|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 5, 2012 9:09:09 GMT -5
You're reading a lot into the situation aren't you? You're taking the lawyers words as Jerome's words and then running off half cocked with those words. In the first place, even a good lawyer can't fairly and accurately represent the belief structure of the friends. The defence is arguing a case with respect to a specific statute and situation. How much time do you think this particular lawyer spent researching the Motion to Dismiss? And remember that he was a substitute. My guess is that the main lawyer may have spent an hour or two, and then spent 10 minutes briefing this substitute lawyer from his notes, when he couldn't make the hearing. And on that basis the participants on this thread want to conduct a kangaroo court on the integrity and character of Jerome Frandel. Can you please show me where I am "reading a lot into the situation?" Can you please explain to me why the prosecution had enough time to accurately portray an "organization" that Jerome's/overseers' defense claimed didn't exist? It would seem to me that if the prosecution had enough time to understand the organization and have it testified to at the hearing, then the defense, with an expert witness in Jerome, surely would have had enough time to understand the organization that his attorney claimed didn't exist and imply that Jerome/overseers had no authority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 9:33:16 GMT -5
And on that basis the participants on this thread want to conduct a kangaroo court on the integrity and character of Jerome Frandel. I don't personally attack you, implying that I am a part of a "kangaroo court" is attacking my integrity and character. I believe in this fellowship. What Jerome and his defense presented didn't resemble the fellowship that I know. I expect my leaders to lead- not hide behind lawyers and obfuscation. This was Mr.Frandle's Motion to Dismiss and it was Mr.Frandle's defense of the clerical title being wrong. There no wiggling out of that any more than there is wiggling out of being a Mandated Reporter. Mr Frandle is the principal here, not Mr.Lessing. If Mr.Frandle wishes to state that his lawyer misrepresented him, he may do so at any time, and should. Write a letter to the friends of MI and explain where Mr.Lessing went wrong and how badly he misrepresented him and, by extension, the whole ministry and fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 5, 2012 9:59:20 GMT -5
If Mr.Frandle wishes to state that his lawyer misrepresented him, he may do so at any time, and should. Write a letter to the friends of MI and explain where Mr.Lessing went wrong and how badly he misrepresented him and, by extension, the whole ministry and fellowship. Geez, clearday. I think you just foretold the future.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Apr 5, 2012 13:40:31 GMT -5
He has been taking lessons from We, They, and The Company.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 5, 2012 14:32:35 GMT -5
Since Bill Denk is also listed as a witness, I would think that he would have been a better person to call to ask what the role of a worker/overseer is. I don't know if he was there the day this all took place, but I am pretty sure he will be at the next court appearance since he is listed as a witness.....
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 5, 2012 14:40:06 GMT -5
Since Bill Denk is also listed as a witness, I would think that he would have been a better person to call to ask what the role of a worker/overseer is. I don't know if he was there the day this all took place, but I am pretty sure he will be at the next court appearance since he is listed as a witness..... Will Bill be a witness for the prosecution or the defense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 14:48:31 GMT -5
I agree that Mr.Denk would have been the best witness to call to explain how workers operate. That's probably better than Mr.Frandle who could jeopardize the trial with his testimony in the Motion.
It is most likely that Mr.Denk has been listed for the defense. The prosecution would assume that he would be a "hostile witness", ie preferential to the defense, so he wouldn't be of great use them.
