Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2012 15:58:10 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2012 15:59:33 GMT -5
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Mar 31, 2012 17:20:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 31, 2012 17:33:38 GMT -5
Wouldn't the attorney of 12-11 have been JF's "first attorney" who had advised him to plea no contest? JF has had 2 other attorneys since 12 -11 before the judge since!
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Mar 31, 2012 17:37:47 GMT -5
I was impossible to follow the threads because some clowns kept hijacking them.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 31, 2012 17:46:46 GMT -5
I was impossible to follow the threads because some clowns kept hijacking them. Well as to attesting to what this legal document says, there had been NO discussion. So actually you did not miss it.
|
|
|
Post by emmarr75 on Mar 31, 2012 18:56:36 GMT -5
This legal document makes interesting reading
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Mar 31, 2012 19:08:04 GMT -5
More lies... No unified chain of command?
Makes you sick...
|
|
|
Post by ts on Mar 31, 2012 19:58:45 GMT -5
congratulations, pa1ag1 on your 1001st post. Good going. Look forward to reading your 1002nd post.
:-)
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Mar 31, 2012 20:08:58 GMT -5
OK you innies, what do you think of the motion to dismiss transcript? Do YOU buy the argument that Jerome has no authority in his group of worshippers? Do you agree that there is no unified structure nor chain of command?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 31, 2012 20:19:58 GMT -5
Do you agree that there is no unified structure nor chain of command? Let me first ask my elder, and then let him ask the "more responsible" worker in our field, and then let him/her ask the overseer of the state, and then let him ask the overseer of our region (I was instructed in a matter that there is such a regional overseer), and then let him ask the overseer of the Eastern or Western United States if there is a chain of command. Until I hear back, I will be hesitant to give an answer.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 31, 2012 20:50:10 GMT -5
I just read the court transcript. It DETAILS a very cruel act in real time.
It details the truthful account of a lady that grew up in the fellowship and that had been baptized by Jerome when she was 12 years old. She details wonderfully the hierarchy of the fellowship that WE ALL KNOW WELL and that Jerome knows very well. And then we can read how Jerome's lawyer tears her truthful testimony apart as if she is doesn't have a clue to what the hierarchy is.
It moved me to tears.
I could see the lady speaking the truth, and then having to withstand a withering cross examination by Jerome's lawyer- who I presume must be paid for with money from the friends- tear her to pieces.
For Jerome to allow that- to not speak up and say, our dear friend spoke/speaks the truth, is the very definition of a hireling fleeing at the first sign of trouble.
For shame. For shame.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Mar 31, 2012 21:02:58 GMT -5
The very definition of the hireling that Jesus spoke of. Save your own skin, don't worry about the sheep, the wolves will only get one or two...
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Mar 31, 2012 22:09:21 GMT -5
He is in fact denying the Lord.
How can he hold his head up again and preach to others if he is not honest. He is like Peter denying Jesus, but then Peter did it for a second or two, where as this guy is lying week after week.
The guy has no conscience. He's only interested in saving his own skin.
Who does he fear God or man?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 31, 2012 22:46:17 GMT -5
OK you innies, what do you think of the motion to dismiss transcript? Do YOU buy the argument that Jerome has no authority in his group of worshippers? Do you agree that there is no unified structure nor chain of command? Having this on record might make it hard for the organisation to be taken seriously by governments in the future. A test for honesty would be whether the workers would talk in the same way if they were trying to convince officials in a foreign country that their staff had the support of an organisation. I think George Walker was more honest about the role of overseer and how the organisation operates: ================================================================ "In accordance with the suggestion made to us at our recent interview in the Office of the Director of Selective Service, Washington, D.C. that a further statement be submitted outlining, in greater detain than has heretofore been given, certain facts regarding the foundation, belief and activities of the Church we represented, as Ministers - this for the purpose of enabling the Local Draft Boards to correctly classify Ministers of this Church throughout the United States who are subject to the Selective Service Laws. "We take this opportunity to state that during the closing years of the last century and the first years of this century a number of people in the British Isles and in America were exercised in heart and mind, through their study of the Scriptures, in regard to the methods of preaching and worship in the several churches of which they were then members. They were deeply concerned about spiritual things, and became fully convinced that there should be a return to the methods and purposes taught and carried out by Christ and His first disciples. This conviction led to frequent earnest conversations and studies on the subject, which in turn led to religious meetings, and in due time a number of these people went forth to devote their lives to the preaching of the Gospel according to the teaching and example of Christ as given in the New Testament, i.e., "two by two" and without salary or making appeals for financial assistance, putting implicit trust in God and His promise that as they "sought first the Kingdom of God" their natural needs of food and raiment "would be added to them". "As a result of this step, many people expressed their desire to be in fellowship with such preachers and this led to regular gatherings together of small assemblies in homes for