I'm not going to quote - because I'm short on time right now,... But in the 2nd PDF the question arose about whether or not the Way had any way of keeping track of who & how much people donated (and when)? to which Rosalie seemed to reply that the ministry didn't track people's abundant sharing and - Oh h3ll, I'll quote....
Q: Okay, does the Way monitor the amount of contributions that people make to determine whether or not they're really giving 10%?
A: No, we don't
And later...
Q: And how about when Craig Martindale left in September of 2000; did the Peelers contact you then and make any inquiries?
A: No
Q: And did the Peelers continue throughout the year 2000 to make tithes or abundant sharing contributions to The Way?
A: Yes, they did.
Q: And in 2001?
A: Yes.
Q: And according to The Way's records, what was the date of the last contribution that the Peelers made?
A: I believe it was may 2001
Nah,.............. No one keeps track of those kinds of things...
My dad told me astory about his Branch Coordinator who knew his military Pay Rate jumping on him if his contributions wavered below their highest previous level.
"So are you tithing?" if you say "Yes" I multiply by ten and figure out what your probable income is. If you proudly announce, "Hell, I'm giving 20%, I can ammend that to multiplying by five."
Heck, even the Catholic Church does this with me, if I don't make regular contributions. My priest in Limerick sends me 'extra' personalized contribution envelopes (if you've ever associated with the Catholic Church, you know about these)
Everyone tracks the money..... even if they get nothing else right....
Everyone tracks the money..... even if they get nothing else right....
Great stuff, Gen2. The way international collects it's abundant sharing using what is affectionately referred to as a blue form. The method of recording who gives what is as follows:
1. Any check that is given, the person's name and the amount they gave is recorded
2. Any amount given over $250 could be written off. They will send you a letter to use on your tax return if you make sure you designate it. Put your name out there.
3. If you gave cash then you were encouraged to put it in an envelope with your name on it. Remember that a suggestion from a leader is paramount to a command
So, in essence, things are tracked pretty thoroughly. Yet another example of Rosalie.....
I do want to acknowledge something for the "nay-sayers."
Okay, does the Way monitor the amount of contributions that people make to determine whether or not they're really giving 10%?
Perhaps, this underscores that Rosalie and the gang don't necessarily sit around in their meetings and do the math to figure out who gives how much. BUT - the math is obvious, as Gen2 pointed out. And the practice is established amongst the way of the usa to confront people who do not give. That is also in the transcripts and perhaps I can pull it out later. Again, with the "babe in the woods" routine. Great performance, Rozilla - well done.
I haven't been a part of TWI since 1987, so I can't speak for practices after that time, but my experience was that someone communicated numbers back and forth from HQ to twig leaders. We deliberately mailed our checks to HQ so that our twig leaders would not know how much we were giving. We never shared what our income was with anyone. Not that we weren't asked.
One of our children was born early and had a lot of health issues because of prematurity. When I went to our twig leaders to request prayer, I was told my baby's issues were a result of our "lack of giving". Once I recovered from that remark, I wanted to know how that person could possibly know how much we were giving as we never gave through the twig. That's when I was told that the information was communicated to them from HQ. I went home and called HQ and told them that under no circumstances was our giving anyone else's business.
That was the only time we were actually "confronted" about giving.
Thanks OldSkool for finding this... Somehow I'm unable to download the first file..
Something else I find interesting and ironic were her answers regarding what they did with Martindale..
Q: So the Way disapproves of Adultery
[ Rosalie Rivenbark ] : Absolutely
Q: Now, when did it come to your attention that Craig Martindale violated this teaching?
[ Rivenbark ] : It came in - let's see - June of 1998
Q: Could you briefly describe how you became aware
[ Rivenbark ] : We were having an Adv. Class at The Way International. A woman and man that were in the class got into an argument. She revealed to him that she had an affair with Martindale, and it just blew up from there. The next thing I [Rivenbark] knew, I was invited to a board of trustees meeting, and Craig Martindale told us that was indeed true, apologized, said he would never let it happen again and that it happened in the past and that's where it would stay
Q: All right, so is this the first time it had come to your attention that Craig Martindale had been involved in an extramarital relationship?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes
Q: Did the board do anything in response to this information?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, first we were shocked, and then we began to consider how to handle it. And one of the things is that, because he was our chief teacher, he studied and did research a lot and worked considerably on his own and had a rather loose schedule. And another we noted was that he was a dynamic teacher and there were a lot of girls, women, that found him very exciting. And we thought we need to do something about this. So we pulled his plans and checked them out and discussed that we'd like for him to work on a schedule a little bit tighter, where we knew where he was and what was going on, and that when he traveled, that either his wife would go with him, or someone else, and that he wouldn't go out and teach on his own.
