|
Post by sharonw on Apr 13, 2012 19:02:30 GMT -5
but YOU are taking the analogy further than I ever heard ET (or anyone else) do. He never claimed silly things like that he was "one flesh" with his companion. He kept it to basic lessons about human relationships--and I think having a lot of companions probably would teach a person a good deal about those. I am not the one taking this analogy as far as I wrote. I am only telling it like it was spoken of in the work. I am not saying that the workers said they are one flesh with their companions. I am saying that the comparison of a companions' relationship to marriage is not right at all. They are co workers, not a married couple. My wife is in submission to me because I am her head. We are one flesh. Jesus is my head. The workers DO promote the younger companion submitting to the older in much the same way as a married couple. That is wrong. Submission is a big doctrine in the work. The older companion is not the head of the younger companion. The brother workers are not the head of the sister workers. The workers try to make all these marriage substitutes but it is false doctrine and detracts from the importance of marriage in the meetings. Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: And as Paul wrote to the parents not to antagonize the children...I would think that good advice between man and wife....certainly if a man loves himself he is not going to antagonize or abuse his wife.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 13, 2012 19:12:19 GMT -5
Workers are NOT one flesh with each other. And married people are not one flesh either. This is simply a metaphor. While having sex might be pleasant (I am assuming that is where the one flesh metaphor comes from) there are couples who are not having sex who are as close as couples who are having sex. Inserting one body part into another body opening does not impart some magical power or trait. Dream on, Rational....when there is love between sexual partners there is a level of being "one flesh" outside of the physical act of sex. The intimacy of loving man and wife can no where be compared to that of best friends....apparently you've either not been married or you have not gotten the "intimacy" part of that marriage as many wedded folks do. I'm leaving out same sex partners because I don't know about their "intimacy".....I say this because I don't want someone saying that I don't have any idea what I'm saying. I will say this, Rational....Even I did not realize the godly connection of a loving man and wife UNTIL my husband lay dying! And as the bible has shown that Christ loves His church as He loves himself and has suffered himself so that His church will(bride) will be pure for Him. Not very many men want an unpure wife....now do they? I know you don't believe in God and you cannot understand how that God is the one who instituionalized the union of man and wife...but He did.... And I have heard several different workers make the comment that being in the work is like marriage....but then I have also heard some of these same workers say that it isn't and that was AFTER they actually left the work and got married! So perhaps, the workers do think they have all the answers for wedded bliss...but that doesn't really qualify them for marriage counselors, now does it? Just because they "think" they have all the answers....
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 13, 2012 20:03:04 GMT -5
... There is not ONE doctrine that we knew in the States that was not in South Africa.... So the F&W doctrine IS consistent across the globe? I could swear I've read on here that it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 13, 2012 20:20:22 GMT -5
... There is not ONE doctrine that we knew in the States that was not in South Africa.... So the F&W doctrine IS consistent across the globe? I could swear I've read on here that it's not. There is doctrine and there is mistaken (by hearer) opinion and private interpretation. Anyone who thinks they have heard doctrine is mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by cheechette on Apr 13, 2012 21:26:47 GMT -5
Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives!