My guess, fwiw, is that the defense has named him but doesn't plan to call him unless they need him to refute a lie from the prosecution witnesses. The defense strategy at this point appears for them to simply allow the prosecution to prove their case and poke holes in it without presenting much from themselves. I don't see how they have much choice in the matter on that strategy.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 5, 2012 14:58:00 GMT -5
I agree that Mr.Denk would have been the best witness to call to explain how workers operate. That's probably better than Mr.Frandle who could jeopardize the trial with his testimony in the Motion. It is most likely that Mr.Denk has been listed for the defense. The prosecution would assume that he would be a "hostile witness", ie preferential to the defense, so he wouldn't be of great use them. My guess, fwiw, is that the defense has named him but doesn't plan to call him unless they need him to refute a lie from the prosecution witnesses. The defense strategy at this point appears for them to simply allow the prosecution to prove their case and poke holes in it without presenting much from themselves. I don't see how they have much choice in the matter on that strategy. But how would Bill have spoken for the defense at the hearing about the organization when the defense begins by stating that there is no organization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 15:28:40 GMT -5
I agree that Mr.Denk would have been the best witness to call to explain how workers operate. That's probably better than Mr.Frandle who could jeopardize the trial with his testimony in the Motion. It is most likely that Mr.Denk has been listed for the defense. The prosecution would assume that he would be a "hostile witness", ie preferential to the defense, so he wouldn't be of great use them. My guess, fwiw, is that the defense has named him but doesn't plan to call him unless they need him to refute a lie from the prosecution witnesses. The defense strategy at this point appears for them to simply allow the prosecution to prove their case and poke holes in it without presenting much from themselves. I don't see how they have much choice in the matter on that strategy. But how would Bill have spoken for the defense at the hearing about the organization when the defense begins by stating that there is no organization. He would just need to state the facts on how things work, he wouldn't have to supply his judgment on whether or not it is an organization. The judge would decide if its an organization or not. Remember, the overseers may actually believe it is not an organization so there shouldn't be a problem explaining how that works. There are a number of arguments the defense could have (and did I think) put forward to refute the organization claim. ie, no handbooks, no written doctrine, no regular salaries, no formal church buildings, no church boards, no web site, no specific headquarters, no registered societies, no formal name except where required by governments, no titled church property There's actually a pretty good list to argue against an organization. The problematic part is the activities that are highly organized.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 5, 2012 15:43:30 GMT -5
Evan Jones referred to it as anorganization:Evan Jones passed away in July, 2001 at 91 years. He gave this statement in response to the investigation of the 2 Henderson children who committed suicide in Australia. A Sydney, Australia newspaper 11/29/2411/29/94 (edited) reported: "A suicide note said they did not want to become a part of their mothers religious group or attend a 4-day camp beginning the next day." 4-day camp was the convention held at Thoona. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Evan Jones: STATES: I am 84 years old and reside at houses belonging to various members of the same Christian Faith as myself. I am presently staying at 35 Park Rd. Surry Hills. I am the Senior Minister of a fellowship that meets at various private homes through out Victoria and Tasmania. There are members of our group through out the World. In Victoria, we have about 40 ministers of the Gospel and about 2,500 members. These people meet every Sunday and on Wednesday Evenings. At these meetings we sing Hymns, we have a prayer session and then a period when each person speaks of their experience or something that has appealed to them from the scripture. We follow Teachings of the New Testament given to us by the Lord Jesus. I have been a member of this group for 70 years and my parents before me were members of the same group. I have been a Minister since 1938 when I left home to do the work of an evangelist. I have been supported since I became a Minister by people of the same faith who give voluntary donations. All the people who have forsaken their occupations and have gone forth to Minister this Gospel are supported in the same way. We have no specific name as such and have never had. There is no individual person who could claim to be the founder