Q: All right, And did it ever come to your attention anytime after June 1998 that Martindale had been involved in an additional adulterous relationship?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, it did.
Q: How did that come to your attention?
[ Rivenbark ] : That was in March 1999, And I was at home in bed, and I got a call from the secretary treasurer saying that Paul Allen was at the Way International demanding to meet with the board of directors. SO I got up and went over there. Paul Allen said Martindale and his wife had an affair. And he was very irate, and demanded to have Martindale come over. So I went to the phone and called him and he came over. And he apologized, offered to do anything he could to make up for it, told him he knew it was wrong. Paul was very irate. and it just didn't go anywhere at all.
Q: All right. Did you learn when this affair between Martindale and Allen had taken place?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, I did. That was one thing I was concerned to know about. We found it was prior to the Adv. Class episode in 98.
Q: All right, did you change anything after learning about this, in terms of Martindale's schedule and the like?
[ Rivenbark ] : Well, we were monitoring rhings pretty closely. We had already changed his schedule and the travel and all. And since it was prior to that, we thought we had a good handle on things.
Q: Now the Allen's eventually filed a lawsuit. Is that correct?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, they did.
Q: That was in March 2000?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, that was.
Q: And what was your reaction to the lawsuit when it arrived?
[ Rivenbark ] : I think "shocked" is a good word.
Q: Why is that?
[ Rivenbark ] : Because when we met in March '99, the way the conversations went, it was a consensual affair. In the lawsuit it implied coercion, and there were a lot of exaggerated charges in there.
Q: All right, so what did you do in response to the lawsuit? What did the board do?
[ Rivenbark ] : In response to the lawsuit, we asked him to step down as the chief teacher of the ministry.
Q: Why did you do that?
[ Rivenbark ] : Because we felt that after all of this, and as upset as people were, that there was just no way he was keeping the standards, and he wouldn't be an effective teacher for the ministry.
Q: Now, sometime within a few weeks, did the board decide it was necessary to take additional action with regard to Martindale?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, we did.
Q: And what did you do?
[ Rivenbark ] : We asked him to resign.
Q: Resign from the board?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, and resign from the presidency.
Q: Why did you ask him to resign?
[ Rivenbark ] : Because it just was - it was a very hard decision. People had loved him for years, and believed in him. And he had fallen short, and people were angry. We were very concerned. He hadn't upheld the standards of the Bible. And we just thought he couldn't do his job anymore.
So here's what I'm getting at if you read all that.. Rivenbark lies, saying she had no clue until 98, when it's proven she knew prior to this, at least in 1995.
Secondly, their "spiritual" insight said to just watch him closely and monitor his schedule when they did find out. That was all the board of directors felt was necessary in knowing he had extramarital affairs.
So when the Allen affair came into knowledge, and knowing it was started earlier than their "close monitoring", that there was no need to do anything, leave Martindale teaching. He can do his job teaching, no need to stop that just because of some sexcapades.
It wasn't until the lawsuit hit that they decided, Oh dear, people know, I guess we should remove Martindale! How's that for spiritual insight? Before the lawsuit, or had none happened, we keep everything hush hush. But when a lawsuit, oh dear, let's make changes. Get rid of Martindale. And she says in the last line, "Because he hadn't upheld the standards of the Bible, he couldn't do his job".. Umm no, that's not why, liar. You already said when you found he didn't uphold those standards that the only thing you needed was to monitor him closely.. He was able to do his job. Be honest, you wanted him gone. You wanted his seat. He was bad PR, so get rid him, Nothing to do with Christian ethics, the Bible, or God. Everything you do is for the looks! The vain glory, the outward appearance. Be honest for once! Geez..
It wasn't until the lawsuit hit that they decided, Oh dear, people know, I guess we should remove Martindale! How's that for spiritual insight? Before the lawsuit, or had none happened, we keep everything hush hush. But when a lawsuit, oh dear, let's make changes. Get rid of Martindale. And she says int he last line, "Because he hadn't upheld the standards of the Bible".. Umm no, that's not why, liar. You already said when you found he didn't uphold those standards that the only thing you needed was to monitor him closely.. Be honest, you waned him gone. You wanted his seat. He was bad PR, so get rid him, Nothing to do with Christian ethics, the Bible, or God. Everything you do is for the looks! The vain glory, the outward appearance. Be honest for once! Geez..
