Dec 7, 2006
FH Chandler's Favorites
FH Chandler Profile
While he may be a jerk and in prison, OJ Simpson did not hide assets [he tried, and failed] and he is not broke. Also, the example was brought up to illustrate the difficulties in actually collecting a civil judgment as opposed to winning it. It seems you think that just because you "win" in court that the "losing" party is somehow obligated to cut you a check. In the real world, it doesn't work that way. And, as previously pointed out, attorneys who previously worked for free tend to get expensive when they have to start working to collect, especially if insurance is willing to cover up to the limit of the coverageMmmmkayWho is "ContinuousAn d yet here you are, one of the most active users of this forum of lateOn a technicality, not on the point which, allegedly, drove the plaintiff to file itWhich, in and of itself, doesn't mean they are guilty of malfeasanceMy attitude results from seeing a perversion of justice. That you perceive these cases to be something other than is more a statement about you than meMy comments on this case and ones that are similar result from these cases being used to pervert justice, not because of any loyalty to the JW sect which I haven't been an active member of in nearly fifteen yearsI have several very good reasons for not thinking highly of your idol, but in particular I don't think highly of her because she is a coward who failed to report her alleged molestation when she was the single individual in a position to bring charges against someone who allegedly molested; because of her silence when she was the only person in a position to act from ACTUAL knowledge at a time when her alleged molester had already plead guilty to a misdemeanor, another young girl was molested. And her actions aren't typical of abused children; they're typical of exJWs who hate one of their parents because they didn't enjoy being raised as JWs and because the parent cared more about being a JW than being a good parent to the childAnother straw man. I can't speak to every one of the relative few instances there are of alleged abuse among JWs or to the character of the persons who bring charges in those cases. I doubt that many or even most of them are what you call "scum". I can count the number of cases of molestation involving JWs I've discussed on Topix on one hand (Garza, Boer, Conti, Porter and the one involving the person who posted here claiming to be the parent of an alleged third victim who never actually brought charges - that one was simply a matter of the person making a stink on this forum and telling more lies than I could count). That they've all involved some sort of shenanigans - typically blatant dishonesty - on the part of either the claimants, agents of the claimants or persons defending them is their failing, not mine; also, I hardly consider those VERY few of the relative few to be representative of them all. (1 hr ago | post #330)
The case would not have gotten off the ground if there were not a link - the reporting of church discipline - between JW Congregations and WT, specifically the WT "Service Department". Elders in JW Congregations report certain congregation business to them, and there is absolutely no reason that they should be doing that. More to the point, any information relayed about Congregation discipline to any third party [if there is to be a "Service Department" it should be part of the CCJW and not "the Watchtower"], it should be within the context of spiritual counselors/shepher ds counseling, shepherding and disciplining departures from what they consider proper "spiritual " conduct, i.e., sins. To put a finer finish on it, there should have been no discussion within the context of congregational discipline regarding Jonathan Kendrick allegedly molesting his stepdaughter. JW elders in that case should have at the outset refused to have anything to do with the Kendrick family if the "help" they sought involved either allegations of or a confession of a criminal act unless and until an alleged victim of crime or a confessing criminal first took those allegations to the police and dealt with the matter legally. Essentially, JW elders should have been entirely hands-off where it concerned providing spiritual discipline or spiritual counseling to either a confessing Jonathan Kendrick [even though he didn't confess to them] or to his step-daughter, to the degree she sought spiritual counseling. If a criminal act is involved, law enforcement has to be made aware - particularly by either the confessing party or the accusing party - and the legal process has to play out first. And if a confessor or a claimant insists on involving JW elders, once the allegation is made or the confession offered, they immediately put a stop to the proceedings, contact the OGCJW - a privileged conversation that despite being made to a third party doesn't break privilege under most definitions - to brush up on what their actual duties are, immediately take care of them and make a record of the fact that they did so. They should also report, vaguely if necessary, to police what has occurred. Let the police go pursue the matter rather than appear to have obstructed justice by continuing the congregational discipline process. If that alienates an alleged pedophile from the congregation, or if that causes the family of an alleged victim some butthurt, so what? You probably don't want the problems associated with an alleged pedophile who is actually facing being reported to the police, and the family of the victims, unless they are devout and loyal JWs are going to pass the blame on to the elders anyway; better to simply get the cops involved regardless of what the claimants want and be free from substantive blame. And there should be a public announcement; it doesn't have to specifically state what's been alleged/confessed to, only a general statement [if it involves an elder/MS] that "such and such" is temporarily facing restrictions within the congregation due to legal action and if the matter is resolved in his favor, all restrictions will be lifted." Nice, simple, hands-off, it puts the congregation on [yellow] alert and removes the possibility that either an alleged victim/criminal's legal issues will be influenced by congregation discipline. And if it turns out that someone is actually guilty of a criminal sexual act, then congregation discipline treats that as a sin - which, from that perspective, it is - and reports, properly, that such-and-such was reproved, disfellowshipped, etc., due to "sexual immorality". So simple I explained it in less than 4,000 characters. (3 hrs ago | post #322)
