|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 7, 2009 10:19:43 GMT -5
Court documents do NOT lie, and excuses or doubts get you absolutely nothing. Will you still be saying that "court documents do not lie" if a civil case is filed and lost? Abet = : to actively second and encourage (as an activity or plan) If the prosecutor has the PROOF that anyone aided and abetted in a felony why haven't charges been file? There is a long ways between accusations and proof. Does anyone really think a civil case is going to be won on the accusations listed on a restraining order?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2009 11:14:57 GMT -5
In court documents it clearly states that the two ex workers and ASSOCIATED MINSTERS were aiding and abetting. Not that they thought they were. Nothing could be stated stronger nor clearer as to what the prosecutor thought of the interference. This certainly boggles the average mind as to understand the reason(s) behind such aiding and abetting! I wonder if there's been any response from the "associated ministers" or have they just moved from the very beginning to make the 2 ex sister workers the fall guys? I don't think so. I think that clause is just there so it's clear that no one from the ministry/ workers should contact the twins.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 7, 2009 12:33:24 GMT -5
If a civil case is filed, under what ever charges it would make, will never change the fact that the court papers strictly says, the twins were aided and abetted. When the workers were to have no contact with the twin it was listed seperately from the aiding and abetting charges. There are so many things that was done wrong, a restraining order that was issued only proves that the girls and the minor children needed to be away from interference. What the interference was is what would be of interest. Anyone can say it doesn't matter what the prosecutor put on a paper, but why the prosecutor would put something on a paper does make a difference. It wasn't just an accusation, but a fact!! Anyone can try and pretend they are a lawyer and would like to put out doubts and questions, but no matter how you look at it, the two ex workers and associated workers sure did get attention! And it sure wasn't preaching the gospel!! Still a disgrace no matter what spin you try to put on what is in black and white!! The ministry/workers was not in a clause, they were ordered to stay away by the judge and signed by the judge in March, 2009, hearing so that the one twin could leave the forensic center. There are more than one court paper.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 7, 2009 13:35:17 GMT -5
Court documents do NOT lie, and excuses or doubts get you absolutely nothing. Will you still be saying that "court documents do not lie" if a civil case is filed and lost? Abet = : to actively second and encourage (as an activity or plan) If the prosecutor has the PROOF that anyone aided and abetted in a felony why haven't charges been file? There is a long ways between accusations and proof. Does anyone really think a civil case is going to be won on the accusations listed on a restraining order? If the twins' charges were downgraded to misdeanor how in the world could they want to go after those who aided and abetted the twins? Now if the charges had not been downgraded then the felony charges would have stuck and then the aiders anda betters get charged with "accesories to a felony" wouldn't they? And perhaps automatically?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2009 13:44:01 GMT -5
The 'no contact' order is signed by the supervising attorney and an intern in the prosecutor's office. It was written under their watch. Perhaps there are other documents, but that's the one I quoted.
The restraining order also has a clause no. 5.
5. The staff of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry believes that the best option for the Defendant's treatment is to stop contact with the group [F&W] mentioned above.
So the idea that the request came from that Center is entirely plausible.