Nice. I went back and looked at that again in the transcript and found a little info to thicken the plot a little. This is file 2 during Rosalie's cross examination around page 16 or so. It's the same context as what TrustAndObey posted. Craig being fired.
Q. You requested him to go?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. Because he had been the president and we had moved him into research and he just wasn't taking to it real well. He'd go from condemnation to, you know, denial, and he just wasn't moving along. So we thought it would be better if he saw a doctor, if he moved out of the environment of the ministry and get a secular job and tried to start over on his own, out of all the influences and concerns of the people.
Here she makes it sound like they were just trying to help The Forehead. But....check this link:
"The Board of Trustees has considered these matters very seriously at length and made our decisions because it was the right thing to do. We’ve had to respect everyone’s interest here. This is all we are prepared to say on the matter at this time as we don’t believe it warrants public discussion."
Now it's the right thing to do to respect everyone's interests.
So....which is it? Fired Craig for his own benefit? or...based on principle - it was the right thing to do to make everyone happy?
When you compare the double talk and lies it just all runs in circles. It's, again, a prime example of them not being truthful with their followers. Let's assume that what Rozilla says in court, under oath, is true. That they were trying to help The Forehead and not punish him, or preserve their own interests. Then why spin the story to make it sound like Craigory was fired because it was just the right thing to do that would surely satisfy those who thought he should justly receive punitive actions.
Uhh.....back to my cliche du jour "Rosalie, you lie like a rug!"
It wasn't until the lawsuit hit that they decided, Oh dear, people know, I guess we should remove Martindale! How's that for spiritual insight? Before the lawsuit, or had none happened, we keep everything hush hush. But when a lawsuit, oh dear, let's make changes. Get rid of Martindale. And she says in the last line, "Because he hadn't upheld the standards of the Bible".. Umm no, that's not why, liar. You already said when you found he didn't uphold those standards that the only thing you needed was to monitor him closely.. Be honest, you waned him gone. You wanted his seat. He was bad PR, so get rid him, Nothing to do with Christian ethics, the Bible, or God. Everything you do is for the looks! The vain glory, the outward appearance. Be honest for once! Geez..
She had a revelation, yanno? She had a game of Red Ink/Green Ink to play.... and Craig was hogging the Pop-O-Matic. There was TROUBLE!
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, and resign from the presidency.
Q: Why did you ask him to resign?
[ Rivenbark ] : Because it just was - it was a very hard decision. People had loved him for years, and believed in him. And he had fallen short, and people were angry. We were very concerned. He hadn't upheld the standards of the Bible. And we just thought he couldn't do his job anymore.
I sometimes seem only able to gleen just a little bit of The Way International top leadership thinking and this is one of those times.
Rosie speaks of the "standards of the Bible" as if she really has a clue...
According to Way-innie Wayfer lingo servicing the MOG was an acceptible Biblical standard.
1. As twig leaders,in the 1970s, we were required to file a weekly financial report informally known as "the blue form". This form listed individual donations as well as group offerings. Twig members were strongly "encouraged" to donate by check so that records could be kept.
2. These records were reviewed when a person would apply for the Advanced Class, Way Corps or Fellow Laborers. It was a written requirement that any applicant for Fellow Laborers must be actively donating to The Way. It was a matter of record.
3. I personally (as in first-hand knowledge) know of a twig that was disbanded by Way Int. HQ because their abundant sharing record was sub-standard. These people were all retired seniors, many of whom had "kids" in the WC and WOW programs. They were on fixed incomes and didn't have much to spare. Official word came down from New Knoxville that they would have to either disband the twig or cease to represent themselves as being associated with The Way. The "official" reason given them was that, because they were all retired seniors, there was not enough "diversity" in the twig. They broke the hearts of good people who had not only given of themselves, but, had given their children over to this avaricious cult.
Here is a little more from Rosalie's cross examination. When reading the transcripts something REALLY stood out to me. In the direct examination conducted by the way internationals laywers, Rosalie was very "crisp" in her answers. They were yes or no, and then the "reasonings" that were given were somewhat eloquent. Rehearsed I am sure, but either way.
Then in the cross examination, conducted by Peeler's lawyers, she acts very confused. She refuses to answer a lot of questions, saying that she isn't really sure and would have to check into certain things to get a definite answer. I call it the "babe in the woods" routine. Here is a prime example. And I will take it a part a little. The questioning is concerning filing financial statements in other states.