You're right, even if you're right for the wrong reasonWhich onesNearly" doesn't countIf you're referring to how they handle [unsubstantiated, unproven, suspect] allegations of sexual abuse from persons who, for some reason, aren't willing to report this alleged abuse to the proper authorities [and who seem to always get a pass on that by ex/antiJWs online], I don't agree with your contention that it is, "against public interest". It has flaws that could be easily corrected and that should be easily corrected as it would save them time, trouble and money [though persons like yourself would likely still spin it to make them out to be, if not outright evil - a laughable contention coming from an individual who left them to join a murderous cult founded by an individual who, if he'd lived in this day and age would rightly be dubbed a pedophile - then self-serving], but it doesn't have the flaws you attribute to itMmmmkay. (3 hrs ago | post #320)
Candace Conti is, among other things, a tool being used by various persons to push an agenda. She "won" a judgment based on a technicality, a flaw in the structure of the JW sectI don't know where you, and some of these other posters, come up with the junk you publish here. I don't recall saying anything on the order of what you're attributing to me. If something I said actually led you to this conclusion, then your reading comprehension is extremely poor. As to what she could or could not live with, she deserves absolutely nothing from them. The judgment rendered was rendered on a technicality; she didn't bring anything to the table that came near to proving she was actually abused, and her own personal credibility is... I'll be very nice and say it's suspect - at best. That said, the judgment that was rendered, despite the fact that it was a technical victory for her - and, more importantly, she LOST on the larger point she claimed she brought the suit for - was the correct judgment NOT because she either proved she'd been abused or because she deserved compensation, but because the manner JW elders and the old WT Legal Department carry on their activities was flawed. For failing to address not just a couple of minor flaws in their structure, as well as for failing to properly insulate themselves from the problems brought up by the sort of allegations that were at the heart of the case - another thing they could do quite easily - they deserved to lose. That doesn't mean she deserved to win. Also, puffery is great, especially when you're an anonymous person on the Internet, but if you're actually planning on betting the farm on WT going bankrupt, you should probably reconsiderIt's interesting that you offer a straw man, and then proceed to judge the character of people you don't even know based on it. At the same time, you appear to have bought into the canonization of another individual you don't know, a person of at best questionable credibility and character for, it seems, no other reason than that you have an irrational dislike of a group you used to be a part of. (3 hrs ago | post #319)
I don't know what sort of person we're carrying on with here, but they are obviously extremely misinformed, entirely ignorant or are lying through their teeth. He/she made a statement about WT being now known as a facilitator of abuse because of its policy; obviously he/she didn't pay attention to the decision in WT's appeal of the Conti case, which struck down the prior punitive damage award that was based on the "policy" argument this fool is referencing. He/she also failed to read my prior post regarding the difference between "winning " a judgment in court and actually collecting on it. For a real life example see: Goldman, Fred. (7 hrs ago | post #310)
Here: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L0A0HDM944M3L1SN/p ost189You invoked the term, "franchises ", obviously not knowing anything about the relationship between a franchisor and a franchisee, for you suggest that a JW Congregation as a so-called franchisee is merely a unit of the franchisor and that the WT can just "move cash around" between it's franchisee units. But that's not how franchises work, as I stated in my response. It's also not how "the Watchtower" works in relation to JW Congregations. A franchisor cannot just "move cash around", i.e., delve into the bank account(s) of a franchisee, and "the Watchtower" legal entity can't just reach into the bank account of a local congregation's non-profit corporation which holds the KH deed. To make a donation to WT out of congregation funds, the congregation has to have a resolution to do so. So, to answer your question, I don't think that you meant a Kingdom Hall is like a burger joint because even actual franchised burger joints don't operate as you suggest. (7 hrs ago | post #309)
So, what SPECIFIC person do you have ACTUAL knowledge of telling an alleged abuse victim that they should not report their alleged abuse because it would, "dishonor Jehovah"? (7 hrs ago | post #307)
Him, and the dee-generate and aadrivers among others have just decided that because they think something is a certain way that that's how it is, regardless of reality as non only illustrated in that blurb [a very minor blurb, as it was; as a matter of fact, BSA wasn't a party to that lawsuit, was it?] from the Boy Scout lawsuit, but based on what you just published. I suppose they think that large organizations with what they presume are deep pockets just don't bother with insurance because they can pay for all of the things regular people need insurance for. (Yesterday | post #283)
