|
Post by sacerdotal on Dec 29, 2013 23:35:02 GMT -5
Whoa! Just came across this article.... old news I know to all here.... but new to me..... Wow! is David Leitch REALLY that tone deaf and actually insinuate that he may or may not go to police regarding other matters of child sexual abuse (because HE had to determine whether the accusations were true or not- and that to do it any other way would be stupidity?) And he fired a worker that brought a matter of CSA to him? Wow. And this dude is an overseer? Double-wow. Parts of the article that the workers probably wish would stay hid:* They are highly secretive and paranoid about scrutiny: when questioned about new allegations of child sexual abuse within the sect's ranks, the ''overseer'' for Victoria and Tasmania, David Leitch, 56, of Heidelberg, says: ''We are not an organisation.'' * Members are told to either deny the existence of the sect or, next best, deny it has a name. * Core beliefs come from a very literal reading of certain sections of the Bible. But they don't call themselves Christians because they consider themselves the only true religion. * Children in the sect are told that if they stray, bad things will happen - a lightning strike, for example, being hit by a runaway bus, or an illness. * When she did leave - because she wanted to explore other more open kinds of Christianity - she says she was called ''the Antichrist'' by sect members, was sent offensive mail referring to her ''coldness'' and suffered post-traumatic stress disorder on account of the ''fear'' she carried into her decision. * But what worried her most were the persistent rumours of male ''workers'' and elders sexually abusing young - some very young - sect girls and getting away with it. There was, she says, a culture of secrecy, cover-ups and denial, and a dismissal of outside authority, which meant sex crimes stayed hidden. ''If something happened between a minister and a young girl, or a young boy, it would be swept under the carpet,'' she says. ''The minister would be moved away and nothing would be said. The families would be outraged - but they would also be scared of being kicked out of the tribe. I have reason to believe this is still going on.'' * Sources say senior members of the sect knew of the allegations that had already been made about him within sect circles at that time, but did nothing. In fact, in 1991 they promoted him to the senior position of ''worker'' - meaning he was travelling throughout Victoria and Tasmania and staying in family homes. ''He was around lots of children from that point on,'' a former sect member says. From 1991 until 2004, Chandler was in Wodonga, Shepparton, Launceston and rural Tasmania. Sect sources have confirmed that later in his time as a ''worker'', he positioned himself within the sect as a counsellor and a point of contact for victims of child sexual abuse. ''People were drawn to him as an advocate,'' the source says. * David Leitch denies sect leaders knew of Chandler's alleged past.
''If that had been the case he wouldn't have been involved in the way that he was.''
Leitch says he does not know if Chandler has continued to attend sect meetings since resigning.
''We would not tolerate any matters that were not upright and in accordance with the teachings of the Scripture,'' he says. ''You might have seen it in the Catholic Church and so on, but we would not tolerate any such stupidity.''
Then last year - this time in South Australia - the issue of child sexual abuse emerged in the secret sect again. A South Australian ''worker'', who has now moved to Victoria, alleged to David Leitch that another fellow ''worker'' had been allegedly sexually abusing children.
Leitch sacked the worker who raised the allegations because he says the allegations were not true and he knew they were not true because he investigated them himself.
''I investigated with the actual people involved, with the people who were supposed to be the victims. They said nothing happened. [The worker] brought forward false child sexual abuse allegations and he was removed from his posting.''
Leitch says if further allegations against sect members were raised he may or he may not tell the police.
''First I would assess how genuine the allegations are. I wasn't going to involve police in that other case because I know it was totally wrong. That would be a waste of resources and it's not common sense, it's stupidity.''
* His statement said the sect was ''financially well-off'', with donated money controlled by a trust fund of three elders. Jones died in 2001 and is buried at Narracan East cemetery in Gippsland. * David Leitch declined to elaborate on the sect's financial affairs now, but sources said it is still well-off, with money held in private bank accounts rather than a trust, to pay for senior members' overseas missions. www.theage.com.au/victoria/friends-and-enemies-truth-and-lies-20130922-2u7t4.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 0:05:17 GMT -5
Sigh.... I guess the ol' Irvine strategy has worn off?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Dec 30, 2013 0:11:40 GMT -5
Sigh.... I guess the ol' Irvine strategy has worn off? I love you, Bert. Sigh- when will the workers drop the living witness doctrine that is the root of so much of this nonsense and evil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 0:42:44 GMT -5
Sigh.... I guess the ol' Irvine strategy has worn off? I love you, Bert. Sigh- when will the workers drop the living witness doctrine that is the root of so much of this nonsense and evil. didn't Jesus send out living witnesses?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Dec 30, 2013 1:31:16 GMT -5
Bert, this is William Irvine's strategy. They gain control by fear of losing your salvation and that is pretty powerful.