Q. Are you aware the The Way International, Inc., has filed papers with the Tennessee Secretary of State Qualifying to do business in this state?
A. I know we have ministry work in Tennessee
Q. And you are aware as well, are you not, that The Way International., has qualified to do business, and paid fees, and files annual reports with the Tennessee Secretary of State, aren't you?
A. I believe that's correct. I'm not really familiar with all of that.
Does this strike anyone as abnormal? I have personally worked with this woman. I have spent countless hours in routine meetings, I have shuffled rheems of her paper and she has NEVER not known what the paper was for or where it was going. Never. But notice her answer "I believe that's correct." Ok...onwards...
Here comes the icing on the cake.
Q. You've done that in a number of states aside from Tennessee and Ohio, haven't you ?
A. I believe so.
Q. And that -- again, the decision of whether to file formal papers with a state Secretary of State is a decision of the board of Directors in Ohio, isn't it?
A. I can't answer that. I know we have the decision-making power, but I'm not in that arm of the Way ministry, I would have to do further checking to see. I'm not sure I can answer your question for you.
OK, this court testimony occurred in March 19, 2003. Rosalie took office in 1996. That makes 6 years of her signature being present on formal financial statements with the State of Arizona. 6 years. Now all of a sudden she doesn't know if they file.
1. a phrase that introduces a supposition. (Frequently, in speech, suppose is reduced to 'spose, and expect and suspect are reduced to 'spect. The apostrophe is not always shown.) Bob: I guess it's going to rain. Bill: Oh, I don't know. Maybe so, maybe not. Alice: I expect you'll be wanting to leave pretty soon. John: Why? It's early yet.
2. a vague way of answering 'yes'. John: You want some more coffee? Jane: I 'spose. Alice: Ready to go? John: I spect.
See also: guess
After 6 years of filings with Arizona, and who knows how many other states all she can say is I guess so?
She signed as Vice President for four years and as President for two at the time of this hearing. Furthermore, she signed twice on all occasions as Officer and Director.
This whole "money tracking" thing was a point of contention for me just before I left twi in 1987...
I sat down with the limb coordinator (clergy) and reminded him that God gave the increase...that He kept track of who gave from the heart...not people...I then announced that all my future tithes and donations would be given without reference to my name...
He was furious...but had absolutely no scripture to back him up...
...Of course I never gave them another dime...and shortly thereafter, I left.
GrouchoMarxJr - sounds like you did the right thing to me. Glad you got away from that place!
Lawyer: "Your company, General Motors, makes a model called the Corvette, is that correct?"
President of G.M.: "I think so. I'm not actually involved in the production process. I'll have to get back to you on that."
That damn sure about sums up how utterly ridiculous she looks in the cross examination. Let's call it the Colombo defense. And not after their lawyer either.
She signed as Vice President for four years and as President for two at the time of this hearing. Furthermore, she signed twice on all occasions as Officer and Director.
I guess that's why her maiden name is Fox.
Minor correction. She is listed multiple times as are all the trustees / directors but only signed once.
This whole "money tracking" thing was a point of contention for me just before I left twi in 1987...
I sat down with the limb coordinator (clergy) and reminded him that God gave the increase...that He kept track of who gave from the heart...not people...I then announced that all my future tithes and donations would be given without reference to my name...
. . .
As teen I didn't make much . . . so when I ABSed I would wait and give one larger check each month . . . for convenience. I got sat down and corrected by the BC that I need to give faster, no hesitation.
Yes,.... you might steal their money... you Ba$tard. You'd have time to sit and scheme of ways to not give them what was theirs. Could be you'd go to a fast food place or something,.. Who Knows what from there?!!
HAving sat on a board of Directors for a preschool, and an after school care program let me just say that we knew where every penny came from and where every penny went.
and where we planned to spend every penny for 6 months at a time!
as to tracking your tithe they knew eveery penny we gave... note the blue form... who gave what and how much and how hard is it to do the math? anyway not only where we admonished to give ten percent but Damn it it better be Gross not net you know! this was in the early 80's.
After 6 years of filings with Arizona, and who knows how many other states all she can say is I guess so?
She signed as Vice President for four years and as President for two at the time of this hearing. Furthermore, she signed twice on all occasions as Officer and Director.
I guess that's why her maiden name is Fox.
John Reynolds
In making these decisions, Craig and Donna Martindale have placed the needs of the Way Int'l household above their own.