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 13, 2012 21:36:00 GMT -5
Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives! All she did at the hearing was explain what a minister within the 2x2s did as part of their job. I didn't read anything in her answer that wasn't true or that seemed against Jerome. She said what any honest friend or worker would have said. I am not sure, but I think that you are breaking board rules by making undocumented claims against her here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 22:17:23 GMT -5
Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives! Thanks for the background. I was wondering how rational or anyone else would be able to see "vindictive and unpure motives" in the court room.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 13, 2012 23:45:00 GMT -5
Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives! Thanks for the background. I was wondering how rational or anyone else would be able to see "vindictive and unpure motives" in the court room. Aside from the question of motives, which is speculation, how did she become the key witness on the issue of ministry, when it can't be said that she has any special knowledge? Clearly she would have no personal knowledge of many of the things she was asked about. I'm not saying she did not speak truthfully. In a case in Edmonton some years ago, if I recall correctly, they consulted J. Gordon Melton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 1:56:43 GMT -5
Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives! Thanks for the background. I was wondering how rational or anyone else would be able to see "vindictive and unpure motives" in the court room. If there is any truth in this then the defence should exploit this to the full, especially in front of a Jury. From reading the transcript she comes across as an excellent prosecution witness, even well prepared! The defence could turn her inside out if she is coming forward through dishonourable motives. They might not prove any lying (I could see none in her testimony about the workings of the way), but if she is vindictive towards JF this could be exploited and the sentiments would not be lost on the Jury, or indeed the Judge.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2012 4:18:16 GMT -5
Rational, glad you are calling someone else a liar instead of me for a change. Where did I say anyone was a liar? Of course, no one has to respond or even read anything I write. I even helped the Administrator to install an Ignore button. But, on the other side of the coin, when things do not make sense, I will raise the question of veracity. Does it bother you when I consider the veracity of something posted to be questionable and ask for some detail to help explain why an experience that is contrary to what others have experienced? Hopefully it helps to present a less biased view when people are asked to verify their posts. Perhaps it will also cause others to think about a point made and question it for themselves. Yes, If I came into the house, late for dinner, and said that 5 workers has kidnapped me and taken me on a joy ride, my mother would raise some questions. And If I sat at the table and, based on behavior I observed a single teacher, tried to paint all teachers with the same broad brush, my parents would have raised questions. And if you post something that I feel is incorrect I will do my best to find independent verification (perhaps a copy of the appropriate state law, for example) and ask you to support your post. And then you can respond, present some verification (other than "Everyone knew" or some equally arcane) and prove that I was wrong for questioning your post. Or you can, as you have chosen to do many times in the past, just ignore the question rather than admit that your post was incorrect. Does that address your concerns and questions?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2012 4:21:57 GMT -5
Rational, When you asked if someone was vindictive or unpure motives..... When Mrs. Koning testified for the court, if you would have been there, you would have read written across her forehead the words "Vindictive" and "Unpure Motives". I don't believe I ever asked if anyone was "vindictive" or was acting with "unpure motives". That was TS, again, twisting what I had stated. Have to wonder why TS never apologized for that misquote. Some people have a difficult time admitting an error.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2012 4:57:48 GMT -5
Dream on, Rational....when there is love between sexual partners there is a level of being "one flesh" outside of the physical act of sex. Perhaps you can explain "one flesh" because 'one' and 'flesh' are pretty common words. Or perhaps you believe that there are no longer two individuals but now there is only a single entity, a couple. If you do that would be, in my opinion, very sad. I am married, once, for decades. I also have friends, the best one being my wife. However, we are individuals. She has her mind and, although she is certain I have lost it, I have my mind as well. We are not one flesh, in any sense of the word. If sex is not a big factor in intimacy, why would this matter? Well, the fact that you have said this intimacy is outside of the sexual relationship, then said that you didn't know about homosexuals and their ability for intimacy because you don't know about their intimacy really shows that there are some huge knowledge gaps in what you are saying. That is a sad story - on so many levels. Again, I what makes a woman 'unpure'? The bible says any menstruating woman is unclean/impure. Using this definition I wanted an impure wife.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2012 5:16:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the background. I was wondering how rational or anyone else would be able to see "vindictive and unpure motives" in the court room. Sometimes I wonder if people read these posts. I have never said there were "vindictive and unpure motives" anywhere. I simply asked the question wondering who had the motive. cheechette provided one possibility: Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives! Is it true? - Well, others have reported that BK did meet with some workers in a failed attempt to get money.
- It is known that JF did talk to the family about abuse.
- The workers did help the children when they elected to leave the home.
- JF would not tell BK where the children were being kept.
- The state did step in and remove the children from the home.
- There was a nolo contendere plea at the abuse trial.
- She was a witness, and was not considered to be a hostile witness.
