Anna

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

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.

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.

It's very true that government (police, investigators, prosecutors, judges, child protection services, etc.) often fails to do their job correctly. 
True again. It's so typical of lawyers to go after an institution when it's not even the fault of an institution, just because that's where the money is. As you know, this goes for a lot of legal issues, even those unrelated to child sexual abuse. Of course, if it can be shown that an institution had hidden the abuse to protect their own assets (coach, priest, cardinal, bank account) or to protect their institution's reputation (a college, a football team, a diocese, a religion) then there should be culpability. In some few cases these vultures swoop in to exact a kind of punishment where the "system" failed, but there is no real justice for all, because this very much a 'hit and miss' process. 
There are cases against the Watchtower that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower, and should focus just on getting justice for the victim from the abuser. And there may be cases where congregation elders have made a mistake that has nothing to do with their training as elders and they should have known better. Some of these cases should have nothing to do with the Watchtower Society or the organization.
True. Powerful and monied interests can be leveraged on behalf of both persons and institutions, and that can make even good police investigative work meaningless. Victims are typically poorer and abusers can use their own power and influence to buy attorneys that can bully those victims. Victims can be talked into exonerating the abuser, or settling cases with a sack of money and a gag order.  I have a feeling that the HBO documentary on Michael Jackson which may be aired next month will show how money can buy the kind of lawyers and threats that protect abusers. Acosta/Epstein is another case in point.

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

I would be lying if I said I wouldn’t accept payout for merely being TrueTom.
When the rules of the game change, you can hardly blame the small players for adjusting to accommodate them. There was a time, I think you will remember it, too, when nothing was so crass as for lawyers to advertise. It was against their universal code of conduct, possibly even against the law. It explains the phrase “ambulance chaser” - you actually had to chase an ambulance to sign up a client before another lawyer did. You couldn’t just broadcast to the whole wide world that you were scouring the earth for clients.
Someone dear to me was sued several times with regard to rental property, in another matter that had a very long statute of limitations. When what proved to be the final lawsuit came in, the person sought to make defense through his own lawyer. That lawyer contacted several times but could not get a response from the firm bringing suit. Finally that firm admitted that they were having a hard time locating their client. In other words, they were leaving no stone unturned in desperately seeking business and had finally found “aggrieved” ones who’s cases were so tenuous that they couldn’t even be bothered to show up.
This may be your interpretation. I have seen many disfellowshipped ones go through the process and return. Nobody looks down upon them. It causes pure joy to the congregation that normal association may soon resume.
Think of it as a game, if you like, admittedly silly in some respects, but forced upon humans because they cannot read hearts. It is like a teen I knew very well who was disfellowshipped. He lived in the family home throughout. When on one super-cold morning he parked in the KH lot and strode toward the building without a coat, I broke all protocol and said “I know that there’s no contact and all, but did they even have to take your coat?”
He liked that one, and in not too long a time he was reinstated.

I don’t admire him. I use him. And I think he is okay with that.
I also have sought to understand him.
If anything, I admire you & and a few other very similar personas, for the tenacity to defend the current governing arrangement, which I also defend. But admiring or not admiring has little to do with anything. If my goal is to admire and not admire and to demonstrate my loyalty or lack thereof, then I hang out exclusively with the real flesh and blood people of my circuit, who all like me, barring perhaps a few who think me a windbag. (but how can they be faulted for that?)
He spills a lot of dirt. I would never spill the dirt that he does. And lest John B start frothing over this, it must be pointed out that everyone everywhere in every field of activity has some dirt that they could spill. It will always be a question of whether they choose to do it or not.)
But the fact is that he is not going away. So how do I come to grips with that? Should I simply repeat ‘Liar! liar!’ when the tone of his writing does not suggest lying? Notice what I said (and you quoted):
I didn’t say that his information was accurate. I said that HE deems it accurate. I didn’t say that John was right. I said that there were times when HE thought he was right.
There is much I like about JWI, but also much I don’t like. I think he is too swayed by the pretentions of journalism that the cockroaches disappear when you shine the bright light of journalism upon them. I think they just go somewhere else, leaving the illusion that something has been solved, which presently enough generally turns out to be but an illusion.
I hate to say it. I really really really really hate to say it, but I think someone I might truly like in person is @James Thomas Rook Jr.if you could only muzzle him, which seems unlikely at present. He is unpretentious, and that is a quality I am drawn to.
The Internet is not the congregation. You cannot make it behave as though it is. Brothers look like fools when they insist upon it. In a sense of strict organizational loyalty, none of us should be here, you no more (or less) than JWI. (or me)
I hope that the brothers enjoy what I write, but rarely are they my main intended audience. Nor, when I address villains, are they my intended audience. It is the unaligned & often misinformed people that I seek to address, and the relative success or futility of this will probably never be known.) To that end, I sometimes distance myself from certain loyal ones who declare their loyalty (often with heat) but otherwise bring little to the table. (and I don’t think of you as one of them- you bring plenty to the table) In real life, I would hang out with them. But the Internet is not real life.