As overseer of the Trustee cabinet, Rosalie Rivenbark has been the COO - Chief Operating Officer - of TWI. She has been virtually involved in every aspect of the ministry.
Harve Platig has been capable and valiant on the field and in root locals.
With the many capable ministers, household fellowship coordinators and disciples, the ministry has the potential to continue to excel in the perfecting of the saints and can provide strong and energized leadership at every level.
So, either Rosie or John Reynolds is lying. In John's own words "She has been virtually in every aspect of the ministry."
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER: The senior manager who is responsible for managing the company's day-to-day operations and reporting them to the chief executive officer (CEO).
Now, all of a sudden, in court and under oath she has selective memory, and says she is not involved in that arm of the ministry.
Sort of humorous after hearing them brag on how detailed they are on financial matters, and how that is stewarded to the penny. Now, all of a sudden she loses all recollection of something as important as financial reports, their purpose, why the Board of Directors has made the decision to file them.
I just realized that when we divorced and sold our house and I gave 18% of my share of the "profits" I was giving not of my income, but of money we'd gotten back from what we'd already paid into the house - and I had already ABS'd on the income that money was part of. Man, they hosed me again and I just noticed it now - what, 20 years later?
Have I thanked twi lately for falsely accusing us and kicking us out? That was the nicest thing they ever did for me - I sincerely appreciate it!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
18
4
4
Popular Days
May 14
18
May 17
8
Apr 4
6
May 15
5
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 5 posts
OldSkool 18 posts
Gen-2 4 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 4 posts
Popular Days
May 14 2010
18 posts
May 17 2010
8 posts
Apr 4 2012
6 posts
May 15 2010
5 posts
Popular Posts
Tzaia
I haven't been a part of TWI since 1987, so I can't speak for practices after that time, but my experience was that someone communicated numbers back and forth from HQ to twig leaders. We deliberately
TrustAndObey
Thanks OldSkool for finding this... Somehow I'm unable to download the first file.. Something else I find interesting and ironic were her answers regarding what they did with Martindale.. Q: So the
JavaJane
not to be confused with rugala, which is much nicer... Mmmmmm RUGALA.
Gen-2
I'm not going to quote - because I'm short on time right now,... But in the 2nd PDF the question arose about whether or not the Way had any way of keeping track of who & how much people donated (and when)? to which Rosalie seemed to reply that the ministry didn't track people's abundant sharing and - Oh h3ll, I'll quote....
Q: Okay, does the Way monitor the amount of contributions that people make to determine whether or not they're really giving 10%?
A: No, we don't
And later...
Q: And how about when Craig Martindale left in September of 2000; did the Peelers contact you then and make any inquiries?
A: No
Q: And did the Peelers continue throughout the year 2000 to make tithes or abundant sharing contributions to The Way?
A: Yes, they did.
Q: And in 2001?
A: Yes.
Q: And according to The Way's records, what was the date of the last contribution that the Peelers made?
A: I believe it was may 2001
Nah,.............. No one keeps track of those kinds of things...
My dad told me astory about his Branch Coordinator who knew his military Pay Rate jumping on him if his contributions wavered below their highest previous level.
"So are you tithing?" if you say "Yes" I multiply by ten and figure out what your probable income is. If you proudly announce, "Hell, I'm giving 20%, I can ammend that to multiplying by five."
Heck, even the Catholic Church does this with me, if I don't make regular contributions. My priest in Limerick sends me 'extra' personalized contribution envelopes (if you've ever associated with the Catholic Church, you know about these)
Everyone tracks the money..... even if they get nothing else right....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Great stuff, Gen2. The way international collects it's abundant sharing using what is affectionately referred to as a blue form. The method of recording who gives what is as follows:
So, in essence, things are tracked pretty thoroughly. Yet another example of Rosalie.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I do want to acknowledge something for the "nay-sayers."
Perhaps, this underscores that Rosalie and the gang don't necessarily sit around in their meetings and do the math to figure out who gives how much. BUT - the math is obvious, as Gen2 pointed out. And the practice is established amongst the way of the usa to confront people who do not give. That is also in the transcripts and perhaps I can pull it out later. Again, with the "babe in the woods" routine. Great performance, Rozilla - well done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If they don't know your income, they can't do the math....[but[/i] - when I was in they had no problem asking me what my income was or if I was giving 10%...giving me the choice of (A) Telling them what my income was, (B)Lying about my income or ©Refusing to tell them. (A) gives them what they want, (B)puts me in a position of lying, which they'd likely figure out eventually and © earns me lectures about being meek, not being rebellious or "resisting the power".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I haven't been a part of TWI since 1987, so I can't speak for practices after that time, but my experience was that someone communicated numbers back and forth from HQ to twig leaders. We deliberately mailed our checks to HQ so that our twig leaders would not know how much we were giving. We never shared what our income was with anyone. Not that we weren't asked.