So at least part of the claims seem to ring true.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Apr 14, 2012 6:01:21 GMT -5
Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives! Cheechette: Maybe she was encouraged by some others to be a witness. I feel sure there is more behind this than meets the eye.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 7:44:27 GMT -5
Thanks for the background. I was wondering how rational or anyone else would be able to see "vindictive and unpure motives" in the court room. Sometimes I wonder if people read these posts. I have never said there were "vindictive and unpure motives" anywhere. I simply asked the question wondering who had the motive. I didn't say that you said that, it was cheechette who said that you would have seen that IF you were in the courtroom. You're not reading the posts yourself. Allow me to explain the conversation between cheechette and myself and it may help explain why you are jumping to strange conclusions and why the question remains unanswered. The conversation was between myself and cheechette in which I asked her to explain her conclusion that you (rational) would be able to see it on Ms.Koning's forehead that she was "vindictive" and had "unpure motives": " Rational, When you asked if someone was vindictive or unpure motives..... When Mrs. Koning testified for the court , if you would have been there, you would have read written across her forehead the words "Vindictive" and "Unpure Motives". " That's when I asked her (not you) how you (rational) would be able see in the courtroom that Ms Koning was vindictive and unpure. I read the transcript and I couldn't read any vindictiveness or unpure motives in Ms Koning's words so I am very curious as to how she expressed this, as my previous post asked: "How did Ms.Koning express her "Vindictive" and "Unpure Motives" attitude?" Sorry but that doesn't explain to me how you (rational) or anyone else sitting in that courtroom could see on Ms Koning's "forehead" that she was vindictive or had unpure motives. The above tells some background story but does not explain how it was so obvious in the courtroom. None of the above appears in the transcripts. I thought you might be curious yourself how you would have been able to see the vindictiveness and unpure motives on the forehead of Ms.Koning in the courtroom, had you been there. I don't see any of this in the court transcripts so I have no idea how it all this would be so obvious in the courtroom. The question remains the same: How could rational (or anyone else, particularly the judge) be able to see the vindictiveness and unpure motives on the forehead of Ms Koning in the courtroom? I remain curious as to how Ms Koning expressed this in the courtroom. I am further curious that if this was so obvious in the courtroom, why didn't the judge see this and discount her testimony? It appears to me that he accepted her testimony completely and based his ruling almost entirely on her testimony. Had Ms Koning been so obviously vindictive, surely the judge would have seen that and rejected her testimony. Hope that helps rational. What started out as a very simple question to cheechette got rather circuitous.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 14, 2012 8:41:27 GMT -5
Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives! 1) Are you telling me that, that only a person with a supposed personal vendetta against Jerome is the only friend that was willing to testify truthfully for the prosecution? No other friends would dare speak truthfully for the State of Michigan and Jerome would have been "off the hook"? Isn't another worker on the witness list for the prosecution? Are you calling his motives into question as well? Would it only be friends with "vindictive and unpure motives" that would dare speak truthfully for the State of Michigan? Wouldn't the motive be JUST AS UNPURE to not come forward and speak the truth? Would YOU have testified for the prosecution, if asked, to describe the duties of a minister of your fellowship- knowing that it is helping the prosecutors case against Jerome? If not, why, and what would that say about your motives? And if you would have, then would you have liked it for people to question your motives as being vindictive and unpure- simply because you spoke the truth? 2) Why did BK ask for money? As a bribe to not testify? (<-- sort of the insinuation being given by your post) Because she is in financial straits like so many of us and needs the money? Why bring that up? How does that speak to motive? Finally, do the friends and workers not understand how tone deaf this makes them appear? All that matters is this- did Jerome or did Jerome not report an incident if he should have? The courts will decide that. It is a misdemeanor- no big deal. The personal attack on BK is unseemly and uncalled for. Why not attack the prosecutor as well? She didn't have to move forward with the case- prosecutors can turn down cases for lack of evidence. Does she have a personal vendetta against Jerome as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 9:32:30 GMT -5
Ms.Koning's motives have nothing to do with whether Mr.Frandle is guilty as charged, or not, you're exactly right on that one sacerdotal.
Ms.Koning's motives could bring her testimony into question because vindictive motives will tempt people to lie. The problem with that though is that in fact, Ms.Koning's testimony was generally accurate and truthful. That's what counts in a court of law, and it should count for something anywhere.
What is interesting is that in the transcript itself, I can find no words of Ms.Koning's which indicate any guile or vindictiveness on her part. That's why I'm so curious as to why cheechette states that it was "on her forehead" in the courtroom as it was so obvious. I want to know how it was so obvious. Cheechette must have something in mind that gave such indications.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 10:00:29 GMT -5
I agree CD, Ms Koning comes across as a very competent and credible witness. I have no problem accepting any of the testimony she gave at the pre-trial hearing.
However, if the defence is aware of any dubious motives on her part, he/she will have opportunity to cross-examine her with a view to undermining her testimony and creating doubt about her motives in the minds of a Jury.