This is true for every book, with the exception of my own, where each new word is a refreshing delight.

The "Keep yourselves in God's Love" book page 223. This is from the 2008 edition.  This book was studied in the form of a question and answer at the book study, and is a book that is studied with those wishing to get baptized. Unfortunately, as you say, some chose not to go to the authorities because of worry of reproach, and host of other worries (https://1in6.org/get-information/common-questions/why-do-adults-fail-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse-or-exploitation/) Even as late as 2014, one of the elders testifying at the ARC expressed similar sentiments to one of the two adult survivors who wanted to testify, by asking her: "why would you want to drag the organization through the mud?".  To keep child sexual abuse from the authorities however has never been JW policy. But Tom, you can't reason with the unreasonable.
Thankfully, as we know, the ARC turned out to play a key part in what we all see as a welcomed improvement. Not so much in our policies, but in their clear transparent presentation to ALL Jehovah's Witnesses (and anybody else who is interested).

The "Keep yourselves in God's Love" book page 223. This is from the 2008 edition.  This book was studied in the form of a question and answer at the book study, and is a book that is studied with those wishing to get baptized. Unfortunately, as you say, some chose not to go to the authorities because of worry of reproach, and host of other worries (https://1in6.org/get-information/common-questions/why-do-adults-fail-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse-or-exploitation/) Even as late as 2014, one of the elders testifying at the ARC expressed similar sentiments to one of the two adult survivors who wanted to testify, by asking her: "why would you want to drag the organization through the mud?".  To keep child sexual abuse from the authorities however has never been JW policy. But Tom, you can't reason with the unreasonable.
Thankfully, as we know, the ARC turned out to play a key part in what we all see as a welcomed improvement. Not so much in our policies, but in their clear transparent presentation to ALL Jehovah's Witnesses (and anybody else who is interested).

Now don't let that get to your head, because you ain't nothing until you have at least 300K followers on Instagram

The "Keep yourselves in God's Love" book page 223. This is from the 2008 edition.  This book was studied in the form of a question and answer at the book study, and is a book that is studied with those wishing to get baptized. Unfortunately, as you say, some chose not to go to the authorities because of worry of reproach, and host of other worries (https://1in6.org/get-information/common-questions/why-do-adults-fail-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse-or-exploitation/) Even as late as 2014, one of the elders testifying at the ARC expressed similar sentiments to one of the two adult survivors who wanted to testify, by asking her: "why would you want to drag the organization through the mud?".  To keep child sexual abuse from the authorities however has never been JW policy. But Tom, you can't reason with the unreasonable.
Thankfully, as we know, the ARC turned out to play a key part in what we all see as a welcomed improvement. Not so much in our policies, but in their clear transparent presentation to ALL Jehovah's Witnesses (and anybody else who is interested).