How can the "sect" be "financially well off" if there is no organization?
More contradictions. What is it they are really hiding.
I know that Peter Moussou (sp?) Darren Briggs and Rueben Mata all were sent to jail. I guess that was just stupidity, even though they were convicted either by a jury or by confessing and pleading guilty. More stupidity, more victims.
Bert, you are a victim and don't even know it.........
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 30, 2013 1:52:49 GMT -5
Bert, this is William Irvine's strategy. They gain control by fear of losing your salvation and that is pretty powerful. How can the "sect" be "financially well off" if there is no organization? More contradictions. What is it they are really hiding. I know that Peter Moussou (sp?) Darren Briggs and Rueben Mata all were sent to jail. I guess that was just stupidity, even though they were convicted either by a jury or by confessing and pleading guilty. More stupidity, more victims. Bert, you are a victim and don't even know it......... Ruben Mata obviously pleaded guilty because they had to have a jury convict him.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 30, 2013 2:45:41 GMT -5
If he pleaded guilty why did a jury have to convict him? I thought a jury was used when someone pleaded not guilty.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Dec 30, 2013 3:16:59 GMT -5
I love you, Bert. Sigh- when will the workers drop the living witness doctrine that is the root of so much of this nonsense and evil. didn't Jesus send out living witnesses? Nah - just an 1800 biology book.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Dec 30, 2013 4:27:17 GMT -5
didn't Jesus send out living witnesses? They were witnesses of what they saw and heard while walking and talking and listening to Jesus in person and then he personally sent them out and somehow I don't think the same deal held 1,860 years later when Irvine and co. got their idea. I don't know of any workers that have told of even having a vision or of Jesus coming to them in person and telling them that he wanted them to bear witness of the things about Jesus ' which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled' in person - as it says in 1 John 1:1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 5:51:12 GMT -5
Sigh.... I guess the ol' Irvine strategy has worn off? Bert, I agree with you. It is very wrong to have suspicions or concerns as to whether CSA may be taking place within the church of God. You must have absolute proof before you raise any concerns with a heid bummer, otherwise if you are wrong, your backside will be kicked so hard that you will land out of bounds. Overseers or head workers should indeed investigate all these matters themselves, because who is better trained than they to elicit the truth of such matters? No friend is going to feel inhibited in disclosing all to a head worker. That is well known. This is the only way that a head worker can find out if one of those under his charge is making things up and telling lies. Get it right or get out. We do not make mistakes! It's good for the stats! Leitch sacked the worker who raised the allegations because he says the allegations were not true and he knew they were not true because he investigated them himself.
''I investigated with the actual people involved, with the people who were supposed to be the victims. They said nothing happened. [The worker] brought forward false child sexual abuse allegations and he was removed from his posting.''
I wonder if the "allegations" were genuine suspicions or concerns of the worker in question, or were they falsehoods that he made up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 6:24:01 GMT -5
What is the allegation made about us in general? That we focus upon the Workers and not upon Jesus?
Would you say that Workers get quoted a hundred times more than Jesus on this board? Not even WE do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 7:13:24 GMT -5
What is the allegation made about us in general? That we focus upon the Workers and not upon Jesus? You focus on a duinity! Jesus and the Workers are one. You cannot have Jesus without the Workers.