On the other hand she appears strong enough to blow a defence agent out the court room.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 14, 2012 10:02:30 GMT -5
The question that arises, isn't that the testimony given by Ms. Koning is incorrect. It was correct and honest. The question was why was she elected to be the witness, when this case of CSA wasn't reported to the police by Jerome, did not involve her. Why would the prosecutor have her name down as witness when she is not part of this CSA and Jerome reporting it. Her case was in Lapeer county. This case is in Huron county. How did the prosecutor become acquainted with this witness. That is the questions that have arised. If there are vindictive motives, it has nothing to do with Jeromes reporting of a CSA crime. I wonder why Bill Denk wasn't called to testify as to what the religion is. He is down as a witness and was present. It would have been interesting to hear if he would have made Jerome as his boss. Sure hope he is called to testify because, he is so much part of this case, but of course he let his boss handle the details as to what should be done. But, where was he since he was Darren's companion when this incident took place. I know when I seen Darren in his shorts to go wrestle with a couple of boys that Bill was present and said nothing and this was after the CSA incident but Jerome hadn't removed him as of yet.
Ms. Koning did not indicate guile in her testimony. But, if Jerome is found to be responsible and does receive a stiff penalty, would that remove him from his overseer position or being a worker period. That is the indication.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 14, 2012 10:12:13 GMT -5
Ram, if Ms. Koning is asked about how she feels about JF, and questions why it is important for her to testify, or any of her past dealings with JF, you may see a lot blown out of the court room.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 14, 2012 10:18:30 GMT -5
Clearday.... in answer to your question about Bonnie Koning. Out of all the people in Michigan that is a member of the religion, why did Bonnie become a witness and no one else? She has a bad attitude with Jerome for a long time now since he helped the two older children get away from the abusive home. She has nothing to do with this case and she is the only one that became a witness back in November 2011. When you want revenge, which she has had for Jerome for a long time, you do whatever possible to hurt him in some way as go to jail. Her brother, DT, goes to all the court cases also, why didn't he become a witness? The detective didn't find her, she found him. This will be her glory if Jerome is found guilty. She has recently tried to collect money from the workers but she got nothing. This is her last straw and she volunteered to be a witness. It is very easy to see what she is doing and why she is doing it. People who are very familiar with the Koning's case knows Jerome stepped in to help the children and that was against her. Vindictive and unpure motives! Cheechette: Maybe she was encouraged by some others to be a witness. I feel sure there is more behind this than meets the eye. I agree, Lin! We all should remember that there are some very prominent members of the fellowship that have been brought or have brung their identities to the authorities in more then ONE legal case.....so as time brings those known people back to the authorities' attention, then the authorities know just about where they can find witnesses.....I think that JF lent himself as supporter and potential witnesses in the other 3 cases and the authorities knew that and then when they became aware of the role JF played in "not informing the authorities of a CSA", they then realized who are the "friendlies" of the members of that religion in that area. You cannot tell me that the judge would have made the regulation that the younger adopted children be kept from the workers and friends in that area, IF HE HAD NOT understand the workers and friends in that area. The judge and prosecutor became well aware of underworkings in relationships all around and they had to make up their mind how to "divide" that underworkings in order to come to some conclusion of the multiple matters in the court's interest....so the judge came with the sentence that those younger children were to be kept from the workers and friends in that area.... That alone should tell anyone that NOT all was bad wrong with the family or the children would have never been returned home. DHS would have made sure of that. But it took some digging and dividing of the issues whether they were "legal" or "civil"......that alone is all we need to look at....the rest of it is being separated and looked at by the legalese!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 10:26:41 GMT -5
Ram, if Ms. Koning is asked about how she feels about JF, and questions why it is important for her to testify, or any of her past dealings with JF, you may see a lot blown out of the court room. And this will only favour the defence! However, it will be up to the prosecutor and the judge to protect Ms Koning from unwarranted attacks by the defence. Nevertheless the defence is entitled to test her credibility as a witness. I don't know much about the background to this case or how Ms Koning became a witness. However, if it was not Ms Koning who made the initial complaint to the police, then it is highly likely the investigating officers traced Ms Koning during the course of their enquiries. Remember, they would have had details of witnesses from the earlier matters.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 14, 2012 10:30:31 GMT -5
Ram, if Ms. Koning is asked about how she feels about JF, and questions why it is important for her to testify, or any of her past dealings with JF, you may see a lot blown out of the court room. I think a judge would "object" to any one questioning a witness of the court about their "feelings" as well as shout down any testimony that is evident of self-feelings. It's done all the time. There is NO shooting down of JF's failure to report abuse...that alone is the charge and the court is not going to be allowed to get into individual pettinesses. It IS a MISDEAMOR charge and as a misdeamor charge will it be legally handed. Yes, I know a defense attorney may well "TRY" to disable a witness by making the "personal feelings" come out and true it may sway a jury...but still as the charge is a misdeamor and there is NO way of JF saying he DID report it...He is not going to be vindicated by shooting down an adversarial witness. I suspect that BK will not be asked to testify in the jury trial but I suspect that the prosecution has "saved" the vital witness for that time and that "vital witness" is of course, BD! This is all common horse reasonings. There is NO way that JF is going to get the charge dismissed NOW...he had a chance to stop all this whoop-de-la and angry witnesses etc. but he's gone too far in that, even if he comes before the judge next time and offers a "no contest" plea...his making a big deal out of his misdeamor charge is going to cost him MORE now, then if he'd followed his first attorney's advice. And that has nothing to do with "hostile witnesses". IF there would be a "hostile witness", BD would make the prosecution's use of him and he would be the "hostile witness" or expected to be such as he also did not report the abuse.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 14, 2012 10:33:16 GMT -5
My feelings are this in this case as well as those who've gone before...that the quicker the family that is a sideline participant in this legal matter of JF's, get their squabbling out of the public and take care of it in private, the better off each member is going to be. That much I know.
Let JF fight his charge as he seems to want to do and step back...don't keep stepping in with the bickering and blaming, PLEASE!
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 14, 2012 10:57:13 GMT -5
The only way JF could have stopped this case was to say guilty. There was no plea deal offered. He will not ever say guilty. That is not the making of this man. So, yes, he will have to deal with the backlash of this charge and rightly so. I hope BD is called, as how can you claim not guilty and state to the members that he wasn't aware of the extent of Darren's actions, when BD could blow that letter out of the water. That could cost him more than anything. That said, that is probably why RH and another worker is standing by to take reins. If of course, we can believe what is being stated. As they say, it will all come out in the wash.
When it comes to the religion, nothing is done in private except criminal actions!
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 14, 2012 11:01:55 GMT -5
The only way JF could have stopped this case was to say guilty. There was no plea deal offered. He will not ever say guilty. That is not the making of this man. So, yes, he will have to deal with the backlash of this charge and rightly so. I hope BD is called, as how can you claim not guilty and state to the members that he wasn't aware of the extent of Darren's actions, when BD could blow that letter out of the water. That could cost him more than anything. That said, that is probably why RH and another worker is standing by to take reins. If of course, we can believe what is being stated. As they say, it will all come out in the wash. When it comes to the religion, nothing is done in private except criminal actions! Correct me, please, if I am wrong. The issue is not if or what JF knew. That seems to be clear. The issue is "as a mandated reporter did JF neglect (intentionally or not) to report the incident?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 11:03:59 GMT -5
Am I right in assuming that in MI law that since the Judge at the pre-trial has made a judgement in law that JF is a member of the Clergy and thus established him as a mandated reporter, this particular point will not be contested at the main trial?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2012 12:27:34 GMT -5
Am I right in assuming that in MI law that since the Judge at the pre-trial has made a judgement in law that JF is a member of the Clergy and thus established him as a mandated reporter, this particular point will not be contested at the main trial? I have wondered the same thing myself. You'll notice that in the transcript the defence lawyer presses the judge on the point, and he seems reluctant to use the words "mandated reporter". This is pure speculation, but I think the judge wanted to rule only on the Motion to Dismiss, and avoid the final question of whether Jerome was a mandated reporter or not. The defence argued that JF was not clergy in the ordinary sense of the word, the judge said he was clergy, motion denied. The question of "mandated reporter" is still an open one. But I stress that's an opinion; there's a lot I don't know. Clearday will give you the exact opposite argument. The defence may have other directions in which to build the case, and this might be a moot question now.
|
|