|
Post by rational on Apr 17, 2012 10:41:48 GMT -5
The judge has only ruled that the motion to dismiss was denied (page 55 - line 10). Millions?? The population of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metro area is less than 900,000. The largest newspaper has a circulation of less than 70,000. So maybe thousands read about the conventions. I think MORE then the local citizens read about that conv. expose', Rat....those newspaper clipping made its' way all the way down to here and as far as CO, that I do know.... The point was - not millions!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 17, 2012 10:47:20 GMT -5
Hi Rational, did I write that clergy were added as mandatory reporters in all states BECAUSE of the scandal of the Catholic Church? Nope. true. But now that you have changed it from 'many' states to 'some' states it is much more accurate. And, yes, some states did enact laws and some tightened them. But the laws passed in the 1970s often included the clergy as mandated reporters although often provided a confessional loophole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 10:57:49 GMT -5
The key words are "reasonable cause" to suspect. You must have that. There's still a concern about outright false or nuisance reports. No doubt they won't like false reports. However, regarding uncertainty about the suspicions, in reading the MI Guidelines, I get the impression that they are happy to take your call no matter what. I think the idea is that the authorities will make a determination right away if the call is not relevant or not worthy for further investigation. They give enough information to guide the mandated reporter toward a reasonable understanding as to what to report and what not to report. Frankly, I doubt that any of the mandated reporters listed will be prone to nuisance calls. They are all bright, skilled, and responsible people with a lot of experience in dealing with people, as well as experience in making routine judgment calls so the phone lines won't be burning up in MI with baseless calls from the mandated reporter group. Not related here but one thing that is interesting in MI is that the law demands you call in your suspicions right now, 24/7. There is no room for delay. They specifically ask that you do not investigate it with investigative-like questions (although you are allowed to ask peripheral questions to ascertain your suspicions), and you are not supposed to discuss it with anyone else first.....report right now. That one is fairly black and white.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 17, 2012 11:20:46 GMT -5
Actually, it seemed to me that the judge was actually passing the buck of declaration that JF was guilty per se to the juried trial. That's because the purpose of hearing on the defenses motion to dismiss was denied by the court. The judge wasn't passing the buck s/he was ruling on the motion.You really need to look into the way the legal system works. This was not a trial.Have you ever heard of a trial where the charges were increased?And the way to do that is to charge JM with new charges.How would you do that in a trial where the facts concern failure to report? Why would the defense allow any questioning or testimony that is not directly related to the charges? How would having a hostile witness help?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 17, 2012 11:22:01 GMT -5
The Motion to Dismiss was simply a motion to dismiss. The Judge could go no further than what was brought before The Court. And what was brought before the court was a Motion to Dismiss by The Defense. The guilt of The Defense can be admitted by The Defense probaby at anytime. Or at least offer a plea. The finding of guilt or innocence by others, The Jury, cannot be done until the entire Court procedings have finished and then the case is given to the jury. Duhh, Greg...I think most of us already know that! That wasn't the question! " Actually, it seemed to me that the judge was actually passing the buck of declaration that JF was guilty per se to the juried trial...like he was giving the defense another avenue to bring evidence contrary to the judge's ruling...as the judge's ruling actually came from the extensive questioning of Bonnie Konning.... I think the judge did not want the case to stop there on just one person's testimony... " The judge was allowing the motion to take place and following the course of getting the matter to trial and to a jury (since jury seems to be the defendant's choice for decision of finding of guilty or not guilty). The judge was not passing the buck. I think the judge had no thought of ending the case or even thought the case would end at that moment.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2012 13:09:26 GMT -5
Duhh, Greg...I think most of us already know that! That wasn't the question! " Actually, it seemed to me that the judge was actually passing the buck of declaration that JF was guilty per se to the juried trial...like he was giving the defense another avenue to bring evidence contrary to the judge's ruling...as the judge's ruling actually came from the extensive questioning of Bonnie Konning.... I think the judge did not want the case to stop there on just one person's testimony... " The judge was allowing the motion to take place and following the course of getting the matter to trial and to a jury (since jury seems to be the defendant's choice for decision of finding of guilty or not guilty). The judge was not passing the buck. I think the judge had no thought of ending the case or even thought the case would end at that moment. That's what I said! I think that he could have ended it there, but then that would have opened it wide open for an appeal!
