|
Post by rational on Apr 7, 2012 16:17:36 GMT -5
Let's remember that Lessing is not on trial and is not testifying. Anything he says is just that - things that he says. He can ask questions but the witnesses are the ones who are supplying the facts. True, in the trial. Not true, in the motion to dismiss, where much of his case was just stuff he said. Incidentally, have you read the transcript? I have. I even have electronic copies. I think that is called the opening statement. It tells what he intends to prove. No one has ever said it had to be the truth. And if it is not - there is no fault.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2012 20:25:27 GMT -5
True, in the trial. Not true, in the motion to dismiss, where much of his case was just stuff he said. Incidentally, have you read the transcript? I have. I even have electronic copies. I think that is called the opening statement. It tells what he intends to prove. No one has ever said it had to be the truth. And if it is not - there is no fault. Are we arguing about something? I've lost track.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 7, 2012 21:06:06 GMT -5
"I'm quite convinced that if JF wrote his own defence you would hear something quite different, more intelligent and more internally consistent than what his lawyer put forth. But he's not allowed to do that. The defendant is considered primarily a liability in the courtroom, and that came from a lawyer." What If Jerome were more able to rightly represent himself, then he should have don so. He IS allowed because he is a paying customer. He is also a preacher of truth, supposedly, as is supposed to represent truth no matter where and when he is...Not just in gospel meeting. To say that Jerome's hands are tied and he can't do or say anything in court is false. He might well be a liability to his case if he actually spoke the truth. If Jerome loses this case because of the truth, is that bad? What it looks like he attempted to do was to get the case dismissed on a lie. Now, that is bad. "What it looks like he attempted to do was to get the case dismissed on a lie. Now, that is bad." You impression, obviously. Could also look like he was telling the truth. If one has conviction that s/he is in fellowship with God and others are mistaken or liars in their (supposed) fellowship, then one could easily believe that other others have a misunderstanding or misapplication of terms (as well as prayer and devotions and worship). Yes, my impression... Based on the fact that I was in the work 12 years and also know Jerome, have heard him in convention, have been under his plans at special meetings and KNOW that he is a clergy, a minister. He IS an overseer with authority over other workers. I KNOW what Jerome does better than Mr Lessing and have the same understanding of Jerome's duties as Ms Koning. Face it, Greg. Jerome screwed up simply by doing the done thing in the work and it didn't work this time. He is trying to get off the hook and is not averse to getting off on a technicality or a lie.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 7, 2012 21:37:01 GMT -5
... Face it, Greg. Jerome screwed up simply by doing the done thing in the work and it didn't work this time. He is trying to get off the hook and is not averse to getting off on a technicality or a lie. Charged, tried, and convicted in the court of TS.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2012 21:41:53 GMT -5
... Face it, Greg. Jerome screwed up simply by doing the done thing in the work and it didn't work this time. He is trying to get off the hook and is not averse to getting off on a technicality or a lie. Charged, tried, and convicted in the court of TS.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 0:35:08 GMT -5
It is like as if Jerome were caught speeding and wanted to argue that he technically wasn't speeding because the vehicle he was in was technically his house because he didn't have a home and lived out of his car/house. It is just that his house had wheels(like a trailer).
A lot of "good" arguments about whether a car is a car and a clergy is a clergy. But Jerome knows and we all know that he dropped the ball. I dare say that NOT ONE person reading or writing on the TMB ever thought that Jerome might not be a clergy until Jerome proposed such a ridiculous notion in court through his lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 8, 2012 0:50:54 GMT -5
It is like as if Jerome were caught speeding and wanted to argue that he technically wasn't speeding because the vehicle he was in was technically his house because he didn't have a home and lived out of his car/house. It is just that his house had wheels(like a trailer). A lot of "good" arguments about whether a car is a car and a clergy is a clergy. But Jerome knows and we all know that he dropped the ball. I dare say that NOT ONE person reading or writing on the TMB ever thought that Jerome might not be a clergy until Jerome proposed such a ridiculous notion in court through his lawyer. Well, you would be wrong. This very issue was researched and checked a few years ago and there were individuals in the court system that couldn't find anything that would clarify that workers would be considered clergy under Michigan law. That is probably one of the reasons why this has been such an issue in court. I think that going with the definition the judge is using that it is quite likely that elders would also be considered to be elders based on the functions that they perform/are considered to be performing in the church.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 1:16:34 GMT -5