worship and study of God's word. The reason for meeting in homes was primarily because it is scriptural, the Christians during the first centuries of the Christian era met regularly for worship in homes, which fact is also borne out and supported by church history. Thus after serious consideration, the leaders were confident that in their efforts to follow the early Christians they should form church gatherings in homes; therefore no church property or real estate has been acquired by purchase or otherwise, and for this reason incorporation and registration under a denominational name has not been necessary. The meetings continue to the present time in homes and are under the guidance of local Elders. Baptism by immersion and the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper is taught and practiced. "In the year 1903 Ministers of this Christian body began their labors in the United States and in the year 1904 in Canada. In these and subsequent years through the preaching of the Gospel, assemblies were formed in homes as already described. In the year 1906 the first annual conventions were held in North America, and from this beginning the number of Ministers in North America has grown to over nine hundred - about equally divided between men and women; the assemblies for regular worship to over three thousand; and the annual conventions to over one hundred. " One Minister in each field is the Overseer for that field - to whom the other Ministers look for counsel and from whom they accept guidance. In most instances a State constitutes a field. "Those who enter this Ministry must first establish very definitely thier religious character and have fulfilled the other qualifications considered necessary. They must be upright and of high principle - having proven their ability to earn their living in an honorable way - and must have taken an active part in the Church meetings regularly attended. If and when they are considered to have qualified, they are then appointed and assist an experienced Minister in an evangelistic work and in ministering to assemblies of Christians. From the time of appointment, Ministers devote their entire time and talents to the work of the Ministry. If for sufficient reason anyone thus accepted later proves to be unworthy or unfit he cannot continue in this Ministry. "At the anual Christian Conventions arranged at suitable times of the year in each State - and which practically one hundred percent of the members are present all matters pertaining to methods of work, doctrine, discipline of members, local elders, ministry, etc., are fully considered and settled. "Definite fields of labor within each State are arranged for all Ministers by the Overseers to whom the Ministers are responsible. Names, addresses, and fields of labor in the Gospel of all Overseers and Ministers are available at any time. "Overseers, who over a long period of years have devoted all their time to Evangelistic, Pastoral and other activities of Christian service, exercise - in fellowship with each other - a general supervision over the Ministry and membership in the United States. "The undersigned is one of such Overseers, and would be glad to furnish any further information regarding the foregoing which may be considered to be helpful or desirable. Signed: "George Walker"
|
|
|
Post by ts on Mar 31, 2012 22:49:44 GMT -5
There was a TMB discussion before this hearing. There were those who had the gall to simply ASSUME that JF was a clergy before they court determined he was. These folks were "wisely" held back from making judgment before the court could decide for sure.
Apparently these folks are now proven right....I think. I wasn't there in the court room and cannot prove that these transcripts are true.
I have been in KY on special meeting rounds with JF as a worker. I have been in conventions with JF back when I was a clergy in the 2x2s. He was the overseer...head guy...the guy all the workers and friends in the state answered to. I understood the hierarchy just like the lady on the stand stated.
Do I have written proof?....
Man, I really do want to know what the staunch friends on the board think about JF and this case now. Even if he is completely innocent of being a mandated reporter, how can they stomach this? Would this not be one of those situations that the workers like to talk about where it would be better to just take the blame even if JF were innocent? Would that not be the most Christ-like thing to do? Why all this, instead?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Mar 31, 2012 23:02:25 GMT -5
Isn't this water under the bridge? Apparently the defense lawyer at the time of this transcript had little clue and eventually a new one was hired. As I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Mar 31, 2012 23:05:43 GMT -5
Thanks JO for providing GWs letter again. One hopes the prosecution can have a copy of this to refute the claims of the defense.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 31, 2012 23:30:52 GMT -5
Isn't this water under the bridge? Apparently the defense lawyer at the time of this transcript had little clue and eventually a new one was hired. As I understand it. Did Jerome have a clue? He was right there in the courtroom as his lawyer did his dirty work. Who cares if he got a new lawyer? What he really needs is a new back bone or a new moral compass. Compare his deception with the clarify of George Walker regarding fields, overseers, ministers, responsibilities, etc. Hopefully someone will furnish a copy of Mr. Walker's letter to the prosecutor.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 0:03:08 GMT -5
Isn't this water under the bridge? Apparently the defense lawyer at the time of this transcript had little clue and eventually a new one was hired. As I understand it. Now that the courts have determined that JF is indeed a clergy, are you at liberty to agree with that assertion about all workers or does that only apply to JF? Tell us what your personal feelings are about the case.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 1, 2012 0:23:53 GMT -5
Ya gotta love it. Coming from Mr. Frandle's side, it is an "alleged organization" (page 3 line 20) to Mr. Frandle being a member of a Clergy that the court recognizes as an organization.