New response[s]: 4. Is he related to Dick Clark? 5. Does he work for Tom Clark Chevrolet? 6. The guy from the Seahawks who hit his girlfriend? (Yesterday | post #250)
New response: 3. Is he Ryan Clark's dad? [And when they say Ryan Clark, they mean the former Steelers' safety, not YOUR son Ryan Clark.] (Yesterday | post #249)
I just asked ten different people here in Pittsburgh if they remembered Frank Clark Sr.; responses fell into two categories: 1. "Who is Frank Clark Sr."? 2. Is he the guy who made the candy bar? (Yesterday | post #248)
MOST people finance the purchase of homes through mortgages. MOST purchases of real property are financed through mortgages. MOST construction of real property is financed through construction loans, which are pretty much the same as mortgagesEmphasis mine] Who is "we"? If you're the sort of person who purchased his own home or other real property ENTIRELY with savings/disposable income and who didn't finance through a mortgage, congratulations; you're in the minority. (Yesterday | post #269)
You must have missed where that verdict was pretty much gutted on appeal. Also, "the Watchtower" didn't "defend a sex offender" in that case. (Yesterday | post #267)
I did. A product of your BBC [which sits somewhere slightly left of our CNN], it appears to rate in your hierarchy of so-called news reporting somewhere near where "Hard Copy" and the like rate in ours. In other words, it's akin to "trash TV" and it's generally considered to be insanely biased [as the BBC generally is] toward the political left, especially critical of traditional institutions, politics and anything generally not considered "progressive ", usually to the point of sensationalism. They also seem to have a tendency to misquote/misrepres ent sources. To its credit, it was only slightly more spun, deceptive and slanted than the 2001 Dateline pieceFactual" ... you mean like the highly misleading comments regarding the alleged "pedophile " database? The one which, according to JR Brown, not only doesn't have nearly as many names in it as are alleged [with no substantiation, by that vile Barbara Anderson] and that not everyone in it has actually been accused of a sexual crime? (Yesterday | post #266)
And that, absent physical evidence and corroborating witnesses, mean precisely dick. I appreciate your use of the phrase, "JW in good standing" however; the implication being that a JW should be anything but in good standing absent a substantiated allegation. It's a bit of verbal slipperiness often employed by your type as a way of vilifying JWs generally and JW elders specifically as if they have some obligation to know that a JW in their midst is guilty of something absent a credible allegation, physical evidence, corroborating witnesses, etcEmphasis mine] It's quite a different thing for a person to be found guilty of sexual abuse as opposed to having an unsubstantiated allegation lobbed at youAs it should be for any JW or any celebrityI never suggested otherwiseIn lieu of reporting to the police. And not because the JW sect is teaching them to do it, either; the large volume of literature penned by the JWGB on the subjects of rape and child abuse never suggests that JWs should use congregation elders as a substitute for secular authorities. IMO, any parent who fails to do anything other than immediately contact the police if either their child tells them they've been abused or has a REASONABLE suspicion that they've been abused is poor parentA JW congregation is not an instrument of secular justice. JW elders aren't meant to be policemen and they aren't dealing with criminal offenders. They're spiritual counselors looking to aid, admonish, occasionally punish and help persons become reconciled to what they believe is "god". Is there a particular reason that, within the context of a congregant/peniten t seeking help for a matter from a member of the clergy/similar functionary/spirit ual counselor with the idea of church/congregatio n discipline with a view toward spiritual justice, reconciliation and forgiveness, there should be something beyond thatIt's interesting that for as many times as I've heard that allegation, I have yet to hear of an instance of it actually being substantiated. Who, specifically, has ever said this to an alleged abuse victim? (Yesterday | post #265)
Q & A with FH Chandler
THEY SEE HIM TROLLIN...
Just off of Krem Ln, #666
Trolls to the left of me, griefers to the right...
I Belong To:
A roving gang of Tom Brokaw clones, the 'Burt Rettig' appreciation society and the "NOBODY LOSES TO DOUGLAS CLARK" protection plan.
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm waiting patiently for the FBI [and their KGB handlers] with hot coffee, donuts, ponchiki and Stolichnaya vodka at the ready.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
Don't worry, I'll beam my posts into your brain.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
Synthetic telepathy neural decoding your every thought. EW! You just wished you could sniff my socks! Also Snake People.
On My Mind:
You mother-[expletive] communications is corrupted. Whatever. WHATEVER. YOU GOTS ME NOW!
Blog / Website / Homepage:
NadINDYa's favorite (yes, FAVORITE!) song [SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE WARNING]: http://youtu.be/gncW1zqMFgs
I Believe In:
"Posting...factual and truthful information as well as information that has already been posted by the owner them self and especially publicly accessible information...for any reason...will never be 'doxing'". - Kurt James Hennig, of Monroe, MI, late of Glendale, AZ, known to use aliases "Konrad Jakobus" and "Burt Rettig" [and also various Internet sock-puppet personalities including, but not necessarily limited to: Micky Mouse, Morty Moose, Nunybeeuz, MonkeyShines, KJH4129, Vince, Seen it All, It Is What It Is, K-D-M 4129, Night Sentry, Kurtdermench, KtotheRad, DDKH, One Who Knows, ONLY TRUTH HERE [from "Anonymous Proxy"], KradicalOne, LazarusLong, et al]: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T7UFJUGTR9M96HQML/post46
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC