Jump to content
The World News Media

Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims


Ann O'Maly

Recommended Posts

  • Member
3 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I thought the sauna/pool incidents you mentioned you had previously attibuted to someone else you had described as "the oracle." Percy Chapman perhaps?

If I called him the "Oracle" it's only because I was avoiding using his name. It was still Freddy Franz. You should be able to confirm from several sources that it was ONLY Freddy Franz who was ever called the Oracle at Bethel. Percy Chapman was homosexual, and I'm told this was well-known by all the personnel at the Canadian Bethel, but he was before my time. It didn't seem to bother anyone the way it might today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 5.7k
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for

What has that to with the price of beans? Again, instead of having a rational discussion about how the Org. has historically dealt with and presently deals with child abuse allegations, you resort to

Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims Organisation faces fight to prevent Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims aft

Posted Images

  • Member
On 8/18/2016 at 5:44 PM, JWTheologian said:

your as ignorant as your rant JWinsider. Have you ever considered, that Allen Smith is my Brother? Proverbs 13:16

16Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool displays folly.

 

Now, what were you saying some time ago, about such experiments being a kind of “Deception”. I see you don’t heed you own words JWinsider. And you call yourself an ex-bethelite. Buddy, you should have been disfellowshipped long ago!!!!

Yes. I already considered the possibility that Allen Smith is your brother or even that Allen is your sister or grandmother. I even thought of using the expression "your twin" in an ambiguous way so that it would cover a few other possibilities. But it was a minor slip-up you made among your uses of the same names over on jw-archive that made me feel confident enough to dismiss these options as unnecessary speculation. We all end up living more of our life by the principle of "Occam's razor" than we probably realize. If you get up to go to the restroom during a talk at the regional convention and come back in 5 minutes (or come back in 20 minutes if it's the ladies room) and you hear the same voice and see the same face on the stage and hear the same topic being discussed with the same tone and same vocabulary, you don't assume that the speaker might have been replaced in the last 5 minutes with an identical twin or triplet or quadruplet while you were out, do you? Yet, it's a distinct possibility. 

The experiment was not a deception at all. Claiming that I said something a long time ago about experiments being a kind of "deception" truly is a deception. Experiments aimed at learning are, in some ways therefore, the opposite of deception; it's the very basis of the scientific method to avoid deception.

Also, you gave evidence of confusion in some other previous posts, not understanding why your ad hominem's are sometimes pointed out to be ad hominem's. So, I'll use your post as an opportunity to point out a couple of Latin phrases based on the last two sentences in your post above:

non sequitur:  "And you call yourself an ex-bethelite."

ad hominem: "Buddy, you should have been disfellowshipped long ago!!!"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not that anyone actually needed specific evidence since Allen has also used these same two names (among a couple of others) in the JW-Archive forum. And he ties them together with a unique vocabulary including the same misspellings, and the unique use of words like "recreants" etc. ...

... I'm sure that AllenSmith is aware that the two names don't really fool anyone here who is involved in dialogue with him. ...

... In fact, for most of his posts that have been given a like or reputation, he is the only one who likes them.

Yep. Got him pegged. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
13 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I usually get deleted after you people start writing “ad-hominem”. That’s your queue word for the moderator to step in, when you are failing an argument. The same “deflection your using? A what point did you decide your words have more value than mine? Like I said, seek help.

Did you mean 'cue' word? Anyway, despite your latest round of diatribes, the moderator's axe hasn't fallen on you yet. ;)

Much of your post is off-the-point invective (as usual) so I'll only home in on what is pertinent to the topic.

Quote

Now, do I think “all” the claims are legitimate? No, I don’t believe they all are. That has been made clear by the way governments are making suggestive arguments; in legal terms is called (Leading the witness). Does that mean some claims aren’t true, NO…there are some legitimate claims, ...

Which claims do you think are the ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Which cases do you think are 'legitimate'? Have you followed any of them?

Quote

... and when Governments figure out where “THEY” have failed? Then…they’ll pass the “recommendations” down to ALL religions and institutions.

Governments have done so already. Did you see the .gov websites I linked to in my previous posts and read the recommendations?