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 17, 2012 14:05:31 GMT -5
" Actually, it seemed to me that the judge was actually passing the buck of declaration that JF was guilty per se to the juried trial...like he was giving the defense another avenue to bring evidence contrary to the judge's ruling...as the judge's ruling actually came from the extensive questioning of Bonnie Konning.... I think the judge did not want the case to stop there on just one person's testimony... " The judge was allowing the motion to take place and following the course of getting the matter to trial and to a jury (since jury seems to be the defendant's choice for decision of finding of guilty or not guilty). The judge was not passing the buck. I think the judge had no thought of ending the case or even thought the case would end at that moment. That's what I said! I think that he could have ended it there, but then that would have opened it wide open for an appeal! Ended what? The whole case against Jerome?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 17, 2012 14:16:14 GMT -5
Nevertheless was there anything that Ms Koning said that was untrue? I would go for the fact that she was a lay person and see how much of what she said could not be eliminated by claiming it was hearsay. I don't think true was the word used in the hearing. And if it was the defense that was bringing the witness why wouldn't they know if the testimony was going to be shot down?some how that will be brought out....and then the prosecutor can file another charge against JF and no telling who else of the workers....the workers are playing with fire pushing this fighting the misdeamor charge. So you believe that a person asking for a right that is provided by the constitution is playing with fire? Have either of these people been charged with additional crimes or are you just throwing stones for effect? Perhaps. But perhaps not.Not sure that the circumstances were the same either. Are you in favor of a one-treatment-fits-all plan?I wonder what they have been waiting for.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 17, 2012 14:52:34 GMT -5
Hi Rational, did I write that clergy were added as mandatory reporters in all states BECAUSE of the scandal of the Catholic Church? Nope. true. But now that you have changed it from 'many' states to 'some' states it is much more accurate. And, yes, some states did enact laws and some tightened them. But the laws passed in the 1970s often included the clergy as mandated reporters although often provided a confessional loophole. And the clergy weren't added as mandatory reporters in those states because of their role/expertise in child care- but because of the abuses of some religious organizations whereby the leadership knew of CSA within the clergy and didn't report it.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2012 19:20:16 GMT -5
I would go for the fact that she was a lay person and see how much of what she said could not be eliminated by claiming it was hearsay. I don't think true was the word used in the hearing. And if it was the defense that was bringing the witness why wouldn't they know if the testimony was going to be shot down?some how that will be brought out....and then the prosecutor can file another charge against JF and no telling who else of the workers....the workers are playing with fire pushing this fighting the misdeamor charge. So you believe that a person asking for a right that is provided by the constitution is playing with fire? Have either of these people been charged with additional crimes or are you just throwing stones for effect? Perhaps. But perhaps not.Not sure that the circumstances were the same either. Are you in favor of a one-treatment-fits-all plan?I wonder what they have been waiting for. I don't think that these authorities are just now getting into knowing about the fellowship and the CSA issue, Rat....I think they know all about the many decades that some of these CSA perps have been hidden and moved around to "satisfy" the victims and their families, but yet the perps are held up to be great men just like Ray Hoffman held Ira up as a great worker in all that he had done.....that was a kick in the gut to any victim, I'm sure! That it doesn't matter to the ruling workers just exactly how evil or sick the perps were, they still want to call them "great workers"! Again, there's much that the authorities are quite aware of, and I'm sure they will utilize these things to bring all of this hiding and secreting CSA perps here and yon! But they will have to do it with what actual evidence they fell they have to start with....much like the perps own charges....many of those perps still stand for more victims coming out of the woodwork and reporting on them....are they not?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 17, 2012 20:34:25 GMT -5
And the clergy weren't added as mandatory reporters in those states because of their role/expertise in child care- but because of the abuses of some religious organizations whereby the leadership knew of CSA within the clergy and didn't report it. No, they were added because they worked with children and, because what they taught regarding their religious beliefs, gave them extraordinary power over the children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 21:02:25 GMT -5
This is an interesting letter.
