|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 14, 2012 12:38:20 GMT -5
The judge that handled the young children in the other case, was not the judge that is handling Jerome's case. The judge for the children was a family judge. The children went back home finally and it would be wonderful if everything would be dropped and that family would not be involved in anything for the sake of the children. Just be thankful to have an ordeal in the past. Those that attended the hearings for the children are not the same as those at the hearings for Jerome except a couple. And one of those is directly involved with the CSA. I would have thought Jerome would have been a friendly with the detectives as he was even mentioned in a letter Scott posted as to go to him if you know anything about the CSA. Jerome was never down as witness, involved in submitting information, signing his name on any papers turned in to the police or influencing the children when those hearings were taking place. Judge mentioned the two woman workers as not being able to influence the children. I never heard any friends mentioned in the court hearings. And those two women workers are the friendlies that informed the police of the CSA cases. Jerome is definitely involved in the cases against Peter. The judge became aware of the two workers from the case because they turned some papers to the court. I would think it would be hard for the judge to judge the workers or friends in that area when the family were members of the same group and everyone knew that they worshipped with them. It was mentioned to the family of being members with the group. That probably was hard to understand. That is where the cult would come to mind by the actions of members of the same group.
There are so many things that no one knows about unless involved directly or can understand the reasonings. I would love to know the prominent members of the fellowship that would be willing to come against the workers and the meetings. Many hope for change and many will change things themselves, but, I don't know any prominent members that would actually go out on a limb against the workers or Jerome in a public sitting or to a public servant that could prosecute. It always has been a hush whisper behind the scenes of things that have happened or should not happen. That is exactly why Jerome is in the trouble he is in. Any members that are in the area of Jerome's hearings had never attended the hearings or were involved in the hearings for the children.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 14, 2012 12:45:09 GMT -5
The trial is to determine whether Jerome is a mandated reporter. If he is, then he is guilty of not reporting a CSA, he can receive up to 90 das. in jail, $500.00 fine, probation or all. The judge did say that he was a clergy. Mi. laws aren't written to claim, if you are an ordained clergy or just a clergy as to whether you are a mandated reporter. I would say that will corrected after this trial. I suppose you could appeal to higher court since there is no direct law stating how it should be interrupted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 12:45:26 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. This American way of doing has me baffled. The Judge made a judgement in law that JF was a member of the clergy. It would automatically follow that JF was a mandated reporter by virtue of that judgement. If the above was to stand at the main hearing then the question of JF being a mandated reporter is no longer in doubt. Any further considerations in the case could only be in connection with the circumstances in which he failed to report the matter. ie showing he had information/suspicions of the offence and failed to report same, not the question of whether or not he was a mandated reporter as that has already been established. However, it may be the Judge has ruled that JF is a member of the F&W's clergy, but NOT necessarily a member of the clergy under the legislation under which he has been charged? This might be a thing for the main hearing? In other words, JF is not merely an equal member of the sect as a minister of the word (as claimed), but is clearly a member of the sect's separate clergy, thus dismissing the motion to dismiss? As a result the case proceeds to trial to establish whether or not he is a member of the clergy under legislation. Or is it a case we start all over again?