Quote

Well, let’s analyze your words here. I believe, I mentioned that in the 80’s and 90’s Disgruntled Witnesses, that were wrongfully accused ...

Oh you didn't specify that they were wrongfully accused. 

Quote

... but had the local authorities called? Did those cases make the news? NO! but they sued the WTS for Breach of Confidentiality when The authorities were notified by Elders. 

If there was an allegation of abuse, it was proper to call the authorities, and Watchtower would not be liable for breach of confidentiality for reporting a crime. However, elders routinely did not call the authorities in the '80s and '90s, as has been evidenced in the ARC and numerous court cases - the woman 'A's' abuse mentioned in the OP article occurred in the late '80s/ early '90s ("The police were not told ... "). 

Quote

But, since I was privy to many in the States, I DISAGREE with your assertion.

Watchtower is resisting allowing the U.S. courts access to their files on child abuse allegations (and it's costing Watchtower $thousands p/d in fines for every day it doesn't produce)  so you do not know the stats on how many, if any, abuse allegations were reported to the police by the elders. 

It is a matter of public record how many of the 1000+ allegations were reported by the elders in Australia, so you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.

Quote

But let’s take Australia and the 1006 cases they have on file since the ARC inquiry, and were turned in to the local authorities. 

But they weren't - not by the Org, anyway.

Quote

First off, Did the ARC mention if any of this cases…recorded were of “Adultery”, and “Fornication”? How about “masturbation”, or “improper touching”. All these scenarios were entered.  Some may consider those to be in a category of sexual immorality.

Last I heard, adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper touching' (whatever that is) weren't felonies legislated against by the government. Child sexual abuse is.

Quote

The WTS corrected Mr. Stewart on that.

 On what?

Quote

Just like Bro. Jackson corrected him in many other things.

Actually, Mr. Stewart wiped the floor with him. 

Quote

Your distorted mentality is telling you, they were all child sexual abuse cases. But let’s look at your evidence, shall we! 

You refer to (not 'my evidence' but) Watchtower Australia's list of 1006 Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) incidences that was submitted as evidence to the ARC. The title of the tabulated document is, "Jehovah's Witnesses - Incidence of CSA in Australia" so yes, they were all child sexual abuse cases.

You mention there are some convictions listed, but do you see the last column on the right of the table titled "Reported to authorities by JW"? Scroll down that column. Do you see any 'yes' entries there?

As I say, you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.

Quote

 

[Ann] Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.

[Allen] Yes, we already established how divisive you people can be. 

 

There you go again. 'We.' Are you using the 'royal we,' perhaps? 

Quote

 

[Ann] So what do you think? Do governments have to legislate so that 'God's organization' is made to do the right and moral thing? Or should the Org's own sense of morality and justice make it proactive rather than reactive when formulating its child safeguarding procedures?

[Allen] And what makes you so sure, the WTS hasn’t been implementing Safeguards already.

 

By reading the BOE child abuse letters (including this month's which made some improvements but still nowhere near what's needed), the elders manual, and the UK's WTBTSB Child Safeguarding Policy.

Quote

So, the point is NOT, if it’s proactive or reactive, it has to do with Progression or Regression.

The point is always safeguarding children and young people by having a robust and up-to-date set of policies and procedures that meet current best practice in line with the recommendations of the government and other advisory bodies with expertise in this area.

The Org's approach remains inadequate. It has to be dragged by external pressures into making any changes. 

After the Conti case in 2012, when a stark light shone on the Org's shameful failures in dealing with a known abuser in their midst, Watchtower issued new directives to the BOE. 

Recent high profile UK cases drawing the attention of the Charity Commission as well as the ARC hearing and findings, where the Org's handling of abuse was dissected and laid out on public view, have likewise prompted Watchtower's revision of its directives that were circulated earlier this month.

Therefore, the Org is exhibiting a reactive mindset rather than a proactive one - which is indicative of an institution that won't acknowledge how far it needs to change.

Quote

You make it seem, like there are 1006 pending cases, when it’s only 2, but only 1 testified for the ARC inquiry. How ridiculous!!!!!

2 victims testified for the ARC inquiry.

Quote

Are you a witness. I know in other apostasy websites, you indicated you were, but…we know that’s false. 