The US Federal Government determined that the F&W church by the name of "Christian Conventions" or "Assemblies of Christians" was "a recognized church, religious sect, or a religious organization, within the meaning of Section 622.44 of the Selective Service Regulations."
This determination was made in 1946.
National Headquarters SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM 21st and C Streets NW Washington 25, D.C. November 22, 1946 File No. 3-164
Mrs. O. D. Hawkins 14967 Freeland Avenue Detroit 27, Michigan
Subject: Status of Christian Conventions
Dear Mrs. Hawkins,
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of November 13, 1946, regarding the “Christian Convention people or Assemblies of Christians.” It is noted that you requested information regarding this organization with specific reference to the question of the expression of any views regarding conscientious objection.
This Headquarters has issued a predetermination that Christian Conventions is a recognized church, religious sect, or a religious organization, within the meaning of Section 622.44 of the Selective Service Regulations. This predetermination was based upon information procured directly from officials of the church; namely George Walker (overseer), 2350 East Susquahanna Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and others. This necessity came out of the fact that the organization was not included by the Bureau of Census, United States Department of Commerce, in its publication, Religious Bodies-1936.
A photostatic copy of a memorandum submitted under date of March 24, 1942, by Mr. Walker is enclosed for your information.
Under date of February 16, 1942, Jesse R. Bond, 3309 Holmes Street, Kansas City, Missouri, who represented himself to be a minister of this organization, addressed a letter to the Director of Selective Service which stated in part: “We have no doctrine which in any way disables our converts to enter into the armed forces of our Nation and many hundreds of our converts to enter into the armed forces of our Nation, and many hundreds of our people are now in our armed forces of their own volition.”
In this connection attention is invited to the fact that the provision of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, relating to conscientious objection provides that such must be “by reason of religious training and belief” (see Section 5 (g) of the Act). The claim is to be established as a personal belief and membership or lack of membership in any church body is not a controlling factor.
For the Director,
NEAL M. WHERRY Major, APS Chief, Legal and Classification Section Camp Operations
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 17, 2012 23:11:37 GMT -5
And the clergy weren't added as mandatory reporters in those states because of their role/expertise in child care- but because of the abuses of some religious organizations whereby the leadership knew of CSA within the clergy and didn't report it. No, they were added because they worked with children and, because what they taught regarding their religious beliefs, gave them extraordinary power over the children. That's not what the 2 links I provided you indicated.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 18, 2012 7:01:00 GMT -5
No, they were added because they worked with children and, because what they taught regarding their religious beliefs, gave them extraordinary power over the children. That's not what the 2 links I provided you indicated. You are correct. They showed how the church members had an extraordinary power over not only the children but the parents of the children and by abusing this power could contain any abuse that was reported to members of the organization and prevent it from being reported elsewhere. If you can convince people that there is eternal damnation and they you control whether they go to hell of heaven then controlling other aspects of their lives is a piece of cake.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 18, 2012 7:26:39 GMT -5
That's not what the 2 links I provided you indicated. You are correct. They showed how the church members had an extraordinary power over not only the children but the parents of the children and by abusing this power could contain any abuse that was reported to members of the organization and prevent it from being reported elsewhere. If you can convince people that there is eternal damnation and they you control whether they go to hell of heaven then controlling other aspects of their lives is a piece of cake. Exactly. Thanks for elaborating a bit more so that I could better understand your point.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 21, 2013 13:25:42 GMT -5
The overseer group claims that we ARE a religious organization when it suits them.
They did during World War 2.