It's difficult to know what the prosecutor had in mind when they said "aiding and abetting". If I feed and house a guy because he's down and out, and then it turns out he is on the run from the law, I could easily be accused of "aiding and abetting". I would be cautious in inferring too much from this document. At the same time there is cause for concern, and I stand by the opinion I offered on an internal investigation. (Which, I've been offered the opinion numerous times now will never, ever happen, but thought I'd say it all the same.)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2009 13:50:41 GMT -5
Will you still be saying that "court documents do not lie" if a civil case is filed and lost? Abet = : to actively second and encourage (as an activity or plan) If the prosecutor has the PROOF that anyone aided and abetted in a felony why haven't charges been file? There is a long ways between accusations and proof. Does anyone really think a civil case is going to be won on the accusations listed on a restraining order? If the twins' charges were downgraded to misdeanor how in the world could they want to go after those who aided and abetted the twins? Now if the charges had not been downgraded then the felony charges would have stuck and then the aiders anda betters get charged with "accesories to a felony" wouldn't they? And perhaps automatically? Just to correct a minor point. They would not be considered accessories on a felony, but accessories to perjury on a felony. Which I think isn't quite the same. But you make a very good point. Further criminal charges on perjury related to a misdemeanour? It would seem very unlikely, at least to me. Unless there's a big skeleton in the closet we don't know about yet. At the same time, the legal merits of a civil lawsuit are a whole 'nother matter. I hope it doesn't come to that.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2009 14:06:37 GMT -5
Here is just a suggestion, and it's offered for consideration. I don't know all the factors, but imagine reading the following in a week or two. Today, we, [names of headworkers], have requested a complete and full internal investigation of the Michigan incident, to be completed by [someone at arm's length, perhaps a lawyer who is in the fellowship, or even a worker with appropriate experience]. The report will be reviewed by the ministry and then released to everyone involved, especially those who were falsely accused. I think if I read or heard something like that, it would make me sleep easier. I find many aspects of the affair puzzling to say the least. The air needs to be cleared of suspicion. Such a report may be damaging, but not issuing a report would be more damaging. Regarding the lawsuit, I personally don't like the sound of brother suing brother. I really hope it doesn't take anything like that to clear the air. Yeah I can see it now. Foxes in the hen house---Trust us--We are doing a survey on how many hens have been hurt and maybe if any foxes were involved-- The report, I mean the hypothetical report, would not be for your benefit, clearly. That's known going in.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 7, 2009 14:18:05 GMT -5
If a civil case is filed, under what ever charges it would make, will never change the fact that the court papers strictly says, the twins were aided and abetted. Agreed, that paperwork will likely show up in court and whoever requested the court order (parents/prosecutor/doctor) will likely be called to the stand. The other side will also have their say. Not every thing entered as "fact" (by either side) will be ruled on as fact, that is why cases go to court. Agreed, from the constant worker involvement to why the workers have been named as 'abetting in a felony' but not charged to why the doctor didn't issue a 'no contact' order the day the twins went into the hospital. ?? Yes it does make a difference, but the prosecutor is only one side of the case, they are not the judge/jury.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 7, 2009 15:17:46 GMT -5
The judge definitely took into consideration the condition of the twins when he accepted the plea bargain and the girls continued care with the drs. The forensic hospital only sent reports and they did think that the girls should have no contact with the workers, but since the hired attorney was present in the court, he argued that the girls needed someone to visit, so the judge at that time allowed it. Then the first twin went to the drs. and said she wanted to cut the visits as she said they were hindering her progress. In March, the judge issed a statement andf sign into the order that the second twin was to have no contact with the two ex workers, associated ministers and anyone on their behalf!! That would about answer questions about that findings. And, Bandtroll, if you ever go to court, you had better hope that the judge doesn't listen to the prosecutor because, that will be your only hope. What a bungled case you have to have for a judge not to listen to a prosecutor!! You just can't change the written statement, aiding and abetting no matter how hard you try.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 7, 2009 15:30:04 GMT -5
What a bungled case you have to have for a judge not to listen to a prosecutor!! You just can't change the written statement, aiding and abetting no matter how hard you try. The judge has to listen to both sides. Not trying to change the document, just putting a different value on it than others. I'm sure you will let us know how much value that written statement had ( if your side wins) Edited to (if the side of the 200 accused wins)
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 7, 2009 16:08:16 GMT -5
"Quote:When the workers were to have no contact with the twin it was listed seperately from the aiding and abetting charges.
Quote:There are so many things that was done wrong Agreed, from the constant worker involvement to why the workers have been named as 'abetting in a felony' but not charged to why the doctor didn't issue a 'no contact' order the day the twins went into the hospital. ??"
I think we can truthfully say that psychiatric doctors do not quickly come to any conclusions as to what is best and a lot of time it is after their patient says something that clues them into the harmful effects something or someone is having on someone.