 

There's that 'we' again. Relay this message to the other voices in your head: 'Ann has never testified in court about Watchtower abuse issues; she has never claimed to have done so; quit making stuff up.'

Quote

 

[Ann] In general. Now you have that clarified, 

What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?

Your suggestions please.

[Allen] No, that actually doesn’t clarify a thing. But I did give you an example. Did you not read it? 

 

You gave an example of a 'repentant' abuser who wasn't disfellowshipped and remained a member of the congregation? Did you also detail how the congregation's children were protected at the time? I must have missed that. Can you repost your example?

Quote

 

[Ann] Do you not think child abuse to be a crime? Do you not think that negligence and failure to provide a duty of care to vulnerable members of a faith community should be brought to civil court? 

[Allen] Legitimate case, yes. But, that’s why we have courts right! 

 

Good. We agree with each other here.

Quote

I guess, that’s why recreants like to hear yourselves talking, since no sane person will listen.

Are you one of the insane, then? For you are 'listening' to me and engaging with me. It looks like I was right about your mental state after all. :P

Quote

 

[Ann] And, most hilariously, are you really suggesting that a professional lawyer with 20 years experience is ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability'?

[Allen quotes an exchange from the ARC transcript between Stewart and Jackson about a scriptural point (Acts 6:3,4) on how congregation leaders were appointed in the 1st century CE to oversee food distribution to widows.]

[Allen] ... I see many examples where a lawyer with 20 years’ experience doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he is attempting to make a legal point about scripture? 

 

How is your quoted extract relevant to my question?

Quote

 

[Ann] "Anyone." Rather than dump all the responsibility of reporting the crime to a frightened and perhaps dysfunctional family, the elders can take the initiative to report themselves. 

What if the crime wasn't child abuse but murder? Should an elder keep an allegation to himself about a murder having taken place thinking, 'It's the victim's family that has the responsibility to notify the authorities - not me"? 

[Allen] Are we Catholic to you? ... [more rambling]

 

Is that a 'no'?

Quote

What makes you think, the proper authorities haven’t been called. 

I refer you back to previous answers.

Quote

 

[Ann] Baloney. You have to be convicted as a sex offender to be put on the sex offenders list

[Allen quotes from the interwebs.]

. How long do offenders remain on the register?

It depends on the offence. Those given a jail sentence of more than 30 months for sexual offending are placed on the register indefinitely. Those imprisoned for between six and 30 months remain on the register for 10 years, or five years if they are under 18. Those sentenced for six months or less are placed on the register for seven years, or three and a half years if under 18. Those cautioned for a sexual offence are put on the register for two years, or one year if under 18.

 

 

I stand corrected on the terminology. The crux of the matter is this:

You stated,

"Now, if the authorities are alerted, and no action is taken by the authorities, the accused name is placed on a mandatory sex offenders list"

You are wrong. A 'caution' in UK law (which is to what your quote refers) is the consequence of authorities taking action against a criminal act (was your hypothetical 15yo boy deemed to have committed a sexual assault on the hypothetical 14 yo girl or was it a misunderstanding?), and during police interview, the 15yo would have to make "a clear and reliable admission of guilt" to a crime. The purpose of a 'caution' is "to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution

If no action is taken by the authorities, the accused's name would NOT be placed on a mandatory sex offenders list!

Quote

So, in the words of Paul, the WTS has been complaint to the laws given by Caesar. 

If the WTS has been compliant, why have 'Caesar's laws' shown it to be otherwise?

Quote

[Ann]And what 'rules of evidence' does the congregation employ in its handling of child abuse allegations?

Shouldn't 'evidence' rather be collected by professional police bodies rather than by untrained, volunteer leaders?

[Allen] [Nonsense] First you need to establish the validity of an accusation, and a willing participant. [More nonsense]

Who should establish the validitiy of an accusation? Professionally-trained police bodies or untrained, volunteer elders?

Quote

[Ann] Actually 2 cases - 2 victims who, out of more than 1000 recorded cases by the Australian Branch, were brave enough to relate their experiences before a public inquiry.

[Allen] I’m beginning to be bored, showing all your distortions. 2 victims were introduced to the Australian court system. But only 1 testified to the Australian Royal Commission. But only 1 testified to the Australian Royal Commission. Victim (AB) or (BG).