Would you say that Workers get quoted a hundred times more than Jesus on this board? Not even WE do that. Stats aren't my line!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 11:08:56 GMT -5
Whoa! Just came across this article.... old news I know to all here.... but new to me..... Wow! is David Leitch REALLY that tone deaf and actually insinuate that he may or may not go to police regarding other matters of child sexual abuse (because HE had to determine whether the accusations were true or not- and that to do it any other way would be stupidity?) And he fired a worker that brought a matter of CSA to him? Wow. And this dude is an overseer? Double-wow. With regard to being slippery about reporting suspected CSA offenses, Mr. Leitch is not an anomaly. There are two sets of guidelines written by two leading world overseers, both of which open the door the evasion of reporting. The one written by Alan Richardson of NZ suggests interviewing children and alleged perpetrators in certain instances. That means that not all suspected CSA offenses will get reported. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/alan-richardson-letter-to-new-zealand-workers-august-2012/ The other guideline written by Dale Schultz of the Western North America alliance takes a different tack to evading reporting. He suggests that they can avoid reporting by the clerical status as ministers in which they utilize confidentiality as their reason. "People who fall into the broad category of “clergy” can receive information of criminal conduct from a person of their congregation which could be legally classified as «penitential communication” and the failure of the clergy member to report this can be legally excused." Dale Schultz categorically states that reporting directly to law enforcement is the least preferred option of 4 options he outlines. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/dale-shultz-csa-guidelines-july-2006/I should say that the Alan Richardson guidelines are reasonably well done. They do emphasize the importance of reporting to authorities. However, they also open up possibilities to avoid reporting as well, whether intended or not. The Schultz guidelines are very poorly written and it's pretty obvious who the guidelines are trying to protect first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Dec 30, 2013 11:26:49 GMT -5
The other guideline written by Dale Schultz of the Western North America alliance takes a different tack to evading reporting. He suggests that they can avoid reporting by the clerical status as ministers in which they utilize confidentiality as their reason. "People who fall into the broad category of “clergy” can receive information of criminal conduct from a person of their congregation which could be legally classified as «penitential communication” and the failure of the clergy member to report this can be legally excused." Dale Schultz categorically states that reporting directly to law enforcement is the least preferred option of 4 options he outlines. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/dale-shultz-csa-guidelines-july-2006/ I am speechless. That is terrible. But- protecting the facade has always been more important than protecting the saints, or even the children.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 30, 2013 12:29:02 GMT -5
The other guideline written by Dale Schultz of the Western North America alliance takes a different tack to evading reporting. He suggests that they can avoid reporting by the clerical status as ministers in which they utilize confidentiality as their reason. "People who fall into the broad category of “clergy” can receive information of criminal conduct from a person of their congregation which could be legally classified as «penitential communication” and the failure of the clergy member to report this can be legally excused." Dale Schultz categorically states that reporting directly to law enforcement is the least preferred option of 4 options he outlines. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/dale-shultz-csa-guidelines-july-2006/ I am speechless. That is terrible. But- protecting the facade has always been more important than protecting the saints, or even the children. Religious organizations are no different from any other government organization. When push comes to shove the leaders are going to protect themselves and not their followers. That has been demonstrated over and over and still members of religious organizations think their leaders are above reproach, Godly and any number of other things that are completely false.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Dec 31, 2013 0:49:25 GMT -5
Overseers or head workers should indeed investigate all these matters themselves, because who is better trained than they to elicit the truth of such matters? No friend is going to feel inhibited in disclosing all to a head worker. That is well known. As a professing person, I need to ask: have you lost your ever-loving mind?!?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Dec 31, 2013 2:10:18 GMT -5
What is the allegation made about us in general? That we focus upon the Workers and not upon Jesus? Would you say that Workers get quoted a hundred times more than Jesus on this board? Not even WE do that. Bert. Not all are gullible and there are actually some that walk and sit beside you that have witnessed the things you say you have never seen. Perhaps a bit of head turning and observing may be in order. I hope you are not following the workers all that close because if one stops too soon, your head may become lodged in a darker place........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 2:33:41 GMT -5
Here's the "gullibility" bit --- I have no problem believing that people have faults. But I am not gullible in believing everyone behaves like this - as you imply, with gullibility, that they do.
Here's the "problem" bit --- you seem like one of those who ENJOY the failings or fall of another. Stones in hand.
