|
Post by electbygrace on Apr 1, 2012 6:14:45 GMT -5
Telling a "frandle":
There is no denomination. There is no name for these--for the group of people that believe in this form of worship. There is no unified structure. There is no unified chain of command. There, in fact, is nothing.
Imagine if Jesus frandled at his trial:
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
The frandled response:
I am just the son of a poor carpenter. True I've been a good boy but suggesting I'm the Messiah would be stretching things, surely. In fact, there is no hard evidence before this court that God actually exists, so you better just dismiss all charges because you have no evidence and I'm not about to take the rap for anyone else!
As if overseers going soft with child abusers on their staff while distressing the victims even further wasn't enough. This court case is simply DISGUSTING.
Thankfully the Christ spirit is not the Frandle spirit.
|
|
|
Post by spiders on Apr 1, 2012 7:01:27 GMT -5
This group will go to any length possible to try and protect the reputation of the overseers and workers. It is disgusting that an honest person has been subjected to cross examination by JF's lawyer and made out to be someone who does not really know what she is saying, when she is trying to describe the actions of a group that had no accountability. I thought she did a great job under the circumstances and all along JF sat there and let his lawyer tear her to bits! Shame on you Frandle! If you had a shred of decency you would have told your expensive lawyer to stop and tell the truth to the court.
This is similar to the recent court cases in Aust where a pedophile worker hired expensive lawyers and psycologists to get himself a suspended sentence. He was not man enough to face up to his crime and tried to get out of his sentence........ and the overseer just sat there in the court room with him and said nothing!
This group has got far away from the teachings of Jesus that it professes to uphold and has become a law unto themselves. However they cannot fool all of the people all of the time as this current court case involving JF has shown.
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Apr 1, 2012 7:05:53 GMT -5
I have just read the evidence and cross-examination of poor Bonnie Koning. Hard to believe the callousness towards this lady by her overseer's lawyer. Basically Frandle's legal defence is saying she's a lier.
Where is the honorable Mr Frandle in all this? Displaying courage or cowardice?
This is typical of many overseers who regard themselves as little dictators lording it over people while being above the law of the land.
Kind of modern-day Chief Priests who are accounrtable to neither man nor God.
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Apr 1, 2012 7:23:52 GMT -5
Mr Frandle might better brief his lawyer: P.43 Q by Mr frandle's lawyer to Ms Koning - You would agree, would you not that the--when Jesus Christ baptized someone it was to remove the stain of the original sin, correct?John 4 (NIV) Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. Apparently Mr Frandle is also a believer in "original sin"? The prosecution might appreciate the evidence given in writing by the Australian overseer Mr Evan Jones, on the role of overseers in this worldwide "non-organization": www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_later/jonesevan.php
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Apr 1, 2012 8:50:17 GMT -5
Mr Frandle might better brief his lawyer: P.43 Q by Mr frandle's lawyer to Ms Koning - You would agree, would you not that the--when Jesus Christ baptized someone it was to remove the stain of the original sin, correct?John 4 (NIV) Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. Apparently Mr Frandle is also a believer in "original sin"? The prosecution might appreciate the evidence given in writing by the Australian overseer Mr Evan Jones, on the role of overseers in this worldwide "non-organization": www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_later/jonesevan.phpA sad business, the Henderson children. I became good friends with their cousins soon after that tragedy. I had seen EJs statement before but this brought back some memories. Nirvana and Kurt Cobain seemed to be a large influence on them also and it was not long after Cobain took his life that the children did so too. Very sad... EJs frankness and honesty in the statement is refreshing, however he wasn't facing any charges... One can wonder wheter he would have responded the same if he was looking down the barrel of the conviction gun...
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 1, 2012 9:14:02 GMT -5
Quote- 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.