Wrong again. Both victims testified. Do you not tire of looking like an idiot?

Transcript Day 1:

MR STEWART: Your Honour, the first witness will be the
first survivor witness, [BCB]. Her name and address are
known to the Royal Commission, and she is accompanied by
her husband for support.

THE CHAIR: [BCB], it will be necessary for you to be
sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an
affirmation?

[BCB]: An oath on the Bible

<[BCB], sworn: [11.30am]

Transcript Day 2:

MR STEWART: The next witness, your Honour, will be [BCG].

THE CHAIR: [BCG], it's necessary for you to be sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an affirmation?

[BCG]: Affirmation.

<[BCG], sworn: [12.14pm]

Quote

 

[Ann] Backing up to your initial statement, namely ... 

"as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?"

... You were implying that, if a minor victim begged the elders not to turn in her father to the authorities for sexually abusing her, that the elders should comply; that the elders should not 'force' that action upon her. Hence my question about your mental state. Your suggestion is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, for such compliance would further enable the abuser to continue abusing. It's astonishing that I should have to spell this out to you as if you were a child yourself

[Allen] And your responses aren’t irresponsible and dangerous for using innuendoes. You continue to use the “word” child to cause outrage. The ARC case, was when the victim was a teenager. Her MOTHER was there.

 

Which victim? 'AB' or 'BG'? *snort*

Quote

 

So, if the elders contacted the Authorities. Let’s say to come to the Kingdom hall. And the victim left. The Elders notify the cops a young victim came to advise them she has been abused by her father. The cops get the information. They can’t rely on hearsay evidence, so they head out to contact the victim. The victim refuses to answer the door or speak with the cops. They can’t (FORCE) her. They call Child protective services. CPS comes to the home. They don’t see any physical evidence on the victim. The victim refuses to speak with CPS, or to submit for testing. They can’t (FORCE) her. The father is already alerted. He relocates his wife and child. Starting new, and with anger, starts to beat the mother and youngster. Now they’re really terrified. Perhaps the accused ends up killing them both. As has been done in many cases. The Authorities were contacted, as well as child protective services.

At what point is this better, if the youngster’s mindset would have been the same or worse for having the police called, something she was begging to be understood. And unless her mother or someone else (FORCED) her to comply? They have “failed”. Then what else could the police or CPS do? Genius.

 

Both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help. Had the authorities been called from the get-go, they would have had the needed support, and the perps would have been stopped in their tracks earlier.

Quote

 

[Ann] You are projecting once again. What was complete and utter bunkum was your argument that 'forcing the child to the police department' - whether by the elders or the child's mother - would amount to 'child abduction.' This fancy of yours is totally ludicrous.

[Allen] Well, I don’t know what planet you live in, but here on earth. If you use force for whatever reason on another person, rather it be a child, teenager, adult, male or female…it’s called abduction or kidnapping. Read a law book once in a while.

 

Your statement: not even wrong.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Quote

 

[Ann] So you believe historical child sexual abuse cases are not 'legitimate'? 

Are the government-led inquiries into institutional historical child abuse, because the cases may include instances that occurred 40, 50 years ago, likewise not 'legitimate' and are decided with 'the aid of corrupt lawyers'?

Are you aware that many countries have a statute of limitations that bar victims from making civil claims for sexual crimes after a set amount of time? So, a victim would be unable to civilly prosecute somebody 40, 50 years later. Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding Bill Cosby and why it has been so difficult to prosecute him due to the time that has elapsed since his alleged crimes?

[Allen] To honest claims yes. The USA has such statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. 

 

The statute of limitations also applies to civil prosecution - whether honest or not.

Quote

The UN resolution of 2013 also widen the specs to civil lawsuits. Generally, it was meant to go after the accused like Bill Cosby. 

You are citing a UN resolution about conflict-related rape and applying it to Cosby's alleged crimes? Smh.

Quote

But there’s a difference. Those 20 plus women are suing him, NOT the Playboy owner or any Entertainment institutions.