One of our children was born early and had a lot of health issues because of prematurity. When I went to our twig leaders to request prayer, I was told my baby's issues were a result of our "lack of giving". Once I recovered from that remark, I wanted to know how that person could possibly know how much we were giving as we never gave through the twig. That's when I was told that the information was communicated to them from HQ. I went home and called HQ and told them that under no circumstances was our giving anyone else's business.
That was the only time we were actually "confronted" about giving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It's not your money, it's God's money, doncha know?
Therefore, as God's representatives, they have a right to ask.
Yeah, right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Thanks OldSkool for finding this... Somehow I'm unable to download the first file..
Something else I find interesting and ironic were her answers regarding what they did with Martindale..
Q: So the Way disapproves of Adultery
[ Rosalie Rivenbark ] : Absolutely
Q: Now, when did it come to your attention that Craig Martindale violated this teaching?
[ Rivenbark ] : It came in - let's see - June of 1998
Q: Could you briefly describe how you became aware
[ Rivenbark ] : We were having an Adv. Class at The Way International. A woman and man that were in the class got into an argument. She revealed to him that she had an affair with Martindale, and it just blew up from there. The next thing I [Rivenbark] knew, I was invited to a board of trustees meeting, and Craig Martindale told us that was indeed true, apologized, said he would never let it happen again and that it happened in the past and that's where it would stay
Q: All right, so is this the first time it had come to your attention that Craig Martindale had been involved in an extramarital relationship?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes
Q: Did the board do anything in response to this information?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, first we were shocked, and then we began to consider how to handle it. And one of the things is that, because he was our chief teacher, he studied and did research a lot and worked considerably on his own and had a rather loose schedule. And another we noted was that he was a dynamic teacher and there were a lot of girls, women, that found him very exciting. And we thought we need to do something about this. So we pulled his plans and checked them out and discussed that we'd like for him to work on a schedule a little bit tighter, where we knew where he was and what was going on, and that when he traveled, that either his wife would go with him, or someone else, and that he wouldn't go out and teach on his own.
Q: All right, And did it ever come to your attention anytime after June 1998 that Martindale had been involved in an additional adulterous relationship?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, it did.
Q: How did that come to your attention?
[ Rivenbark ] : That was in March 1999, And I was at home in bed, and I got a call from the secretary treasurer saying that Paul Allen was at the Way International demanding to meet with the board of directors. SO I got up and went over there. Paul Allen said Martindale and his wife had an affair. And he was very irate, and demanded to have Martindale come over. So I went to the phone and called him and he came over. And he apologized, offered to do anything he could to make up for it, told him he knew it was wrong. Paul was very irate. and it just didn't go anywhere at all.
Q: All right. Did you learn when this affair between Martindale and Allen had taken place?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, I did. That was one thing I was concerned to know about. We found it was prior to the Adv. Class episode in 98.
Q: All right, did you change anything after learning about this, in terms of Martindale's schedule and the like?
[ Rivenbark ] : Well, we were monitoring rhings pretty closely. We had already changed his schedule and the travel and all. And since it was prior to that, we thought we had a good handle on things.
Q: Now the Allen's eventually filed a lawsuit. Is that correct?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, they did.
Q: That was in March 2000?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, that was.
Q: And what was your reaction to the lawsuit when it arrived?
[ Rivenbark ] : I think "shocked" is a good word.
Q: Why is that?
[ Rivenbark ] : Because when we met in March '99, the way the conversations went, it was a consensual affair. In the lawsuit it implied coercion, and there were a lot of exaggerated charges in there.
Q: All right, so what did you do in response to the lawsuit? What did the board do?
[ Rivenbark ] : In response to the lawsuit, we asked him to step down as the chief teacher of the ministry.
Q: Why did you do that?
[ Rivenbark ] : Because we felt that after all of this, and as upset as people were, that there was just no way he was keeping the standards, and he wouldn't be an effective teacher for the ministry.
Q: Now, sometime within a few weeks, did the board decide it was necessary to take additional action with regard to Martindale?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, we did.
Q: And what did you do?
[ Rivenbark ] : We asked him to resign.