|
|
|
Post by cheechette on Apr 14, 2012 13:17:55 GMT -5
Sharon W.... the Judge never stated during the trial of the 4 minor children, taken from the Koning's home, they were not allowed to be with the workers or friends. As a matter of fact, the children was placed in a home with friends that went to meeting. The children did not go home for 11 months because they said they didn't want to. After numerous parenting classes, promises and etc., the children then went back home. Besides, the 4 minor children also stated the abuse at the home. The only people that the judge stated was not to have contact with the children was the 2 sister workers and Bonnie's brother. He stated he wanted no outside interference and handed back to them any papers they had given to the court. JF was in the court hearings, after receiving complaints from the friends for 3 years, to actually know what was happening. JF just didn't stop the 2 sister workers from turning things into the police. Then JF removed the meetings from the parents home, which many of us know why, but it hasn't been stated on this board. There is a lot of speculation on this board, but many of us do know the true facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 13:37:20 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. Yep. I don't think the general status of clergy (hence mandated reporter) for Mr.Frandle will come up in the trial unless there is a challenge to the judge's ruling in the Motion. The trial will focus on two things I think: (a) Is Mr.Frandle the right Mandated reporter specifically for Mr.Briggs' offense? Does he even know MrBriggs? Is there any connection between the two? etc and (b) Did Mr.Frandle actually know about the offense and then failed to report it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 13:48:32 GMT -5
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. Yep. I don't think the general status of clergy (hence mandated reporter) for Mr.Frandle will come up in the trial unless there is a challenge to the judge's ruling in the Motion. The trial will focus on two things I think: (a) Is Mr.Frandle the right Mandated reporter specifically for Mr.Briggs' offense? Does he even know MrBriggs? Is there any connection between the two? etc and (b) Did Mr.Frandle actually know about the offense and then failed to report it? CD the motion to dismiss was based on the claim that JF was like every other member of the sect who are all "ministers of the word" and thus they were all equal. I think the Judge has seen through this after hearing Mrs Konings testimony and has made a judgement in law that JF is a member of the F&W's (separate) clergy. He therefore dismissed the defence motion, leaving the matter of whether or not JF is a member of the clergy under the legislation to be determined at the main/full hearing?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2012 14:21:02 GMT -5
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. This American way of doing has me baffled. The Judge made a judgement in law that JF was a member of the clergy. It would automatically follow that JF was a mandated reporter by virtue of that judgement. If the above was to stand at the main hearing then the question of JF being a mandated reporter is no longer in doubt. Any further considerations in the case could only be in connection with the circumstances in which he failed to report the matter. ie showing he had information/suspicions of the offence and failed to report same, not the question of whether or not he was a mandated reporter as that has already been established. However, it may be the Judge has ruled that JF is a member of the F&W's clergy, but NOT necessarily a member of the clergy under the legislation under which he has been charged? This might be a thing for the main hearing? In other words, JF is not merely an equal member of the sect as a minister of the word (as claimed), but is clearly a member of the sect's separate clergy, thus dismissing the motion to dismiss? As a result the case proceeds to trial to establish whether or not he is a member of the clergy under legislation. Or is it a case we start all over again? Upon consideration, and reviewing the statute itself, I think you're probably correct. If the abuser is a member of the clergy, and the observer is a member of the clergy, then there is an obligation to report. "Member of the clergy" is defined in section 722.622. Did this come up before? "Member of the clergy" means a priest, minister, rabbi, Christian science practitioner, or other religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized religious body, denomination, or organization. www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28lm0eey55ue10h1fvyo4rxxyn%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-722-622
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2012 14:26:11 GMT -5
Yep. I don't think the general status of clergy (hence mandated reporter) for Mr.Frandle will come up in the trial unless there is a challenge to the judge's ruling in the Motion. The trial will focus on two things I think: (a) Is Mr.Frandle the right Mandated reporter specifically for Mr.Briggs' offense? Does he even know MrBriggs? Is there any connection between the two? etc and (b) Did Mr.Frandle actually know about the offense and then failed to report it? CD the motion to dismiss was based on the claim that JF was like every other member of the sect who are all "ministers of the word" and thus they were all equal. I think the Judge has seen through this after hearing Mrs Konings testimony and has made a judgement in law that JF is a member of the F&W's (separate) clergy. He therefore dismissed the defence motion, leaving the matter of whether or not JF is a member of the clergy under the legislation to be determined at the main/full hearing? See, the rules for motion to dismiss are entirely different than for trial. So I wonder if any statement about whether he is clergy would apply in the trial itself. It's a point of procedure that I don't know. I suppose it's neither here or there, as we'll find out in time anyway. I can get rather pedantic about these points, but that's my nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 14:36:53 GMT -5