It is like as if Jerome were caught speeding and wanted to argue that he technically wasn't speeding because the vehicle he was in was technically his house because he didn't have a home and lived out of his car/house. It is just that his house had wheels(like a trailer). A lot of "good" arguments about whether a car is a car and a clergy is a clergy. But Jerome knows and we all know that he dropped the ball. I dare say that NOT ONE person reading or writing on the TMB ever thought that Jerome might not be a clergy until Jerome proposed such a ridiculous notion in court through his lawyer. Well, you would be wrong. This very issue was researched and checked a few years ago and there were individuals in the court system that couldn't find anything that would clarify that workers would be considered clergy under Michigan law. That is probably one of the reasons why this has been such an issue in court. I think that going with the definition the judge is using that it is quite likely that elders would also be considered to be elders based on the functions that they perform/are considered to be performing in the church. ...Well, that changes everything. I can see the picture more clearly now. Jerome did realize that he made a mistake in not reporting child sexual abuse and that he did make a mistake in taking DB home and he WOULD take the slap on the wrist and admit the wrong except for the fact that he MUST really does want to obey and respect the law. And if the law says that he might not be a clergy, far be it from him to go against the law. Wow, now this is the picture of a noble man. A regular law abiding citizen who will go to great lengths and hang the expense to make sure that the law is satisfied. The only reason that clergy does not work for the workers is because the WORKERS are contesting the title over technical reasons. They could just as easily accept the title as contest it and things would move forward. Thousands of dollars would be saved, the case would get behind them and their accountability would bring healing into the situation and to any victims.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 8, 2012 1:54:04 GMT -5
Well, you would be wrong. This very issue was researched and checked a few years ago and there were individuals in the court system that couldn't find anything that would clarify that workers would be considered clergy under Michigan law. That is probably one of the reasons why this has been such an issue in court. I think that going with the definition the judge is using that it is quite likely that elders would also be considered to be elders based on the functions that they perform/are considered to be performing in the church. ...Well, that changes everything. I can see the picture more clearly now. Jerome did realize that he made a mistake in not reporting child sexual abuse and that he did make a mistake in taking DB home and he WOULD take the slap on the wrist and admit the wrong except for the fact that he MUST really does want to obey and respect the law. And if the law says that he might not be a clergy, far be it from him to go against the law. Wow, now this is the picture of a noble man. A regular law abiding citizen who will go to great lengths and hang the expense to make sure that the law is satisfied. The only reason that clergy does not work for the workers is because the WORKERS are contesting the title over technical reasons. They could just as easily accept the title as contest it and things would move forward. Thousands of dollars would be saved, the case would get behind them and their accountability would bring healing into the situation and to any victims. No, it doesn't change anything. Jerome wasn't the one that was researching this. It doesn't change anything that has happened in court, I was just pointing out that it was researched. I don't see anything wrong with contesting the legal definition of clergy actually. If the law is to be followed, then it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what the law actually is. That said, I feel that workers in all states (and countries) should report suspected CSA. As I usually say, we simply need to let the court system deal with this issue. Whatever comes out of the court ruling is what has to be accepted or appealed to a higher court. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 2:07:29 GMT -5
...Well, that changes everything. I can see the picture more clearly now. Jerome did realize that he made a mistake in not reporting child sexual abuse and that he did make a mistake in taking DB home and he WOULD take the slap on the wrist and admit the wrong except for the fact that he MUST really does want to obey and respect the law. And if the law says that he might not be a clergy, far be it from him to go against the law. Wow, now this is the picture of a noble man. A regular law abiding citizen who will go to great lengths and hang the expense to make sure that the law is satisfied. The only reason that clergy does not work for the workers is because the WORKERS are contesting the title over technical reasons. They could just as easily accept the title as contest it and things would move forward. Thousands of dollars would be saved, the case would get behind them and their accountability would bring healing into the situation and to any victims. No, it doesn't change anything. Jerome wasn't the one that was researching this. It doesn't change anything that has happened in court, I was just pointing out that it was researched. I don't see anything wrong with contesting the legal definition of clergy actually. If the law is to be followed, then it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what the law actually is. That said, I feel that workers in all states (and countries) should report suspected CSA. As I usually say, we simply need to let the court system deal with this issue. Whatever comes out of the court ruling is what has to be accepted or appealed to a higher court. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. What choice do we have other than to "let" the court system handle this? It really doesn't matter if we on TMB "let" them or don't "let" them. We cannot try or convict anyone here. There is no kangaroo court here as there are no real consequences of our "rulings". Not like the real consequences of overseers being the judge and jury that kicks abused people out of the meeting for speaking up or the judge and jury that keeps abusers in the work. However, we can express our views and opinions and experiences. Perhaps they will make a difference with some who have experienced or witnessed the same things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 3:47:53 GMT -5
