jkboehme

"...Behind the scenes, the disciplining was the REAL programming that was sought. Jump when they say "jump!" In house, peer pressure, sleep deprivation, privacy deprivation, and coercion were the real levers of persuasion and indoctrination..." ************************************************************************************************* I think in many if not most instances the initial foible was not a general lack of critical thinking, but that most of us were experiencing some transient vulnerability that allowed us to be sucked into TWI when our critical guard was down. Examples: death of a loved one, ending of a relationship, going off to college, loss of a job, divorce, etc., etc. Then the big 'hook' was a strategically implemented destabilization of our worldview with replacement by the semi-resonable concepts {neoplatonic, hermetic, kabbalistic, etc., straight off VPW's own AC 'junk table'} that inhabit the intro level class. Then modeling, peer pressure, & any of numerous ways to covertly influence one's thinking were utilized.

Yes, I totally agree. It's all just selfish, deceptive, manipulation & exploitation for the self-aggrandizement of the leader(s) / biggest bully / CEO / etc.

Per LG: Unfortunately, LG, you are categorically correct in that ostensibly we must all take the courts at their (inbred, provencial, biased, dimwitted, cowardly, & lethargic) word. Neverthess, consider a few examples. The Roman Catholic debacle that has come to light in the last 5 years could have perhaps been largely obviated, or come to light decades sooner, by due diligence on the part of the federal and various state judiciaries if they would have willing to hear the cases. The parents of Elizabeth Smart should have filed an undue influence case. The 'lost boys' of the FLDS should all file lawsuits. Others too numerous too mention. In the USA, the overall mindset is that {pseudo-spiritual} religion is for the 'public good,' & whatever minor torts or even felonies that they commit, are acceptable in view of the tremendous amount of 'good' that they supposedly confer upon their congregants or perform in charity work. Even mensa-minded 'W' got on the wagon with Faith Based & Community Initiatives. The court system apparently does not have the courage or integrity to pursue the small cultic bad actors, for fear of the legal food chain reaching the large denominational bad actors. Cultic casualties of small cult abuse (e.g., TWI & VPW/LCM, Peoples Temple & Jim Jones, Branch Davidians & Koresh, etc.), no matter how severe, apparently are not worth the time & effort of our taxpayer supported judiciary system. We are legally expendable canon fodder of TWI.

Per LG: It's not a matter of doctrine or First Amendment issues, though certain lazy, incompetent, black robed charlatans endeavor to hide under the skirts of Lady Liberty & make such provencial 'turf and dump' dismissal decisions. The issues are exploitative manipulation (undue influence), breach of minister-congregant fiduciciary duty, willful infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, among others. It's common sense but please see God vs. The Gavel by Dr. Marcia Hamilton, JD, law professor. In order to save your time, you will want to first focus on the two most pertinent chapters, which are chapters 8 & 9 (pages 203 – 272). Chapter 8: Boerne v. Flores {pp. 203 – 237 with Conclusion on pp. 235 – 237}. The net result of the Boerne decision was to foreclose religious' entities arguments that religious motivation should absolve religious actors of neutral laws governing their conduct. The burden rests on the religious believers demanding exemption from a law to prove that the conduct sought to be immunized is not harmful to the society and individuals in it. In Employment Division v. Smith, it is seen that correct reading of the Free Exercise Clause is that an individual's religious beliefs do NOT excuse him or her from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. Chapter 9: The Decline of Special Treatment of Religious Entities & the Rise of the No-Harm Rule {pp. 238 – 272 with Conclusion on pp. 271 – 272}. The elimination of religious sovereign power by definition made religious institutions private, and therefore on a more equal footing with other private entities. The constitutionally relevant question is NOT what is best for any 'church' – indeed that question is forbidden by the neutrality principle underlying the Establishment Clause. The proper question instead IS whether the liberty accorded is consonant with the no-harm principle. As the no-harm principle has developed over the centuries, it has become an insuperable barrier for the claim that the Constitution can or should place religious entities above the law.