They did in 1996:
5131 Lansdowne Dr Edmonton, AB T6H 4L1 CANADA November 9, 1996
TO ALL OF CONCERN:
One of the workers in Hungary, whose visa was soon to expire, was faced with the problem of being refused permission to remain in the country because the 'Group' she was representing was not a registered body in Hungary. Our sister who labours there was companion to the girl in question and she appealed urgently to us that we do something it about (sic) because any approach they made to the local authorities was to no avail and they needed help badly. Above that there was a deadline to meet. Hungary would accept our Registration as backing. We in Canada had been registered in Ottawa (Canada's capital city) during WW2. A search was made there to retrieve such a document, but all in vain. While registration is not required in Great Britain, USA or Canada, to help our workers in Hungary we sought a Lawyer's aid and as a result a very complicated document was made up. We learned to our dismay that to be registered we had to become incorporated as a non-profit Society. While it was solely for the purpose of those in Authority, the document gave us a long handled name. We were hesitant to do it, but for the sake of our workers in Hungary, we signed the document. Hungary accepted our efforts for which we are thankful, and officials there will now continue to recognize the workers in their country.
However, a problem has arisen. Canada recently passed a Freedom of Information bill. Through this our document is on the Internet and it has now got into the hands of the 'dissenters'. They are spreading it with delight and we write this to suggest that if it reaches any of our friends, please have them just burn it. I am sure all our friends will understand the reason why we implemented it. In many countries registration is necessary. We are in the process now of having the whole document cancelled, since it is not required in Canada, and we hope the matter will settle down in time.
Thank you for giving this information to any of our friends; or workers who may enquire. I am so sorry that such a problem should have arisen because of my naivety.
Yours as always,
(Signed) Willis Propp
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Mar 21, 2013 14:30:30 GMT -5
Janice M (guest) posted this yesterday under Re: The new, improved Ramblings of Ranman and Frie « Reply #80 Yesterday at 11:58pm »
Quote: I am almost positive that our worker in our field this year has done some inappropriate things with my 9 year old daughter, but nobody believes me, and it is getting to the point that I may be asked to leave meetings. Already I am being asked if I am okay, if maybe I shouldn't seek counseling, but my daughter is not the same and does not want to be near the workers. Not sure what to do. Any idea? My daughter won't even eat now, something happened. We had the brother workers here for 3 days, and now this.
~~utterly lost This was posted on the other Jerome Frandle thread. My response is.
In response to Sharonw: Sharon, I agree, and want to add, that this mother needs to go immediately to the authorities.
She needs to give the name of all the workers that stayed in the home, unless it were impossible for one to have been alone with the child.
This is the problem is in this statement ", and it is getting to the point that I may be asked to leave meetings. " I was specifically talking about this hold the workers can have on some people.
Many people on this board that go to meetings still don't understand how angry this makes me towards the whole system. Let me repeat that, "the whole system".
This implicates every person around whether you like it or not, but if you are affiliated with this meeting, this kind of thinking, or the power that the workers can deny you "a place in the kingdom", then you are siding with evil or the worst kind. People are looking so hard for the "anti-christ". Well, look no more.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 21, 2013 15:33:45 GMT -5
Definitely contact your local Sexual Assault Center or Rape Crisis Center ASAP.
This child urgently needs help.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Mar 21, 2013 15:58:47 GMT -5
The mother has hesitated, which would indicate to me that she is concerned about "losing her place in the kingdom".
As I wrote in the other thread. That kind of control is very typical 2x2.
It needs to stop, and perhaps a little jail time for Jerome will at least make the workers be on their best behavior, as up until now, it has almost been open season on children.
The 2x2 system is broke, and until all the children are as safe as they can be, I will not let up on holding the ring leaders responsible. Yes the parents should be in trouble too, but when the workers wield the power that they do, and keep people believing that they, the workers, can "take away their salvation" then once that stops, they can do whatever they choose, within the law.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 21, 2013 17:12:43 GMT -5
As a professing person I detest the accusation that our fellowship is a cult.