Well, Cosby is the one accused of sexual assault. That'll be why the 20+ women would like to sue him. But they can't ... because the statute of limitations has run out.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If I had direct evidence that a JW had committed a serious crime (murder, rape, child physical abuse, child sexual abuse). I would definitely report it to the police. My wife, as a school principal has had to report several such instances, even of suspected child physical and/or sexual abuse, because she has always worked in very large school districts, where she has had an obligation under the law to do so..One of those instances involved a JW parent.  

Direct evidence?  Do you mean an eye-witness?  Are you excluding suspected abuse then?

From this website http://www.churchlawandtax.com/cltr/2013/july-august/2013-child-abuse-reporting-laws-for-churches.html there's this:

Every state has a child abuse reporting law that requires persons designated as mandatory reporters to report known or reasonably suspected incidents of child abuse. Ministers are mandatory reporters in many states. Some states exempt ministers from reporting child abuse if they learned of the abuse in the course of a conversation protected by the clergy-penitent privilege. Ministers may face criminal and civil liability for failing to report child abuse.

In one of the child abuse cases against the WTS, they tried to claim clergy-penitent privilege because of a confession but the court ruled that since the confession was to more than one person (two or three elders had to hear it) it was not considered to be a case of clergy-penitent privilege.  It's sickening enough that the WTS would try to use that, and it's ironic that their procedure of having two or three elders in on it worked against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, HollyW said:

Direct evidence?  Do you mean an eye-witness?  Are you excluding suspected abuse then?

I do not mean just eye-witness evidence; after all, eye-witness or video evidence is rare. I mean "direct" in the sense that the case, or a confession, or complaint, were brought directly to my attention.

Having spoken at some length with a couple of abuse victims, I also know that behavior and trust characteristics on the part of the victim can also be evidence, but I am no expert in such difficulties. I'm talking about persons who suspect that a child has been abused, or when parents, guardians, or the child himself/herself makes the claim, or an adult makes a claim about a past case of abuse (or series of abuses) when they were a child.

At this point, the suspicion may not even deal with who is suspected of being the perpetrator (although this is usually part of the accusation). Parents don't want to believe a relative or spouse can be guilty, and often refuse to suspect the right person, or even provide evidence that they suppress psychologically or purposefully. The remaining evidence is often just the claim of a victim, and it often comes to light many years after the abuse occurred -- and by this time memories and projections and confusion will often need to be factored in. There are cases when an abused person, years later, will even blame the wrong person, sometimes a parent who was only indirectly responsible through negligence or suppression of obvious clues. Also, victims often go through stages of behavior after abuse that make them vulnerable to multiple abusers through their lives, and dealing with the painful memories of multiple abusers is often a factor that leads to mistaken memories. And sometimes it's a very simple matter, even if it happened years ago. Sometimes there is a diary, or letters to a parent, relative, or friend. Often there is the evidence that shows up when an accused perpetrator moves to another congregation, and new accusations come to light in the next congregation,  or a search into his background shows up previously unreported accusations from a prior congregation.

These complexities just point out that we need all the help we can get in such situations. Whether the evidence is recent or from years ago, we still need to inform the authorities as quickly as possible. We need all the help we can get from persons trained to investigate such matters. (Romans 13) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I do not mean just eye-witness evidence; after all, eye-witness or video evidence is rare. I mean "direct" in the sense that the case, or a confession, or complaint, were brought directly to my attention.

 

Well, would an allegation made by a victim to you be a complaint that you'd definitely report to the police?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, HollyW said:

Well, would an allegation made by a victim to you be a complaint that you'd definitely report to the police?

With only a few exceptions. I'm not going to get into details, but I'm sure I could manage to get whatever is necessary reported to the proper authorities and also meet the obligations of the congregation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

With only a few exceptions. I'm not going to get into details, but I'm sure I could manage to get whatever is necessary reported to the proper authorities and also meet the obligations of the congregation.

The obligations of the congregation?  Can you elaborate on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

My my, Allen. I'm going to need a license to fish out all the red herrings swimming in your post.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Is that all you got, O’maly. Your looking bad to your followers.

Only in your imagination. 

Quote

 

[Ann] Which claims do you think are the ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Which cases do you think are 'legitimate'? Have you followed any of them?

[Allen] Have you? 

 

Yes. Conti, Campos, Karen Morgan, 'A' (the one referred to in the OP), several more. 