And then, who knows, you might sit down before your TV tonight and enjoy having in your living room things more vile than the thing you claim offends you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 3:18:55 GMT -5
Whoa! Just came across this article.... old news I know to all here.... but new to me..... Wow! is David Leitch REALLY that tone deaf and actually insinuate that he may or may not go to police regarding other matters of child sexual abuse (because HE had to determine whether the accusations were true or not- and that to do it any other way would be stupidity?) And he fired a worker that brought a matter of CSA to him? Wow. And this dude is an overseer? Double-wow. With regard to being slippery about reporting suspected CSA offenses, Mr. Leitch is not an anomaly. There are two sets of guidelines written by two leading world overseers, both of which open the door the evasion of reporting. The one written by Alan Richardson of NZ suggests interviewing children and alleged perpetrators in certain instances. That means that not all suspected CSA offenses will get reported. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/alan-richardson-letter-to-new-zealand-workers-august-2012/ The other guideline written by Dale Schultz of the Western North America alliance takes a different tack to evading reporting. He suggests that they can avoid reporting by the clerical status as ministers in which they utilize confidentiality as their reason. "People who fall into the broad category of “clergy” can receive information of criminal conduct from a person of their congregation which could be legally classified as «penitential communication” and the failure of the clergy member to report this can be legally excused." Dale Schultz categorically states that reporting directly to law enforcement is the least preferred option of 4 options he outlines. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/dale-shultz-csa-guidelines-july-2006/I should say that the Alan Richardson guidelines are reasonably well done. They do emphasize the importance of reporting to authorities. However, they also open up possibilities to avoid reporting as well, whether intended or not. The Schultz guidelines are very poorly written and it's pretty obvious who the guidelines are trying to protect first and foremost. i know Alan very well and i know his integrity would not allow him to not report any instance or allegation made within the fellowship whether worker or saint and i know that this has been made known in the ministry here that there should be no cover up even if they happened years ago
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 6:24:35 GMT -5
Overseers or head workers should indeed investigate all these matters themselves, because who is better trained than they to elicit the truth of such matters? No friend is going to feel inhibited in disclosing all to a head worker. That is well known. As a professing person, I need to ask: have you lost your ever-loving mind?!? Quizzer, why asketh thee? One cannot lose that which one has not gained!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 6:31:15 GMT -5
How CSA situations are dealt with is not always determined by the 'experts' available, petitions written or by 2x2 leadership -- The people directly involved (victim, victims parents/guardian, perpetrator) have the first and major decisions to make of blowing (or not blowing) the whistle. I would guess that by far the majority of possible CSA instances within 2x2ism stop at this stage -- and then don't reappear again for 15 or 20 years. Leadership doesn't need to take any kind of responsibility -- because they never have been directly informed.. and the extremely vague indications of something being wrong, are easier dealt with inconspicuously.
The background to many of the field moves within 2x2ism has often been made on this kind of fuzzy, none identifiable insinuations that have never been put into words -- some of these moves, hardly represent punishable wrong doing by 2x2 leadership when in reality leadership had nothing concrete to work on. They just represent a doctrine filled with dark places where no-one really can be sure of anything.
Edgar
That which is in darkness will be brought to the light....but it may take 15-20 years!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 7:45:44 GMT -5
That which is in darkness will be brought to the light....but it may take 15-20 years!!
I agree Edgar. I have every confidence that if the "allegations" brought to this head worker by an underling, are indeed genuine, then this matter will come back to haunt this head worker in time!
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Dec 31, 2013 8:50:33 GMT -5
That which is in darkness will be brought to the light....but it may take 15-20 years!! I agree Edgar. I have every confidence that if the "allegations" brought to this head worker by an underling, are indeed genuine, then this matter will come back to haunt this head worker in time! In the United States, and possibly in New Zealand, the head worker may have broken a law by "sacking" an underling for reporting CSA, even if the report turned out not to be true. In most states, the whistle blower has immunity from prosecution or civil lawsuits for reporting CSA. However, the overseer may have opened himself up for a civil lawsuit or even later prosecution from the government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 9:15:34 GMT -5
