Jump to content
The World News Media

Ever lose patience with recalcitrant contrarians ?


James Thomas Rook Jr.

Recommended Posts

  • Member

(New news ....)  A MONTANA Judge Orders Jehovah’s Witnesses to Turn Over Internal Documents Related to Childhood Sexual Abuse

April 12, 2018

 

On April 5, 2018, Judge James Manley of Sanders County, Montana ordered the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organization to produce documents and testimony related to internal reports and investigations into the childhood sexual abuse of NPR’s two clients.

 

In this case, the two Plaintiffs were sexually abused as children by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Elders in the local Jehovah’s Witness congregation in Thompson Falls, Montana were aware of the abuse and failed to report it to the police, choosing instead to handle the reports and investigations internally pursuant to Jehovah’s Witness guidelines. Their decision not to report the abuse to authorities allowed the perpetrator to remain in the congregation and continue to abuse one of the Plaintiffs.

 

Throughout this case, and similar childhood sexual abuse cases across the country, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused to produce documents related to their internal handling of reports of sexual abuse and related investigations and disciplinary actions claiming that the information is protected by the clergy-penitent privilege and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

Through briefing to the court, NPR convinced the Judge that Defendants’ privilege claims were unsupported and improper under the law. The Court agreed that Defendants could not blanket everything related to their investigations in secrecy and that they must turn it over to the Plaintiffs. Often, this is the very evidence that can win or lose a case like this against a religious institution.

 

The case of Nunez, et al. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, et al.  is set to go to trial in September of 2018.

The plaintiffs in this case are represented by NPR partner D. Neil Smith and associate Ross E. Leonoudakis.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

A Jury of 12 held in public view ... or a tribunal of three held in complete secrecy.

Which would YOU choose,  to get Justice?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.9k
  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

(New news ....)  A MONTANA Judge Orders Jehovah’s Witnesses to Turn Over Internal Documents Related to Childhood Sexual Abuse April 12, 2018   On April 5, 2018, Judge James Manley of Sa

Sorry.  This is what I was generally reacting to.  There is no support for the "weak", the victims of abuse.  I see the governing body/organization on the receiving end of donations, time, energy, the

I very seldom down-vote anyone Allensmith ... your arguments fall apart without any help at all. Specifically, "clergy / penitent" laws are made for ONE penitent and ONE confessor .... and if the

  • Member

Justice you can only get from God .... and justice can mean complete exoneration of charges and specifications ... or chastising unto death.

...or anything in the middle.

From any well-meaning humans seeking to impose justice, a protocol of professionals that is completely open, transparent, and public lends itself NATURALLY to justice, freedom, and equity.

From any well-meaning humans seeking to impose justice, A protocol of amateur justice  "wannabes" that is completely secret, and even speaking about it publicly can lead to punishment,  lends itself NATURALLY to injustice, tyranny and unfairness.

Everyone knows in any horse race, ONE horse will win ... but WHICH one ... makes all the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

On 4/21/2018 at 5:36 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

On April 5, 2018, Judge James Manley of Sanders County, Montana ordered the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organization to produce documents and testimony related to internal reports and investigations into the childhood sexual abuse of NPR’s two clients.

 

I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”  Acts 20:35

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 4/21/2018 at 8:36 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

On April 5, 2018, Judge James Manley of Sanders County, Montana ordered the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organization to produce documents and testimony related to internal reports and investigations into the childhood sexual abuse of NPR’s two clients.

5 hours ago, Witness said:

I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”  Acts 20:35

Perhaps I am just overly tired from working out in the yard all day, but I just do not see the connection between your comment and the law firms reporting.

Could you please explain how the two are supplemental to each other?

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

On 4/21/2018 at 5:36 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

In this case, the two Plaintiffs were sexually abused as children by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Elders in the local Jehovah’s Witness congregation in Thompson Falls, Montana were aware of the abuse and failed to report it to the police, choosing instead to handle the reports and investigations internally pursuant to Jehovah’s Witness guidelines. Their decision not to report the abuse to authorities allowed the perpetrator to remain in the congregation and continue to abuse one of the Plaintiffs.

 

Throughout this case, and similar childhood sexual abuse cases across the country, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused to produce documents related to their internal handling of reports of sexual abuse and related investigations and disciplinary actions claiming that the information is protected by the clergy-penitent privilege and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Sorry.  This is what I was generally reacting to.  There is no support for the "weak", the victims of abuse.  I see the governing body/organization on the receiving end of donations, time, energy, the slaving of members including the very victims they refuse to give protection from pedophiles.   Even in a court of law the org. refuse to "give".   

