|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 6, 2012 11:29:52 GMT -5
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. That's exactly as I read it as well.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2012 11:31:38 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! Perhaps, but that doesn't meant that is why he fired them, if he even fired them. It's just a guess on your part. I guess I don't like guessing games very much.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 6, 2012 11:39:41 GMT -5
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. When I write about this case, I typically try to write "JF/overseers". I am not impugning them on hearsay. Court transcripts are not hearsay. This is a true recording of what happened at the hearing. I feel that I have every right as a member of this organization to hold my leaders accountible. And, in my opinion, they are acting like cowards and those skilled in the art of deception. Which they are- they are masters of double-speak. I am so HAPPY that they were caught in their double-speak. I have tried to make sense of the double-speak for all my life by rationalizing that it must be right because the workers don't do wrong. Standard worker double-speak- We are clergy/we aren't clergy. We believe we are the only right way/we don't believe we are the only right way. We are apostles exactly like Jesus sent out/we aren't apostles exactly like Jesus sent out. This way goes back to Jesus/this way doesn't go back to Jesus. We have no rules/we have rules. We have no authority/we have authority. Etc. Etc. Etc. What, do you think that customizing one's answer based on the person asking the question can be called "integrity"? Merriam Webster lists the definition of integrity as: the quality or state of being complete or undivided Do you really think that Jerome and the overseers feel like they have no authority? I've heard from convention this past year where overseers' have spoken about their authority that would beg to disagree. Evan Jones' testimony to another court disagrees with both notions deceitfully floated by the overseers at this hearing- that they are not part of an organization and that they have no authority. I expect better from my leaders. I expect truth, not double-speak. Merriam-Webster defines "double-speak" as: ": language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth; also : gobbledygook"
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2012 11:45:06 GMT -5
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. The proceedings sound "rinky dink" in every way, although I'm not well versed in court matters. But it's a new, untried statute with major principles and definitions for which there few precedents to guide the way. And these very important definitions and principles related to a very new statute are being worked out in some backwater in Michigan with a defence lawyer who is sub-bing for the actual lawyer on an emergency basis with an impatient judge. And here we are, a bunch of mostly ignorant armchair critics, myself included, commenting on definitions and principles related to a new statute being worked out in a court in a backwater in Michigan by a defence lawyer who is sub-bing for an actual lawyer on an emergency basis with an impatient judge. So why am I posting here? I don't know; I think I should really go do something else.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 6, 2012 11:47:27 GMT -5
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! Perhaps, but that doesn't meant that is why he fired them, if he even fired them. It's just a guess on your part. I guess I don't like guessing games very much. It is just as likely that the lawyers dropped Jerome as a client.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2012 12:03:14 GMT -5
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. When I write about this case, I typically try to write "JF/overseers". I am not impugning them on hearsay. Court transcripts are not hearsay. This is a true recording of what happened at the hearing. I feel that I have every right as a member of this organization to hold my leaders accountible. And, in my opinion, they are acting like cowards and those skilled in the art of deception. Which they are. Hearsay is "information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience." Thus anything that Mr. Lessing states about the fellowship is "hearsay". That's my problem with taking his words as Jerome Frandel's words. Now, of course, Mr. Lessing got many of his ideas from JF, so at the level of criticizing people's ideas I have no issue. But attacks upon the workers using someone else's words is not fair play. We're basically in agreement there. It's the "la la" aspects of fellowship belief meeting reality. Sometimes there's quite a collision. A lot of it is 'double-speak'; some of it is pure cognitive dissonance. Where you and I come apart possibly is that honorable people with perfectly good intentions are capable of it. Another interesting line of thinking to consider is whether these memes come from the workers. Here's an example. When we first went to convention we were led to believe by many of the friends that the whole event happened spontaneously with everyone just pitching in where they can, and bringing the food and stuff that is needed. All presented as evidence that "we don't need an organization". Well, of course, that is pure myth, a great deal of organizational effort occurs to make a convention work. It's still quite wonderful how people pitch in, but group exclusivity can take these good qualities to a fever pitch. And the workers know themselves that a lot of things the over-zealous types say aren't quite accurate. Take my convention example, if anyone knows that it doesn't happen spontaneously, it's the workers. 