That which is in darkness will be brought to the light....but it may take 15-20 years!! I agree Edgar. I have every confidence that if the "allegations" brought to this head worker by an underling, are indeed genuine, then this matter will come back to haunt this head worker in time! In the United States, and possibly in New Zealand, the head worker may have broken a law by "sacking" an underling for reporting CSA, even if the report turned out not to be true. In most states, the whistle blower has immunity from prosecution or civil lawsuits for reporting CSA. However, the overseer may have opened himself up for a civil lawsuit or even later prosecution from the government. I think in most civilised countries, sacking van employee for having justifiable suspicions would at least break civil/employment laws. The only justification that such behaviour would be justified is if the worker in question, made up the allegations himself, or was reporting as genuine, falsehoods that he knew were untrue. If the allegations were true and the head worker was attempting to "bury them," then he would at the very least be "attempting to pervert the course of justice," provided it could be shown that he had some knowledge of a crime and was attempting to avoid the due process of law. Attempting to pervert the course of justice is a very serious crime and is punishable with a long jail sentence. Of course we know nothing (so far) about the truth of this matter, so further comment is unwise. However, on the face of it, this head worker may well qualify for next year's Christmas pantomime and be offered a part as one of the unwise men coming from Eastern Australia?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 9:23:12 GMT -5
With regard to being slippery about reporting suspected CSA offenses, Mr. Leitch is not an anomaly. There are two sets of guidelines written by two leading world overseers, both of which open the door the evasion of reporting. The one written by Alan Richardson of NZ suggests interviewing children and alleged perpetrators in certain instances. That means that not all suspected CSA offenses will get reported. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/alan-richardson-letter-to-new-zealand-workers-august-2012/ The other guideline written by Dale Schultz of the Western North America alliance takes a different tack to evading reporting. He suggests that they can avoid reporting by the clerical status as ministers in which they utilize confidentiality as their reason. "People who fall into the broad category of “clergy” can receive information of criminal conduct from a person of their congregation which could be legally classified as «penitential communication” and the failure of the clergy member to report this can be legally excused." Dale Schultz categorically states that reporting directly to law enforcement is the least preferred option of 4 options he outlines. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/dale-shultz-csa-guidelines-july-2006/I should say that the Alan Richardson guidelines are reasonably well done. They do emphasize the importance of reporting to authorities. However, they also open up possibilities to avoid reporting as well, whether intended or not. The Schultz guidelines are very poorly written and it's pretty obvious who the guidelines are trying to protect first and foremost. i know Alan very well and i know his integrity would not allow him to not report any instance or allegation made within the fellowship whether worker or saint and i know that this has been made known in the ministry here that there should be no cover up even if they happened years ago You don't know him as well as you think you do. Sure, he is one of the better ones but believe me, he has had to be repeatedly prompted to do the right thing. As far as wisdom goes, the reason why his guidelines have flaws is for the same mistake that Irvine Grey succumbed to in writing his flawed book about the 2x2's: he failed to seek the input of those who are the most likely to be able to see the flaws.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Dec 31, 2013 10:01:37 GMT -5
For an organization that likes to hide in the darkness and has mastered the art of double-talk and giving evasive answers- the CSA issue is a nightmare for the workers due to having to go to court and be recorded for posterity and made publicly available. Some of the most damaging comments have come from workers who have to testify under oath (or in Jerome's case, have a lawyer speak for him- which was a big mistake on his part- maybe not for him, but for the reputation of the fellowship- such as it is.) I feel that this is one of the reasons that the CSA issue has lingered- not because the workers don't care about the children- it is just that they care more about the image of the ministry than they do the children- and going to the authorities also means public record- something that they try to avoid at all costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 10:15:36 GMT -5
That which is in darkness will be brought to the light....but it may take 15-20 years!! I agree Edgar. I have every confidence that if the "allegations" brought to this head worker by an underling, are indeed genuine, then this matter will come back to haunt this head worker in time! In the United States, and possibly in New Zealand, the head worker may have broken a law by "sacking" an underling for reporting CSA, even if the report turned out not to be true. In most states, the whistle blower has immunity from prosecution or civil lawsuits for reporting CSA. However, the overseer may have opened himself up for a civil lawsuit or even later prosecution from the government. The legal difficulty would be to prove that it was because of reporting CSA that they were expelled from the work ... 2x2ism is famous for its flagrant dishonesty in explaining expulsions. Check out the ongoing issue in Vietnam at www.anotherstep.net/Vietnam/ChausExpulsion.htm As well as the deceitful and fraudulent explanation given for Marg Magowans expulsion from the work by retroactively digging up manufactured filth. Check www.anotherstep.net/summary/constructedfilth.htmExplaining expulsion is where 2x2ism excels in its complete moral indifference to deceiving its membership and betraying the truth.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Dec 31, 2013 12:16:25 GMT -5
David Leitch has also made it harder for the overseers to claim that "we have no authority" and are a system "of equals" defense/facade that Jerome Frandle and his lawyer tried to use. This overseer has made it plain that he is the boss and that he can "fire" workers. It is quite comical and sad. To David's credit, at least he didn't try to deny his role or position within the organization.
|
|