On 07/05/2006, the TN Appellate Court ruled that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, i.e., the dismissal of the Peelers' case in 07/2005 by the TN State Circuit Court of Judge Marie Williams has been upheld. Therefore the Peelers' case will be appealed to the TN Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only grants ~ 1-5% of the applications filed each year in civil cases. The unique circumstances and the apparent constitutional issues might pique the curiosity of the court, especially in view of the increased litigation regarding religious organizations over the past 5 years, FBI top-ten Warren Jeffs of cultic FLDS not withstanding.

It appears that a decision will be rendered by the Appellate Court shortly after the July 4th recess. Of all of the cases heard by the Appellate Court in that particular session in April 06, the Peeler vs. twi case is the only one that has not had a decision rendered.

Hi bowtwi! Since the Peelers have the advantage of the Appellate hearing having been heard ~ April Fool's Day, with the two month 'anniversary' of the hearing occurring on 6/6/6 {06 June 2006}, hopefully good news will be imminently forthcoming!!! Nevertheless, the Appellate court typically renders their decisions in 90 to 180 days, therefore a decision should be rendered between 07/06/06 to 10/06/06. Hopefully the case will be remanded by the Appellate Court {back} to TN State Circuit Court in Chattanooga for a jury trial, rather than the case dismissal via motion for summary judgement being upheld. If the latter were to eventuate, then the case would need to be appealed to the TN Supreme Court, & if rebuffed there, on to the US Supreme Court. Typically there is no pre-announcement of the rendered decision, simply a notification by the Appellate Judges' clerk(s) to the Peelers' attorneys.

Per LG: ( Why would TWI do that? What possible benefit might there be? ********************************** LG, One possible scenario is that the PEELER v. twi litigation is still ongoing, with an Appellate Hearing just held on 04/06/2006 in Knoxville. TWI may well be testing the waters to determine what the current level of persisting discontent is relative to lcm & twi. If twi perceives the level of discontent {?anger, hate, bitterness} to continue to be very high, this will impact some of their decisions regarding the litigation, such as, if the case is remanded by the Appellate Judge panel to TN State Circuit Court in Chattanooga, they may feel that it would be in their interests to offer a significant settlement to the Peelers rather than to release the wrath of multiple Plaintiff witnesses on the witness stand. If they perceive ex-twi have gotten all mushy for martinpuke, they might try to duke it out in court. There are others, but I am tired right now........

As of spring 2004 LCM was neither attending TWI Twigs or HFs nor any denominational church. As others have indicated, he has no remorse for any of his actions while in leadership in TWI.

Per Goey Per diazbro ___________________________________________________ Freud, My gut tells me that you are a straw man {or woman, ? Dottie Moneyhands @ UK} purposefully endeavoring to evoke sympathy for a narcissistic psychopath, LCM. Your approach would appear to be that of Eriksonian indirection and implication. No thanks. Goey, diazbro, & Catcup are on the mark.

rhino, The events took place from 11/1972 to 07/2001. Preliminary legal activities began in 08/2001 with the case actually being filed in June 2002. Interestingly enough, TWI's attorneys allege the Peelers knew or should have known they were being conned from the beginning! During the Appellate Court hearing for entertainment of oral arguments on 04/06/2006, one of the three judicial panel members was 'having difficulty' understanding how one can separate religious beliefs from religious practices, whereupon the Peelers' attorneys offered this analogy which favorably shocked this particular interrogating Judge.... The Al Queda members involved in the 09/11 events held certain bizzare & mean-spirited beliefs, which were foolish but acceptable in the USA, as long as these beliefs were held in mind only. However, when they became involved in the CONDUCT of flying the planes into buildings & thereby injuring &/or killing innocent people, they incontrovertibly crossed the line between First Amendment protection of religious beliefs and associated non-injurious religious practices.