Which cases have you followed? Seeing as I have asked you this a number of times now, I can only conclude that you haven't really followed any.

Quote

But locally, I have seen where the Petitioner lost for overly exaggerating their claim.

Was this a JW case? If so, who was it and where? I'd like to check it out. 

Do you think the cases I just mentioned above were ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Or were they 'legitimate'?

Quote

 

[Ann] Governments have done so already [figured out their failures and passed on recommendations to all institutions]. Did you see the .gov websites I linked to in my previous posts and read the recommendations?

[Allen] Well, if you call half measures to deflect attention from them, and concentrate their resources elsewhere? And in the case of Australia…penalize those people that are in, position to call authorities if a crime has been committed, but then face charges themselves for doing so? Yeah! Your right, they have made changes to protect themselves…not the population.

 

So you didn't read them ... otherwise you wouldn't have written such twaddle. But for the sake of argument, what protocols in your opinion does the government need to recommend to improve institutions' responses to child abuse allegations? Do you have any concrete ideas? Or are you going to continue to blow smoke?

Quote

I found a case in Mexico City very interesting.

Was this a JW case? If so, who was it? I'd like to check it out.  

Quote

 

[Ann] If there was an allegation of abuse, it was proper to call the authorities, and Watchtower would not be liable for breach of confidentiality for reporting a crime. However, elders routinely did not call the authorities in the '80s and '90s, as has been evidenced in the ARC and numerous court cases - the woman 'A's' abuse mentioned in the OP article occurred in the late '80s/ early '90s ("The police were not told ... "). 

[Allen] You see, there you go again, with your emphatic insistence you have sold proof…that elders don’t adhere to local laws. 

 

You asserted that the WTS was sued for breach of confidentiality when elders reported crimes to the authorities. You haven't backed up your assertion, and the evidence from Watchtower's own documentation and elders' own testimonies in court reveal that elders did not routinely notify the authorities about child abuse during the '80s and '90s. 

Quote

With my personal experiences, that statement is simply “false”. Your argument is predicated on the ARC assertion that elders routinely did not report incidents to authorities, in Australia. The list of 1006 cases the ARC received from the branch office, had CASES that were other than child sexual abuse. Their presumption is exactly as yours, WRONG! Cases of Adultery, Fornication, improper contact, masturbation were included in that list. Since they deal with Sexual Immorality [incomplete sentence]. Those cases are the MAJORITY or BULK of the cases recorded within the last 65 years. Why in the world would there be a need to contact the local authorities for those reasons?

We've been over this, doofus. You are wrong. I have shown you why you are wrong. All 1006 cases were classified as Child Sexual Abuse. The commission is only interested in child sexual abuse incidents hence it being called (see if you can spot the clue in the title) 'The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.' 

Do you really think Watchtower Australia inflated its own figures by including adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper contact' in its child sexual abuse stats? Lolol.

Quote

 

[Ann] Watchtower is resisting allowing the U.S. courts access to their files on child abuse allegations (and it's costing Watchtower $thousands p/d in fines for every day it doesn't produce)  so you do not know the stats on how many, if any, abuse allegations were reported to the police by the elders. 

[Allen] As for the case in California. The WTS is being penalized for not being properly informed by the Petitioner attorney’s…they had submitted a motion…the WTS found out later after a default judgement had been rendered. But…later overturned. ...

 

Um, no. That's not how it happened. Watchtower didn't want to produce the necessary documents on some pretext that it wasn't practical because it would take a crazy amount of time (somewhere in the order of 20 years) to give the court what it wants. A computer expert testified that the needed info could be extracted in a couple of months so it became evident that Watchtower was talking BS. Although the default judgment (i.e. the terminating sanctions because Watchtower had violated the court's discovery order) was overturned on appeal, Watchtower is still ordered to produce the needed documents and will have monetary sanctions imposed for each day it doesn't.

http://dumaslawgroup.com/2016/06/28/jehovahs-witnesses-face-sanctions-withholding-documents-sex-abuse-case/

Quote

... So the WTS is not resisting anything on discovery that has to do with child sexual abuse. They are gathering that information for discovery. 

I should hope they are. That's JW publishers' dedicated funds they're wasting! 