Yet, the GB will tell you how much 'giving' they have done for the sheep by providing failed "food at the proper time".

It is sheer hypocrisy.  

In the long run, the "recalcitrant contrarians" will have to face Christ for their actions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 4/21/2018 at 8:36 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

(New news ....)  A MONTANA Judge Orders Jehovah’s Witnesses to Turn Over Internal Documents Related to Childhood Sexual Abuse

April 12, 2018

 

On April 5, 2018, Judge James Manley of Sanders County, Montana ordered the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organization to produce documents and testimony related to internal reports and investigations into the childhood sexual abuse of NPR’s two clients.

 

In this case, the two Plaintiffs were sexually abused as children by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Elders in the local Jehovah’s Witness congregation in Thompson Falls, Montana were aware of the abuse and failed to report it to the police, choosing instead to handle the reports and investigations internally pursuant to Jehovah’s Witness guidelines. Their decision not to report the abuse to authorities allowed the perpetrator to remain in the congregation and continue to abuse one of the Plaintiffs.

 

Throughout this case, and similar childhood sexual abuse cases across the country, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused to produce documents related to their internal handling of reports of sexual abuse and related investigations and disciplinary actions claiming that the information is protected by the clergy-penitent privilege and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

Through briefing to the court, NPR convinced the Judge that Defendants’ privilege claims were unsupported and improper under the law. The Court agreed that Defendants could not blanket everything related to their investigations in secrecy and that they must turn it over to the Plaintiffs. Often, this is the very evidence that can win or lose a case like this against a religious institution.

 

The case of Nunez, et al. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, et al.  is set to go to trial in September of 2018.

The plaintiffs in this case are represented by NPR partner D. Neil Smith and associate Ross E. Leonoudakis.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

A Jury of 12 held in public view ... or a tribunal of three held in complete secrecy.

Which would YOU choose,  to get Justice?

One thing for certain, pedophilia is not only a mental problem, it is also a problem of which such people act out their ill intentions, as well as being the only customer of such persons who can provide such things by illegal means, for there is an even darker rabbit hole to such things that is not really known to the public and or the media itself.

One thing that can be analyzed by this is that the church itself has done an internal investigation, how they went about doing this, we do not know, but if such reaps some sort of evidence or the like it can be used to go after those who commit the crimes - for the judge did order the group to produce internal information and or a testimony related to the problem itself.

Now the focus is on a sole church of the faith in Montana, specifically Thompson Falls. 2 people, as the article states that they had been sexually abused as children, for it does say the following:

the two Plaintiffs were sexually abused as children by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses

It would have given us a clue as the actual time-frame of said abuse but such information is not given and or this article lack the details for some reason and or they have never received such information, but if the abuse took place when these 2 persons in question were indeed children, then these individuals are possibly adults now. We also know the abuser is but a sole suspect, for so and so not only had access to the two victims when they were children, he must have also had a position of authority, being among the ranks of those in the church that act as Shepherds to the churchgoers, and obviously the members consist of infants, children, teens, adults, and the elderly. And in most cases, the abuse itself takes place outside of the church, rarely does it take place inside of a church, but in a well knitted community, such vile actions tend to take place outside of the church itself - for the role of an abuser is to commit the act and or act upon the urge whereas there is no one to witness the act, for one prerequisite has already been met, that is, earning the trust of the people and even the children, this includes the victim, this is what is taught in Child Abuse and Neglect PSA and media, at this point, it is very difficult to determine the motives and or actions of the abuser, let alone the signs, but only went it is too late, this will be realized.

Next we have another point in the article: were aware of the abuse and failed to report it to the police, choosing instead to handle the reports and investigations internally pursuant to Jehovah’s Witness guidelines

The thing that is not mention is the law in regard to child abuse itself. Ironically it tells a different story and the actions of those who to report the child abuse crimes to local authorities. There is no penalty for those who adhere to internal investigation, which seems to be the case and is done by religious institutions in Montana, mainly in the case of the Catholics, which in the past had some bizarre thing going on, which involved a victim being murdered. Other then that, the JWs are no different from anyone else who subject themselves to internal investigation, however, they and or the victim can speak out, which is the case with the numerous child abuse cases in Montana itself, for if the church does not do anything but gather some evidence, the victim(s) and or their families are obligated to make the report also.