Hello See Me, We are with you all the way in your battle against the cornfield cult! Which legal firm is representing twi in this litigation? Who are the assigned attorneys? Just curious to see if it's the same firm {Baker & Hostetler, Cleveland, OH, office} and firm partner & attorney, Lou Colombo, that are involved in the Peeler v. twi litigation? Baker & Hostetler has 10 offices in the USA & two international offices {Brazil & Mexico}. Note their website to see how this white collar defense firm assists dirtballs such as twit leadership to try to escape justice, at a nominal ~ $750 -$1,000/hour fee range. http://www.bakerlaw.com/News.aspx

OM, I will check into it. If it's available, I will either post it or have it posted, presuming it's OK with Paw et al. JKB

The Peelers want to express their gratitude for the much-needed emotional support. The hearing before the Appellate Court took place today from 9:30AM to ~ 10:15AM. The three judge panel was composed of Judge Lee, Judge Susano, & Judge Swiney. Both Susano & Lee were former plaintiff attorneys whereas Swiney has a background in defense. Lee is the singular female Judge on this panel. Whereas, prior to the hearing, it appeared as though the proceedings would focus on the issue of the statute of limitations, in actuality this was a foregone conclusion in the Peelers favor and the intensity of questioning by the judidical panel centered firmly on First Amendment issues. The Peelers' Attorney, Mike Anderson, did a superb job of both presenting the case as well as addressing the Judge's concerns on the difference, and the significance of the difference, between religious beliefs as contrasted with a religious group's actions, deeds, behaviour, & non-liturgical practices. The judiciary appellate panel typically hands down a ruling in 90 - 180 days.

bowtwi, As it is, the case has been dismissed from the State Circuit Court in Chattanooga by Judge Marie Williams. Therefore, the Peelers' attorneys appealed the case, which is why it is now before the intermediate TN Appellate Court. A three judge panel will hear oral arguments by Counsel for both Plaintiffs & Defendants on 04/06/2006 in Knoxville, TN. Interestingly, this is largely an academic exercise by the three Appellate Judges. This is because the law clerk for the Appellate Judge will review all case materials to date & this law clerk, himself or herself only a first year practicing attorney, will actually write the opinion {decision} for the three Judges to 'review!' Probably ~ 90% of the time the Appellate Judges will go with the 'suggestion' of the law clerk, & thus render a cosmetic vicarious decision. Therefore essentially the Peelers will have a law clerk deciding if their case is to be remanded to State Circuit Court. Hopefully this law clerk will be aware & sensitive to the subtle power of spiritual abuse & not become befuddled by the irrelevant arguments of TWI. Rather than the central issue being one of First Amendment considerations, probably the central issue before the Appellate Court will be consideration of the application of the statute of limitations. The Peelers contend that, due to TWI's systematic exploitative manipulation via deceptive undue influence, that they could NOT have reasonably understood the machinations of their spiritual abuse by TWI & thus filed a lawsuit before they in fact did in June of 2002. TWI will unethically contend that the Peelers knew or should have known that they were being systematically and strategically exploitatively manipulated priior to this time, and that therefore the statute of limitations bars any legal action. However, this decision regarding the statue of limitations is a decision to be made by the jury, not a Judge, & is based on both mandates and legal precedents. For a Judge to make this decision would be a usurpation of the Plaintiffs' {Peelers'} right to have this decision made by a jury, who, via the jury trial process, is given the benefit of explanation how thought reform was utilized by TWI to purposefully indoctrinate and deceive its members, including the Peelers. Hopefully the Appellate Judges will be intrigued by this pleasantly unusual case and pay very close attention to all the pertinent details. If two out of the three of them concur that the Peelers, because of TWI's utilization of individual psychological and group-wide social undue influence, did not know or could not have known to file the case sooner, then the case would be remanded to State Circuit Court for a jury trial. However, if the Appellate Judges are feeling lethargic & thinking superficially on 04/06/2006, & really just don't want to have to put forth the work and effort to cogitate the case in requsite deepth, they can uphold the dismissal of the case. Hopefully, the panel of Appellate Judges will be up to speed on this date, carefully evaluate the law clerk's legal analysis & suggestions, and reach a logical conclusion indicating an understanding of the reality of undue influence via thought reform & its impact of the statute of limitations.