Wow, Ms Koning , that takes courage to testify the truth , as it will come at a cost to you , going against powerful religous corrupt leaders. You could quite likely relate somewhat to Carolyn Jessop , who testifed against "her' powerful religous corrupt leaders in the Flds. She wrote about it in a few books- "TRiumph- Life after the cult- a survivor's lessons", and also "Escape". Her leaders ALSO lied in court to protect themselves. Jon Krakauer review says_" The story of Carolyn Jessop is so weird and shocking that one hesitates to believe a sect like this......could really exist in twenty-first America......much much stranger than fiction....." Alvin
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 1, 2012 9:49:46 GMT -5
This legal document makes interesting reading The quotation below the court's data is interesting reading for sure.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 1, 2012 9:52:46 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... Yes, but the ONE TRUE Shepherd is on the watch for He is making His sheep call and asking His real sheep to gather together in unity and in a tight unbreakable bond and "trample the enemy"....
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 1, 2012 10:03:23 GMT -5
Jerome's attorney spent a great deal of effort in trying to convince the judge that Jerome was not in fact a minister, but just some guy preaching the gospel according to Jesus. No different the you or me. Just some guy simply trying to preach the gospel, not affiliated with anyone, with no authority, etc.
One simple question that the prosecutor could have asked in regards to whether Jerome was a minister or not.
"How does he make his livelihood? Is he a painter? A plumber? A fisherman? A tent maker? A lawyer? A doctor? No, he makes his living (his financial support) via preaching and performing the duties of a minister. He is a full time minister."
Thankfully, the judge saw through the subterfuge of Jerome's attorney and ruled that Jerome, is in fact a minister/clergy and therefore should take responsibility for being a mandated reporter.
Why Jerome/the ministry didn't simply apologize at the beginnning of the case is amazing to me. The crime is a misdeamenor. Like speeding. Or running a stop sign. Sure, the moral issues are much greater then those other misdemeanors which is all the more reason that he should have apologized at the start. Something like this: "I am sorry, your honor for not reporting one of our ministers once I was informed of the allegations against him. It hurts me deeply whenever one of the least of our fellowship is hurt- the children- and we will not tolerate our ministers harming any of them. I was not fully aware of the law and my responsibility as a mandated reporter. I understand my legal responsibility now, and furthermore, even beyond that, I better realize my spiritual responsibility for protecting our friends from possible predators in the ministry."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 10:14:58 GMT -5
That is what a morally responsible person would have done last year, almost exactly that.
It is now even more difficult to make things right now. A guilty plea and an apology would be the best course but nothing can change the lie of "I'm just an ordinary person telling people about Jesus". He now has that to admit to and apologize for if he can ever hope to make things right.
The Motion to Dismiss was a fair action to take because the Statute is not perfectly clear. Mr Frandle or Mr Denk should have offered to testify as to the functions they perform as workers and how the organization operates, then allow the Court to decide whether they are legally mandated reporters. However, what they did in that courtroom to deceive is despicable.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 1, 2012 10:35:35 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" George was pushed to have to do something so that any of the fellowship's male members that were drafted would NOT have to bear arms and a group that doesn't consider itself an organization has NO power within itself to ASK that any of their members be exempted of the laws of the land...so GW just like WP did what they had to in order that their members and particularly their peers would not be forced to bear arms or withstand the laws of the land.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 1, 2012 10:40:28 GMT -5
That is what a morally responsible person would have done last year, almost exactly that. It is now even more difficult to make things right now. A guilty plea and an apology would be the best course but nothing can change the lie of "I'm just an ordinary person telling people about Jesus". He now has that to admit to and apologize for if he can ever hope to make things right. The Motion to Dismiss was a fair action to take because the Statute is not perfectly clear. Mr Frandle or Mr Denk should have offered to testify as to the functions they perform as workers and how the organization operates, then allow the Court to decide whether they are legally mandated reporters. However, what they did in that courtroom to deceive is despicable. I can se why JF had to fire that attorney and probably why he fired the second one....if they'd stayed his attorney, there's the possibility that he would be charged with perjuring himself in court! That would have been a worse charge! Also JF knows that if he cannot get this charge in the Britt case that he may well stand a whole bunch of such charges in the Peter Mousseau account...for he had sent PM to Wisconsin knowing full well what PM had done in Michigan and JF had movede PM as much as possible in Michigan and ran out of places to send PM, so he traded him off to Wisconsin.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 1, 2012 11:16:59 GMT -5
If Jerome and/or other overseers do not consider themselves to be "ministers" as per his defense, then why do they call the work "the ministry"? Wouldn't a "ministry" be made up of "ministers"?