The biggest problem you also have is this: The Confessional Exception to States' Clergy Abuse Reporting Requirements

Also here is the site in regards to the Laws in that specific area, child abuse information can be found here: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/montana-law.html

Anyways, now we have: Their decision not to report the abuse to authorities allowed the perpetrator to remain in the congregation and continue to abuse one of the Plaintiffs.

As said before in regards to the victim(s), and to the respects of Child Abuse and Neglect Education, if the abuser still remains, it is vital for the victim in question and or the guardians of the victim(s), be it parents, and or any blood relative, close family friend, they too can report this themselves to local authorities, no one is being stopped, for if a priest, a teacher, and or other is not that much of help and or such persons at least offer advise and or do a bit of investigation themselves, they tend not to report to the police, but it does not stop others from doing so.

When an smart action is taken, it helps to zero in on the abuser, but not speaking of the matter when you know there is something that can be done will only cause more problems. Mainly if said abuser has earned the trust and respect of everyone else, including the victim's family and friends, thus putting the victim in a confused and hurt state, some victims will share what happen to them with a trusted adult, possibly more adults who will listen and one of these people will take action while others will advise.

For if this was the case with other child abuse cases in Montana and suddenly it shifts in regards to a Christian group, that is expressing hypocrisy towards other victims who did take it a step further. Again, as I said time and time again, there are better ways of doing things, as well as smarter ways, for in doing so, you not only save yourself, but others as well and bring into the light of how said abuser had used others in order to get access to children int he very homes of the victims - mainly if the abuser is a relative.

Throughout this case, and similar childhood sexual abuse cases across the country, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused to produce documents related to their internal handling of reports of sexual abuse and related investigations and disciplinary actions claiming that the information is protected by the clergy-penitent privilege and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Child Abuse is everywhere, even to the point where, the world's society whats to make pedophilia legal, just like they make identifying yourself as another sex and or an object legal, but in this case, the interest of children is considered a sexual orientation by the world, which is very wrong, but it does not stop them from what took place last year in regards to the homosexual/trans community who with what they did in regards of children is wildly accepted and those against it are attacked.

That being said, we already know that JWs and other religion subject themselves to internal investigation in the category of church discipline, others taken it a step further with confession requirements an the like, in addition, not many religious people are well educated in the realm of child abuse, an example, an African JW church tends to be far better equip to suspect child abuse be it among their members and or community, even those who they preach to, for missionaries of any sort have stumble on to some things that you would not suspect while on the other side of the spectrum, a JW church in the UK lacks in the realm of suspecting and or seeing the signs of child abuse - this is why education is key, for if you learn something in this regard to can teach someone else, this goes for the non-religious too for we do not know what the neighbor does with his or her kids and or the kids of other neighbors in the vicinity, for a close friend in the neighborhood has to be well analyzed and watched to see if he is not a creep.

As for the information in regards to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, this seems to be the case. It is widely referred to as the Priest Penitent Privilege, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest–penitent_privilege

It also states the following:

The First Amendment is largely cited as the jurisprudential basis. The earliest and most influential case acknowledging the priest–penitent privilege was People v. Phillips (1813), where the Court of General Sessions of the City of New York refused to compel a priest to testify. The Court opined: It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered—that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance... A few years after Phillips was decided, People v. Smith distinguished the case on the grounds that the defendant had approached the minister as a "friend or adviser," not in his capacity as a professional or spiritual advisor. As with most privileges, a debate still exists about the circumstances under which the priest–penitent privilege applies. The capacity in which the clergyman is acting at the time of the communication is relevant in many jurisdictions.

It goes on to say:

In U.S. practice, the confidentiality privilege has been extended to non-Catholic clergy and non-sacramental counseling, with explicit clergy exemptions put into most state law over the past several decades. In most states, information gained within a confession or private conversation is considered privileged and may be exempted from mandatory reporting requirements.

This also goes hand in hand with the Confession Law/requirement that is in full effect in most states. So in other words, you'd have to dismantle what is already running the engine in the justice system. But as we already know, it is not possible to change such very easily, and should it change, it will break and or create something else - possibly worse.

As we speak there is only one group known to the entire world that wants to alter the First Amendment and possible the laws and or the like pertaining to it, but this group seeks to nourish its own benefit.

Through briefing to the court, NPR convinced the Judge that Defendants’ privilege claims were unsupported and improper under the law. The Court agreed that Defendants could not blanket everything related to their investigations in secrecy and that they must turn it over to the Plaintiffs. Often, this is the very evidence that can win or lose a case like this against a religious institution.