...Well, that changes everything. I can see the picture more clearly now. Jerome did realize that he made a mistake in not reporting child sexual abuse and that he did make a mistake in taking DB home and he WOULD take the slap on the wrist and admit the wrong except for the fact that he MUST really does want to obey and respect the law. And if the law says that he might not be a clergy, far be it from him to go against the law. Wow, now this is the picture of a noble man. A regular law abiding citizen who will go to great lengths and hang the expense to make sure that the law is satisfied. The only reason that clergy does not work for the workers is because the WORKERS are contesting the title over technical reasons. They could just as easily accept the title as contest it and things would move forward. Thousands of dollars would be saved, the case would get behind them and their accountability would bring healing into the situation and to any victims. No, it doesn't change anything. Jerome wasn't the one that was researching this. It doesn't change anything that has happened in court, I was just pointing out that it was researched. I don't see anything wrong with contesting the legal definition of clergy actually. If the law is to be followed, then it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what the law actually is. That said, I feel that workers in all states (and countries) should report suspected CSA. As I usually say, we simply need to let the court system deal with this issue. Whatever comes out of the court ruling is what has to be accepted or appealed to a higher court. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Scott you are bang on. The workers have never ever considered themselves to be clergy or even ministers of religion within the commonly accepted understandings. And almost to a man and woman the friends have always thought likewise. At present the law, not just in Michigan but likely most other places is at best vague on the matter. Therefore Jerome has every legal and moral right to challenge the accusation that he is a member of the clergy until it is legally shown that he and other workers are members of the clergy or ministers of religion because they fit this, that and the next criteria. A court decision is necessary for legal purposes. It is as simple as that. Since we are dealing with the law remember that the "law" jealously guards JF's right to the presumption of innocence until it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. So far the law has not shown that he is guilty. However questionable his past actions may be, they have yet to be shown to be legally wrong, which can only be established by the determining that he is a legally mandated reporter. Whilst the prosecution must prove their case against JF beyond all reasonable doubt it is not a level playing field. The defence are under no legal obligation to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. All they have to achieve in order to have JF acquitted is to present or create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. If they achieve this then JF will get the benefit of that doubt. Therefore the standards for the prosecution and the defence are vastly different. The tenacity of defence lawyers is often driven more through creating a doubt than through disproving something. A "might be" or "might not be" situation always works in their favour. The prosecution should be armed with sufficient evidence to show that JF has responsibilities and duties similar to members of the traditional clergy in order to draw comparisons. This does not mean exactly the same duties or responsibilities but enough to draw proper conclusions. In other words, fulfilling more or less the same functions. The spirit of the MI legislation (mandated reporters) is about child protection. That was why the legislation was designed; to better protect children. The Judge will have this very much in mind when arriving at a decision or in guiding a jury. However, he/she will also have to bear in mind that any decision he/she makes will have a good chance of standing up to the scrutiny of an appeal court if the defence is not satisfied with his/her decision. Whilst a Judge will not want to see certain lay categories of religious leaders escape the responsibilities of the law, which would fail the protection of children to some degree, he/she must be justified in law if he/she judges in favour of their inclusion. As long as he/she feels they have a more than 50% case of including them he/she can feel that justification and leave any further argument to the appeal court procedure where either the decision will be upheld or overturned if the defence chose to go that route. Similarly the prosecution has the same option if the decision went against them. If this goes to trial and bearing in mind the spirit of the legislation is to protect children, the prosecution should be ready to introduce the domestic activities of the workers which by habit regularly involves staying in homes where unrelated children are present. This alone will generate the protection of children issue, but nevertheless the final decision will have to be justified. One thing that people should also keep in mind is that both prosecution and defence lawyers have standards to abide by in courts. These same lawyers will appear before the same judges on a regular basis in connection with a wide variety of cases. Any lawyer (prosecution or defence) who deliberately tries to hoodwink/mislead a courtroom Judge is not only liable to severe reprimand or worse discipline, if found out, but their future credibility in appearing before that same Judge will be severely tarnished and their reputation beyond will be well noted. Not worth it for the type of minor charge under discussion. Of course that does not mean that irregularities do not occur. Far from it. Most lawyers, especially when they are fighting a losing battle, will push the boat out some distance, but still ensure their vessel is moored to the dock so that it can be pulled back in if needs be.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2012 9:06:40 GMT -5