CD the motion to dismiss was based on the claim that JF was like every other member of the sect who are all "ministers of the word" and thus they were all equal. I think the Judge has seen through this after hearing Mrs Konings testimony and has made a judgement in law that JF is a member of the F&W's (separate) clergy. He therefore dismissed the defence motion, leaving the matter of whether or not JF is a member of the clergy under the legislation to be determined at the main/full hearing? See, the rules for motion to dismiss are entirely different than for trial. So I wonder if any statement about whether he is clergy would apply in the trial itself. It's a point of procedure that I don't know. I suppose it's neither here or there, as we'll find out in time anyway. I can get rather pedantic about these points, but that's my nature. It's difficult to imagine that a ruling in a court of law, even if it is in a Motion to Dismiss, would not count for anything in a subsequent trial. A judge's ruling should stand for all subsequent trials unless challenged by appeal. Which brings up another query. If Mr.Frandle has expended this much effort in a misdemeanor, will this thing start working its way up to higher levels of justice should there be a guilty verdict? It seems to me that this matter has already gone past the nutty stage, so why not go all the way to the top nut? It would keep this board busy for years!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 14:38:34 GMT -5
This American way of doing has me baffled. The Judge made a judgement in law that JF was a member of the clergy. It would automatically follow that JF was a mandated reporter by virtue of that judgement. If the above was to stand at the main hearing then the question of JF being a mandated reporter is no longer in doubt. Any further considerations in the case could only be in connection with the circumstances in which he failed to report the matter. ie showing he had information/suspicions of the offence and failed to report same, not the question of whether or not he was a mandated reporter as that has already been established. However, it may be the Judge has ruled that JF is a member of the F&W's clergy, but NOT necessarily a member of the clergy under the legislation under which he has been charged? This might be a thing for the main hearing? In other words, JF is not merely an equal member of the sect as a minister of the word (as claimed), but is clearly a member of the sect's separate clergy, thus dismissing the motion to dismiss? As a result the case proceeds to trial to establish whether or not he is a member of the clergy under legislation. Or is it a case we start all over again? Upon consideration, and reviewing the statute itself, I think you're probably correct. If the abuser is a member of the clergy, and the observer is a member of the clergy, then there is an obligation to report. "Member of the clergy" is defined in section 722.622. Did this come up before? "Member of the clergy" means a priest, minister, rabbi, Christian science practitioner, or other religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized religious body, denomination, or organization. www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28lm0eey55ue10h1fvyo4rxxyn%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-722-622Thanks for that What. I have not seen that definition before and it looks to be a big step forward, at least for the prosecution. Now that the Judge has made a judgement in law that JF is a member of the F&W's clergy, the next question to be addressed is, is the sect a "recognised religious body, denomination, or organisation." The Judge clearly sees it as a religious organisation. Is it a recognised one though? It appears the noose is tightening.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 14, 2012 17:02:49 GMT -5
Michigan law states members of the clergy in a recognized organization. They would be mandated reporters. If you practice religion, I would think you would be recognized as a religious organization. The law doesn't state, a known recognized organization. Even a cult, whether known or unknown is recognized as a organization. I would think that would leave Bill Denk a little nervous. Because he is also a member of the clergy. This could lead to more than Jerome just being responsible. The thing the seems most disturbing is the members that are giving excuses as to why nothing was reported. I haven't heard anyone actually come out and say, Jerome was wrong. With that sentiment, he doesn't have anything to fear from his followers.There will be sympathy extended that he has to take the blame for not reporting a CSA and directing the parents on what should be done. I have heard many say that they won't read the internet, because, they don't want to know what is being said or they won't believe anything if they read it. So, Jerome may come out a hero to have suffer the brutal allegations and decisions of the court.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 14, 2012 18:16:29 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! He does NOT have to plea guilty or he didn't have to...all it takes to end a court c ase before the judge is to "plea NO CONTEST>" That is NOT a plea bargaining at all...it is saying nothing about being guilty OR not being guilty...it simply states that the defendent is NOT contesting the court's charge(s). And that leaves the whole ending of the charge up to the judge...which generally will hand out the routine sentencing in a "no contest" plea. Yes, such defendents MUST obey what the judge hands out...but many times the sentence is very light and the judge will tell the defendent that he may appear before the administrative offices in ONE year and have his record expunged IF there are no other charges against him in that year's time.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 14, 2012 18:28:06 GMT -5