Q: Resign from the board?
[ Rivenbark ] : Yes, and resign from the presidency.
Q: Why did you ask him to resign?
[ Rivenbark ] : Because it just was - it was a very hard decision. People had loved him for years, and believed in him. And he had fallen short, and people were angry. We were very concerned. He hadn't upheld the standards of the Bible. And we just thought he couldn't do his job anymore.
So here's what I'm getting at if you read all that.. Rivenbark lies, saying she had no clue until 98, when it's proven she knew prior to this, at least in 1995.
Secondly, their "spiritual" insight said to just watch him closely and monitor his schedule when they did find out. That was all the board of directors felt was necessary in knowing he had extramarital affairs.
So when the Allen affair came into knowledge, and knowing it was started earlier than their "close monitoring", that there was no need to do anything, leave Martindale teaching. He can do his job teaching, no need to stop that just because of some sexcapades.
It wasn't until the lawsuit hit that they decided, Oh dear, people know, I guess we should remove Martindale! How's that for spiritual insight? Before the lawsuit, or had none happened, we keep everything hush hush. But when a lawsuit, oh dear, let's make changes. Get rid of Martindale. And she says in the last line, "Because he hadn't upheld the standards of the Bible, he couldn't do his job".. Umm no, that's not why, liar. You already said when you found he didn't uphold those standards that the only thing you needed was to monitor him closely.. He was able to do his job. Be honest, you wanted him gone. You wanted his seat. He was bad PR, so get rid him, Nothing to do with Christian ethics, the Bible, or God. Everything you do is for the looks! The vain glory, the outward appearance. Be honest for once! Geez..
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Nice. I went back and looked at that again in the transcript and found a little info to thicken the plot a little. This is file 2 during Rosalie's cross examination around page 16 or so. It's the same context as what TrustAndObey posted. Craig being fired.
Here she makes it sound like they were just trying to help The Forehead. But....check this link:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-lawsuit/sidney-daily-news----martindale-leaves-the-way.html
The official line from the way international was:
Now it's the right thing to do to respect everyone's interests.
So....which is it? Fired Craig for his own benefit? or...based on principle - it was the right thing to do to make everyone happy?
When you compare the double talk and lies it just all runs in circles. It's, again, a prime example of them not being truthful with their followers. Let's assume that what Rozilla says in court, under oath, is true. That they were trying to help The Forehead and not punish him, or preserve their own interests. Then why spin the story to make it sound like Craigory was fired because it was just the right thing to do that would surely satisfy those who thought he should justly receive punitive actions.
Uhh.....back to my cliche du jour "Rosalie, you lie like a rug!"
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
She had a revelation, yanno? She had a game of Red Ink/Green Ink to play.... and Craig was hogging the Pop-O-Matic. There was TROUBLE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Maybe we should change her name to Rugalie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
not to be confused with rugala, which is much nicer... Mmmmmm RUGALA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I sometimes seem only able to gleen just a little bit of The Way International top leadership thinking and this is one of those times.
Rosie speaks of the "standards of the Bible" as if she really has a clue...
According to Way-innie Wayfer lingo servicing the MOG was an acceptible Biblical standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Some thoughts regarding income tracking:
1. As twig leaders,in the 1970s, we were required to file a weekly financial report informally known as "the blue form". This form listed individual donations as well as group offerings. Twig members were strongly "encouraged" to donate by check so that records could be kept.
2. These records were reviewed when a person would apply for the Advanced Class, Way Corps or Fellow Laborers. It was a written requirement that any applicant for Fellow Laborers must be actively donating to The Way. It was a matter of record.
3. I personally (as in first-hand knowledge) know of a twig that was disbanded by Way Int. HQ because their abundant sharing record was sub-standard. These people were all retired seniors, many of whom had "kids" in the WC and WOW programs. They were on fixed incomes and didn't have much to spare. Official word came down from New Knoxville that they would have to either disband the twig or cease to represent themselves as being associated with The Way. The "official" reason given them was that, because they were all retired seniors, there was not enough "diversity" in the twig. They broke the hearts of good people who had not only given of themselves, but, had given their children over to this avaricious cult.
But they don't track such things??
MY AZZ!!
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Here is a little more from Rosalie's cross examination. When reading the transcripts something REALLY stood out to me. In the direct examination conducted by the way internationals laywers, Rosalie was very "crisp" in her answers. They were yes or no, and then the "reasonings" that were given were somewhat eloquent. Rehearsed I am sure, but either way.