However, it will just fall into the "old" school of thought amongst the W&F's that allowing psychiatrists anything to do with anyone in the fellowship and that is "You'll end up loosing your religion." I've heard that as recent as less then 10 yrs. ago myself. And as we know there's still a lot of the old and beginning frame of mind and thoughts among the fellowship and those in power....though some have reached out for the more knowledgeable frame of minds.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 7, 2009 16:37:23 GMT -5
Bandtroll: There are no sides in this case. That is why you are so casual about everything. No one wins in a situtation like this. Everyone will be hurt from such a fiasco so it is so nice that someone takes the time to try and put a different side to a mess. Which side is more messy you surely could tell us that too. Also, when you figure out who will come out happy and smelling like a rose, clue everyone is. First a charge detroying minor children, then a felony charge against a couple of young ladies and we will wait and see what other charges there are. Having fun yet? Anyone of these charges of value yet?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 7, 2009 20:20:18 GMT -5
Bandtroll: There are no sides in this case. If not, who is the civil suit going to be against? There is the side of the 200 accused (likely) filing a suit against those that did the accusing (the twins, possibly others) Sorry, that is how I am about life. (See my next post) Agreed, no one will. (Strange question.) As I have said before No, I have not been mentally ill. But here is a list of those closest to me and the reason I keep posting on this subject. Person 1 - Is ill. They have been occasionally hospitalized and now collect SS because of their disability. … Their parents sibling was also ill and commited suicide … Their grandparent was also ill and commited suicide … Their greatgrand parent was also ill Person 2 - Is ill and collecting SS because of their disability. Person 3 - Is ill Person 4 - Their sibling is ill and received 'electric shock therapy.' … Their parent was ill and became unable to live on their own. Person 5 - Their sibling is ill … Their parent was ill and has been occasionally hospitalized. Person 6 - Their parent was ill and occasionally hospitalized. Person 7 - Their parent was ill and occasionally hospitalized. Person 8 - Their sibling was never able to live on their own or hold a full time job. So no, I am not here for the fun of it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 7, 2009 20:37:11 GMT -5
Just to correct a minor point. They would not be considered accessories on a felony, but accessories to perjury on a felony. Which I think isn't quite the same. But you make a very good point. Further criminal charges on perjury related to a misdemeanour? It would seem very unlikely, at least to me. Unless there's a big skeleton in the closet we don't know about yet. At the same time, the legal merits of a civil lawsuit are a whole 'nother matter. I hope it doesn't come to that. I think you need to take a law review. It doesn't matter to what you are testifying. If you are under oath in an official proceeding (judicial proceeding) and do not tell the truth about material matters it is perjury. And perjury in this case is a felony. Perjury under oath not in an official proceeding can be categorized differently in some states. So, were they under oath? In a judicial proceeding? The devil is in the details!
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 7, 2009 20:42:52 GMT -5
REASONS NOT TO FILE 1) IMO, no one wins. People are saying they want to "move on" but a court case could drag this out for years to come. The twins and their families lives have already been destroyed by this, the damage that has been done to the 200 accused can not be undone.
2) IMO, the odds of winner are low against anyone other than the twins. If the evidence was there the court would have (should have) already filed charges. The only ones who can really effect the outcome in this case are the twins (already charged with lying once) and the two sister workers who can plead the fifth.
3) IMO, the money isn't there. I doubt if either the twins or the sister workers are sitting on a pile of cash. Proving that anyone beyond that had a big enough role in this is really stretching it. Lots more money to prove it and that still doesn't mean they'll get it. (OJ?)
4) IMO, everything (to me) still says that the twins could have acted alone
REASONS TO FILE 1) To clear their (200) name by being able to put their accusers on the stand 2) Odds of winning are just that, odds, they (200) can still win 3) To reclaim some of money spent, even if it is never all paid. 4) Personal conviction, they (200) know 'in their heart' that others were involved.
OTHER REASONS I HAVE SEEN STATED/HINTED AT 5) Give the 2x2 the black eye they have so long deserved 6) Find out where the money trail really is 7) Bring an end to JF' rule of MI
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2009 20:48:22 GMT -5
Just to correct a minor point. They would not be considered accessories on a felony, but accessories to perjury on a felony. Which I think isn't quite the same. But you make a very good point. Further criminal charges on perjury related to a misdemeanour? It would seem very unlikely, at least to me. Unless there's a big skeleton in the closet we don't know about yet. At the same time, the legal merits of a civil lawsuit are a whole 'nother matter. I hope it doesn't come to that. I think you need to take a law review. It doesn't matter to what you are testifying. If you are under oath in an official proceeding (judicial proceeding) and do not tell the truth about material matters it is perjury. Perjury under oath not in an official proceeding can be categorized differently in some states. So, were they under oath? In a judicial proceeding? The devil is in the details! With all respect, rational, I have no idea what you are saying, or rather, why you are saying it. Probably because you have no idea what I was saying, for which I'm probably responsible. I'm just trying to correct posters who keep referring to the workers as potential "accessories to a felony", when they would actually be potential "accessories to false report (perjury) of a felony". See, the twins were charged with "false report of a felony" not with "a felony". (And I hasten to add, convicted of "false report of a misdemeanor".)