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.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 6, 2012 12:13:42 GMT -5
When I write about this case, I typically try to write "JF/overseers". I am not impugning them on hearsay. Court transcripts are not hearsay. This is a true recording of what happened at the hearing. I feel that I have every right as a member of this organization to hold my leaders accountible. And, in my opinion, they are acting like cowards and those skilled in the art of deception. Which they are. Hearsay is "information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience." Thus anything that Mr. Lessing states about the fellowship is "hearsay". That's my problem with taking his words as Jerome Frandel's words. Now, of course, Mr. Lessing got many of his ideas from JF, so at the level of criticizing people's ideas I have no issue. But attacks upon the workers using someone else's words is not fair play. We're basically in agreement there. It's the "la la" aspects of fellowship belief meeting reality. Sometimes there's quite a collision. A lot of it is 'double-speak'; some of it is pure cognitive dissonance. Where you and I come apart possibly is that honorable people with perfectly good intentions are capable of it. Another interesting line of thinking to consider is whether these memes come from the workers. Here's an example. When we first went to convention we were led to believe by many of the friends that the whole event happened spontaneously with everyone just pitching in where they can, and bringing the food and stuff that is needed. All presented as evidence that "we don't need an organization". Well, of course, that is pure myth, a great deal of organizational effort occurs to make a convention work. It's still quite wonderful how people pitch in, but group exclusivity can take these good qualities to a fever pitch. And the workers know themselves that a lot of things the over-zealous types say aren't quite accurate. Take my convention example, if anyone knows that it doesn't happen spontaneously, it's the workers. 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. Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 6, 2012 12:15:06 GMT -5
Duhhh, What, I may be dumb... Do you really want to discuss this on a public forum? Was there ever a time before any of the lawyers were replaced when the ruling went against JF? It is only the last lawyer that did not get the charges dismissed. You theory as to why the other lawyers were replaced if not supported by your premise.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 6, 2012 12:19:28 GMT -5
When I write about this case, I typically try to write "JF/overseers". I am not impugning them on hearsay. Court transcripts are not hearsay. This is a true recording of what happened at the hearing. I feel that I have every right as a member of this organization to hold my leaders accountible. And, in my opinion, they are acting like cowards and those skilled in the art of deception. Which they are. Hearsay is "information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience." Thus anything that Mr. Lessing states about the fellowship is "hearsay". That's my problem with taking his words as Jerome Frandel's words. Now, of course, Mr. Lessing got many of his ideas from JF, so at the level of criticizing people's ideas I have no issue. But attacks upon the workers using someone else's words is not fair play. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 12:32:42 GMT -5
While Mr.Lessing's words are hearsay, that doesn't mean they are meaningless or bear no relationship to Mr. Frandle's positions and information supplied by him. Mr.Lessing's full intention is to represent Mr.Frandle's position so we have three choices: 1.Lessing is a liar, 2.Lessing is mistaken or 3. Lessing is accurately portraying his client's position.
Mr.Lessing is a professional whose job is to accurately represent his clients and he would face serious censure if he lied in the Courtroom. So that leaves #2 or #3 as the only real possibilities, and #2 is a valid consideration.
All bible preaching is hearsay, so one might conclude that you cannot be convicted of its truth on that basis.
Furthermore, a great deal of the bible is hearsay. Even Jesus' red-letter words are all hearsay because they are not his own writings, but the writings of someone who may or may not have heard him. Of course bible apologists claim that God wrote the bible which improves its accuracy considerably.