Then in the cross examination, conducted by Peeler's lawyers, she acts very confused. She refuses to answer a lot of questions, saying that she isn't really sure and would have to check into certain things to get a definite answer. I call it the "babe in the woods" routine. Here is a prime example. And I will take it a part a little. The questioning is concerning filing financial statements in other states.
Does this strike anyone as abnormal? I have personally worked with this woman. I have spent countless hours in routine meetings, I have shuffled rheems of her paper and she has NEVER not known what the paper was for or where it was going. Never. But notice her answer "I believe that's correct." Ok...onwards...
Here comes the icing on the cake.
OK, this court testimony occurred in March 19, 2003. Rosalie took office in 1996. That makes 6 years of her signature being present on formal financial statements with the State of Arizona. 6 years. Now all of a sudden she doesn't know if they file.
Let's look at the statement "I believe so."
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/I+believe+so
I guess and I expect; I suppose; I suspect
1. a phrase that introduces a supposition. (Frequently, in speech, suppose is reduced to 'spose, and expect and suspect are reduced to 'spect. The apostrophe is not always shown.) Bob: I guess it's going to rain. Bill: Oh, I don't know. Maybe so, maybe not. Alice: I expect you'll be wanting to leave pretty soon. John: Why? It's early yet.
2. a vague way of answering 'yes'. John: You want some more coffee? Jane: I 'spose. Alice: Ready to go? John: I spect.
See also: guess
After 6 years of filings with Arizona, and who knows how many other states all she can say is I guess so?
She signed as Vice President for four years and as President for two at the time of this hearing. Furthermore, she signed twice on all occasions as Officer and Director.
I guess that's why her maiden name is Fox.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Lawyer: "Your company, General Motors, makes a model called the Corvette, is that correct?"
President of G.M.: "I think so. I'm not actually involved in the production process. I'll have to get back to you on that."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
This whole "money tracking" thing was a point of contention for me just before I left twi in 1987...
I sat down with the limb coordinator (clergy) and reminded him that God gave the increase...that He kept track of who gave from the heart...not people...I then announced that all my future tithes and donations would be given without reference to my name...
He was furious...but had absolutely no scripture to back him up...
...Of course I never gave them another dime...and shortly thereafter, I left.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
GrouchoMarxJr - sounds like you did the right thing to me. Glad you got away from that place!
That damn sure about sums up how utterly ridiculous she looks in the cross examination. Let's call it the Colombo defense. And not after their lawyer either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Minor correction. She is listed multiple times as are all the trustees / directors but only signed once.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
As teen I didn't make much . . . so when I ABSed I would wait and give one larger check each month . . . for convenience. I got sat down and corrected by the BC that I need to give faster, no hesitation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Yes,.... you might steal their money... you Ba$tard. You'd have time to sit and scheme of ways to not give them what was theirs. Could be you'd go to a fast food place or something,.. Who Knows what from there?!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
HAving sat on a board of Directors for a preschool, and an after school care program let me just say that we knew where every penny came from and where every penny went.
and where we planned to spend every penny for 6 months at a time!
as to tracking your tithe they knew eveery penny we gave... note the blue form... who gave what and how much and how hard is it to do the math? anyway not only where we admonished to give ten percent but Damn it it better be Gross not net you know! this was in the early 80's.
Have I mentioned how glad i am I left...
and what a lying piece of work Rosie is!
Edited by leafytwigletLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
And under oath at that!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
From - http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-lawsuit/notes-from-martindales-resignation-announcement-meetings.html
So, either Rosie or John Reynolds is lying. In John's own words "She has been virtually in every aspect of the ministry."
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER: The senior manager who is responsible for managing the company's day-to-day operations and reporting them to the chief executive officer (CEO).
Now, all of a sudden, in court and under oath she has selective memory, and says she is not involved in that arm of the ministry.
Sort of humorous after hearing them brag on how detailed they are on financial matters, and how that is stewarded to the penny. Now, all of a sudden she loses all recollection of something as important as financial reports, their purpose, why the Board of Directors has made the decision to file them.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
I just realized that when we divorced and sold our house and I gave 18% of my share of the "profits" I was giving not of my income, but of money we'd gotten back from what we'd already paid into the house - and I had already ABS'd on the income that money was part of. Man, they hosed me again and I just noticed it now - what, 20 years later?
Have I thanked twi lately for falsely accusing us and kicking us out? That was the nicest thing they ever did for me - I sincerely appreciate it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.