of our organization. We believe that this group has its origin in the mind of God before the foundation of the World and it was revealed in it's fullness in the coming of the Lord Jesus into this world and his teachings which we endeavor to follow today. We are not a Registered Church or Body of any description. We are involved with the support of Third World Organisations we currently have over 20 ministers in foreign fields preaching, assisting and doing evangelistic work. These evangelists are sent overseas with funds raised through the group. Our organisation is financially well off. The funds are controlled by a Trust Fund with the Trustees being Arthur ROBINSON, Alan BIRD and Ian GUNST, who are elders of the Church. I am in charge of the Trustees and have the final say as to where the funds will be sent or spent. Once I make that decision, the Trustees withdraw the funds and give me a bank draft for the amount required in various areas as requested by me. The Senior Minister is usually appointed on the death or mental impairment of the outgoing overseer. He is usually nominated by the outgoing Minister to the other Senior Ministers in Australia and New Zealand and approached by them to take over. In addition to our weekly meetings, we have been gathering on the property of Mr. Fred LOWE, for one of our annual Convention for the past 20 years. We hold 5 conventions in Victoria each year these conventions are held World wide and all run along the same lines. The purpose of these conventions is to strengthen the faith of all who believe in the teachings of Jesus. All members are there by invitation. I have known Mr. LOWE for about 50 years and have known his daughter Heather since she was a teenage girl. I have met Geoffrey, Narelle and Stephen HENDERSON on numerous occasions at our meetings and previous conventions. I have not had any more dealings with the HENDERSON Children other than they have been at meetings where I have been declaring the Gospel. Our organisation has no restrictions on music, dancing, television, sport, food or anything else for that matter. We do not exercise any authority over an individuals faith. However a member of our faith would not be interested in Music Television or the like as life is complete without them. When sending a person overseas and they require an official document we use the letterhead of "CHRISTIAN CONVENTIONS" underlined by "REPRESENTING ASSEMBLIES OF CHRISTIANS ASSUMING THIS NAME ONLY" I am aware that Narelle and Stephen HENDERSON are believed to have committed suicide and have left a note stating in essence that they did it rather than go to the convention. I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why they would do such a thing. Signed_______________ John Evan Jones Statement taken and signature witnessed to me at Surry Hills at 1.27 pm on the 29th of November, 1994. ___________________ G. R. MATTHEWS Detective Sergeant 20590 I hereby acknowledge that this statement is true and correct and I make it in the belief that a person making a false statement in the circumstances is liable to the penalties of perjury. Signed_______________ John Evan Jones Acknowledgment made and signature witnessed by me at Surry Hills at 1.28 pm on the 29th of November, 1994. ___________________ G. R. MATTHEWS Detective Sergeant 20590 The above statement may be read on TTT at: www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_later/jonesevan.phpPhoto of E. Jones: www.tellingthetruth.info/plogger/?level=picture&id=203
|
|
|
Post by peacefullycurious on Apr 5, 2012 16:25:37 GMT -5
Bill is listed as witness for the STATE (not defense) - this is stated on the first page before the rest of the transcripts. Also pretty sure it was mentioned in the transcripts that Mr. Denk was there in the courtroom that day (didn't BK state that?) PS - that doesn't mean Bill will be a hostile witness. A person doesn't have to "take sides" to witness something or other for either side of the case. It stands to reason the prosecution would call him...anyone who witnessed a fact first hand is a candidate to testify. Could be a minor fact, could be a major one. Just because a person is a witness for either side does not mean that person is FOR or against that 'side'
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 16:25:43 GMT -5
Uhhh, for the workers to use Mr. Denk as a defense's witness, that could easily set Mr. Denk up for the same charge that Jerome is facing! Mr. Denk is a member of the clergy and IF the court continues to go the direction that it is going now...it would be no surprise for Mr. Denk to get charged with the misdeamor charge. Actually, the defense has named Mr.Denk as a witness for the trial. That is very strange! Makes me wonder if they'll label him an "unfriendly" prosecuting witnes? If he isn't labeled that and he is questioned to the point that his testimony is what convinces the jury that JF is guilty according to MI. Law, then Mr. Denks is apt to be out of a job,asap!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 16:42:31 GMT -5
