battleships in the USA are referred to as "she", as are many large ships, and boats, and that the Battleship Missouri, that fought in WWII, and upon which the surrender of Japan was signed, is referred to as "Mighty Mo" and other nicknames. Notice that I just referred to the Battleship Missouri as having fought in WWII. Ships do not actually fight ... men on those ships fight. It is similar to the expression " ... the White House said today ..." when the President makes some comment or opinion. The White House is not actually a talking building .... but that is the expression. "A synecdoche (/sɪˈnɛkdəkiː/, sih-NEK-də-kee;[1] from Greek συνεκδοχή, synekdoche, lit. "simultaneous understanding")[2] is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa.[3] A synecdoche is a class of metonymy, often by means of either mentioning a part for the whole or conversely the whole for one of its parts. Examples from common English expressions include "bread and butter" (for "livelihood"), "suits" (for "businessmen"), "boots" (for "soldiers") (pars pro toto), and "vacuum" (for "vacuum cleaner") or conversely "America" (for "the United States of America") (totum pro parte).[4] The use of government buildings to refer to their occupant(s) is on the border between synecdoche and metonymy. "The Pentagon" for the United States Department of Defense can be considered synecdoche, as the building can be considered part of the department. "No. 10" for the British Prime Minister can be counted as metonymy, since the building is not part of the person, but using "No. 10" to mean "the Office of the Prime Minister" is synecdoche" - Wikipedia. Hebrew uses extensively a parallelism of ideas in its structure. "Mighty Mo" is not a sentient transvestite war combatant, and ... ... the Holy Spirit is not a person.

...oops... wrong thread.

.... and make them pay cash.

Anytime men say "Trust Me .... " ... audit their books.

If I could live in a 1.4 million dollar house tax free, wear $ 20,000 dollar Rolex watches, and have my every other need taken care of ... I too, would take a "vow of poverty".

.... because, AllenSmith, the GB has supposedly taken a vow of poverty, the same as everyone else at Bethel has ... and SOMEBODY is living in the 1.4 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE in the Watchtower owned property in the community of Colony Park, 35 miles from the Warwick Campus . Paragraph 12, on page 20 of this months Watchtower ( The One with the airplane on the cover) talking about the Apostle Paul's handling of contributed funds ... " He took steps to ensure that those delivering the funds cared for "everything honesty, not only in the sight of Jehovah but also in the sight of men" Read 2 Corinthians 8:18-21" (emphasis mine) There is solid evidence that the Society has deliberately distorted the truth in the past through selective quote mining, and the fact that in the United States, once contributed money reaches the District level, there is absolutely no accounting for it to the Brotherhood. These things make it a very reasonable and prudent thing to ask.... and a real need to really know. Â

Is this some kind of "Rap" code phrase? What does that even MEAN?