|
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 7, 2009 21:11:10 GMT -5
Please read the papers posted on the overseers list in the threads. The felony became a false report of a misdemeanor by plea bargaining. It was after consideration from the judge and prosecutor because of the conditions of the twins and the need for medical dr. and etc. It was the only thing to really do to try and help the two twins with problems and have them try to have some life with help from the drs. and to move on from this terrible ordeal.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 7, 2009 21:44:00 GMT -5
I think you need to take a law review. It doesn't matter to what you are testifying. If you are under oath in an official proceeding (judicial proceeding) and do not tell the truth about material matters it is perjury. Perjury under oath not in an official proceeding can be categorized differently in some states. So, were they under oath? In a judicial proceeding? The devil is in the details! With all respect, rational, I have no idea what you are saying, or rather, why you are saying it. Probably because you have no idea what I was saying, for which I'm probably responsible. I'm just trying to correct posters who keep referring to the workers as potential "accessories to a felony", when they would actually be potential "accessories to false report (perjury) of a felony". See, the twins were charged with "false report of a felony" not with "a felony". (And I hasten to add, convicted of "false report of a misdemeanor".) I guess what I am saying is that there was no perjury.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2009 22:10:23 GMT -5
With all respect, rational, I have no idea what you are saying, or rather, why you are saying it. Probably because you have no idea what I was saying, for which I'm probably responsible. I'm just trying to correct posters who keep referring to the workers as potential "accessories to a felony", when they would actually be potential "accessories to false report (perjury) of a felony". See, the twins were charged with "false report of a felony" not with "a felony". (And I hasten to add, convicted of "false report of a misdemeanor".) I guess what I am saying is that there was no perjury. Oh I see. The twins were charged with "false report of a misdemeanour". Somewhere "perjury" slipped in as a synonym for "false report". We should not be calling it perjury, as no charges ever went to trial. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jul 8, 2009 19:43:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 19, 2009 6:29:28 GMT -5
You know the state spent a lot of time and money on that case---Hence, there is another possibility----Charges downed to mis-demeanor for the twins since the prosecutor knows it was pushed and prompted by adults upon gullible teens. So a secondary evaluation of those who pushed and prompted the false charges could still be more libel then the twins. The court always wants someone to pay costs. Wouldn't that be a new and very different suit? I do not see any reason why the state would open a criminal defamation case. Since almost all defamation cases are civil matters, requesting the state to pursue it would be a very strange set of circumstances.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Aug 29, 2009 11:18:22 GMT -5
Keep Tuned
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 13, 2009 13:49:28 GMT -5
Well, I wish that JF had a reason to be detained in MI...he's slotted to come to OK Convs. and I suppose in order not to create a ugly scene, I'll just have to stay away! And to me that seems a might unfair!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 13, 2009 16:15:43 GMT -5
I suppose I have missed quite a lot, but I'm not sure what JF has done that he should have done differently. Is it the twins et al case, or other ones that upset you, Sharon? Did you object to how the courts handled the case? Clue me in.
|
|
GoBlue
Senior Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by GoBlue on Sept 13, 2009 18:42:44 GMT -5
I don't know your involvement in the MI case, but I would suggest not letting this stop you from going. May the love of the Father radiate in you and through you, sister. Well, I wish that JF had a reason to be detained in MI...he's slotted to come to OK Convs. and I suppose in order not to create a ugly scene, I'll just have to stay away! And to me that seems a might unfair!
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Sept 13, 2009 21:15:48 GMT -5
Well, I wish that JF had a reason to be detained in MI...he's slotted to come to OK Convs. and I suppose in order not to create a ugly scene, I'll just have to stay away! And to me that seems a might unfair! I can't see staying away, but an extra long walk during the meeting he is slotted to speak might be wise if you feel that strongly. I suppose I have missed quite a lot, but I'm not sure what JF has done that he should have done differently. You may want to re-read some of these threads before going too far out on a limb with this one.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 21, 2009 9:27:11 GMT -5
Clearday, you do have a point, though I strongly suspect the love of money was behind it or perhaps the zeal to get ahead of another worker on the CSA issues! How do you see this as a money making venture?
|
|