Down here when some person files a complaint then the court case often is known as "So and so versus so and so" I believe you are, once again, confused. You really need to brush up on how the legal system functions. Criminal cases are brought by the state,the state meaning the bodies that constitute the legislature of a country, against persons accused of committing a crime. Someone has to bring the complaint to the state. The state brings these charges because a crime is considered an offense against society, against the laws of the state. I would find it difficult to believe that the court was on a vendetta against the 2X2 group. It is much more likely that someone filed a report with the state that they investigated. (once again I wish I had read the responses before answering! Clearday - and others - have it correct.)onsider me corrected, Rat! And thanks. However could not the knowledge of JF's part in DB's leaving the work in MI AND being taken to his parent's home NOT have come from DB himself....say like explaining the why he was no longer a worker or why he was moved across state lines? Could not this have been part of DB's lesser plea....this does happen I know, that much....but not that I'm saying that it did happen in this case, but that it did happen. However, a thought came to me the other day and we may wonder about this off and on in the next few days...Scott has told us that many people read here on TMB and I think he did say that the authorities in the other MI cases did read on TMB...IF the authorities did pick up on the telling that JF was the one who took DB across state lines and did tell the why DB was immediately taken out of the work when JF received the phone call telling him of what happened in the home that evening......so we can't perhaps really ever know can we of who all may have been the cause of JF being singled out, eh?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 16:46:01 GMT -5
I don't personally attack you, implying that I am a part of a "kangaroo court" is attacking my integrity and character. I believe in this fellowship. What Jerome and his defense presented didn't resemble the fellowship that I know. I expect my leaders to lead- not hide behind lawyers and obfuscation. This was Mr.Frandle's Motion to Dismiss and it was Mr.Frandle's defense of the clerical title being wrong. There no wiggling out of that any more than there is wiggling out of being a Mandated Reporter. Mr Frandle is the principal here, not Mr.Lessing. If Mr.Frandle wishes to state that his lawyer misrepresented him, he may do so at any time, and should. Write a letter to the friends of MI and explain where Mr.Lessing went wrong and how badly he misrepresented him and, by extension, the whole ministry and fellowship. UHHHH, CD, JF has done all of that with one swift move...he fired these attorneys and has hired the 3rd attorney. So it seems to me that JF has declared with that move that HE DID NOT AGREE with his attorney in that courtoom that day. The only way he could take care of it was to fire him.....he didn't think about asking the judge that day IF he could say a word or two...which he could have done....it would have been very clear about what JF thought about what his attorney had said IF JF would have fired his attorney right in the middle of the proceedings, eh?
|
|
eh?
Senior Member
Posts: 714
|
Post by eh? on Apr 5, 2012 16:55:33 GMT -5
...it would have been very clear about what JF thought about what his attorney had said IF JF would have fired his attorney right in the middle of the proceedings, eh? Yep ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 17:03:45 GMT -5
This was Mr.Frandle's Motion to Dismiss and it was Mr.Frandle's defense of the clerical title being wrong. There no wiggling out of that any more than there is wiggling out of being a Mandated Reporter. Mr Frandle is the principal here, not Mr.Lessing. If Mr.Frandle wishes to state that his lawyer misrepresented him, he may do so at any time, and should. Write a letter to the friends of MI and explain where Mr.Lessing went wrong and how badly he misrepresented him and, by extension, the whole ministry and fellowship. UHHHH, CD, JF has done all of that with one swift move...he fired these attorneys and has hired the 3rd attorney. So it seems to me that JF has declared with that move that HE DID NOT AGREE with his attorney in that courtoom that day. The only way he could take care of it was to fire him.....he didn't think about asking the judge that day IF he could say a word or two...which he could have done....it would have been very clear about what JF thought about what his attorney had said IF JF would have fired his attorney right in the middle of the proceedings, eh? No, it doesn't really say all that much. We really don't know for sure that the law firm was fired....even that is being reported here. For all we know, they could have told Mr.Frandle to take a hike for sending them on a wild goose chase. If he did fire them as is alleged, there are many other possibilities other than misrepresentation, ie excessive fees, poor communication with the client, incompetency, poor personal relationships, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 17:14:21 GMT -5