On the basis of hearsay, perhaps we should discount the record of Jesus' words. I don't say that sarcastically either. Modern scholars have expended a great deal of effort examining the words of Jesus and have graded the bible recordings according the probabilities of whether Jesus actually said it or not. There is a small book by Borg called "The Gospel of Q" which consists only of Jesus' sayings that are highly probable that they were actually said by Jesus. It's remarkable to consider how many sayings recorded were likely never spoken by Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 12:35:38 GMT -5
Duhhh, What, I may be dumb... Do you really want to discuss this on a public forum? Was there ever a time before any of the lawyers were replaced when the ruling went against JF? It is only the last lawyer that did not get the charges dismissed. You theory as to why the other lawyers were replaced if not supported by your premise. I may be dumb because I have no idea how the above quotes got attributed to me.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Apr 6, 2012 12:38:11 GMT -5
[quote author=clearday board=general thread=19067 post=460230 time=1333657720
[/quote]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.[/quote]
This is going into my pipe (unsanctioned that it may be) to smoke. Thanks, Clearday
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 6, 2012 18:43:21 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.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 6, 2012 19:01:11 GMT -5
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. I think the prosecutor had several avenues she could have used....and the reason for that is she had no way of knowing which direction the substitute attorney would take with his request for dismissal...If he'd just stated that MR. Frandle had not attended theology school or even bible school and was NOT a clergy in the normal sense of things...then I suspect the case likely would have been dismissed...but NO the defense attorney tried to get wordy and say that it wasn't an organization, it wasn't a religion etc. He did go on and on about what the fellowship was NOT.....so that was a matter of him sticking his foot right into the prosecutor's way of thinking...she was ready for that....and I suspect she knew this attorney well enough to know how he argued his cases....they DO get to knowing that about one another. And they're always trying to out think one another and bring in a "new" thought or way that the other hadn't heard of, etc. Though they both share the evidence that the prosecutor has on their desk in any one case.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 6, 2012 19:06:14 GMT -5
Duhhh, What, I may be dumb... Do you really want to discuss this on a public forum? Was there ever a time before any of the lawyers were replaced when the ruling went against JF? It is only the last lawyer that did not get the charges dismissed. You theory as to why the other lawyers were replaced if not supported by your premise. I understand his first attorney, a lady, had reccommended to JF to face the judge with a no contest plea and take what the judge wanted to hand out...but no, jf didn't want to go that route and since she didn't apparently present much help to get the charges dismissed she was fired....That's what I've heard and I think it's been posted here on TMB as such.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 6, 2012 19:09:07 GMT -5
Perhaps, but that doesn't meant that is why he fired them, if he even fired them. It's just a guess on your part. I guess I don't like guessing games very much. It is just as likely that the lawyers dropped Jerome as a client. I heard from someone who is close to the case and they said he "fired his attorney"!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 6, 2012 19:14:28 GMT -5
While Mr.Lessing's words are hearsay, that doesn't mean they are meaningless or bear no relationship to Mr. Frandle's positions and information supplied by him. Mr.Lessing's full intention is to represent Mr.Frandle's position so we have three choices: 1.Lessing is a liar, 2.Lessing is mistaken or 3. Lessing is accurately portraying his client's position. Mr.Lessing is a professional whose job is to accurately represent his clients and he would face serious censure if he lied in the Courtroom. So that leaves #2 or #3 as the only real possibilities, and #2 is a valid consideration. All bible preaching is hearsay, so one might conclude that you cannot be convicted of its truth on that basis. Furthermore, a great deal of the bible is hearsay. Even Jesus' red-letter words are all hearsay because they are not his own writings, but the writings of someone who may or may not have heard him. Of course bible apologists claim that God wrote the bible which improves its accuracy considerably. On the basis of hearsay, perhaps we should discount the record of Jesus' words. I don't say that sarcastically either. Modern scholars have expended a great deal of effort examining the words of Jesus and have graded the bible recordings according the probabilities of whether Jesus actually said it or not. There is a small book by Borg called "The Gospel of Q" which consists only of Jesus' sayings that are highly probable that they were actually said by Jesus. It's remarkable to consider how many sayings recorded were likely never spoken by Jesus. I suspect in the "briefing" that Mr. Lessing's partner brought him up-to-date with JF's case wasn't enough time for Mr. Lessing to have a very good understanding exactly what the worker meant and what the fellowship was, etc. It is NOT a normal everyday religion, so we cannot expect even the brainiest guys to be able to handle a court case after a 5-10 min. briefing. Now can we? I sure wouldn't appreciate it to have a "substitute attorney" come into a case of mine and do as bad a hatchet job as Mr. Lessing did...I think I paid the retainer fee and I should get the attorney I paid for..... I think it is like I mentioned earlier, this "misdemeanor" charge is something the attorneys probably very seldom deal with....it is hardly worth their time to set up their defense mode on...or that's what I've heard somea ttorneys say. I think the Mr. Lessing and his partner(s) thought it'd be a snap to go in and get the charges dismissed...but they did NOt consider that their client was in something that is difficult to call as far as a religion is concerned!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 6, 2012 19:15:57 GMT -5