To me it was a David and Goliath moment. Mrs. K, a young women simply speaking what is apparent to all that have had much dealings with the 2x2's as David and the High and Mighty Overseer, Jerome Frandle and his hired liar I mean Lawyer, as Goliath taken down by a tiny stone called truth and reality.
I remember when this was a hot topic how everyone was making such a fuss about whether JF was a member of Clergy or not. I will reprint what I put then, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck..................... must be a duck.
For all that are inside, there is your "worker dedication". For those of us that left, there is your "worker dedication". This guy makes me so glad I left and don't have to be subjected to this kind of deception anymore.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 0:34:11 GMT -5
Do you have any documentation that the particular alleged animal you are referring to is indeed a duck or are you simply going on your unqualified observations and hearsay? Just because you might have been told all your life by other people that some other alleged animals were called ducks (or even that very alleged animal) you cannot prove that it is a duck. In fact, what you have is the very definition of hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 1, 2012 0:44:50 GMT -5
I just read the court transcript. It DETAILS a very cruel act in real time. It details the truthful account of a lady that grew up in the fellowship and that had been baptized by Jerome when she was 12 years old. She details wonderfully the hierarchy of the fellowship that WE ALL KNOW WELL and that Jerome knows very well. And then we can read how Jerome's lawyer tears her truthful testimony apart as if she is doesn't have a clue to what the hierarchy is. It moved me to tears. I could see the lady speaking the truth, and then having to withstand a withering cross examination by Jerome's lawyer- who I presume must be paid for with money from the friends- tear her to pieces. For Jerome to allow that- to not speak up and say, our dear friend spoke/speaks the truth, is the very definition of a hireling fleeing at the first sign of trouble. For shame. For shame. It looks disgraceful, on the face of it. Why not stand before the court like a man, without spending "gospel work" money on a protracted court battle, tell the exact truth and accept the consequences. What if God intended that he spend a few days in prison, like Joseph in the OT? I would have more respect for JF if he simply admitted making a mistake and took the punishment. Perhaps there's more to the story. To quote Dale S, it may mean that the overseers "are seeing some things in the picture that some of us are missing when we look at it".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 1:13:25 GMT -5
The Court of the state of Michigan:
"And with regard to Mr. Frandle's role, based on the testimony of Ms.Koning, the Court finds that Mr.Frandle is, in fact, a member of the clergy of the organization testified to by Ms.Koning. Ms.Koning testified, again, at some length and in significant detail about a clear hierarchical structure with a division of duties and different authorities that rest with various members of this organization. It appears as though the organization referred to as The Faith or if that's not correct, it is simply an organization, which the Court finds is, in fact, a religious organization based on the testimony of Ms.Koning who, in fact, has testified that she's been a member for basically all of her life.
The organization conducts apparently baptisms and other religious activities. It is involved in preaching the gospel and conducting special meetings and conventions and other various activities, which again, the Court finds to be activities that are part of a recognized religious body or organization. And I find that this is or that there is a recognized religious body or organization that exists to which Mr.Frandle is a member-----and specifically a member of that clergy.
And I find that his particular function is that of a minister or other religious practitioner or similar functionary, again, based on the detailed testimony of Ms.Koning."
I think that literally every reader here who has read Ms.Koning's testimony knows that she spoke honestly and forthrightly with regard to the facts of the organization, its hierarchy, and its ministry. Her testimony was the basis of the ruling. The defense had an opportunity to call witnesses to refute it, did not, and declined to further "beat a dead horse", in the defense lawyer's words.