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. This American way of doing has me baffled. The Judge made a judgement in law that JF was a member of the clergy. It would automatically follow that JF was a mandated reporter by virtue of that judgement. If the above was to stand at the main hearing then the question of JF being a mandated reporter is no longer in doubt. Any further considerations in the case could only be in connection with the circumstances in which he failed to report the matter. ie showing he had information/suspicions of the offence and failed to report same, not the question of whether or not he was a mandated reporter as that has already been established. However, it may be the Judge has ruled that JF is a member of the F&W's clergy, but NOT necessarily a member of the clergy under the legislation under which he has been charged? This might be a thing for the main hearing? In other words, JF is not merely an equal member of the sect as a minister of the word (as claimed), but is clearly a member of the sect's separate clergy, thus dismissing the motion to dismiss? As a result the case proceeds to trial to establish whether or not he is a member of the clergy under legislation. Or is it a case we start all over again? The judge did indeed state that JF IS clergy...and as you have surmised that makes him a mandated reporter....now I think what the judge has actually done is to offer JF and his attorneys another change at rebuttal without looking like they're walking all over the laws of MI, that apparently are in need of rewriting. I read the transcript as indeed JF is a clergy and by the way the law is written he IS a mandated reporter, but I also read that the Judge has asked it be taken before a jury to ascertain how JF stacks up against the written law..... NO doubt, this case will become a "precendated" case throughout all of America after this....the authorities in all of the country are becoming very vigorous in fighting ANY thing or person that allows CSA to stay alive in this country..... Was it this little side court or was it the one in Witchita, KS. that is going to start the precendent of holding lower level ministers/workers' supervisors liable for NOT reporting the CSA cases. So I'd say that these prosecutors and judges have all their homework done in regards to what is happening all over America in regard to making supervisory/bosses liable for NOT reporting CSA when it happens. We saw the very best fall under this onslaught...Coaches 2 two in the university ranks.....both kind of famous....so how can a little dirsweet thinger worker expect to fight the charges? Is he stronger then these 2 coaches? I doubt it...they had the money to hire the best legal reps...but that didn't get them out of the hot water...so why would such an attempt about a MI only famous worker?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 14, 2012 18:38:39 GMT -5
BTW, we all realize that the other cases that involved BK, the adopted children and JF's consistent presence in all of those cases WERE before OTHER judges and OTHER courts...but we all may just realize right now that when any of those names are brought up on the legal computers it would link them directly to one another by one name alone....so this judge and thiese prosecutors are well aware of what went on in the other cases....and that could have happened alone on JF's name.....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2012 18:53:39 GMT -5
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 see what you mean. From the single line I quoted I thought you were implying that I had made the claim. It was TS that attached me to the "Vindictive" and "Unpure Motives" and I was trying to end that association. Sorry. I also was not in the courtroom and had only asked the question about motivation. The motivation as to why someone would act might not be at all evident in the courtroom. I think her being in the courtroom might have been, in itself, the expression. It did - thanks.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2012 18:56:56 GMT -5
See, the rules for motion to dismiss are entirely different than for trial. So I wonder if any statement about whether he is clergy would apply in the trial itself. It's a point of procedure that I don't know. I suppose it's neither here or there, as we'll find out in time anyway. I can get rather pedantic about these points, but that's my nature. It's difficult to imagine that a ruling in a court of law, even if it is in a Motion to Dismiss, would not count for anything in a subsequent trial. A judge's ruling should stand for all subsequent trials unless challenged by appeal. I have no idea. When I find out I'll let you know. I'm not sure what constitutes a 'ruling' and what constitutes simply a part of an argument. He hasn't expended half as much effort as we have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 19:01:10 GMT -5
It's difficult to imagine that a ruling in a court of law, even if it is in a Motion to Dismiss, would not count for anything in a subsequent trial. A judge's ruling should stand for all subsequent trials unless challenged by appeal. I have no idea. When I find out I'll let you know. I'm not sure what constitutes a 'ruling' and what constitutes simply a part of an argument. The judge characterized it as a ruling. If there is any question on it , it would be on what authority it carries in the trial. But we haven't expended any cash yet!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 14, 2012 23:20:30 GMT -5
Probably.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 3:34:04 GMT -5
I am very grateful to "What" for bringing to notice the legal definition of "member of clergy" in MI. Until now I had searched in vain for such a thing and concluded it did not exist. It helps me better understand the defence's grounds for lodging the motion to dismiss as until now, in the absence of the definition, I had seen some quite obvious "better" grounds. From the start the prosecution, defence and the Judge will have been using this definition in their considerations.