It is like as if Jerome were caught speeding and wanted to argue that he technically wasn't speeding because the vehicle he was in was technically his house because he didn't have a home and lived out of his car/house. It is just that his house had wheels(like a trailer). A lot of "good" arguments about whether a car is a car and a clergy is a clergy. But Jerome knows and we all know that he dropped the ball. I dare say that NOT ONE person reading or writing on the TMB ever thought that Jerome might not be a clergy until Jerome proposed such a ridiculous notion in court through his lawyer. The lawyer stated that Jerome considered himself a minister, but he, the lawyer, did not.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 8, 2012 9:11:07 GMT -5
I have reason to believe that the overseers expected that this would be easily dismissed and never go to trial. By the looks of the transcripts, the dismissal was one little decision by the prosecutor away from being successful. The prosecutor really had almost nothing to back up their claims of clergy and she appeared prepared to let the judge make the decision on the basis of the letter and newspaper clippings until goaded by the defense into calling the witness. Then it all changed. That's exactly as I read it as well. I think one of the attorneys for JF had mentioned something about JF not being an "ordained minister" and I believe that the prosecutor had something that would have made a big question on that statement....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 9:15:21 GMT -5
It is like as if Jerome were caught speeding and wanted to argue that he technically wasn't speeding because the vehicle he was in was technically his house because he didn't have a home and lived out of his car/house. It is just that his house had wheels(like a trailer). A lot of "good" arguments about whether a car is a car and a clergy is a clergy. But Jerome knows and we all know that he dropped the ball. I dare say that NOT ONE person reading or writing on the TMB ever thought that Jerome might not be a clergy until Jerome proposed such a ridiculous notion in court through his lawyer. The lawyer stated that Jerome considered himself a minister, but he, the lawyer, did not. Yes and no. Mr.Lessing: "There's lots of references in the bible that we are all ministers of the word of God." Mr.Lessing: "We are all ministers according to his beliefs of the word of God." I took it from there that Mr.Lessing considered himself a minister of the word of God according to MrFrandle's beliefs.. He doesn't state what he believes according to his own beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2012 9:16:47 GMT -5
No, it doesn't change anything. Jerome wasn't the one that was researching this. It doesn't change anything that has happened in court, I was just pointing out that it was researched. I don't see anything wrong with contesting the legal definition of clergy actually. If the law is to be followed, then it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what the law actually is. That said, I feel that workers in all states (and countries) should report suspected CSA. As I usually say, we simply need to let the court system deal with this issue. Whatever comes out of the court ruling is what has to be accepted or appealed to a higher court. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Scott you are bang on. The workers have never ever considered themselves to be clergy or even ministers of religion within the commonly accepted understandings. And almost to a man and woman the friends have always thought likewise. At present the law, not just in Michigan but likely most other places is at best vague on the matter. Therefore Jerome has every legal and moral right to challenge the accusation that he is a member of the clergy until it is legally shown that he and other workers are members of the clergy or ministers of religion because they fit this, that and the next criteria. A court decision is necessary for legal purposes. It is as simple as that. Since we are dealing with the law remember that the "law" jealously guards JF's right to the presumption of innocence until it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. So far the law has not shown that he is guilty. However questionable his past actions may be, they have yet to be shown to be legally wrong, which can only be established by the determining that he is a legally mandated reporter. Whilst the prosecution must prove their case against JF beyond all reasonable doubt it is not a level playing field. The defence are under no legal obligation to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. All they have to achieve in order to have JF acquitted is to present or create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. If they achieve this then JF will get the benefit of that doubt. Therefore the standards for the prosecution and the defence are vastly different. The tenacity of defence lawyers is often driven more through creating a doubt than through disproving something. A "might be" or "might not be" situation always works in their favour. The prosecution should be armed with sufficient evidence to show that JF has responsibilities and duties similar to members of the traditional clergy in order to draw comparisons. This does not mean exactly the same duties or responsibilities but enough to draw proper conclusions. In other words, fulfilling more or less the same functions. The spirit of the MI legislation (mandated reporters) is about child protection. That was why the legislation was designed; to better protect children. The Judge will have this very much in mind when arriving at a decision or in guiding a jury. However, he/she will also have to bear in mind that any decision he/she makes will have a good chance of standing up to the scrutiny of an appeal court if the defence is not satisfied with his/her decision. Whilst a Judge will not want to see certain lay categories of religious leaders escape the responsibilities of the law, which would fail the protection of children to some degree, he/she must be justified in law if he/she judges in favour of their inclusion. As long as he/she feels they have a more than 50% case of including them he/she can feel that justification and leave any further argument to the appeal court procedure where either the decision will be upheld or