Bill is listed as witness for the STATE (not defense) - this is stated on the first page before the rest of the transcripts. Also pretty sure it was mentioned in the transcripts that Mr. Denk was there in the courtroom that day (didn't BK state that?) PS - that doesn't mean Bill will be a hostile witness. A person doesn't have to "take sides" to witness something or other for either side of the case. It stands to reason the prosecution would call him...anyone who witnessed a fact first hand is a candidate to testify. Could be a minor fact, could be a major one. Just because a person is a witness for either side does not mean that person is FOR or against that 'side' You're right, he is named as a State witness. Of course doesn't have to be hostile, but one would expect that a right hand man of Mr.Frandle may be hostile. I would expect though that Mr.Denk will answer the questions honestly, as given. Hopefully they have him on subpeona to testify as a witness, otherwise he may not show up. Mr.Denk could be the most credible witness for the prosecution should he choose to answer the questions in a believable manner. After all, he would be naturally prejudiced in favour of the defense. Now if the defense can find a friendly ex-f&w to testify, they will be in good shape!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 17:47:47 GMT -5
Fortunately for the sake of justice and truth, the legal system takes a more 'rational' approach. You think that the legal system is about justice and truth? OJ Simpson, anyone? etc., etc. etc. No, the legal system is about whoever has the best lawyer and can persuade a jury or judge through their view of the "facts". Quite frankly, it appears to me that the "legal" system is driven by money- especially lawsuits. It appears according to the transcript that the witness would have never have had to be called to testify as to what Jerome does if Jerome and his lawyer had just been open and said exactly what it is that his position of overseer/minister entails. She didn't drop any "bombshells". She simply explained to the court of her observations of Jerome's job responsibilities. I fully understand that it is the defense's job to tear the witnesses' testimony a part. But what is unseemly, is that probably less than 20 feet away sat Jerome who could have spared her- his sheep- from the cross examination if only he had had the courage to say exactly, like she did, what it is that he does. Think of the courage that it took for that lady to sit before Jerome and tell truthfully what it is that he and the other overseers do, when he himself, or another overseer, are not willing to testify to their own occupation or even have their lawyer accurately explain it to the judge? If you reply, "Well, he isn't obligated to tell the court what it is that it doesn't know." I would agree. However, I would follow up with, "What is so incriminating about being an overseer that the court shouldn't know?" Now here is the crux of my argument. Why should the prosecutor have to call a witness to simply explain what you do as part of your job description? Jerome isn't a drug dealer. He isn't a Wall Street Banker. He is a minister! Why not gladly describe what you do?! Why the fear?! What are the overseers afraid of? Simply and honestly tell the judge what it is that you do, as the prosecution's witness did, and then let the judge decide whether or not you are clergy. I wouldn't be surprised IF JF has considered the witness "his sheep" for some time now....the relationship is definitely questionable now!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 17:53:18 GMT -5
The timing of the KY-TN staff merger is a bit fishy and I can't put my finger on it. Well, it would be a pretty big ordeal for the prosecution to have to get witnesses from may miles away AND IF the powers that be decide they don't want to jeopardize their "good" workers, they're going to use some sensibilities as to how to spare them that chance. I'm afraid that it is beyond being what a normal "misdeamor charge" is because of the defendent's need to challenge the "clergy"....this is one of the most crazy things I've ever seen happen in the fellowship. I still believe IF Jf would have just quietly approached the judge on the first court date and quietly told the judge that he was sorry but that he didn't know he was a mandated reporter...he could have gone on to say, that he felt he must by all means protect the members of his church that look to him....thereby the judge would have likely sentenced him to some kind of training on CSA and IF JF had already taken the course that LS had found, then it would all have been over and done with and the "clergy" status would have NEVER been adjucated! But too late now....the workers are "clergy" in MI.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 17:55:14 GMT -5