It appears obvious from the transcripts that the judge clearly recognises the F&W's sect as a church or other recognised religious body and has made a "judgement in law" that JF is a member of the F&W's clergy. This should automatically place him in the category of being a mandated reporter.
Over here with Jury trials, judges make judgements in law and leave the juries to "judge the facts." This makes sense as a judge is well qualified in law whilst juries are not equipped to make such judgements.
This might not be the same state of affairs in MI, but I would struggle to comprehend that if it was so. If it is the same over there as it is here then there should be no argument at the main trial that JF is a "minister of religion" of the F&W's church or recognised religious body. This would mean that he would be facing trial as a mandated reporter under the legislation and the trial would be primarily about hearing the details of the case dealing with his alleged failure to report.
I noticed the defence was keen to establish whether the Judge's decision about JF was a "judgement of law" or a "Judgement of fact." The importance of this is that with the former a legal decision has been made. With the latter the matter would go before the Jury for a decision, but with the former it won't. The Jury will have to accept the judgement in law made on their behalf.
In the meantime the defence can lodge an appeal against the Judge's "judgement in law" which has made him liable under the legislation.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 15, 2012 10:24:28 GMT -5
Upon consideration, and reviewing the statute itself, I think you're probably correct. If the abuser is a member of the clergy, and the observer is a member of the clergy, then there is an obligation to report. "Member of the clergy" is defined in section 722.622. Did this come up before? "Member of the clergy" means a priest, minister, rabbi, Christian science practitioner, or other religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized religious body, denomination, or organization. www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28lm0eey55ue10h1fvyo4rxxyn%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-722-622Thanks for that What. I have not seen that definition before and it looks to be a big step forward, at least for the prosecution. Now that the Judge has made a judgement in law that JF is a member of the F&W's clergy, the next question to be addressed is, is the sect a "recognised religious body, denomination, or organisation." The Judge clearly sees it as a religious organisation. Is it a recognised one though? It appears the noose is tightening. Does the "recognizing" of the religious organisation have to be by the court's officers or could that recognition be in the fact that there are a great number of people who are "members" of that organization though they've fought tooth and toenail to "NOT be called an "Organization?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 10:34:38 GMT -5
"He hasn't expended half as much effort as we have."
Yes - looks like lots and lots of people (from all around the world) are watching and waiting to see what happens next..... I know I am anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 10:57:58 GMT -5
Thanks for that What. I have not seen that definition before and it looks to be a big step forward, at least for the prosecution. Now that the Judge has made a judgement in law that JF is a member of the F&W's clergy, the next question to be addressed is, is the sect a "recognised religious body, denomination, or organisation." The Judge clearly sees it as a religious organisation. Is it a recognised one though? It appears the noose is tightening. Does the "recognizing" of the religious organisation have to be by the court's officers or could that recognition be in the fact that there are a great number of people who are "members" of that organization though they've fought tooth and toenail to "NOT be called an "Organization? Shaz, the court Judge has made a legal decision (judgement in law) that JF IS a member of the F&W's clergy. He could hardly make this decision without recognising the sect IS a church or other recognised religious body or organisation. Aftere all, he could not rule that JF was a member of the group's clergy without recognising the group itself? Otherwise JF would legally be a member of an unrecognised body of people? The Judge has made his decision to a great extent based upon Ms Koning's testimony. He has referred to the group more than once as an "organisation!"