overturned if the defence chose to go that route. Similarly the prosecution has the same option if the decision went against them. If this goes to trial and bearing in mind the spirit of the legislation is to protect children, the prosecution should be ready to introduce the domestic activities of the workers which by habit regularly involves staying in homes where unrelated children are present. This alone will generate the protection of children issue, but nevertheless the final decision will have to be justified. One thing that people should also keep in mind is that both prosecution and defence lawyers have standards to abide by in courts. These same lawyers will appear before the same judges on a regular basis in connection with a wide variety of cases. Any lawyer (prosecution or defence) who deliberately tries to hoodwink/mislead a courtroom Judge is not only liable to severe reprimand or worse discipline, if found out, but their future credibility in appearing before that same Judge will be severely tarnished and their reputation beyond will be well noted. Not worth it for the type of minor charge under discussion. Of course that does not mean that irregularities do not occur. Far from it. Most lawyers, especially when they are fighting a losing battle, will push the boat out some distance, but still ensure their vessel is moored to the dock so that it can be pulled back in if needs be. An excellent synopsis. Thanks, Ram.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 8, 2012 9:24:45 GMT -5
...Well, that changes everything. I can see the picture more clearly now. Jerome did realize that he made a mistake in not reporting child sexual abuse and that he did make a mistake in taking DB home and he WOULD take the slap on the wrist and admit the wrong except for the fact that he MUST really does want to obey and respect the law. And if the law says that he might not be a clergy, far be it from him to go against the law. Wow, now this is the picture of a noble man. A regular law abiding citizen who will go to great lengths and hang the expense to make sure that the law is satisfied. The only reason that clergy does not work for the workers is because the WORKERS are contesting the title over technical reasons. They could just as easily accept the title as contest it and things would move forward. Thousands of dollars would be saved, the case would get behind them and their accountability would bring healing into the situation and to any victims. No, it doesn't change anything. Jerome wasn't the one that was researching this. It doesn't change anything that has happened in court, I was just pointing out that it was researched. I don't see anything wrong with contesting the legal definition of clergy actually. If the law is to be followed, then it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what the law actually is. That said, I feel that workers in all states (and countries) should report suspected CSA. As I usually say, we simply need to let the court system deal with this issue. Whatever comes out of the court ruling is what has to be accepted or appealed to a higher court. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Scott, I don't get it that most people who have posted on this issue are AGAINST the law at all...but it is the fact that some of the very overseers have preached that when we are taken before a magistrate to not counter them one iota, that God will take care of us in the evil day, for IF we are to disagree with our enemy we will pay the uttermost farthing. AND NOW we're seeing one of the most visible overseers fighting his misdeamor charges.....it has become a situation of do as I tell you but don't show you!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2012 9:29:12 GMT -5
The lawyer stated that Jerome considered himself a minister, but he, the lawyer, did not. Yes and no. Mr.Lessing: "There's lots of references in the bible that we are all ministers of the word of God." Mr.Lessing: "We are all ministers according to his beliefs of the word of God." I took it from there that Mr.Lessing considered himself a minister of the word of God according to MrFrandle's beliefs.. He doesn't state what he believes according to his own beliefs. Here is the quote (p. 16 of transcript). I want to clarify something. Mr. Frandle's not saying that he doesn't consider himself a minister. He does consider himself a minister as the Bible considers all of us ministers of the word of God. We're not trying to step away from that. He's not, as a matter of convenience, sometimes calling himself a minister and sometimes not. The question becomes, is that the definition that fits within the statute. And clearly it does not. However, the portion in italics is deceptive. We don't know if that came from Frandle or Lessing. It may have come from JF, and then Lessing took it in a direction that was not correct.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 8, 2012 12:34:35 GMT -5
TS, shame on you. You know you have really upset Emy. She knows that there is no organization, no difference between an overseer and a saint, and that all are "ministers". How dare you start to get into reality. Heavens, man, have you lost your mind. Being in the work, you know full well that all are equal in that fellowship, and there are no special dispensations like overseers, workers, elders, and anyone can baptize anyone, and everyone had equal say.....>>>>))))))))))))))))))) OOppppps just woke up, I was dreaming there for a minute............
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 13:10:41 GMT -5
Ram and Scott,
I see what you are saying about Jerome's (and the other overseers') RIGHTS to take their case to court.
I am not concerned about their RIGHTS in courts as much as I am concerned about RIGHTEOUSNESS. Had the overseers been following righteousness, there would not be a court case right now.
I am only holding them accountable to their own doctrine and preaching that they have burdened the friends with all these decades.
How many times have you heard in meeting that THE ONLY RIGHT WE HAVE IS TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER!!!!!? (or something to that effect)? "We don't have a right to demand our rights."