Here it is again. It appears that in Michigan anyone can officaite at the wedding as long as they sign the license/certificate and take it to be recorded in the courthouse....otherword he who officiates at a wedding is responsible of seeing that wedding in registered in the county clerk's office. some counties may require a pre-certification of the officiate before they can perform the wedding. Marriage Laws » United States » Officiants Requirements Local Officiants Wedding Leads Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed. Some states have laws that permit other persons to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages -- the grant of authority is valid for one day -- and thus officiate at the wedding of family or friends on that one day. In the United States, certain states and some counties have guidelines for ministers who want to perform marriages. Here's a summary of what is involved to perform marriages in each state. Michigan A minister of the gospel who is ordained or authorized by his or her church to perform marriages and who is a pastor of a church in this state, or continues to preach the gospel in this state may perform marriages. --- Ministers must complete a marriage certificate and give one to the couple. Another marriage certificate must be returned to the county clerk who issued the license within 10 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county clerk.If you follow my logic, the particulars in Michigan do not matter. The fact is that in many jurisdictions workers are not "legal" enough to officiate at marriages. I suspect in most states they could IF they paid for the certicate!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 17:57:21 GMT -5
And on that basis the participants on this thread want to conduct a kangaroo court on the integrity and character of Jerome Frandel. I don't personally attack you, implying that I am a part of a "kangaroo court" is attacking my integrity and character. I believe in this fellowship. What Jerome and his defense presented didn't resemble the fellowship that I know. I expect my leaders to lead- not hide behind lawyers and obfuscation. sacerdotal, you're experiencing the "obfuscation" like many of the exes have...and we've been claimed to be having an "agenda"....but obfuscation is well and happily used in the fellowship...very well!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 17:59:58 GMT -5
I agree that Mr.Denk would have been the best witness to call to explain how workers operate. That's probably better than Mr.Frandle who could jeopardize the trial with his testimony in the Motion. It is most likely that Mr.Denk has been listed for the defense. The prosecution would assume that he would be a "hostile witness", ie preferential to the defense, so he wouldn't be of great use them. My guess, fwiw, is that the defense has named him but doesn't plan to call him unless they need him to refute a lie from the prosecution witnesses. The defense strategy at this point appears for them to simply allow the prosecution to prove their case and poke holes in it without presenting much from themselves. I don't see how they have much choice in the matter on that strategy. I suspect the prosecution(if they have Bill Denk on their side) would want to use a very important witness at that stage of things...they'd be saving him for the jury trial.... Also I think the defense would feel perhaps the same likewise....the witnesses that the court tends to think are prime witnesses are not generally pulled into the court when it is just a simple proceeding of the lawyer wanting dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 5, 2012 18:05:52 GMT -5
UHHHH, CD, JF has done all of that with one swift move...he fired these attorneys and has hired the 3rd attorney. So it seems to me that JF has declared with that move that HE DID NOT AGREE with his attorney in that courtoom that day. The only way he could take care of it was to fire him.....he didn't think about asking the judge that day IF he could say a word or two...which he could have done....it would have been very clear about what JF thought about what his attorney had said IF JF would have fired his attorney right in the middle of the proceedings, eh? No, it doesn't really say all that much. We really don't know for sure that the law firm was fired....even that is being reported here. For all we know, they could have told Mr.Frandle to take a hike for sending them on a wild goose chase. If he did fire them as is alleged, there are many other possibilities other than misrepresentation, ie excessive fees, poor communication with the client, incompetency, poor personal relationships, etc. I think it's safe to say that ONE reason JF fired him was that he failed to get the charges dismissed, eh? That's attorney # 2 and counting!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2012 9:48:10 GMT -5