Do you really want to discuss this on a public forum? Was there ever a time before any of the lawyers were replaced when the ruling went against JF? It is only the last lawyer that did not get the charges dismissed. You theory as to why the other lawyers were replaced if not supported by your premise. I may be dumb because I have no idea how the above quotes got attributed to me. Nor does the 'dumb one"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 20:34:36 GMT -5
Do you really want to discuss this on a public forum? Was there ever a time before any of the lawyers were replaced when the ruling went against JF? It is only the last lawyer that did not get the charges dismissed. You theory as to why the other lawyers were replaced if not supported by your premise. I understand his first attorney, a lady, had reccommended to JF to face the judge with a no contest plea and take what the judge wanted to hand out...but no, jf didn't want to go that route and since she didn't apparently present much help to get the charges dismissed she was fired....That's what I've heard and I think it's been posted here on TMB as such. If your information is correct regarding the first lawyer's advice for a No Contest plea and a strong disinterest in filing a Motion for Dismissal , she got it right based on what I have seen about this case.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2012 23:33:53 GMT -5
Hearsay is "information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience." Thus anything that Mr. Lessing states about the fellowship is "hearsay". That's my problem with taking his words as Jerome Frandel's words. Now, of course, Mr. Lessing got many of his ideas from JF, so at the level of criticizing people's ideas I have no issue. But attacks upon the workers using someone else's words is not fair play. 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?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2012 23:39:57 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. Only crackpots and kooks represent themselves in court.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 7, 2012 0:31:04 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. Only crackpots and kooks represent themselves in court. I understand that. I would rather have seen Jerome take the risk of being seen as a crackpot and a kook and verify the verity of Ms Koning than to sit by and watch his lawyer take her TRUTHFUL (and he knew it was truthful) testimony and try to make it and her look like a kook and a crackpot. How courts work really is not of much interest to me in this case. Courts work on law and not necessarily righteousness. They are two completely different things. I believe that the friends and workers have every reason to expect that Jerome would be more interested in righteousness than law, also. What they are seeing is typical worker legal wranglings and twisting of the truth. I hope it becomes more plain to more people that this is what goes on in private when they are not accountable to a having it all put down on public record.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 7, 2012 8:25:08 GMT -5
Only crackpots and kooks represent themselves in court. This was a motion to dismiss by Jerome and his legal team. It wasn't a trial. And while Jerome/overseers didn't have to testify, the least that they could have done would be to ensure that their role in the organization was accurately portrayed and then let the judge decide whether or not to dismiss the case. Remember, these are folks that preach strongly to others about being a Daniel or David or Joseph. Not fearing the king's commandments. Doing what is right despite the opposition. This was their time to shine. Instead, they resorted to a defense of deception and double-speak.
|
|
|
Post by Barry G on Apr 7, 2012 8:29:15 GMT -5
Only crackpots and kooks represent themselves in court. ... and people who know they are guilty and are willing to accept responsibility for what they have done ... or are those the 'crackpots and kooks' you are talking about?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 7, 2012 10:32:13 GMT -5
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. Could the overseers be so unworldly educated/experienced to NOT know that for a misdeamor charge that MOST NORMAL people plea no contest and take whatever sentence the judge hands out....AND the PLUS on that is that the judge will tell this said no contest pleaer that IF there are no more misdeamor/felong charges that in a year they can go to the administrative office in the courthouse and have the charge expunged off their record.....so that it can never be used again. That alone is worth not MAKING WAVES about the charges!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 7, 2012 10:39:12 GMT -5
Only crackpots and kooks represent themselves in court. This was a motion to dismiss by Jerome and his legal team. It wasn't a trial. And while Jerome/overseers didn't have to testify, the least that they could have done would be to ensure that their role in the organization was accurately portrayed and then let the judge decide whether or not to dismiss the case. Remember, these are folks that preach strongly to others about being a Daniel or David or Joseph. Not fearing the king's commandments. Doing what is right despite the opposition. This was their time to shine. Instead, they resorted to a defense of deception and double-speak. And yes, I myself have heard some of these most top overseers preach about the scripture where Jesus told His Apostles NOT to worry about what to say for the Spirit would given them "utterance" as needed and in the day needed. But apparently these top overseers have forgotten their own sermons in this regard and have resorted to spending loads of money and loads of their time trying to fight a lilttle "misdeamor charge". It is totally asinine behaviour!
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 7, 2012 10:43:05 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).
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 7, 2012 16:14:35 GMT -5
I think it is like I mentioned earlier, this "misdemeanor" charge is something the attorneys probably very seldom deal with....it is hardly worth their time to set up their defense mode on...or that's what I've heard somea ttorneys say. Where do you come up with these things? NY and FL try about a half million misdemeanor cases a year each. And there are lawyers involved in most of them. The city of Detroit has a contract for 14,000 cases a year with a firm that provides lawyers.
|
|