Quote

And what makes you think I didn’t get the stats from the evidence presented to the ARC, those are stats from the Australian Branch Office of JWs. 

Because it's not there in the ARC evidence.

Quote

[Ann] Last I heard, adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper touching' (whatever that is) weren't felonies legislated against by the government. Child sexual abuse is.

[Allen] And yet, that was the information submitted to the ARC. 

Horse-hooey.  

Quote

[Ann] 2 victims testified for the ARC inquiry.

[Allen] Whatever, 1, or 2. That’s a far cry from the implication you are suggesting by your distortion. 

Hahaha! Saying there were 2 testifying victims 'is a far cry' from my contention that there were 2 testifying victims? Brilliant. At least you've conceded on this point. xD

Quote

 

[Ann] How is your quoted extract relevant to my question?

[Allen] While, your attempt of at being clever, by being divisive…you forgot to add the rest of my quote, spiritual cleanliness. I understand scripture means nothing to you, but let’s try to show some intelligence.

 

You have forgotten your own train of thought. The point I was responding to was your suggestion that Mr. Stewart was ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability.' I asked whether you really believed that. You then answered with something completely irrelevant about 'spiritual cleanliness' so I cut it from my post.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

O’maly: I stand corrected on the terminology. The crux of the matter is this:

You stated,

"Now, if the authorities are alerted, and no action is taken by the authorities, the accused name is placed on a mandatory sex offenders list" (GRAMMAR MISTAKE)

Ah, now you are trying to proof-read. (Psst, you bolded and italicized the wrong part.) 9_9

Quote

 

[Ann continued] You are wrong. A 'caution' in UK law (which is to what your quote refers) is the consequence of authorities taking action against a criminal act (was your hypothetical 15yo boy deemed to have committed a sexual assault on the hypothetical 14 yo girl or was it a misunderstanding?), and during police interview, the 15yo would have to make "a clear and reliable admission of guilt" to a crime. The purpose of a 'caution' is "to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution."

[Allen] Well, that’s the difference between laws. I’m basing myself on American laws. 

 

Why did you quote UK law, then?

Quote

So how wrong am I when I stated the facts. Here is the USA, you are placed in [on?] a mandatory list. 

Not if the authorities have taken no action - which is contrary to what you stated.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

O’maly: Who should establish the validitiy (MISSPELLED) of an accusation? Professionally-trained police bodies or untrained, volunteer elders?

Clap ... clap ... clap. You caught one. I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of highlighting every punctuation and spelling mistake of yours that I've copied and pasted in this post. I may not have caught them all (there were so many) but I've found there is always room for improving our written presentations, don't you agree? ;)

Quote

 

[Ann] Wrong again. Both victims testified. Do you not tire of looking like an idiot?

[Allen] I see (BGB) [period needed] I forgot what distinction distinctive(?) lettersthey gave the witness. Who was the other one, you keep insisting that testified before The Australian Royal Commission? What is her distinct lettering?

 

I'll give you a hint. If you look through my previous post, you might just see it among the 2 transcript extracts I quoted. Now, don't pester me for more clues. I don't want to spoil all the fun for you. Good luck!  DesiSmileys.com

Quote

 

[Ann] Both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help. Had the authorities been called from the get-go, they would have had the needed support, and the perps would have been stopped in their tracks earlier.

[Allen] Your assumption works if the victim was a willing participant. Was that the case? 

 

As I said, both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help, so yes, they were willing to participate in exposing the wrongdoing.

Quote

 

[Ann] The statute of limitations also applies to civil prosecution - whether honest or not.

[Allen] Are you referring to the UK, or the USA, your flip-flops are confusing?

 

 The 'flip-flop' confusion is because your brain is jumping around like a frog in a box. 

The UK has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. The U.S. does.

Quote

 

[Ann] Well, Cosby is the one accused of sexual assault. That'll be why the 20+ women would like to sue him. But they can't ... because the statute of limitations has run out.

[Allen] Deflecting from the main point, that those 20+ women aren’t suing Hugh Hefner, where the alleged crimes took place, or any entertainment industry Bill Cosby is associated with.