Do I need to get the documents that I asked an overseer sign as my minister revoked because the overseers' position, as Jerome's defense is indicating, do not believe that they are in fact "legally" ministers? What about the documents that other overseers have filled out for getting ministers into other countries? Do they need to be revoked because the overseers are not, in fact, "legally" ministers?
What about those that register as Conscientious Objectors with the signatures of workers testifying as to our beliefs as our ministers? Was George Walker lying about there being a hierarchy of fields and overseers and workers and elders in his letter to the United States government?
Did none of the overseers' think this defense through before trying to go down the path of deception/plausible deniability?
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive” Sir Walter Scott.
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." Jesus Christ
|
|
|
Post by tank on Apr 1, 2012 11:31:04 GMT -5
Wonder if all this mess will effect and affect the amount of monies generated by those still in. I would wonder if my money was going to "protection of the ministery" instead of helping the "gospel go forth". Possibly, it could be claimed as legal fees on your income taxes, at least there would be a record of the court cost.
I too can sense that some major changes are about to occur. I'm sure there will be many who will be looking for a lifeboat as the ship continues to take on more and more water. How much money will it take to keep the ship (fellowship) afloat? How many families have to be torn apart? How many more lies do the followers have to hear before they question?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 12:07:26 GMT -5
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. Did the judge find that he was a mandated reporter? Just wondering if that is stated anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 12:19:22 GMT -5
That is what a morally responsible person would have done last year, almost exactly that. It is now even more difficult to make things right now. A guilty plea and an apology would be the best course but nothing can change the lie of "I'm just an ordinary person telling people about Jesus". He now has that to admit to and apologize for if he can ever hope to make things right. The Motion to Dismiss was a fair action to take because the Statute is not perfectly clear. Mr Frandle or Mr Denk should have offered to testify as to the functions they perform as workers and how the organization operates, then allow the Court to decide whether they are legally mandated reporters. However, what they did in that courtroom to deceive is despicable. This is just how courts work. If any defence lawyer acted on the sentiments of posters on this thread, he'd be out of business in no time. My only criticism of this defence lawyer is that he appears to have made a bad job of it. I'm not following the case very closely, but am amused by various comments that Jerome should have told the lawyer how to run his case. I've seen a couple of posts that there is a new lawyer on the case? Just wondered what that is all about. Incidentally is this a jury trial?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 1, 2012 12:27:28 GMT -5
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. Did the judge find that he was a mandated reporter? Just wondering if that is stated anywhere. No. The judge found that he's a member of the clergy. He stated that he's leaving it to the jury to decide whether JF is a mandated reporter, if I read it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 12:41:42 GMT -5
Did the judge find that he was a mandated reporter? Just wondering if that is stated anywhere. No. The judge found that he's a member of the clergy. He stated that he's leaving it to the jury to decide whether JF is a mandated reporter, if I read it correctly. Okay, and if they decide that he is, then the case would proceed to trial? Is there a transcript or factual account of the trial around anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 1, 2012 13:26:10 GMT -5
No. The judge found that he's a member of the clergy. He stated that he's leaving it to the jury to decide whether JF is a mandated reporter, if I read it correctly. Okay, and if they decide that he is, then the case would proceed to trial? Is there a transcript or factual account of the trial around anywhere? As far as I can tell, it hasn't gone to trial yet.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 13:56:49 GMT -5
The staunch 2x2s are conspicuously absent from the discussions about the transcript. Where are the Noelses, Berts, Todds, Emys, Linfordbledsoes and Hberrys? Is Jerome representative of your ministry? Is Barry Barkley, who is certainly aware of what is going on, representative of your ministry? Is Ray Hoffman, who apparently has been in every court hearing with Jerome, representative of your ministry and the ministry of Jesus Christ? They are all in agreement. Are you in agreement with them? At least they are going 2x2 and having meetings in homes. If they were not, we would have no way of knowing they were preaching the true gospel.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 1, 2012 14:07:59 GMT -5
And these are the leaders of the leaders acting this way.