You're reading a lot into the situation aren't you? You're taking the lawyers words as Jerome's words and then running off half cocked with those words. In the first place, even a good lawyer can't fairly and accurately represent the belief structure of the friends. The defence is arguing a case with respect to a specific statute and situation. How much time do you think this particular lawyer spent researching the Motion to Dismiss? And remember that he was a substitute. My guess is that the main lawyer may have spent an hour or two, and then spent 10 minutes briefing this substitute lawyer from his notes, when he couldn't make the hearing. And on that basis the participants on this thread want to conduct a kangaroo court on the integrity and character of Jerome Frandel. Can you please show me where I am "reading a lot into the situation?" Can you please explain to me why the prosecution had enough time to accurately portray an "organization" that Jerome's/overseers' defense claimed didn't exist? It would seem to me that if the prosecution had enough time to understand the organization and have it testified to at the hearing, then the defense, with an expert witness in Jerome, surely would have had enough time to understand the organization that his attorney claimed didn't exist and imply that Jerome/overseers had no authority. The problem comes in you attacking JF's personal integrity and character on the basis of a defence prepared in relation to a specific court case. First, I don't see that defence as fair or accurate representation of how a worker would present "the work". Second, I think it is never right to impugn or attack someone based on hearsay, which is what you're doing. If you feel that I'm attacking you personally, at least you're here to defend yourself, unlike the person that you're attacking. My remarks pertain only to the situation at hand, and I in fact have no idea about your integrity or character.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2012 10:09:03 GMT -5
Evan Jones referred to it as anorganization:Evan Jones passed away in July, 2001 at 91 years. He gave this statement in response to the investigation of the 2 Henderson children who committed suicide in Australia. A Sydney, Australia newspaper 11/29/2411/29/94 (edited) reported: "A suicide note said they did not want to become a part of their mothers religious group or attend a 4-day camp beginning the next day." 4-day camp was the convention held at Thoona. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Evan Jones: STATES: I am 84 years old and reside at houses belonging to various members of the same Christian Faith as myself. I am presently staying at 35 Park Rd. Surry Hills. I am the Senior Minister of a fellowship that meets at various private homes through out Victoria and Tasmania. There are members of our group through out the World. In Victoria, we have about 40 ministers of the Gospel and about 2,500 members. These people meet every Sunday and on Wednesday Evenings. At these meetings we sing Hymns, we have a prayer session and then a period when each person speaks of their experience or something that has appealed to them from the scripture. We follow Teachings of the New Testament given to us by the Lord Jesus. I have been a member of this group for 70 years and my parents before me were members of the same group. I have been a Minister since 1938 when I left home to do the work of an evangelist. I have been supported since I became a Minister by people of the same faith who give voluntary donations. All the people who have forsaken their occupations and have gone forth to Minister this Gospel are supported in the same way. We have no specific name as such and have never had. There is no individual person who could claim to be the founder of our organization. We believe that this group has its origin in the mind of God before the foundation of the World and it was revealed in it's fullness in the coming of the Lord Jesus into this world and his teachings which we endeavor to follow today. We are not a Registered Church or Body of any description. We are involved with the support of Third World Organisations we currently have over 20 ministers in foreign fields preaching, assisting and doing evangelistic work. These evangelists are sent overseas with funds raised through the group. Our organisation is financially well off. The funds are controlled by a Trust Fund with the Trustees being Arthur ROBINSON, Alan BIRD and Ian GUNST, who are elders of the Church. I am in charge of the Trustees and have the final say as to where the funds will be sent or spent. Once I make that decision, the Trustees withdraw the funds and give me a bank draft for the amount required in various areas as requested by me. The Senior Minister is usually appointed on the death or mental impairment of the outgoing overseer. He is usually nominated by the outgoing Minister to the other Senior Ministers in Australia and New Zealand and approached by them to take over. In addition to our weekly meetings, we have been gathering on the property of Mr. Fred LOWE, for one of our annual Convention for the past 20 years. We hold 5 conventions in Victoria each year these conventions are held World