With that information at hand, anything goes at this point, and it would seem that there is more information to this case of which is left out by the article itself, as stated before, they either lack the information and or such information has yet to reveal itself, hence waiting an update. Most likely the defendant will produce whatever evidence they have but with this last bit it makes the other section of the article a bit murky. Other then that Internal Investigation done by any institution, be it religious or not, is not secrecy, for such tends to help out authorities should they have access to this information be it given, require by law to have in their possession, and or other, etc usually depends on the law of the land also and the exemptions and the like with play a role in such things.

We'll have to wait and see when we cross that bridge on September 2018, as of right now anything revolving around child abuse and or violence, false flags and the like, the conspiracy theorist and minions are out in full force. I am already reading into some underground madness that took place in both the US and the UK, not forum friendly with what is spoken of such unless you have the mental strength to stomach what is said.

That being said, the laws of the land and the constitutions goes hand in hand with the state and the church, for should you want to alter one in order to fix a problem, it will lead to something worse.Knowing this, some people tend to deal with problems the best to their ability, and in this case, for victims, they too can play a role in finding a positive conclusion to a big problem, as many people already have before and to this day and onward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Over the years, I have noticed a reoccurring pattern among human communications with each other.

The more words they use... the less likely they are to be valid, pertinent, or true..

This is not always true ... but that is what a thinking person should look out for, 'lest he also be hypnotized by many words, in soothing dulcet tones, as well as the more obvious animated rants.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

ONCE AGAIN, LEAVE THE LAWYERING TO “REAL” LAWYERS!!!

Now you can down-vote me ROOK!

I very seldom down-vote anyone Allensmith ... your arguments fall apart without any help at all.

Specifically, "clergy / penitent" laws are made for ONE penitent and ONE confessor .... and if the Priest or Elder or other person tells ONE OTHER PERSON, that confidence, protected by law, is no longer protected by law.

With a Catholic Priest, that is ONE PERSON.

With a JW Judicial Committee, that starts out with THREE persons, and expands to include Circuit Overseers,  Branch Office personnel of every description, and reports are made in writing to insure that Central Control is maintained down at the congregation level.

In actual practice there are no "extenuating circumstances" ... only the application of WT codified policy.

It is then that JW.ORG ...... becomes JW.BORG.

Resistance is futile, we have been assimilated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

You are wrong, AllenSmith ... the WTB&TS has numerous times in court cases claimed Penitent/Clergy privilege, in California., and when it is to their perceived advantage, both claim they ARE "ministers", and claim they a NOT ministers,

They have also thrown Ministerial Servants "under the bus" by saying they have no position in the Congregation ... they are just someone who cleans up and empties the trash..

With my sense of humor, I find it funny to see combatants in "theocratic warfare" try to gain the legal advantage by shooting themselves in first one foot, then the other ... and hope the Judges and Juries will not notice.

The sad and despicable pathos  is so pervasive,  to survive with sanity, a good sense of humor is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

AllenSmith:

Every thing you have ever said, and the syntax you used to say it, and your entire distorted perspective on life, and the way you think, and perceive what Justice is,  makes me give great credence to the supposition that you are one of the WTB&TS's Lawyers.

I have asked you before if you were a Lawyer working for the "Company", and you got uppity, as if it was an insult, and refused to answer.  

Considering the consequences of lying are so great, I would be heavily inclined to believe you at face value if you answered NO .... but the fact that you REFUSED to answer such a simple and straight forward question spoke volumes to me, about a LOT of things.

I ask you once again .... are you a Lawyer working for or representing the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or any of its corporate manifestations.

A simple YES, or NO will be taken by me at face value.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

That's why the word "fools" has a makeup and saying in scripture that you fit perfectly!! However, I'm NOT the one lying through his teeth and distorting facts, you, and people like you are!!! Grow up Rook! you're too old to be acting like an immature spiritual child!

I will take the fact that you once again avoided a simple YES or NO question, as solid proof of your malicious nature and intent ... defending the indefensible for fear of losing your "position", whatever that might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588." I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said: "You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . " No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588."  Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters.  I certainly hope so!
    • That's completely false. You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading.  I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
    • It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, and depending on who you ask for directions, it is about 617 miles from Jerusalem. Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive. This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself. The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.
  • Members

    • linwllc

      linwllc 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    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.