You hear that at times when there is an election and there might be a banner that says, "Fight for your rights!!" You will almost invariably hear a worker get up and say that we are so glad that we as God's people do not have to fight for our rights.
Of course, this apparently applies only to the friends and younger companions. Not overseers.
Also, there are sometimes problems between two friends and the workers will "solve" the problem by preaching about how it is best to say that you are sorry and take the blame even if you are not guilty.
Here again, this apparently only applies to the underlings and not the overseers. If I am not mistaken, there is a bit of friction between Jerome and one of the friends in this case. It seems as if Jerome is asserting his RIGHTS to a "fair trial" instead of just taking the blame, paying a fine and maybe doing a bit of community service(which would have been over with by now had he just done it instead of going to all this expense).
Were this two of the friends in a similar legal battle, I KNOW how the workers would judge it. I KNOW what the sermons would sound like in that area and what they would bring up at the table if they were in those homes.
"Taking the blame" and "Don't take your rights" is a well known doctrine not only in the USA but in other parts of the worker world. My wife heard the same doctrine preached heavily in South Africa. I know I am not just now making this up.
I know that this is a common doctrine. But let me point out another "pass the buck" ploy used in meeting. The question will probably come up, "How do you know that Jerome believes and preaches that doctrine? Where is it in the manual?" I know because I know the system. The workers know how to stand united in doctrine and decisions when it suits them and then become individuals in belief when it suits them. They are an organization when it suits them and just a group of individuals when it suits them.
It is this double talk that keeps them in power and crushes any dissent. They think they have every angle of attack covered. The only power they cannot stand against is the truth. More and more of the friends are seeing their double standards, though. This case is further bringing out the double standard.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 8, 2012 13:13:52 GMT -5
RAM, Excellent point, and very well presented. I believe that the outcome will be that because of the "bad press" the F&W's have gotten in Michigan from the previous scandal, will force the hand of the courts to declare them as Clergy. Simply on the basis of the fact that now, they know more about the group, and when you have a hierarchy like they do, someone needs to be held accountable. That is the way I see it from the courts view. How ever, as you explained so well, he could slip through on a technical note. I think that with the way they are getting more strict and aware of CSA, I think it will not happen that way. We all will have to see.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 8, 2012 13:16:52 GMT -5
TS, I agree with your point also. I was under the impression that the F&W's were to "keep their own house" and not have a need for the courts to tell them what is right and what is wrong... Also, I heard so many times from the workers in a situation where there was strife, that is was better to take the wrong or be the one in the wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 8, 2012 13:43:47 GMT -5
TS, I agree with your point also. I was under the impression that the F&W's were to "keep their own house" and not have a need for the courts to tell them what is right and what is wrong... Also, I heard so many times from the workers in a situation where there was strife, that is was better to take the wrong or be the one in the wrong. And as I mentioned in a post before, the workers have used the verse where Jesus says that we are to agree with our enemies lest they take us before the magistrate...and He went on to say that if we did not agree with the adversary that we WOULD pay the uttermost farthing....Otherwords, I don't think JF is going to get by very easy with the sentencing....as he would have IF he'd agree that he was remiss in reporting CSA abuse....it's all a matter of him agreeing that HOWEVER they want to call it regarding "clergy", that he takes his blame and he's sorry that he didn't think or know different!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 14:43:48 GMT -5
Ram and Scott, I see what you are saying about Jerome's (and the other overseers') RIGHTS to take their case to court. I am not concerned about their RIGHTS in courts as much as I am concerned about RIGHTEOUSNESS. Had the overseers been following righteousness, there would not be a court case right now. I am only holding them accountable to their own doctrine and preaching that they have burdened the friends with all these decades. How many times have you heard in meeting that THE ONLY RIGHT WE HAVE IS TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER!!!!!? (or something to that effect)? "We don't have a right to demand our rights." You hear that at times when there is an election and there might be a banner that says, "Fight for your rights!!" You will almost invariably hear a worker get up and say that we are so glad that we as God's people do not have to fight for our rights. Of course, this apparently applies only to the friends and younger companions. Not overseers. Also, there are sometimes problems between two friends and the workers will "solve" the problem by preaching about how it is best to say that you are sorry and take the blame even if you are not guilty. Here again, this apparently only applies to the underlings and not the overseers. If I am not mistaken, there is a bit of friction between Jerome and one of the friends in this case. It seems as if Jerome is asserting his RIGHTS to a "fair trial" instead of just taking the blame, paying a fine and maybe doing a bit of community service(which would have been over with by now had he just done it instead of going to all this expense). Were this two of the friends in a similar legal battle, I KNOW how the workers would judge