At least seven of Jehovah’s Witnesses were subjected to torture—electric shocks, suffocation, and cruel beatings—on the first floor of the Russian Investigative Committee’s building at ul. Ostrovskogo, d. 47, in Surgut. While being tortured, officers interrogated the Witnesses, demanding to know: “Where are meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses held? Who attends the meetings? What are the elders’ last names? What is your mobile phone password?”
On February 15, 2019, mass searches in Surgut started in the early morning hours. Worshippers were taken to the Investigative Committee offices. Investigators began interrogating the Witnesses, who refused to disclose details about their fellow worshippers. After the only legal representative in the room left, victims report that the following occurred: agents put a bag over the victims’ heads, sealed it with tape, tied their hands behind their backs, and beat them. Then, after stripping the Witnesses naked and dousing them with water, the agents shocked them with stun guns. This sadistic torture lasted for about two hours.
At least three Witnesses are still behind bars.
Additionally, after the mass searches were completed, the Russian authorities initiated criminal cases against a total of 19 Witnesses for so-called “organizing an extremist organization.”
Those who have been released have had their injuries documented by medical professionals and have filed complaints with supervisory agencies.
The Witnesses will pursue all available legal remedies for this crime, since such an egregious abuse of authority is punishable under the Russian Criminal Code. Additionally, The Russian Federation is subject to several international bodies that protect individuals from torture.
https://www.jw-russia.org/en/news/19021923-622.html

Not in court

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.

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.

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.

Now don't let that get to your head, because you ain't nothing until you have at least 300K followers on Instagram

True, I shouldn't have made it sound like every witness thought that, it's just practically every witness with children in the 80's that  I have known that said it. It became a "phrase".

Now don't let that get to your head, because you ain't nothing until you have at least 300K followers on Instagram

TTH is so weak minded that he has concocted a character who turns that entire troupe around and marches them back into the slime from which they came.

I ‘m not sure I would fit it in, or that I could integrate it with everything else, but there is a part of me that wants to introduce a family of dimwits, proud of the fact that with them the ‘prophecy’ has held true for over a century.

There should be no reason for you to do that, nor I. There are plenty of things wrong or misleading on both of those sites. In fact, I see that AD1914 has merely taken a lot of articles from JWFacts and Hatton, and AlanF, and just re-posted them verbatim.
That's what you should do. And you appear to have access to a lot of research materials, so that's great.
No one is asking you or anyone else to buy into anything, but at least I see that we agree on the topic of the earth's creation. The Watchtower says that the creative days were of unknown length, and that these days didn't begin counting until perhaps many millions or even billions of years after which time the earth was "formless and waste." There is nothing wrong with this perspective we learn from the Watchtower. It is perfectly fine from a Biblical view, as a "day" can have a variety of meaning. I don't remember reading anything different in R.Franz perspective, so I'm guessing that he would have agreed with us, too.
I'm sure there are always new and better ways to explain things. Certain questions come in that show a need for focusing on something that was only mentioned briefly before. New books and new quotes are available that weren't available in 1967. I'm sure you already knew all this, so I'm not even sure why you are asking.
Why? Why should I find other avenues to criticize the Org? I'm only going to question areas where prayer and study and meditation and Bible reading have led me to think that certain strongly entrenched doctrines ought to be questioned. The Watchtower has often said that it welcomes such questioning. The Bible makes it our Christian duty to make sure of all things. 
It's for the same reason that I welcome your own questions and criticisms of those areas that I have brought up. But I often wish that you would actually offer Scriptures, reasoning, or even counter-arguments. Instead, you seem to have an obsession with making false statements about things I've said. Perhaps you just have trouble understanding me. But if that's the case, don't just jump to conclusions about what I said, or what I think Russell said, or the Watchtower said, etc. Just ask! I'd be happy to discuss any of these things.
But instead you seem bent on making claims like the one above that says that I think the Org is wrong and only I am right. It's completely false, of course, and I'm sure you know that. But why waste your time on such things even if it were true. If a person says something you disagree with, it's better to discuss the thing, not whether the person always thinks he is right. 
Here again, why be so obsessed with persons who have agreed with something I've said, here and there? I think a lot of people have noticed this absurd obsession you appear to have with up-votes, down-votes, and such things. I'm not here for any of their up-votes or to get anyone to hang on every fiber of my words. There have been people here in the past, Alan [Allen] Smith for one, who was so obsessed with up-votes and down-votes that he created multiple accounts just to practice vote-spamming, where he targeted a few people with literally hundreds of down-votes and employed those same multiple accounts to create hundreds of up-votes for himself. It was a funny quirk of his, and the Librarian or admin pointed it out publicly. But I'm not concerned about it myself. I'd point out the exact same scriptural concerns even if I never got an upvote. And there are others who probably would point out some of the exact same concerns if I weren't even here.
The thing I would appreciate is having someone respond to the reasons my "false demonstrations" are false rather than going after me for bringing them up.