wide and all run along the same lines. The purpose of these conventions is to strengthen the faith of all who believe in the teachings of Jesus. All members are there by invitation. I have known Mr. LOWE for about 50 years and have known his daughter Heather since she was a teenage girl. I have met Geoffrey, Narelle and Stephen HENDERSON on numerous occasions at our meetings and previous conventions. I have not had any more dealings with the HENDERSON Children other than they have been at meetings where I have been declaring the Gospel. Our organisation has no restrictions on music, dancing, television, sport, food or anything else for that matter. We do not exercise any authority over an individuals faith. However a member of our faith would not be interested in Music Television or the like as life is complete without them. When sending a person overseas and they require an official document we use the letterhead of "CHRISTIAN CONVENTIONS" underlined by "REPRESENTING ASSEMBLIES OF CHRISTIANS ASSUMING THIS NAME ONLY" I am aware that Narelle and Stephen HENDERSON are believed to have committed suicide and have left a note stating in essence that they did it rather than go to the convention. I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why they would do such a thing. Signed_______________ John Evan Jones Statement taken and signature witnessed to me at Surry Hills at 1.27 pm on the 29th of November, 1994. ___________________ G. R. MATTHEWS Detective Sergeant 20590 I hereby acknowledge that this statement is true and correct and I make it in the belief that a person making a false statement in the circumstances is liable to the penalties of perjury. Signed_______________ John Evan Jones Acknowledgment made and signature witnessed by me at Surry Hills at 1.28 pm on the 29th of November, 1994. ___________________ G. R. MATTHEWS Detective Sergeant 20590 The above statement may be read on TTT at: www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_later/jonesevan.phpPhoto of E. Jones: www.tellingthetruth.info/plogger/?level=picture&id=203 Which proves that there is no absolute definition of the word "organization". Which also proves that the statement "we have no organization" is virtually meaningless. I have no objection with an argument being made as to why the friends are an organization in one case and not an organization in another. Clergy in one case, and not clergy in another. Since these words don't have rigorous definitions, they can be argued one way or another. Not always convincingly though. My personal objection is when people say "we have no organization" as if that is true in some absolute sense, or better in some way. The friends regularly mangle English to suit their purposes. Of course they are an organization, a religion, and a denomination in the ordinary sense of those words. When they say "we're not a religion" they are just trying to score points as to how much better their religion is than any other religion in some very fundamental way, and so they believe it to be.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2012 10:15:41 GMT -5
No, it doesn't really say all that much. We really don't know for sure that the law firm was fired....even that is being reported here. For all we know, they could have told Mr.Frandle to take a hike for sending them on a wild goose chase. If he did fire them as is alleged, there are many other possibilities other than misrepresentation, ie excessive fees, poor communication with the client, incompetency, poor personal relationships, etc. I think it's safe to say that ONE reason JF fired him was that he failed to get the charges dismissed, eh? That's attorney # 2 and counting! Why would that be "safe to say"? One thing is "safe to say" and that is that only a tenth of what is posted here is "safe to say".
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 6, 2012 11:01:44 GMT -5
I think it's safe to say that ONE reason JF fired him was that he failed to get the charges dismissed, eh? That's attorney # 2 and counting! Why would that be "safe to say"? One thing is "safe to say" and that is that only a tenth of what is posted here is "safe to say". Duhhh, What, I may be dumb but when it comes to a man wanting to get out of the "charges" the state has against him and when he fires his attorneys who HAVE NOT gotten the charges dismissed....then at least in part, if not in total, JF is very disappointed with his attorneys FOR NOT GETTING THE CHARGES DISMISSED!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 11:13:25 GMT -5
Why would that be "safe to say"? One thing is "safe to say" and that is that only a tenth of what is posted here is "safe to say". Duhhh, What, I may be dumb but when it comes to a man wanting to get out of the "charges" the state has against him and when he fires his attorneys who HAVE NOT gotten the charges dismissed....then at least in part, if not in total, JF is very disappointed with his attorneys FOR NOT GETTING THE CHARGES DISMISSED! 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.
|
|