However, there are some cult-like tendencies and this is one of them:
A distraught mother, whose daughter desperately needs help, is afraid she'll be asked to leave meetings as a result of doing what any normal loving responsible parent would do i.e. seek help for her child.
This is evil, cultist, and anti-Christ.
Luke 17:1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Mar 22, 2013 9:26:35 GMT -5
Definitely contact your local Sexual Assault Center or Rape Crisis Center ASAP. This child urgently needs help. This child's mental, emotional, and physical health are vitally important. Please, as a professing member of the meetings, I ask you to choose your child over the sexual predators in our midst!!!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 22, 2013 9:50:37 GMT -5
Janice M (guest) posted this yesterday under Re: The new, improved Ramblings of Ranman and Frie « Reply #80 Yesterday at 11:58pm » Quote: I am almost positive that our worker in our field this year has done some inappropriate things with my 9 year old daughter, but nobody believes me, and it is getting to the point that I may be asked to leave meetings. Already I am being asked if I am okay, if maybe I shouldn't seek counseling, but my daughter is not the same and does not want to be near the workers. Not sure what to do. Any idea? My daughter won't even eat now, something happened. We had the brother workers here for 3 days, and now this. ~~utterly lost This was posted on the other Jerome Frandle thread. My response is. In response to Sharonw: Sharon, I agree, and want to add, that this mother needs to go immediately to the authorities. She needs to give the name of all the workers that stayed in the home, unless it were impossible for one to have been alone with the child. This is the problem is in this statement ", and it is getting to the point that I may be asked to leave meetings. " I was specifically talking about this hold the workers can have on some people. Many people on this board that go to meetings still don't understand how angry this makes me towards the whole system. Let me repeat that, "the whole system". This implicates every person around whether you like it or not, but if you are affiliated with this meeting, this kind of thinking, or the power that the workers can deny you "a place in the kingdom", then you are siding with evil or the worst kind. People are looking so hard for the "anti-christ". Well, look no more. The posts by "Janice M" eventually revealed that this original story was fabricated. A sick joke. All of the posts have since been deleted from the Ramblings of Ranman thread. In the state I live in, false reporting of this kind of incident is a crime. I think this includes making up stories that prompt an unsuspecting mandated reporter to take action.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Mar 22, 2013 9:52:56 GMT -5
Fixit, you can detest that, but you are saying that there are "cult like" tendencies.
My question is where is the cut off line. Is following the workers, even when you question what they say, acceptable? Is being told that the "fellowship" is the only way to heaven, acceptable?
If you look up cults, you don't have to be full fledged to be a cult. The problem is that the fellowship is fragmented in so many areas. In some places D&R is okay, in some places, TV is okay, in some places, alcohol consumption (within reason) is acceptable, and I could probably name a bunch of others, like hair, make up, and jewelry, but wont' waste the time. The point is that there are three things that make that fellowship a cult and are constant throughout the entire bunch. 1. Meetings in the home 2. Two by two workers 3. Only way
Even the workers are not going out on faith anymore. They know that if they go into the work, and hang in there, they will never have to have a job. I have said many times, let me live as good as the workers. No worries about bills, housing, transportation, insurance, health issues, clothing, food and everything one needs to sustain life. Those happen to be things that my little Disability check, that I worked all my life for, have to be paid for. I won't go into the Social Security argument, but tell me what do the workers do? Didn't Jesus "send them out to preach"? How many go out to preach today? and on and on, but hopefully you get the picture.
Are you aware of how many "homeless" workers have possessions, like Willis Propp's "mineral rights" and personally, my sister owned a home and rented it out, while in the work. That is the tip of the iceberg. How much money do the workers really have squirreled away?
We have discussed Jerome's attorneys here before, and why doesn't he have his family pay for his defense, or have a public defender handle his case. Are you okay with giving money to workers to go into court and get caught lying, and then switch lawyers to try to beat a rap? If so, never mind. You are totally sucked in, and I hope you get your eyes opened someday.
|
|