it. I KNOW what the sermons would sound like in that area and what they would bring up at the table if they were in those homes. "Taking the blame" and "Don't take your rights" is a well known doctrine not only in the USA but in other parts of the worker world. My wife heard the same doctrine preached heavily in South Africa. I know I am not just now making this up. I know that this is a common doctrine. But let me point out another "pass the buck" ploy used in meeting. The question will probably come up, "How do you know that Jerome believes and preaches that doctrine? Where is it in the manual?" I know because I know the system. The workers know how to stand united in doctrine and decisions when it suits them and then become individuals in belief when it suits them. They are an organization when it suits them and just a group of individuals when it suits them. It is this double talk that keeps them in power and crushes any dissent. They think they have every angle of attack covered. The only power they cannot stand against is the truth. More and more of the friends are seeing their double standards, though. This case is further bringing out the double standard. TS I fully appreciate there is a whole other side to this argument and I can assure it has not escaped me. However, it is the law of the land that is judging JF. The law of the land has its own prescribed legal standards and it is by these standards that JF will be judged. These standards include affording JF the right to fairness before the law (right to a fair trial). In pursuance of fairness before the law, JF is entitled to presumption of innocence until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of an offence. JF has not been convicted of anything yet. He is an "Accused" person, ie the prosecution is accusing him of broken the law. It is up to them to prove this to be the case within legal standards. Make no mistake, if JF is found guilty through the due process of law, you can go boil a kettle on the result. That is far, far better than merely going along to court and feeling morally obliged to plead guilty to something that you may not be actually guilty off in the first place (said with specific reference to the details of this case). A legal conviction or legal dismissal will go a long way towards setting the standard, at least in Michigan, for future cases. Far better that than submitting to misguided feelings, no matter how right they mat appear to be. We are not here to judge workers by their own standards, but by the legal standards of the country/state. Workers are used to doublespeak. It is part of their life although they are in the main unaware of it. Let the case be decided on straight talking, not doublespeak.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 15:20:18 GMT -5
Ram,
I see what you mean.
I think that it is appropriate to point out the double speak.
I think it is appropriate to point out what we all have known and learned as the standard in the meeting.
That way, if people can see that that standard does not work for the overseers, then it must not really work for anyone else, either. In other words, it is false. That way, folks will begin to drop those standards and live lives with the power of Jesus rather than the power of social pressure and fear that the workers inspire with their rules and laws.
Let the courts do what they are doing. Fine. It is going to happen anyway. Meanwhile, the workers are breaking their own rules in going that route. Let the rest of the laws come tumbling down, also. Dress codes, hair codes, marriage codes for workers, tv's, computers...etc.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Apr 8, 2012 15:21:56 GMT -5
Ram and Scott, I see what you are saying about Jerome's (and the other overseers') RIGHTS to take their case to court. I am not concerned about their RIGHTS in courts as much as I am concerned about RIGHTEOUSNESS. Had the overseers been following righteousness, there would not be a court case right now. I am only holding them accountable to their own doctrine and preaching that they have burdened the friends with all these decades. How many times have you heard in meeting that THE ONLY RIGHT WE HAVE IS TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER!!!!!? (or something to that effect)? "We don't have a right to demand our rights." You hear that at times when there is an election and there might be a banner that says, "Fight for your rights!!" You will almost invariably hear a worker get up and say that we are so glad that we as God's people do not have to fight for our rights. Of course, this apparently applies only to the friends and younger companions. Not overseers. Also, there are sometimes problems between two friends and the workers will "solve" the problem by preaching about how it is best to say that you are sorry and take the blame even if you are not guilty. Here again, this apparently only applies to the underlings and not the overseers. If I am not mistaken, there is a bit of friction between Jerome and one of the friends in this case. It seems as if Jerome is asserting his RIGHTS to a "fair trial" instead of just taking the blame, paying a fine and maybe doing a bit of community service(which would have been over with by now had he just done it instead of going to all this expense). Were this two of the friends in a similar legal battle, I KNOW how the workers would judge it. I KNOW what the sermons would sound like in that area and what they would bring up at the table if they were in those homes. "Taking the blame" and "Don't take your rights" is a well known doctrine not only in the USA but in other parts of the worker world. My wife heard the same doctrine preached heavily in South Africa. I know I am not just now making this up. I know that this is a common doctrine. But let me point out another "pass the buck" ploy used in meeting. The question will probably come up, "How do you know that Jerome believes and preaches that doctrine? Where is it in the manual?" I know because I know the system. The workers know how to stand united in doctrine and decisions when it suits them and then become individuals in belief when it