This clarifies something quite significant. It establishes that workers in Michigan are considered by the laws of Michigan to be part of a religious organization and are mandated reporters as clergy. While it is not a ruling for other states, it does set down a ruling which may be referred to support other cases where the law is not more specific than Michigan which would clearly exempt workers for some reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 1:33:53 GMT -5
I just read the court transcript. It DETAILS a very cruel act in real time. It details the truthful account of a lady that grew up in the fellowship and that had been baptized by Jerome when she was 12 years old. She details wonderfully the hierarchy of the fellowship that WE ALL KNOW WELL and that Jerome knows very well. And then we can read how Jerome's lawyer tears her truthful testimony apart as if she is doesn't have a clue to what the hierarchy is. It moved me to tears. I could see the lady speaking the truth, and then having to withstand a withering cross examination by Jerome's lawyer- who I presume must be paid for with money from the friends- tear her to pieces. For Jerome to allow that- to not speak up and say, our dear friend spoke/speaks the truth, is the very definition of a hireling fleeing at the first sign of trouble. For shame. For shame. It looks disgraceful, on the face of it. Why not stand before the court like a man, without spending "gospel work" money on a protracted court battle, tell the exact truth and accept the consequences. What if God intended that he spend a few days in prison, like Joseph in the OT? I would have more respect for JF if he simply admitted making a mistake and took the punishment. Perhaps there's more to the story. To quote Dale S, it may mean that the overseers "are seeing some things in the picture that some of us are missing when we look at it". It is more than just looking disgraceful, it is disgraceful......and for the most part, disgusting. The defense, while clearly not particularly skilled, was not ignorant of the truth as apologists may try to suggest. Even a casual reader can see that he was trying to deceive the Court on behalf of Mr.Frandle. Ms.Koning came across as the honest one so it is little wonder that the Court based its decision on her testimony.....because it truly was a perfectly accurate testimony. Now that there is a ruling that Mr.Frandle is a mandated reporter as a member of the clergy, the only way he can possibly salvage a small part of his integrity and testimony as an overseer of "The Truth" and his overseer supporters is to quickly plead guilty and accept the judgment. Further deceptions will only make things worse. We have a long history of this kind of deception and it needs to stop right now. We can no longer have no rules and have rules. We can no longer have an organization and no organization. We can no longer have worker ministers and no worker ministers. We can no longer have church buildings and no church buildings. We can no longer have a hierarchy of descending submission and have no hierarchy of descending submission. This deceptive madness has now entered a courtroom and has been easily perceived by a judge who has no reason to be for or against the fellowship......yet we can't see it ourselves. Should they persist to a trial, it will only get worse. God won't help them because God is Truth and is not on the side of deception.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 1, 2012 1:40:09 GMT -5
I just read the court transcript. It DETAILS a very cruel act in real time. It details the truthful account of a lady that grew up in the fellowship and that had been baptized by Jerome when she was 12 years old. She details wonderfully the hierarchy of the fellowship that WE ALL KNOW WELL and that Jerome knows very well. And then we can read how Jerome's lawyer tears her truthful testimony apart as if she is doesn't have a clue to what the hierarchy is. It moved me to tears. I could see the lady speaking the truth, and then having to withstand a withering cross examination by Jerome's lawyer- who I presume must be paid for with money from the friends- tear her to pieces. For Jerome to allow that- to not speak up and say, our dear friend spoke/speaks the truth, is the very definition of a hireling fleeing at the first sign of trouble. For shame. For shame. I'm joining with all of the professing folks on this thread. JF's behavior, while typical of workers, is horrible. Not only does this behavior evade the law, deny its history, and avoid responsibility toward the friends, we're also paying for its legal defense. Enough should be enough.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 1, 2012 3:45:28 GMT -5
I'm joining with all of the professing folks on this thread. JF's behavior, while typical of workers, is horrible. I can understand you feeling this is typical of workers, but I'm seeing green shoots amongst younger workers. I've always said this fellowship could be turned around for the better quite quickly if the will was there. Perhaps the younger ones will learn from the errors of the past and be motivated towards a greater reliance on the spirit of God rather than trust in the system. Workers and friends should be respected for the Christlike principles they stand for, not their position in the hierarchy.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Apr 1, 2012 3:52:13 GMT -5
Workers and friends should be respected for the Christlike principles they stand for, not their position in the hierarchy. Considering there is apparently NO heirarchy, according to Mr Frandle's defence, that should be pretty simple then...
|
|