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 15, 2012 11:07:04 GMT -5
Does the "recognizing" of the religious organisation have to be by the court's officers or could that recognition be in the fact that there are a great number of people who are "members" of that organization though they've fought tooth and toenail to "NOT be called an "Organization? Shaz, the court Judge has made a legal decision (judgement in law) that JF IS a member of the F&W's clergy. He could hardly make this decision without recognising the sect IS a church or other recognised religious body or organisation. Aftere all, he could not rule that JF was a member of the group's clergy without recognising the group itself? Otherwise JF would legally be a member of an unrecognised body of people? The Judge has made his decision to a great extent based upon Ms Koning's testimony. He has referred to the group more than once as an "organisation!" I don't think that the defense is going to change the court's mind on the fellowship being an "organization" because the prosecution has in its' possession many "lists" and they are lists of workers' fields and companions, lists for convs. visitors from other countries, and across the country. and they have lists that are showing the spec. mtgs. and the visitors for each and every members' name or home......there is no arguemtn going to change that those lists show the "organization" and that it is a "highly organized" religion and maybe more so then any other established religious organization when the preachers are not itinerant. These courts would likely know what organizing has to be done for the 4-5 day convs., the meal-planning, the dorm planning, the worker's places for rest planning how that someone and more then someone has had to do a lot of work to bring all of that together. I think the jury will only have to face a fight by the defense that JF is NOT a clergy of the organization....somehow someway I suppose he can point out that JF is only an assistant to the organization? I expect about any ploy by the defense...and I have tow onder if JF has found another attorney that is going to stick with him....for the judge HAS ruled that JF IS clergy of his religious organization.....I think that an attorney with good sense is going to tell him the same thing his first attorney said....plea no contest....take what the judge wants to hand out and go home....JMO
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Apr 15, 2012 12:15:42 GMT -5
Sharon, Jerome will never plea no contest. When you do, everyone will say you plead that way because you are guilty and he has made it very clear he does not think he did anything wrong. The previous case in Mi., she plead no contest and look what was said. So, he is not going to accept that unless he would be forced by another upper which I would think would have been done already. Pride cometh before humbling in this case.
Also, when you read anything about clergies in Michigan, they talk about ordained clergy. Jerome is not an ordained minister, so that could be an angle that the defense will use as therefore he was not required by law to report anything. It would be more like he just is a preacher, doesn't do anything that requires a license, and only tries to help people understand the bible. Funerals and baptism can be done by taking a internet course or just anyone that would want to do it. No legal document required. The judge just said that he was a clergy. No legal activity was discussed as being performed by a ordained clergy. With the no name, no record of religion, no church buildings and etc. the jury may take this as just a cult or weird religion and make the parents only responsible to report a crime against their son. Pretty bizarre to try and blame someone else for not reporting a crime against ones own child. That it seems to me to be the angle that the overseers would like. The meeting in the area that this crime took place is very small with very few members. So, it is highly unlikely that many know about it or care about it. So, will see how jury picking goes. Even the past lawyer from White Lake, which is quite large, didn't know anything about the religion. And I'm sure there were many articles turned in to the judge to read about this religion so he could determine different things for him. Like conventions and etc. But to the general population, this would be considered a religious retreat and people talking about the bible. Not a recognized religion. There arr quite a few such groups around and no one considers them very important. We all know how things are done but to the other population that has not been introduced to this religion or brought up in the religion, they probably consider it more of a religious fanatic group and if you want to make someone your leader, I guess that is your wishes. But, it still would be how could the parents be so persuaded as to not go to the police themselves instead of waiting for someone else too. I'll bet when this is over, this won't only be a cult, but a cult of quakes by outsiders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 12:26:35 GMT -5
More fallout: KY worker (and Michigan native) Shane B. has left the work...He was sporting a beard in a recent Ky special meeting photo. Now George Lee has to cover Louisville and Lexington fields. In addition to oversight over KY and TN. I think Messrs Lee and Harger need to tell the friends in a letter about the issues surrounding the former KY overseer. Darren Briggs was a special meeting visitor there a few years ago so the friends need to be told what has happened.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 15, 2012 14:13:10 GMT -5
"For virtue's self may too much zeal be had; the worst of madmen is a saint run mad." ~ Alexander Pope ~
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 15, 2012 19:42:04 GMT -5
It did but Act 238 of 1975;722.622,Sec. 2.;Part (l) could easily exclude workers with: ...a priest, minister, rabbi, Christian science practitioner, or other religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized religious body, denomination, or organization.weasel words: recognized denomination organization
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 20:40:11 GMT -5
It did but Act 238 of 1975;722.622,Sec. 2.;Part (l) could easily exclude workers with: ...a priest, minister, rabbi, Christian science practitioner, or other religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized religious body, denomination, or organization.weasel words: recognized denomination organization Too late for weaseling. This issue examined this on the basis of "similar functionary" and "organization". The judge ruled that it is sufficiently an organization under this law and that Mr.Frandle's duties are a similar functionary. Appeal the ruling perhaps?
|
|