Sorry to say this again, but this is a pattern that is happening all over the world in the 2x2s in matters of morality among the leaders of the leaders. South Africa, South America, Australia, Canada and East and West USA.
Heretofore, most places have just been very good at covering their immorality up. Back when I was talking about the goings on in South America and South Africa in the work and saying that it was not just isolated events, the defense team for the friends and workers on the TMB were saying things eerily similar to Jerome's defense attorney. Where is your proof for what you have seen all your life and know first hand?
It does not take a lawyer or a court to know that Jerome is being deceptive. Even if he is proven innocent of the laws of the land, he is still lying before God and the friends. Similarly, just because brother and sister workers having affairs is not illegal does not mean that they are not destroying people's souls with their immorality and deception.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 1, 2012 14:50:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 14:51:37 GMT -5
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. Did the judge find that he was a mandated reporter? Just wondering if that is stated anywhere. It is stated unequivocally that he is a member of the clergy. I quoted the relevant section in my post #23. It defines Mr.Frandle as a member of the clergy under MCL 722.622 (l) which is what forms the basis for a mandated reporter in MCL 722.623
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 15:08:16 GMT -5
The staunch 2x2s are conspicuously absent from the discussions about the transcript. Where are the Noelses, Berts, Todds, Emys, Linfordbledsoes and Hberrys? Is Jerome representative of your ministry? Is Barry Barkley, who is certainly aware of what is going on, representative of your ministry? Is Ray Hoffman, who apparently has been in every court hearing with Jerome, representative of your ministry and the ministry of Jesus Christ? They are all in agreement. Are you in agreement with them? At least they are going 2x2 and having meetings in homes. If they were not, we would have no way of knowing they were preaching the true gospel. Where's the transcript?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 1, 2012 15:08:25 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. What is the date for this statement? If this has been determined, is there a trial date set?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 1, 2012 15:08:55 GMT -5
The group has not changed. They have been lying since the early days, first about their history and now about not being an orgainised church with workers/minsters.
If this Frandle guy is allowed to continue in the work then the workers who allow it are just as guilty as him. They are supporting the lie that they are not ministers of the Gospel.
Having no name was a good ploy which came handy in this case of lying that they are not an organised group. There is more to having no name than meets the eye. Guess they will keep it this way in case they need it for their defense in future.
Only the gullible would keep believing that this is not an organised church regardless if they choose to make their name known or not. One thing that seemed not to have come up, but then I have not read much about the case considering all there is online, is that they have been registered under different names. This church has told so many lies that it may be hard for those inside to work out the truth from the lies.
It's time they stopped calling themselves the truth. Time for workers to be honest. Time to stop believing it is OK to lie for the sake of the truth. Something which was alive and well when I was in.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 1, 2012 15:19:54 GMT -5
The staunch 2x2s are conspicuously absent from the discussions about the transcript. Where are the Noelses, Berts, Todds, Emys, Linfordbledsoes and Hberrys? Is Jerome representative of your ministry? Is Barry Barkley, who is certainly aware of what is going on, representative of your ministry? Is Ray Hoffman, who apparently has been in every court hearing with Jerome, representative of your ministry and the ministry of Jesus Christ? They are all in agreement. Are you in agreement with them? At least they are going 2x2 and having meetings in homes. If they were not, we would have no way of knowing they were preaching the true gospel. I think they're prepared to let the court do its work, as opposed to the kangaroo court being held here. I thought someone was posting up some news here today, and now I found out this was something said two months ago, by an associate of an ex-lawyer about a pre-trial motion to determine the status of the defendant. (Although the quote in the OP still sounds like quite a silly argument to me, all the same.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 15:24:23 GMT -5
Did the judge find that he was a mandated reporter? Just wondering if that is stated anywhere. No. The judge found that he's a member of the clergy. He stated that he's leaving it to the jury to decide whether JF is a mandated reporter, if I read it correctly. Sort of, sort of not, the way I read it. The ruling makes him A mandated reporter, but the jury will decide if he is THE mandated reporter for this case. ie "It's up to the jury to decide whether or not he was a person that was required to report it".
|
|