suits them. They are an organization when it suits them and just a group of individuals when it suits them. It is this double talk that keeps them in power and crushes any dissent. They think they have every angle of attack covered. The only power they cannot stand against is the truth. More and more of the friends are seeing their double standards, though. This case is further bringing out the double standard. TS I fully appreciate there is a whole other side to this argument and I can assure it has not escaped me. However, it is the law of the land that is judging JF. The law of the land has its own prescribed legal standards and it is by these standards that JF will be judged. These standards include affording JF the right to fairness before the law (right to a fair trial). In pursuance of fairness before the law, JF is entitled to presumption of innocence until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of an offence. JF has not been convicted of anything yet. He is an "Accused" person, ie the prosecution is accusing him of broken the law. It is up to them to prove this to be the case within legal standards. Make no mistake, if JF is found guilty through the due process of law, you can go boil a kettle on the result. That is far, far better than merely going along to court and feeling morally obliged to plead guilty to something that you may not be actually guilty off in the first place (said with specific reference to the details of this case). A legal conviction or legal dismissal will go a long way towards setting the standard, at least in Michigan, for future cases. Far better that than submitting to misguided feelings, no matter how right they mat appear to be. We are not here to judge workers by their own standards, but by the legal standards of the country/state. Workers are used to doublespeak. It is part of their life although they are in the main unaware of it. Let the case be decided on straight talking, not doublespeak. the prosecution is accusing him of broken the law. I don't believe the prosecution is accusing him of breaking the law. The prosecution is merely trying to prove the validity of the accusation that someone outside of the courtroom made. He is representing the people of Michigan per the court papers. Also it seems there is no clear law as to who is clergy. If it's so wrong to defend yourself in court. Why did Paul appeal his case to Rome as a Roman citizen? Prosecutors are typically lawyers who possess a law degree, and are recognized as legal professionals by the court in which they intend to represent the state (the society) (that is, they have been admitted to the bar). They usually only become involved in a criminal case once a suspect has been identified and charges need to be filed. They are typically employed by an office of the government, with safeguards in place to ensure such an office can successfully pursue the prosecution of government officials. Often, multiple offices exist in a single country, especially those countries with federal governments where sovereignty has been bifurcated or devolved in some way. Since prosecutors are backed by the power of the state, they are usually subject to special professional responsibility rules in addition to those binding all lawyers. For example, in the United States, Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires prosecutors to "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information ... that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense." Not all U.S. states adopt the model rules, however U.S. Supreme Court cases and other appellate cases have ruled that such disclosure is required. Typical sources of ethical requirements imposed on prosecutors come from appellate court opinions, state or federal court rules, and state or federal statutes (codified laws).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 15:35:04 GMT -5
Lin dear fellow. I will try not to embarrass you but JF IS an accused person, ie someone who is accused of breaking the law. He has been appearing in court on account of this accusation. The matter would not have gone to court unless the .....ahem....prosecution believed there was a case to answer. They are the ones who have had complaints served on JF based on the evidence they have received from the investigators.
Yes someone has made a complaint to the authorities about JF. That has been investigated and like it or not the prosecution are satisfied that on the evidence available JF HAS broken the law. The prosecution have ACCUSED JF of breaking the law.
A person has a legal right to a fair trial and JF is exercising that right. I support him in this. However, I have no feelings as to which way I would like to see this case go (for various reasons).
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 8, 2012 15:40:14 GMT -5
As a 2x2, with all of us being ministers, can I baptize my overseer?
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Apr 8, 2012 15:41:21 GMT -5
Lin dear fellow. I will try not to embarrass you but JF IS an accused person, ie someone who is accused of breaking the law. He has been appearing in court on account of this accusation. The matter would not have gone to court unless the .....ahem....prosecution believed there was a case to answer. They are the ones who have had complaints served on JF based on the evidence they have received from the investigators. Yes someone has made a complaint to the authorities about JF. That has been investigated and like it or not the prosecution are satisfied that on the evidence available JF HAS broken the law. The prosecution have ACCUSED JF of breaking the law. A person has a legal right to a fair trial and JF is exercising that right. I support him in this. However, I have no feelings as to which way I would like to see this case go (for various reasons). All I have seen is the judge refused to dismiss the case. therefore it would be bound over to court.If Jf would be accused of breaking the law,would not there be record of posting of bail or being released on his own recognizance. Also would he not be under travel restriction? Your demeaning manner does not make you an expert.
|
|