 

The main point is to do with the person (allegedly) responsible for sexually assaulting these women and calling him to account before a court of law. If there were others involved who had knowledge of and/or knowingly enabled the crimes to take place, hopefully they will be called to account too. But the only reason I mentioned Cosby was to make a connection in your head about the statute of limitations barring victims from initiating lawsuits after a set period of time since the crime, thereby countering your point about victims suing 40, 50 years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

My my, Allen. I'm going to need a license to fish out all the red herrings swimming in your post.

Only in your imagination. 

Yes. Conti, Campos, Karen Morgan, 'A' (the one referred to in the OP), several more. 

Which cases have you followed? Seeing as I have asked you this a number of times now, I can only conclude that you haven't really followed any.

Was this a JW case? If so, who was it and where? I'd like to check it out. 

Do you think the cases I just mentioned above were ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Or were they 'legitimate'?

So you didn't read them ... otherwise you wouldn't have written such twaddle. But for the sake of argument, what protocols in your opinion does the government need to recommend to improve institutions' responses to child abuse allegations? Do you have any concrete ideas? Or are you going to continue to blow smoke?

Was this a JW case? If so, who was it? I'd like to check it out.  

You asserted that the WTS was sued for breach of confidentiality when elders reported crimes to the authorities. You haven't backed up your assertion, and the evidence from Watchtower's own documentation and elders' own testimonies in court reveal that elders did not routinely notify the authorities about child abuse during the '80s and '90s. 

We've been over this, doofus. You are wrong. I have shown you why you are wrong. All 1006 cases were classified as Child Sexual Abuse. The commission is only interested in child sexual abuse incidents hence it being called (see if you can spot the clue in the title) 'The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.' 

Do you really think Watchtower Australia inflated its own figures by including adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper contact' in its child sexual abuse stats? Lolol.

Um, no. That's not how it happened. Watchtower didn't want to produce the necessary documents on some pretext that it wasn't practical because it would take a crazy amount of time (somewhere in the order of 20 years) to give the court what it wants. A computer expert testified that the needed info could be extracted in a couple of months so it became evident that Watchtower was talking BS. Although the default judgment (i.e. the terminating sanctions because Watchtower had violated the court's discovery order) was overturned on appeal, Watchtower is still ordered to produce the needed documents and will have monetary sanctions imposed for each day it doesn't.

http://dumaslawgroup.com/2016/06/28/jehovahs-witnesses-face-sanctions-withholding-documents-sex-abuse-case/

I should hope they are. That's JW publishers' dedicated funds they're wasting! 

Because it's not there in the ARC evidence.

Horse-hooey.  

Hahaha! Saying there were 2 testifying victims 'is a far cry' from my contention that there were 2 testifying victims? Brilliant. At least you've conceded on this point. xD

You have forgotten your own train of thought. The point I was responding to was your suggestion that Mr. Stewart was ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability.' I asked whether you really believed that. You then answered with something completely irrelevant about 'spiritual cleanliness' so I cut it from my post.

Ah, now you are trying to proof-read. (Psst, you bolded and italicized the wrong part.) 9_9

Why did you quote UK law, then?

Not if the authorities have taken no action - which is contrary to what you stated.

Clap ... clap ... clap. You caught one. I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of highlighting every punctuation and spelling mistake of yours that I've copied and pasted in this post. I may not have caught them all (there were so many) but I've found there is always room for improving our written presentations, don't you agree? ;)

I'll give you a hint. If you look through my previous post, you might just see it among the 2 transcript extracts I quoted. Now, don't pester me for more clues. I don't want to spoil all the fun for you. Good luck!  DesiSmileys.com

As I said, both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help, so yes, they were willing to participate in exposing the wrongdoing.

 The 'flip-flop' confusion is because your brain is jumping around like a frog in a box. 

The UK has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. The U.S. does.

The main point is to do with the person (allegedly) responsible for sexually assaulting these women and calling him to account before a court of law. If there were others involved who had knowledge of and/or knowingly enabled the crimes to take place, hopefully they will be called to account too. But the only reason I mentioned Cosby was to make a connection in your head about the statute of limitations barring victims from initiating lawsuits after a set period of time since the crime, thereby countering your point about victims suing 40, 50 years later.

Very well said, Ann!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.